Quote:
Originally Posted by a mere housewife  The 'dying God', the suffering saviour (even bearing the wrath of god, as Prometheus), the God reborn, the world reborn -- are just as rife in the myths of nations and religions (before and after Christ) as the creation. Often the same symbols that Scripture uses to speak of Christ are employed. For instance, this is at least first dynasty Egyptian, many years BC (cited in E. Wallace Budge The Gods of the Egyptians), in the mouth of Osiris, "I am Yesterday, and I am Today, and I have the power to be born a second time." (the Book of the Dead)
If it is legitimate to take the historical form (which everyone seems to admit) of the early chapters of Genesis as a non-historical myth because of its resemblances to other myths, why would the same reasons not lead us to take the suffering, death, resurrection and 'conquering saviour' to be myth in the 'form' of history? Why, despite the same symbols cropping up in many different literatures, do we not attempt to dichotomize theology and fact in these narratives?
(Please note that this is not for the sake of an argument: I am not well informed about this, and would genuinely like to understand where and how my brothers in Christ who are arguing that Genesis is a myth because of the genre draw the line between creation and other teachings of Scripture that are anticipated/recurring themes in other literature.) |
Interesting. It seems to me that these folks are confusing exactly where "myth" and "history" figure in the creation account. I would not call it "myth in the form of history", but I think that it's accurate to say that the Genesis creation account is "
history in the form of
myth", insofar as "myth" is a literary genre, and "history" indicates that the story as presented is, in fact, true.
Saying that it's "myth in the form of history" is just incorrect, in a myriad of ways.