“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

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?!”

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.

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.

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.

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?

I probably wouldn’t agree with anything Moore believes but I enjoy his passion for getting past conventional wisdom.

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.

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