Schroeder said:
. yes but i dont see y0ur point. and he did use a book to have it passed down so maybe it would NOT turn into a myth.
It was told orally as a myth. Putting it in writing several centuries later does not change what it is.
and a myth is one that does NOT speak the WHOLE turth of the event that happened that is written down or orally told. A myth is truth with untruth in it. God does not speak this way
Your definition is incorrect in the context of literary form. Therefore your conclusion that a myth is not a possible vehicle of God's truth is incorrect. God can and does speak in this way.
no he can not. IF he is ALL truth and cant speak a lie then it is ALL truth no matter what litterary form he uses.
You are contradicting yourself. If what the Spirit reveals is all truth no matter what the literary form, it is all truth when the literary form is mythological. So to say the Spirit cannot speak truth through myth is untrue.
maybe i should say the truth being spoke is a factual accurate event that did happen as it is told by the writer.
Then you are using a definition of truth that is modern and positivistic and atheist. It is an overly narrow definition of truth that excludes spiritual truth. It excludes truth which is not possible to express as observed fact. It excludes mystical spiritual truth that is better told in poetry, song, drama and story (including myth) than in terms of physical facts or rational logic.
The definition of truth you are using applies well to science, mathematics and human logic, but does not apply well to much else, certainly not to the things of the spirit which are far above human sense and reasoning.
we sure do. if i think Christ life was a myth. then how can his saving grace come to me. It would merrely be a story to help me in life to be a better citizen. as in no afterlife.
Again your conclusion is incorrect because your premise is incorrect. Saving grace does not come to you because of the bible. It is given to you by God himself--whether or not you have ever heard a single word read from the bible. The scripture is a precious gift, even a means of grace. But it is not THE means of grace. It is by grace you are saved, not by scripture, whether it is myth or history.
Same for the afterlife. Did it exist before scripture was written? Then it exists whether or not scripture was ever written, and it exists no matter what literary form is used to speak of it.
they were writers but what they wrote is not what they wanted to write but what GOD told them or lead them to Write.
I am not sure if you are meaning to imply this, but are you suggesting they fought against inspiration? that they did not want to write what they wrote?
So yes they in a way took dictation. the fact they wrote in a certain way according to how they wrote then is besides the point.
Again, scripture itself speaks against this. Paul speaks in one of his letters of himself giving advice which he had not received from God. Luke speaks of researching and making inquiries as a basis for his gospel. Inspiration does not seem to take the form of dictation.
it would not interfer or make them write a untruth or a extra part that is fabricated or exxagerated or whatever just because that is the way they orally made it. Goid is above this.
And no one is making that claim except you.
Is GOd and his plan and all of the way he worked a story, a myth.
No, God's plan is real, but the way God communicated much of his plan to us is via story. Without the story, the myth, we would have no knowledge of his plan, because there is no other record of it.
and is history JUST what we find in scientific evidence or even archeology.
Yes. At least known history is. Of course, there is a lot of history that has been lost to our knowledge, but it was real too.
why not. one is GOds word the other is mans understanding or interpretations of what we NEVER saw happen.
Are you saying the sky and stars and mountains and oceans that God created are merely a human interpretation of reality? They exist only in human minds and not in real life?
Are you saying that when I look at a tree there is not any real tree there, only my interpretation of ---well of what? Am I dreaming it is there?
You know this is nonsense. Human understanding is understanding OF SOMETHING which exists to be understood. Human interpretation is interpretation OF SOMETHING which exists to be interpreted.
That something is, one the one hand, creation and on the other hand scripture. It is not a matter of balancing scripture against human understanding. It is a matter of balancing God's revelation in scripture against God's revelation in creation. Both of these are true. Both of these are equally true. One cannot be truer than the other, because both come from God who is all truth and cannot be ever less than all truth.
As for interpretation being human, yes that is true. But that also applies to both scripture and creation. We can be wrong about our scientific interpretation of creation. We can also be wrong about our theological interpretation of scripture. So again it is not a matter of balancing scripture against human understanding. It is a matter of balancing human understanding of scripture against human understanding of creation. And we are just as likely to be mistaken in the first as in the second. In fact, more likely to be mistaken in the first than in the second, since science is self-correcting and theology is not.
A assumption is guessing what it was in the past when we TRUELLY cant honestly say one way or another, no matter how much evidence might suggest it.
So, should we close all criminal courts and have no more trials because no matter how much evidence might suggest guilt or innocence, we are really just guessing? Should we dispense with training for doctors because no matter how much evidence suggests cancer or measles or HIV, they can't really have any idea how to treat a patient--it's all assumption and guessing?
Again you know this is nonsense. Evidence does mean something and it is possible to make valid conclusions from evidence. You use evidence yourself in your daily life.
Casting a blanket of doubt over evidence in general is just tactic to avoid looking at it when you want to evade the conclusions it leads to.
I can assume my mom is a christian and will go to heaven but i honestly can not say for fact that is true because God only knows.
Indeed, there are some things for which there truly is no evidence. And therefore no conclusion.
YES because a myth is not the whole truth
No matter how often you say this, it is still not true. When God gives a revelation in the form of a myth, it is certainly the whole truth.
no you are because you say it is a myth not me.
Yes, I am saying it is a myth. But you are the one who is saying a myth cannot be true.
why would all the major peoples have a flood story
They don't. There are as many people who do not have a flood tradition as do. Including, significantly, the ancient Egyptians. Since their civilization goes back to pre-flood times and is continuous right through it--including written records and building projects--it is strange that they missed commenting on the flood and that none of their building projects was interrupted by everyone in Egypt being drowned.
i do not reject science. i reject that it will answer all the answers of how God works or did work.
No one is claiming that science is that comprehensive. But within the limited sphere of scientific knowledge, it provides fairly accurate information.
It would take only One error of interpretation in science to get a lot of errors down the line.
No, because science has a feedback system that corrects errors. So they don't build up.
again how does this matter. the scriptures are HOLY not man made.
Lots of things that are or were holy are or were man made. The holy bread set out in the tabernacle each day was made by human hands. The holy temple in Jerusalem was built by human hands. And the holy scriptures were penned by human hands.
Or you will make the scriptures fit with the scientific results.
Yes, truth must agree with truth. And I do not assume my interpretation of scripture is a true interpretation. So I am willing to change my faulty understanding of scripture to agree with a true scientific understanding of God's creation.
This is why i ask you to tell me which part of the story of the flood is true and which is not.
You can't divide the story up that way. As a myth, none of it is factual and all of it is true.
So i think it is just a matter of interpretation of the scriptures and what we think the signifacants is of it.
Exactly. That is all any of us has--an interpretation of the scripture and what we think the significance of it is.
otherwise why would not the other religouse books all myths be just as correct and true as the bible.
For all we know they are. We have no evidence that the bible is true and the others are not. That is why we hold up the bible as a revelation from God by faith, just as Muslims hold up the qur'an as a revelation from Allah by faith, and people of other faiths hold up their religious books and teachings by faith.
this idea of a myth being complete truth. i should say i would sayy a myth can give us a "truth" but NOT the complete accurate fact of the event it is speaking of.
Right. Myth is not history. The events in a myth are not intended to be accurate history or to refer to actual historical events. A myth may be inspired by an actual event but it is not a record of that event.
I believe the flood story being global is a factual accurate acount of the event. you think it is a myth account of a local flood to show a message God wants to express to us.
And you can believe that as long as you choose to avoid the evidence that at no time in its history was earth subjected to a global flood. Once you open yourself to this evidence, there is no possibility of continuing to believe the flood story is anything other than a story.
However, the message God wants to express to us is, I believe, the same for both of us. It speaks to you as one who believes in a literal flood, and it also speaks to me as one who believes the flood is a mythical event. And it is the same message for us both.
) before allowing it to be discovered. Also why do all these things have so many adverse side affects? How many actually "cure" disease rather than just allow one to live with a particular malady?
