Posted on 02/06/2023 8:44:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In the middle of the 19th century, an archaeologist discovered fragments of multiple clay tablets in what is modern-day Iraq. Translated, the cuneiform writing on these and other tablets subsequently found revealed the “Enuma Elish,” the Babylonian account of the creation of the world.
The Enuma Elish starts with formless chaos and water. The waters divide into a god and a goddess, who have children who are also gods. War breaks out between mother and father, and between mother and children. Ultimately, the offspring of the first two gods create human beings to be their servants.
Other ancient cultures have strikingly similar creation stories. Egyptians believed multiple creation myths, but most also begin with chaos and water, out of which come gods, war, and ultimately, human beings. The Genesis account, skeptics proclaim, is simply one of these accounts, and therefore should not be taken any more seriously than the others.
Too many Christians, even those who may not go as far as to call the Genesis account false, seem embarrassed by it. A purely naturalistic and neo-Darwinian account of human origins now dominates both the academy and the wider culture, and most Christians simply lack the confidence to engage the issue at all. So instead, they merely accept the claim that Genesis should be filed away under ancient creation myths with all the others.
Not only does this approach ignore the scientific doubts growing about these theories mistaken for fact and fail to take Jesus’ professed belief about the Genesis account seriously, it leaves unquestioned the assumed premise. Are the similarities between the biblical account of creation and other ancient accounts as obvious and conclusive as we are told?
C.S. Lewis didn’t think so. In his book Miracles, Lewis argued for the opposite conclusion. If multiple disparate cultures recorded similar stories of the world’s beginning, isn’t it possible these ancient peoples derived clues from the nature around them about the world’s actual beginning? In other words, if a story is true, we should expect multiple people in multiple places to discover it, and to muddy details along the way.
As an example, Lewis noted how the biblical account of the Incarnation, when God became man, followed a pattern similar to other ancient deities, especially those associated with agriculture. Noting that seeds fall to the ground, die, and then bear fruit, ancient tribes worshiped gods of seeds, fruit, and harvest. God became man, died, descended into burial, and then re-ascended into life and Heaven. Does this mean the Jesus story plagiarized what Lewis called the “Corn-Kings” of ancient civilizations? Not at all.
"The Hebrews throughout their history were being constantly headed off from the worship of Nature-gods; not because the Nature-gods were in all respects unlike the God of Nature but because, at best, they were merely like, and it was the destiny of that nation to be turned away from likenesses to the thing itself."
Even more, if the similarities between ancient deities and creation myths do not disqualify the biblical accounts, what about the obvious differences?
In an excellent analysis in his new book Biblical Critical Theory, scholar Christopher Watkin rightfully concludes that the Genesis account stands apart as profoundly different from other creation myths:
Genesis 1, by contrast, spares us the violence and conflict. Indeed there is no one for God to be in conflict with, no rival to play the antagonist in his grand creation plan, stealing away the sun he puts in the sky or pulling up his newly created trees and plants. In contrast to other ancient creation myths, Genesis 1 is remarkably calm and ordered. No one gets hurt, no one loses a corporeal appendage, and no one dies. The universe is not created in war and through fighting but in peace and through speaking.
Not only is this account of creation not like the others, but every claim it makes about the world also holds up to human experience, even today. That’s one reason belief persists in the Genesis story, unlike the other ancient myths. A world born of violence and power inevitably leads to privileging violence and power above all else. The Genesis account explains the violence and power that plagues the world but puts it in the larger context of a world made of order and peace, made by a loving Creator. That’s not only a better story, it better reflects the world as we know and experience it.
Originally published at BreakPoint.
John Stonestreet serves as president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He’s a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetics.
Maria Baer works for the Colson Center for Christian Worldview.
Lord, Here Comes The Flood.
It’s not a myth....................
There's no competition:
And the evening and the morning were the first day: day one, yom echaD [יום אחד]
And the evening and the morning were the second day: yom shenI [יום שני]
And the evening and the morning were the third day: yom shlishI [יום שלישי]
The red letters spell "DAY" [דיי], just like the name sounds.
Dalet + yud + yud add up to 24. But of course.
Next "myth"...
Not a tactic just a question.....and a valid one IMO.
Also, I would submit my question has a slightly more eternal relevance than the climate.
Well, not really.
Chapter 1 is the overview.
Chapter 2 provides more details.
Meh. Genesis is consideably less pertinent to eternity than the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are no witnesses to Creation.
If you don’t believe Genesis, how can you believe the rest of His Word?
Everyone should listen Jordan Peterson's series of talks on Genesis. He avoids the "scientific" debate, considering it shallow and basically meaningless. What "proof" is there that Eve ate an apple? Or that Abraham negotiated with God? Or that Cain killed Abel?
Rather, he approaches from a psychological and "Jungian" aspect, discussing from the viewpoint of what we know to be true about human psychology and the human unconscious.
From that aspect, he says, Genesis is "truer than true." Its is the most accurate description of the human condition, of human nature - and prescription for behavior - than any other written work since.
Do you believe the Book of Mormon?
If you can’t believe in the first miracle, the miracle of creation, you should disregard all the other miracles including the resurrection.
The Bible has proven itself so many times throughout history that it takes more faith to disbelieve it than to believe.
Anyone who brings this up has not read the source material and should be ignored.
Which is the majority of the people on this thread.
They read or listen to what other people say or write but reading the original is just too HARD.
A⁰bsolutely. My pastor teaches if you believe the Bible you must believe it all.
The relevance of the Bible in today’s world is striking.
The BoM was "translated" supposedly from physical plates of gold that then mysteriously disappeared. So we only have Joseph Smith's word that is what happened. The original "translation" was covered in so much secrecy that it's hard to take seriously. Scripture, though, is very publicized and non-secret--even the original writings are public and available for everyone to view and read.
The BoM has undergone s lot (more than a few) content revisions through its history.
The BoM originally declared a large portion of humans to be cursed merely for the color of their skin.
There are so many things wrong--content-wise--with the BoM that is doesn't even compare with the Bible.
No. Anything to get the Mother of the Living off the hook.
Yes, really
The King James Version? What’s omitted?
In the beginning, the great god Vaal cried, and from his tears, the oceans formed, etc., etc.
And if you don't believe in that... what if you're wrong?
Pascal's Wager cuts both (all) ways, you know!
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.