Myth of Creation

One of the most important aspects to accurately evaluating a certain text is by discovering its origin. In this case, the history of the Bible is explained by William M. Schniedewind, the Kershaw Chair of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies at UCLA. Through his text he attempts to explain how oral stories among a civilization became written text, which soon led to its acceptance and religious scripture.

Of course, to a believing Christian the depictions in Genesis are far more than just a collection of myths attempting to describe the commencement of the cosmos. Instead, it is their factual description of the beginning.

A different perspective and method of interpretation to the opening chapters of the Bible is not to take the explanations literally, and instead attempt to unravel the underlying implicit information that is presented. Today, many Christians tend to believe that it is meant to be taken literally, as God single-handedly created everything. On the other hand, scholars such as Ernest C Lucas who is currently Vice-Principal Emeritus at the Bristol Baptist College and an Honorary Research Fellow in Theology and Religion at the University of Bristol proposes an idea that many do not tend to consider. In Lucas’ “The Bible, Science and Creation” he explains his assertions that his “basic proposition is that Genesis 1-3 should not be read as a quasi-scientific, chronological account of the origins of the cosmos and humans but as a figurative theological account of the nature and purpose of God’s creation” (Lucas, 99). In other words, he is suggesting and defending the proposition for the creation story in the Bible to be taken into a different mindset when analyzing the myth.

Although it is not difficult to state that the Judeo-Christian’s creation story may have implicit details that aren’t obvious to many, it is very difficult to assert what the actual true interpretation may be. Truth is very subjective and varies from person to person. Evidence supporting the idea that the opening chapters of the Bible should not be taken literally come also from research by Ernest C Lucas, who proposed the argument that the author of Genesis, Moses, typically wrote philosophically. This points to a new idea that maybe it was not entirely an historical account for the religions claims.

Philosophically, the problem of truth with the creation story being true is that

In