Genesis creation story as inspired mythology

[Alien]

1 Cor 2:14

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is also another thing that differs among Christians, Bound Will or Free Will, but I think we can all agree that if you become a Christian at all it is soley the work of God, His grace and His mercy. Certian things may be stumbling blocks to Christianity, but that doesn't negate that they are true.

As a result of sin, it's a wonder anyone believes.

I would also remind you that we are all without excuse before the Creator, the educated and the uneducated. We all believe there's a God, our concious bears witness to it. If you want these verses, I can give them to you. But when an unbeliever says what kept him from Christianity was a literal intrepretation of Genesis on Judgement Day, I doubt for that reason God is going to urshur him into the Kingdom.

Hmmmm, yes.

I sense the futility of continuing with this, as I came to the conclusion some time ago that a debate between an inerrantist and an errantist is close to impossible. Why? Well, because the inerrantist will keep quoting Bible verses as if the Bible were the ultimate authority (which of course, to an inerrantist, it is). The errantist, on the other hand simply hears "this is what the Bible says" and waits for some justification as to why that should be taken as the end of the matter.

I'll give an example. You refer to the verse that says we are "without excuse". Yes, I'm familiar with it. It bugs me when people quote that to "prove" that during all those years when I was an atheist, I was in some state of denial. Let me make it clear, no, I wasn't in denial, I really believed that the balance of probability suggested that there was no god. Really. That's me describing my own thoughts. Yet you will quote something written by someone nearly 2000 years ago and say that I don't know my own mind. Similarly, we make careful observation of the real universe and conclude it is very very old indeed. Then some people take some ancient writings that suggest it is 6000 (or whatever) years old, and decide that is more persuasive. Surely sola scripture doesn't mean abandoning all observations of the real world and all common sense with it?

So I'll just repeat that my experience supports the point made earlier that literalistic interpretations of the Bible do tend to "put off" many people.

[The Plain Jane]

Better question: Does it matter?

It most certainly does. The geneolgies trace Christ back to Adam, and if the Gospels are correct, you have to take into account that those geneoloiges pick up where the others left off.

The problem is the same regardless of where you draw the line. If you accept Noah as having been a real person, how about Lamech, Methusaleh, Enoch, Jared, and on back to Adam? Again, which ones were real and which ones were made up?
Basically, the myth did not appear out of thin air. The author tailored existing myths, geneologies, etc. to his purpose. Unless you are claiming that God dictated the bible to the authors, its no problem.

Is Scripture God's word? If it isn't, you have a point. But it would be contridicting of God to have half His word be reliable and half of it false.

[Ryokan]

For kicks? You seriously think God can be that sadistic? That calls into question His nature.

I agree. Hence I find creationism unpalatable.

Either Creation is literal, myth or symbolic. They can't all be true, and they can't all be false. This thread is about figuring out which one is true.

Mythic.

[terasmussen]

It comes down to what you believe concerning Scripture. Is it errant or not? That is the underlying difference between many Christians. If you believe it is errant, then by all means call Creation a type of myth. But if it is inerrant, then you must, like I said, examine the Hebrew culture and lanuage to come to the correct interpreation of Genesis.

This is a good question, and I would like to go into it in more detail. I'll have to start a new thread on it later with a biblical example that highlights the issue. But suffice it to say here that I think the question "Is the Bible errant or inerrant?" exposes already a very 21st century approach to interpreting the Bible, and is in itself a bad question to ask of the Bible.

But you have to look at the context of the verse. Paul is talking about the orgin of sin, and that Christ came to remedy that. The wages of sin is death, I'm sure you heard that before. Adam's sin is why people die. If Adam doesn't exist, if he didn't sin, then why did Jesus come? What did Jesus save us from?

Of course this also falls back to orginial sin, which Christians disagree on as well. If you ask me, orginial sin is the only thing in the Bible that can be proven. Just look around.

I'll have to give this more thought, but my initial response to the question is: "Who cares about Adam's original sin! I got enough of my own to deal with! It's my own sin I'm concerned the most about. And Jesus is the solution. He's saving me from my own wages." But I'll have to meditate on this more.

[Ryokan]

Hmmmm, yes.

I sense the futility of continuing with this, as I came to the conclusion some time ago that a debate between an inerrantist and an errantist is close to impossible. Why? Well, because the inerrantist will keep quoting Bible verses as if the Bible were the ultimate authority (which of course, to an inerrantist, it is). The errantist, on the other hand simply hears "this is what the Bible says" and waits for some justification as to why that should be taken as the end of the matter.

I'll give an example. You refer to the verse that says we are "without excuse". Yes, I'm familiar with it. It bugs me when people quote that to "prove" that during all those years when I was an atheist, I was in some state of denial. Let me make it clear, no, I wasn't in denial, I really believed that the balance of probability suggested that there was no god. Really. That's me describing my own thoughts. Yet you will quote something written by someone nearly 2000 years ago and say that I don't know my own mind. Similarly, we make careful observation of the real universe and conclude it is very very old indeed. Then some people take some ancient writings that suggest it is 6000 (or whatever) years old, and decide that is more persuasive. Surely sola scripture doesn't mean abandoning all observations of the real world and all common sense with it?

So I'll just repeat that my experience supports the point made earlier that literalistic interpretations of the Bible do tend to "put off" many people.

Yeah that.

[Alien]

My experience was pretty similiar. Penal substitution and literalism kept me from taking Christianity very seriously.

Where are you now on penal substitution Ryo?

[TedO]

Not really. The Bible, Christianit etc. suggest that the resurrection was a one time event. Suggesting one time events don't happen because they happen 1 time would be silly. Throwing out the entire natural world and the evidence in it to fit a particular interpretation of the Bible, that's silly.

Creation was also a one time event; a completely supernatural intervention.

[The Plain Jane]

Hmmmm, yes.

I sense the futility of continuing with this, as I came to the conclusion some time ago that a debate between an inerrantist and an errantist is close to impossible. Why? Well, because the inerrantist will keep quoting Bible verses as if the Bible were the ultimate authority (which of course, to an inerrantist, it is). The errantist, on the other hand simply hears "this is what the Bible says" and waits for some justification as to why that should be taken as the end of the matter.

I'll give an example. You refer to the verse that says we are "without excuse". Yes, I'm familiar with it. It bugs me when people quote that to "prove" that during all those years when I was an atheist, I was in some state of denial. Let me make it clear, no, I wasn't in denial, I really believed that the balance of probability suggested that there was no god. Really. That's me describing my own thoughts. Yet you will quote something written by someone nearly 2000 years ago and say that I don't know my own mind. Similarly, we make careful observation of the real universe and conclude it is very very old indeed. Then some people take some ancient writings that suggest it is 6000 (or whatever) years old, and decide that is more persuasive. Surely sola scripture doesn't mean abandoning all observations of the real world and all common sense with it?

So I'll just repeat that my experience supports the point made earlier that literalistic interpretations of the Bible do tend to "put off" many people.

To be "without excuse" doesn't necessiarly mean atheists are in denial. What is does mean is that God is evident in Creation. Take a look at the world, there are not very many atheists. And the reason for that is that most people look at the world and say "Ah yes, God(s) exist."

I personally have always believed in a God. I became a Christian and 12 but shortly lost my salvation. I repented of some sins I committed and became a Christian again. I understand that for a good few years I was a hypocrite, and I mean in the biblical definition of the word. But I can't convince someone who believes OSAS of that. So I know your frustration.

I am an inerrantist, because I believe if the Bible has error on things like the Creation and the Flood, then it might have errors on the important things. Jesus says "If you don't believe Me on earthly things, how will you believe Me on heavenly things." Surely the words of Christ will hold water for an errants, unless the very words of Christ are error.

[jwarrend]

Better question: Does it matter?

Basically, the myth did not appear out of thin air. The author tailored existing myths, geneologies, etc. to his purpose. Unless you are claiming that God dictated the bible to the authors, its no problem.

My sense was that this was in some sense what the OP was claiming -- that Genesis is a myth, but an inspired myth. I believe C.S. Lewis had the same approach -- that the OT was the "true myth". The problem is that at some point, the OT becomes not a myth but a history. At what point does that happen? Again, which of those people do you think really lived and breathed?

I don't see how a false history can become a true myth.

-Jeff

[Ryokan]

Where are you now on penal substitution Ryo?

I don't accept it. I tend towards an E. Orthodox understanding of original sin, and if you don't accept the western style original sin, then you have no need for penal substitution. In the West, Jesus died to absolve men of Adam's debt to God. In the East, Jesus died to help men fix a problem they created for themselves. I think that way doesn't throw into question Gods goodness and is closer to earler Christian and Jewish views on the matter.

[Ryokan]

Jesus did say that few will get into Heaven. "Enter by the narrow gate," He said. "A few enter by it."

Yes. But Jesus preached alot about loving God and your neighbor in this context, and very little about accepting the book the Greeks would call Genesis as literal.

[The Plain Jane]

I'll have to give this more thought, but my initial response to the question is: "Who cares about Adam's original sin! I got enough of my own to deal with! It's my own sin I'm concerned the most about. And Jesus is the solution. He's saving me from my own wages." But I'll have to meditate on this more.

Exactly! But we Lutherans would say that Adam's sin was imputed unto you. That is you are doomed from the moment you are concieved. You were born under Satan's domain. This means that if you want to live, you have to obey the Ten Commandments perfectly in thought word and deed. But because of Adam's imputed sin to you, you simply can't. It's impossible.

But Good News! God has called you by the Gospel! So what happens at the Cross, is Christ takes God's punishment for your sin, and imputes the perfect rightousness of Christ to you! This is why Christ was sinless, so He could be the perfect sacrafice.

There is nothing, and I say nothing, more beautiful than the Cross.

[The Plain Jane]

Yes. But Jesus preached alot about loving God and your neighbor in this context, and very little about accepting the book the Greeks would call Genesis as literal.

Jesus quoted it as if it were literal. "In the beginning he made them male and female."

[Alien]

My sense was that this was in some sense what the OP was claiming -- that Genesis is a myth, but an inspired myth. I believe C.S. Lewis had the same approach -- that the OT was the "true myth". The problem is that at some point, the OT becomes not a myth but a history. At what point does that happen? Again, which of those people do you think really lived and breathed?

I don't see how a false history can become a true myth.

-Jeff

Hi Jeff.

I think the contradiction is resolved when the nature of mythology is understood. Mythical truth is not the same as historical truth, though myth and history may be interwoven. My minister often quotes the following, attributed to a Native American shaman, who was about to relate the creation myths of his tribe ..... "I don't know if this is how it happened, but what I am about to tell you is true".

[Alien]

I don't accept it. I tend towards an E. Orthodox understanding of original sin, and if you don't accept the western style original sin, then you have no need for penal substitution. In the West, Jesus died to absolve men of Adam's debt to God. In the East, Jesus died to help men fix a problem they created for themselves. I think that way doesn't throw into question Gods goodness and is closer to earler Christian and Jewish views on the matter.

Yes, that's my favorite too, though I guess I would say "lived and died". Thanks.