Genesis Myth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YosefYosep said:
Wow guys these are amazing responses! Thanks, they’re really helping me to widen my view on Genesis. I’m still having trouble though. I mean how does Genesis separate itself from the myths and legends of its time. There’s people who live to 900 years old, talking animals, magical trees. I’m having a hard time believing that God decided to speak poetically and symbolically about one of his most critical messages to mankind.
Click to expand...
“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909

I think too many Christians don’t understand that God can create and do things only God can do. There were no magical trees. The tree in Genesis was pleasing to look at and good for food. It is clearly not described as metaphorical. The opening of Genesis has the words evening and morning to set days apart. God does not need a light source to define such things. The Bible was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so men cannot be said to be the only writers of Sacred Scripture.

And the talking snake? Yeah. So?

Peace,
Ed
 
To the OP:

I strongly encourage you to read this article: The Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

Dr. Schroeder is a world-class physicist (once tenured at MIT) and Torah scholar who has discovered, I believe, the definitive resolution between science and Scripture on this point. And the solution is that they’re both right. I’ll let the article explain itself, but I’ll just say this: Einstein’s theory of relativity is the key. The flow of time is relative.

The article should suffice to make the basics understandable, but I heartily recommend his books The Science of God and Genesis and the Big Bang, which provide a wealth of awe inspiring convergences between science and religion (teaser: did you know a Jewish Biblical scholar living in the 13th century perfectly described the Big Bang theory based on nothing but the original Hebrew text of Genesis?)

Hope this is a help to you. In fact, in this age of skepticism, I think everyone should read these books and pass them on to friends and family. Atheism/secularism/scientism is claiming more and more of our young people, and this is just the kind of rigorous research and powerful answers we need to be able to point them to!
 
Iron_Donkey said:
Hi, welcome to CAF.

This is a highly debated subject around here. Let me start by saying that either interpretation is acceptable, either as literal or non-literal.

If the non-literal interpretation is correct, then the answer to your question would be that He didn’t tell us 6 days, but rather inspired a story a long time ago that was at that time understood not to be literal, and used the “days” terminology to indicate that the world was created in an ordered way.

Genesis stands in stark contrast with the other creation stories of the time. Most other religions were saying that the world was made out of the dead body of some god or other after some other gods killed him. Those stories represent creation as chaotic and violent in its most fundamental nature.

Genesis on the other hand says that creation was done ex nihlio, in an ordered and peaceful way, and that all things are good (although after the fall, damaged). It is this distinction (and other points) that are being highlighted.

Of course if Genesis is in fact literal (I personally think it is not, but again, either position is acceptable within the Church), then it says 6 days because it’s 6 days.
Click to expand...
The Creation story is so rational that Josephus argued that Plato had red Moses.
 
grannymh said:
It is the Catholic Church which discerns the Divine Truths about Adam, etc., This was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Source: Chapter 14, Gospel of John)
Click to expand...
What strikes me is that God does often speak through poets. Besides the Psalms and the hymns found in many other places, we have the book of Revelations which seems to me a long narrative poem.
 
edwest2 said:
“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909

I think too many Christians don’t understand that God can create and do things only God can do. There were no magical trees. The tree in Genesis was pleasing to look at and good for food. It is clearly not described as metaphorical. The opening of Genesis has the words evening and morning to set days apart. God does not need a light source to define such things. The Bible was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so men cannot be said to be the only writers of Sacred Scripture.

And the talking snake? Yeah. So?

Does that mean that Genesis does not deconstruct myths? Both the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians had creation stories. They had many gods. Was this anything more than a confused remembering of “the beginning” of things? Ws paganism ever more than the corruption of true religion?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
 
Look, we have a God who rose from the dead and turns bread to flesh. Are we really going to doubt whether God can do the scientifically impossible?

If a false premise leads to a false conclusion (and we know that the naturalist premise is false by faith) what the heck are we doing begging the question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top