Real Myth
 |
|
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up–for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground– then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Gen 2.5-8)
|
I am unconvinced with the literal version of Genesis one and two. There are lots of issues here, none of which I want to explore here in depth, at least in the post. There is no way that the earth was created in six 24-hour periods about six or seven thousand years ago. The empirical evidence simply does not support that conclusion. The particulars do not make sense either. Where did the light come from in Gen 1:3? It was not from Sola, because Sola is formed several days later in Gen 1:14, nor was it from God, because it would have always been there. Then there is the minor issue of there being two creation stories back-to-back. In the first one, man is formed after the plants are brought forth; while in the second, man is crafted before the plants. In addition, in the Gen 2 creation story, the text says that the creation of the heavens and earth only took one day.
There have been many a word typed and shouted in trying to formulate a picture of science that admits a young earth and a consistency between the stories in Genesis one and two. However, I have not heard a version that can successfully do this.
What is my larger worry here? That, by maintaining these views, the church is driving people away from the good news of Jesus Christ.
In light of this, the first two stories in Genesis, in the whole Bible are myths and not literal word-for-word accounts of what physically happened. What do I mean by myth? I am not typing of a made up story that are completely false. Instead, I refer to a story, not an historical account, one that is true on one or several levels, even though it is not a historical “video-camera” account of what happened.
Ok, if the two stories are logically inconsistent and, based on the empirical evidence that we have, also not consistent with the leading theories of the origin and development of the universe and earth; then what do we do with them?
As I have stated before, I favor the divine fiat theory. I came across five other views over at Open Source Theology. Here are the five other ways to view this problem: Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.
- Genesis 1 fits within a literary genre of creation myths, but only Genesis 1 gets the story right.
- Genesis 1 is a myth that eventually proves to be verifiable as truth.
- Genesis 1 is a myth whose truth is to be found in the moral and metaphysical lessons it teaches.
- Genesis 1 is a myth written by God.
- Genesis 1 is part of an all-encompassing myth created by God that includes not just the Biblical text but also the “real world.”
They discuss these alternatives and talk a lot about the notion of real myth and what that means. I would recommend checking the article out and I hope you either share how you view the creation stories here or over there. I think this issue is of tremendous value and needs to be reconciled with our larger world-views. I maintain that both the earth is as old as it seems and that God inspired a true writing of Genesis one and two. Now, how exactly that works out, I don’t know - but damn I want to know.
LINKS:
- Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.
- Answers in Genesis
- Institute for Creation Research
- Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I don’t see the Bible as untruth, and I see science as the best guess we have so far in how the external world works.
I do hold observational evidence to be a standard to truth. If the Bible says that water is fire and the sky is a dark red all the time, I would wonder if perhaps there was some metaphor going on there.
What is your evidence that Genesis One and Two are literal accounts of the historical development of both live and the Universe?
“There have been many a word typed and shouted in trying to formulate a picture of science that admits a young earth and a consistency between the stories in Genesis one and two. However, I have not heard a version that can successfully do this. What is my larger worry here? That, by maintaining these views, the church is driving people away from the good news of Jesus Christ.”
I guess what I am wondering is: what are the descrepencies that you have found in the young earth views? What precisely IS the problem? (I personally don’t find the literal six days necessary but I also think evolution theory is a materialist concoction). I also find it hard to believe that somebody is going to reject the application of Christ’s work because a church teaches a literal six days.
“In light of this, the first two stories in Genesis, in the whole Bible are myths and not literal word-for-word accounts of what physically happened. What do I mean by myth? I am not typing of a made up story that are completely false. Instead, I refer to a story, not an historical account, one that is true on one or several levels, even though it is not a historical “video-camera” account of what happened.”
Henry, you have written somethings that have made me cringe but this really is over the top. Genesis 1 and 2 are “myths”, I know you are “using it technically” but this just sounds like unbelief under cultural pressure.
When I read Liberal theologians I see that they are always good at putting makeup on their unbelief and giving it a different name.
My question is WHY do you take Gen 1 and 2 to be non-literal? Is it because of the incessant challange from Materialist Science? Does this push you to a Deism view of creation?
Bob and Henry Thomas, I wanna say first that I really do appreciate your imput on this issue. I really want to explore the problems and potentialities on all sides of this issue. Nothing I say is to be taken as an attack on you all personally. Also feel free to examine closely the implications of the things I put forth.
What is the problem? The problem is Christianity teaching an erroneous view of the origins of the universe with the result of unduly diminishing the faith resulting in pushing people away from God’s kingdom. That is the most pressing issue.
The secondary one has to do with truth. I don’t care how the universe was ordered and created. But I want to know. There is something deeply religous for me in finding out and wondering at how God created.
I find an inspired account of it in Genesis and I look around and see that the world must be much older than 6,000 years. I wonder to myself, “Is the 6,000 year idea merely something that was the best explanation of Gen 1 to people before modern science, something that we hold to by just tradition?” Is there another way to view the inspired words of Gen 1, one that upholds the high view of the words of God and matches reality. That is what I am after.
The material evil in the world has been the thing that has pushed me to deism the most. Despite that, I resist the temptation.
But, as to the question of Gen 1 and 2 not being strict literal, I would point to the internal inconsistencies. Were the heavens and earth made in one day or over the course of six? Do you take Gen 1 to have the answer or Gen 2?
My point was simply this. If one holds science higher, this does not mean they diminish the authority of the Bible but rather look to science for the origin, then they will look for the more natural cause for the origin. If one holds the Bible higher, not saying that they aren’t looking for a scientific view but rather are trying to see where science fits with the Scriptures rather than the other way around, they tend to look for the literal account of the origin in their views. Therefore, one must make sure which one they are using as the higher authority. It seems like Henry Michael is using science as the higher authority but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe the meaning of Genesis 1-2, that God created the universe, it is just that he looks for the more nautralistic explanation to the origin story. Many of my profs here at MBTS, ie Dr. Charles Warren, hold the Bible higher, even though he has written extensively on this issue in the scientific realm, and thus looks for the more literal-Bible explanation.
Secondly, theorizing is very good and very necessary to understanding the evidence at hand. But time and time again, such as in archeology, the science proves the Bible to be literally true. So while we have theories, we must be patience because history says that the sciences will catch up to the Bible. Now that doesn’t mean that a passage that is more of a poem than an historical narrative, is literally a six-day creation. But the science always validates the Bible, that is just the way it is. So I am being very patient in articulating my ideas on the origin.
Due to the high numbers of scientists abandoning the Darwinian Evolution as the theory, I dismiss evolution. Last December, Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, announced that evolution is dying. I believe that Lee Strobel was on the program, but I could be wrong with that. I lean more towards an ID type theory, but I have not actually gone into much study into this passage. I tend to acknowledge the literary genre in my studies and try to dig for the truth. But I am being very patient with God to see what all the evidence is.
Due to the high numbers of scientists abandoning the Darwinian Evolution as the theory, I dismiss evolution.
Got a figure? Also, what are they abandoning Darwinism for? Should we think that whatever it may be, is that what we should be putting our stock in?
I think a big question that goes along with this debate is this: do we interpret the science with the Bible, or the Bible with the science? Basically, which is the authoritative standard by which the other is measured and interpreted against. Whether one holds the Bible or science as the authority has a major impact on how one views the origins of the earth.
One thing that I love about the Bible is that the more evidence scientists (especially archaeologists) find, the more the Bible presents itself as historical truth.