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

quote:

---

The biblical creation account is the most descriptive and detailed of all accounts. Not saying this proves its right, just saying that its something to consider.

---

Message 1 gave a premise for this discussion. Description and detail aren't really enough to deem a story factual. Many fictional stories are very descriptive and detailed. There are fictional stories within the Bible. The parables that Jesus told were fictional stories. They presented real lessons, but the stories themselves were usually fictional. There are various types of parables. If there is nothing else to compare the stories with, how does one decide which creation story is factual as opposed to a religious lesson?How does one normally discern whether any book or story is fact or fiction?

quote:

---

The Bible which you say is not "valid" seems spot on to me. How bout you? Do you see pear trees producing apple trees?

---

Unfortunately just because I don't see pear trees producing apple trees, that doesn't make the Biblical creation story more valid than any other creation story. Each will have something we see today. Creation Stories from around the WorldThere are red crawfish. We can see coral, seagrass, and shellfish.IMO, we tend to prefer the creation story we grew up with. That doesn't mean we can't appreciate and respect other creation stories.

quote:

---

Well, im not interested in every Creation story, just one. And because it's right doesnt mean it's any LESS valid than the rest either.

​

Truth is not relative, one has to be absolutly right. BTW, most creation stories steal from the bible.

---

Then what was your point in posting in this thread? The point is what makes the Biblical account of creation the true story over others?Your position is that the Bible describes what we see today, but other creation stories also describe what we see today. So that doesn't really show that the Bible is true over other creation stories.This thread isn't about whether you care about other creation stories or not, it is about showing why the Bible creation story is considered true (other than belief) and others are considered false.We already know people believe their respective creation stories are true due to faith and belief. The OP is asking for some evidence other than faith and belief that shows us one creation story is true over the others.If you feel that other creation stories steal from the Bible, you need to show it, not just say it. The OP isn't talking about the religions that evolved from Judaism. The Shinto and Hindus are two examples given.P.S. Don't get sucked into the science talk. This is the religious forum.

quote:

---

The Biblical record has a great deal of corroborating evidence for it's credibility.

---

This thread is about the creation stories only, not the credibility of the Bible or which god is the true god.The point of this thread is to show why one creation story should be considered true over another.The Baha'is claim that Hindu prophecies have been fulfilled.The Hopi claim to have fulfilled prohecy. Hopi ProphecyMore than one culture claims fulfilled prophecies.
More than one culture has historical records.This doesn't tell me why one creation story should be considered true and another false.This is not a science thread. Don't get sucked into the same old arguments.If you're going to participate in this thread, you need to provide reasoned argumentation and the OP of this thread requested empirical evidence. If you've already done this elsewhere and don't wish to provide it here or at least a link, then you shouldn't be participating in this debate.IMO, every thread is a new beginning. We bring our arguments and evidence to the thread. Check the old baggage at the door. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

Please check your old baggage at the door. IOW, don't bring old arguments and off topic arguments to this thread.This is the religious forum. Reasoned argumentation is required here and not so much scientific evidence.I'm not in Moderator mode because I really would like to participate in this debate. So I'm asking, pleading, begging you all to stop dragging in old arguments and requests. Stop with the short demands. Present an argument based on the position presented. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My point went right over your head, PD, being that the more corroborated evidence for the record at large, the more credibility to parts and parcels of the whole.

---

I understood your point, but I don't feel that's a valid argument because the Bible is made up of many types of writings. Some are fiction and some are factual. Just because a factual account in a non fiction book is accurate doesn't make the fictional story a true account. It might make a nice case for your own reasons for believing, but it isn't an argument that holds up to outside examination, which is what the OP is asking for.

quote:

---

Your strawman analogy does not qualify as anything significant. It is more of looking in retrospect than prophecy. Biblical prophecies, supportive to the Biblical record AT LARGE are far more significant, involving specific phenomenal fulfillments centuries out in the future, involving many nations. Case in point would be the phenomenal restoration of the scattered Jews back to restore their ancient nation.

---

It doesn't matter whether it is significant or not. Other cultures have prophecies that they claim came true. That has no bearing on their creation story.It's pretty standard that one religion claims the other is false. That's probably why the originator asked for empirical evidence. Something we can both look at and see that it's true.I don't see any connection between validity of prophecies with validity of a creation story.What is false about the Hopi creation story?

The key question in Message 1 deals with the type of evidence asked for by the originator. As I said before, the originator is looking for evidence all can see and examine.In your discussion with me, I will let you quote the Bible all you want, but I think I can safely say, it won't tell us the creation stories are true. Even the Jews know the stories are foundational myths.

quote:

---

Well, I know first hand it's true from my own experience. I can offer my testiomonies and God working in my own life.

---

What testimonies do you have concerning the creation story?Your own experiences aren't evidence that anyone else can experience. God works in the lives of many Christians, but they don't all consider the creation stories to be factual.Here is a quote from one of the early church fathers, Origen. He does not consider the creation stories to be factual events. De Principiis (Book IV) by Origen, one of the early church fathers. Just because God has made a difference in your life, doesn't mean the creation story is true. I would say that most people would say their religion has an impact on their life. Does that make their creation story true?

quote:

---

Are we now addressing all the Creation myths you linked from wiki?

---

We are trying to address why the Judeo/Christian creation stories are considered true, but other creation stories are false.All the subjective evidence so far for accepting the Judeo/Christian creation stories as true can also be used by others to say their creation story is true.To deem the Judeo/Christian creation stories as true above all others, there needs to be evidence that all can see and experience in the same way.We already know you prefer it because it is part of your religion, but so far, you haven't shown me why I should consider your creation story any more true than any other creation story.

I heartily agree that individuals believe their respective creation stories are true. Message 44, Message 55, and Message 72This thread is about empirical evidence. You're not showing me anything that is evidence the Judeo/Christian creation story is any more true than the Hopi creation story, or the Hindu creation story.

quote:

---

It doesn't make the Bible or Creation a myth if some christians dont believe it.

---

And it doesn't mean it isn't a myth if some Christians do believe the creation happened as written in the stories. That reasoning goes both ways. Everyone believes what they want. This isn't about the Bible, it is about the creation stories only. The point is to provide empirical evidence that doesn't require faith or belief.The Bible verses you shared don't tell us the creation stories are true. The creation stories being a myth don't negate the teachings of Jesus or the Bible. Myths provide valuable lessons.

quote:

---

I can't address every one. How about you provide a Creation myth and we'll go over them one at a time.

---

You can pick any one you want.

quote:

---

There is some faith involved too. I know it's not good for debate but it's true. Faith in believing what the Bible says is important. If you or anyone chooses not to believe it I can't convince you or anyone.

---

Again, this isn't about the Bible, it is only about the creation stories. The Bible contains many types of writings. Some are fiction, some poetry, some historical, etc. If you truly believe that the Bible was influenced by God, then you should truly believe that he wanted it written that way. Jesus spoke in parables, which are fictional stories that teach a lesson. Myths are the same way.If belief is the only argument you have for someone to understand that the Judeo/Christian creation stories happened as written, then you shouldn't be in this thread. The point of the thread is to show empirical evidence one creation story is true over another.This thread isn't a poll. We already know people prefer the creation story they are familiar with. That's all you've shown us so far.

quote:

---

About most religions yes. All the crazy Creation myths im not concerned about but apperantly you are. If you would like to debate i would like that. If you are just trying to say AH HA!! every time you comment you got me. You win. I recant my miswording about all Creation myths stealing from the Bible.

---

Part of debating is providing the reasoned argumentation and evidence to support what you say.When you say most or a few religions steal from the Christian creation story, you should follow that with examples of actual creation stories and show us the part that was stolen. Even better if you know when the creation story was written and how or when the people came in contact with the Christians. Don't accuse other religions of stealing without evidence to support that accusation.I didn't just tell you that Origen thought the creation stories were myths, I provided you with his words.This isn't about just saying what you think, it is about supporting your statements or position with reasoned argumentation and/or evidence.Let's go back in history when Europeans first came to America. Let's say I'm a Native American and you are one of the first Europeans to visit my village. How are you going to show me that your creation story is true and mine is false? Skywoman: Creation Story

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

quote:

---

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.

---

No he didn't.

quote:

---

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).

---

That isn't deeming that the first creation story happened as written. He's using a foundational myth to make a religious point.

quote:

---

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.

---

In my creation story people were also around in the beginning.

quote:

---

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.

---

No it means he wrote a story as God intended. Just like Jesus used parables.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not the issue of this thread. The point of this thread is to show why the Biblical creation accounts should be considered true over those of other religions.This thread isn't about whether the Bible is true or not. Start another thread if you wish to debate that issue.Show me how the Biblical creation stories are true and the Iroquois creation story is not.

The Cheers/Jeers is an opinion option. It is not part of the debate. Don't start calling people out in the thread because they didn't like your post.As AdminPD, I use it to say I consider the post to be off topic or veering off topic.This thread isn't about whether the Bible is actually true or not or even whether the creation stories are actually true or not. It is about why other creation stories are considered false and the Judeo/Christian one true other than "because we believe it is".The originator asked for empirical evidence. Even if someone shows evidence that another religion assimilated something from the Christian creation story, how does that make their creation story false?Quite frankly, by clinging to the issue of whether the Bible is actually true or not, you let the opposition off the hook. They don't have to deal with the actual question in the OP. They just fall into the same old debate about the Bible being true. You're helping them change the path of the debate. If you want to debate whether the Bible is actually true or not, start another thread.So far all the opposition has provided is that the Judeo/Christian creation story is true over others because they believe it is. Any religion can say that. That means that all creation stories are true, but I'm sure the opposition would not agree with that statement.That's why I provided the challenge to actually compare an Iroquois creation story against the Judeo/Christian one and show me how mine is false, just as the Jesuit Missionaries probably did when they first tried to assimilate the natives.This isn't a science forum. It isn't A&I. Please keep to the spirit of the debate.

quote:

---

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?

---

The title isn't the argument presented. Realistically, people don't sit down with a bunch of creation stories to decide which one they want to adopt. What empirical evidence is there that proves the biblical creation story true and/or the other stories false? That is the question. The originator never clarified what he meant by Darwin being wrong, but the thread was put on the religious side and not the science.From a science standpoint none of them are factually correct, so no point in debating one over the other. But this is a religious forum and some religions have a habit of claiming their religion is true and the other is false. It has nothing to do with facts. The same with creation stories. The Native Americans ran into that issue when the Jesuit Missionaries came.A creation story can provide valuable lessons for a culture. The stories may be scientifically wrong, but the lessons were sound and may still be sound depending on the culture. In many cultures the stories changed as the culture changed.IMO, each creation story fit the needs of the culture or religion that spawned it. I seriously doubt that there is empirical evidence that one creation story is right for all humans.They need to find something another religion can't also claim. I don't think they can do it.Approach the debate from a religious standpoint, not science.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

The stories had value to their originators. Even when mushed together they had value to those who had lost their nation.Neither story would do much for my Iroquois ancestors. My various ancestors had different environments to survive in than the Israelites.Some Christians understand that the stories are myths, some don't. I'm sure other religions have the same issues.In the book "God is Red" by Vine DeLoria, Jr.; he states concerning Native American religions: Not everyone looks at creation stories the same as some Christians. Abraham is the beginning of the Jewish religion, not the creation story. They could lose the creation story and it wouldn't impact their religion, IMO.This thread isn't about proving the creation story is scientifically accurate. Keep to the religious angle.We tend to choose the story we grew up with. If one didn't grow up with a creation story, why would they even be choosing one today?

quote:

---

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).

---

The Iroquois creation account fits with everything we see today. It would be pretty hard to verify that snakes used to talk, plants came before the sun, fruit gives instant wisdom, or that creatures were made in a day.Each story has story elements that can't be verified. People are supposed to understand that those parts are there to make a story that people want to remember. Stories are easier to pass on that reports.

quote:

---

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.

---

It isn't about proving that the Bible is true or giving me reason to believe the Bible.This thread is simply about showing that the creation stories are true vs other creation stories.As we can see both creation stories have elements that are facts we can see today and elements that are fiction to aid in the storytelling.Both serve their purpose for their people, but one can't really say one is true and one is false.