Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

There is not an awful lot to grab hold of in ch.1 and ch.2. And, so far no one has grabbed.

I'm trying to figure out what the reason is for asking this question.

It's pretty clear that no one can provide you with an answer that will invoke a response like "Well, I never thought of that before. You may just be right."

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm trying to figure out what the reason is for asking this question.

It's pretty clear that no one can provide you with an answer that will invoke a response like "Well, I never thought of that before. You may just be right."

You've never seemed like the sort to lure fundamentalist Christians to a site just so you belittle them for their beliefs.

Surely you don't think you are going to enlighten them with scientific fact and convert them do you?

And I never thought to convert Brandon, only perhaps to point out the Bible does not say what many believe it to say.

But you are right. So far this thread has wound merrily around the spool without mending a thing.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm trying to figure out what the reason is for asking this question.

It's pretty clear that no one can provide you with an answer that will invoke a response like "Well, I never thought of that before. You may just be right."

It's perfectly fair to ask people whether they can support their beliefs with evidence, especially if the issue is something of very great significance like the fundamental nature of the world. One couldn't use the responses here to judge whether I could be persuaded by a good argument, because as far as I can see, the best argument I've been given is that some predictions in the Bible, e.g. the eventual fall of Babylon, turned out to be true. Please let me know the powerful argument presented here that I should have had that positive reaction to.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm trying to figure out what the reason is for asking this question.

It's pretty clear that no one can provide you with an answer that will invoke a response like "Well, I never thought of that before. You may just be right."

It's perfectly fair to ask people whether they can support their beliefs with evidence, especially if the issue is something of very great significance like the fundamental nature of the world. One couldn't use the responses here to judge whether I could be persuaded by a good argument, because as far as I can see, the best argument I've been given is that some predictions in the Bible, e.g. the eventual fall of Babylon, turned out to be true. Please let me know the powerful argument presented here that I should have had that positive reaction to.

There hasn't been and you know very well that there won't be. Do you also enjoy watching fish you've caught flapping around inside your boat?

I have no problem with either the question or the questioner. Rather the standards applied.

The entire story of creation is pretty much dispatched in the First 2 chapters of the Bible. After summarizing, I claimed the account sufficient for early man, albeit short. I also averred there to be nothing in the account counter to the claim of creation.

The response, instead of argument against the specifics of chapters 1 and 2, has been a barrage of vituperation, labeling the account as silly and me as snide and dishonest.. Hardly in the vein of logical debate. I don't know where to go now. Without some feedback re 1 and 2, there is nowhere to advance. I can present reasonable explanations of scripture until my socks rot off. But what is the point if they are met with "you are stupid"?

The fact that there is nothing in the Biblical "account counter to the claim of creation" is an odd sort of proof. I am not sure what you mean by the Biblical account being sufficient. You have certainly not presented evidence that the account is true. As for, "you are stupid," I assume you are talking about someone else, since I have never said that to anyone in all of the thousands of posts I have made on this board. All I have said is that your argument is false. I am still waiting for any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Biblical account is true. As of now, all I have is that the Bible predicted the eventual fall of Babylon.

By the way, i just checked Jeremiah Chapters 50 and 51, to be sure of the text. Jeremiah was predicting the complete destruction of Babylon and all the people and all the land then under the rule of the Chaldeans. He wasn't talking about 1500 years in the future, he was talking about his own lifetime. It didn't happen. It's pathetic the way you god botherers distort everything to try to make it look like you know what's going on

You just can't give it up, can you. Jeremiah's so-called prophecy was for his times, and what he prophesied did not happen. Furthermore, Babylon's power, far from being immense, was puny enough that the Medes and Persians were able to destroy its armies and then to force them negotiate. When the Persians took over from the Medes, they had no problem taking the city.

Once again, don't make **** up about history when you're talking to me. You just don't know enough. Babylon was no kind of power at all, immense or otherwise, in the lifetimes of Jeremiah and Isaiah.

From Jeremiah Chapter 50:

3 For out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.

The Medes and Persians did not come from the north, they came from the east. The conquest of the Chaldeans did not leave the land desolate, nor did the people depart.

9 For, lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country: and they shall set themselves in array against her; from thence she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain.

Once again, the Medes and Persians came from the east, not the north.

13 Because of the wrath of the Lord it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly desolate: every one that goeth by Babylon shall be astonished, and hiss at all her plagues.

This simply did not happen.

14 Put yourselves in array against Babylon round about: all ye that bend the bow, shoot at her, spare no arrows: for she hath sinned against the Lord.

15 Shout against her round about: she hath given her hand: her foundations are fallen, her walls are thrown down: for it is the vengeance of the Lord: take vengeance upon her; as she hath done, do unto her.

It wasn't the Jews who defeated the Chaleans. The walls were not thrown down. When the Persians took the city in 596 BCE, the remaining few Chaldeans opened the gates to them so that their city would not be destroyed.

16 Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handleth the sickle in the time of harvest: for fear of the oppressing sword they shall turn every one to his people, and they shall flee every one to his own land.

This did not happen.

26 Come against her from the utmost border, open her storehouses: cast her up as heaps, and destroy her utterly: let nothing of her be left.

This did not happen.

30 Therefore shall her young men fall in the streets, and all her men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the Lord.

This did not happen.

38 A drought is upon her waters; and they shall be dried up: for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols.

This did not happen.

It's a lot of bullshit from a spokesmen of a pack of hillbillies from Palestine, who raged against their masters, and could do nothing.

Two other points--at no time did i write "you are stupid." If you are really claiming that, please quote and link that post.

...And, as for additional proof, I see no reason to go beyond the OP, since my response so far has yet to be thoroughly sliced and diced.

What do you suppose the creation account was designed to accomplish?

The first 3 chapters describe, in a few pages, events covering perhaps billions of years. The typical ancient man was surely more concerned about how to store crops for the winter than contemplating the nuances of a molecular helix. All he needed were basic answers to questions like “Where did we come from?”; “Why are we here?”; “Why do we die?”. So, what is in the book of Genesis?

Ch 1: 1,2: The creation of the heavens and the earth takes place in an unspecified period of time. Could have been a kazillion years. Who cares? Humans can figure that out later. This time, however, is not included as one of the creative days.

Ch1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation and, in the sixth day, the creation of the first human pair and their commission to fill the earth. That all this reportedly occurred within six days should not be a cause of confusion, as the Hebrew word 'yom' translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event. This is underscored in Ch2, vs 4 which lumps all the six into one. It should be here pointed out, that, despite the condensation of the text, the order of creation is pretty much as it happened. Again, not that it mattered to Joe Blow. Humans can figure that out later.

Ch 2 1:25 is a recap of chapter 1 and includes more information about the first humans, including the first marriage, and God's command about a certain fruit they were forbidden to eat. It is well to reflect here that in Ch 1 vs. 26 God decreed that humans would be created in “our image”, apparently with attributes common to all intelligent creations. Could that be where the attribute of love and our concept of fairness originated? If so, how can chapter 3 be explained? Because that is where all love and fairness seemed to tank.

Since I know these first few paragraphs will likely generate responses ranging from well considered rebuttal to foam at the mouth vituperation, I will save chapter 3 for later, after dressing my wounds.

Please continue having a safe holiday weekend.

BTW, I haven't said anything about the seventh creative day as it has not yet been recorded as having ended.