Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Newbie]

The Genesis story has been proven to be false because now we know about all the hominids that were on the planet that pre-dated Genesis. I've had the discussion numerous times and have studied it extensively. I still remain unconvinced that the Genesis creation stories are anything other than an origin story, similar to those of any other mythology. From the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Celtics, Latvians, Muslims, Basque and countless other mythologies. Stories told by imperfect people trying desperately to justify a reason and explain why we exist at all. Go figure.

[jimwalton]

I would assert that the Genesis story is markedly different in nature and purpose than any of the ancient mythologies, separating it from them. Mythographies are not interested in portraying events (history), but want to show how the works and how it got that way. A myth is an attempt to explain reality from theological vantage point, and are not meant to connect those stories, as stories, with events in the real world.

It also helps to understand that ancient historiography was not meant to relate what "really happened" the way we moderns approach historiography. T.M. Bolin has shown that we are often interested in historical reconstruction, whereas the ancient Israelites were interested in truth-telling literature. Glassner says, "The Mesopotamians had no profession of historian as we understand it today, nor its methods or perspective. As they saw it, the problem was not critical assessment of sources, nor was the question, fundamentally, knowing how and in what causal sequence events considered unique had occurred. The primary task was to choose, according to a definite focus of interest, among the carefully collected data from past events, certain facts that, from that point of view, had acquired universal relevance and significance." So the Genesis story is "event-oriented, truth-telling literature", but doesn't work the say way as modern historiography does.

In other words, Walton says, "mythography has a different referent than historiography, yet is considered no less real. it may, however, be considered to pertain to a different plane of reality. ... each has a different focus in its expression of reality." I would argue that the stories of Genesis are ancient historiography as distinct from ancient mythography, with a different purpose, referent, approach, format, ideology, and literary form.

Regarding Genesis 2-3, Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Cor. 15.45-49 let us know that Adam is considered to be historical, but the Bible's primary interest in him is archetypal—representing the whole human race. As we go back to Genesis, we can see the archetypal elements of the narrative that clue us in to its raison d'être. The elements of the literature emphasize God's power, desire for relationship, care, warnings, provision, and purposes. We learn of Adam's intelligence, moral awareness (and therefore culpability), his role and function in relation to God, earth, and other humans, his mortal nature, and the spiritual choice laid before him with its consequences. The primary archetypal elements are mortality, morality, and the choice of self vs. God—elements that are essential human struggles from time immemorial to the present.

The story is not necessarily one of material origins, but one of relational origins: Human is capable of a relationship with God. Will humans choose God and the path of fellowship and life, or will they choose self and the path of separation and destruction? These paths still lie before each one of us as we determine the course of our own lives by the choices that we make.

I would be more than happy to discuss these things further with you.