The myth explanation

[Micaiah]

since we adopted Enlightenment/scientific criteria

Explain this in more detail.

 

[Critias]

Yes, it is. It takes practice getting out of the little hoop we have locked ourselves into since we adopted Enlightenment/scientific criteria of truth and finding our way into the mytho-poetic hoop that was the norm in ancient cultures.

But since the biblical writers wrote when mytho-poetic writing was the norm, the way to understanding the bible is to jump from our modernistic frame of categories into theirs and, as far as we can, get a good look at it from the inside.

Then we can start applying it to our own cultural way of thinking. When we do this it is astounding how modern the bible can be. Ultimately the creation story is less about the details of a long ago event, than about how to worship God here and now.

Gluady's, mythical writing was not the norm. It was one of the many types of writing styles they employed. It wasn't the only style, as many here would have everyone else believe.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Gluady's, mythical writing was not the norm. It was one of the many types of writing styles they employed. It wasn't the only style, as many here would have everyone else believe.

The mixture of history and mythology in ancient writings was the norm for most every culture of the era.

 

[Critias]

The mixture of history and mythology in ancient writings was the norm for most every culture of the era.

That is what mythology is, not what history is. Mythology tends to take what is real - historical - and mix it with fiction and fantasy.

There is clear line drawn between history and mythology in the ancient culture of Sumer. The writing styles are very much different.

You can put your hand over your eyes and scream all you want so you don't have to be presented with reality here, but it won't negate it from being true.

Seriously, either prove your point with tangible evidence that Genesis is a myth very much like other Sumer accounts, or admit you have none and choose to be ignorant on the subject.

 

[gluadys]

Gluady's, mythical writing was not the norm. It was one of the many types of writing styles they employed. It wasn't the only style, as many here would have everyone else believe.

Depends on whether you are looking at creative writing or all writing. If you are looking at all writing, by far the commonest forms have to do with business transactions: contracts, bills of lading, bills of sale, that sort of thing. Nothing mythical about that.

And of course, there are all other sorts of writing too. Royal proclamations, codes of law, letters, inscriptions, records of tribute and taxes collected.
In temples there are records of offerings, tablets with prayers on them, astronomical records (important to astrology), recipes for herbal medicines and healing rituals.

There is creative writing too that is not myth: collections of proverbs, songs and chants, both secular and those used in worship, the musings of priest/philosophers that we now call wisdom literature.

But the most significant form of creative writing was myth and legend. It is significant because it shapes the culture as other writings don't. Rather many other writings are founded on the core myths of a culture: prayers, religious songs, medicine, astrology, law even political announcements take their language from myth though they are not myth themselves.

Myth ties together the religion, politics, history, science and law of the culture. From an ancient perspective, these things are not separated: they are one. They form an undifferentiated whole. It is meaningless in such a culture to separate the natural from the super-natural so that one can address "purely scientific" questions. For them the forces of nature are divine and divinities were often personifications of nature. It is just as ridiculous to consider history without gods, especially when kings were often seen as the incarnation of the ruling god.

Culturally, myth sets the framework for everything else. And in that sense it is the norm.

 

[Micaiah]

A nations view of their origins has a significant impact on its culture. That is why our beliefs about origins are important.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That is what mythology is, not what history is. Mythology tends to take what is real - historical - and mix it with fiction and fantasy.

There is clear line drawn between history and mythology in the ancient culture of Sumer. The writing styles are very much different.

Interesting that you should mention Sumer. My brother just gave me his copy of The Epic of Gilgamesh...Tell me, was Gilgamesh a real historical figure or a product of fiction?

You can put your hand over your eyes and scream all you want so you don't have to be presented with reality here, but it won't negate it from being true.

Present something, and I'll gladly look at it.

Seriously, either prove your point with tangible evidence that Genesis is a myth very much like other Sumer accounts, or admit you have none and choose to be ignorant on the subject.

Well, ignoring the stunningly obvious parallels to just about every other myth in Ancient culture...If talking serpents, Gods talking walks through magic gardens, and holes opening in the sky to let 40 days of rainwater in do not scream "myth" to you, then I don't see how anything I say can sway you.

It must all be real.

 

[gluadys]

Explain this in more detail.

Well, a post can contain so little detail I don't know if I can. As you probably remember, if you studied European history, the Enlightenment was a time of paradigm shift through the whole culture. At the time, people saw it as the flowering of the changes introduced by the Renaissance and the Reformation. There was also the impact of the century of religious wars which preceded the Enlightenment. Not to mention the huge amount of new data coming in from all quarters with the discovery of the Western hemisphere and the age of exploration and colonization. And the advances in knowledge introduced through new technology like the telescope and microscope.

Probably one of the most significant developments of the Enlightenment was the privatization of religion, which was a direct outcome of the wars of religion. All through medieval and Renaissance times and into the Reformation it was held as self-evident, by Luther and Calvin as well as the Catholics, that social cohesion required a common religion. This meant that politics and religion were inextricably inter-twined. It mattered what the religion of the monarch was, because that would also be the religion of the nation. Consider the swings in England from devoutly Catholic (though eventually anti-papist) Henry VIII to the introduction of Protestantism under Edward VI, back to Catholicism under "Bloody" Mary Tudor and back again to Protestantism under Elizabeth---and on to another century of conflict between the Catholic Stuart dynasty and the Puritans under Cromwell.

Only in far off America did anyone try the radical Anabaptist idea of letting individuals choose their religion for themselves. Bit by bit, however, European countries also began to allow for liberty of conscience in religion.

It was a mixed blessing for Christians of all stripes. The liberty to worship as one pleases was a freedom hardly won, but the privatization of religion means the public square is necessarily secular. Religion is no longer what cements a society together and its role must be shouldered by secular substitutes such as nationalism.

Another facet of the paradigm shift was the rejection of divinely appointed authorities --- and this begins way back at the Renaissance and grows more important up to the height of the Enlightenment. After millennia of accepting authorities such as Plato, Aristotle, Galen etc. in philosophy (which included science) and Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine and other church fathers in religion, philosophers re-discovered the importance of inductive thinking based on empirical experience. Descartes introduced the notion of radical doubt. Kant introduced the notion of categories of the mind which suggests that the order seen in nature comes not from God but from human thought. Galileo, building on Copernicus and using the newly invented telescope shows traditional thinking about the structure of the cosmos to be wrong. One could go on and on.

But the consequences are a deepening of humanism and secularism at every turn. In Protestant theology the Pope is demoted from his role as Vicar of Christ, to be replaced by the Holy Scriptures, interpreted not by bishops and cardinals but by the common man. In politics the divine right of kings to rule is replaced by parliaments and republics, and at least limited democracy. In commerce the strict regulation of trade through national monopolies is replaced by capitalism and individual entrepreneurship. And in philosophy & science (not yet distinguished from each other) the universe is denuded of mysticism and explored by the human tools of sense and reason. This is the age in which it was discovered that rainbows are produced by refraction, not the finger of God, that gravity, not angels, directs the course of the planets, and that the heart is a pump not the organ of love. So another consequence of the decline in divinely-appointed authority is the elevation of human reason and of science. The concept of "truth" is detached in principle from divine revelation and re-defined as that which we can discover through science and/or demonstrate convincingly by sound reason.

This doesn't mean that Christians turned their back on divine revelation. But they were caught up in the general shift in perspective. They too had a growing respect for science and for rational thinking. It became important to theologians of the time, especially those interested in evangelising, to be able to divest Christianity of "superstitious ideas" and present it as a rational belief that was harmonious with science. So this is also the age of Paley's watchmaker, Newton's mechanic of the universe, and the phenomenon of clergy-naturalists who laid much of the groundwork of modern science. In short the Christian thinkers of the time basically accepted the secular redefinition of truth and set out to show that Christianity qualified as truth by this definition.

 

[gluadys]

Another facet of Enlightenment thought picked up by Christians was the timelessness of truth.

Rational thought is, by definition, timeless. A valid syllogism is always valid. Much of the science of the time also dealt with timeless realities like gravity, the laws of motion, of thermodynamics, etc. The universe itself was thought to be essentially timeless, for time, like space, was thought to be infinite in scope, and much the same at all co-ordinates.

An expression of this in Christian theology was to treat the scriptures also as timeless---as written to and for all peoples of all times, in language plain to understand in all cultures.

Since the height of the Enlightenment, we have rediscovered history. It began in geology as scientists (many of them those clergy-naturalists) discovered the passage of history in stratigraphy and began to get an insight into how old the earth is. It continued in biology and paleontology as we learned of the history of species---not created in timeless unchanging form but in evolving forms. Then we get cosmology and the history of the universe itself. Time is not infinite. It has a beginning and the universe has a history of development and change. Archeolgy, anthropology and sociology introduced us to historical changes in human cultures and linguistics followed the history of languages.

And bibilical scholars began to discover the history of the bible itself. We can no longer hold that the bible is a timeless message to all peoples. (Don't misunderstand me here. I am NOT saying that God's Truth changes.) The various parts of the bible were written to particular people living in a particular time and place, about issues that were pertinent to them, and in a verbal and symbolical pattern familiar to them.

And this means that to understand the bible in depth, one cannot simply pick it up and read it as if it was written to oneself. One must find out how it would sound to the people it was originally written to.

This is very different from the Enlightenment "common sense" approach, but it is a necessity of what we have learned about the history of the bible itself

 

[gluadys]

A nations view of their origins has a significant impact on its culture. That is why our beliefs about origins are important.

And the central core of mythology is about a nation's origins. That is true even of modern secular nations .

 

[Micaiah]

Nice posts. It almost sounds like you know what you are talking about here Gluadys, assuming these are your own words. Do you have a qualification in this area.

I don't think you can dismiss the belief that the world was created in 6 days as a hang over from the Enlightenment. This was the view held by most of the early church fathers. Paul accepted the historicity of Genesis as did Christ. For many today who accept this truth, it stems from a belief that God has communicated to us plainly and clearly some of the important events that took place at the dawn of history. God is truth, and therefore His word can be trusted.

Let's assume that Genesis is a historically accurate account of Creation. If so, it would be the one true account among many wrong accounts by other nations. It would seem likely they only got half the story right, and the rest was fabricated. I think you'd call that legend.

Therefore, while it would be true to infer that myth shaped the identity and culture of many nations, it would not be true in all cases. The culture and indentity of the Jew and the Christian would be based on God's word regarding Creation.

We believe that the Scriptural record of origins is unique in this regard.

 

[gluadys]

. For many today who accept this truth, it stems from a belief that God has communicated to us plainly and clearly some of the important events that took place at the dawn of history.

Yes, that is the belief that stems from the Enlightenment.

What you fail to take into account is that in ancient times a myth was a clear, plain communication.

 

[Joykins]

Have any of you read Chesterton's _The Everlasting Man_?

If not, here it is http://www.mrrena.com/em.shtml

It has a lot of interesting things to say about myth and Christianity. A little about evolution, too--he's mildly skeptical about it in a way more appropriate in the 1920s than now. But mostly I like it because it makes my brain grow everytime I read it, (despite the winces at the completely non-PC language every now and then...)

Joy

 

[Micaiah]

A question asked previously.

By the way. What do you call the first part of Genesis up to 2:4a?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Nice posts. It almost sounds like you know what you are talking about here Gluadys, assuming these are your own words. Do you have a qualification in this area.

I too would like to see Gladys' credentials... preferably posted side-by-side with your own.

don't think you can dismiss the belief that the world was created in 6 days as a hang over from the Enlightenment. This was the view held by most of the early church fathers. Paul accepted the historicity of Genesis as did Christ. For many today who accept this truth, it stems from a belief that God has communicated to us plainly and clearly some of the important events that took place at the dawn of history. God is truth, and therefore His word can be trusted.

Qualification in mindreading.... impressive.

ssume that Genesis is a historically accurate account of Creation. If so, it would be the one true account among many wrong accounts by other nations. It would seem likely they only got half the story right, and the rest was fabricated. I think you'd call that legend.

If this is so, then the question is, how did all those other cultures get the story even half right? Assuming that Genesis is the direct literal step-by-step revelation of the mechainics of Creation from God to His chosen people, where did those other cultures...particularly the ones that pre-date the Hebrews...get their info from?

Therefore, while it would be true to infer that myth shaped the identity and culture of many nations, it would not be true in all cases. The culture and indentity of the Jew and the Christian would be based on God's word regarding Creation.

All based on one assumption...

We believe that the Scriptural record of origins is unique in this regard.

No, we do not. We believe that the Scripture is unique in an entirely different regard.

 

[Micaiah]

I too would like to see Gladys' credentials... preferably posted side-by-side with your own.

I do not have any formal post secondary qualifications in literature. And you own?

Qualification in mindreading.... impressive.

I can read.

If this is so, then the question is, how did all those other cultures get the story even half right? Assuming that Genesis is the direct literal step-by-step revelation of the mechainics of Creation from God to His chosen people, where did those other cultures...particularly the ones that pre-date the Hebrews...get their info from?

You could start another thread to discuss the topic.

All based on one assumption...

That's what I said.

No, we do not. We believe that the Scripture is unique in an entirely different regard.

"We" meaning those who accept the historicity of Genesis.

 

[gluadys]

I too would like to see Gladys' credentials... preferably posted side-by-side with your own.[/font]



My qualifications are a love of reading. I pick the brains of the experts.

I do have a BA in language and literature (English and French) and worked professionally as a teacher of French as a second language. This included training in basic linguistics and I have followed that up with self-study.

For the last ten years my work has been specifically in Christian education, specializing in Christian public witness and social advocacy. While this involves a lot of research into everything from climate change to African debt, a constant through all the issues is digging into the scriptures and applicable theology, especially Reform theology. So although I don't have documented expertise, I have good access to a theological library as well as all the practicing theologs at our national office and college.

Over the last three years I have reviewed all official statements of our denomination on social issues for the last 50 years, and am now the resident expert on Canadian Presbyterian policy on social issues.

Here is my masterpiece. (Caution! This is an extremely large download (16.5Mb). )

 

[gluadys]

Nice posts. It almost sounds like you know what you are talking about here Gluadys, assuming these are your own words. Do you have a qualification in this area.

They are my own words. Have you found an error in this summary?

 

[gluadys]

A question asked previously.

Answered by rmwilliamsll in post 34.

 

[Micaiah]

ie. You consider the first chapter of Genesis to be poetry.