Among all of the Creation Myths - Why Genesis?

[_DrW]

Surely there is a rabbi out there somewhere who quotes Robert Frost poems and tells stories about bringing cookies to widows.

Surely there is a rabbi out there who sits at the head of a multibillion-dollar corporation that operates under business model that Ponzi would have killed for - or perhaps not.

[_Some Schmo]

It's wonder the Jews can tolerate their journey through this veil of tears without having living prophets of God tell them that the Motion Picture Association of America is divinely inspired to know which movies should be rated R because God doesn't want us to see them.

LMAO

[_Buffalo]

Nope, many of them missed the boat back in the first century. And while they are still God's first chosen, they are currently laboring in the world without the truth and blessings the rest of us have access to.

Antisemitism rears its ugly head again.

[Guest]

Nope, many of them missed the boat back in the first century. And while they are still God's first chosen, they are currently laboring in the world without the truth and blessings the rest of us have access to.

This kind of arrogant and absolutely baseless statement is pretty much what folks have come to expect from BCSpace.

From a rational point of view, one would need to consider that these 14 million or so unfortunate Jews, laboring in the world without truth or the Lord's blessings, have nonetheless made contributions to human knowledge, science, and to society in general that outweigh, by orders of magnitude, those made by (the claimed) 14 million truth-possessing and Elohim-blessed Mormons who inhabit the Earth.

I know that I have mentioned this example before, so please forgive me, but how can one claim that the "Lord's truth" is an advantage when a culture that produces more than 180 Nobel Prize winners is laboring without the Lord's truth and that a culture that has produced exactly zero Nobel Prize winners has such truth?

If Mormonism is an example of what the Lord's truth and blessing do for a people and a culture, and Judaism is an example of a culture that a culture can contribute that labors without it, then excuse me, but the world is better off without it.

[_maklelan]

What is so special about the Genesis creation myth that some Christians spend a significant part of their lives trying to rationalize it with modern science?

Why do creation myths coming out of the area of the fertile crescent command so much attention while almost no attention is paid in the west to the hundreds of other creation myths from other parts of the world that humankind has come up with since we learned to tell stories?

First, there are two creation myths in Genesis. The first is the one that receives the most attention, and there are a couple reasons. First, it is in the Bible and it is the very beginning of the Bible. That gives it quite a place of prominence in the Western World (and the Roman appropriation of Christianity certainly helped that). Second, although it was not the original sense of the text, it lends itself to some degree to reinterpretation along Platonic dualistic lines, which have also played a significant role in developing the Western worldview. The muting of mythological elements and the creation by the spoken word make it much more useful to that worldview.

[_DrW]

What is so special about the Genesis creation myth that some Christians spend a significant part of their lives trying to rationalize it with modern science?

Why do creation myths coming out of the area of the fertile crescent command so much attention while almost no attention is paid in the west to the hundreds of other creation myths from other parts of the world that humankind has come up with since we learned to tell stories?

First, there are two creation myths in Genesis. The first is the one that receives the most attention, and there are a couple reasons. First, it is in the Bible and it is the very beginning of the Bible. That gives it quite a place of prominence in the Western World (and the Roman appropriation of Christianity certainly helped that). Second, although it was not the original sense of the text, it lends itself to some degree to reinterpretation along Platonic dualistic lines, which have also played a significant role in developing the Western worldview. The muting of mythological elements and the creation by the spoken word make it much more useful to that worldview.

Thanks for this insight.

Now I guess I need to go read up on the second creation myth in the Old Testament.

[_mikwut]

Hello DrW,

Last fall, I attended a lecture by Richard Dawkins. He spoke at some length about the hundreds of creation myths that humankind has come up with throughout history.

I don't suppose you read someone like Claus Westermann or any other actual expert in this area to balance the no doubt fascinating lecture you attended of Mr. Dawkins?

His point, and he made it very well, was that the creation myth in Genesis is not unique

If he meant as in 'creation myth' in general than of course that is correct there are indeed numerous examples, if he meant in particular aspects than he is not correct Genesis 1:1-11 is and has many unique aspects to it.

and has a great many features in common with myths from other parts of the world - myths that humans came up with, both before and after the time of Genesis.

Is this surprising to anyone except fundamentalists, or is that your only audience your addressing your post of 'faithful' to?

RIchard Dawkins then asked what it was about the Genesis creation myth that should recommend it above all of the other creation myths

There are many reasons, historical, theological, sociological, inspirational..... Currently, given the now well understood meanings of verse 1 (God created the universe out of nothing) and the sharp distinction to verse 2 moving to the earth - that is unique - particularly among the Gilgamesh tale and its branches or the Enuma Elish at its heritage. The stark contrast to the prevalent polytheism is unique. They exhibit clear differences such as forming matter - or being written to lift a new king, the presence of co-existing female deities, the pinnacle of man, and many more. The differences of function and theme can be distinguished. Of course none of this has anything to do with truth or falsity per se - but there are indeed unique differences.

many of which came directly from the deities in question, and several of which were more elegant and well thought out than the one in the Old Testament

What scientific criteria are you and Mr. Dawkins utilizing for "elegance"?

Of course, there is nothing about the Genesis creation myth that really distinguishes it from the other myths that are taught and believed in any number of other cultures on the Earth.

Well I just named some of the well known distinguishing features above - there are more but I am not sure that matters to you - I have a sneaky feeling you would dismiss it anyways. I hope I am wrong.

I noted that a number of the creation myths that Dawkins described reflected a much closer and ongoing relationship between the deity and humankind than does the Genesis myth, and found this quite interesting.

This is interesting. You just got done criticizing Genesis for there being "nothing about the genesis creation myth that really distinguishes it from the other myths..." and then proceeded to mention a rather striking distinguishing feature i.e. the actual relationship of man and deity - no trivial thing in order to condemn it.

Perhaps the faithful on this thread could come up with reasons why the Genesis myth should be given any more weight than the Norse creation myth or a number of very pleasant creation myths from Oceania and the Southern Islands, or any of the hundreds of other myths in the world.

Why should the historically kept (another distinguishing factor by the way) by the Jews and Christians creation tale through thousands of years that has had profound effect on western civilization and many other historical epochs of world history be given any more weight? If one is of that tradition I fear patronizing you by stating the obvious answer - if one is not - than your quite right, naturally so.

my regards, mikwut

[_DrW]

mikwut,

Thanks for your comments. You clearly have a greater familiarity with the various creation myths from Mesopotamia and surrounding area than I do.

And since you seem quite willing to recognize these as myths instead of assuming a literalist interpretation as many religionists do, I have no reason not to agree with most of what you wrote in your response.

While I recognize that a number of the reasons you cite for the relative importance of the Genesis creation myth are probably valid, I still see the Genesis creation myth as a one among many, with no attributes that would make it more amenable to, or consistent with, a literalist interpretation.

[Guest]

Thanks for this insight.

Now I guess I need to go read up on the second creation myth in the Old Testament.

There are a few within the Old Testament as a whole, but we have one in Genesis 1 and one in Genesis 2. The second, in my opinion, is earlier and reflects a Syro-Palestinian approach to the creation of humanity (which had no strict cosmogony), while Genesis 1 reflects a later Assyro-Babylonian approach.

[_maklelan]

There are many reasons, historical, theological, sociological, inspirational..... Currently, given the now well understood meanings of verse 1 (God created the universe out of nothing) and the sharp distinction to verse 2 moving to the earth - that is unique - particularly among the Gilgamesh tale and its branches or the Enuma Elish at its heritage. The stark contrast to the prevalent polytheism is unique. They exhibit clear differences such as forming matter - or being written to lift a new king, the presence of co-existing female deities, the pinnacle of man, and many more. The differences of function and theme can be distinguished. Of course none of this has anything to do with truth or falsity per se - but there are indeed unique differences.

Are you contending that Genesis 1:1 suggests creation ex nihilo? If so, that notion stands in quite direct contradiction to the academic consensus. The fact that בראשית always stands in construct first undermines reading it as an absolute form. The fact that the creation of the heavens and the earth are described explicitly as secondary creative acts in the ensuing verses also undermines that reading. The past time narrative sequence of vv. 1–3 do the same, and there is, finally, the fact that ברא cannot be shown to have anything to do with the notion of creation ex nihilo. Add to this the fact that the development of the notion of creation ex nihilo can be quite simply dated to the second century CE, and the idea that Genesis 1 at all talks about the absolute creation of matter simply disintegrates.