|
Post by stevec on Mar 5, 2014 10:10:11 GMT -6
Mr. Eliott, What would be the point of understanding the meaning of Bible myths? Please define "myths"? You can call them stories if you like. As a consequence of mankind's blowing these stories completely out of proportion, they are all myths. There might be some truth to these stories, some meaning and purpose for an ancient culture, but modern religious beliefs have turned these modest stories into a "big picture" world view that is simply mythical. I'm looking at the big picture results.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 5, 2014 10:12:49 GMT -6
You can call them stories if you like. As a consequence of mankind's blowing these stories completely out of proportion, they are all myths. There might be some truth to these stories, some meaning and purpose for an ancient culture, but modern religious beliefs have turned these modest stories into a "big picture" world view that is simply mythical. I'm looking at the big picture results. That was a great yarn you just told.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 5, 2014 10:31:43 GMT -6
It was biblically inspired, Ken.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 11:50:58 GMT -6
Jeesh, Ken...did you miss the previous dozen times? A story which explains how things are and/or why things are done which generally involves supernatural events and/or beings. It is a new poster and I think he deserves to know what definition one is using in as much as another definition is: "a widely held but false belief or idea" Think outside the box. Always. He was the one using the term, he clearly knew what he meant, and the context of his remarks made it clear to (almost) the rest of us what he meant.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 11:57:45 GMT -6
I am an atheist, and also (I think the forum will agree) have a broader and deeper knowledge of the bible and bible documents than anyone else on the site. I wouldn't say a "deeper knowledge of the bible" but certainly more about historical data and other documents. I am reminded of what Jesus said of those who had a extensive ability about history, documents and indeed the capacity to run circles around those who wanted to quote scriptures: "Jesus responded, 'You are wrong because you don't know either the scriptures or God's power.'" There is a difference If you want to hold out for a magic Jesus-y "understanding of scripture" that I lack, knock yourself out, but FWIW I have been in your position, believed the same and subsequently interpret the experience otherwise. Further, no understanding, at least as meant in the context of this conversation, disappeared from my consciousness. The fact of the matter is that your demonstrated knowledge of the bible is creed-driven, narrow and superficial.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 5, 2014 12:02:05 GMT -6
I wouldn't say a "deeper knowledge of the bible" but certainly more about historical data and other documents. I am reminded of what Jesus said of those who had a extensive ability about history, documents and indeed the capacity to run circles around those who wanted to quote scriptures: "Jesus responded, 'You are wrong because you don't know either the scriptures or God's power.'" There is a difference If you want to hold out for a magic Jesus-y "understanding of scripture" that I lack, knock yourself out, but FWIW I have been in your position, believed the same and subsequently interpret the experience otherwise. Further, no understanding, at least as meant in the context of this conversation, disappeared from my consciousness. The fact of the matter is that your demonstrated knowledge of the bible is creed-driven, narrow and superficial. No need to rehash all the differences that we have gone through but suffice to say that our conversations have shown that you weren't in my position. Jesus wasn't superficial or narrow and neither were the Apostles. Anyhow, I wouldn't agree with your statement of your prowess on scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 12:03:28 GMT -6
The problem with your approach is that we are not just guessing when we try to tease out the meaning of these stories. There are castration stories all over the ancient world and it is a familiar motif in literature. Then link to proof that the Ham-Noah story indeed is such instead of expecting anyone to be impressed by your assertion. Oh, golly gee, thank you ever so much for that thoroughly patronizing explanation. We may perhaps achieve a productive level of discussion if you will agree to stop patronizing me and insulting my intelligence. Quote or paraphrase your evidence and link to the source. Put up or shut up. I neither said nor implied that it had. What I said was that the story justified enslaving Canaanites, not that any such necessarily occurred. I give you credit for that "likely never happened," because the fact is that we simply don't know for certain whether it ever did or not. No, YOU can support your statements with evidence if you expect to be regarded as knowing any more about the history of the period than anyone else here. It certainly does! To wit: 14 The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. [Good characterization of the reasonable distaste people have for snakes as well as explaining that human fear and dislike will be the serpent's pubishment] 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; [Why women fear snakes explained] he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” [Explanation of why snakes attack men and why men try to kill snakes, a common and efficient means of doing so being crushing the head] 16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children,[The reason for painful childbirth explained] yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” [More paternalistic control attempts] 17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread[Why survival is such hard work explained] till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”[Death being the ultimate punishment for disobeying God and why people must die is tidily explained](Genesis 3:14-19 RSV) This speech of God's is clearly mythical in nature, explaining as it does that these troubling aspects of human existence are the result of Adam and Eve's disobedience and subsequent punishment. You're clearly assuming that God had never explained what the consequences of this particular disobedience would be and what death meant which doesn't make any sense. There would be no real reason for Adam to have been wary of disobeying if he didn't understand and fear the consequences. Cut the coy crap I've excised and spit it out. WHAT else was going on?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 5, 2014 12:04:45 GMT -6
It was biblically inspired, Ken. ROFL I enjoyed that one!!
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 12:18:21 GMT -6
A story which explains how things are and/or why things are done which generally involves supernatural events and/or beings. Btw, unless I state otherwise, I am using the term "myth" in the sense FB defined here and not as so commonly understood by theists, tales of somebody else's false gods.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 12:20:59 GMT -6
If you want to hold out for a magic Jesus-y "understanding of scripture" that I lack, knock yourself out, but FWIW I have been in your position, believed the same and subsequently interpret the experience otherwise. Further, no understanding, at least as meant in the context of this conversation, disappeared from my consciousness. The fact of the matter is that your demonstrated knowledge of the bible is creed-driven, narrow and superficial. No need to rehash all the differences that we have gone through but suffice to say that our conversations have shown that you weren't in my position. Jesus wasn't superficial or narrow and neither were the Apostles. Anyhow, I wouldn't agree with your statement of your prowess on scriptures. Prowess? Your whole way of thinking is inclined toward power and away from knowledge. This is fine in a faith sense, but nearly worthless in a critical discussion. Anyway, hopefully Mr. Elliot will add himself to the mix.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Eliott on Mar 5, 2014 12:22:01 GMT -6
Mr. Eliott, What would be the point of understanding the meaning of Bible myths? What is the point of understanding Shakespeare? What is the point of understanding the Illiad? Beowulf? The Nibelungenlied? The Chanson de Roland? How can anyone answer such a question? Actually, in the case of the OT, we have an important primary source for understanding the history of the late Bronze age and Iron Age Levant. We wouldn't know half of what we do, if it were not for the OT. For me the answer is even easier. The point of reading and understanding the Old Testament is that it is fascinating. No further cause is needed! A couple of you have asked about "myth" and dismissed the OT as a bunch of myths (or some such thing). No. Myth has a specific meaning in literature that doesn't mean "made up, never happened story". More to the point, when trying to analyze a piece of writing, the first thing you have to determine is its genre. There are no myths to be found in the OT. Once you get past the earliest stories in Genesis the authors think they are writing history. Now you may disagree and you may be right but that does not change how you (or any garden variety scholar) approach the work. A critical approach would result in a determination that a little, some, or all of the events narrated are true (or false). It doesn't get cleaned up in translation. It is not there to clean up. Again, the author takes for granted that his audience will understand. The notion that Noah was sodomized comes from the same sources as the castration story and is based partly on an understanding of the the culture but also on the interpetations of the story by contemporary and later rabbinic commentators. This made me laugh out loud. Scratch an atheist and a fundy stops itching! The Bible is not a magic book. It is not angelic goodness from beginning to end with its subject those perfect toga wearing people. The authors' minds were not in the gutter; they were telling true (so far as they knew) stories that explain Israel's history and relationship with God. In fact, the theme that runs all through the Old Testament is that mankind is weak and prone to sin. Over and over the Hebrews repent and God forgives. But they always blow it soon after. It is odd that you glommed on to one of the parallels with Lot's story. It isn't an accident. Repetition, chiasmus and a whole host of interesting literary devices connect these stories and, in a preliterate culture, help the audience to remember them and remember the themes, when they crop up anew. Why did Lot's daughters sleep with him? Why did Ham sodomize his father? There are provisional answers to these questions in the scholarship. It is endlessly fascinating to read. Thus, stevec's question is answered again!
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 5, 2014 12:23:06 GMT -6
FB,
People in Ken's position never become atheists, it's impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 12:36:16 GMT -6
What is the point of...The Nibelungenlied? None whatsoever. God, what a wretched story. The stinky armpit of mythology IMO. A couple of you have asked about "myth" and dismissed the OT as a bunch of myths (or some such thing). No we haven't, as in "not once". I defined myth as it is commonly defined in biblical criticism, and we have all commented in that light except for Ken (our local Christian) who just wanted to make sure that we weren't using it in the sense of "false story". Perhaps if you would read what we are saying a bit more carefully without intent to pigeon hole, you might learn something something. Or not--you do seem to have a rare talent for condescension and I ought to know. Frankly, I'm impressed.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 13:32:09 GMT -6
Mr. Eliott, What would be the point of understanding the meaning of Bible myths? What is the point of understanding Shakespeare? What is the point of understanding the Illiad? Beowulf? The Nibelungenlied? The Chanson de Roland? How can anyone answer such a question? Easy. There are many reasons for TRYING to understand the writer's mindset and intent in writing any particular work, none of which we can be assured are correct unless we have the writer's confirmation that any particular interpretation is indeed what was intended. Which assumes grandly that these tales are history as we understand it, objective factual accounts. Other than what archeological digs appear to confirm, we have no idea how reliably factual any of these accounts are. And anyone claiming we do is putting far too much credence in what theistic tradition insists is so, not what we know to have occurred which isn't much. Oh, really? "MYTH: From the Greek term mythos meaning 'legend.' Hence, a narrative account taken to be true, but not known to be true. The elaboration of dramatic narratives involving superhuman powers provided the first explanations of the origin and operation of the universe. Myth has some relation to metaphor and can be treated as allegory." (William L. Reese, SUNY-Albany, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. Humanities Press, c. 1980, p. 375.) "1. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena." (Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 1971, v. 1, p.1889.) A piece of advice for you, Mr. E, from Joseph Campbell: Joseph Campbell: Read the myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts - but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message.[Emphasis added] Source: mythsdreamssymbols.com/functionsofmyth.htmlFact-based enough to lend authenticity but an imaginative story used oftentimes as in Genesis to explain causes-unknown, that's what mythology is. Oh, come on! The very substance of both the OT and much of the NT is clearly mythical in nature! One need only read the Gospels to see superhero popularity and charisma attributed to Jesus, not to mention the obvious deity impregnation/virgin birth/execution/resurrection elements. Funny how your dear friend Google quickly demonstrates that your interpretation is highly controversial and much-argued to this day. You seem to prefer to think that the biblical accounts are reliable historical accounts as we today regard history, However, we can at best term them narrative fiction lacking for the most part any solid evidence demonstrating that actual events underlie these tales. The Jews quite sensibly regard these accounts as allegory with possibly some basis upon historical figures and events here and there. However, these stories are so ancient that we have no reliable means of separating fact from pure invention. And that IS the truth whether you like to face that fact head on or not.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Eliott on Mar 5, 2014 13:37:09 GMT -6
Your definition of myth appears to be overly broad. I was not part of whatever discussion you had on the meaning of the word and did not read it, so no, all I see is inaccurate or undefinaable usage. There is no definition of myth that is unique to "biblical criticism". Historians, theologians and literary critics all use the definition common to literature. You know, first and foremost, the Bible is literature. Here is a useful site that discusses myth. I don't agree with everything the author says but most of it is good: There are a number of general conceptual frameworks involved in definitions of myth, including these:
Myths are Cosmogonic Narratives, connected with the Foundation or Origin of the Universe (and key beings within that universe), though often specifically in terms of a particular culture or region. Given the connection to origins, the setting is typically primordial (the beginning of time) and characters are proto-human or deific. Myths also often have cosmogonic overtones even when not fully cosmogonic, for instance dealing with origins of important elements of the culture (food, medicine, ceremonies, etc.).
Myths are Narratives of a Sacred Nature, often connected with some Ritual. Myths are often foundational or key narratives associated with religions. These narratives are believed to be true from within the associated faith system (though sometimes that truth is understood to be metaphorical rather than literal). Within any given culture there may be sacred and secular myths coexisting.
Myths are Narratives Formative or Reflective of Social Order or Values within a Culture (e.g. functionalism).
Myths are Narratives Representative of a Particular Epistemology or Way of Understanding Nature and Organizing Thought. For example, structuralism recognizes paired bundles of opposites (or dualities -- like light and dark) as central to myths.
Mythic Narratives often Involve Heroic Characters (possibly proto-humans, super humans, or gods) who mediate inherent, troubling dualities, reconcile us to our realities, or establish the patterns for life as we know it.
Myths are Narratives that are "Counter-Factual in featuring actors and actions that confound the conventions of routine experience" (McDowell, 80). Fantastic elements do not make a story a myth. They may make it a legend or a piece of fantasy writing. Or, the fantastic element may be true.
|
|