The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Starlight]

They were clearly written as a literal explanation of the origins of the world, as were ALL Creation myths.

Yup, and they get pretty weird. I like the one where a grump mole wove yarn and made the world too big by mistake. Also the multicoloured snake who tickled the frogs to make them cough up water for the earth is quite a good one. Religious peeps be cray-cray.

[rogue06]

The authors of the NT and/or most of the church fathers believed Genesis was literal, and that was the standard for Christianity up until the 19th and 20th century, and remains the standard for many Christians today.

And yet there was a whole lot of disagreement about, for instance, what the creation days signified. While many did see them as literal 24 hour long consecutive days others saw them differently saying that the creation took place instantaneously, or took place outside of time, or that each day was a thousand years long.

More importantly, a particular view of their nature has never been part of any creed nor has it even been brought up for discussion at a Council or Synod. Further, it should be noted that none of the great Reformed confessions make any comment on the matter of the nature of creation. Not the French Confession (1559), the Scots'Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563, 1571) or any of the others. They may stress the sovereign action of God in creating all things but the universal absence of any reference connected even remotely to the issue of the days of creation or the processes involved establishes that it was not a confessional issue in the slightest.

[37818]

Yes.

Cite the reference where the Apostle Paul says he had a vision.

[Sparko]

If God were real, he would be my bestest friend and give me super magical powers and make me rich.

[seer]

If God were real, he would be my bestest friend and give me super magical powers and make me rich.

Wait! He is not going to make me rich? Oh poop!

[psstein]

The Creation account of the Bible, though meant to be literally true, is known to be literally false.

That's not necessarily the case at all. The creation account is much more likely a reaction to the Enuma Elish. Etiologies, like the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, are exceedingly common in ANE literature. See Gordon and Rensburg's The Bible and the Ancient Near East.

[rogue06]

That's not necessarily the case at all. The creation account is much more likely a reaction to the Enuma Elish. Etiologies, like the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, are exceedingly common in ANE literature. See Gordon and Rensburg's The Bible and the Ancient Near East.

Personally, as I've made clear multiple times in the past, I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless. This is very similar to the view expressed by George Frederick Wright a century ago and by folks like Conrad Hyers and others today.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details such as who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. Notice how in Genesis 1:16 the sun and moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as "two great luminaries" or "two great lights." That is because the sun and moon were deified by the neighboring people and in the Semitic languages the words "sun" and "moon" are also the names of gods. But here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power^[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

Look at what the author chooses to open the Bible with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We can see for ourselves how God's existence is outright assumed, and how His transcendence is plainly proclaimed in that opening sentence. It is clear that God is not part of the created order, and as I've noted above how God is the God who made everything else. This is a declaration being made to a people who already knew God as the one who delivered them from bondage in Egypt where they had been surrounded by a culture that worshiped many false gods and idols. Afterwards they found themselves still surrounded by cultures that continued to worship them. So the fundamental purpose of this part of Scripture then was to inform God's people more fully of who their God is: the almighty God of the universe, the God who redeems his people, and the only God worthy of worship. IOW, God is God.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail^[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.












1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

[JimL]

Personally, as I've made clear multiple times in the past, I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless. This is very similar to the view expressed by George Frederick Wright a century ago and by folks like Conrad Hyers and others today.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details such as who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. Notice how in Genesis 1:16 the sun and moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as "two great luminaries" or "two great lights." That is because the sun and moon were deified by the neighboring people and in the Semitic languages the words "sun" and "moon" are also the names of gods. But here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power^[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

Look at what the author chooses to open the Bible with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We can see for ourselves how God's existence is outright assumed, and how His transcendence is plainly proclaimed in that opening sentence. It is clear that God is not part of the created order, and as I've noted above how God is the God who made everything else. This is a declaration being made to a people who already knew God as the one who delivered them from bondage in Egypt where they had been surrounded by a culture that worshiped many false gods and idols. Afterwards they found themselves still surrounded by cultures that continued to worship them. So the fundamental purpose of this part of Scripture then was to inform God's people more fully of who their God is: the almighty God of the universe, the God who redeems his people, and the only God worthy of worship. IOW, God is God.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail^[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.












1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

Right, and Adam and Eve were meant to be fictional characters as well, correct?

[rogue06]

Right, and Adam and Eve were meant to be fictional characters as well, correct?

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that viewing the creation account as a polemic means it is fiction? Re-read what I wrote.

[Tassman]

Personally, as I've made clear multiple times in the past, I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless. This is very similar to the view expressed by George Frederick Wright a century ago and by folks like Conrad Hyers and others today.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details such as who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. Notice how in Genesis 1:16 the sun and moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as "two great luminaries" or "two great lights." That is because the sun and moon were deified by the neighboring people and in the Semitic languages the words "sun" and "moon" are also the names of gods. But here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power^[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

Look at what the author chooses to open the Bible with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We can see for ourselves how God's existence is outright assumed, and how His transcendence is plainly proclaimed in that opening sentence. It is clear that God is not part of the created order, and as I've noted above how God is the God who made everything else. This is a declaration being made to a people who already knew God as the one who delivered them from bondage in Egypt where they had been surrounded by a culture that worshiped many false gods and idols. Afterwards they found themselves still surrounded by cultures that continued to worship them. So the fundamental purpose of this part of Scripture then was to inform God's people more fully of who their God is: the almighty God of the universe, the God who redeems his people, and the only God worthy of worship. IOW, God is God.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail^[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.












1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

So, after all that, is the Genesis Creation narrative literally true or allegory?

[Starlight]

Right, and Adam and Eve were meant to be fictional characters as well, correct?

Obviously the ancient Israelites up to and including the time of Jesus thought the early parts of genesis were literal truth.

Only with later, educated theologians, such as 'St' Augustine of Hippo, do non-literal interpretations of the creation narratives start becoming popular. One approach that seems quite popular among modern mainstream Christians is to say that Genesis 1-11 (the before-Abraham part) is 'pre-history' and different in kind from what follows, and it can be largely ignored / understood as a kind of 'just-so' story that sets the scene for the (supposedly) historical narratives that follow in the rest of the bible. This neatly allows them to accept evolution and ignore the difficult-to-defend Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel stories. A corollary of this position though is that you then can't take Paul too literally where he says sin and death came into the world through Adam, because obviously if evolution is true then death was around from the beginning and not caused by sin.

[Tassman]

A corollary of this position though is that you then can't take Paul too literally where he says sin and death came into the world through Adam, because obviously if evolution is true then death was around from the beginning and not caused by sin.

But this raises the question that if Adam's sin is an allegory, then Jesus' atonement of sin must be an allegory too.

[Starlight]

But this raises the question that if Adam's sin is an allegory, then Jesus' atonement of sin must be an allegory too.

Well that is one of the major arguments YEC's make for why the 6 day creation story must be literal.

But I don't think the argument flies, because Jesus' atonement can plausibly be explained as dealing solely for the future judgment of God in the afterlife, rather than any this-world consequences of sin (e.g. death). Although it implies that pain/death are a natural part of God's created world, so what that says about his character is open to debate.

Of course, I personally don't think the bible actually teaches substituationary atonement, and think the early Christians didn't believe in anything of the sort and that the doctrine was a creation of the theologians of the middle ages and the reformation, and that the widespreadness of the substitutionary atonement teaching within modern evangelicalism combined with overly suggestive bible translations encourages us to read that teaching into the text. I would say that in the view of the NT writers and early Christians, the way Christ helps us pass God's final judgment is that by following his teachings and example we can do the sort of things God approves of and thus pass God's final judgement (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46).

[Tassman]

Well that is one of the major arguments YEC's make for why the 6 day creation story must be literal.

But I don't think the argument flies, because Jesus' atonement can plausibly be explained as dealing solely for the future judgment of God in the afterlife, rather than any this-world consequences of sin (e.g. death). Although it implies that pain/death are a natural part of God's created world, so what that says about his character is open to debate.

Of course, I personally don't think the bible actually teaches substituationary atonement, and think the early Christians didn't believe in anything of the sort and that the doctrine was a creation of the theologians of the middle ages and the reformation, and that the widespreadness of the substitutionary atonement teaching within modern evangelicalism combined with overly suggestive bible translations encourages us to read that teaching into the text. I would say that in the view of the NT writers and early Christians, the way Christ helps us pass God's final judgment is that by following his teachings and example we can do the sort of things God approves of and thus pass God's final judgement (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46).

This last is the doctrine of Jesus as the Great Exemplar, i.e. the perfect pattern, whom all humankind should seek to resemble. But whilst this is more civilised than the Ransom theory, or the Substitutionary theory, or the Sacrificial theory I think probably the last is the way to go with Jesus being seen as the Lamb of God sacrificed in lieu of the insufficient animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. E.g. the RC Church makes a big deal out of the “Sacrifice of the Mass”; regarding it as a pleading of Jesus’ one true sacrifice...not just a commemorative meal, as Protestants tend to view it... and something God demands just as he demanded the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant .

[Starlight]

the Sacrificial theory I think probably ... is the way to go with Jesus being seen as the Lamb of God sacrificed in lieu of the insufficient animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. E.g. the RC Church makes a big deal out of the “Sacrifice of the Mass”; regarding it as a pleading of Jesus’ one true sacrifice...not just a commemorative meal, as Protestants tend to view it... and something God demands just as he demanded the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant .

The 'best' in terms of the correct interpretation of what the writers of the bible really meant and believed? Or best in terms of making for a vaguely plausible / defensible / coherent / personally satisfying theology?