|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 13:49:46 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. You really are intent upon insisting that the definitions FB and I gave are invalid when the source you just cited confirms exactly what we both said is the nature of the Genesis myths, an attempt to explain the unknown as having supernatural causes. In the case of the Adam and Eve story, explaining various familiar trials of human existence as having originated with God's punishing Adam and Eve. Relative to the Israelites enmity toward Canaanites, that Noah cursed his grandson Canaan which explains why Canaan was regarded as less civilized and inferior to the Jews. THAT IS WHAT MYTH DOES.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 13:49:59 GMT -6
You said it. Twice.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Eliott on Mar 5, 2014 13:55:35 GMT -6
Casual, careless reading seems to be your hallmark. My theory is not highly controversial. It is the scholarly consensus. Of course there is still argument about it! There are a wealth of details to account for.
I have said nothing to suggest that I think the OT is historically accurate in all its details. Instead of leaping to silly conclusions, why don't you actually ... I know this is a radical idea .... discuss the subject? If you could also adopt a civil tone, it would be a pleasure to discuss things with you. Right now, it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 13:56:28 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. If you want to keep arguing against things that aren't being said, have at it and send me a PM when your done. The definition of myth I gave is consisted with the concepts you cut and pasted, but has the advantage of being succinct and clear. So, besides loving to hear yourself talk, what else are you into?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 13:59:53 GMT -6
I suppose we can only hope that eventually Mr. Elliot will actually attend to what you and I have said all along instead of reiterating as if no counterargument was ever set forth.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 14:06:31 GMT -6
My theory is not highly controversial. It is the scholarly consensus. Based upon the research I just did, I don't for a moment believe you. Prove it with source links. Furthermore, the actions of Shem and Japhet make the story markedly less sensible if we agree that homosexual rape or castration either one is what Ham did. Why on earth would Genesis report the two brothers as backing into the tent with heads covered for the purpose of laying blankets over their father who would most likely have needed immediate medical care that could hardly be rendered by placing a blanket over Noah's genitals or buttocks? Blankets tossed backwards while deliberately not looking where they landed as an appropriate remedy for either castration or rape is simply ludicrous. Oh, wait--I get it. Placing a blanket must be a euphemism for bandaging an injury so horrifying that you feel a profound need not to have to look at what necessitates bandaging. Yup, that sure does follow with the idea that it was castration or rape, too terrible to look at and nothing effective to be done to remedy what had occurred, so "covering their father's nakedness" while deliberately not looking as they did so must actually mean that Shem and Japhet simply engaged in denial. It would be horrible to consider that two sons did nothing to aid their father, so the euphemism acts as an explanation that denial was what they really did. Gosh, this biblical euphemistic stuff is fun to interpret. I had no idea how much until I gave it an honest effort. /sarcasm alert!
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 5, 2014 18:44:46 GMT -6
That's laughable. The fact that the Bible is literature seems almost by accident. History offers an entirely different picture of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 5, 2014 19:31:10 GMT -6
I know this is a radical idea .... discuss the subject? If you could also adopt a civil tone, it would be a pleasure to discuss things with you. Right now, it isn't. Welcome to Belief.... Splat! It has taken you 24 hours to figure out the general way of how most people express themselves on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 20:50:18 GMT -6
I know this is a radical idea .... discuss the subject? If you could also adopt a civil tone, it would be a pleasure to discuss things with you. Right now, it isn't. Welcome to Belief.... Splat! It has taken you 24 hours to figure out the general way of how most people express themselves on this forum. Can't effectively counter the arguments, resort to ad hominem. I'm sure we're as unimpressed as ever by that pseudo-argument of last resort.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 5, 2014 20:59:34 GMT -6
I know this is a radical idea .... discuss the subject? If you could also adopt a civil tone, it would be a pleasure to discuss things with you. Right now, it isn't. Welcome to Belief.... Splat! It has taken you 24 hours to figure out the general way of how most people express themselves on this forum. So said Mr Redherring.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 23:00:13 GMT -6
I know this is a radical idea .... discuss the subject? If you could also adopt a civil tone, it would be a pleasure to discuss things with you. Right now, it isn't. Welcome to Belief.... Splat! It has taken you 24 hours to figure out the general way of how most people express themselves on this forum. So much for all for one and one for all...
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 6, 2014 6:55:18 GMT -6
Welcome to Belief.... Splat! It has taken you 24 hours to figure out the general way of how most people express themselves on this forum. So much for all for one and one for all... Just trying to help. You do want me to be honest, right?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 6, 2014 8:26:25 GMT -6
So much for all for one and one for all... Just trying to help. You do want me to be honest, right? Sure, but I'd like to you to be insightful too. A guy pops in, posts a series of drippingly condescending posts until he starts getting a bit of push back. He then complains about the tone of discussion. It's a bit much. For me personally, I will he stayed, but we've met this particular type before. He's just another drive by crackpot who wants to talk about his pet theory then leave if anyone challenges it. Hell Ken--you've got 1000x the spine of that guy.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 6, 2014 9:00:53 GMT -6
Just trying to help. You do want me to be honest, right? Sure, but I'd like to you to be insightful too. A guy pops in, posts a series of drippingly condescending posts until he starts getting a bit of push back. He then complains about the tone of discussion. It's a bit much. For me personally, I will he stayed, but we've met this particular type before. He's just another drive by crackpot who wants to talk about his pet theory then leave if anyone challenges it. OK...
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 9:56:24 GMT -6
Just trying to help. You do want me to be honest, right? Sure, but I'd like to you to be insightful too. A guy pops in, posts a series of drippingly condescending posts until he starts getting a bit of push back. He then complains about the tone of discussion. It's a bit much. For me personally, I will he stayed, but we've met this particular type before. He's just another drive by crackpot who wants to talk about his pet theory then leave if anyone challenges it. Hell Ken--you've got 1000x the spine of that guy. Well, yeah, but we've trained Ken pretty well, too, and he's shown he's not at all a bad learner when convinced he's right and we're wrong. < big grin > Stamina and persistence, he's definitely got. I can honestly say so even at the times when I feel Ken's persistence is that of a mosquito that no amount of smacking will deter. Gotta give the guy credit for sticking to his guns, that's for sure.
|
|