In my previous article I mentioned that “to examine critically the doctrine of inspiration, especially by a lay member of the church, is looked upon with suspicion, if not anger, by theologians. For them, the main issue is authority. By claiming the authority of the Bible based on inspiration, they actually claim authority for themselves and for their opinions regarding spiritual matters as the ones who are the ‘professionals’ in the field”. The issue of authority is both a pressing and debilitating one for the church, as shown by George Knight’s recent article “Catholic or Adventist: The Ongoing Struggle Over Authority + 9.5 Theses” presented recently at the Unity 2017 Conference in London, England. Dr. Knight says:
“Looking back at early Adventism, no one could have predicted that by mid-twentieth century Seventh-day Adventism would be the most highly structured denomination in the history of Christianity, with four levels of authority above the local congregation. The plain fact is that the earliest Adventists feared structured churches. And with good reason. That fear is nicely expressed in the October 1861 meeting that saw the establishment of the first local conference. Part of the discussion at that historic meeting had to do with developing a formal statement of belief. John Loughborough took the lead in the discussion and laid out five progressive points that nicely express the attitude of most of his audience.
- “The first step of apostasy,” he noted, “is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe.
- “The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship.
- “The third is to try members by that creed.
- “The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed.
- “And, fifth, to commence persecution against such.”
Could it be that “The 28 Fundamental Beliefs” is nothing else than a “first step of apostasy”, a “creed, telling us what we shall believe”? When it comes to the issue of the Genesis creation, it surely looks like it since our arms are twisted into accepting the church’s views as stated in the 6th Fundamental Belief, which was modified and made more stringent at the 2015 session of the General Conference in San Antonio, TX. It states:
“God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today. The ﬁrst man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was ﬁnished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1-2; 5; 11; Exod. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Isa. 45:12, 18; Acts 17:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; 11:3; Rev. 10:6; 14:7.)”
What follows is clearly my own position, which diverges from that of the church, and is based on my right, as a Protestant, to read and interpret the Bible using my own mind. Regarding the wording of the sixth Fundamental Belief I can say that, first of all, God did not write the Genesis “authentic and historical account of His creative activity”. Genesis is written by a human author sometime in the 1st or 2nd millennium BC who does not claim to had been shown this “account” in any kind of supernatural revelation, as later prophets of the Old Testament claim. Second, the language of the 6th belief is equivocal. Did God create the whole Universe in six days? Or just our solar system? And what exactly is meant by “the heavens” in the first verse, since the heavens were created in the second day? Third, there is nothing in the text of Genesis to suggest a “recent” creation. This idea of “recent” is based on Bishop James Ussher’s calculated chronology published in his 1658 work The Annals of the World iv. This chronology was included in an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and since then it has been considered as authoritative as the Bible itself. Are we to be confined to some 17th century theologian’s views? Thirdly, the Genesis narration does not say that “He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed”. The Sabbath is lacking “an evening and a morning” like the other days, and all is said about it is that “God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation (NET trans). Lastly, the Genesis says nothing about the “six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today”. The seven-day week has been used by Sumerians and Babylonians long time before the author of Genesis writes about it, therefore it is no wonder why he describes the work of creation being done in the same pattern of work and rest that humans used in most of the Mesopotamian valley. There are many more things to be said, therefore, I will bring here some additional information regarding the sources that support my thesis # 6, as it reads:
Thesis 6 – The narration of Genesis does not represent a historical and factual report of Creation, but a polemic device against the mythologies of Ancient Near East, namely Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian.
The Bible presents us with two creation stories, somewhat different from each other. The first story is found in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3. The second story is in Genesis 2:4 – 2:24. Have you ever wonder why are there two creations stories in Genesis, or why are they different from each other? Have you pondered upon the meaning of things such as an Earth “without form and void”, or “the face of the deep”, or “the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters”? I have been interested in the stories of creation since my adolescence, however, only recently I discovered that many studies done in the last hundred years or so make the Creation story to be easily understood, therefore I am about to share some insights of my recent search for understanding.
Fundamentalists and American evangelical believers, in general, hold to a verbal inspiration of Scriptures, therefore they believe that the Genesis creation stories should be read and understood as a literal description of how the world was created, as if in a newspaper story or a TV documentary film showing what actually happened. For some, this has been a way to counteract the liberal theologies of the 19th and 20th centuries, perceived as a threat to the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. I do not doubt the good intentions of those who sincerely believe in a literal understanding of the Creation story. However, we need to admit that the great majority of fundamentalists are uneducated and ignorant regarding science. Even those who have higher degrees and have ever held teaching positions in various evangelical institutions, rejected, from a misunderstood allegiance to the Bible, clear, documented, facts of science if they contradicted the Bible. As I mentioned in a previous post, one of the retired theology professors I spoke with states that his preferred way of understanding the world is that of a “strict conformism”, meaning that he would only accept facts of science that align with a literal understanding of Genesis, otherwise they would be discarded. When I pointed to another active professor of the same institution that the Biblical writers understood the Earth as being flat and in the center of the cosmos, he admitted that. Indeed, he said, that was their understanding regarding the Earth, but “they never claimed to have been inspired by God to say that”, which begs the question: if the author of Genesis did not claim that God inspired him to render the Creation the way he did, why do we claim that he was inspired? I asked him, “what if, theoretically speaking, evolution proves to be true beyond any doubt, just like the Earth is proven now to be round, not flat as it has been believed by the writers of the Bible”? He answered, “even if evolution proves to be true, I will not accept it, because it would mean that I have to reject the Bible and its God because He lied to me in the Bible”. I told him that God did not lie to him or anyone else, since God did not write the Bible. “What if”, I asked him, ” you are just lying to yourself, since you believe that the only way to understand the Bible is your own way”? Indeed, Ellen White warned us that “as a people we are certainly in great danger, if we are not constantly guarded of considering our ideas, because long cherished, to be Bible doctrine and in every point infallible, and measuring everyone by the rule of our interpretation of Bible truth. This is our danger, and this would be the greatest evil that could ever come to us as a people.”
We ought to keep in mind that in our attempt to understand the Creation, we simply cannot look at the Genesis narrations by our 21st century understanding of the Cosmos, but we have to consider what the author had in mind, what message he wanted to convey by his text and how it was looked upon by the readers to whom it was addressed, namely the Jews coming out of the Egyptian slavery. Evidently, the Genesis author did not have a different knowledge regarding the Cosmos than what it was believed by those living at the time, as expressed in the mythologies of the Ancient Near East and especially the Egyptian cosmologies. If Moses is the writer of Genesis, as it is largely believed, it is amazing that most theologians, liberal and conservative alike, missed out on focusing on Egyptian mythology in order to realize the close parallels and also contradictions to it, as they appear not only in the first two chapters of Genesis, but throughout the Old Testament. The Genesis writer takes a clear and direct stand against the Egyptian mythology, therefore the Creation narrative is not a scientific description of how God created the world, but a literary theological polemic against the Ancient Near East mythologies and especially the Egyptian mythology.
Why did liberals and conservatives miss the “Genesis as polemic” view?
Gordon H. Johnston listed four reasons for which scholars were in the dark regarding the Egyptian mythology:
“Nearly a century ago two biblical scholars – A.H. Sayce and A.S. Yahuda – drew attention to parallels between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation myths, which they claimed were tighter than the putative Mesopotamian parallels. However, their work fell on deaf ears for several reasons: (1) scholars’ fixation on the Mesopotamian materials, which were more widely known and accessible; (2) critical assumptions that Genesis 1 should be classified as P, dated to the exilic or postexilic period, and assigned to a Babylonian provenance; (3) failure to take seriously the biblical tradition of Hebrew origins in the land of Egypt; and (4) general lack of familiarity with the Egyptian language and literature dealing with creation.”
Indeed, after Wellhausen and his colleagues proposed the Documentary Hypothesis in the 19th and 20th centuries, the majority of liberal scholars adhered to the idea that Genesis as we have it now in our Bible, like other texts of the Old Testament, is an edited collection of various texts coming from various sources. While “many writers, one Bible” is an acceptable view of Scriptures, the Documentary Hypothesis viewed Genesis as an Exilic or post-Exilic text dated somewhere between the 3rd and the 6th centuries B.C.. This lead to a fixation of the scholars on the Babylonian mythology as the source from which the Genesis author borrowed, being known as the “Pan-Babylonian view”. As such, scholars tried to find parallels between Genesis and the Mesopotamian creation stories, especially after various clay tablets have been discovered with texts like The Epic of Gilgamesh (1872) and the Enuma elish (1875). The Egyptian mythology has been neglected almost entirely, even though various scholars studied its connections with Genesis.
On the other hand, conservative scholars missed the polemic aspect of Genesis due to their fixation on the dogmas of the biblical verbal inspiration, seen as a safe guard against the attacks on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible coming from the liberal critics. They concentrated their efforts in dismissing the higher criticism, showing, like Gerhard F. Hasel did, that Genesis was not dependent on Mesopotamian mythology. Instead, they argued for a literal, historical interpretation as the only Biblical supported view. However, as I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I have never heard a good explanation as to why we have two creation stories in Genesis (and other poetical references to creation in the Old Testament), which are different from each other. Also, nobody ever explained why are these stories so irrational if looked upon through our modern understanding of the world and Cosmos. Clearly, in my mind, the Genesis stories must have had something else to say rather than describing the making of our physical world in a literal sense. And so I continued to look, starting from our SDA sources, like the Biblical Research Institute (BRI) and the Adventist Theological Society (ATS).
The first articles that got my attention were Dr. Hasel’s articles “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology” and “The Significance of Cosmology in Genesis 1 in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” Then, I found Dr. Gordon H. Johnston’s article “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,”These articles in turn provided for me other sources of Egyptian scholarship which helped me to understand the background against which the author of Genesis wrote and what his intentions were, meaning, to deconstruct, if I may use this expression, the Egyptian and ANE texts in order to deny the validity and prowess of Egyptian gods and to exalt the Hebrew god, Yahve-Elohim.
The Egyptian mythology and Genesis
Many of the Genesis terms and concepts used in Genesis 1 and 2 are found in Egyptian texts dated as early as the 26th century B.C., thus predating the times of Genesis by hundreds of years (this is already a blow to the idea of Genesis as a “special revelation”, idea promoted not by the author of Genesis, but by the fundamentalist scholars). The main question I am raising in this article is not whether Genesis is myth, because I do not believe it is, but whether it is a historical narrative of how God physically created the world or, rather, it is a theological polemic against the ANE mythologies and especially the Egyptian mythology written in a mythological language. I believe it to be the latter.
The Egyptian mythology is diverse, having many variants depending on the many civil and cultic centers where preference toward certain gods was the main criteria of distinction. There are more than twelve Egyptian mythological variants, but the most important are those centered in the great cities like, Hermopolis, Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis. There are four main texts belonging to these cultic centers and they can be arranged by the dates of their writing, such as:
- Pyramid Texts, from the time of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2613 – 2345 B.C.)
- Coffin Texts, from the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1991 – 1786 B.C.)
- Book of the Dead, from the New Kingdom (ca. 1570 – 1220 B.C.)
- Shabaka Stone, written at the order of king Shabaka (ca. 716 – 702 B.C.) with the intention of preserving a deteriorating text dating from the time of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2494 – 2345 B.C.)
As early as 1887, A.H. Sayce observed the parallels between Genesis and the Hermopolis mythology: the deep watery chaos, the spirit that moves over across the waters, the creation of light, or the appearance of land from the waters. A.S. Yahuda also observed in 1933 – 1934 the similarities between the old Egyptian texts and the first chapters of Genesis, highlighting the influence of Egyptian texts upon the Pentateuch. In 1982, Cyrus Gordon, an evangelical Egyptologist, noted the similarities between the mythology of Thebes, where Khnum, the “potter” god, creates mankind from clay, and the second creation story in Genesis 2, 4 – 24, and in 1983 James Hoffmeier wrote an article in which he emphasized the clear parallels between the Egyptian mythology and the Genesis accounts of creation, like the Cosmos condition before the creation, the first acts of creation, and the similarities regarding the creation of man. Egyptian mythologies use various names and roles for their gods and often times there are associations between these names and roles, as there are associations between the gods and the elements of nature. The role as Creator is attributed to the main deity of a particular center of worship. Atum and Re (or Ra) are associated with the Heliopolis mythology, Ptah is the main deity at Memphis, and Khnum is the potter creator god at Thebes. However, these mythologies (except the Thebes one) present a pretty similar story, as follows.
- There is an undifferentiated chaos, a primordial ocean personified as the god Nun.
- From this ocean (Nun), the god Atum (in other versions Re, or Ptah) appears by self-creation. He is the creator of other gods and the world.
- When Atum (Re, Ptah) appears from the waters (Nun), his first manifestation is a supernatural light.
- Also from waters (Nun) appears a hill, a dry land on which Atum (Re, Ptah) will perform his creative acts.
- Atum creates the first generation of gods, personifications of elements of nature, from his saliva or semen, Ptah creates by word (the Memphite mythology says that Ptah created Re/Ra), Khnum creates at the potter’s wheel.
- The climax of creation is the creation of the Sun god Amun-Re.
- At the end of creation, which lasts one day, the creator god (Atum/Re/Ptah) rests in satisfaction.
- Every morning a new creation cycle starts at sunrise.
The purpose and space of this post does not allow going too much in depth regarding the Egyptian mythologies. It is noteworthy, however, to observe that while the humans creation is mentioned only tangentially in most Egyptian creation stories, which deal mainly with the creation of gods and the Cosmos, in the Thebes’ tradition, Khnum, the potter god, creates man from clay and his wife, goddess Heket, breathes life upon the clay silhouette, which becomes a living being.
Below is a comparison chart that shows structural parallels between the Memphite mythology and the Genesis 1 account, as noted by Gordon Johnston.
|Memphis – Shabaka Stone – Mythology||Genesis 1 Account|
|There is a pre-existing, primordial ocean, an undifferentiated watery chaos.||God is pre-existing. He creates Heavens and Earth, and Earth is a watery chaos.|
|Breath/wind (Amun) moves on the waters.||The Spirit of God moves over the waters.|
|Word of Ptah creates god Atum (light).||Word of God creates light.|
|Emergence of primordial hill “in midst of Nun”||Creation of the firmament “in the midst of the waters”.|
|Procreation of Shu (god of the sky) when Nun was raised over earth.||Creation of sky when waters were raised above the firmament.|
|Formation of heavenly ocean (Nut) by separation.||Formation of heavenly ocean when waters were separated.|
|Formation of dry ground (Geb) by separation.||Formation of dry ground when waters were gathered.|
|Earth sprouts plants, fish, birds, reptiles, animals.||Creation of plants…later fish, birds, reptiles, animals.|
|Sun created as the image of Re to rule the world.||Sun and moon created to rule the day and night.|
|Creation of gods’ statues, cult sites, food offerings.||Creation of man as divine image, food to eat, dominion.|
|Ptah completes activity and “rests” in satisfaction.||God completes activity and “rests” in satisfaction.|
As stated above, the fact that the Egyptian texts are in fact much older than the Book of Genesis, older than the Flood itself, as understood by fundamentalists who believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that the Flood occurred in year 2348 BC, leads us to a rather rational explanation that the Genesis author has never been given a “special revelation” of the Creation. Instead, he was aware of the previous texts and mythologies of the Ancient Near East, Egypt’s included, and engaged in a direct polemic and refutation of the polytheistic view of gods, promoting Yahve the only true God as the Creator of the world.
- Yahweh is not like the Egyptian gods, who are made of, or appear from, matter; he is pre-existent, self-sustaining, and Creator of all there is.
- Light is not a manifestation, or dependent, of a god, but it is a natural element created by God for a purpose. (I have heard fundamentalists explain that during the first three days of creation, before the sun was created, “an evening and a morning” had to do with God lighting up the world. This is a wrong, unbiblical concept, because Genesis is speaking on purpose against the idea that light comes from deity, from gods).
- There is not a struggle between Yahweh and the primordial matter, between Yahweh and Tehom, as there is a struggle between Marduk and Tiamat in the Babylonian mythology, whom Marduk kills in battle and, from her body, he makes heaven and earth. Yahweh creates matter effortlessly and creation is harmonious.
- While in the Egyptian mythology the climax of creation is the creation of the Sun in the image of Re, in Genesis the climax is the creation of man after Yahweh’s image. The Sun and the Moon are not even mentioned by name, but they are called “luminaries”, or “a greater light for the day, and a lesser light for the night”, made to help number the days, and years, and seasons.
- While in the Egyptian mythology Khnum can only make humans on the potter’s wheel and he needs his wife, Heket, to give humans the breath of life, Yahweh is superior and does it all by Himself, He is not dependent on helpers.
- While the creation cycle is repeated every day in the Egyptian mythology, in Genesis creation is described by the long established pattern of working six days and ceasing on the seventh, a cycle that does not repeat every week, because the creation of Yahweh is “very good” and complete. (The issue of the seven-day week and the Sabbath will be discussed on the next article).
In closing, there are too many parallels between the Egyptian mythology and the Genesis rendering of creation to consider them just accidental and unrelated. At the same time, there are clear differences that “speak” volumes in terms of what the Genesis author’s intentions were. These descriptions of origins, whether Egyptian or ANE mythologies, and the Genesis have nothing to tell us regarding how the physical world came into being. We know today a lot more about the Cosmos and our world than ever before. It is quite clear that the Genesis author “borrowed” from the existing stories and transformed them into stories compatible with an orthodox Yahwistic theology. He is interested in theological and ideological “right” or “wrong” of things rather than the scientific explanations of origins. Understanding his intentions and how the readers of his time understood the Genesis text help us to be balanced and be more restrained when tempted to advance scenarios of origins that are easily contradicted and discarded by modern science. We need to accept our limitations in knowledge and not pretend to know what God had never revealed. Also, we better let God defend Himself rather than defending Him with lies. Instead, let us be open to the mysteries yet to be discovered about life and the role we have in the great scheme of things.
 Knight, George R., “Catholic or Adventist: The Ongoing Struggle Over Authority + 9.5 Theses”, Online at https://adventistunity2017.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/historical-perspectives-on-ad-view-of-authority-knight.pdf
 Idem 1.
 Simanek Donald, “Bishop Ussher Dates the World: 4004 BC”, available online at https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
 E. G. White, “Light in God’s Word,” MS 37, 1890.
 Johnston, Gordon H. “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” Bibliotheca Sacra 165, no. 2 (April-June 2008): 179.
 Hasel, Gerhard F., “The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology”, accessed online at https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1974-2_081.pdf on 06/05/2017.
 Hasel, Gerhard F., “The Significance of the Cosmology in Genesis 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”, accessed online at http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=auss on 06/12/2017.
 Idem 5.
It’s a good, thoughtful and well laid-out article that explains your opinion and understanding. I appreciate the efforts made and the references available.
One thing I find interesting is that, even in the Egyptian creation mythology account, the acts of creation themselves occur relative to a day, starting at sunrise, not an otherwise undefined amount of time.
Why would these ancient Egyptian mythology authors bother to add this detail? Are the references to days just symbolic or lyrical in nature?
One of your bullet points describing the Egyptian account states that creation lasted one day, but directly below it, you then say every morning a new creation cycle starts at sunrise.
Do we know how long the creation cycle goes on for?
I understand your point about the polemic nature of the Genesis creation account and I don’t disagree that the author intended to upend all the other pertinent mythologies of the time, along with their gods, while promoting Yahwe as the sole true God.
But is it possible that the creation account of Genesis is a literary polemic AS WELL AS a correction of those mythologies which wrongly pointed to other deities instead of the one true God, while not discounting the fact that each act of creation actually lasted one day? Moreover, could the Genesis account be calling attention to the fact that a new day starts at sunset, not at sunrise, as the other pagan religions may have believed?
One of the statements that might require some evidence: “However, we need to admit that the great majority of fundamentalists are uneducated and ignorant regarding science.”
This is quite a strong accusation without providing some factual support. You would need to define who exactly are fundamentalists, how many there are and how you can prove what their educational status is. Otherwise, it sounds a lot like what the liberal left-wing activists are trying to claim. You know, the same screwed up folks who claim that the science is settled on climate change, but in the next breath they deny science when they claim one can choose his/her gender and identify as something other than what their chromosomes show.
One other claim you seem to make is that Science, broadly, is accurate and correct in its findings. We know this is not the case. Take, for instance, the fact that recently human footprints were found on Crete, which scientists claim (controversially) are nearly 6 million years old. This is about 2-3 million years older than anyone thought was possible for man’s appearance on the scene, not to mention it again challenges the (very shaky now) “Out of Africa” belief for man’s origins.
I’m saying that Science is not infallible or inerrant, and that in many cases archeological findings have shown the Bible to be accurate with regards to historical accounts.
So I guess I have to ask: at what point in Genesis does the narrative become historical account? Does it ever? Who decides? How can the layperson tell? Whose authority should we look to and based on what?
Thanks for continuing the search…
„you seem to make is that Science, broadly, is accurate and correct in its findings. We know this is not the case”
You might be surprised, but I do approach all science’s claims (as well as other claims) with a skeptical mindset. Many are based on nothing but a persistent worldview, a few cherry-picked data points, questionable methods and sheer lack of reproducibility. These are just a few of Science’s many problems.
While many studies from most scientific fields are reliable and reproduced accurately with similar results, it does not mean we should accept ALL claims made. Scientists are people too: prone to mistakes, greed, envy, thirst for power/influence/prestige/money/fame/you name it.
In this case, I know which sciences my Dad is referring to and he knows I question them outright (chiefly geology, anthropology, evolutionary biology and paleontology) having studied them myself.
Aha, deci exact alea ce au, totuși, un obiect empiric sunt chestionabile, dar alea ce-s pură ideologie mascată după matematizarea unor obiecte metafizice și experimentarea devianței (abaterilor de la normă, cum sunt 90% dintre studiile pe care se bazează științele creierului, partea cea mai serioasă a psihologiei) sunt ok…
There is plenty of “bad science” to go around, including in the field of psychology. I’ve seen and read many studies that were conducted poorly, with evident biases and skewing of results. I’ve also seen consistent and high-quality studies, such as those that target specific chemical pathways in the brains of people suffering with addictions and depression, and the verifiable results produced.
We take what works and try to improve on it. That’s scientific progress. Don’t be fooled by the headlines into thinking that science makes big leaps of knowledge; it’s mostly two steps forward, one step back until we realize we’ve hit a dead end and start over, or we reach some inescapable conclusion until proven otherwise.
Don’t get me started on the empirical proofs of paleontology, evolution and the like…
Edit: would you have some sources for that 90% figure you claim?
Sorry, I have been very busy…
“One thing I find interesting is that, even in the Egyptian creation mythology account, the acts of creation themselves occur relative to a day, starting at sunrise, not an otherwise undefined amount of time.
Why would these ancient Egyptian mythology authors bother to add this detail? Are the references to days just symbolic or lyrical in nature?”
It is not a symbolic nor lyrical use of “days”. It is to be expected that ancient writers described creation by using days, a natural phenomena they observed and by which they also lived and worked. That doesn’t mean that this is the way creation was actually accomplished by gods or God, neither in Egyptian mythology, nor in Genesis.
“Do we know how long the creation cycle goes on for?”
In Egyptian mythology the daily creation is perpetual.
“But is it possible that the creation account of Genesis is a literary polemic AS WELL AS a correction of those mythologies which wrongly pointed to other deities instead of the one true God, while not discounting the fact that each act of creation actually lasted one day? Moreover, could the Genesis account be calling attention to the fact that a new day starts at sunset, not at sunrise, as the other pagan religions may have believed?”
When you say “correction” you imply that except the things that stand corrected, the rest of details are accepted as true. No, I don’t think it was a correction. It was a polemic using mostly older, existing concepts, rendered as a “narration”, which in fact was the Hebrew version of an account of origins that we, today, know that it cannot be taken literally as scientific fact or physical reality.
“One of the statements that might require some evidence: “However, we need to admit that the great majority of fundamentalists are uneducated and ignorant regarding science.”
Lets do this: you know mostly the ANC church. How many members have life sciences degrees? What is the percentage in your opinion? And what can we tell about the majority of the church members, found in the Asian, African, and South-American Divisions? Surely, it was my own view based on common sense, not on hard statistic numbers. I hope I can be proven wrong.
“One other claim you seem to make is that Science, broadly, is accurate and correct in its findings.
I do not make such a claim, but yes, “broadly” it is accurate and correct.
” in many cases archaeological findings have shown the Bible to be accurate with regards to historical accounts.
It may be so, but archaeology (which is a subdivision of anthropology), paleontology and geology also show that there is a development of life throughout long epochs of time. A 6-7000 years time frame, even 15000, will not do, not to mention that the Egyptian texts are older than the presumed flood.
“So I guess I have to ask: at what point in Genesis does the narrative become historical account? Does it ever? Who decides? How can the layperson tell? Whose authority should we look to and based on what?”
At no point. No. You. Using his mind. No external authority.
Citez dintr-un text al unui blogger: “Cărțile Vechiului Testament (Tanakh-ul evreiesc) sunt artefacte literare, nu „istorie” în sensul forjat de iluminismul elen – de fapt, ceea ce corespunde cu noțiunea greacă de „istorie” a devenit rapid tot un artefact literar, dar în beneficiul puterii.”
“…It is to be expected that ancient writers described creation by using days…”
I wouldn’t expect it. In fact, if I was making things up (as are the ancient texts before Genesis) I could have chosen any demarcation of time I wanted, whether natural phenomenon or not. Clearly, none of the creation accounts are a natural phenomenon in any ancient text, so it stands to reason that the gods or God COULD in fact create ex nihilo in a day, or a night, or a week, or month, year, millennia …. or I wouldn’t bother to complicate the text further and just omit a time period altogether. Just my opinion.
“… we, today, know that it cannot be taken literally as scientific fact or physical reality…”
True, but only if we discount supernatural power, which the gods claimed they had. Otherwise, we cannot discuss anything that happens which defies the laws of nature, such as overnight cancer recoveries and other “medical marvels.” However, if God exists as we believe He does, and has the supernatural powers to create as the Genesis author claims, then what prevents God from creating in a day? Just our stubborn rationality?
As to the ANC membership and life sciences education, I can no more make an accurate guess than your initial claim. You need to cite evidence that most fundamentalists are ignorant of science.
“…A 6-7000 years time frame, even 15000, will not do, not to mention that the Egyptian texts are older than the presumed flood…:
We talked about dating methods before and what I think about them. If dating methods can have a variance of 10-50 million years based on individual, separate tests, I’m not sure how reliable they can be. Even so, accepting all the dating methods, human history as far as carvings, hieroglyphs, papyri and other forms of written documentation are such a miniscule part of Earth’s assumed history. If science claims man walked the Earth 6 million years ago, why are the oldest records only from ~5000 years ago as produced by the Sumerians? Doesn’t it seem a bit odd?
“Citez dintr-un text al unui blogger.”
Everybody is an expert… I trust most bloggers less than published astronomy papers on the Big Bang.
Did you read the ugaritic creation saga? It is closer to Genesis than any other.
I am not very familiar with that saga, so I got me a paper on JSTOR by L. Fisher to get a better understanding. Fisher argues in the introduction that many scholars, among which Cyrus Gordon, do not see in it a “creation story” at all, but rather a struggle for kingship, for power, in the similar tune with the Babylonian Marduk story. In my opinion, the Genesis writer is not borrowing directly from any prior mythologies, but is touching on many ANE concepts from a polemical angle. After I complete the reading of Fisher’s paper I will say more about the Ugaritic saga.
”The development of Egyptian myth is difficult to trace. Egyptologists must make educated guesses about its earliest phases, based on written sources that appeared much later.” (S. N. Kramer and R. Anthes, Mythologies of the ancient world, Garden City, N.Y. : Anchor Press / Doubleday, 1961, pp. 29-30).
I cannot see a clear Egyptian parallel to Genesis story. There are various Egyptian stories, and they explain how their gods (sun, water, earth, sky, air, etc.) came into existence. There sacred numbers are 8, 9 or 10. The similarities are too vague in order to be counted as a direct cultural influence. And if an Egyptian influence is suspected, why one cannot suspect a reverse influence, from the Hebrew story. Remember that Salomon, and even other Hebrews allied themselves by marriage with Pharaohs; that Jeroboam fled to the Egyptian court, and some proverbs of Salomon occur in the Egyptian culture (1K 3:1; 9:16; 11:40; 1Cr 4:18; 2Cr 8:11). Why the Hebrews, who have the most original theology, are always suspected to have borrowed from their neighbours, but one never finds religious borrowing from the Hebrews. I am not against the idea of polemic description of Creation, as a didactic literary device. But this fact does not necessarily removes the factual character of Genesis 1.
It would be too much to ask for a “clear parallel” since Genesis is a literary work in its own rights. But to suggest that Egyptian mythology has borrowed from the Hebrews is worse than “fantasy”, it is pure lunacy. In the past you argued that “the Hebrews must have had older texts from which Genesis could have drawn, but did not survived”, and you brought as argument “the book of the upright”, or the “Book of Jasher” . This is mentioned in the Bible and it seems it was contemporary to David’s time (in my opinion it was a forgery after the Genesis), so in no way this kind of “ancient Hebrew text” could have been an inspiration for Genesis. You suggested somewhere else that the Shabaka Stone, produced at the order of king Shabaka in the 8th century B.C. may show signs of Hebrew influence and you bring in names like Solomon and Jeroboam who intermingled with the Egypt culture as some kind of proof for such influence. But Shabaka stone was meant to preserve from degradation much older texts, as old as the Pyramid Texts or the Coffin Texts. If, as you say, there was “religious borrowing from the Hebrews”, where exactly did you find that, in what texts?