Creating Creationism

Hi Jeremy,

While I would agree that the point of Genesis 1 is a polemic against the other religions and worldviews around during his time, do you not think that for his polemic to be effective it would have to be literally true to some extent? Personally, I would fail to be convinced by any polemic if I thought the argument was essentially just pitting one creation myth against another. On that ground I would say that there is some literal truth in the creation story of Genesis. On the other hand, I strongly agree that how we understand Genesis 1 is nothing to get psyched up about.

Btw, if I’m guessing correctly about your former employer and the relationship to this issue, I’m really sorry to hear about that. It makes me really sad to think how divisive we can become over issues that we really ought to be able to agree to disagree on.

Blessings,
Andrew

“I would fail to be convinced by any polemic if I thought the argument was essentially just pitting one creation myth against another.”

You might if you were an ancient Hebrew. If someone came on the scene and said, “The Egyptians are wrong, this is the truth, this god is greater and to prove it we’re getting the hell out of here,” you’d probably buy it a little. It’s also easier to believe something when you don’t know anything.

We now know how to compute the age of the earth, the sun and the universe. We can create a fairly clear picture of primeval events. To believe that God simply snapped his fingers and it was so doesn’t jive with what we can observe. If it only took him six days, why not one? Why restrict Himself to 24-hour days? Those didn’t even exist until AFTER he made the sun. If he can create all the stars in heaven in one day, why did it take him more than one to create just the earth? And another for fish? And yet another for terrestrials? Why did he make plants and trees before he made the sun?

I’m sure you’ve heard these questions and I’m sure you have snappy answers to them all. But it’s just a story. It’s a good story. It answers a lot of the questions an ancient people would have. We are not ancient and we can come up with our own answers about physical things. Have the metaphysical, it’s yours. Define it with whichever stories you like. Just don’t tell me that what I can see and measure is wrong.

I agree with Jeremy. The importance is the message, not the accuracy. By focusing on the accuracy, all you do is distract from the message.

I especially like the idea of God telling Moses to write a creation account, but I imagine it in a different way.

MOSES: What should I tell them about all of this?
GOD: Well, you see, I created matter. Then I compressed all the matter into an infinite space. Then I exploded it.
MOSES: What?
GOD: Nevermind, just tell them that I had a bunch of fiery rocks and picked this one to cool down enough to put some living things on it, then guided those living things through the ages to living man.
MOSES:Fine, but where did WE come from?
GOD: Honestly, monkeys.
MOSES: Are you fucking kidding me?
GOD:What? I like monkeys.
MOSES: That’s never gonna fly. Maybe we should just forget the whole thing.
GOD: Look, if you don’t like it my way, then just make your own story. Whatever, I don’t care. Just get them on board so we can get the hell out of Egypt. I hate it here.
MOSES: You got it. (turns to go down the mountain)
GOD: Hey, Moses.
MOSES: Yes, my Lord?
GOD: Don’t fuck this up.

In my head with this one, God is appearing to Moses in the form of the guy who played Xerxes in 300 and Moses is more of a Bruce Willis unwilling hero type. Die Hard in a robe and beard. Yeah.

And don’t tell me God wouldn’t say fuck. He would because 1) He’s God 2) It’s fun to say. Maybe Moses wouldn’t say it in front of God, but he’s upset, losing his cool a little and maybe it just slipped out, so God gives him a pass.

I would totally watch that movie.

Yea, I can see where you’re coming from. Expect that Jesus had an incredibly high view of the OT: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Similarly, his followers had a very high view of the OT. So if they were believing and proclaiming something that wasn’t true, it would make me have big doubts about who Jesus actually was. So in that sense, I think the truth of the OT affects the truth of the NT.

But I better go to bed now!

Blessings,
Andrew

Hi guys,

Wow, you all were busy today! And bullet, I see you are trying to make my blog rated NC-17 like yours! I’m amazed my spam filter let that through.

Regarding my view of Gensis 1, I am uncomfortable calling it myth as well, but to some degree, I wonder if that is even a category that Moses and the Israelites thought in. I know that Johnston uses the term “Egyptian Creation MYTH” but I wonder if that is a title we have placed on the stories, and not a term the origional author and audience would have used.

But either way, I guess it doesn’t really matter.

By the way, I think Johnston does point out that one of the differences in the Egyptian Myths and Genesis 1, is that the Egyptians had creation occur on one day, and Genesis 1 has it occur in six.

Anyway, I am not too interested in debating the historical reality of Genesis 1. Whether it is “meaningful myth” or “historical reality” we are all here now, and need to work together to love, serve, and live with one another as the Bible clearly instructs.

Thank you both for being gracious and cordial to one another. That’s what I like to see!

Suppose Jesus knew that the OT was more parable than history. He also knew that the Jews in that time put more emphasis on the letter of the law than the spirit. Would he say anything to the effect of, “Guys, that’s all a story. I’m the real deal, here,”? Or would he simply be vague and placate them with something like, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” ?

And even if he did tell them the truth and they understood it in the context he gave them, would they really write it down in a book that is not only a message of life but a conversion tool?

Everyone labors under the assumption that the Gospels recorded every last thing that Jesus said and did, but I don’t recall any passages like, “Wow, I really shouldn’t have eaten that last piece of lamb.” So if some was discounted as not central to the message, it’s not an unreasonable assumption that some other things could have been discounted or left out or simply forgotten.

I realize I’m combining a LOT of arguments, here. But it goes back to my central point. We can’t possibly KNOW what went on, but 1) we have tools to help us understand things the Hebrews couldn’t and 2)we understand human nature and so we can’t assume just because someone wrote it down that it’s true or if they didn’t it’s not.

Jeremy:
Christian and Heathen, we really CAN all get along!

Sorry about the dirty words. Must have picked that up on the street.

Jeremy,

I’m not exactly sure I understand your problem here. I haven’t done a lot of study on the Egyptian creation myths, but I have no problem with the idea that Moses wrote to specifically combat the myths out there. That seems to undergird the truth of Genesis even more, that this is the “real one” as opposed to the myths out there.

I don’t know too many people (but maybe I just don’t know them!) who think that Genesis was written specifically to combat evolution. I certainly don’t think that, as obviously evolution wasn’t being discussed back then. However, creation is categorically opposed to evolution, thus if Genesis is true then evolution must be false.

Here’s a biblical problem with accepting evolution (although there are multitudes of problems!): the NT clearly teaches that death came from Adam’s sin. This matches up fine with Adam and Eve sinning and creation “falling” after that, God not allowing meat-eating until after the Fall, etc. But this doesn’t match up at all with evolution, which has millions of years of death before humans even show up. So I believe this is one reason why some Christians are opposed to evolution – it undermines many other theological concepts in Scripture.

Also, many people lump evolution and atheism together, and conclude that evolution erodes objective morality. I don’t lump them together necessarily, because, while an atheist MUST believe in evolution, someone who believes in evolution isn’t necessarily an atheist. Many Christian groups say that if people believe we’re all just animals, then what’s to stop them from killing other people (as some do)? I do agree that that logic is sound, however, I doubt that most killers process that way. I don’t believe in evolution, I think it is wrong and just plain bad science, therefore I don’t want it being taught as fact in schools. But I don’t think that it’s “evil” per se, or that it is the root cause of all bad things in our society.

Rachel:

It’s true that I have a lot of what ifs, etc. but most of that is in response to Andrew’s doubts about Genesis and his (IMO, invalid) misgivings about having those doubts. As far as what we can “know”or not, I was speaking about the events of pre-history. The mention of the events of Genesis by Peter is not enough to validate their truth and the reasonable doubt of its literal truth should not be grounds for tossing the whole bible out as nothing but a story. Once we move past Genesis, there are at least reasonable arguments to be made that the other events could have happened.

You’re right that one could theorize that the earth was populated by aliens. Indeed, some do, using the same supposed holes in our knowledge of evolution that proponents of ID use. But we have no more evidence of aliens than we do of a flood that covered the world or a tower reaching to heaven. I don’t “know” for certain that anything outside of my own thoughts is anything more than a delusion, although I certainly hope I could come up with a better delusion than the world we have! At the very least, I should be “someone important, like an actor.” In my particular delusion, though, there has been a lot of evidence that human beings, when presented with questions whose answers they cannot even begin to comprehend, let alone discover, tend to make something up.

If you believe absolutely that the events of creation happened exactly as they are presented in Genesis, then you and I have nothing more to discuss, as that opinion and mine are on different ideological planes. The central point of Jeremy’s post, however, was that it shouldn’t matter to us now if Genesis is literal fact or not. I agree. It doesn’t matter unless one wishes to present it as an alternative to the scientific explanation, for which we have more than enough evidence to convince reasonable people.

(I’ve used the term “reasonable” throughout this comment as opposed to “learned” or scientific, not as opposed to “stupid”. Felt that was an important point to make.)

Jeremy, I don’t know about all the scripture we tend to read intent into. Personally, I lean toward all intent of scripture being Christ-centric in some way or manner – and that seems rather divine to me. I do know that Jesus and the apostles refer to many OT scripture as prophetic of His coming and even explain when those prophecies are fulfilled. I can’t think of any at this moment, but I remember many times reading those references and thinking, “I never would have figured that as prophetic!”

I have a short-term memory issue – so it could have been just one reference that I thought that about.

It seems that we can be quick to say it’s not divine intent in the areas we don’t get or clearly see the intent of. So if it doesn’t make sense to me or fit into my theories, it must be human error screwing with God’s original intent – or we put the wrong books together or something?

I often think that Biblical “misinterpretation” is like progressive divine intent – giving what is needed at just the right time.

Check out this quote from Peter Enns new book Inspiration and Incarnation

“Therefore, the question is not the degree to which Genesis conforms to what we would think is a proper description of origins. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal…. It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance….To argue, as I am doing here, that such biblical stories as creation and the flood must be understood first and foremost in the ancient contexts, is nothing new. The point I would like to emphasize, however, is that such a firm grounding in ancient myth does not make Genesis less inspired; it is not a concession that we must put up with or an embarrassment to a sound doctrine of scripture. Quite to the contrary, such rootedness in the culture of the time is precisely what it means for God to speak to his people…. This is surely what it means for God to reveal himself to people – he accommodates, condescends, meets them where they are.”

Andrew,

I understand your concern and I agree with you. But my struggle is this:

How can we know we can read Genesis 1 the way we want it to be read if that is not the way the original author or audience would have read it?

And if we say, “They read it back then the way we read it now” again, I have to ask, “How do we know?”

Also, let’s assume for a minute that the flood is a myth. (I believe it actually happened, but let’s assume it’s a myth). If it is a myth, the point would still be the same, that God judges the wicked. If it turns out (may it never be!) that the flood is a historical myth, the fact that it would be an inspired myth does not change the bottom line point at all: God judges the wicked.

Do we say the truths of the parables are not true because the events in those stories didn’t actually happen? Are the truths of the Parable of the Prodigal Son not true unless the events of that parable actually occurred?

Andrew,

Excellent comment, and I agree with it 100%!