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

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.

From a soteriological point of view, the important thing would be that we are sinful and in need of a redeemer; it doesn't matter if the bit with the fruit and the snake is a metaphor or even just a goddamn lie.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Some more basics Again, wrong on both counts. I do know the meaning and proper usage of the word, thank you. Your speculations on what I do and don't know are just that, speculations, and like your statements above, just as incorrect. That's a matter of semantics. It depends on how you define sacred and how you define Christian. There are plenty of groups that call themselves Christian, that doesn't make them Christian anymore than nonviolent Muslims calling themselves Muslims makes them genuine followers of the teaching of Islam (which requires violence of any true follower). I have a former brother-in-law who has nothing to do with Islam but calls himself a Muslim because that's what he was brought up in in Iran. Likewise there are plenty of people who think that they are Christians because they were born in the USA. How you define things makes all the difference.

Not really. The order isn't being given. It's already understood the exact order, given in painstaking detail, has already been imparted to the reader. In chapter 2 he goes back and forth and clearly order isn't what is being communicated, and isn't meant to be.

But it does give an order. It's quite explicit about doing so: This isn't exactly obscure, is it?

The text says otherwise. Your point might have some merit if you weren't freely reading into it what you believe, but you clearly are. The text speaks plainly. Nothing needs to be added to understand it properly. Then clearly your creation story is closer to the truth than the Darwinian creation story. At least in that respect (and likely in all respects, but that isn't very hard to do - be more correct than Darwinism). Show me where God says that His detailed narrative account in Genesis is not factual and didn't physically happen exactly as Genesis 1 says. You are reading in what you feel like and making things up. That's all well and good, as long as you realize it's your opinion, and not necessarily fact. 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).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.

Here's how the New King James Bible renders it:4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.The first part:"4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. ". . is explaining that there had been no rain on the earth [yet] and that the ground was watered with a mist. This is still talking about the day the Lord made the heavens and the earth. This is before plants were made AND before man was made.Next, skipping over the rest of the things that were made (including the stars and moon and sun, as well as the plants and all the other animals) He goes right to describing the creation of Man (the main point of Genesis chapter 2 (Man and His thoughts on creating man):"7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." This chapter is not the narrative, that was in chapter one, where the exact order was given. This chapter is to explain background that's helpful in understanding the setting.

As I have pointed out before, you made this up.

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.

A Christian is a person that is recognized as a member of one of the many chapters of Club Christian.A Muslim is a person that i recognized as a member of on of the chapters of Club Islam.It really is that simple.As to the Genesis creation myths, the methods used are different, the order of creation is different, the two gods described in the stories are different.You can claim they are the same but the God in Genesis 1 is aloof, overarching, creates by an act of will alone, acts without hesitation and uncertainty but is also separate from his creation, not interacting.The God in Genesis 2&3 though is unsure, a hands on tinkerer learning on the job, sometimes afraid, but also very human, interacting directly with the creation.Two different gods, two different creation myths.The question is though, why prefer those stories to any of the many others?

Wow multiple fallacies in one sentence. May be you should learn more about the No True Scotsman fallacy. Also, you might want to study a little more on Islam. I don't think one of the pillars is violence.The Pillars are
Testimony
Prayer
Fasting
Alms-giving
Pilgrimage.Nope no violence there.Islam can be translated to mean submission, but that is an internal submission to god.