The April-June 2008 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra has an article by Dr. Gordon Johnston about the connections between Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths.
I sat under Dr. Johnston while I was in seminary, and along with this information about Genesis 1, he taught seveeral other ideas that challenged some of my traditional theology. I wrote about some of these areas here, which led to me getting fired from a ministry job… Thanks Dr. Johnston! (Ha!)
Anyway, when it comes to Genesis 1, Johnston argues that Moses borrowed heavily from some Egyptian Creation Myths.
Dr. Johnston concludes his article with this statement:
This suggests that Genesis 1 was originally composed, not as a scientific treatise, but as a theological polemic against the ancient Egyptian models of creation which competed against Yahwism for the loyalty of the ancient Israelites.
I agree with Dr. Johnston.
But notice what he is not saying. He is not saying that creation did not occur in six 24-hour periods. He very well may believe that it did. But it seems that there are only two possible ways to believe that Genesis 1 teaches that creation occurred in six 24-hour days while knowing what we now know about the many parallels with Egyptian Creation Myths.
Genesis 1 and 24-hour Creationism
First, it could be argued that creation happened, and the account was passed down by oral tradition through the centuries, being slowly changed over time, until the Egyptians recorded their version. When Moses came on the scene, God revealed to him what really happened, and this is what Moses wrote down. This would partially account for other similarities in other pagan creation myths found around the world.
But even under this understanding, Moses did not write Genesis 1-2 to disprove evolution. No ancient person ever imagined that everything simply came about by chance. Everybody believed that a God or gods created all that was. So to read Genesis 1 as a scientific treatise defending creationism against evolution is nothing short of reading modern issues back into ancient texts (aka eisegesis).
If Dr. Johnston is correct, people who use Genesis 1 to argue against evolution should start admitting that they are using this passage in a way neither Moses nor the original audience would have understood. Only then are we being honest with the text.
Genesis 1 and Egyptian Creation Myths
Which brings us to the second possible way Genesis 1 could be read in light of the parallels with Egyptian Creation Myths. It is possible, I suppose, that God, as the divine author, could have intended more than Moses, the human author, and the Israelites, the original human audience understood.
It is possible that God, peering down the corridors of time, foresaw that Charles Darwin would invent his theory of evolution and God wanted to show this for the error that it is. And so He had Moses write a “creation account” that kept the Israelites 3500 years ago keep from worshipping Egyptian deities, and keeps Christians today from believing in evolution.
It’s possible.
But again, if that is how you want to view Genesis 1, you need to admit it.
The Message of Moses in Genesis 1
Personally, I think the strongest way to teach Genesis 1 is to teach it with the message Moses originally intended. And what is that message?
Here are a few suggestions:
Our God is more powerful, loving, kind, personal, immanent, and transcendent than any other god there is.
God made humanity the center of His creation. That’s how much He cares for us and wants to relate to us.
We are not here by accident, but He made us and put us here for a reason. You have purpose. You matter to God.
This world was made for you to enjoy, and God wants to enjoy it with you.
Out of the chaos of your life, God creates order, light, and beauty. God fills the voids with meaning and significance.
To me, that is a much greater message than “God created the world in six days and evolution is evil.”
But in my opinion, no matter how you view Genesis 1, it’s nothing to get fired up over…
andrewrmcneill says
Hi Jeremy,
While I would agree that the point of Genesis 1 is a polemic against the other religions and worldviews around during his time, do you not think that for his polemic to be effective it would have to be literally true to some extent? Personally, I would fail to be convinced by any polemic if I thought the argument was essentially just pitting one creation myth against another. On that ground I would say that there is some literal truth in the creation story of Genesis. On the other hand, I strongly agree that how we understand Genesis 1 is nothing to get psyched up about.
Btw, if I’m guessing correctly about your former employer and the relationship to this issue, I’m really sorry to hear about that. It makes me really sad to think how divisive we can become over issues that we really ought to be able to agree to disagree on. 🙁
Blessings,
Andrew
andrewrmcneill says
lol! no, i don’t actually have snappy answers to the questions you raised. they are good questions. But I’m still not sure. I used to hold to the whole myth story thing but then I got sort of scared with that whole idea. Because where do you stop? Was Bultmann right? Should we just treat the Bible as a collection of stories which need to be demythologised to get the real meaning out of them?
So I left the myth position. I still believe that the fundamental purpose of the story is theological and polemic, but I’m not convinced that the story isn’t pretty much true. I don’t really buy the literal-seven-day creationist position because of the enormous conflicts with science but I’m not entirely sure what position I should take. Nor am I going to buy everything the scientists say and declare the Bible to be mythical. But I’m open to suggestions 🙂
bullet says
“I would fail to be convinced by any polemic if I thought the argument was essentially just pitting one creation myth against another.”
You might if you were an ancient Hebrew. If someone came on the scene and said, “The Egyptians are wrong, this is the truth, this god is greater and to prove it we’re getting the hell out of here,” you’d probably buy it a little. It’s also easier to believe something when you don’t know anything.
We now know how to compute the age of the earth, the sun and the universe. We can create a fairly clear picture of primeval events. To believe that God simply snapped his fingers and it was so doesn’t jive with what we can observe. If it only took him six days, why not one? Why restrict Himself to 24-hour days? Those didn’t even exist until AFTER he made the sun. If he can create all the stars in heaven in one day, why did it take him more than one to create just the earth? And another for fish? And yet another for terrestrials? Why did he make plants and trees before he made the sun?
I’m sure you’ve heard these questions and I’m sure you have snappy answers to them all. But it’s just a story. It’s a good story. It answers a lot of the questions an ancient people would have. We are not ancient and we can come up with our own answers about physical things. Have the metaphysical, it’s yours. Define it with whichever stories you like. Just don’t tell me that what I can see and measure is wrong.
I agree with Jeremy. The importance is the message, not the accuracy. By focusing on the accuracy, all you do is distract from the message.
I especially like the idea of God telling Moses to write a creation account, but I imagine it in a different way.
MOSES: What should I tell them about all of this?
GOD: Well, you see, I created matter. Then I compressed all the matter into an infinite space. Then I exploded it.
MOSES: What?
GOD: Nevermind, just tell them that I had a bunch of fiery rocks and picked this one to cool down enough to put some living things on it, then guided those living things through the ages to living man.
MOSES:Fine, but where did WE come from?
GOD: Honestly, monkeys.
MOSES: Are you fucking kidding me?
GOD:What? I like monkeys.
MOSES: That’s never gonna fly. Maybe we should just forget the whole thing.
GOD: Look, if you don’t like it my way, then just make your own story. Whatever, I don’t care. Just get them on board so we can get the hell out of Egypt. I hate it here.
MOSES: You got it. (turns to go down the mountain)
GOD: Hey, Moses.
MOSES: Yes, my Lord?
GOD: Don’t fuck this up.
In my head with this one, God is appearing to Moses in the form of the guy who played Xerxes in 300 and Moses is more of a Bruce Willis unwilling hero type. Die Hard in a robe and beard. Yeah.
And don’t tell me God wouldn’t say fuck. He would because 1) He’s God 2) It’s fun to say. Maybe Moses wouldn’t say it in front of God, but he’s upset, losing his cool a little and maybe it just slipped out, so God gives him a pass.
I would totally watch that movie.
andrewrmcneill says
hey, don’t worry about the “snappy answers” comment. I wasn’t offended by it. I guess I know the sort of people who do have lots of snappy answers and don’t make for particularly enjoyable conversation partners so I understand why you would have said that. 🙂
With regards to the question of the literal truth of some of the genesis stuff, I think the NT complicates matters too by the way some of the writers treat the OT (this would be more relevant for me though since I regard the NT writers as inspired). For example, Peter in his second letter seems to argue for the veracity of a future judgment by appealing to the OT:
“If God … did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)– if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.”
True, one could say that Peter was appealing to myths but it pretty much deadens the point he’s trying to make IMO.
So I am uncomfortable with treating Genesis as myth. On the other hand, I am open to considering it with regards to some things. I just don’t want to end up reducing piles of beliefs to the myth category since its sort of a cop out from accepting one’s religion at face value. Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, seemed to do a lot of stuff like that but basically all he was doing was trying to accomodate to his culture. Nowadays people use him only as a reference work. Demythologising the bible IMO, is copping out to culture – whether it be popular philosophy or science. If I was convinced that Genesis was factually untrue, it would lead to be reject Christianity as a whole rather than to demythologise it. Maybe it’s just me, but I see very little value in demythologising. Better just to chuck it if it’s untrue.
Thanks for the dialogue bullet!
Andrew
andrewrmcneill says
Yea, I can see where you’re coming from. Expect that Jesus had an incredibly high view of the OT: “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. Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Similarly, his followers had a very high view of the OT. So if they were believing and proclaiming something that wasn’t true, it would make me have big doubts about who Jesus actually was. So in that sense, I think the truth of the OT affects the truth of the NT.
But I better go to bed now!
Blessings,
Andrew
bullet says
Where you leave off depends on what you’re comfortable believing, I guess. I don’t believe at all so “total myth” is easy for me.
If you believe that the events driven by Moses actually happened and that he, himself, or a contemporary wrote them down, then everything from Exodus forward could be viewed as fact. I wouldn’t take a 5 or 6 thousand year text translated and mistranslated a million times as literal and absolute fact but I wouldn’t mind the position that these things actually happened sort of like they’re described. You know, did manna actually fall from heaven? Even if it didn’t, Moses (or whoever) is relaying that they found food when they needed it because God was taking care of them. Regardless, I think this would be the place where one can persuasively argue that the “history” might start.
Following this track, everything before Exodus would probably be stories passed down through generations until someone (in this case, Moses) wrote them down. Could there be a grain of truth in the them? Of course. There are truths (or wisdom, perhaps) in other stories that we know didn’t happen (Prometheus and Sisyphus are the ones I keep thinking of lately), so why would Genesis have less value if it didn’t happen exactly like it’s written?
If you can’t believe that Exodus really happened in the way it’s presented, then Judges would probably be the next point at which you could start arguing, “This really happened.” But Exodus still has value as a myth. Leviticus is obviously a book of ancient rules that didn’t necessarily have to be handed down by God or written down by Moses. It still provides a context for understanding the rest, etc. If you throw out Exodus as myth, though, the rest of the Torah and probably Joshua need to follow suit.
Judges, though, is the point at which you decide whther or not any of it (The Old Testament) is real. Until I am shown otherwise, I have no problem accepting Judges and beyond as history even if I don’t buy into the theism (Except for Job. I won’t budge on Job. It’s a story.). Just as I believe the events chronicled in the Iliad really happened (haven’t we found Troy and “Ilium”?), but Athena, Apollo and Aphrodite probably had nothing to do with them.
I think we are too driven to “know” things and be “right”. It seems to be hard for Westerners to say, “Whatever. We don’t know. This is a good idea, though.” “What if…” is what drove the creation (discovery, if you must) of religion to begin with, so why must we abandon it in religion’s evaluation?
I apologize for the “snappy answers” comment, btw. I’m in a mood and I made assumptions. I try not to do that. I also *blush* didn’t read your whole comment. Sorry.
Ugh. The long comments, too. Sorry, Jeremy. I should really get back to work.
Jeremy Myers says
Hi guys,
Wow, you all were busy today! And bullet, I see you are trying to make my blog rated NC-17 like yours! I’m amazed my spam filter let that through.
Regarding my view of Gensis 1, I am uncomfortable calling it myth as well, but to some degree, I wonder if that is even a category that Moses and the Israelites thought in. I know that Johnston uses the term “Egyptian Creation MYTH” but I wonder if that is a title we have placed on the stories, and not a term the origional author and audience would have used.
But either way, I guess it doesn’t really matter.
By the way, I think Johnston does point out that one of the differences in the Egyptian Myths and Genesis 1, is that the Egyptians had creation occur on one day, and Genesis 1 has it occur in six.
Anyway, I am not too interested in debating the historical reality of Genesis 1. Whether it is “meaningful myth” or “historical reality” we are all here now, and need to work together to love, serve, and live with one another as the Bible clearly instructs.
Thank you both for being gracious and cordial to one another. That’s what I like to see!
bullet says
I think you might be too demanding in your either/or. It’s the context that needs to be interpreted.
Peter was just a guy. Inspired by God, perhaps, but still just as ignorant of the physical world as those around him. 2000 years ago I’m sure Genesis was still taken as wholly (rimshot) fact because nothing had come along to call it into question. Even if Genesis is myth, there’s no reason to assume that Peter believed that, so his point still stands in context to what he thought was true.
“If I was convinced that Genesis was factually untrue, it would lead to be reject Christianity as a whole rather than to demythologise it.”
Really? Even when I was Catholic, I never believed that Genesis was anything but myth. I was never taught that it was fact, not in 13 years of Catholic school or the 3 or so years of Sunday school before that. In fact, I’ve never seen much in the way of value in the OT. Sure, some of it has prophesies that the NT sees as foretelling Jesus, but beyond that, who cares? God is powerful – check. God is jealous – check. God will take care of the faithful but will utterly destroy you if you piss him off – check, but then Jesus revises that one, and it doesn’t really hold up to begin with. David was faithful to the end and got screwed for a couple of sins. Solomon dabbled with Baal but was never once punished (I think).
IMO, the truth or not of the OT doesn’t (shouldn’t) have any effect on the truth of the NT. Either Jesus was real or he wasn’t. Nothing in the OT should influence that. Would Jesus be less God if he hadn’t been foretold by Elijah (or whoever)? Would he be less if there wasn’t really a garden, a flood or a tower? I don’t think so. If you believe the NT, all the OT serves as is the prelude to the truth, not the truth itself.
bullet says
Suppose Jesus knew that the OT was more parable than history. He also knew that the Jews in that time put more emphasis on the letter of the law than the spirit. Would he say anything to the effect of, “Guys, that’s all a story. I’m the real deal, here,”? Or would he simply be vague and placate them with something like, “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,” ?
And even if he did tell them the truth and they understood it in the context he gave them, would they really write it down in a book that is not only a message of life but a conversion tool?
Everyone labors under the assumption that the Gospels recorded every last thing that Jesus said and did, but I don’t recall any passages like, “Wow, I really shouldn’t have eaten that last piece of lamb.” So if some was discounted as not central to the message, it’s not an unreasonable assumption that some other things could have been discounted or left out or simply forgotten.
I realize I’m combining a LOT of arguments, here. But it goes back to my central point. We can’t possibly KNOW what went on, but 1) we have tools to help us understand things the Hebrews couldn’t and 2)we understand human nature and so we can’t assume just because someone wrote it down that it’s true or if they didn’t it’s not.
Jeremy:
Christian and Heathen, we really CAN all get along!
Sorry about the dirty words. Must have picked that up on the street.
Missy says
Jeremy, I was just thinking when I read this that there is a lot of stuff in the OT that is indicated to be Messianic prophecy in the NT, and many times that was not the original intent of the writer. Not saying I’ve thought all of this through, just wanted to point that out.
Rachel says
Jeremy,
I’m not exactly sure I understand your problem here. I haven’t done a lot of study on the Egyptian creation myths, but I have no problem with the idea that Moses wrote to specifically combat the myths out there. That seems to undergird the truth of Genesis even more, that this is the “real one” as opposed to the myths out there.
I don’t know too many people (but maybe I just don’t know them!) who think that Genesis was written specifically to combat evolution. I certainly don’t think that, as obviously evolution wasn’t being discussed back then. However, creation is categorically opposed to evolution, thus if Genesis is true then evolution must be false.
Here’s a biblical problem with accepting evolution (although there are multitudes of problems!): the NT clearly teaches that death came from Adam’s sin. This matches up fine with Adam and Eve sinning and creation “falling” after that, God not allowing meat-eating until after the Fall, etc. But this doesn’t match up at all with evolution, which has millions of years of death before humans even show up. So I believe this is one reason why some Christians are opposed to evolution – it undermines many other theological concepts in Scripture.
Also, many people lump evolution and atheism together, and conclude that evolution erodes objective morality. I don’t lump them together necessarily, because, while an atheist MUST believe in evolution, someone who believes in evolution isn’t necessarily an atheist. Many Christian groups say that if people believe we’re all just animals, then what’s to stop them from killing other people (as some do)? I do agree that that logic is sound, however, I doubt that most killers process that way. I don’t believe in evolution, I think it is wrong and just plain bad science, therefore I don’t want it being taught as fact in schools. But I don’t think that it’s “evil” per se, or that it is the root cause of all bad things in our society.
Rachel says
Hi bullet,
Thanks for your comments. Your sense of humor makes me laugh. 🙂
You said,
I don’t know of anyone (but again, maybe I just don’t know them!) who thinks that every single thing that happened was written down in the Bible. John 20:30 makes that pretty clear.
But when you say that we can’t possibly “know” what went on in Bible times, what do you mean by “know”? I ask because I find that many skeptics/nonChristians tend to have a signficantly higher standard for “knowing” something happened in history than any historian. For that matter, I can’t even “know” for sure that we’re not really in a matrix right now. kwim? So you’re right, we can’t “know” for sure as much as we can know about things more recent. Nevertheless, we CAN do a pretty good job determining what is historical fact and what isn’t.
Nothing, especially history, can be proven absolutely. But many things can be proven satisfactorily. And the evidence I’ve seen for the Bible, Jesus, etc. is beyond satisfactory. You seem to have a lot of theories and maybes and what ifs. Those are all interesting, but if there’s no evidence for them, or the evidence is lacking or not as good as other evidence, why consider them? It’d be like me saying, “well, maybe aliens populated the earth, or maybe we came directly from frogs, or maybe we’re all in a matrix somewhere, …” Those are all “possibilities” because we can’t “know” for sure. But since they don’t really conform to the evidence we have, they’re just theories and aren’t considered seriously. The existence of possible theories doesn’t preclude us from determining that something is fact.
You’re definitely right about your second point above though. Just because something is written down does NOT automatically make it true, and just because it wasn’t written down doesn’t mean it’s not true. You are absolutely right.
bullet says
Rachel:
It’s true that I have a lot of what ifs, etc. but most of that is in response to Andrew’s doubts about Genesis and his (IMO, invalid) misgivings about having those doubts. As far as what we can “know”or not, I was speaking about the events of pre-history. The mention of the events of Genesis by Peter is not enough to validate their truth and the reasonable doubt of its literal truth should not be grounds for tossing the whole bible out as nothing but a story. Once we move past Genesis, there are at least reasonable arguments to be made that the other events could have happened.
You’re right that one could theorize that the earth was populated by aliens. Indeed, some do, using the same supposed holes in our knowledge of evolution that proponents of ID use. But we have no more evidence of aliens than we do of a flood that covered the world or a tower reaching to heaven. I don’t “know” for certain that anything outside of my own thoughts is anything more than a delusion, although I certainly hope I could come up with a better delusion than the world we have! At the very least, I should be “someone important, like an actor.” In my particular delusion, though, there has been a lot of evidence that human beings, when presented with questions whose answers they cannot even begin to comprehend, let alone discover, tend to make something up.
If you believe absolutely that the events of creation happened exactly as they are presented in Genesis, then you and I have nothing more to discuss, as that opinion and mine are on different ideological planes. The central point of Jeremy’s post, however, was that it shouldn’t matter to us now if Genesis is literal fact or not. I agree. It doesn’t matter unless one wishes to present it as an alternative to the scientific explanation, for which we have more than enough evidence to convince reasonable people.
(I’ve used the term “reasonable” throughout this comment as opposed to “learned” or scientific, not as opposed to “stupid”. Felt that was an important point to make.)
Jeremy Myers says
Missy,
Many of the OT “Messianic” prophecies are in exactly the same category. We read “Jesus” back into them in a way the original author and audience would not have done.
Does this mean they cannot be used as prophecies about Jesus, or should we read “divine intent” into them?
Missy says
Jeremy, I don’t know about all the scripture we tend to read intent into. Personally, I lean toward all intent of scripture being Christ-centric in some way or manner – and that seems rather divine to me. I do know that Jesus and the apostles refer to many OT scripture as prophetic of His coming and even explain when those prophecies are fulfilled. I can’t think of any at this moment, but I remember many times reading those references and thinking, “I never would have figured that as prophetic!”
I have a short-term memory issue – so it could have been just one reference that I thought that about. 😀
It seems that we can be quick to say it’s not divine intent in the areas we don’t get or clearly see the intent of. So if it doesn’t make sense to me or fit into my theories, it must be human error screwing with God’s original intent – or we put the wrong books together or something?
I often think that Biblical “misinterpretation” is like progressive divine intent – giving what is needed at just the right time.
Jeremy Myers says
Missy,
I also think that every Scripture in some way points to Jesus. Jesus Himself said as much in John 5:39. So I love a Christocentric reading of Scripture. Dr. Johnson, who I had in class, talked about reading all Scripture with a “Christotelic” lens, which means that while it is not originally about Christ, we can look back over time and see how it all points to Christ.
Jeremy Myers says
Check out this quote from Peter Enns new book Inspiration and Incarnation
“Therefore, the question is not the degree to which Genesis conforms to what we would think is a proper description of origins. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal…. It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance….To argue, as I am doing here, that such biblical stories as creation and the flood must be understood first and foremost in the ancient contexts, is nothing new. The point I would like to emphasize, however, is that such a firm grounding in ancient myth does not make Genesis less inspired; it is not a concession that we must put up with or an embarrassment to a sound doctrine of scripture. Quite to the contrary, such rootedness in the culture of the time is precisely what it means for God to speak to his people…. This is surely what it means for God to reveal himself to people – he accommodates, condescends, meets them where they are.”
andrewrmcneill says
Enns’ book has been warmly received in the evangelical community. Westminster liked it so much that he has been suspended 😮 I must read it though. But if we say that something like Genesis is mythical and accomodates itself to the audience of that time it does make me wonder if we can be certain about anything in Scripture. If the judgment of the wicked is as certain as God’s flooding the earth in the time of Noah then perhaps I better not stake too much on the hope that it wil actually happen 😕 Is this not just watered-down Bultmann again?
Jeremy Myers says
Andrew,
I understand your concern and I agree with you. But my struggle is this:
How can we know we can read Genesis 1 the way we want it to be read if that is not the way the original author or audience would have read it?
And if we say, “They read it back then the way we read it now” again, I have to ask, “How do we know?”
Also, let’s assume for a minute that the flood is a myth. (I believe it actually happened, but let’s assume it’s a myth). If it is a myth, the point would still be the same, that God judges the wicked. If it turns out (may it never be!) that the flood is a historical myth, the fact that it would be an inspired myth does not change the bottom line point at all: God judges the wicked.
Do we say the truths of the parables are not true because the events in those stories didn’t actually happen? Are the truths of the Parable of the Prodigal Son not true unless the events of that parable actually occurred?
Paul Price says
Jeremy,
If the Flood is a myth, then the whole point of the story is lost, since God did *not* judge the wicked in the way that the Bible specifically says that he did. Either the history in Genesis is true, or it is false. The whole theology and message of the Bible is built upon and predicated upon the history we find in Genesis. Undercut that, and you undercut the whole. If we can’t trust the history in Genesis, why should we trust the history in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? They all assume Genesis as a foundation. You cant chalk up one part of the Bible as ‘myth’ but then turn around and say another part of the history is literally true: the Bible is a unified and integrated whole. You have to make a choice: believe God, or believe the modern prevailing human consensus (which rejects the Bible’s history outright).
andrewrmcneill says
Hi Jeremy,
I see your point. With regards to Genesis 1, I would have to read up on the other ancient cosmogenies. I suppose if they were sufficiently similar to Genesis 1 I would be tempted to say that Genesis 1 was aristic-literary polemical narrative. I would however stop short of saying myth because such terminology implies that the readership would have believed it to be literally true but now, we know better.
But with regards to the rest of Genesis, I would find it harder to take as not-literally-true. And yes, if the flood was not a literal event, the point remains the same. But judging by Peter’s use of the flood story, I honestly believe that he understands it to be literally true. Otherwise, should we believe that “the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly”?
About parables: in such cases, the parables are clearly delineated as such and I accept them as parables. But to start declaring to other parts of Scripture to be “parabolic” or “myth” is to enter into a realm which is very subjective and ultimately only stops where the interpreter wants it to stop. So some evangelical interpreters might be happy to stop at Genesis 1. Other more liberal scholars will be quite happy to be agnostic about nearly everything about the historical Jesus bar the fact that he existed.
My basic point is, if we accept something as myth, we need to have good reasons for doing so. What such “good reasons” are, I guess, is highly debatable. 😕
Jeremy Myers says
Andrew,
Excellent comment, and I agree with it 100%!