Same Old Argument

10 Feb

In this last post for this session of the internet access we will discuss an article written over at Biblical Archaeology Society’s website. You can read it in full at the following link:

Since we cannot access the actual article itself, we will quote liberally from the review which gives us enough of the same old arguments against biblical creation.

Were the creation stories in Genesis meant to be taken literally?

Maybe not, says Biblical scholar Shawna Dolansky in her Biblical Views column “The Multiple Truths of Myths” in the January/February 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Modern scholars and archaeologists , for the most part, simply do not know the mind of God, let alone know God thus their declarations that the creation story in Genesis should not be seen as literal are erroneous at best.Their declarations are made out of their personal choices not because their insight is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Our world is very different from the world in which the Biblical authors lived over 2,000 years ago. The ancient world did not have Google, Wikipedia and smartphones—access to information on human history and scientific achievements developed over millennia at the touch of their fingertips.

This is wrong as well because while there may be technological advances over time, the ancient world still had technology, they still had sin, they still had personal desires and freedom of choice. There is an old saying which goes, ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’ and that adage is correct because what does not change in the world is the sin nature of people and their love of darkness.

The fact that Google, or Smartphones exist does not mean that God created in a different way or that technological advances change the truth. All they show is that some people have used their God-given gifts of intelligence and curiosity to try to rule and control the world via technological toys instead of the old-fashioned way of raising an army and using brute force.

Many scholars believe that the ancient Israelites had creation stories that were told and retold; these stories eventually reached the Biblical authors, who wrote them down in Genesis and other books of the Bible.

This belief actually means nothing as the modern world has many stories it tells and retells and that action does not alter the truth in any way. We know which stories are true and which are not. So did the ancient people if they did the same thing. Having different creation stories does not in any way determine the validity of the Genesis account of creation.All it means is one has to follow the Holy Spirit to the truth and make the correct decision about creation.

Creation stories in Genesis were etiological, Shawna Dolansky and other Biblical scholars argue.

That is their opinion which is far from the truth. The definition of the word etiological, if you do not already know is: The study of causes, as in the causes of a disease.  But if the first two chapters of Genesis were a study of the cause of their origin, they would have be written very differently. They would not have been written in the style of revelation but in a more investigative tone with lots of questions thrown in.

There is nothing in history or the Bible that supports this etiological conclusion. it is just another faulty declaration made by those scholars and archaeologists who refuse to believe God.

That is, the creation stories in Genesis served to provide answers to why the world was the way it was, such as why people wear clothes and why women experience pain during childbirth.

The creation stories do provide the answers for the way the world is and how it functions. That is not even in question and the other chapters provide the answers to the issues this scholars raise. Their rejection of the answers do not make them any less valid or less true.God is about choice and we see by the alternative ideas expressed by these scholars that their choice is to not believe God nor accept his truthful answers.

They cannot provide any other valid or legitimate explanation for why people wear clothes or women experience pain in child-birth. Even if they do concoct one, they have no historical record backing up their explanations. Thus all their explanations mount to is simply being fanciful myth and not hard facts.

Creation stories in Genesis were among the many myths that were told in the ancient Near East. Today we may think of myths as beliefs that are not true, but as a literary genre, myths “are stories that convey and reinforce aspects of a culture’s worldview: many truths,” writes Dolansky. So to call something a myth—in this sense—does not necessarily imply that it is not true.

This is simply trying to have one’s cake and eat it too. Ms. Dolansky doesn’t want to be seen as rejecting the Bible so she hedges her bet by saying that some myths are actually true. Well the meaning of the word myth contradicts and undermines her efforts. Then, again, the existence of other creation stories from the ancient world only mean that many ancient people did what the modern unbeliever does– reject the truth and wrote their own ideas about creation.

I am not someone who accepts the ideology of ‘world views’. i think that idea is false, made up and used to keep the truth away from those who declare someone else has a ‘world view’. No the Bible is NOT a world view and its contents do not reinforce a world view, it is a book that reveals to us God, His son, the HS and the truth. To call it a world view is an insult to them.

Scholars argue that Biblical myths arose within the context of other ancient Near Eastern myths that sought to explain the creation of the world. Alongside Biblical myths were Mesopotamian myths in which, depending on the account, the creator was Enlil, Mami or Marduk. In ancient Egyptian mythology, the creator of the world was Atum in one creation story and Ptah in another.

What actually happened was, that the ancient Near Eastern myths rose up in response to the truth of the biblical record. By the words ‘biblical record’ I am referring not just to the existence of the Hebrew Bible (OT) from Moses on down but to Noah and his family’s knowledge of the truth of what God did in the beginning and that they passed it down to their descendants so that the truth has always existed before the lie.

The existence of Near Eastern creation and flood myths are the ancient secular world’s response to the truth. They did not like what they heard so they created their own stories, much like Darwin did with evolution.

“Like other ancient peoples, the Israelites told multiple creation stories,” writes Shawna Dolansky in her Biblical Views column. “The Bible gives us three (and who knows how many others were recounted but not preserved?). Genesis 1 differs from Genesis 2–3, and both diverge from a third version alluded to elsewhere in the Bible, a myth of the primordial battle between God and the forces of chaos known as Leviathan (e.g., Psalm 74), Rahab (Psalm 89) or the dragon (Isaiah 27; 51). This battle that preceded creation has the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish as its closest analogue. In Enuma Elish, the god Marduk defeats the chaotic waters in the form of the dragon Tiamat and recycles her corpse to create the earth.”

What is clear here is that Ms. Dolansky does not understand the Bible or how it was written. Preferring to lean on her own understanding instead of going for the truth and the correct explanation for the differences in those details, she opts to declare it all a myth on par with all the false secular stories that abound from that ancient time.

Scholars and archaeologists do this all the time. Instead of opening their eyes and seeing the truth, they all opt to declare that the Biblical stories are inferior copies of secular fables. The truth is, it was the secular world which produced inferior myths to the truth of the Bible. We see this in the theory of evolution as that theory is vastly inferior to God’s creative act recorded in Genesis.

In what other ways do Biblical myths parallel ancient Near Eastern myths? What can we learn about the world in which the ancient Israelites lived through the creation stories in Genesis

Again they have it backwards. it is not the Bible accounts that ‘parallel the ancient Near Eastern myths’; it is the latter which parallel the biblical record. What we need to learn is the truth and the truth is the ancient world was exactly like the modern one. The truth is competing which many different myths and fables with  only true believers opting to stay with the truth while so many decide to go with the modern fable.

The modern world is not so different from the ancient one. The same choice remains for modern people as it did for the ancients- believe God and live or reject God and not.

Comments Off on Same Old Argument

Posted by on February 10, 2016 in academics, archaeology, Bible, church, comparative religions, creation, faith, family, General Life, history, leadership, science, theology


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: