"Young Earth Creationism is Pagan Myth Because ... " - in fact because you forget Sarug, that you think so!

Abraham, I was told, or before his call obviously Abram, "was of a Pagan family."

What does Joshua say?

And he spoke thus to the people: Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river, Thare the father of Abraham, and Nachor: and they served strange gods.
Josue 24:2

At least this means Terah and Abraham's brother Nachor were idolaters (this Nachor being grandfather of both Rebecca and Laban), or at worst, Terah and his father Nachor, Abraham's grandfather were so.

Either way, Abraham certainly had some idolaters near around him, until he left Ur Kasdim.

But stating that "Abram was of a Pagan family" suggests he had only such around him while he grew up even. In that case, his most probable source for the material in Genesis 2 to 11 (I think chapter 1 was added by Moses) would have been a tainted one. It could have been imperfectly purified of factual errors, even if perfectly from high doctrinal ones.

And if, added to that, you consider myth as the principle of idolatry, you get "shun literal belief in Genesis 2 - 11, or you are stepping in the footsteps of idolaters, that is, you are committing idolatry."

While we are at it, a Christian who celebrates Christmas would in a similar vein be committing idolatry by unbeknownst stepping in the footsteps of proto-idolater (supposing he was that) Nimrod whose birthday was on (supposing it was that) on December 25th. At least if you believe Hislops account. In moral theology, one does not commit idolatry without knowing it, since one can not be held accountable for an unknown pagan origin of sth one holds or practises in good conscience that it is a Christian thing, not even if some busybody points out the supposed pagan source. And in fact, this argument against Young Earth Creationism is as little grounded in fact as Hislop's against Christmas.

For, as mentioned in the title, the argument forgets Abraham's access to non-idolaters:

• Sarug lived to when Abraham was 50 years old, the great-grandfather, not mentioned by Joshua as idolater;
• Nachor who was son of Sarug and father of Terah may have been other than the Nachor mentioned by Joshua;
• on the servant side some would have been faithful despite idolatry of masters, this could have been the case with Eliezer's father (it seems Eliezer himself was younger than Abraham).

In other words, Abraham had access to perfectly valid and untainted sources in his family, or at least one, Sarug. In other words, the argument is void of factual content.

But let's be precise on one more thing - idolatry does not stem from mythology and right worship not purely from philosophy. False myths stem from idolatry. While idolatry needs some kind of mythomania, presumably, it can be very free from mythology. So, even if Genesis 1 to 11 or 2 to 11 had been pagan myths, which they as said weren't, believing them would not make one idolater, it is rather idolatry that would pervert belief in them, and arguably, as the literal belief is after all pure, it would pervert belief in them to other stories - like Enlil and Enki being on different moral sides of the Flood, or like Genesis 1 to 11 not being factually true.

Hans Georg Lundahl
First Vespers of*
Feast of Christ the King
30 - 31.X.2021

* Since tomorrow is a Lord's Day and a Feast, this evening already counts as tomorrow. This year the feast would prime over All Hallow's Eve.