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

Buz,Perhaps you could propose a thread on the fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible, and how that helps to validate the work as a whole in your mind. It could be an interesting topic to debate and give everyone better insight into where you are coming from without drifting the thread too much.But I think in general the idea that if the concept of natural selection were disproven tomorrow that this would somehow validate the biblical view of creation (or any other, for that matter) is false. If it were to happen, other sciences such as cosmology, physics, chemistry would not be affected at all. Whether or not the diversity of life on this planet is evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors is of no consequence to the age/structure of the earth, solar system, galaxy... You get the picture. Proponents of a young earth, at least, would be no better off.Those who regard life as having a divine origin in general might think they would win in the end, at least in regards to the origin of species, but that is only within the context of the false dichotomy of "evolution or God" which establishes the false premise that there are only two options.But speaking hypothetically, if it *had* to be one of the creation myths out there, my money would be on something that had a better ring of truth in the plain nature of the text (without the agonizing interpretation of the apologist).From Ovid:

quote:

---

Earth is organized:

​

This conflict was ended by a god and a greater order of nature, since he split off the earth from the sky, and the sea from the land, and divided the transparent heavens from the dense air. When he had disentangled the elements, and freed them from the obscure mass, he fixed them in separate spaces in harmonious peace. The weightless fire, that forms the heavens, darted upwards to make its home in the furthest heights. Next came air in lightness and place. Earth, heavier than either of these, drew down the largest elements, and was compressed by its own weight. The surrounding water took up the last space and enclosed the solid world.

​

When whichever god it was had ordered and divided the mass, and collected it into separate parts, he first gathered the earth into a great ball so that it was uniform on all sides. Then he ordered the seas to spread and rise in waves in the flowing winds and pour around the coasts of the encircled land. He added springs and standing pools and lakes, and contained in shelving banks the widely separated rivers, some of which are swallowed by the earth itself, others of which reach the sea and entering the expanse of open waters beat against coastlines instead of riverbanks. He ordered the plains to extend, the valleys to subside, leaves to hide the trees, stony mountains to rise: and just as the heavens are divided into two zones to the north and two to the south, with a fifth and hotter between them, so the god carefully marked out the enclosed matter with the same number, and described as many regions on the earth. The equatorial zone is too hot to be habitable; the two poles are covered by deep snow; and he placed two regions between and gave them a temperate climate mixing heat and cold.
...
Humanity is born: He had barely separated out everything within fixed limits when the constellations that had been hidden for a long time in dark fog began to blaze out throughout the whole sky. And so that no region might lack its own animate beings, the stars and the forms of gods occupied the floor of heaven, the sea gave a home to the shining fish, earth took the wild animals, and the light air flying things.

​

As yet there was no animal capable of higher thought that could be ruler of all the rest. Then Humankind was born. Either the creator god, source of a better world, seeded it from the divine, or the newborn earth just drawn from the highest heavens still contained fragments related to the skies, so that Prometheus, blending them with streams of rain, moulded them into an image of the all-controlling gods. While other animals look downwards at the ground, he gave human beings an upturned aspect, commanding them to look towards the skies, and, upright, raise their face to the stars. So the earth, that had been, a moment ago, uncarved and imageless, changed and assumed the unknown shapes of human beings.

---

Note a few points I put in bold here. What you could argue as a rudimentary description of gravity. The earth is unquestionably spherical. A description of the planet's general characteristics, complete with polar caps. This is the story born of a people with a degree of learning.I'd put my money on the Greco-Roman tradition if forced to choose, if only because it doesn't strike me quite so much as the traditions of a tribal desert people who really didn't understand much about the world around them. The God of the old testament isn't so different from the Greco-Roman gods, you know; he interferes in wars, hardens hearts, meddles in nation building, is jealous of other gods receiving worship. It's also interesting to note that the Roman account doesn't claim to know who exactly created everything - "a god and a greater order of nature" bringing an end to the chaos of the primordial time.source: UVA Library

Buz, Could you provide a bullet list of what you regard as specific and significant corroberative evidence for the existance of the diety of the OT? Doing so might provide a jumping off point to analyze other, arguably older religious source documents and help us to understand your standards of evidence and perhaps apply those standards to other mythos. Edited by Wollysaurus, : Word change for clarity.

Buz, Thank you for the welcome I have read through quite a few of your posts. If I may, I'll list a few of what I perceive as categories of evidence that you believe prove the existence of the God of the OT (who some Hebrews would have referred to as "Hashem", I believe). PLEASE let me know if I am mis-characterizing any positions you might hold. My intent is not to build a strawman, but rather to understand your position more clearly.- Correlation between the text and verified historical events / locations / people (such as cities, rulers, etc). Example: Abraham comes from Ur, a place we have verified existed (I've actually been there and visited the reconstructed ziggurat while in Al Hillah, Iraq, along with the adjacent reconstruction efforts of the city of Babylon -- fascinating place)- Fulfillment of Prophecies, whether of a national nature or the messianic sort. Example: You have repeatedly referenced the modern nation of Israel as an example of the fulfillment of Prophecy. Obviously, Jesus as the Messiah fulfills your interpretation of Old Testament Prophecy.- Personal testimony. God as experienced by the believer, and His impact in their lives. Very hard to quantify, in my opinion, but taken as evidence by those who believe.- Primary (?) source material, such as the Gospels, to be regarded as eyewitness testimony to the truth of matters such as the life of Christ and His resurrection.- Various observations regarding the nature of our position in nature / the universe. Very broad, but encapsulating areas such as the anthropic principle and humankind's dominion over the earth.I'm sure this list is not all-encompassing and surely contains errors based upon the fact that it is me attempting to describe *your* position.I think the problem lies in that many of these areas might be claimed by various sects within even Christianity itself who hold mutually exclusive views of the nature of God and His creation. For example, those churches who view the universe as being as old and operating under the laws described by cosmology, astronomy, physics, evolutionary biology, etc, versus those more fundamentalist churches who subscribe to a young earth view, in line with a more literalist reading of the texts. They can't all be right, but they might all use the same sort of evidence to support their viewpoint on the nature of God and his role in creation.Taking it a step further, other faiths might be able to "check the blocks" just the same. We believe, for example, that various religious figures have been real people (Zoroaster, Siddhartha Gautama, Muhammad to name a couple) but the fact that they probably actually existed, in and of itself, does not prove that the movements they started possess any particular ownership of understanding of reality. Muhammad, as an example, started a highly successful religion (with arguably fewer schisms than Christianity) which thrived under expansive Caliphates and continues as a religious powerhouse to this day, breeding at its fringes believers with such a powerful "testimony" (they would not use this word, but I am) that they are willing to strap explosives to themselves to prove their faith.Other posters have described the fact that various faiths can point to fulfilled prophecy, but a (slightly disconnected) example might be the quatrains of Nostradamus; many wholeheartedly believe that he predicted events with uncanny accuracy. Did he? Or were his "predictions" so worded that it is easy to wedge events into their framework, and so see fulfilled prophecy where there is only rambling?If the coming of Christ was so clearly a fulfillment of ages of prophecy, and he was so clearly the Messiah, why were not many, many more Jews quick to join the movement? Instead, we see the majority of success among the gentiles.You were certainly correct when you said "It would lead to debates on some or all". I suppose my point is simply that more than one faith could make claim to evidence to support their assertions, indeed they must, or else they would likely cease to exist! As the OP asks, if we were to assume natural selection to be voided (and for the sake of conversation probably any evidence leading to a natural origin for the world), what evidence is there that would mean we should automatically gravitate to the Genesis account and the God therein? Why would this, for example, eliminate Islam as the answer? After all, Isa (Jesus) will come back as promised, just to announce the arrival of the Mahdi. Maybe you are wrong, and you only have half the answer, and Muhammad supplied the rest.Are we to come to the conclusion that Christianity (in whatever form) is correct, or just that the God of the OT is the answer? And even if we were to come to the conclusion that the God of the OT exists, how would this, by default, legitimize Christianity? Plenty of Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah.I am not trying to be combative or snarky. If I come across as either, that is not my intent. I enjoy a good, well argued discussion and look forward to your reply.Edited by Wollysaurus, : I've had a couple cocktails, and grammar fades in direct proportion to the number of drinks. Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

Buz,Thanks for the reply! Sorry if this is a little bit out of order. And I am going to miss a lot, simply due to the large amount of material that one would have to cover given all these interconnected topics. If you would like to continue conversation along any particular vein in private without the threat of offending the Admin and drifting the thread, please feel free to message me.Just so you know, I am not a hardline atheist by any measure. I started a thread about agnosticism vs atheism for a reason. I make it a point to read and learn as much about disparate positions as I can for a reason. I have read the Bible and a great deal of apologia for a reason. I am not, by default, hostile to belief. I simply have some conclusions that I have come to based upon my reading, education, research and profession that may be in conflict with your own world view. As a personal note, in my personal life I am touched when folks seek to 'enlighten' me to the truth of their knowledge of God, because I know their concern extends from a position of genuine concern and love. I don't view this as a war (as I know some do). I simply view it as an honest struggle for objective truth. Your life experiences, I am sure, have led you to some different conclusions than me. Now then, on to the discussion! You are talking in terms of "gog" and "magog", correct? I don't actually disagree with the concept that Muhammad actually just bastardized OT (and really NT) teachings for his purposes. I merely bring it up as a point that prosperity does not necessarily equal theological relevance. In my opinion, the man was a warlord and possibly delusional, self-proclaimed prophet who used religion as a method for gaining massive amounts of power. He spread his "faith" by the sword, when at least Jesus had the decency to be a pacifist (regardless of what some of his later followers might have done). But what are the implications?Let me put it this way... You have to be careful when crediting prosperity to particular theological qualities.Why do I say this?Well, the rise of the Germanic successor states to the Roman Empire was not a particularly successful period. The gradual collapse into the Dark Ages and eventual devolution into a feudal system, the abject poverty, etc, was a characteristic of Christendom for hundreds of years. It could be defensibly argued that the rise from the mess of the feudal states, and Europe's slow pull out of the dark ages, was from a more and more liberal (I dislike that word due to automatic political connotation, but it works) political and theological outlook and the influence of the rediscovery of the classical worldview than it was of a deeper and more meaningful Christian worldview.In other words, it wasn't called the Renaissance because it was a period of intense Bible study, but rather a rediscovery of Classical thinking.As you implicate, the Protestant Reformation was of immense benefit to the West... But why? Was it because of a fundamental theological truth, or because it laid the groundwork for individual intellectual freedom? People reading their religious works in their own languages, guided by their own national leadership, encouraged to be their own "priests" in their own study of the Word of God and his Creation?Also, I have no doubt that the individual drive to learn about God and his creation was behind many of the most pivotal moments in science. Through understanding creation, men might understand more about God; but I cannot make a rational link between a hardline religious position and economic or national prosperity. Maybe I am missing something.For example, one might seek to understand the creator by studying the heavens. But through that study, one might come to understand the immense nature of the solar system (never mind galaxy or universe) and come into conflict with the rather limited view presented in the canon.To be sure, the West established a position of pre-eminence for centuries. But was this due to its religion or... I hate to ask... in spite of it? And, it must be noted, this freedom of inquiry, and the far flung power of the British Empire, led directly to Charles Darwin and his On the Origin of Species.As for the fulfillment of prophecies, I will have to look more into some of your specific claims. I am familiar on the surface with, for example, national identities currently associated with "gog and magog", the spread of global communications and the like, but I will need to do a bit of digging to see where you are coming from. I can make assumptions that you are referring specifically to certain passages from Revelations, but I don't want to make too many assumptions. After all, they make an "ass" out of both "u" and "me" But in conclusion, I can state with a degree of certainty that you regard the biblical account of creation as 'true' based upon your study of these various areas, having come to the conclusion that there is enough evidence (within what you may define as evidence) to validate the God of the Biblical narrative. In your view, these facts and the way in which they validate the Bible exclude other potential deities from other mythos (such as Hindu, Islam, take your pick).Thank you for your reply. I look forward to continuing this exchange. Please feel free to highlight anything in my response which you feels mis-represents your position, or that you would like to continue to discuss.

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?