# why isn't the resurrection also myth 'in the form of history'?



## a mere housewife (Jun 6, 2008)

The 'dying God', the suffering saviour (even bearing the wrath of god, as Prometheus), the God reborn, the world reborn -- are just as rife in the myths of nations and religions (before and after Christ) as the creation. Often the same symbols that Scripture uses to speak of Christ are employed. For instance, this is at least first dynasty Egyptian, many years BC (cited in E. A. Wallis Budge _The Gods of the Egyptians_), in the mouth of Osiris, "I am Yesterday, and I am Today, and I have the power to be born a second time." (the _Book of the Dead_)

If it is legitimate to take the historical form (which everyone seems to admit) of the early chapters of Genesis as a non-historical myth because of its resemblances to other myths, why would the same reasons not lead us to take the suffering, death, resurrection and 'conquering saviour' to be myth in the 'form' of history? Why, despite the same symbols cropping up in many different literatures, do we not attempt to dichotomize theology and fact in these narratives?

(Please note that this is not for the sake of an argument: I am not well informed about this, and would genuinely like to understand where and how my brothers in Christ who are arguing that Genesis is a myth because of the genre, draw the line between creation and other teachings of Scripture that are anticipated/recurring themes in literature.)


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 6, 2008)

Me too.

It's amazing how many can fail to see God's sovereignty in things like this. Some claim that God reacted by using local customs, traditions and social norms by writing Scripture as a sort of deterrent or evidence against what was currently present. What is neglected is the fact that all of these were present BECAUSE God is sovereign, not in spite of it. He set the stage. He worked in all these men to will and to do, according to His own good pleasure. Why was the Abrahamic covenant presented as it was? Because God had established it as a norm already. Why are there similar creation accounts? Why are there similar flood accounts? First of all, because it really happened. Second of all, because it helps men to discern the truth from the lie. All accounts other than the biblical record point to man or some not-god. Only Scripture reveals the true character of the Creator in all accounts, even when His name is not mentioned.
This same goes for the suffering servant. The idea was not new. Prophets had filled the role time and time again. Isaiah pointed to the coming Christ and the salvation He would bring. The truth of God's promise to Eve became perverted in many cultures over a period of time, as did the creation, flood and other truths found in Scripture. Satan's lies counterfeit God's truth time and time again. But God's Word stood true. In it we find the only infallible source of truth. And to question this on any level is to rip the foundation of the sacrifice of God's only Son and worship on the altar of vain philosophies and pseudosciences, thus trampling the blood of Jesus Christ under foot.


----------



## Ravens (Jun 6, 2008)

My first thought is that, despite superficial and obscured commonalities with other "dying"/"rising" gods (and they are often superficial and obscured), that the Gospels *purport to be* history. So, if we want to be consistent in how we treat both Genesis and the Resurrection, it seems as if one must interpret Genesis, not in light of preexisting or contemporaneous mythologies, but in light of what the text itself purports to be. In that respect, commonalities with any other culture are ultimately irrelevant, and we must take the holy writ as it presents itself. So the complicated "cosmogonic" questions would seem to boil down to the rather old-school, "What is the "genre" of Genesis 1?" debate.


----------



## raekwon (Jun 6, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> The 'dying God', the suffering saviour (even bearing the wrath of god, as Prometheus), the God reborn, the world reborn -- are just as rife in the myths of nations and religions (before and after Christ) as the creation. Often the same symbols that Scripture uses to speak of Christ are employed. For instance, this is at least first dynasty Egyptian, many years BC (cited in E. Wallace Budge _The Gods of the Egyptians_), in the mouth of Osiris, "I am Yesterday, and I am Today, and I have the power to be born a second time." (the _Book of the Dead_)
> 
> If it is legitimate to take the historical form (which everyone seems to admit) of the early chapters of Genesis as a non-historical myth because of its resemblances to other myths, why would the same reasons not lead us to take the suffering, death, resurrection and 'conquering saviour' to be myth in the 'form' of history? Why, despite the same symbols cropping up in many different literatures, do we not attempt to dichotomize theology and fact in these narratives?
> 
> (Please note that this is not for the sake of an argument: I am not well informed about this, and would genuinely like to understand where and how my brothers in Christ who are arguing that Genesis is a myth because of the genre draw the line between creation and other teachings of Scripture that are anticipated/recurring themes in other literature.)



Interesting. It seems to me that these folks are confusing exactly where "myth" and "history" figure in the creation account. I would not call it "myth in the form of history", but I think that it's accurate to say that the Genesis creation account is "*history* in the form of *myth*", insofar as "myth" is a literary genre, and "history" indicates that the story as presented is, in fact, true.

Saying that it's "myth in the form of history" is just incorrect, in a myriad of ways.


----------



## Ravens (Jun 6, 2008)

This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a thread from 2 - 3 years back dealing with creation and the Framework hypothesis. I remember Fred Greco, R. Scott Clark, et al. participating on it; the one where, I believe, Dr. Clark was arguing that six day creation was not a good "boundary marker" for Reformed orthodoxy, and where Rev. Greco said that he was surprised and encouraged by the number of 6-Day Creationists on the forum. That's somewhat irrelevant, but I thought it might help a moderator find the archived thread (I tried, but couldn't).

Anyhow, Rev. Buchanan had a short, pithy, poignant post about how the different accounts of the resurrection (with his tongue in his cheek) might imply a "Framework View" of the event, wherein the most important point was the theological truth that was taught, and not the four apparently contradictory accounts.

If someone finds it, they should copy and paste that post in this thread.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 6, 2008)

JDWiseman said:


> This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a thread from 2 - 3 years back dealing with creation and the Framework hypothesis. I remember Fred Greco, R. Scott Clark, et al. participating on it; the one where, I believe, Dr. Clark was arguing that six day creation was not a good "boundary marker" for Reformed orthodoxy, and where Rev. Greco said that he was surprised and encouraged by the number of 6-Day Creationists on the forum. That's somewhat irrelevant, but I thought it might help a moderator find the archived thread (I tried, but couldn't).
> 
> Anyhow, Rev. Buchanan had a short, pithy, poignant post about how the different accounts of the resurrection (with his tongue in his cheek) might imply a "Framework View" of the event, wherein the most important point was the theological truth that was taught, and not the four apparently contradictory accounts.
> 
> If someone finds it, they should copy and paste that post in this thread.



Joshua -- Here you go:



> _Originally posted by Contra Mundum on 2-25-06_
> 
> I appreciate Dr. Clark's post, even if we disagree on interpreting the pasage.
> 
> ...



http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/old-earth-v-young-earth-12114/index2.html#post159960




> _Originally posted by Contra Mundum on 6-30-05_
> 
> Kevin,
> I think you are mistaken (as I was) on Mr Hernandez' epsoused position. The only clear advocate for "framework" (so far) is Robin.
> ...



http://www.puritanboard.com/96116-post25.html


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 6, 2008)

JDWiseman said:


> This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a thread from 2 - 3 years back dealing with creation and the Framework hypothesis. I remember Fred Greco, R. Scott Clark, et al. participating on it; the one where, I believe, Dr. Clark was arguing that six day creation was not a good "boundary marker" for Reformed orthodoxy, and where Rev. Greco said that he was surprised and encouraged by the number of 6-Day Creationists on the forum. That's somewhat irrelevant, but I thought it might help a moderator find the archived thread (I tried, but couldn't).



Andrew found the thread Dr. Clark participated in, and in which Bruce made the contributions you mentioned. I think the post in the other thread you were possibly thinking of is here, in an older thread:



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco on 10-8-03_
> 
> This is very interesting to me. It kind of surprised me (pleasantly) to see that the overwhelming majority of members here take a natural day view.
> 
> I'm curious, would either person who took a different view car to explain why?



Days of Creation


----------



## Ravens (Jun 6, 2008)

Drinks on the house to both of you.



I guess I had redacted two different primary threads into one "canonical form" inside of my head.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 6, 2008)

JDWiseman said:


> Drinks on the house to both of you.



I want a Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA!



JDWiseman said:


> I guess I had redacted two different primary threads into one "canonical form" inside of my head.



And who ever said they had to be chronological?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 6, 2008)

Genesis, uh, I mean, Guinness for me!


----------



## Grymir (Jun 6, 2008)

Since the Bible predates the myths, they stole from the Bible anyway. There is no religious thought or idea that was not stolen from the Bible first. The 'myth' stories in other cultures were taken from the Bible, not the other way around as so many say.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 6, 2008)

Hi Mr. Johnson; I think the statement of that position might be unhelpful though -- not that I don't believe that Scripture contains the historical truth that all the myths are grasping after -- but the predating poses something of a problem because for instance, the quote from the book of the dead above would seem to predate the same expressions in Scripture by many years.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 6, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> Hi Mr. Johnson; I think the statement of that position might be unhelpful though -- not that I don't believe that Scripture contains the historical truth that all the myths are grasping after -- but the predating poses something of a problem because for instance, the quote from the book of the dead above would seem to predate the same expressions in Scripture by many years.



Indeed. We shouldn't forget there was a lot of time for history and other cultures to pass before Moses wrote the Torah.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 6, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> Hi Mr. Johnson; I think the statement of that position might be unhelpful though -- not that I don't believe that Scripture contains the historical truth that all the myths are grasping after -- but the predating poses something of a problem because for instance, the quote from the book of the dead above would seem to predate the same expressions in Scripture by many years.



Well it depends on if you believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch whole cloth or instead edited and compiled it all into a single document.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 6, 2008)

Ct, even so -- I don't remember off the top of my head anything similar to the statement I quoted until the New Testament?


----------

