Is Genesis 1-3 Myth or Historical? Literal or symbolic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm pretty much with Dennis here. "Myth", at its core, is a literary genre, and the Genesis creation account certainly fits into that genre's definition (loosely, "stories that a particular culture believes to be true regarding supernatural explanations for natural events").

But, it's also the truth.

But, Rae, your initial statement, and your final statement would not gel in any academic discussion of "myth". The genre of mythology/myth has been shaped largely by sociologists who use the category as a way by which to explain any person or people group's explanation of the "true" secular and materialist view of the universe by means of anything divine, supernatural, and by their definition "false". They would not put it that way, of course, but it is the essence of what they convey in their writings.

Myth, as it was used during my time in the university, was always taken in that way. It was never used in a way that would lend credibility to the myth makers' ideas. At best, the academics would look down in sympathy upon the folk who used these stories as a way of explaining their environment, knowing that although they did so in sincerity, they also did so in ignorance.

Applying the terminology of "myth" to any part of Scripture, knowing how it is used not only in popular culture, but also in the social sciences as they have crossed into genre studies, is ultimately unhelpful when it comes to maintaining an orthodox position of infallibility, historicity, and inerrancy.
 
Last edited:
The problem with calling Genesis 1-3 a Myth is that in our culture a myth is something that is untrue or a fairly tale.

Professors of comparative religion make a different error when calling Gen 1-3 myth though their definition of myth is more holistic. For them it usually means a story with a moral used to teach us a value like, why children should obey their parents. Myths are also used to help primitive men make meaning out of life experiences. Yet the story itself is not literally true down to the small details.

Here is a link to a web site that discuses the subject of myth with Joseph Campbell the late scholar of comparative mythology. It is hard to make much sense out of what he says concerning the definition of myth yet he is the greatest scholar in the field living or dead.

Myths-Dreams-Symbols
 
Do we make mistakes in interpreting general revelation? Just as often. How long did the church think the earth was at the center of the solar system?

The scripture never taught the sun went around the earth. It does teach a creation by intent.

Do we believe in perspicuity or not? I don't think Moses was a latter Jewish poet. Was Joshua?
Moses was Egyptian and a goat herder. Joshua was a slave. None of these men were schooled in Jewish scholastic poetry which would have developed later not while they were slaves in Egypt.

The earth is old
The earth is young.
Both are true
How can this be?

God could have created the earth old, or to have the appearance of age either way.
Stop and think. Adam was not born a new baby, he was born old.
The grass was not newly seeded, nor the fruit trees else the people and animals would have starved to death waiting for the new everything to grow old.

Now that we know it was created old, can not not accept that it would have been possible for God to have created it looking older, with fossils, ice ages, etc. already being there?
It appears to have had seas recede from the land and be gathered which would have left marks we see, pre-Noah.

When we see a narrative we should use care that it MAY not be, but not absolutely can't be taken literally or used to direct life and conduct.

Morn and eve and dark and light are extremely clear and literal, else why have both delineated instead of one. Else we have problems with the sabbath day also being a literal day. (who cares how many hours and how fast the earth spun, irrelevant unless it stops)
Some would say no we don't have a sabbath problem, but yes we would. He used the day to define the sabbath.
How can we say it went back and forth back and forth between literal and non throughout both of these accounts? What kind of poetry is that?

Gen 1: 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. NKJV

Gen 1:8 So the evening and the morning were the second day. NKJV
Gen 1:13 So the evening and the morning were the third day. NKJV

Gen 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. NKJV

Gen 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,
NKJV

Note. The definition of a day and morning and evening and light and dark was made before the sun and moon were created.

Now no sensible person were have written this unless it is exactly how it happened. But it shows God intended to be able to make a distinction of a day and morn and eve before he created the lights of the 4th day.

There are so many flawed thoughts in the Framework I spent months writing many of them out from their early draft. Few if any were ever answered by its developers and promoters. Others have done the same.
Some who have bothered to read these articles have dropped their FW view.
I don't even bother to argue the issue anymore since leaving the OPC. It is too unperspicuous in my opinion to warrant it.

Also what benefit to we derive from this novel idea? Is there any harm by a literal historical creation?
Is there an application we miss. Will it effect or change any doctrine? Or is it all simply academic to say we are making sure we don't make the mistake of calling it literal and missing some parallels?
And if it was written for a nation that had been fleeing, and we could say it did not have to be exact and literal, then it did not have to be. So? Did God think it was only to be read by fleeing Israel? Did He not know it would be read for all ages? Was He trying to trick the 20th century?
There is no problem with the more literal narrative understanding. It does not do any damage to the text or the doctrine or to application. FW has only caused controversy, schism and the OPC has people concerned about it causing the development of "Designer Presbyteries" which I think lead to schism rather than promote unity.
If there was a real purpose to the concept other than to say I am a bit more accurate about it not being accurate, then I would not be so critical.

Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. NKJV

Ps 131:1 LORD, my heart is not haughty,
Nor my eyes lofty.
Neither do I concern myself with great matters,
Nor with things too profound for me.
NKJV
 
Last edited:
Literal. As to the snake talking....God allowed an ass to speak. God could have easily allowed Satan to use a snake through which to speak. That just like chewing gum for God!....He just got through creating the universe....allowing a snake to talk is no big deal.
 
Literal.

It is ironic and sad that those who would make the serpent mythical are heeding the words of the serpent,"Hath God said?"

Having said that, this serpent at the beginning of God's creation was different to the serpents of today:-

(a) More cunning than all other creatures.

(b) Upright, with legs.

(c) Able to talk (?).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top