gluadys said:They are natural. But people still want to explain them. That is what this story does. It gives a meaning to pain, toil and death by providing a mythico-theological reason for them.
References to the Age of Kronos in the ancient lore are very numerous.(1) Hesiod tells ofA golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Kronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil: miserable age rested not on them . . . The fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands with many good things. . . .(2)Similarly writes Ovid in the sixth book of his Metamorphoses:
In the beginning was the Golden Age, when men of their own accord, without threat of punishment, without laws, maintained good faith and did what was right. . . . The earth itself, without compulsion, untouched by the hoe, unfurrowed by any share, produced all things spontaneously. . . . It was a season of everlasting spring.(3)Rabbinical sources recount that men lived under very favorable conditions before the Deluge, and that these contributed to their sinfulness: They knew neither toil nor care and as a consequence of their extraordinary prosperity they grew insolent. (4)
Willtor said:Barth calls Genesis a "saga" which is basically what Lion of God has described. In my (albeit limited) understanding of genre, a saga is a type of myth that follows a person or family line of heroic proportions. Regardless of who wrote any particular portion (whether JEPD is dead on, or Moses wrote most of it, or Moses wrote the whole thing and prophesied his own death), as far as Genesis is concerned, it is a saga. Perhaps certain people existed, or perhaps they didn't. If they did, perhaps they did precisely what they are said to have done, or perhaps they didn't. At any rate, a Christian must view it as a true saga, for whatever it is that the saga is intended to communicate. But as with any mythology, it is not trying to offer us clues for science to uncover. As Gluadys has pointed out in the past, that would be anachronistic.
oldwiseguy said:You are correct. The whole story is a saga. It starts with the beginning-the genesis-and follows the family, known as Israel, from Adam to Christ, and beyond. An unbroken chain of literal history.
Willtor said:Well, literal history is really what's being debated. Saga doesn't presuppose fact.
Lion of God said:I have to disagree. Some of these "mythological writings" tell of the same thing:
To automatically assume that because these "myths" are relaying something outside of our present day experience or ability to imagine, does not make them non-factual. It is significant when they line up so well with each other, even when the cultures are thousands of miles apart from each other.
r
Willtor said:From Mirriam Webster:
1 : a prose narrative recorded in Iceland in the 12th and 13th centuries of historic or legendary figures and events of the heroic age of Norway and Iceland
2 : a modern heroic narrative resembling the Icelandic saga
3 : a long detailed account <a saga of the Old South>
From my Macintosh Dictionary:
Saga
A long story of heroic achievement, esp. a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic
. a long, involved story, account, or series of incidents
---
We can play the dictionary game all day. The point was that Barth (who made the statement) didn't think that it was a literal historical account.
gluadys said:Sorry, I don't get the point of your post. These are the beginnings of non-biblical myths that also explained to people the human realities of pain, suffering, sorrow and death. Yes, one finds them all around the world, because pain, suffering, sorrow and death are universal human experiences.
oldwiseguy said:I believe mythology adds insights to the central truths of the bible. The problem is that everything becomes a myth, including the bible stories. Not good.
oldwiseguy said:I believe mythology adds insights to the central truths of the bible. The problem is that everything becomes a myth, including the bible stories. Not good.
gluadys said:Two questions:
Why would some of the biblical stories being myth make all of them myth? That doesn't make sense.
Consider the world that 'is' being separated by the world that 'was' by a/the flood, spoken of by Peter. Most believe this flood to be that of Noah. If that flood is a myth, and you still believe Peter, you must fall back to an earlier flood. That being unacceptable to TE's as well as YEC's it too much be mythologised. And so on. This is done with genealogies as well. If a person, such as Nimrod, or Tammuz, is relegated to myth, it breaks any chain of decendancy coming from them. A historical event mythologised, leaves a gaping hole in history.
What's not good about a story being myth
Mythology is important as I have posted to you before. I believe that the mythology of Zeus/Jupiter (King of the Gods) gives insight into the intrigues surrounding the rebellion, as well as God's anger.
Also, instead of taking any opportunity to relegate scripture to myth, why not try to validate it's historisity, even if the evidence is scanty. Science does this all the time. In fact they are quite good at it.
gluadys said:2. What's not good about a story being myth?
Lion of God said:If a factual history is interpreted as a myth, it loses its power to affect the present and future.
Lion of God said:If a factual history is interpreted as a myth, it loses its power to affect the present and future.
LewisWildermuth said:Why do you feel this way? The evidence seems to show the exact opposite.Lion of God said:If a factual history is interpreted as a myth, it loses its power to affect the present and future.
oldwiseguy said:Consider the world that 'is' being separated by the world that 'was' by a/the flood, spoken of by Peter. Most believe this flood to be that of Noah. If that flood is a myth, and you still believe Peter, you must fall back to an earlier flood. That being unacceptable to TE's as well as YEC's it too much be mythologised. And so on.
This is done with genealogies as well. If a person, such as Nimrod, or Tammuz, is relegated to myth, it breaks any chain of decendancy coming from them.
A historical event mythologised, leaves a gaping hole in history.
Remus said:I've been where you are. It was then that I realized that I had to figure out everything for myself.
Remus said:Have you heard of Hank Hanegraaff? I believe he has a really good perspective on this issue:
http://www.equip.org/free/DA060.htm
Remus said:There are many aspects of the creation story that are not literal. As a creationist, I believe that Genesis is historical, but not necessarily 100% literal. For example, I don't believe that the two trees mentioned were literal trees. Likewise, I don't believe that God came down and performed some kind of CPR on Adam to give him the breath of life.
Remus said:The perspective in that link may provide some insight. I would add that there are other references that suggest that the days were not long periods of time. One that comes easily to mind is Mark 10:6. Either way, I do believe that the age of the earth is a minor issue.
Pats said:By the same token, II Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord one day is as one thousand years, and one thousand years as one day. Perhaps that clears up a lot on both sides of the Crevo arguement, there are simply things we don't/won't understand at this time.
The Lady Kate said:TEs such as me see it as a figure of speech showing that God is not constrained by the same time schedule as we are.
Robert the Pilegrim said:Is this central to salvation?
Does this change how we go about loving God and our neighbor as ourselves?
gluadys said:I don't see any location, time or connection to other figures of history here either. Yes, Eden is mentioned, but other myths name places too. And the genealogies are not part of the story. They were added later by another hand.
gluadys said:They are natural. But people still want to explain them. That is what this story does. It gives a meaning to pain, toil and death by providing a mythico-theological reason for them.
oldwiseguy said:I believe mythology adds insights to the central truths of the bible. The problem is that everything becomes a myth, including the bible stories. Not good.
LewisWildermuth said:All religions in the world are based on mythic tales, they seem to hold quite a sway.
gluadys said:Well, of course it is Noah's flood. Remember the TE position is not necessarily that there was no flood, but that, given the scientific evidence it could not have been a global flood. The biblical story is then seen as a mythologized version of a real event. And yes, I do believe Peter. There is no reason not to.
Pats said:Glaudys, I fully understand your comparison of Genesis to mythology in post #6, and I would agree. However, it doesn't tell me that special creation didn't take place. There are many places in the Bible where the allegorical is also a picture of the literal. Right down to Salvation, Christ died (physical) so we don't have to (spiritual.)
So, do you believe that God intended to create through evolutionary means a creation containing pain, toil, and death. He initiated the evolution of our world with the idea that sin would naturally occur and He would have to send His son to His death?
I believe in God's omniscence, and that He knew at creation He would have to send His son to save us. But, he didn't create us that way. I don't understand how it can be viewed otherwise. Doesn't that alter the Biblical picture of God Himself?
Well, that brings up a sticky theological point of God's omniscience... if God did'nt create us this way, then the Fall was unplanned (though not unexpected). Why then did God allow the Fall to happen?
Neither view makes 100% theological sense in light of omniscience... Either a perfect God designed something imperfect, or He designed something perfect, and did nothing to prevent the monkeywrench that He knew was going to be tossed into the works.
For the most part, I'll let the profesisonal theologians wrangle over that one.
This is part of my concern. After a while, Jesus wasn't God's literal, only begotten Son.... and then, where are we?
Nobody is suggesting that the Bible is entirely a collection of myths... but nor is it entirely (and the key word in both cases is entirely) a straight-up historical transcript of events.
As a collection of works spanning thousands of years, it's a little of this, a little of that.... faith and reason help us discern which is which.
I'm not saying God's Word doesn't contain allegories, I just need to take great care in examining it before I call part of it an allegory, especially when it contains similar language to the literal portion. I'd rather make an error on the side of caution.
Caution?
So, is Christianity reduced to another "religion" among the pile?
Yes... the one we happen to believe is true. What more did you think it was?
Is it possible that the flood was neither global nor mythologized? It would seem there was a time when you could have told a Roman something occured all over the world, and they would have took it to mean all over Rome.Is it possible God was telling the Isrealites that He had taken out all of Israel, except Noah and family? Does that change it into a myth and make it any less literal? (These are just questions, I'm not proposing to know the answers.)
Well, it's not literal by our standards... "the world" means the world. Of course, to the Romans, "the world" would mean the Roman Empire, just as to a little child, "the world" might be the neighborhood they live in.
It's not mythological, it's cultural.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?