Concerning Myths

Following up with my previous post, the authority of the Bible is often questioned when other studies come along with various hypothesis. People come to the facts and interpret them due to their starting points. For example, evolutionists say the fossil layer proves that the earth is billions of years old, while creationists say that the fossil layer proves that a universal flood took place on the earth. Obviously, archaeology is no exception to these diverse interpretations of new discoveries.

Several ancient texts of the Ancient Near East, referred to as the ANE, have been discovered due to archaeology. Examples of the popular names of these literatures are Hammurabi’s Code, the Gilgamesh Epic and the Sumerian and Babylonian King Lists. Many people have struggled with the recovering of old accounts of tales and myths within these texts that contain similarities to the Biblical narratives in the Old Testament. According to David Livingstone in Correlating the Texts of Ancient Literature with the Old Testament, people have generally approached these issues with three different premises:

1.      That the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, contain much “myth” and legend, just like the other accounts that have been discovered.

2.      That the Israelites were influenced by the religions of neighboring countries and therefore, created their own religion based upon those others.

3.      That the Old Testament, particularly again the Pentateuch, was written by unauthentic authors at a later date, during the kingdom of Israel or perhaps even later.

In particular, a popular Christian apologist once struggled with these same kinds of troubling issues. C.S. Lewis (known for authoring several books, some of which the recent films Chronicles of Narnia are based off of) followed the writings of James Frazer and Joseph Campbell, who both advocated that the Biblical accounts, particularly the virgin birth, atonement and resurrection, were all irrational beliefs based upon myths. They researched and emphasized that nearly every ancient culture contained similarities with the Bible where a god, or demigod died and rose again. However, Lewis began to see the Biblical account in a different light due to the advice of his friend J.R.R. Tolkien (known for his works such as The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy). God fulfilled the chief desires of the pre-Christian pagan world; He appealed to more than just reason, but also to our imaginations. Furthermore, Christianity is set apart because its historicity has been proven! Now I realize that Lewis is primarily commenting concerning the New Testament, but as Louis Markos, author of Apologetics for the 21^st Century states: “Christians need not insist that Christianity is the only truth; we should expect to find truth in every culture and religion.” He offers a parallel to Lewis’ argument in the flood account in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Genesis flood. [Markos, Louis, and C. S. Lewis. "7—More than Balder, Not Less: C. S. Lewis and the Apologetics of Myth." InApologetics for the twenty-first century, 65-72. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010.]

              With that being said, I would like to end on what Livingstone from earlier refers to as “A Better Way.” He suggests that we begin with a completely different premise than the three previously mentioned: that the Bible is a completely true account, divinely inspired book. He admits that to do this, presuppositions are obviously present, but that those must be proven with facts and until done so, should be held “somewhat lightly.” Building upon this, he offers six hypotheses that he feels will be sufficiently supported by facts:

1.      The ANE texts that we have discovered are not equivalent to the source material of the Bible.

2.      The Bible is not a collection of myths, but rather historical facts.

3.      The ANE texts were not “evolved” but were “fabricated religio-politico” accounts that were intended to serve a specific function.  

4.      The Israelite’s religion was antithetic to the various religions magnified in the ANE literatures.

5.      The purposes of the Bible and the ANE literature were different; Genesis showed how the religion revolving around Jehovah God came about.

6.      The Bible and the ANE literature basically come down to one major issue: “Who will control men and the world?”

I found these hypotheses to be interesting and helpful in setting the groundwork for interpreting archaeological discoveries from a Christian worldview. I think it is important to remember that we cannot use archaeology as a source of proving the Bible. On the other hand, similarities in recent finds should not be a cause to say that the Bible is not true either; we should not be surprised! 

Six Days or Billions of Years?

The church distressingly finds itself losing influence on the youth of today, even children who have grown up under it’s seemingly protective roof. The church points it’s fingers at pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, cheating, and other more commonly expressed sins of our day and says “Stop that!” They shake their heads and comment on how bad the world has become and act as if there remains no salvation for the young people of America. I want to suggest that these sins are not the foundational problem; rather, we let the problem in ourselves and are continuing to urge it on with our passive view of how this universe came to be.

            My initial reaction to this topic years ago was one of little importance. I did not see how not having a clear foundation about origins would affect my life or those around me. I still believed that the Bible was true and even if we did not all agree about how the Earth was actually created that everybody still needed to accept Jesus as their Savior. As I read through Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth, I realized that many others feel the same way. He states, “…theologically, it makes no difference whether the world is of recent or ancient creation or whether the process took seven days or billions of years. It is unfortunate that some view one’s position in this matter as a test of orthodoxy.” However, as I studied the topic last semester, I realized that it is vitally important to discuss and that if affects everyone.

The church, since the proposal of evolution in the 1700’s, takes various stands regarding the issue. Some accept evolution as valid and then attempt to make it fit with the creation story in Genesis chapter one. One of these efforts is called the gap theory; this idea claims that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, millions or billions of years  took place. Another attempt, called day-age or progressive creation, accepts the big bang origin as evolution teaches and explains that the days of creation in Genesis were actually long periods of time. Others in the church regard all of the creation account in Genesis as simply a myth. Many other cultures have their own myths about how the universe came to be; the Bible just uses Genesis as its story. Lastly, Young-Earthers interpret Genesis literally and conclude that the Earth is six to ten thousand years old. They concur that the universe was formed in six twenty-four hour days, that Noah’s Flood provides the basis for geological formations we see around the world and that all death entered the universe as a result of Adam and Eve’s first sin in the Garden of Eden.

The outcomes of all the different church standings are various. The gap and day-age theories come to the conclusion that man must know more accurate information now and all the details are not properly given in the Bible. Science proves itself reliable and must be taken as fact while the Bible must be constantly twisted and distorted until it aligns with what the majority of science sees in the geological record. This analysis, along with the view that the creation story is simply a myth, creates distrust in the Bible. Because the Bible proves itself to be unreliable historically, can we really believe anything else it has to say?

On the other hand, the opposite reaction comes about from taking the Biblical Young-Earth view of creationism. Taking the Genesis account as literal without trying to impose any of man’s interpretations onto the text establishes trust in God’s account and builds a firm foundation in His Word. This foundation gives humanity not only a specific purpose, but also a moral standard. God created man for a relationship with Him and we live to glorify Him in all that we do. Decisions to determine right and wrong come from the moral law found in the Bible. Because humans are not a product of random chance, they rely on their God given conscience to help them make decisions not specified as black and white in His law.

Many Christians fail to see the importance of addressing such an issue and we are seeing the consequences of the compromise. Abortion, family breakups, racism, sexual immorality are all symptoms, but not the problem. Because the basis for absolute authority has been discredited, people are free to justify anything. Therefore, taking a stand on what God’s Word says about Creation becomes vitally important. If we teach that you cannot trust the first chapter of the Bible, then why in the world would we expect our young people to believe the Bible about its moral implications and even the redemptive work of Christ?