Evolution vs. Theology

[Assyrian]

I'm sorry? How exactly do "evening and morning" not describe a day?

They are parts of a day, not a whole day. Together, they do not equal a day. They can also used figuratively such as in Psalm 90, or used as part of a day in a figurative passage, such as the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard. evening morning and day are literal within the context of the story, but the story itself is figurative.

Isn't this a reference to Christ being resurrected on the third day?

It was certainly interpreted that way in the NT, but that wasn't a literal interpretation of Hosea, that is, it wasn't what Hosea was talking about. Hosea was using day figuratively, saying God was going to revive and raise up Israel, he wasn't giving a timetable. Was Israel raised up on the third day? I what way were they raised up on the second day?

...and didn't Ezekiel literally fast for those many days...?

If day with a number means it has to be a literal day, then how can Ezekiel's fast have a figurative meaning of the years of Israel's punishment? Wasn't that the whole point of the fast anyway?

Right...but the words themselves in the parable are to be taken literally. And, it's clearly a parable, while Genesis is not. You still haven't proven your point.

They are literal within the parable but the parable itself isn't literal, Jesus was talking about religious Jews being jealous of the tax collectors and prostitutes being welcomed into the kingdom of God. But morning, evening, day, numbers and hours only have meaning within the structure of the story, not the meaning of the parable.

You are of course assuming Genesis isn't a parable or figurative. But that is a different issue from the claim days with numbers mean it has to be literal. I have show you language doesn't work that way, that literal uses of numbers with time can be used in figurative passages.

 

[Assyrian]

He is begging the question, aka arguing in circles. Darwinian logic is riddled with this kind of fallacious reasoning. That's why it is so important to discern the difference between Darwinian naturalistic assumptions and evolution as it is defined scientifically since their whole worldview is predicated on equivocating the two.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Perhaps you can show where I am 'begging the question'. I am simply asking you to back up you claim day is defined by the equation "evening plus morning equals one day." You need to provide sources for the your claim or stop making it. Resorting to accusations of 'fallacious reasoning', 'arguing in circles', 'Darwinian Logic' (whatever that is), or 'equivocating' only shows you are unable to answer.

 

[Achilles6129]

They are parts of a day, not a whole day. Together, they do not equal a day.

I thought I addressed this earlier:

Day----> Evening----Morning--->Day 2-----Evening-----Morning--->Day 3, etc.

It was certainly interpreted that way in the NT, but that wasn't a literal interpretation of Hosea, that is, it wasn't what Hosea was talking about. Hosea was using day figuratively, saying God was going to revive and raise up Israel, he wasn't giving a timetable. Was Israel raised up on the third day? I what way were they raised up on the second day?

OK, well suppose there are instances in Scripture where numbered days can be used figuratively, it still wouldn't matter, because Genesis is not in that context.

You are of course assuming Genesis isn't a parable or figurative. But that is a different issue from the claim days with numbers mean it has to be literal. I have show you language doesn't work that way, that literal uses of numbers with time can be used in figurative passages.

Correct, it is not a parable, is not figurative, and is written as history, not as poetry.

 

[dcalling]

I read genesis again, and it is not till the 4th day God created sun and moon., so before that a day can be anything (i.e. when God first created light, it might be the huge explosion, and the evening is when it is still dark, the morning is the new galaxies forming, we will never know how long that is).

In the Bible, the prophets use days as years, and when the universe is first created, the times are all bended under the huge amount of energy (In the theory of relativity, time on an object went MUCH faster when an object is moving at the speed of light), so we can't really predict how long the day really is, especially if God can push something beyond the speed of light (in that case all the laws of physical as we know it won't apply).

So to me, all the discussions about what a day is in Genesis is useless, God can make it anything he wants, as if we are all a computer simulation.

 

[mark kennedy]

I thought I addressed this earlier:

Day----> Evening----Morning--->Day 2-----Evening-----Morning--->Day 3, etc.

You did discuss it earlier, he rationalized the obvious and just repeated the question. Notice there was no substantive reason for him dismissing your explanation.

I read genesis again, and it is not till the 4th day God created sun and moon., so before that a day can be anything (i.e. when God first created light, it might be the huge explosion, and the evening is when it is still dark, the morning is the new galaxies forming, we will never know how long that is).

Agreed, it sounds like you're describing the initial creation that would have included the sphere we inhabit, our sun and of course, the stars. At the completion of the original creation the earth was covered in darkness and water, at that point it's a dead planet. Within a week life had been created in all it's vast array, whether it started immediately after the initial creation or sometime billions of years later remains unknown.

In the Bible, the prophets use days as years, and when the universe is first created, the times are all bended under the huge amount of energy (In the theory of relativity, time on an object went MUCH faster when an object is moving at the speed of light), so we can't really predict how long the day really is, especially if God can push something beyond the speed of light (in that case all the laws of physical as we know it won't apply).

The explanation may even be simpler then that. With no light reaching the earth and the entire mass of the earth covered in water time is, in effect, static. We design and build our calendars based on the movements of the heavenly objects, sun, moon and stars. If they can't be seen from the earth then it's all pretty much the same.

So to me, all the discussions about what a day is in Genesis is useless, God can make it anything he wants, as if we are all a computer simulation.

The big difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the surrounding nations was that their primary source was the elementals; earth, air, fire and water. The gods themselves proceeded from these elementals, in ancient times they even had schools of thought regarding which elemental came first, Thales for instance concluded water. The Hebrew Scriptures are definitively saying, God created the elementals, the heavens, the earth and all that is in them.

Now, about the Fourth day, the sun, moon and earth were already created because God was working on the earth for three days previously. It makes sense that the sun and moon were there they just weren't visible enough to discern between the times and seasons. Day 4 creation has a special word describing the act of creation:

Then God made (06213) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (1443) the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)​

Basically it's saying God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara', (Strong's 1254 בָּרָא bä·rä'). Everything in the Genesis 1 account is written from the face of the earth, that's the perspective the narration describes creation from. What you have to appreciate is that the text has been well translated and seldom needs the kind of in depth analysis I'm trying to introduce you to here. Usually when you see 'created' it's describing an act of creation that brings something into existence, something only God can do. Then when you see 'made' it's often a change to an existing creation. Finally when you see 'set' it is an even more precise word that is often translated 'give'. In this context the clearing of the atmosphere would now 'give' a clear point of reckoning for determining the times and seasons.

It's a fascinating description but don't think for one minute that it lacks to precise language needed to determine that day means a 24 hour day. What is more there are different words used for 'creation', things that are 'made' and something that is 'set', we do well to learn to discern the differences.

Give it some thought and hopefully we will get a chance to discuss these things again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

I thought I addressed this earlier:

Day----> Evening----Morning--->Day 2-----Evening-----Morning--->Day 3, etc.

That is not defining day as evening plus morning equals day

OK, well suppose there are instances in Scripture where numbered days can be used figuratively, it still wouldn't matter, because Genesis is not in that context.

Correct, it is not a parable, is not figurative, and is written as history, not as poetry.

How do you know it is written as history? Genesis 1 is unlike any other passage in the bible, it is prose but has many of the characteristics of poetry. It is completely different from any historical narratives. Genesis 2&3 is a narrative, but so are parables. If you are going on style, there is no difference between parables and literal history. Look at the parable of the Pet Lamb that Nathan told David and David took literally 2Samuel 12:1-7.

 

[Sayre]

Whhhyyyyyyyyyy are we still debating this?

If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a story, which I claim it is, there is no reason why the story cannot speak about 24 hour time periods. The story does talk about 24 hour time periods. But here is the kicker... it is still just a story! A story that uses "days" as a way to structure it's content.

 

[Achilles6129]

That is not defining day as evening plus morning equals day

It sure is, because the day is sunrise to sunrise!

How do you know it is written as history?

Well, for starters, if it had been a parable God would have said so. He did not.

Genesis 2&3 is a narrative, but so are parables. If you are going on style, there is no difference between parables and literal history. Look at the parable of the Pet Lamb that Nathan told David and David took literally 2Samuel 12:1-7.

There is alot of difference between parables and literal history. Parables are always indicated as parables! Literal history is not.

Whhhyyyyyyyyyy are we still debating this?

If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a story, which I claim it is, there is no reason why the story cannot speak about 24 hour time periods. The story does talk about 24 hour time periods. But here is the kicker... it is still just a story! A story that uses "days" as a way to structure it's content.

Right. So what else in Scripture is a parable?

 

[mark kennedy]

Whhhyyyyyyyyyy are we still debating this?

If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a story, which I claim it is, there is no reason why the story cannot speak about 24 hour time periods. The story does talk about 24 hour time periods. But here is the kicker... it is still just a story! A story that uses "days" as a way to structure it's content.

Which means you think it's just a mythology and that's simply not the case. Genesis is written as an historical narrative, not some of it but all of it. The genealogies should be telling you something since the book is structured with the genealogies as the framework. We have been inundated the last hundred years with a Modernist mindset that is opposed to the concept of miracles due to bias from naturalistic assumptions. It's written as history and it was meant to be read in that way.

We are still talking about this because the arguments that the word 'day' in the passage means a 24 hour day in no uncertain terms. The arguments that it's not is contrary to the clear testimony of Scripture. Genesis, especially the Genesis 1 account of Creation is transcendent, in that, what you believe and teach about Creation effects everything else you believe about Scripture. There is a hermeneutic principle there and profoundly deleterious naturalistic assumption in Modernist thinking.

That's why.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sayre]

Which means you think it's just a mythology and that's simply not the case. Genesis is written as an historical narrative, not some of it but all of it. The genealogies should be telling you something since the book is structured with the genealogies as the framework. We have been inundated the last hundred years with a Modernist mindset that is opposed to the concept of miracles due to bias from naturalistic assumptions. It's written as history and it was meant to be read in that way.

We are still talking about this because the arguments that the word 'day' in the passage means a 24 hour day in no uncertain terms. The arguments that it's not is contrary to the clear testimony of Scripture. Genesis, especially the Genesis 1 account of Creation is transcendent, in that, what you believe and teach about Creation effects everything else you believe about Scripture. There is a hermeneutic principle there and profoundly deleterious naturalistic assumption in Modernist thinking.

That's why.

Grace and peace,
Mark

You constantly assert this without evidence. It is mythology. Contrast against known mythologies demonstrates this pretty clearly.

 

[mark kennedy]

It sure is, because the day is sunrise to sunrise!

Told you he would just argue in circles around that.

Well, for starters, if it had been a parable God would have said so. He did not.

Usually indicated by a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context. There is actually no figurative language in the Genesis 1 account and the only poetic literary feature is a parallelism repeated 3 times in the account of the creation of man. The creation of man has this feature indicating that it's the heart of the emphasis, it's a common Hebrew literary feature used to drive the central point home.

There is alot of difference between parables and literal history. Parables are always indicated as parables! Literal history is not.

He knows that.

Right. So what else in Scripture is a parable?

Whatever he wants to be a parable. He did the same thing with Adam in Romans 5, kept insisting because Paul says Adam is a 'type' or 'figure' of Christ that Adam was just a figure of speech. No where is Adam spoken of figuratively in the New Testament but he just argued it in circles, just like he is doing here. He did the same thing with 'bara', the Hebrew word for God creating something new, a word used only of God in the Scriptures.

It used to get really bad in here but the whole creation/evolution controversy is fading away. What you are seeing here is the influence of Modernism on hermeneutics. It comes down to the naturalistic assumptions of the Modernist, what the Scriptures actually say isn't even a consideration or he would have conceded the point by now.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Which means you think it's just a mythology and that's simply not the case. Genesis is written as an historical narrative, not some of it but all of it.

Two questions:

1. Why do you couple the word "just" with "mythology". In context this suggests you intend to demean the term "mythology". What is the purpose of demeaning this term?

2. What is meant by "written as an historical narrative"? What characteristics distinguish a historical narrative from other narratives such that one can determine whether or not a narrative is historical in the absence of independent evidence that it is about historical events? In particular, what characteristics distinguish a historical narrative from a mythological narrative?

 

[mark kennedy]

Two questions:

1. Why do you couple the word "just" with "mythology". In context this suggests you intend to demean the term "mythology". What is the purpose of demeaning this term?

Define mythology.

2. What is meant by "written as an historical narrative"? What characteristics distinguish a historical narrative from other narratives such that one can determine whether or not a narrative is historical in the absence of independent evidence that it is about historical events? In particular, what characteristics distinguish a historical narrative from a mythological narrative?

Key word there is history, it's not the telling of a fictional story but the events recorded as a witness. Genesis relates human and redemptive history from God's perspective through the experiences of a people bound to him by a covenant relationship.

That said, I know you are literary minded so I'll suggest a definition I find agreeable, just to make this easier:

Myth

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.​

Notice some of the elements in #1, 'without a determinable basis of fact'. This is not the case with the Hebrew Scriptures, in fact, they are the best living history from antiquity. Of course there is no 'natural explanation', in the sense that nature doesn't have a phenomenon that can account for something like God creating in the sense of 'bara'. It's a miracle in the strongest possible sense of the word.

Notice the other terms used: 'invented', 'imaginary', 'fictitious', 'unproved', 'false'.

Do you really need to ask me what I mean by the term, 'myth'?

You constantly assert this without evidence. It is mythology. Contrast against known mythologies demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Contrast against known mythologies? That is all too easy:

When the skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu, the first one, their begetter,
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds;
When yet no gods were manifest,
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then gods were born within them.​

Apsu and Tiamat are pagan elementals, they are water elementals.

The Babylonian Creation Story (Enuma elish)

In the Ancient Near East or more correctly, the Mediterranean basin, the gods proceeded from the elements (elementals: earth, air, fire and water). In Genesis God, (Strong's H430 - 'elohiym) creates the heavens and the earth. The Genesis account is a living history, the Hebrew language continually spoken and preserved throughout Jewish history. Judaism is still a living religion practiced to this day, continually kept in the custody of the Hebrew people who are with us to this day. For 2,000 years they maintained their language, culture, bloodline and even their national identity and even returned to their homeland to reclaim it. There is nothing like this from antiquity, invariably the mythologies are from dead languages, dead cultures and dead religions belonging to a people who long ago faded away. What do you base your philosophy of history on? Old bones and dirt or the living history of God's Word?

It demonstrates one thing 'pretty clearly', decisively in fact, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob choose a living witness for his revelation while the myths of the ANE and elsewhere are long dead in antiquity.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

It sure is, because the day is sunrise to sunrise!

How is that the same as making up an equation to define day as "evening plus morning equals day"?

Well, for starters, if it had been a parable God would have said so. He did not.There is alot of difference between parables and literal history. Parables are always indicated as parables! Literal history is not.

Sorry parables in the bible aren't always labelled parable. Nathan didn't let David know he was going to tell a parable. It wouldn't have worked if he had. The parable of the talking trees in Judges isn't called a parable, neither is the story of Jerusalem and her sisters in Ezekiel. Jesus told a lot of his parables with out saying they were parables. Sometimes the writer of the Gospel tells us they were, other times not, like the Good Samaritan, or the Good Shepherd.

 

[KWCrazy]

How is that the same as making up an equation to define day as "evening plus morning equals day"?

It's the same thing; a single rotation of the earth; sunrise to sunrise; sunset to sunset; noon to noon; evening plus morning concluded the day after the creation events.

Sorry parables in the bible aren't always labelled parable.

True, that's why we study the Bible to learn the context.

Nathan didn't let David know he was going to tell a parable. It wouldn't have worked if he had.

True, he was setting David up by showing him the darkness of is own sin from the perspective of another.
Of course if Uriah the Hittite had taken the opportunity to go home and spend the night with his wife, the story may have had an entirely different ending.

Sometimes the writer of the Gospel tells us they were, other times not, like the Good Samaritan, or the Good Shepherd.

There is nothing to prove that the story of the Good Samaritan didn't actually happen; though whether it did or did not is irrelevant, and what shepherd WOULDN'T leave his flock to find the lost sheep? That probably happened at least once a month.

 

[Sayre]

Define mythology.



Key word there is history, it's not the telling of a fictional story but the events recorded as a witness. Genesis relates human and redemptive history from God's perspective through the experiences of a people bound to him by a covenant relationship.

That said, I know you are literary minded so I'll suggest a definition I find agreeable, just to make this easier:

Myth

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.​

Notice some of the elements in #1, 'without a determinable basis of fact'. This is not the case with the Hebrew Scriptures, in fact, they are the best living history from antiquity. Of course there is no 'natural explanation', in the sense that nature doesn't have a phenomenon that can account for something like God creating in the sense of 'bara'. It's a miracle in the strongest possible sense of the word.

Notice the other terms used: 'invented', 'imaginary', 'fictitious', 'unproved', 'false'.

Do you really need to ask me what I mean by the term, 'myth'?



Contrast against known mythologies? That is all too easy:

When the skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu, the first one, their begetter,
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds;
When yet no gods were manifest,
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then gods were born within them.​

Apsu and Tiamat are pagan elementals, they are water elementals.

The Babylonian Creation Story (Enuma elish)

In the Ancient Near East or more correctly, the Mediterranean basin, the gods proceeded from the elements (elementals: earth, air, fire and water). In Genesis God, (Strong's H430 - 'elohiym) creates the heavens and the earth. The Genesis account is a living history, the Hebrew language continually spoken and preserved throughout Jewish history. Judaism is still a living religion practiced to this day, continually kept in the custody of the Hebrew people who are with us to this day. For 2,000 years they maintained their language, culture, bloodline and even their national identity and even returned to their homeland to reclaim it. There is nothing like this from antiquity, invariably the mythologies are from dead languages, dead cultures and dead religions belonging to a people who long ago faded away. What do you base your philosophy of history on? Old bones and dirt or the living history of God's Word?

It demonstrates one thing 'pretty clearly', decisively in fact, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob choose a living witness for his revelation while the myths of the ANE and elsewhere are long dead in antiquity.

Grace and peace,
Mark

My point totally went over your head. We know Genesis is mythology because of the way it mirrors the content, themes and styles of other mythologies.

Mythologies are teachers of fact - facts about God and how He relates to mankind. It isn't a historical fact that is being taught, it is a theological fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (1 Peter 1:16)​

My point totally went over your head. We know Genesis is mythology because of the way it mirrors the content, themes and styles of other mythologies.

No it's didn't go over my head, you totally argued it in circles. If you believe the Bible is a book of myths, what are you doing here? By mythology do you mean 'invented', 'imaginary', 'fictitious', 'unproved', or 'false'? Do you believe and intend to argue the Scriptures are 'without a determinable basis of fact', because that would explain a lot.

Mythologies are teachers of fact - facts about God and how He relates to mankind. It isn't a historical fact that is being taught, it is a theological fact.

No it isn't, a myth is 'an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.' Its an 'unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.' Darwinian mythographers are teachers of cunningly devised fables, myths are the opposite of fact. This is a myth, notice the emphasis on the breasts, Darwinism is a fertility cult:

BY firm immutable immortal laws
Impress'd on Nature by the GREAT FIRST CAUSE,
Say, MUSE! how rose from elemental strife
Organic forms, and kindled into life;

HERE young Diana arms her quiver'd Loves,
Schools her bright Nymphs, and practises her doves;

"PRIESTESS OF NATURE! while with pious awe
Thy votary bends, the mystic veil withdraw;
Charm after charm, succession bright, display,
And give the GODDESS to adoring day!
So kneeling realms shall own the Power divine,
And heaven and earth pour incense on her shrine.

"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.​

The Temple of Nature
Erasmus Darwin

 

[Sayre]

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (1 Peter 1:16)​

No it's didn't go over my head, you totally argued it in circles. If you believe the Bible is a book of myths, what are you doing here? By mythology do you mean 'invented', 'imaginary', 'fictitious', 'unproved', or 'false'? Do you believe and intend to argue the Scriptures are 'without a determinable basis of fact', because that would explain a lot.



No it isn't, a myth is 'an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.' Its an 'unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.' Darwinian mythographers are teachers of cunningly devised fables, myths are the opposite of fact. This is a myth, notice the emphasis on the breasts, Darwinism is a fertility cult:

BY firm immutable immortal laws
Impress'd on Nature by the GREAT FIRST CAUSE,
Say, MUSE! how rose from elemental strife
Organic forms, and kindled into life;

HERE young Diana arms her quiver'd Loves,
Schools her bright Nymphs, and practises her doves;

"PRIESTESS OF NATURE! while with pious awe
Thy votary bends, the mystic veil withdraw;
Charm after charm, succession bright, display,
And give the GODDESS to adoring day!
So kneeling realms shall own the Power divine,
And heaven and earth pour incense on her shrine.

"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.​

The Temple of Nature
Erasmus Darwin

That isn't how we are using the term myth. I explained what myth means to me above. It teaches fact about theology without being framed in a literal history but instead in story.

What do you mean "that explains a lot"?

 

[mark kennedy]

That isn't how we are using the term myth. I explained what myth means to me above. It teaches fact about theology without being framed in a literal history but instead in story.

I explained what 'myth' means, in no uncertain terms. I don't see why your going to quote my post and then not respond to it. You have said that Genesis is a myth as opposed to literal history, that is not a Christian hermeneutic, redemptive history is not a myth.

What do you mean "that explains a lot"?

I mean this:

Genesis is mythology

To which I responded with this:

Do you believe and intend to argue the Scriptures are 'without a determinable basis of fact', because that would explain a lot.

It's called taking a statement in context. How do you teach theology apart from a literal history. Let's cut to the chase shall we. What about the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are they history or mythology? What about Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch, are they mythology or literal history. I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, Esther, Ruth do you dismiss them as mythology as well?

I'll tell you why this is important, if you are getting your theology from a myth then one would wonder if you think God is a myth.

You did not explain what you meant by that term and the definition I'm working from, quoted, cited and linked above, defines a myth as 'invented', 'imaginary', 'fictitious', 'unproved', or 'false'.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (1 Peter 1:16)​

If you're working from a different definition or somehow you can take Genesis as mythology and the Gospels as history, let's see your criteria. What kind of a hermeneutic principle do you have as a standard to discerning the difference? If you don't then what are you doing here?

 

[Sayre]

No, God is not a myth and nor are the gospels. I think you are acting quite poorly towards me by suggesting such a leap from mythic Genesis to mythical God.

The Exodus almost certainly didn't happen according to a literal reading, but I think it was loosely based on a historic event on a much smaller scale.

Since I'm the one claiming Genesis is myth, why don't you gather from me what I intend to convey by the term myth rather than putting words in my mouth?

Myth in this case is using a non - historical story to teach truths about God.

You asked "how do you teach theology apart from history"? Easy! Jesus did! He taught using stories all the time.

Just like Nathan used a story to teach David.

It's hard to reply on my phone so I'll return later.