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

Are there any surviving Sumerians or Dynastic Egyptians? No. How about the hebrew nation? Yes.Where are you getting all this info from? The reliability of the Hebrew manuscripts is not in question here and common stories simply add to the reliability of the scriptures.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I said i looked at it didn't I? Would you like me to go over ALL the creation myths? 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.I should have said most relevant religions sprinkle a little "truth" in their doctrines that come from the Bible. Did you READ my comment about hinduism? That is how i feel about it. Ok?Edited by Chuck77, : 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.

Hi Dr. It's a religion, apperantly. wiki: Well, The God of the Bible says He Created the mantis and caterpillar. Why is this guy/god taking credit?wiki: Well, it seems a little silly. We do have a "rose again" reference here tho.On the other hand we have God who Created all things. Man sinned, He sent a savoir to live the perfect life we couldn't that a perfect God demands and if we receive his sacrafice for our sins we are forgiven and back in right standing with our loving Creator.Even if I wasn't a Christian I would give more validity to the latter, but that is just me.There is a lot more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than kaang who was vomited up by a ogre.

Ok, well I choose to believe the perfect star that is our sun was designed by God and not boomed into existance by happenstance. It's evidence for me to use, im using it. My lord and savior Created all things:It is my confidence that Jesus is the one holding everything together even the Universe: Jesus is that "strong force" IMO. It's a good theory isn't it? Reference: http://www.ldolphin.org/cohere.shtml It doesn't make the Bible or Creation a myth if some christians dont believe it. I can't address every one. How about you provide a Creation myth and we'll go over them one at a time. 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.

Does this hypothesis have the same predictive power as quantum chromodynamics?Is the behavior of Jesus described by the QCD Lagrangian? If not, why not? It is neither good nor a theory.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because Kaang actually did create the mantis and the caterpillar, as any devout Kaangist could tell you. Well, that's what you think you'd think if you were to think something other than what you think. But how would you know?

The Hebrew nation does not exist, never did. What was , was the nation, of Israel and that splintered into Israel & Judah. and only lasted for a short time before Israel was over run by the Assyrians & Judah was over run by the Chaldeans. Whether the manuscripts are reliable or not is moot. There is no evidence to back it up.

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.

Really? Lets see that evidence, so it can be peer reviewed.

This one really got me chuckling. So, let me get this right: Because this god is so loving and in order not to burn all people for all eternity, he sent himself to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself? While other people will still burn for or eternity? No, it doesn’t make any sense at all. All a loving god would have to do to save all people is to say: you are forgiven. Your religion makes no sense. No there isn’t. There’s no evidence that anybody can rise up from the dead, but there is plenty of evidence for vomit.
The mantis, for example, is only one of the manifestations of Kagge, the Creator God. And all of them can also vomit. He can turn into a number of manifestations like eland, a hare, a snake or a vulture. We see plenty of drawings from that time, depicting one or more of the manifestations.
Page not foundApart from that, there’s also empirical evidence that mantis, caterpillars, eland, snakes, vultures, vomit, etc. exist to this day.
On the other side, there’s absolutely no empirical evidence that anyone has ever risen from the dead.

You are seriously going to stick with you comment that most religions steal their creation myths from the bible?Do you think that the only religions are those of that originated in the mideast? So show me how it steals from the Christian creation account. I am trying to debate but you refuse to back up your comments. Now you are changing what was said. You do realize that we can all look back at the conversation. You never said and I never accused you of saying all religions stole from the christian creation story. You said "most" and you are still sticking with "most". You have provided no evidence at all for the use of "most". Again just more assertions with absolutely nothing to back it up.Relevant, you are actually using the word relevant?Show me which religions on this chart qualify as relevant. Show how most religions steal their creation story form the Christian bible.Lets make it easy for you
Start with these.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism and Jainism.
Even though they are not most they will make a good start.Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling, general cleanup

Well the Jews definitely did; in fact, most of their religion seems to be a straight steal from Christianity. If you look at the Torah, it's painfully obvious that they've just taken the first five books of the Bible and translated it from the original English into Hebrew.

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

Say what? Torah preceded by NT Christianity, Levitical law and all, when, in fact Jesus and the apostles advocated none of it for the Christian dispensation?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------