The Deception of Genesis

[Uphill Battle]

There would be no problem if God just went "abracadabara" and the world was there, shiny and new, 6000 years ago. But the problem is that the earth appears to be from all the available evidence, aprox. 4.5 billion years old. Not only that, but there is evidence of traumatic events in the prehistory of the earth dating back to then: such as the crater left behind 69 million years ago that led to the death of the dinosaurs. It's rather like God creating Adam not only to look thirty but to have an appendix scar and memories of being five years and scraping his knee in the shoolyard. It looks, and feels, like a deception.

Now why would God create a world that looks like and bears all the scars of being 4.5 billion years old, when it's only 6000 years old? Isn't that not the tiniest bit sneaky? Because I don't believe in a sneaky God, I don't believe in creationism.

that is if you believe he created it to look 4.5 billion years old. I don't.

that 69 million year old death of the dinosaurs by impact isn't accepted across the board, even by those who believe in old earth.

 

[artybloke]

that 69 million year old death of the dinosaurs by impact isn't accepted across the board, even by those who believe in old earth.

But the impact crater and the iridium layer still exist; it may have been a major factor in the death of the dinosaurs (who actually didn't die out; they became birds) or it may not (there were other things that may have happened around the same time, like major funnel volcano activity in what is now Russia.)

And, like it or not, the evidence still says 4.5 million years old.

 

[KerrMetric]

And, like it or not, the evidence still says 4.5 million years old.

Typo alert. You meant billion.

 

[artybloke]

Typo alert. You meant billion.

woops: doesn't the time fly when you're having fun!

 

[Outrider]

He doesn't? Wait, I thought the whole "God speaking" thing and then creation came right out of the Memphite Cosmogony. Hmm. There are as well the pre-formative chaos waters in Egyptian mythology (nun) which is in Genesis 1:2.

You wouldn’t consider the possibility of common source material coming from a time when everyone in the world shared a common tradition of creation which was true and is best reflected in Scripture under the inspiration of God, the eye-witness and Causation of the event?

I'm not trying to tell you that Moses simply reproduced other people's myths. I'm trying to tell you that he used them to show who was boss.

I find it a strange economy that God would relate creation to the Israelites fresh out of Egypt using Egyptian cosmology “reworked” from Egyptian mythology as a foundation for establishing his divine authority in the ensuing laws just to turn about and tell the Israelites never to return to Egypt or to consider its ways, to continually punish them for their nostalgia attacks for Egypt, its food, and its culture. You may see this as clarity, but to me it looks like mixed signals and confusion. Especially when Genesis continues to establish the covenant as an historical fact from its prototype following universal judgment to its specific application in the spiritual and physical line of Abraham.

First, the quote from Paul had nothing to do with the topic.

Except that he used the word “myth”which means “clever devised tales. I think Paul knew what a myth was and he certainly knew how to use the word “muthous” the way it was used by the Greek scholars of his day who were ensconced in mythology.

Second, Paul is worlds away from the authors of Genesis. Paul was a Hellenistic diaspora Jew! The writers of the Hebrew bible were Israelites living in the land-between.

Paul was a greater authority on Old Testament theology than anyone living today and cannot be so easily shucked off without one violating their scholastic credibility. His view of creation was clearly creatio ex nihilo, and he held that creation was not creatio continuo, but that it was a completed act. He was not sullied by naturalism although it did exist in certain forms in his own day. As for what kind of Jew he was, he was clearly not hellenistic. His claim was to being an ex-pharisee which school had an inveterate hatred for hellenists. That notwithstanding, Paul rejected his Judaism in whatever form it may have been. His explanation of New Covenant theology is based on the Old Testament and his vast understanding of it. As for the Hebrew bible (Taanach), it was a universal interpretation of creation among the Jews that it was ex nihilo (2 Maccabees 7:28) and six literal days, the basis of the law. I think you underestimate Paul. The Christian view of creation is a Pauline as it is Mosaic. Its fortunate that Genesis is not the full revelation of creation inspired by God.

History is done in story form. Moreover, most ancient histories are not up to our standards of historiography. If you want to debate that accepted conclusion, it's up to you.

That might be debatable given the flood of revisionism that is inundating the West, but I won’t go there in this discussion. But modern historiography is not as cleanly disconnected from the Bible as you think. It was a propositional approach to theology coming out of the Reformation that helped to spur the movement toward a skeptical approach of history. The pattern was a literalistic approach to the biblical history. The stresses in this approach are at the heart of the development of Egyptology.

Nor did I say the religious aspect "nullified" others.

You didn’t have to, it can be clearly inferred from your proposal that because Genesis is a rework of mythology it is not to be taken literally. How do you connect the premise to the conclusion without nullifying all other meanings than a figurative approach? You yourself said in your post 17, “I reject a "literal" interpretation of creation for structio-literary and historico-exegetical reasons.” Even if the creation account of Genesis were a song sung to the tune of My Country ‘Tis of Thee it wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that the account is strictly literal. I’ve seen no evidence that leads to that conclusion whatsoever, just assumptions on the nature of myth, poetry, and ancient literary device.

It's not an assumption, and I think you are mis-characterizing what I believe. But regardless, see post 17 above. This is the evidence I want you to interact with. If you refuse, we've got nothing with which to work.

I do not accept that your post 17 is the be-all, end-all of this discussion. Do you really believe that it is the final word or is this some kind of lame, debate strategy?

Besides, in terms of logic, if you're right, it should be easy for you to prove that the Bible is not restricted.

You’re right about that.

But I'd much rather have you interact with the evidence from #17 above.

I admit that your so-called “structural-literary” approach is an evidence, but what it evidences is interpretive as is the case with all evidence. From the point of your presentation you can only guess that it eradicates a propositional approach. In fact, if you adjust your thinking for a half a sec, you might even conclude that the poetic nature of the passage is evidence that people were actually trying to use mnemonic devices in order to preserve the very wording of a tradition... why? Maybe because they believed it was true and revealed by God and needed to be passed on in pure form from generation to generation. As for the hymnic nature, yeah. I think you’ll probably agree that Adam sang the words when Eve was created, “This is now bone of my bones...” Could it be that the Creator is an artist and that the most appropriate way for him to reveal creation is in song? Does this mean the account is not a song. The words God spoke to bring creation into existence may well have been sung and creation itself may well have sprung into existence poetically. Interesting that some of the most powerful language regarding creation throughout Scripture is in poetic form. I wouldn’t die for this approach, but then neither should you for yours... that is, why draw a conclusion where there is so much space for interpretation? Especially when the body of literature you are comparing Genesis to is fragmented and incomplete and itself based upon even older traditions... probably oral. The point is, the similarity in literature can as easily conform to a rule that the closer all literature gets to its common source, the more similar all forms will be. I’m not sure we can interpret much beyond that. We certainly can’t draw any conclusions about literalness especially if we aren’t sure how literally ancient extra-biblical literature that did not take a modern skeptical approach was meant to be taken. I suspect the Assyrians, Sumerians, and Egyptians wished that people would take there myths quite literally, don’t you? There was definite political power involved in the religious systems of each.

As for your “historico-exegetical” approach, that depends on whether or not their approach evolved from a phenomenal stage of mythopoeism as most determinists now assume or whether it is a corruption of a purer knowledge, suggested by the early development of mathematics and engineering. It cannot be held as fact at any point in ancient history, that civilizations based on a mythological religious system were devoid of any propositional approach to reality as we know it today. Their engineering certainly suggests (demands, I would say) that the ancients were capable of a cold approach to logic when they needed to be.

At any rate, if Moses found it necessary to couch creation in mythical terminology in order to say that his God was responsible for taming chaos, not Baal, his myth is a complex edifice for a very narrow range of meaning. He may well be saying something true, but he’s leaving out something that the other myths go to a great deal of trouble to demonstrate, the way creation came about. Pagan myth is very much interested in both identifying the players and the stage as well. Your Genesis myth fails miserably to conform to myth. I may proved the credits, but it totally leaves out the play... and without the play, there are no players. Unless of course you want to say that the myth of Genesis is not epistemological beyond a purely idealistic form in which case you assume something far beyond the mythopoeic mind than the materialistic determinists do, that mythopoeic man was philosophical in thought. Its much easier to be an atheist and believe that Genesis is inferior mythology than to try to rework Genesis as mythology. No wonder the Jews assumed that Genesis was to be taken literally, what other choice did they have. If, as Lewis says, Genesis is myth, its not very good myth.

 

[random_guy]

convienient then that Evolution refuses to address abiogenesis then, seeing as without it, it can't be true.

I find this reasoning funny. Is the Theory of Gravity flawed because it refuses to address the origins of mass, seeing as without it, it can't be true?

Is germ theory flawed because it refuses to address the origins of life, seeing as without it, it can't be true?

It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how many times Creationists are told abiogenesis is separate from Evolution, they continue to mix the two together because they think it somehow strengthens their argument.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I find this reasoning funny. Is the Theory of Gravity flawed because it refuses to address the origins of mass, seeing as without it, it can't be true?

Is germ theory flawed because it refuses to address the origins of life, seeing as without it, it can't be true?

It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how many times Creationists are told abiogenesis is separate from Evolution, they continue to mix the two together because they think it somehow strengthens their argument.

no, doesn't strengthen the argument at all. But it IS true, that without Abiogenesis of some sort, Evolution could not begin.

 

[KerrMetric]

no, doesn't strengthen the argument at all. But it IS true, that without Abiogenesis of some sort, Evolution could not begin.

Rubbish. Complete rubbish. TE's say the initial start and subsequent direction were from God. You should retract that ridiculous comment of yours.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Rubbish. Complete rubbish. TE's say the initial start and subsequent direction were from God. You should retract that ridiculous comment of yours.

why? Abiogenesis is true in one form or another. Creation Ex Nihilio is abiogenesis, it is just attributed to God. Abiogenesis must happen in any case.

The difference is, wheras those who believe in special creation, Through TE or YEC, they attribute it to God. Those who subscribe to neither attribute it to... what exactly?

 

[KerrMetric]

why? Abiogenesis is true in one form or another. Creation Ex Nihilio is abiogenesis, it is just attributed to God. Abiogenesis must happen in any case.

The difference is, wheras those who believe in special creation, Through TE or YEC, they attribute it to God. Those who subscribe to neither attribute it to... what exactly?

Well by your definition abiogenesis is a fact. But that is not the definition normally used.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well by your definition abiogenesis is a fact. But that is not the definition normally used.

yep. I know.

 

[KerrMetric]

yep. I know.

And Creationists wonder why they don't get taken seriously in a debate. You cannot be carrying on with non-standard definitions.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And Creationists wonder why they don't get taken seriously in a debate. You cannot be carrying on with non-standard definitions.

We could spout "standard" definitions until our eyes popped out. That isn't going to make you take YEC seriously. Be honest.

 

[KerrMetric]

We could spout "standard" definitions until our eyes popped out. That isn't going to make you take YEC seriously. Be honest.

True, YECism cannot be taken seriously no matter what since it is wrong. But at least sticking to accepted definitions would at least alleviate certain educational assumptions YEC's suffer from.

 

[Uphill Battle]

True, YECism cannot be taken seriously no matter what since it is wrong. But at least sticking to accepted definitions would at least alleviate certain educational assumptions YEC's suffer from.

ah, so you would assume to be more educated as well. not that it matters, mind you.

 

[KerrMetric]

ah, so you would assume to be more educated as well. not that it matters, mind you.

No, but using non-standard terminology would lead to people making that assumption perhaps. It doesn't help that YEC's usually are not very educated, certainly in science. That's a fact.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, but using non-standard terminology would lead to people making that assumption perhaps. It doesn't help that YEC's usually are not very educated, certainly in science. That's a fact.

tell me... would you go through Seminary?

 

[KerrMetric]

tell me... would you go through Seminary?

No.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No.

then you might understand why many Christians would not choose to study what they believe is false. Not all, but the vast majority of them.

 

[KerrMetric]

then you might understand why many Christians would not choose to study what they believe is false. Not all, but the vast majority of them.

You'e confusing the issue. Most Christians wouldn't be caught near a seminary for education.

And the problem is that YEC's think geology, astronomy, physics and biology are all wrong yet of course they don't dump their computers, internal combustion engines, electricity supplies, anything developed from oil, pharmaceuticals etc etc etc.