Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
What is the origin of pagan ANE creation myths?
-
What is the origin of pagan ANE creation myths?
<div>From what little I have read about the ANE pagan creation myths, I get the impression that these myths all glorify violence and tryanny.
</div><div>But, fromwhat little I have read both by and about WLC, WLC believes that Genesis 1 is mytho-history, and that the account uses common ANE myth-motifs to convey some historical information.
</div><div>
I am one who assumes somewhat the contrary to WLC on this. Specifically, my default is that Genesis 1 is mainly history, with, at most, a very very little common ANE myth-motifs.
My main concern here is to the fact that secular scholars, in noting that Genesis 1 has many ‘glaring’ things in common with ANE pagan creation myths, believe that Genesis 1 is descended from these myths, or, at least, from the particular kinds of cultural values that drove ANE humans to make up these myths.
But I am assuming that a characteristic practice of tyrants of whole peoples is historical revisionism—a practice the tyrants’ purpose of which is to convince their people to believe that these tyrants’ ideologies ought to be affirmed, and, thereby, these tyrants’ rule submitted to.
So it seems to me that the secular scholarship on the relation between Genesis 1 and ANE pagan creation myths are mere taxonomies that *presume* that Genesis 1 is an ‘evolutionary’ progress upon these myths, and not, as Biblically conservative persons maintain, the original and perfect account of origins.
An account of origins is perfect if it meets a number of basic factors, only one of which is that it is the original. But, as even the secular scholarship as to the relation between Genesis 1 and ANE pagan creation myths makes clear, the idea that some account of origins is the original is not enough to make that account perfect.
An origins account is perfect if, to begin with, it is universally appealing in its own right, without the need for tyrants to enforce its acceptance. For, the simple fact is, no free society will affirm that any ANE pagan creation myth is true and right. On the contrary.
I think that this fact alone should cast rightful doubt on the secular belief that Genesis 1 is a descendant of ANE pagan creation myths. For, I feel that that belief constitutes an abject failure to give any rational explanation either for (a) why a people ever would affirm one of those myths in the first place, or (b) how any of these kind of myths ever came to exist in the first place.
And, it seems to me that the best secular explanation for the origin of these kind of myths is that provided by a Darwinian worldview: the cultural omni-‘explanation’ that humans themselves originally were all superstitious mental brutes (‘cave men’).
</div>
-
5 Replies
-
Why stop at Genesis 1? The Old Testament has mythology and superstition all through it. Jesus did not refute it back then but I think would today. God is not like what it describes.
-
The Old Testament, also called the Hebrew Bible, is a collection of 39 books that were written over a period of more than a thousand years by various authors. These books contain a wide variety of genres, including historical narratives, poetry, wisdom literature, and prophetic literature, among others.
While it is true that some parts of the Old Testament may appear to modern readers as mythological or superstitious, it is important to understand the context in which these texts were written. Many of the stories and beliefs in the Old Testament were part of the cultural and religious milieu of the ancient Near East, and were intended to convey important theological and moral truths to the people of Israel.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that Jesus himself affirmed the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). This statement indicates that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as a divinely inspired collection of writings that pointed to his own mission and ministry.
Moreover, Jesus frequently quoted from the Old Testament and referred to it as the Word of God. For example, in his confrontation with Satan in the wilderness, Jesus responded to each temptation by quoting from the Old Testament (Matthew 4:1-11). In addition, after his resurrection, Jesus explained to his disciples how the Old Testament Scriptures had foreshadowed his death and resurrection (Luke 24:25-27).
-
LL: The Old Testament, also called the Hebrew Bible, is a collection of 39 books that were written over a period of more than a thousand years by various authors. These books contain a wide variety of genres, including historical narratives, poetry, wisdom literature, and prophetic literature, among others.
JC: The summation inflates the reality. The poetry is so-so, the wisdom mostly absent, the literature too violent, the prophecies too vague. There is some truth in the history though.
LL: While it is true that some parts of the Old Testament may appear to modern readers as mythological or superstitious, it is important to understand the context in which these texts were written. Many of the stories and beliefs in the Old Testament were part of the cultural and religious milieu of the ancient Near East, and were intended to convey important theological and moral truths to the people of Israel.
JC: I suppose. Then they blocked all new prophets, regarding only ancient truth possible.
LL: Furthermore, it is important to recognize that Jesus himself affirmed the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). This statement indicates that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as a divinely inspired collection of writings that pointed to his own mission and ministry.
JC: No, it indicates He knew He had to venerate the Old Testament if He wanted an effect. Maybe as the thief to come later, these are some of His words that He’d retract.
LL: Moreover, Jesus frequently quoted from the Old Testament and referred to it as the Word of God. For example, in his confrontation with Satan in the wilderness, Jesus responded to each temptation by quoting from the Old Testament (Matthew 4:1-11).
JC: It’s always been silly to suggest God could be tempted. The temptations listed would make even an angel laugh. For instance a chance to rule humanity may be called a curse.
LL: In addition, after his resurrection, Jesus explained to his disciples how the Old Testament Scriptures had foreshadowed his death and resurrection (Luke 24:25-27).
JC: I deny the resurrection, and assert were Jesus with Christians they’d deny Him again. This is why He spoke of the “least of these,” and said many would cry out, “Lord, Lord.”
-
-
-
Secular academic attempts at constructing “objective” history are doomed to failure, because they are revisionist from the get go: assuming particular epistemology, with an inbuilt metaphysics, that render a large percentage of historical claims as “impossible” per default(a miracle, for example).
Imagine if we assume an anti-Darwinian paradigm to read history, so we stumble upon a witness testimony written on record:
“And I beheld the monkey and how that furry and ugly thing gave birth to an actual human being. We come from the monkeys! And they made cradle for him and called him Tarzan. WE ARE THE APE, GUYS!”
And I go to say: “since my epistemology renders any remotely Darwinian claim as impossible per my metaphysics(evolution simply is logically impossible in my presupposed metaphysics), then that’s myth and not a guy truly beholding macroevolution at play!”.
Current secularized academic history does that to God, the supernatural and religion.
We should maintain, therefore, in the spirit of the Church Fathers, namely the Holy One, the Spirit of Christ and His Father, that in the beginning we had Adam and Eve abide in the Truth. They knew God as personal, communed with Him in person and shared the Garden with Him.
As we fell, that Truth splintered into many, as much as man’s soul was split by the falsehoods of the devil. Thus why we find common notions about the supernatural among so many different religions – such as spirit, sacrifice, priest(mediator between man and God), prophet, Chosen One/Anointed One(the Messiah) and so on.
This is why Noah was righteous: his lineage managed to keep, as much as possible, this Truth unadulterated. This is why Father Abraham was considered righteous. And so was Lot. And so was Job. And so was Malchizedek.
The Scriptures tell us of a Fall, thus a descent into chaos and confusion and the chosen ones of God maintaining the original Truth, that’s been from eternity and will be for eternity, against the onslaught of Satan through the maddened crowd.
The distinct Truth that all these prior to the Covenant with Israel managed to keep is that God is Person and He is all in all: you give yourself to Him in all sphere of life. What is characteristic of Pagans is defining God either as impersonal, so He isn’t so “invasive” to one’s life, thus one can do as he pleases, one can believe as he pleases; or as One, who is the universe itself; or as One, who is much like indifferent machine – just an algorithmic principle.
The God of the Forefathers is One that speaks and is spoken to, One that knows you subjectively and is known subjectively, One that loves you and wants you to love Him back, One that has given you your entire being and expects you to serve Him with the entirety of it; One that has given you an entire universe inside yourself – your soul in His Image, – and an entire universe outside yourself through which you revere Him and thank Him for all the blessings.
-
I recently was in email exchange with Matt Bilyeu, a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director. In that exchange, Matt said, among other things, that the reason ‘Dr. Craig is’ pointing out the striking similarities between Genesis 1-3 and the ANE pagan myths is to ‘identify the genre of’ Genesis 1-3 as that of mytho-history.
Matt very helpfully pointed out that this genre of mytho-history is ‘a dead genre’, in that it is not in use by moderns, but was ever in use only by ancient peoples, ‘and so we don’t have modern day examples of it.’
I replied to these points with essentially the following.
Part of my problem is with the very idea of how such a genre, if we allow that it may be a genuine genre, can have originated. For, I am very disinclined to simply accept the idea that such a genre can have originated by either ethically neutral or ethically justified means. WLC seems to say that such a genre can well have originated, at least, by ethically neutral means, if not by ethically justified means.
This is not to say that I reject the idea that metaphorical language has valid and even righteous uses. I think such language does. But I do not think that the ANE pagan creation myths originated mainly or purely as exercises in metaphor.
I see those pagan myths as little other than the historical revisionism that oppressive dictators have practiced, and still practice today: by which such dictators persuade the minds of a people that the oppressions which those people experience from those dictators are metaphysically right.
Log in to reply.