Article Series - If You Remove Reason, You Remove Doubt
|
May I present part 2 of my pictoral tour of the Creation Museum! You’ll remember that we left last time secure in the fact that we can trust God’s Word ™ over the evil, corruptive forces of Human Reason. We saw how God’s Word ™ had been preserved throughout the centuries, despite the fact that evil persons such as Jews and Catholics had tried to corrupt it. And so now we turn to the modern incarnation of this (apparently) ancient war: the defense of Creationism in the face of Darwin’s bastard step-children, the evil Evolutionists.
The First Four Days (In the Blink of an Eye)
The couple of rooms are pretty much what we expected. We were treated to “scientific” Old-Earth “theories” based on Human Reason (read: foolish atheism) claiming that Creation is more than 6,000 years old. We saw various computer models illustrating how Young Earth science made better use of the available evidence, and how (surprise!) the Museum’s understanding of this evidence is perfectly in line with God’s Word. (It’s so comforting to know someone has it all figured out!) And at one of the unfinished displays, we were treated to an example of the Museum’s ever-vigilant dedication to undermining the rhetoric of Human Reason.
Clever, no?
Oh, and in case you were wondering (I know I was), the reason you should care about this is that believing in an Old Earth undermines all Christian doctrine and theology. Apparently unless you believe that Genesis 1-11 is literal, historical fact, then you are an evil, pagan.
Day Six (because who really cares about plants and birds? no one. that’s who.)
Whew… two whole rooms without people? It was almost getting to be too much! Fortunately, by the time we got through the second room, we were treated to a documentary film that chronicled all six days of creation in a relatively short time period (even shorter than Six Days! man, these Museum people are GOOD!). Once we’d been properly prepared, we were shown into the Garden of Eden.
I learned so much in this room! Did you know that all animals were vegetarians before the Fall? True story.
Who’s going to blame this guy for loving pineapple? Not me, that’s for sure.
They were so tame you could feed them!!
Did you know that no animals or plants were toxic or venomous before the Fall? TRUE STORY. Did you know that before the Fall, Eve never looked Adam in the eye!?! TRUE STORY! Don’t believe me? Not only was it in the video we watched; I got photographs!
Let’s go to the film:
Note Adam’s strong, upward gaze. He’s in control here, folks!
Oh Eve! You’re so demure and feminine! Oh, by the way, while you were off frolicking, the Outdated Stereotype store phoned; apparently your model is being recalled.
Dinosaurs in the garden? That you can FEED WITH YOUR HANDS?!? I know, I know. You’re thinking, “This is too good to be true!”
Oh, and alas, you were right. All good things must end. And so we come to the one scene where Eve finally looks Adam in the eye: when she offers him grapes. Or a pomegranate. Or something. I always thought it was an Apple.
The Devil Made Me Do It (Sin and Fallout)
Surprisingly, the serpent (who was Satan) did not have legs. Before or after the Fall. I was disappointed. So, apparently Adam and Eve ate the fruit, got kicked out of the Garden and God showed them how to make animal sacrifices. I have this awesome picture of Adam and Eve wearing deer skins and standing behind altar on which are lying the two slain deer, fully skinned. I can’t find the pic, but I’ll keep looking. Consider the implications – God skinned these two deer and made Adam and Eve wear the skins, probably while the poor things were still dying. That is awesome because little kids come see this museum. Oh, and in case you were wondering, the theory that Genesis 3′s claim that God made them clothes of skin is actually God showing them how to sacrifice is actually rabbinic oral tradition. Yes, the same Oral Tradition that was condemned as evil about 4 rooms ago. What’s that? No, that’s not a contradictory display. You can only find something contradictory if you’re using Human Reason, and we’re not doing anything even remotely resembling something reasonable here at the Museum.
And I’m sure you were wondering, but the animal sacrifices were insufficient because humans and animals are unrelated. This was the one and only place in the entire museum I found them giving explicit reasons that Evolution allegedly undermines Christian doctrine. Apparently, if evolution is true, then we can all just do animal sacrifices. Somehow. But since the bible says that animal sacrifices weren’t sufficient (which, to their credit, it actually does, in Hebrews – though of course they don’t bother with such things as citing references) then apparently evolution can’t be true. Now, can someone please tell me where the Bible ever gives “we’re not related” as a reason animal sacrifice isn’t valid?!?!
Anyway, now we move onto the hall of Sin. This is the room I described from last post with the gray walls and the black-and-white photos featuring the consequences of sin. They were (in order): An African kid starving, A Wolf eating raw meat and looking menacingly at the camera/audience, A mushroom cloud, Bones from the Holocaust, A Woman screaming as she gives birth, A Tornado, Heroin (complete with a spoon and needle, WTF? exactly how educational is this museum supposed to be?! here kid, THIS IS HOW YOU FREAKING TAKE HEROIN!)* and A Graveyard.
Sin is bad. And don’t forget that it’s all because you forgot to listen to God’s Word and started thinking for yourself. Human Reason will pump you full of drugs, genocide you with radiation, make you have babies and take you to Kansas where a wolf will eat your heart while you starve to death.
Also, since you were curious, it was at this point that animals started eating meat and being venomous. Apparently God had build the potential for these things into various animals, but did not reveal them until after the Fall. In a rare fit of exegetical fantasy, the Museum presents Isaiah 11:6-9 (which is an apocalyptic passage) as proof of this clearly sound theory. I find it fascinating that this idea is so completely insane that even Museum realized that no one would believe this unless they could find a Bible verse to throw at it. Fortunately, we don’t need to pay attention to context when citing. Context sounds a little too much like Human Reason for our tastes. God’s Word is God’s Word! We don’t need no context!
What could possibly be next? Oh, we haven’t talked about incest yet!
The Fallen Community
Note in this picture (of Cain, Abel, Adam and Eve), that Adam and Abel are inside the wall, while Cain and Eve (who is pregnant, but not with Seth!) are in their appropriate positions outside the wall.
Also note that Mike’s arm is outside the community.
So, Cain kills Abel (who was apparently the first prophet, more rabbinic Oral Tradition!) and then takes his sister as a wife. But isn’t that incest? Isn’t that something the Bible forbids?! Oh silly. Genetic drift hadn’t happened yet, and God’s Laws are pragmatic, not moral. So calm down. Plus, you’re gay. What’s that? Oh, well on a display called “Who did Cain Marry?”, we find this statement (reproduced verbatim):
“Since God is the One who defined marriage in the first place, God’s Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage. People who do not accept the Bible as their absolute authority have no basis for condemning someone like Cain for marrying his sister.”
Were you paying attention? If you don’t conform to our white-middle-class-fundamentalist view ::ahem:: we mean, our biblical view of marriage, then you don’t have any room to talk. So take your liberal Reason and go home.
The Flood was a cool display. Apparently Noah hired a bunch of guys to help him build the ark, but they all thought he was crazy. We know this because the displays were animatronic and talked. Yeah, they were that creepy. Some pictures:
They actually showed all the people dying. Again, I’m impressed. There are babies on that rock. At least they’re not shying away from the implications. Of course, these are also all pagan evolutionists, so… well… they probably deserved to die in the first place. I mean, they helped Noah build the ark. So they don’t have an excuse.
Sadly, not life-sized. Even sadder, not biblically accurate. Apparently the biblical specifications don’t build something that would actually float. So a Navy simulator came up with this version. However, and we would like to make this very clear: using a Navy simulator to fix something in the Bible is not using Human Reason to augment God’s Word. What we at the Museum are doing here is completely different from what we’re criticizing everywhere else in the Museum. Somehow.
Fun fact: because we can’t account for how rapidly species have changed after the flood, we are going to tell you that “these differences suggest God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly.” No word on what those special tools were, but my guess is Craftsman. Also, if you were curious how the various animals got to the different continents, it turns out that they used rafts made of dead trees (killed in the flood) that float on the ocean currents. No, I am not making this up. The Museum people made it up. And they have a video simulation to prove it:
The Museum concludes with videos of college students who don’t believe in God. These are the victims of the Enemy. Given that the Museum’s primary demographics are Elderly persons and parents with young children, this is a brilliant piece of propaganda to encourage giving. The Elderly can fight against the ever-more secular Universities to get us back to those mythic “good ole days” and parents with young children can fix the problem before their kids get there. The final station is a well-produced, well-acted and (relatively) well-written 20-minute video gospel presentation. At the beginning, a guy compares a T-Rex tooth to the Bible, apparently because both are old and cool. Other than this, nothing from the Museum’s previous 2.5 hour tour appears or is referenced in the video. Somehow this is meant to prove that the Gospel is dependent on a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.
Oh Those Terrible Lizards!
I was getting pissed – we’d gone through the whole museum with almost no reference to Dinosaurs! Fear not! They had their own separate exhibit, complete with Job quotations and models!
A great question! And one we were exited to have answered.
The Leviathan and Behemoth in Job were both dinosaurs. Yes, really. Go ahead and go read their descriptions in Job 40-41. Yeah. They could breath fire (at least Leviathan could). Don’t you know that’s where dragon legends came from? No, we’re not joking. Why are you laughing? I mean… consider knights…
See?! Knights in the middle ages hunted dragons to extinction. We even watched a 10 minute video (of which I purchased a copy) explaining all of this in lucid, rational terms. Why are you laughing?
And with that, we left. We managed to doge most of the museum people, who all wanted to know what we thought. I’m sure they thought those were tears of joy.
I guess you guys don’t recommend us going there, ah?
You should check the one in California. That was a really good museum:http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_museum/
I recommend it. It was a lot of fun. Unless of course you’re going there for spiritual benefit – then stay clear, brother.
On a more positive note – though i think they go about it the complete wrong way, i at least appreciate that they challenge the hegemonic influence of atheistic evolution in our culture. I disagree, but I can at least appreciate the attempt. I think it would be better if their exegesis was better, though. I can take their science seriously if I can’t take their bible seriously.
Ok, Let me see if I got this straight – God programmed all post-flood genetic change because he knew Adam and Eve would screw up, Noah had an awesome beetle and parasite collection and the dinosaurs died out because they ran out of pineapples on the ark? Is that about right?
While I am sure I also wouldn’t agree with much of the presentation I don’t think rank mockery and cynicism is very becoming of Christians…perhaps if your POMO mocking Christians with somewhat bad theology is ok.
Scripto –
That about sums it up! And much shorter than my post ;)
Bob –
You’re totally right. Satire has no place in Christian argumentation, presentation, or criticism. In the future, I’ll stick to over-generalization and ad hominem attacks. Thanks for the reminder, brother!
[...] I will tell you simply and I will tell you shortly. JR Madill at Theology for the Masses presents Creating a Universe of Certainty, or, If You Remove Reason, You Remove Doubt (Part 2 of 2) Notes From Off-Center presents What if Belief in God is Just a Delusion After All…What Then? [...]
Jr – you crack my stuff up, man!
I echo Bob’s comments. While I know ICR typically falls short in delivering quality material, your cynicism and attacks are not in the spirit of meekness and graciousness we are so often instructed through the word to clothe ourselves with.
I could go on about the numerous fallacies you make in this post, but its obvious you are set in believing God is limited to only naturalistic methods of creation. In other words “Yeah he could create humans and animals in mid state, but plants he obviously couldn’t create anything but a seed.”
Point is you’re article is attacking brothers and sisters in Christ who are taking a literal approach to interpretation and suggesting because they are not applying secular teachings to that interpretation that they are somehow closed minded, ignorant and divisive…. for believing the the word of God. What’s funny is that that’s exactly how those opposed to God describe His followers.
It seems to me that, and let me say I am a guy from a very worldly background – so I know this spirit myself, that among my brothers in Christ there is a shame of those who believe The Word (the Word made flesh = Christ) literally. And that it’s okay and correct to use words of mockery to distance ourselves from them so we seem more acceptable and pleasing to the world around us – see John 15:19.
I strive hard to reconcile my Theology with science. I am a layman, but have devoted myself to this topic since college when secular professors mocked anyone who believed in the foolish bible. I began reading, secular scientists and creation scientists; old earth and young earth. No one knows the mind of God in full, however the more I learn the more I am compelled towards the absolute truth of God’s Word and its ability to transcend time in meaning and completeness, it is amazing. I think Discovery Institute and others are making enormous strides in better depicting the enormous nature of God and his incredible intertwining of all creation – it is beyond our imagination. Mocking others for believing n 6 literal days of creation… where’s the fruit?
Chris, why is a "literal" reading so important and defining of a person who "believes the word of God"? Paul obviously didn’t think so (Galations 4:21-31), and I’d say for us "orthodox" Christians he’s about as legit as it gets. Furthermore…he mocked people ALL THE TIME. He found sarcasm and doublespeak to be very useful to his rhetoric.
How are these people even being "literal"? Did you see the part about the ark? They don’t use the biblical demensions. Further, their exegesis on Job, Dinosaurs and DRAGONS borders on intellectual disohonesty. So, while they claim to be conservative and literal, it seems they are probably much more liberal in their interpretation than they’d ever be willing to admit.
As far as John talking about coming out of the world and all that jazz, he obviously didn’t think the world’s ways were always so dumb. The Gospel of John contains more Greek philosophical ideas than perhaps the rest of the NT combined (see: logos theology). He’s thoroughly immersed in the ways of his "world." Given that fact, I’d wager that John may be speaking to an entirely different situation than we have here.
I’m not trying to be rude or attack you (if that’s how I come off, I blame it on the coffee I just drank, sorry :)), but I think you should reflect on the problematic things you yourself just posted.
Chris, I think that it is admirable that you strive to reconcile your theology with science. I have no doubt that you are truly seeking after the truth. I have looked at this interpretation, both of science and the Bible, and found it wanting. It just tries to force the categories and conceptions where there are none. I just looks like an over elaborate and flimsy structure surrounding an elegant statue.
I see JR’s post more as an honest critique of the school of thought. I don’t remember any personal attacks. Critique is what the Body of Christ needs at every second of the day.
Recent Earth Creationism is not a literal interpretation. JR points that out above. Rather, it is science built on a particular interpretation of the Bible with disregard to science. It is cherry-picking, ad hoc, to the worst degree. Take you interpretation and then try to fit the facts into that interpretation. Where it absolutely does not work (see the lost day of Joshua and the fact that the Ark won’t float) then you allow some reinterpretation based on more of the available data.
Beyond that, they close themselves off to any other possible interpretation, even the ones that are on their side for the most part. They also go a step further and either imply or outright state that anyone that disagrees with them are illegitimate positions. JR has shown how they strike a false dichotomy between the use of human reason and “God’s Word” (or rather their interpretation of it).
These things should absolutely be pointed out. Satire is one of the most effective ways of pointing out glaring flaws that people are easily otherwise blind to.
I find this post really troublesome.
I don’t really care about the satire (that isn’t an issue). I don’t care if you are others agree or disagree about old earth or not.
I find this post troublesome, because there is no real way to discus this matter openly.
I would desire to further discus these matters (the different points of view), because I find them interesting and I want to seek the truth on these matters.
I am not a science wiz and I would like to learn from others. But…
If I said I believe in the Old Earth system…then I am ultra conservative, blind dogmatic closed minded christian. Correct?
If I said I didn’t believe the Genesis 1-11 was extremely literal then I am a flaming liberal christian, or I am a little better as a pagan (did you see how I said that?).
I would enjoy examining what the NON-Young Earthers believe, because they are who started the post. And I would like to see what the Young Earthers would say to critique it. He who asserts must also prove.
casey
“You’re totally right. Satire has no place in Christian argumentation, presentation, or criticism. In the future, I’ll stick to over-generalization and ad hominem attacks. Thanks for the reminder, brother!”
Or strawmen misrepresentations… I am all for satire, that is Biblical (see Elijah on Carmel…even though it probably didn’t happen if your comming at scripture with modernist assumptions) but the satire of the Biblical figures is directed toward those fighting against the Biblical witness. I guess what bothers me is that you sound like an Atheist (or rather a Modernist theologian) making fun of the book of Genesis, yet somehow you are an enlightened Christian.
Granted, there are certainly inhouse debates b/w fellow Christians. However, I know they are inhouse debates and I wouldn’t portray those who disagree with me like hicks. I agree with Casey, let’s discuss this stuff. It just seems like you want to sit in your enlightened ivory tower and make fun of “simpletons”. There is nothing really redemptive in this post, that really is all you’ve done. When Elijah mocked the pagans the LORD was exalted, here materialistic science is lauded above people (who may be mistaken about mechanics and details) who are trying to exalt the LORD as creator.
My point is simply that this post looks like something Sam Harris would write.
Jr,
I have a strong love/hate relationship with Micheal Moore. Don’t know if you have ever watched some of his movies, but you probably would like them (if you enjoy satire).
I probably wouldn’t agree with anything Moore believes but I enjoy his passion for getting past conventional wisdom.
See, puritanbob, I think it’s kind of obvious you didn’t actually read this post. The entire time, JR shows how they are rarely (if ever) doing what they claim. They simply pick and choose which aspects of Genesis 1-11 to take literally, and then make up the rest with “human reason” like the ark demensions, the issues with the logs and currents for transporting animals, etc. On top of that, they outright demean people who don’t agree with their views without any legitimate backup or without realizing that many of their views (like the thing on marriage, or dragons) aren’t even biblical. While JR certainly could bring the level of sarcasm down a notch, I’d say pointing out the blatant inconsistancies in this museum’s rhetoric is a very important endeavor.
Further, if you want a discussion so bad, why don’t you start one? You yourself are preventing any legitimate discussion, because you’re already painting JR into a caricatured corner with your “ivory tower” jargon. At least JR engaged the material that this museum was putting forth. You’ve yet to actually engage any points JR has made on this topic, rather, you’ve merely chosen to call him names (modernist, atheist, Sam Herris, etc.) and demean the tone of his argumentation. How is that helpful for encouraging this discussion you (and others) are clamoring for?
Cheapham:
“See, puritanbob, I think it’s kind of obvious you didn’t actually read this post.”
Well, you are wrong, I did read the post. And I agree with JR that I also wouldn’t think much of what the creationist groups laud as Biblical fact is just inventions of their own readings into the text. I said that already.
“On top of that, they outright demean people who don’t agree with their views without any legitimate backup or without realizing that many of their views (like the thing on marriage, or dragons) aren’t even biblical.”
Well, that’s on their hands Ham, I am talking about JR’s demeaning of their views here. Two wrongs don’t make a right, at least that’s what my mom always said to me when I would say “But they started it…or they did it too…” that seems to be what you are saying here.
“While JR certainly could bring the level of sarcasm down a notch, I’d say pointing out the blatant inconsistancies in this museum’s rhetoric is a very important endeavor.”
And that is fine, and I would love to talk about the problems with their views. Also, as I said above sarcasm is fine, and I would even go so far as to say that there is a place for mocking (see Elijah on carmel) however, this throughout scripture is directed at those who are undermining the gospel message and leading to apostate faiths. Like the judiazers in Galatians, the Baal worshipers etc. The issue to me is that, this post smacks of “I am so glad I am enlightened and know what science REALLY says, unlike these backwoods creationists who take the Bible literally” this just doesn’t sound like a Christian using sarcasm against unbelief, but the other way around. Of course you disagree, but this is my take having read much of the Dawkins’, and Harris’, and Spongs of the world.
“Further, if you want a discussion so bad, why don’t you start one?”
Well, it takes two to tango. As you can see I put that previous comment up friday asking for a discussion and it is now monday and your are the only person to try to take me to the mat. But by all means lets talk about how to interpret Genesis 1-11 instead of talking about talking about it.
Here’s a starter, (and part of a discussion we had before) were Adam and Eve real people in time and space? And why do you think what your do?
“You’ve yet to actually engage any points JR has made on this topic, rather, you’ve merely chosen to call him names (modernist, atheist, Sam Herris, etc.) and demean the tone of his argumentation.”
Well, it’s more than a label. Modernist theologians elevated autonomous reason over revelation. That’s how you get folks who say they believe the Bible is God’s word yet have to revamp Genesis 1-11 to fit what reason allows. So it’s more than a name call. And yes this (post) is how the Sam Harris talk about Genesis, using words like “myth” laughing at how dumb Christians are and feeling rather smug in their palace of evolution and autonomous reason.
“How is that helpful for encouraging this discussion you (and others) are clamoring for?”
Well, it is helpful in that we are firstly inviting an actually discussion of how to read Genesis 1-11 rather than mock those who interpret it differently than the modernist theologians. Secondly, I thought by bringing in the modernist label this would also show JR isn’t quite as POMO as he likes to think (this ties into the previous discussion, which I also wouldn’t mind continuing). Thirdly, I did not use the terms I used in a pejorative fashion. If somebody called me a calvinist I wouldn’t care, even a “literalist” would be fine so long as it didn’t take the place of an actual rebuttal of my position. So when I use the word modernist I am just showing where these anti-supernatural views historically come from, as with sam harris I am doing a bit of guilt by association, perhaps my bad.
bob,
i hear you, and i’ll work up a post in the next few days to serve as a forum to discuss these ideas perhaps more succinctly and clearly than we were able to either here or on the violence post.
I’ll start by asking why you feel that “myth” is derogatory term. Certainly, when people who have no understanding of religion like Sam Harris use the term, it’s meant to be derogatory. Yet, the ancients understood the term “myth” in a radically different way than we do. Indeed, the abhorence of the word “myth” is a fairly common modern(ist) (mis)understanding.
The genre of myth in antiquity was understood as a tale of origins (either of the world or a city or people or whathaveyou) that had a great deal to teach us about the here and now. Indeed, even “historical” writings always contained heavy elements of moral/spiritual/ethical teaching that augmented the events catalogued. This was known, and was one of the sources of things like the allegorical readings of our mythic texts that were popular among men like Philo and Paul (Gal. 4.21-31). Whether the events of the story actually happened usually were of little to no consequence, the importance lied in what one could learn from the texts and how one could use them in the here and now. Obviously, many of the events of the mythic story often times actually happened (see: Homer’s Iliad), they didn’t just make things up on the fly. Yet, the line between what was “real” and what was “fiction” is usually not discernable due to the way the ancients wrote history.
So, you ask, “were Adam and Eve real people in time and space?” My answer: I don’t know, and it ultimately doesn’t matter if they were. What’s important (to me) about Gen. 1-11 is what it teaches us about God, humanity, creation, and the relationship between the three. In fact, I often see arguing over the historical accuracy of these texts very much missing the actual content and lessons of the stories. I find historicity of that sort to be a fairly irrelavent and usually not overly helpful to the here and now.
I will say this, I believe nature and the cosmos (creation) to be a testament to God’s glory and creative power (Ps. 19:1-4). God has provided us with a natural text, the study of which will undoubtedly reveal a great many things about the Almighty. Those who are the greatest experts at reading this natural text tell us that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. I see this as a testament to the unfathomable power of God, and the sheer depth of God’s patience. Do I accept everything that modern science tells us? No, I see much error in the past of evolutionary thought (systematic slavery, the European oppression of African/India) and thus remain mildly skeptical of it’s present. Yet, overall, I find no immediate reasons to outright distrust those who are most capable at interpretig God’s natural testament.
There’s no “revamping” necessary from this perspective (in my opinion at least). A true “revamping” is trying to make these texts into historical textbooks that tell us the exact timing of creation, etc. Trying to find historical accuracy in texts like Gen. 1-11 goes far beyond the parameters in which it would have been understood in antiquity.
Excellent comment Cheapham!
Cheapham stated:
“I’ll start by asking why you feel that “myth” is derogatory term. Certainly, when people who have no understanding of religion like Sam Harris use the term, it’s meant to be derogatory. Yet, the ancients understood the term “myth” in a radically different way than we do. Indeed, the abhorence of the word “myth” is a fairly common modern(ist) (mis)understanding.”
Well, my beef with “myth” isn’t so much the word but what it not only implies but explicitly says of one’s view of the Bible when applied to the Bible. Firstly, it implies that it is simply made up, if you can’t make that connection I wonder if your living in a cave and don’t interact with unbelievers. Secondly, when used in it’s more technical or academic sense it doesn’t escape it’s derogatory baggage on common hearers even though technically it could be used because a “myth” is basically a narrative that allows one to make sense of things.
Here are the definitions I found of “myth” and I think it is fairly obvious why people who really believe the Bible is God’s word don’t use this word to refer to portions of Scripture:
“1. ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior
2. myths collectively: myths considered as a group or as a genre
3. idealized conception: a set of often idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon, concept, or famous person
the myth of the new man
4. false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief
exploding some of the myths about dieting
5. fictitious person or thing: somebody who or something that is fictitious or nonexistent, but whose existence is widely believed in
The loving wife turned out to be a myth.”
I gotta go here but my point I think is fairly obvious, it seems that it is only the folks who want to dismiss portions of scripture as a-historical who apply this word to scripture. There is much baggage with the word and I don’t think those who use it in a technical sense are as ignorant as you are playing when you ask “What? What’s wrong with calling Genesis myth? What?!”
[...] Madill presents Creating a Universe of Certainty, or, If You Remove Reason, You Remove Doubt (Part 2 of 2) posted at Theology for the [...]