Poll: Myth versus historical account

[billwald]

There is no line. Over time, current events fade into history and history fades into myth. People who get stirred over this don't understand that the technical meaning of "myth" is "creation story" or "story of beginnings." It makes no judgement as to the accuracy of the story.

 

[random_guy]

I selected other, but not because I think it's all myth. I'm sure that each part of the Bible has some historicity and also has elements of myth. However, I don't dwell on figuring out which part is which. I find it more important to understand the message being conveyed.

 

[cubanito]

Other. I have a problem with the word myth, but I think Gen 2&3 are allegorical, a parable. Gen 1 on the other hand is a poetic description of the creation which I read fairly literally.

So the 'one size fits all' choice doesn't work for me

OK dude, whatever else, this "afterwards I will restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" is a hoot!


JR

 

[cubanito]

While it is all history, Gen 1 and 2 really require some careful reading, and even then it aint so easy to fit it all together. Obviously my second guessing God is done with recognition of my own stupidity, but how I wish He had told Moses to chuck most of Leviticus and spent a few more pages at the begining!

JR

 

[Jelumismom]

Great thread topic!

This is something that has always intrigued me.

I recently finished the books "The Case for the Creator", "The Case for Faith", and "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. His story is a fascinating one...he was a reporter who set out to disprove God's existence, yet the more and more research he did, the more he became aware of the historical and scientific proof of God's existence, of Jesus' time on earth, death and resurrection, of Noah's ark, etc. In his book he says "it takes more faith to not believe in the existence of a creator, than it takes to believe".

All that to say, I believe that everything in the bible is truth. I don't understand why or how it happened, but I know that the creator who thought through every detail of life as we know it, is capable of anything...and that is sufficient enough for me.

FYI - My children are each at an age of questioning these very same things...and I have been reading them the kids' versions of "The Case for..." series. Excellent resource for moms and sunday school teachers!

 

[jereth]

Great thread topic!

This is something that has always intrigued me.

I recently finished the books "The Case for the Creator", "The Case for Faith", and "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

I've read "The Case for Christ", and found it quite good.

I recall someone saying that Strobel supports ID or OEC -- is this correct?

 

[Mallon]

I recall someone saying that Strobel supports ID or OEC -- is this correct?

He's an IDer, from what I've read of his. Not a huge fan of Stobel, myself.

 

[Pats]

I've read "The Case for Christ", and found it quite good.

I recall someone saying that Strobel supports ID or OEC -- is this correct?

I think he's got a "Case for the Creator" or some such out.

I didn't find "The Case for Christ" as impressive as some. I also think they're misrepresenting the author a bit. "The journey of how an atheist became a Christian," but he wrote it like what, ten years after his conversion?

 

[Mallon]

I also think they're misrepresenting the author a bit. "The journey of how an atheist became a Christian," but he wrote it like what, ten years after his conversion?

I think Strobel's story is another case of the oft-repeated "I used to be an atheist who believed in evolution (even though I never fully understood it... which is why it was so easy to convert to creationism)."

 

[Calminian]

It's ironic to me that genesis chapter 3 speaks of how the snakes temps Eve by saying,

Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

She replies,

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Literally, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die.’

Death in hebrew thought is always akin to separation which happened that very day (a literal separation). Adam and Eve were separated from God that day and began physically dying that day (physical death being separation of the spirit from the body and this world).

The snake replies,

4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Nah, God really didn't mean that. He just meant you'll be like Him. Don't take things so literal!

6,000 years later we're still falling for the same temptation.

Moses believe it was historical. Jesus believed it was historical. Paul believe it was historical. That's good enough company for me.

 

[shernren]

You know, Satan was a literalist too:

The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
(Luke 4:9-12 NIV)

Go on and show us how Moses, Jesus, and Paul thought of recent creation as literal, post-Enlightenment-ly factual history

 

[Assyrian]

It's ironic ...

Nah, God really didn't mean that. He just meant you'll be like Him. Don't take things so literal!

6,000 years later we're still falling for the same temptation.

Moses believe it was historical. Jesus believed it was historical. Paul believe it was historical. That's good enough company for me.

And of course you believe Jesus really did crush the snake's head?

 

[Calminian]

And of course you believe Jesus really did crush the snake's head?

Yes He will. Gosh you don't even believe Jesus will defeat Satan? This is more serious than I thought.

 

[Calminian]

You know, Satan was a literalist too:

The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
(Luke 4:9-12 NIV)

Suddenly we're talking about literalism. I thought the issue of historical vs. myth? Jesus used figurative language all the time. Does that prove that He Himself was figurative?

And I still don't know what the above was supposed to prove. Can someone help me out.

Go on and show us how Moses, Jesus, and Paul thought of recent creation as literal, post-Enlightenment-ly factual history

Okay, let's start with Moses.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Here's we're given a frame of reference for the meaning of the genesis days. Moses also linked the genealogies from Adam to Noah to himself. Was he mistaken? More importantly did he also believe Adam was a myth? Did he believe Noah was a myth? Did he believe Abraham was a Myth. Joseph? Please explain your answer.

 

[Calminian]

Go on and show us how Moses, Jesus, and Paul thought of recent creation as literal, post-Enlightenment-ly factual history

BTW, the whole literal thing is a misnomer. Do you believe the gospels to be free of literal language? Does that mean they are not historical. You're confusing two different issues.

 

[Melethiel]

Yes He will. Gosh you don't even believe Jesus will defeat Satan? This is more serious than I thought.

The point is that "snake" is not literal here, but figurative for "Satan".

Anyway, what's all this will defeat stuff? This is quite serious if one does not believe that the Serpent has already been crushed.

 

[Assyrian]

Thank you Melethiel

 

[shernren]

Suddenly we're talking about literalism. I thought the issue of historical vs. myth? Jesus used figurative language all the time. Does that prove that He Himself was figurative?

And I still don't know what the above was supposed to prove. Can someone help me out.

You were referring to figurative interpretation being a devilish heresy:

The snake replies,

4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Nah, God really didn't mean that. He just meant you'll be like Him. Don't take things so literal!

6,000 years later we're still falling for the same temptation.

So I thought, "Hey, the devil interpreted the Scriptures figuratively, and Calminian has a problem with that. But since the devil interpreted the Scriptures literally too, that would make Calminian have a problem with literal interpretations too!"

Guess I overestimated your humor capacity.

And I know that it's about historicity, not literalism, but I was answering specifically to your point about figurative interpretation. But since the snake of mythicity has been aroused ...

Okay, let's start with Moses.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Here's we're given a frame of reference for the meaning of the genesis days. Moses also linked the genealogies from Adam to Noah to himself. Was he mistaken? More importantly did he also believe Adam was a myth? Did he believe Noah was a myth? Did he believe Abraham was a Myth. Joseph? Please explain your answer.

Firstly, I have never said that Moses considered Abraham and Joseph to be myths. Building strawmen is fun but don't expect them to be taken seriously.

And you've got it right: here we're given a reference for the meaning of the Genesis days ... not the length of Genesis days. Just because one set of days (the week) is compared to another set of days (God's creation week), that does not automatically mean that both sets are historical. I can compare a historical reality to a mythical construct without in any way dismissing the mythicity of the construct.

I can call my dad a real Romeo without thinking that Romeo was a historical figure.

So why can't Moses call the Sabbath "blessed, as the Creation Sabbath was" without thinking that the Creation Sabbath was a historical day?

Besides, later in the Law, the Jews are commanded that every seven years the land should be allowed to rest. Nobody ever compares this to the Creation Week concluding that the first day was really a year. And in Daniel, a "week" itself is used to describe a period which is really seven years long.

And I fully believe that Adam was a real person. I don't know about Noah, but I believe that the Bible does record an actual universal flood unleashed by God upon sinful mankind. So really, we should be agreeing on many things, since the only problem you have with me is that my God seems to like taking long periods of time to make planets and life-forms.

 

[Calminian]

The point is that "snake" is not literal here, but figurative for "Satan".

Jesus was figuratively called the lamb of God. Does that mean lamb's are figurative? Does this mean the gospels are figurative. I'm trying to see what method you use to determine how something is to be interpreted. The Devil is real. The crushing of the head is figurative for his defeat.

Anyway, what's all this will defeat stuff? This is quite serious if one does not believe that the Serpent has already been crushed.

Settle down, it was future from the time the prophecy was written.

 

[Calminian]

You were referring to figurative interpretation being a devilish heresy:

So you believe any passage can be interpreted figuratively? Can Jesus' resurrection be interpreted figuratively? After all, He used metaphors quite often. He called him self a vine, bread, etc. If not, why not?

So I thought, "Hey, the devil interpreted the Scriptures figuratively, and Calminian has a problem with that. But since the devil interpreted the Scriptures literally too, that would make Calminian have a problem with literal interpretations too!"

The logic doesn't follow.

Guess I overestimated your humor capacity.

Sorry to hear that. I’ll try to take lessons from you .

And I know that it's about historicity, not literalism, but I was answering specifically to your point about figurative interpretation. But since the snake of mythicity has been aroused ...

Your taking this way too personal.

Firstly, I have never said that Moses considered Abraham and Joseph to be myths. Building strawmen is fun but don't expect them to be taken seriously.

Wow you’re sensitive. I never once claimed you did. I asked if they were figurative. There’s no need to be defensive. I’m just trying to find out what you believe and why.

And you've got it right: here we're given a reference for the meaning of the Genesis days ... not the length of Genesis days. Just because one set of days (the week) is compared to another set of days (God's creation week), that does not automatically mean that both sets are historical. I can compare a historical reality to a mythical construct without in any way dismissing the mythicity of the construct.

But you do so with no proof Moses didn't believe creation was a week long event. In fact he stated.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....

He didn't say anything about as the myth goes, etc.. And he linked Adam to Abraham through genealogies.

I can call my dad a real Romeo without thinking that Romeo was a historical figure.

That's nice. But Moses didn't say, "ya know that Abraham was a real Adam!"

So why can't Moses call the Sabbath "blessed, as the Creation Sabbath was" without thinking that the Creation Sabbath was a historical day?

He could have. But he didn't.

Besides, later in the Law, the Jews are commanded that every seven years the land should be allowed to rest. Nobody ever compares this to the Creation Week concluding that the first day was really a year. And in Daniel, a "week" itself is used to describe a period which is really seven years long.

You are right. But they didn't compare these to the creation days. Had they, we could conclude creation took seven years. Instead he compared creation to the work week.

And I fully believe that Adam was a real person. I don't know about Noah, but I believe that the Bible does record an actual universal flood unleashed by God upon sinful mankind. So really, we should be agreeing on many things, since the only problem you have with me is that my God seems to like taking long periods of time to make planets and life-forms.

Well, Moses linked Adam to Noah and Noah to Abraham. So why would you not believe him about Noah? What I’m trying to do is find out what methods you used to determine that Adam and Abraham are literal, but Noah isn’t.