Genesis creation story as inspired mythology

[Ryokan]

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

Yeah, that is what I meant.

[The Plain Jane]

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.

That's odd. Because I hold a West interpretation but I believe Jesus died to fix our sin problem that we created.

I don't know what the Orthodox view is on orignial sin however. What is their teaching on it?

[jwarrend]

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".

I don't think this answers the question. Which of the following people do you think really lived in a literal, flesh-and-blood human existence?

Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist, Josiah, David, Rahab, Joshua, Moses, Joseph, Jacob, Abraham, Noah, Adam?

I suspect we can agree that if Jesus did not live, then Christianity could not possibly be a "true myth"; we couldn't possibly claim our faith to be in any way more true than any other myth.

The problem is that it's hard to know with the rest of the list where the mythologizing supposedly ends and the historical begins, and in fact, some of the accounts that testify to the historical (eg Luke's genealogy, Hebrews "Hall of Faith") talk about the putatively mythological characters as if they were equally real as the historical ones.

I feel like saying Genesis is a myth is really just a hand-waving solution.

-Jeff

[Alien]

That's odd. Because I hold a West interpretation but I believe Jesus died to fix our sin problem that we created.

I don't know what the Orthodox view is on orignial sin however. What is their teaching on it?

You may find this site interesting.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christi.../orthodoxy.htm

I'll quote the part about original sin, but the whole thing gives a good overview of the differences between Eastern and Western beliefs, and the history of how the churches came to be separate.

In the Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, sin, grace, and salvation are seen primarily in legal terms. God gave humans freedom, they misused it and broke God's commandments, and now deserve punishment. God's grace results in forgiveness of the transgression and freedom from bondage and punishment. The Eastern churches see the matter in a different way. For Orthodox theologians, humans were created in the image of God and made to participate fully in the divine life. The full communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed meant complete freedom and true humanity, for humans are most human when they are completely united with God.

The result of sin, then, was a blurring of the image of God and a barrier between God and man. The situation in which mankind has been ever since is an unnatural, less human state, which ends in the most unnatural aspect: death. Salvation, then, is a process not of justification or legal pardon, but of reestablishing man's communion with God. This process of repairing the unity of human and divine is sometimes called "deification." This term does not mean that humans become gods but that humans join fully with God's divine life.

[Alien]

I don't think this answers the question. Which of the following people do you think really lived in a literal, flesh-and-blood human existence?

Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist, Josiah, David, Rahab, Joshua, Moses, Joseph, Jacob, Abraham, Noah, Adam?

Ok, I'll have a crack at it, but I am far from an expert. Just off the top of my head, I'd say that everyone on your list was a real person, with the exception of Adam and Noah, though some of the others may be partly mythical, by which I mean that someone existed on which the myths were based. For example, Davy Crockett is well established as a historical figure, but he probably didn't "kill him a b'ar when he was only three".

I suspect we can agree that if Jesus did not live, then Christianity could not possibly be a "true myth"; we couldn't possibly claim our faith to be in any way more true than any other myth.

Agreed. Remember, though, that no one is claiming that everything in the Bible is mythology. Also, though Jesus undoubtedly lived, and I believe that his message has come down to us quite accurately, what difference would it make if, say, he didn't really cause a fig tree to wither by cursing it? Because, after all what is the prime importance of that story? That Jesus actually did that, or what it says to us about faith?

The problem is that it's hard to know with the rest of the list where the mythologizing supposedly ends and the historical begins, and in fact, some of the accounts that testify to the historical (eg Luke's genealogy, Hebrews "Hall of Faith") talk about the putatively mythological characters as if they were equally real as the historical ones.

Indeed it is. No one said this is easy. The point is that simply because something is not strictly accurate from a historical viewpoint, doesn't mean it has no value, or "truth". Quite the opposite may be the case. In order to appreciate what these stories meant to the people who wrote them and those who have revered them through the ages, we have to get away from our modern thinking, according to which accuracy is all important and inaccuracy destroys the value of what is written. People back then thought very differently.

I feel like saying Genesis is a myth is really just a hand-waving solution.

-Jeff

No, it's much more complex than that.

[Abelard]

To expand on Allen's point a bit, take Aesop's fable about the Fox and the Grapes. There was never any Fox who wanted grapes. Or talked, much less to a bird.

But the story is incredibly true. We still tell the story and the idiom "sour grapes" is still in use today. It tells a seminal truth about the human condition.

Perhaps the inspired author of Genesis had something greater to impart to us than a history book. Like that there is only one God - a major difference from earlier creation myths. Or the importance of holiness in a corrupt society.

We Christians know from Mark that when God walked on the earth he never taught the people exceptin parables. Why would one even expect the same eternal God to speak through Genesis in any other fashion - much less take an extrascriptural reference and claim God must speak only in a direct and literal manner?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Moderated By: Apologiaphoenix

This thread is being moved to Cosmogony. Carry on.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Disclaimer--

The tone in this post is not meant as mean spirited. It is harsh in order to try to show the inconsistancies in presupposing long-ages while still holding a view that God's Word is Truth.

As for believers in Christ... AKA, saved, the YE vs. OE issue is really a non-issue.. i.e. we are saved through Christ's work on the Cross.

Where it becomes a very important issue, is when we are witnessing to unbelievers, and they disbelieve BECAUSE of the trust they have in science as opposed to what God's Word says.

Thank you all for consideration of this disclaimer, if you decide to respond.
johnny

I think some of the truths being conveyed in the Genesis creation story are simple to see – God created the world, he didn’t just create it willy-nilly, but gave it thought, planned it out, he thought it was good, he sees man as very good, there is order to the world, it isn’t just violence and chaos.

Hi terasmussen,

You mention "simple truths conveyed" and then you point out a few... and you got those "simple truths" from the Creation account in Genesis, right?

But, what simple truth is being conveyed by "evening and morning, day X, if it does not simply mean literal days?

And why would an enumeration of days be in the account, if it were not meant to mean literal days?

There is another problem with thinking that those "days" are "stretched" over a period of billions of years. Does the order of what God did in each consequetive day and the order of those days, conform to the order that science says stuff happened?

Without going into what i mean too deeply, here is just a small example:

In the Gen 1:1-2, God created heaven and earth. And also, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Also, in vs. 2, there was darkness.
In vs. 3, God created light. Vs. 4-5, He creates light, seperates light from darkness and that was the 1st day (or time period... at this point, i'm not pointing to the length of that first time period, but the Text says 'yom', which could mean a literal day or an indefinite period)

Can we assume that anything after Gen 1:5 of the Creation account, is after the First Day / Time period? If we can, then verses 6-8 are the next Time Period / Yom.... God's Word calls it the second day.

Did you notice that "waters", according to God's Word, existed before the Creation of the stars on day 4. God even has plant life, day 3, before stars (day 4, again)...

How does that order jive with the Big Bang/Evolutionary order???

Answer, it doesnt.

So, what we have here is, either God's Word is false or BigBang/Evolution/long ages being false.

If it were that both were true, then the order would atleast be the same.

This story as opposed to another contemporary creation story like Enuma Elish, which portrays the divine as multiple warring Gods, a universe filed with violence and chaos, man is more or less an after-thought, a servant of the Gods created out of violence. The mythical story of Enuma Elish, or a story like it, was not put into the Bible, because it didn’t convey the truth of who God really is.

Is that the reason that it wasnt God's chosen creation story? .... or because that the 'Enuma Elish' (or other stories) were not the True account?

That mythical story, being uninspired, paints a very unflattering picture of the reality of God. But the Genesis creation story, being inspired, paints a picture that conveys God as who he really is. But both of these stories are just that – they are like paintings; art that is trying to convey truths that cannot be shown through material reality.

OK, i'm going to get alittle sarcastic here, not to fight you or argue with you or belittle you... after all, i am a fallen human also...

That said:
<< Sarcasm>> How do you know which is the true and inspired story??
Oh Wait, you already answered that.... MATERIAL reality.... But didnt you say that you thought that the creation story was conveyed Truth... in other words, you are judging God's Word by the material He Created, and not by judging the material He Created, by using His Word... << / Sarcasm>>

(ok, that wasnt really sarcasm, but i couldnt remember what it is really called... close enough)

Thinking of paintings conveying truth, here’s another example of something like what I’m trying to describe. Here are two paintings of Pope Innocent X, which one conveys the “truth” of that pope the best? Neither of these paintings are really about what he actually really looked like. They are both saying something about the man, but what they are each saying is very different. Who he was in reality, may only possibly be found in the historical record.

Again, how do you know that the Creation account is a "painting" and not God's historical record.... in effect, you are Pre-supposing that science has Authority over God's Word, instead of Pre-supposing God's Word as the First Truth.

As for “suddenly” becoming a “personal” God after billions of years I don’t think he was ever not a personal God through all of those billions of years. I mean think of it, what’s a few billion years for an eternal God. It’s not like he’s going to get bored if it takes a long time.

According to God's Word, He created Adam. I realize that 'Adam' COULD mean 'man-kind',..... BUT, if it meant (billions of years of) man-kind, then why does God's Word say,:

Scripture Verse:

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

and:

Scripture Verse:

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Again, sorry for the tone, but this topic is very important when witnessing to non-believers. It is one reason (earthly speaking) why many think that God's Word is a fairytale.... and if we compromise, then they also see the inconsistancy of how we understand our own truth.. that is, God's Truth.

God Bless,
johnny

[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.

I responded to this before, and I got to thinking about it yesterday and I have a few other points to add.

I heard an interview with a man who wrote a book called "What We Can't Not Know." It addresses this issue of athiests who claim to not be sure God exists. The book's thesis is that if you believe in a moral (and all of us do, because we all condemn murder) then you must believe in God. I haven't read it, but I think the author was a pyscologist. He may not have been--but he certainly testified of his atheist days when he was "uncertain." And in retrospect, he said, I knew God existed all along.

Also, I do not much like the implication of your post; that simply because we quote Romans 1:20 we are somehow saying you don't know your mind. Your beef is not with us but with God the Spirit who inspired Paul to write such a thing. Take it up with Him in prayer.

I think it would be safe to say that God knows your mind and heart infiniatly better than you know it. For some, this is a scary prospect but for me it is quite comforting. Because then the promise "who will not allow you to be tempted beyound what you can bear" is more hopeful. If someone had told me the things I would suffer the past few years I would have told them "There's no way I would have survived." But I did; God kept His promise. God knows me better than myself, and in that way, knows what will send me over the edge and what won't.

On the other hand, if Paul wasn't inspired, then I would suggest you get Heaven's number and say "Look, Paul, I know my mind." If Romans 1:20 is just an opinion of Paul, I suppose Romans 3:28, Romans 5:20-21, Romans 8:28, Romans 8:37-39 (and many more) are also mere opinions of Paul.

What is this anyway? Do we just agree with whatever Scripture makes us comfortable and what we believe is an accurate description of ourselves? That is why most people stay unbelievers; because they do not agree with Scripture that they are a sinner, and thus never repents. (Which Jesus says if you do not do, you will perish.) This brings Scripture under a severe form of relativism. Frankly, I am undaunted by our relativistic culture because I stand in that which doesn't change: Scripture. And, I take Paul's advice to not be taken captive by "empty deceit." Colossians 2:8

We should seriously practice what we preach. If we are going to bring Scripture under relativism, then we are heading down a dangerous path. I don't see how you can tell someone an atheist that they are a sinner (which you have to do if you want them to repent) yet at the same time you don't believe they are "without excuse."

God and sin is like oil and water. We are without excuse because we all sin. There is no excuse for sin. God will punish it or He will forgive it, but He will not ignore it. Being uncertian about God in and of itself is sin, because the first commandment is thus "You shall have no other gods," and Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind." Commandment, not suggestion. And elsewhere Paul says "Whatever is not from faith is sin."

God is love, but God is also holy. And He will only do what is holy.

I'm sorry, it may offend you but I stand on Scripture because it is the only thing in this world that is true and absolute.

[The Plain Jane]

We Christians know from Mark that when God walked on the earth he never taught the people exceptin parables. Why would one even expect the same eternal God to speak through Genesis in any other fashion - much less take an extrascriptural reference and claim God must speak only in a direct and literal manner?

That's interesting. So "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind," is a parable? "The second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself" This is also parable?

There are many others if you wish me to list them.

Matthew 5 is all a parable?

This is news to me.

[The Plain Jane]

I found a verse last night that are interesting:

Luke 16:31

31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

I can see writing Paul's Romans 1:20 as opinion. But surely we wouldn't write off the words of Christ as opinion. He seems to make a connection between believing a literal Genesis (as he quoted it thus "In the begining He made them male and female") and the Resurrection.

Imho, Christians don't believe a literal Genesis because they don't want the get mocked. And gee, didn't Paul say that the wisdom of man is foolishness to God? Again, I have said if we want to come to the correct intrepreation of Genesis, we have to look to Hebrew lanaguage and culture. But the reason why we don't, as I have said in another thread, is because we think the ancients were stupid. Some might try to candy-coat the word stupid, but that is ultimately what it comes down to.

Again, being mocked is at the core of accepting man's intrepretation of nature, over the infalliable word of the Lord. Jesus said if they hate Him, they will hate you as well. I find it interesting that secularlist only mock literalists. Much in the same way that atheists seem to only mock Christianity. I haven't heard many atheists condemn Musliums when their Koran commands the death of the infidel, but I have heard a lot about the Inquisition and other things like it.

But I'm getting off topic. I'm not saying that because you're mock for something means that it is correct, but Jesus certainly made a connection between truth and mocking.

[The Plain Jane]

Again, how do you know that the Creation account is a "painting" and not God's historical record.... in effect, you are Pre-supposing that science has Authority over God's Word, instead of Pre-supposing God's Word as the First Truth.

A pearl ( I would give five, but one day soon I will run out, haha)

[Abelard]

That's interesting. So "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind," is a parable? "The second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself" This is also parable?

There are many others if you wish me to list them.

Matthew 5 is all a parable?

This is news to me.

Ummm....all you have demonstrated is that scripture isn't 100% consistent, which I'm not sure is what you were attempting.

Perhaps I overstated slightly, but God most certainly does and did speak to us in parables and allegory. There is no reason to think this is not a perfectly valid explanation for Genesis, and there is no reason to believe God only explains things in a straight-out linear fashion.

Do you believe the events in Genesis 6:4 literally? That additional sons of God came down and had sex with human women, thus begetting the Nephilim - a race of giants identified with the Greek and Roman myths?

How do you read the wisdom books of Proverbs, Psalms, and Canticles? These are impossible to understand in any way other than poetry and allegory.

Certainly if the Spirit leads you to believe Genesis is a history book that is a perfectly valid understanding. Carry on. But literal believers are only one part of the Body of Christ and there are a whole lot of us that see things differently.

[The Plain Jane]

Ummm....all you have demonstrated is that scripture isn't 100% consistent, which I'm not sure is what you were attempting.

I don't understand how quoteing commandments to prove a point is showing that Scripture is isn't consistent. When Jesus spoke in parables, He made sure everyone knew: “The kingdom of heaven is like." Again, the ancients weren't stupid. I think for instances like Matthew 7:15 they knew Jesus wasn't talking of literal wolves.

Perhaps I overstated slightly, but God most certainly does and did speak to us in parables and allegory. There is no reason to think this is not a perfectly valid explanation for Genesis, and there is no reason to believe God only explains things in a straight-out linear fashion.

I never said God only speaks in a straightforward way. All I'm saying is science, which is conducted by falliable men, shouldn't be on par with Scripture. Jesus had harsh things to say about putting things on par with God's Word. In the Pharissees case it was tradition.

Do you believe the events in Genesis 6:4 literally? That additional sons of God came down and had sex with human women, thus begetting the Nephilim - a race of giants identified with the Greek and Roman myths?

What are you trying to say? Are you saying Scripture is just like any other religion? You should think about the implications of what an Muslim would think if he read what you just said. He would think, "Oh hey, here's a Christian who doesn't think Christ is the only way, so maybe I'm ok after all. After all, he knows the Bible better than me." I do not have a clear standing on that particular passage as of right now.

How do you read the wisdom books of Proverbs, Psalms, and Canticles? These are impossible to understand in any way other than poetry and allegory.

Some parts of the Bible are to be understood in such a way. But when Christ Himself quotes Genesis and Jonah as if they are actual events, I suggest we lend an ear lest Jesus say "Why didn't you believe Me," at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

Certainly if the Spirit leads you to believe Genesis is a history book that is a perfectly valid understanding. Carry on. But literal believers are only one part of the Body of Christ and there are a whole lot of us that see things differently.

The Spirit would not lead some Christians to one intrepretation and some to another. The Spirit is about Truth and Christ, and I don't think a symbolic view and a literal view can both be correct. This is one of the heresys concerning the Spirit, that He speaks to some Christians one way and to some Christians another way. John 16 Jesus talks about the Helper. "He will guide you in all truth," says Christ. Again, symbolic/myth/literal can't all be true. The Spirit is certainly leading some of us in truth and some of us just think He is. Again, God can not be seprated from His word. Therefore we should consult the word in terms of culture and lanague to come to the correct intepretation. I am taking Hebrew next year and I will post my conclusions about Genesis once I complete the course.

[Alien]

Disclaimer--

The tone in this post is not meant as mean spirited. It is harsh in order to try to show the inconsistancies in presupposing long-ages while still holding a view that God's Word is Truth.

Hi Johnny,

You're off on the wrong foot here, as the OP was not about YE versus long-ages. So, most of what you say about a long-age view being inconsistent with scientific findings is probably true, but not to the point.

Where it becomes a very important issue, is when we are witnessing to unbelievers, and they disbelieve BECAUSE of the trust they have in science as opposed to what God's Word says.

I agree. People tend to disbelieve a literalist interpretation of Genesis because it doesn't "make sense" in the light of modern scientific understandings. Terasmussen was presenting an alternative view, which he called "inspired myth". You will say this has problems, no doubt, and that's fine. The literalist view also has problems, in my opinion, and I'll set them out below.

And why would an enumeration of days be in the account, if it were not meant to mean literal days?

If you had read and understood what people have been saying about mythical writing, you would not ask this. Once again myths are not intended to be literal truth. The truth they convey is not the same as a newspaper report, which stands and falls on its factual accuracy. IF Gen 1 is mythical, then such questions are irrevelant.

How does that order jive with the Big Bang/Evolutionary order???

Answer, it doesnt.

Right. And if the account is mythical, it doesn't have to.

So, what we have here is, either God's Word is false or BigBang/Evolution/long ages being false.

Only if you interpret this part of the Bible literally.

Excuse my beating on this point, but it's critical to the understanding of the OP that "mythology" is understood correctly. If we mix our arguments, one side assuming that the account is literal and the other that it is mythical, then all we will have is confusion.

<< Sarcasm>> How do you know which is the true and inspired story??
Oh Wait, you already answered that.... MATERIAL reality.... But didnt you say that you thought that the creation story was conveyed Truth... in other words, you are judging God's Word by the material He Created, and not by judging the material He Created, by using His Word... << / Sarcasm>>

Again, how do you know that the Creation account is a "painting" and not God's historical record.... in effect, you are Pre-supposing that science has Authority over God's Word, instead of Pre-supposing God's Word as the First Truth.

This looks like a good place for my objections to the literalist view.

If you suppose that the findings of science are incorrect, and that this part of scripture is literally true, what are you saying about science? It seems to me that you have to say that either the material universe is, more or less, as described by science, or that it isn't. If science is correct, then that part of scripture must be incorrect when interpreted literally. OK you don't believe that, so what follows? Either that a great number of highly intelligent people have done careful research and generally agree on how the universe is, but are incorrect, or maybe there is some huge conspiracy theory and all scientists are part of an evil plan to discredit the Bible, OR that the universe really does appear different from what we would expect if the Bible were literally true.

The first option (that scientists have all misinterpreted their observations or that there is a huge conspiracy) seems most unlikely to me. If that is true then we must throw doubt on all science, not just the parts that conflict with the Bible. But it works (mostly)! To doubt it is simply paranoid. The second option (that the universe looks different from what it is) leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that God deliberately set up the universe to appear different from what it really is, and doesn't that make God a liar?

(I should say that, yes, science is sometimes shown to be wrong, old theories are discarded and new ones take their place. Nevertheless, science has a remarkable record of finding truth, and has proved itself over and over. And to address the exact point, I would say that the chance of science ever deciding that the universe is only 6000 years old is disappearingly small.)

Again, sorry for the tone, but this topic is very important when witnessing to non-believers. It is one reason (earthly speaking) why many think that God's Word is a fairytale.... and if we compromise, then they also see the inconsistancy of how we understand our own truth.. that is, God's Truth.

Your tone is fine.

Personally, I think that insisting on a literal interpretation in this area does more harm than good, but I guess we are both entitled to our opinions.