Quote On Abrahamic Creation Story

[Silverbackman]

I was going to make this quote apart of my sig. but it was too long. I thought in any case it would maybe make a better thread.

Read this quote;

“Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants.”-- Richard Dawkins

Discuss this quote.

 

[seattlegal]

Hmm, here are some other Dawkins quotes to ponder.

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)[/b]
​

And then, my favorite:

If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)​

Hmm, methinks he sounds like a fundamentalist--

 

[wil]

In a masters level theology class the Jesuit Priest says, "What you don't really believe Genesis happenned do you? Haven't you been told this is allegory?" This is a huge problem, tell a lie long enough people start to believe it, tell a myth long enough people make it history. Or should it be spelled hystery?

The value is in the story and the underlying concepts.

What is the real shame is all the students of the classes, all the people that get to a level of understanding of religious principles, decide to learn more and more and then somewhere along the line they get their initiation, their rug pulled out from under them.

"What what I learned wasn't true?" "Buddha lied for our benefit?" "There is no elephant headed God on a mouse body?" "The great eagle is imaginary?"

Instead of being told all along that these are fables, myth, allegory, parables, fictional stories with fictional characters of which we are to discern some enlightenment or others saw in a vision, or used to explain the unknown, unsayable... If we grew up with that notion...ah what a wonderful world.

So similar different vien to akbar's recent contribution.

 

[Silverbackman]

In a masters level theology class the Jesuit Priest says, "What you don't really believe Genesis happenned do you? Haven't you been told this is allegory?" This is a huge problem, tell a lie long enough people start to believe it, tell a myth long enough people make it history. Or should it be spelled hystery?

The value is in the story and the underlying concepts.

What is the real shame is all the students of the classes, all the people that get to a level of understanding of religious principles, decide to learn more and more and then somewhere along the line they get their initiation, their rug pulled out from under them.

"What what I learned wasn't true?" "Buddha lied for our benefit?" "There is no elephant headed God on a mouse body?" "The great eagle is imaginary?"

Instead of being told all along that these are fables, myth, allegory, parables, fictional stories with fictional characters of which we are to discern some enlightenment or others saw in a vision, or used to explain the unknown, unsayable... If we grew up with that notion...ah what a wonderful world.

So similar different vien to akbar's recent contribution.

Myths and fables are great, but that is all they are. If one myth is right then all myths that can't be proven wrong per se are right too. Just because Abrahamics have a less elaborate creation story it does not mean it is true. The fact that it goes against science shows it really is nothing special at all. It shares characteristics of all creation myths.

Myths are only good when we read them as such. It is quite sad when Jesus is only regarded as a myth to outsiders. Christians don't honor Jesus because of his teachings or what he stood for. They worship him as a God for various mythological reasons. Notice how Christians emphasize more on faith in myths rather than the non-violent teachings of Jesus.

Anyways no matter how you look at it the quote I posted speaks nothing but truth, and you can only have blind faith to believe otherwise. Blind faith is dangerous. Abrahamicism is the opium of the masses because of their blind faith.

 

[Silverbackman]

Hmm, here are some other Dawkins quotes to ponder.

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)[/b]
​

And then, my favorite:

If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)​

Hmm, methinks he sounds like a fundamentalist--

Actually some of those quotes make a good point. Just imagine filling the streets with Abrahamic fundies, they may hurt each other considering how strongly they would feel for their myth. Perhaps the Christians would start a crusade, and the Muslims will start a jihad, and then maybe the Jew will team up with the crusaders.

And those who deny evolution are usually Abrahamics. I have never met a non-Abrahamic that does not believe in evolution. The reason is quite simple, evolution is the best theory we got! There isn't any other better scientific theory available. It maybe not as solid as the theory of gravity, but sure is far more logical than Yahweh creating the world.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that God did create life but it isn't that hard to see that God (Nature part of God) used evolution to create life. Unless Abrahamic creationists can come up with something better (that doesn't have to do much with myths).

 

[taijasi]

Dear Lord!

I'm usually the one poking at folks' ingrained beliefs, but I'd like to go on record as saying this ...

Whatever happened (?) to 2 Peter:3-8 ... [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (emphais mine, of course)

The fundie who misses this as he quotes Genesis, makes a fool of both himself (mostly) and his God, just as in the movie Inherit the Wind. But I trust that God is no fool! And those who understand the significance of the number Seven ... will surely know its signficance in Genesis' Creation Myth, occuring in 7 Days as it did! Gnostics know well the meaning of those seven days, and I'd like to give the average thinking Christian the benefit of the doubt, and say that s/he recognizes the necessity for wise & inspired interpretation of Genesis (and much of the rest of the Bible), rather than a literal reading.

By the way, don't forget the very next verse of 2 Peter (3-9), which says: "[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Again, somehow it seems that many Christians miss this important tidbit as they pronounce judgment on non-Christians (something only God can do), or babble on about being the only ones saved. Yes, one grows weary of hearing how special they feel, but still, no real harm done.

Back to the point, why is it that a false dichotomy is put before us again & again ... yet people keep taking the bait!?!

The Creation Myth is not irreconcilable with the Theory of Evolution (verified as it has been in many regards, while others of its aspects disproven!). Rather, these two certainly complement each other! Personally, I like the term `Intelligent Design,' but not if it's going to become a rubber stamp for some kind of literal interpretation of Genesis, or any other myth!

How about the simple wonder of the intricacy, the Beauty, and the interconnectedness of all of Nature! That's proof enough for me - that there is a loving, wise Super-Intelligence responsible for everything.

But I do fail to understand how some people become so smug that they think their own myths are any more important than others' myths! My own favorite, for creation, is from Douglas Adams (HHGTTG):
[/font]

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravarted people of Virtvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.... However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely held outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought."
​

Taijasi
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]

 

[DrFree]

If you had offered a simple "Yes" as an answer, that's how I would have voted. As it is I cannot accept any of the answers. Dawkin's hyperbole renders the quotation far from perfect.

Myths are special, as even a casual reading or viewing of Joseph Campbell's works will reveal. They provide a shared set of values and a common language of allusions to express those value.

Are they special to anyone outside the culture in which the myth arises? Possibly, possibly not. That depends on whether external cultures can see and express their own values, using the myths as alternative stories. Many cultures on whom a religion has been foisted by a conquering culture amalgamated that religion into their own mythology, sometimes just using the required names to refer to their own myths; sometimes incorporating the meaning of the stories as well. Sometimes, even the conquerers take on aspects of the myths of the conquered.

Where Dawkins is right is the suggestion that myths, by themselves, have no special status in science. As scientific hypotheses, they are subject to the same rules of evidence as hypotheses arising from any other source. That rule of course has been widely violated, especially in the Nineteenth Century, when "researchers" would go out with the explicit aim of demonstrating the truth of the Bible by scientific means. The result was a lot of garbage in the so-called received view of archeology. So much so that many archeologists regard the Old Testament up through the time of David and Solomon as pure myth. (For an interesting review and challenge to some of these prejudiced conclusions, see David Rohl's A Test of Time).

I suggest that scientific truth and mythological truth are different animals. They have different roles to play. This of course implies that I have no right to challenge your mythology with either my own or with science, that is, of course, unless you attribute scientific truth to your myths without appropriate evidence.

 

[taijasi]

Let us also not forget Pere Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who, in helping to discover Peking Man as a paleontologist, enraged his fellow Jesuits ... almost leading to his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. And then there was that guy Galileo, who sought to trick us all with the devil's optics.

We've gone from a flat-earth society, to accepting that planets are spherical, from a geocentric worldview, to a better understanding of what orbits what, and from the illusion of solid matter - to an understanding that the world around us is mostly empty space! Now we're making discoveries in the world of quantum mechanics, and developing nanotechnology, that will surely push the envelope much, much farther in terms of how we view reality.

I'm wondering, once we stumble upon things like the Grand Unified Field Theory (the Holy Grail of physicists & quantum field theorists) ... and confirmation of abilities which every common-sensical person has known about since birth (!) - like ESP, telepathy, psychokinesis, out-of-body travel, etc. - maybe stories like the Creation Myth of Genesis, and of other religions, will start to be taken seriously?

As an esotericist, I (don't mean to, but I do) take it for granted (as I have for many years) that the world around us - every single atom of it (!) - is literally built by angels (well, ok - Devas, or nature spirits, as they are often termed). My body, my emotional body, my mind ... were all the literal creation ... of intelligent, or semi-intelligent, beings. And I take this to be perfect science (quite possible of investigation, study, verification, and reproduction - given the proper "laboratory"). It is simply, on the microcosmic scale, what must have occurred macro-Cosmically. Part of me just thinks, "Duh! Look around you!!!" ... which I expressed more eloquently earlier, as:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] How about the simple wonder of the intricacy, the Beauty, and the interconnectedness of all of Nature! That's proof enough for me - that there is a loving, wise Super-Intelligence responsible for everything.
[/font]​

You know, I don't think the onus is on the average Christian, or person of faith, to demonstrate his or grounds for what s/he believes. Maybe on this forum, when stating radical ideas - it becomes necessary to provide a context. Certainly if you're sitting around with a bunch of scientists, you'll need some kind of argument for why you think the world is actually purple - and just appears to us all as multi-colored.

But what is a bit of a stretch ... is that someone might insist that schools actually teach a literal rendering of Genesis, or any other creation story, alongside the Theory of Evolution - as equally "valid." As I said, I don't think creation stories are mutually exclusive from scientific ideas & scientific thinking. But our Western society ... also has some very severe problems & hangups with science. Ummm, or is that just me? lol

No doubt though, I think our world becomes very ... cold ... when we start insisting that everything be proven and demonstrated to the outer senses - in order to be taken seriously. I think the consequences of this kind of materialism and skepticism are - all too obvious and ... all too familiar. It's all about balance, and alas, this is exactly what our world & our society is out of. I know I sure as hell am.

Just musings ...

Andrew

 

[truthseeker]

Silverbackman, I totally appreciate the signature that you have already posted.

The story of the flood goes deeper than it being a story or a piece of history. I think it helps define the culture of the people from which it came. Many of us forget that the bible is the story and history and ideology of the Israelite people (no disrespect intended if a Jew reading this does not agree). While I am not intentionally denouncing the power and nature of God, I think it is okay to develop your own belief system, whether it is different altogether or expands the belief system in the Bible. As I believe in God, I would be a fool to say that anything that has been scientifically proven is a lie. I believe in creation and evolution - I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and that He created it and all things therein to be able to sustain itself. In that, evolution would be necessary. And the evidence that everything around you, in plain sight, changes tells me without scientific method that evolution is.

There are levels of intelligence that everyone will not be able to reach in this lifetime. Perhaps they will leave this life and return to their creator without seeking furthur knowledge. Perhaps they will return to reach higher levels of wisdom. There was a time when humankind had just discovered fire - we have indeed come a long way in our wisdom. I happen to believe that we are seeking the wisdom of the Creator in our scientific methods. And there is nothing wrong with that. Every being has a purpose. And once everybody calms from the fear of change, usually the change is of most good. Even when change is bad, stagnation is worse. I find that when I am angry about something, it is usually out of frustration of lack of understanding. That is where my hell lies. Why is there such a problem integrating the world's belief systems? or maybe there is a sort of integration - some are just more articulate than others in the schemes.

As taijasi said, Balance.

 

[InChristAlways]

Silverbackman, I totally appreciate the signature that you have already posted.

The story of the flood goes deeper than it being a story or a piece of history. I think it helps define the culture of the people from which it came. Many of us forget that the bible is the story and history and ideology of the Israelite people (no disrespect intended if a Jew reading this does not agree).

Actually you are correct.

The way I view it, Jacob/Israel became a type of "Adam" since they were God's "firstborn" Nation out of Egypt, and Jerusalem became a type of "Eve" with the Temple/Sanctuary the way to "Eden".[size=+2][/size]

Galatian 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

They also were the only ones to have the Covenant of both blessings and curses. Judah and Israel were of course seperated into 2 nations after Solomon and that kind of "complicated" things a bit.

Deuteronomy 28:1 "Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth . .......... 15 " But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

Exodus 4:22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel [is] My son, My firstborn.

Jeremiah 31:9 They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim [is] My firstborn.

 

[Silverbackman]

Bottom line is that the Bible may be a good book and many of it maybe historically true. It however doesn't change the fact that it was created by the minds of ancient writers who were not only trying to write their history and create a code of ethics to keep the people in balance, but it was also created to understand the world around them. It is no different than the Greeks who believed the world is run by their gods Zeus, Athena, ect. ect. and these gods created the world the Greeks knew. The Abrahamic creation story might be a lot less elaborate than other creation myths but it doesn't change the fact that it was created like any other creation myth. Using different methods according to the Bible you can date back its creation to no more than 10,000 years. This contradicts almost all scientific dating! You can try as much as you like and try to fit it with science, but if you do this you might as well do the same with the Iliad and the Odyssey. Otherwise it is pointless. In reality and through neutral logical thinking their can be only two possibilities;

1. All religions are correct and all creation myths are correct. This is harder to work around than option 2 because of the tons of contradictions. But God may have created tons of religions to worship It. There maybe a common truth to all religions in their creation myths regardless of science but this maybe unknown.

2. All religions are created equally for each culture for similar reasons and are no more valid than each other. In terms of science all religions are "false" in the sense that it isn't the number 1 way to look at reality. It doesn't mean the myths of religions are wrong; all these events are likely to have happened. It doesn't mean the code of ethics in the Bible and other books are wrong, because they were created to keep society in balance. Finally, it does not mean the great philosophies of religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism are wrong, they can be very much right. According to option two it does not change the reality of religions: They were created to describe an event, they were created to enforce a code of ethics, and they were created to understand the world around them.

 

[InChristAlways]

1. All religions are correct and all creation myths are correct. This is harder to work around than option 2 because of the tons of contradictions. But God may have created tons of religions to worship It. There maybe a common truth to all religions in their creation myths regardless of science but this maybe unknown.

Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth-- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

Contradictions can also come about by bad Translations and ones interpretations also, correct?

I would like to ask a question on the first verse in Genesis of the Christ-ian Bible.

According to the Hebrew, there is no article "the" before beginning. How relevant would this be to the interpretation and why is the article added when it is not in the original and could this represent a "symbolic" beginning? Just curious on this. Thanks.

Also, is this a "literal" new heaven and earth being created or is it symbolic of something new being done without destroying the old earth?

Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am creating new heavens, and a new earth, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart.

Isaiah 43:19 Lo, I am doing a new thing, now it springeth up, Do ye not know it? Yea, I put in a wilderness a way, In a desert place-rivers.

Christian scholars have debated for centuries over this one passage in the Christian NT. Is it "symbolic" or "literal"? It must be fulfilling the passage in Isaiah so again, how do we reconcile these 2? I have my own view on it, but it is a "minority" view.

Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea....5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful."

 

[E99]

Hello InChristAlways


Your quote:
Contradictions can also come about by bad Translations and ones interpretations also, correct?



Yes.... If the Greek and Hebrew language scholars have done their translating work correctly, there should be no argument as to the truth found in the bible, because the single original source should have the truth in it.
Mainly, the scriptural interpretations come by way of the different theological (or non-theological) agenda after the translation.



Your quote:
I would like to ask a question on the first verse in Genesis of the Christ-ian Bible.

According to the Hebrew, there is no article "the" before beginning. How relevant would this be to the interpretation and why is the article added when it is not in the original and could this represent a "symbolic" beginning? Just curious on this. Thanks.




No, its not symbolic, just the normal way the Hebrew grammar and syntax is used. The Hebrew creation verb 'bara' is in the perfect state, and implies a definate event that had happened.


As you probably know, you'll find there are insertions of the grammatical 'articles' across the whole spectrum of the bible, in Hebrew and in Greek...The question of placing of the definate, and moreso the indefinate articles by the translators indepth understanding of the Hebrew and Greek language, grammar etc. has at times been controversial, but on the whole it is agreed upon.


The definate article 'the' in English is often translated from the Hebrew 'Ha' They had no indefinate article 'a'


Similarly the indefinate article corresponding to 'a' is missing in Greek because they didn't have one, it had to be added at the appropriate points when it was translated to English. The definate article 'the' is usually translated from the Greek 'Ho'.

It is commonplace to add the 'articles' into the translated English scriptures, where they are missing, or not found at all in the original language.


First sentence of Genesis reads:

Bereshith: In-beginning, bara : he-created, Aleim: elohim, ath eshim: the-heavens, uath: and eartz: earth.


(Bereshith ....Hebrew "rosh" meaning head of) In (the) beginning; definate article added to make grammatical sense in English, but it would more than likely have been understood by the ancient Hebrews in the same manner as we do using the definate article before the 'beginning'.


The verb : Bara ......singular masculine: He created;

The subject : - Elohim .....Plural but describing a singular being because it is used with the singular masculine verb bara ( "he" created, not "they" created) ......God alone.

Direct objects : Ath eshim uath eartz...........The heavens and the earth.

From the expected and regular order of the Hebrew syntax,
"In the beginning, God (he) created the heavens and the earth."


And the myth that Genesis is a myth comes about because certain points (internet cliche's) are picked out of Genesis by way of its English translation only...e.g. 6 literal days of creation (6000 years), two (so called ) Genesis creation accounts, creation of light before luminaries.
These points can be clarified from the misconstrued banta about Genesis by the understanding of the actual meaning found within the original Hebrew language.

 

[InChristAlways]

Also, is this a "literal" new heaven and earth being created or is it symbolic of something new being done without destroying the old earth?

Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am creating new heavens, and a new earth, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart.

Isaiah 43:19 Lo, I am doing a new thing, now it springeth up, Do ye not know it? Yea, I put in a wilderness a way, In a desert place-rivers.

Christian scholars have debated for centuries over this one passage in the Christian NT. Is it "symbolic" or "literal"? It must be fulfilling the passage in Isaiah so again, how do we reconcile these 2? I have my own view on it, but it is a "minority" view.

Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea....5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful."

Your quote:
Contradictions can also come about by bad Translations and ones interpretations also, correct?

Yes.... If the Greek and Hebrew language scholars have done their translating work correctly, there should be no argument as to the truth found in the bible, because the single original source should have the truth in it.
Mainly, the scriptural interpretations come by way of the different theological (or non-theological) agenda after the translation.

From the expected and regular order of the Hebrew syntax,
"In the beginning, God (he) created the heavens and the earth."


And the myth that Genesis is a myth comes about because certain points (internet cliche's) are picked out of Genesis by way of its English translation only...e.g. 6 literal days of creation (6000 years), two (so called ) Genesis creation accounts, creation of light before luminaries.
These points can be clarified from the misconstrued banta about Genesis by the understanding of the actual meaning found within the original Hebrew language.

Thank you. How do you view the "new heavens and earth" in the bible according to Isaiah? Have you got any personal thoughts on that? Thanks.
Steve

 

[InquisitiveInHalifax]

I do see your point that all creation myths are just that, myths. Myths need interpretation in order to be meaningful. I have always thought that the christian bible which I was spiritually raised on was not to be taken literally (and that many problems arise when it is taken literally especially out of context and extrapolated upon).

Is it not the Buddhist belief that their holy texts must be interpreted properly in order to find the path to enlightenment, that to follow them literally is the path to darkness? This is just my sophmoric understanding, I would welcome a Buddhist/Hindu/eastern thought perspective on this.

 

[Silverbackman]

If the Bible/Quran creation story is true, then every creation myth is true. There are obvious contradictions in all creation myths. A particular Native American tribe believed the world we stand on was created from the heavens with a turtle shell. To some south pacific creation myths spiders created the world and the water is actually the web of the spider gods. The world being created by the excrement of ants according to the West African tribe in the quote has to be right as well. And damn I can do on and on! There are as many creation myths as there are languages (millions of them!).

Not only the contradictions prove all these stories false, but anyone who has studied anthropology has found that man before the invention of science relied on myths and superstition to explain strange phenomenon.

Even if you don't take it literally it doesn't make a difference. I can create a far more logical creation story far better than the Bible. The first creation story is as random as any other.

Just because something is a myth though doesn't mean it is not true. I believe most of the stories in the Bible happened minus the supernatural phenomenon (unless historians proved otherwise by overwhelming proof).