Creation Myth
By guest author J.M.
If you ask a random person on the street what they think about Genesis chapter 1 you’re likely to get one of two responses. Either they believe it is an extremely literal historical account of how God created everything in six days, napping on the seventh; or they think it’s all a fanciful myth with no truth to it. I would like to propose another position. One based on genre.
A common misconception with the Bible is that it was written in the genre of a history book. This is believed by many, both Christians and non-Christians. This is not true. It contains history but is not a history book. Rather, the Bible is composed of numerous types of genre. The Old Testament alone contains narrative, lament poetry, pessimistic wisdom literature, parables, and steaming love poetry, to name just a few. Genesis 1 is no exception. It is not written in the genre of a history book, it is written in the genre of a myth.
Now before some of you attempt to lynch me or others start cheering, please hear me out. Myth here is used in the scholarly sense. By myth genre I refer to a story of the god or gods with no implication of whether or not the story is true. Now, as a Christian I firmly believe that Genesis 1 is a true story of the one true God creating all of creation. But even though I believe it is truth it is still written in a specific genre. You must understand the genre to know how to read it. After all you don’t want to take a modern proverb as a medical textbook, otherwise you’d eat apples when your appendix starts to hurt instead of going to the doctor and having him cut the sucker out.
I believe Genesis 1 was written to convey the truth that God created all creation. But it is also presented in such as way as to serve another purpose. And that is to serve as a polemic against the gods that the surrounding nations worshiped (a common use of the myth genre in the ancient Near East). In other words, it’s a way of saying “My God is bigger and better than all of your gods combined! Nah, nah, nah, boo, boo!” (But with much more decorum than that.)
Within this theory of Genesis 1 there are two trains of thought. One is that it is written in a way to say that God is better than the Egyptian gods. For example, the Egyptians viewed creation as a daily occurrence. Each day’s beginning (rising of the sun) and ending (setting of sun) represents creation with the gods continually working to make it happen. It was a never ending cycle, the gods never truly rested.
Genesis 1 shows the God of the Bible as better than the Egyptian gods because he takes his time in creation, merely has to speak for it to occur, and…he stops.
The second train of thought is that it may also be a polemic against the Mesopotamian gods. One of the reasons for this is that the Mesopotamian gods created humanity to be their slaves, to do all the work so the gods could spend their days sunbathing on the beach and drinking fancy drinks with umbrellas in them.
Genesis 1 stands in sharp contrast to this because the God of the Bible did not create humanity as slaves, but instead he created them to rule with authority (Gen 1.28).
Now all of these issues are much greater than those two short paragraphs could even begin to explain. I’ve only given you a small taste of what may really be going on in Genesis 1.
So what’s the point? Read the bible with an eye on the genre. You may be surprised how understanding genre explains away a lot of problems and perceived contradictions. (Such as perceived contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.)
Now, with this information some might be tempted to say, “Ha! Genesis 1 is a myth, which means it’s not true. I now have biblical proof against all those annoying creationist Christians! Booyah!” Um…no. Even if you want to write off Genesis 1 you must deal with Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is written not as a myth genre, but more in lines with the style of a history book, and it clearly states that God created everything.
Some of you may ask if, based on this, God did create in six days. My answer… possibly. God may have created the whole of the universe in six days. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But if I find out some day that God created it in an instant or over a length of time greater than six days my faith will not be shaken.
Related Posts
About The Author
The problem with Genesis 2 is that it’s an all-or-nothing deal. Either it’s the literal account of Adam and Eve’s creation and fall from grace, or original sin never existed and thus Christianity isn’t true. While it’s easy to interpret Genesis 1’s creation story loosely and make it somewhat (but not completely) fit with what we know about science, the same cannot be said about Genesis 2. This is why I’ve never understood Christians who say they believe in evolution- our understanding of human evolution and development conflicts with the idea of 2 original people created wholly in the beginning. Either Adam and Eve is true or scientific evolution is true, but it can’t be both.
You’re right Justin, if you attempt to interpret Genesis 2 as anything but a historical account there are far reaching theological implications.
I will say, though, about the evolution thing, that I understand where some of them are coming from. I’m not saying that I agree, but I understand their struggle. I’ve talked to a Christian who happens to be a geologist and she struggles to correlate creation of Genesis with what she sees in geology. She knows many non-Christians who discount the whole Bible because of this very struggle. For their sake I’m content to say that God created everything and not debate the ‘how.’ After all, we’re told very little about the ‘how.’ And even in Genesis 2 the world was already there and God added to it.
It is possible for theistic evolution theories to allow for an original Adam and Eve. But Christians who don’t allow for an original Adam and Eve should be encouraged to think through the implications.
Quite right, JoAnna.
God moves in mysterious ways; why not evolution? I see no problem with that.
I think Justin is referring in particular to new research that suggests that the level of genetic variety in human beings would have required an original base population of around 10,000, that it can’t be accounted for by just two original humans.
I still don’t see the problem. We are talking about a miraculous creation. If God is powerful enough to make the universe exist out of nothing, then overcoming the apparent limits of only having two original humans is certainly within His power. (Surely, no one is trying to say that God can’t do these sorts of things.)
Since creation is a miracle, it need not match up with science. Thus, we can appreciate man’s observations and God’s word.
I had not heard theory of needing a 10,000 base population. For the reason stated above (among others) I have a problem with that.
I, personally, lean away from any evolutionary explanations for what we see in creation. After all, my God is big enough to create things however he wants. So if he wants to create just two original humans and make it look like – to us – that there should have been a base of 10,000…well, he can do that.
Very interesting. Thanks for the insightful article!
“We are not asked to believe the Bible, we are asked to believe the One whom the Bible reveals” ~ Oswald Chambers
Hello Anonymous,
Thank you for your quote from Oswald Chambers. I’m not sure I understand your motive for posting it though. Nor do I know the context in which Chambers made this statement. Could you please clarify?
In the meantime though, the following is based on what I think you may be getting at.
There are different types of “believing.” The quote you posted does not differentiate the different types of belief. I believe in God and I believe in the Bible, but in different ways. My belief in God is faith, my belief in the Bible is a trust that God used the Bible as a vehicle to accurately reveal Himself.
Our faith is to be placed in God not the Bible. Yet the Bible is the manner through which God chooses to reveal himself. Therefore we must be able to believe what is in the Bible. If we can’t believe the vehicle through which God is revealed we have a problem.
I believe what the Bible says about God. I believe God created the world through His spoken word because the Bible tells me so.
The “problem” with Genesis is not God’s problem, it is ours. Either you take the creation account literally or not. The problem is that the only ones interested in the choice are atheists and the choice is a trap. If you side with ‘myth’ then you open up the entire Bible for debate. Well, not really debate, you have surrendered because you can never justify taking any other portion ofo the Bible literally. If you side with literal you immediately are assaulted for your stupidity. For me, the literal position opens me up to criticism while the myth position subjects God to it. I prefer the position which honors God so I am a literalist. Visit me at: http://www.TheAtheistTurtle.blogspot.com. Wayne
To the man who takes his bible, sits under a tree and reads it without any knowledge of today’s interpretation of the age of the earth through secular science. I believe he will come to the conclusion that the days in Genesis 1 are literal days… just like the vast majority of Church history except for the last couple of hundred years.
Also most Hebrew scholars would agree Genesis 1 is historical and is speaking of literal days.
The God of love, peace and harmony that we profess seems so different to me to believing this same God created a world with millions of years of suffering… that is we have evidence of diseases such as cancerous tumours and carnivorous behaviour in the fossil record. Most OECs believe these fossils predate the fall and curse due to Adams sin.
But I know it is only through faith in Christ we are saved and the age of the earth is a non-essential doctrine, but this subject of suffering before the fall is an important issue.
Eddie – the post you just read was written by a Hebrew scholar.
I’ve spoken with numerous people who know Hebrew and they do not see any evidence for a literal 6-day creation.
Calling it a “myth” doesn’t make it untrue. That just means that it’s style is a mythic interpretation of events. One can hold to this belief while still saying that the Bible is without error..
Atheist Turtle, imagine finding two people reading the side of a cereal box and arguing about whether it is literally or symbolically describing how to build an automobile. I think this is JoAnna’s point: try to understand what Genesis 1 is trying to accomplish before trying to defend or attack it. I can believe the side of the cereal box is true, that this cereal really truly contains so many gram of sodium, without deciding on whether or not the first car took seven literal days to build.
BTW, “myth” in this context is a specialized academic word. It does not meam the opposite of true.
The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,
“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”
There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days
The above was copied from an article on creation. But I think it speaks volumes…
That complex sentence begins with two caveats: “probably” and “so far as I know.” This is not definitive. And, it’s not representative of anything but his circle of scholars.
Is it not also true that the most if not all of the Church fathers believed in a young earth as indeed did most of Church history?
To my mind the Earth been millions of years old was never a prominent view until the last few hundred years of Church history.
Why is this?
@Eddie – I appreciate the interaction and your thoughts on my blog post. I understand that what I proposed is not a wide spread understanding of Genesis 1. But it is a view that is held by some Hebrew and Old Testament scholars. We could easily let this comment section become a game of “he said, she said,” seeing who can provide the most citations, but, really, what’s the point in that?
@AtheistTurtle & Eddie – I understand that you do not agree with my post. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I wrote this post for several reasons. A main reason is that this is a view I have been exposed to by Hebrew and Old Testament scholars I respect. I greatly wrestled with the view because I believed I had to take the text “literally.” What I learned, though, in my studies with original languages and ancient Near East texts is that “literal” is a misnomer. If you take a fairy tale “literally” you will have a screwed up sense of reality (you will think that fire-breathing dragons do exist). But if you take a fairy tale as a literal fairy tale – respecting its genre – then your sense of reality is not messed up. Instead you walk away thinking, “That was a cute story, the prince rescued the damsel from a fire breathing dragon…again. I’m glad those things don’t really exist! Or I wouldn’t have a chance at snagging a bride!”
Please understand that my proposal is to take the Old Testament literally, but literally only in respect to its genre. My studies have shown me that Genesis 1 is perhaps best understood as a polemic written in the style of a myth which DOES convey and contain truth. (*Please read: I am defining “myth” as a story about God [or gods] that was common in the ancient Near East and does not reference whether or not it is true.) I believe God created everything by speaking it into existence.
You interpret Genesis 1 based on the genre that you perceive it to be – a history book account. I do not have a problem with you interpreting it that way. That is a valid method of interpretation. I, personally, do not agree with you. But that’s okay. And you do not agree with me, that’s okay too. There are well known and well respected Hebrew and Old Testament scholars on both sides of this issue. Every scholar is not going to agree. And that’s okay. On this side of the new heavens and earth we’re all trying our best to understand as much as we can. We’re not going to get everything right. Every one of us will find out some day that we all have areas where we were flat out wrong. So the best thing to do in the meantime is to dialogue about the issues as we wrestle together seeking to understand more about who God is.
@Eddie – As per your last two comments, I believe they are pulling this conversation too far afield. So for now I am not going to address those issues. But, perhaps, I will address those in an upcoming blog, at which point I will be happy to discuss those issues with you.
And, while this book does not agree with my view on Genesis, I would recommend you read “The Lost World of Genesis One” by John Walton. He proposes that Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the material world. I recommend this book because it does all of us good to read things we disagree with. I have not decided what I think of his view yet, but he is a well respected scholar and makes a compelling argument. I don’t think this book will convert you to his view, but I do think you might find it interesting.
Thanks JoAnna,
I too appreciate you explaining your thoughts on this, but I do have serious concerns about Christians who add evolution to the bible, that our great & loving God would create this long drawn out mechanism to bring us to this point. The millions of years of unnecessary suffering and pain, especially reducing man to really just an evolved animal if that’s what they are really saying.
This is far from what scripture reveals about the goodness of God and ourselves been made in His image.
Also to make Genesis myth and say we can make a mythic interpretation out it… How then can we tell what’s literal in the rest of the bible then?
Anyhow I’ll keep an eye out for upcoming blogs on this and give my input if I think I have something valuable to add.
God bless.
Eddie,
Thank you for clarifying your concerns.
Please re-read the blog and my first few comments. I do not believe nor advocate evolution. I have friends who are Christians who struggle with it because of what they know about geology and science. I respect their struggle. All I suggest is that it is possible that because of the genre of Genesis 1 it is not intended to be a history book account. Does it really matter if God did not give us the schedule of creation? There’s a lot more than that he has not told us and we manage just fine. Perhaps he did it in the blink of an eye.
You oppose the theory of evolution because you understand it to mean there would have been “millions of years of unnecessary suffering and pain” The comment about suffering and pain intrigues me. I have not heard that argument before. My first thought is that before sin entered the world through Adam and Eve there would have been no pain or suffering since sin had not entered the world nor had all creation been cursed. Yet, you have caused me to think about evolution slightly differently, though, because part of the curse pronounced in Genesis 3 is death. If human evolution were true there is a major problem since death would have entered into the world long before the first couple sinned. (Unless, that is, all previous creatures continued to live and hung around waiting to die. But that’s not what human evolution theories suggest, survival of the fittest and all.)
Also, those who hold to a theistic evolution view need to address the issue you mentioned about being “just an evolved animal.” The Bible makes it quite clear that we are created (Gen 2 and in so many other places) that humans are created in the image of God. I don’t know how they address this issue, but I’m sure that many of them do. If you don’t have man created in the image of God you have a major problem in your theology that has far reaching effects. (Just as if you don’t have an original Adam and Eve you have a problem with the theology of original sin.)
Secondly, remember the definition of myth I’m using. It’s a genre style, just like Proverbs and Psalms. It does not refer to the truth or fictitiousness of a story at all. Genesis 1 is true. Declaring something one genre is not to be done willy-nilly. Instead, this is where one must study. Study ancient Near East literature to understand what the genres of the day were, learn the features of each genre, and what the purpose was. If you can’t study that stuff yourself you find several reputable scholars who study these things (preferable who disagree with each other so you can see all sides of the issue) and you learn from them.
Thank you again, for your comment. And I think you’ve given me the idea for my next blog. Hopefully I’ll have time to get it up within the next week or so.
Hi JoAnna,
I know you didn’t say you believe in theistic evolution and I never said you did, but there are implications to saying Genesis is myth in the way I think you mean. Someone might say because Genesis is not historical narrative we can therefore add millions of years into the Gen 1. account and many do.
Others also permit the possibility of evolution and even believe it as God’s mechanism for life on earth including the evolution of human beings because of the huge time frame involved.
And Mankind is made in God’s image and not the result of something that evolved from pond scum as most evolutionists believe, but in saying that I’m not entirely sure all theistic evolutionists believe this in the same way.
In all of this though I feel the character of our God is questioned.
I mean because OECs say that God created the world millions of years ago, He in fact also created a world of misery, pain and suffering. Many people including some prominent atheists have pointed this out and accused our God of this kind of cruelty, that is if He really exists at all according to the atheists.
As much as I totally disagree with atheists I can see their point in this.
If we for example we own a pet dog and he gets a cancerous tumour that’s incurable, we out of compassion will have the creature put down to put it out of it’s misery. But many Christians are saying God created a world with this type of suffering and misery & that for millions of years! and that before the curse! When God finished finished His Creation He called it “Very Good”, but we by our own actions seem to say suffering like this is not very good at all.
The scripture comes to mind of Proverbs 12.10…
“A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel”….But how much more is God good and kind to His own creatures?
The whole issue of millions of years been added to the bible came about by mans interpretation of Geology only in the last few hundred years. Christians have re-interpreted the bible to fit these ideas. Now don’t get wrong I believe the vast majority of Christians who have added millions of years to the Scriptures are sincere in their interpretation and many are doing good work for the Lord. Indeed I admire some OECs and have learnt much from them over the years. But they have made a mistake on this important issue.
But one of the consequence of all this is that some people are blaming God for something He didn’t do… that is suffering before the fall, and a normal reading of scripture bears this out. Most of the saints in Church History believed the same.
Others are saying if Genesis 1 is just allegory or words to that effect, how do we really know what is historical in the bible?
There is so much more that can be said on this, but time does not permit and maybe as you said another blog will further this conversation.
Anyhow I think it’s good that we as brothers and sisters in Christ can talk about these issues and we can agree that our common faith in Jesus Christ our Lord really does unite us.
Eddie
Eddie, your view of and Old Earth Creationism is odd. Such a view does not require God to create a world of pre-fall suffering, as you put it. That is an unfair perspective on a simple point of view.
Adam,
I’m sorry you think I’m been unfair, but many Christians feel the same on this and indeed some seekers and atheists have asked the same question as to why God created a world of suffering.
From my perspective I can point to the fall and subsequent curse as the cause of suffering we see in the world today, but OECs by their beleif on this imply that suffering was part of God’s “Very Good” creation … which I think is odd to believe.
Eddie
“OECs by their beleif on this imply that suffering was part of God’s “Very Good” creation …”
No. They don’t. That’s not what Old Earth Creation teaches. You have misunderstood those people.
Adam,
I don’t mean that OECs intentionally imply this, but only by implication the conclusion of this belief leads many too believe that God’s original creation involved His creatures suffering in different ways.
I simply don’t believe this… In the world to come there will be no more suffering or curse and in the world before the curse I believe there was no suffering then either.
And it’s just one of those areas where we will just have to agree to disagree… but I thought I’d put my two pence worth in when I saw the topic of Creation myth, after all isn’t this what blogging is all about?
Eddie
Eddie. I don’t care to continue this circular conversation any longer, so I’ll lay this down and leave this conversation alone.
OEC does not necessarily imply such things. God is able to make the world really old if He wants. You see OEC one way, but others don’t agree with your perspective on it.
OK Adam,
And thanks for the opportunity to dialogue on your blog.
God bless
Eddie
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I appreciate this post. JoAnna, you’ve taken a difficult concept and written about it in an engaging and accessible fashion.
Brava!
Interesting post. Reminds how the plagues of Egypt are directed at the Egyptian gods. How would you describe the genre of the plagues? Genesis 1 is fascinating. I would be interested in your thoughts on the following:
1. The days have a pattern of forming and filling. Do you think this is also a polemic against the pagan idea of creation??
2. The six days of creation and the seventh day of rest seems to have some significant theological importance concerning the Sabbath Day. Any thoughts on the stress that Genesis and the rest of the Bible places on the Sabbath?