Van Over, one of the leading "creation myth" researchers concluded (1980: 10), "The surprising and perplexing fact is that the basic themes for (creation) myths in widely different geographical areas are strikingly similar." Furthermore, these basic themes are contained in the record found in the second chapter of Genesis. This similarity has intrigued scholars for years. Rooth (1981) analyzed 300 North American Indian creation myths and found that, aside from variations according to culture and other factors, the entire group had only a few basic themes.

These few examples illustrate the difficulty of understanding culture from a few isolated artifacts, including words. Likewise, there is good evidence that the ancients did not literally believe that Zeus caused rain, the sun was a god, or any of the other myths which we today enjoy reading (Ellis, 1982). Mankind has always loved stories, and most of the ancient myths were stories, and should be viewed as such today unless there are compelling reasons not to (Sproul, 1979). Of course, there is no doubt that past generations believed many things which we today recognize are wrong. Ellis (1982: 1 2) concludes that:

If one is acquainted with the nature of myth (even on an elementary level), one is aware that even the ancient peoples who constructed them did not subscribe to a "literal" interpretation of them. The truth content of myth was considered to be higher, in a moral or religious sense, than merely a description of physical reality. For anyone in the twentieth century to ascribe "literal" reality to these ancient myths is almost too comical in itself to need further ridicule.  

We not only try to convince people that biblical creation is true, but we also try to show why it is the best way to approach both the Bible and the physical evidence in the origins debate. G.S. writes:

Of course we believe that biblical creation is the only correct option in the origins debate, and of course we would advocate believing that—we think it’s true! Truth excludes falsehood by the very nature of truth; does that mean truth is by nature arrogant? But that doesn’t work; truth is a concept , so it can’t have emotions or will, and so it can’t be arrogant. If truth can be arrogant, then a principle can be a principal! Of course, people (including biblical creationists) can be arrogant in the way they present truth, but that has nothing to do with the truth; it has to do with the moral weakness of the person presenting it.

I'd rather risk a door slam than never have my knocks answered. The idea that we don't have to believe in biblical creation is counterproductive in any context, including salvation. By conceding ground here how can CMI gain a hearing, particularly from those who oppose us by saying the Genesis account doesn't matter? Would a better apologetic not be to question the veracity of conditioning salvation to believing the historicity of Genesis? Having read all the articles regarding the so-called "inconsistent Christians" in the archive, I still feel it legitimizes unbelief or doubt. One wonders, "What else don't I have to believe to be saved?"

Van Over, one of the leading "creation myth" researchers concluded (1980: 10), "The surprising and perplexing fact is that the basic themes for (creation) myths in widely different geographical areas are strikingly similar." Furthermore, these basic themes are contained in the record found in the second chapter of Genesis. This similarity has intrigued scholars for years. Rooth (1981) analyzed 300 North American Indian creation myths and found that, aside from variations according to culture and other factors, the entire group had only a few basic themes.

These few examples illustrate the difficulty of understanding culture from a few isolated artifacts, including words. Likewise, there is good evidence that the ancients did not literally believe that Zeus caused rain, the sun was a god, or any of the other myths which we today enjoy reading (Ellis, 1982). Mankind has always loved stories, and most of the ancient myths were stories, and should be viewed as such today unless there are compelling reasons not to (Sproul, 1979). Of course, there is no doubt that past generations believed many things which we today recognize are wrong. Ellis (1982: 1 2) concludes that:

If one is acquainted with the nature of myth (even on an elementary level), one is aware that even the ancient peoples who constructed them did not subscribe to a "literal" interpretation of them. The truth content of myth was considered to be higher, in a moral or religious sense, than merely a description of physical reality. For anyone in the twentieth century to ascribe "literal" reality to these ancient myths is almost too comical in itself to need further ridicule.  

We not only try to convince people that biblical creation is true, but we also try to show why it is the best way to approach both the Bible and the physical evidence in the origins debate. G.S. writes:

Of course we believe that biblical creation is the only correct option in the origins debate, and of course we would advocate believing that—we think it’s true! Truth excludes falsehood by the very nature of truth; does that mean truth is by nature arrogant? But that doesn’t work; truth is a concept , so it can’t have emotions or will, and so it can’t be arrogant. If truth can be arrogant, then a principle can be a principal! Of course, people (including biblical creationists) can be arrogant in the way they present truth, but that has nothing to do with the truth; it has to do with the moral weakness of the person presenting it.

I'd rather risk a door slam than never have my knocks answered. The idea that we don't have to believe in biblical creation is counterproductive in any context, including salvation. By conceding ground here how can CMI gain a hearing, particularly from those who oppose us by saying the Genesis account doesn't matter? Would a better apologetic not be to question the veracity of conditioning salvation to believing the historicity of Genesis? Having read all the articles regarding the so-called "inconsistent Christians" in the archive, I still feel it legitimizes unbelief or doubt. One wonders, "What else don't I have to believe to be saved?"

Geologists have long recognized that history is fundamental to their discipline. Traditionally, the science has been split into two parts—physical geology and historical geology. Before we can make sense of the rocks we need to know what happened in the past—we need a reliable history of the earth.

The problem is that we can’t travel back in time to look, so we have to make assumptions. This problem is such a simple fact, yet it is incredibly profound. Most geologists today assume that the past was much the same as the present. They speculate that the geological processes we see happening now can be extended indefinitely into the past—on and on forever, virtually. This belief is a philosophy called uniformitarianism, and with this assumption they invent a ‘history’ for the earth. The operative word is invention. It is not an observation.

What do we see happening in the present? We see events such as volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis. These can be large and destructive but compared with the whole of the earth the permanent effects of these are relatively small. In other words, when we extend the present back into the past, we need to imagine these processes going on for millions of years in order to account for all the rocks we see on the earth. That is to say, the need for millions of years of earth history comes directly out of this assumption.

Van Over, one of the leading "creation myth" researchers concluded (1980: 10), "The surprising and perplexing fact is that the basic themes for (creation) myths in widely different geographical areas are strikingly similar." Furthermore, these basic themes are contained in the record found in the second chapter of Genesis. This similarity has intrigued scholars for years. Rooth (1981) analyzed 300 North American Indian creation myths and found that, aside from variations according to culture and other factors, the entire group had only a few basic themes.

These few examples illustrate the difficulty of understanding culture from a few isolated artifacts, including words. Likewise, there is good evidence that the ancients did not literally believe that Zeus caused rain, the sun was a god, or any of the other myths which we today enjoy reading (Ellis, 1982). Mankind has always loved stories, and most of the ancient myths were stories, and should be viewed as such today unless there are compelling reasons not to (Sproul, 1979). Of course, there is no doubt that past generations believed many things which we today recognize are wrong. Ellis (1982: 1 2) concludes that:

If one is acquainted with the nature of myth (even on an elementary level), one is aware that even the ancient peoples who constructed them did not subscribe to a "literal" interpretation of them. The truth content of myth was considered to be higher, in a moral or religious sense, than merely a description of physical reality. For anyone in the twentieth century to ascribe "literal" reality to these ancient myths is almost too comical in itself to need further ridicule.  

Genesis 1 GNT - The Story of Creation - In the - Bible Gateway


Biblical Creation Department - God And Science.org

Posted by 2018 article

517yWLvAvEL