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

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

No actually it would be more like Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

And gives a different order of creation.

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.

Maybe some of the people that jeered me would have the ability to tell me why the comment is not accurate.How is do the christian off shoots form the 19th and 20th century differ from the foundational protestant movements when looking at what the poster said? Is there a difference?C'mon Buz show me.
I know AE gave me a neg because he just doesn't like me.
AdminPD is on that high horse, so I really don't care.But can anyone give me a reason why the argument foes not stand?

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.

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?

If a creation story fails to reflect reality then shouldn't it be considered false, regardless of other creation stories?I don't understand why anyone would ever argue "My creation story is less wrong than others".

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.

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.

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.

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?

Wouldn't you, then, need to make up a different excuse for why we are "in need of salvation" and are "born sinners"? We "sin" because that dumb broad ate the apple and was tricked by a snake. Take that out, and there is no other reason we need the jesus character.

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

Erm...what? Are you saying that sin is not the primary reason jesus came to earth? Are you saying that sin was not borne out of eve being tricked by a talking snake? By her eating an apple? I know some of you get really in depth with the bible, but some of the basic tenets of xianity are...wel, basic. That being one of them. Unless you are thinking of a different religion? Or have I been sorely misinformed?