David_McQueen Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Depending on how you read scripture there are those who would suggest certain stories in scripture are myth, i.e. more of an object lesson than an actual event, e.g. creation, the flood, jonah and the whale, job! On what basis does one make the distinction on what is literal and what is metaphor? Does it matter? Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted September 23, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 23, 2005 Among people who study Sociology, the term "myth" does not carry the connotation of either truth or falsehood. I.e. the myth could be true, and it could be false. Truth of falsity is not the central factor of the myth. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I endorse what Gregory wrote 100%. As I have written in an upcoming book "Science can only tell us about nature. Myth attempts to tell of a reality greater than mere nature, a reality that includes the spiritual and the supernatural. Because it goes beyond nature, myth uses figurative or symbolic events and language." So I would say the Bible contains many myths, all of them true. Are you perhaps asking when to determine whether, and to what degree, a myth is literally factual? Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrell M Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Quote: Truth of falsity is not the central factor of the myth. That is certainly true of sociology and casual reading of stories that come labeled as myth. In Christianity, however, the Biblical stories are not labeled as myth, and many of the adherents show a strong belief in the literal truth of the stories in question. I think many would make truth or falsity the central factor of anything that comes from the collection of books making up the foundation of their faith. Sometimes a persons entire faith is severely shaken when they are convinced that one point is based on something false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Quote: "Science can only tell us about nature." Science is all about predicting what will happen next. As such, it is eminently suited for separating false from true claims in religion. The many theories of christianity, continuously changing within a denomination, and varying between denominations, require some objective standard other than "I feel that this is the right answer, because I feel it is consistent and pleasant" to distinquish between them. Elijah forced the prophets of Baal into a publically witnessed experiment. The experiment demonstrated that they could not control or predict their god. He then demonstrated that he could at least predict, if not control, his god. Science demonstrates that the overly literal and simplistic interpretation of the OT by many christians is not in accordance with the vast amount of available evidence. This should be causing christians, who (after all) believe in a God who does not deceive, to rethink their position. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 23, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 23, 2005 I think we've actually had this discussion here before... I'll see if I can find it... , probably been archived long ago. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 23, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 23, 2005 Same example now as then (and I know there are issues with this example): if you want to maintain that the Bible is absolutely literal (as distinct from true) in all points, were the beasts in Daniel real beasts? If not, is that a mythic story? Or just a true story of a vision of mythic beasts? I guess the other thing that might take the thread forward, David, is if you could give us some specific examples of the kinds of stories that some consider mythic (whether true or not). Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Quote: Science is all about predicting what will happen next. "All" is a little strong. Nevertheless, science can only predict what would "naturally" happen next. It could not predict the incarnation, nor the second coming. Outside of nature, science has nothing to say. That is not the realm of physics, but of metaphysics. In the chronicles of Narnai, one of the children says, "A star is a flaming ball of gas." To which comes the reply, "Even in your world, that's not what a star is, but only what it is made of." The error of what I call "scientism," relying on science for moral and eschatological information, is to mistake a description of somethings components and structure for a conclusion about its existence. What we "see" as evidence is determined by the instruments we use to "look" for it. That is as true of science as any other discipline. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted September 23, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 23, 2005 From the sociological standpoint, the Biblical story of creation could be called "creation myth." My point is that we should be careful and not read into a statement more than is intended. There are those who believe in creation, as recorded in the Bible, and yet call that story "creation myth." Their useage of that term does not imply that they believe it to be false. Bravus: Yes, we have had this discussion before. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Quote: "All" is a little strong. Nevertheless, science can only predict what would "naturally" happen next. It could not predict the incarnation, nor the second coming. Nope - science is ALL about predicting what happens next. Either you can make a prediction and that prediction turns out to be correct or you can't. Sometimes the prediction is interesting. It could be things like "I predict that when I examine the decay of radioactive materials in this rock, they will have the following ratios, because it has these specific fossils in it". It could also be "40% chance of rain on my house tomorrow". To decide whether the christian predictions are any more valid than Jean Dixon's or some South American shaman's can only be done by science. Christian's have predicted the second coming in AD70, AD400, AD1844, AD1915, and every generation every since. That is NOT prediction. That is fraud. It is blatantly obvious that the christian's can NOT predict the date of the second coming. All they can do is make some non-verifiable statement about Jesus coming back sometime in the future. It reminds me of a true observation about EGW. She did not make a single prediction of an significant unlikely event before it happened. Similarly at this stage we no longer have sufficient evidence to be sure the FIRST coming happened, and certainly the details of it are unclear. If you think many of these things are certain, that says more about you and your definition of 'certainty' than it does about the rest of the real world. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 O.K. so you don't get it. That's fine. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted September 24, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 24, 2005 I will suggest that science is about more than prediction of the future, although that is one aspect. Science tell us what is: This is gold. An atom of gold has an atomic number of 79. an atomic weight of 196.967, a melting pint of 1,063 C, a boiling point of 2,966 C, and a specific gravity of 19.32. Then science goes on to tell us of the number of electrons, protons, etc. that exist within the nucleus of an atom of gold. Science also tell us of the past: This is metamorphic rock which was formed in the distant past by heat and pressure. This rock origionated in the bottom of a pond from the deposts of wave action. that rockover there origionated in a volcanic erruption. Yes, you are corect, science predicts the future. Based upon a half-life for this isotope of radon of 3.823 days, this sample will have _____________ amount left after 10 days. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_McQueen Posted September 24, 2005 Author Share Posted September 24, 2005 Yes and we did discuss his before...but hey we shall discuss it again...and yes I have read stuff by Campbell, Bolle, et al, but I am more interested in how we perceive what is myth. I admit the last part of my initial question was a tad misleading, and would chane it to ask does it matter if a myth contains both literal and metaphor. For example many Christians see the Flood as myth. As an object lesson if you will. That there wasnt a global deluge. That Noah didnt preach for a hundred and forty years. That all animal species did not enter the ark. Other see the exodus as myth. That it again was an object lesson exaerated by oral tradition. Job, Jonah, Balaam's ass, feeding the 5k, creation all seen as myth in that events that could of actually happened but couched in such symbolism and exaggerations that render only the principle of the story as real. Did God really wipe out almost all of Job's belonging's? Was Satan really considered one of the son's of God? Or ask Abraham to sacrifice his son? What about the Tower of Babel, Mount Carmel, Jesus walking on water, etc. If there are exagerations of a concept and they havent been taught in our churches or explained as mythology, i.e. that the object lesson is more important than its historicity, then there hardly distinguishable from the Greek, Roman or Babylonian and we surely are guilty of leading people a merry dance in our churches who in the main, couple with EGW writings take most of scripture as literal events unless scripture expressly explains that it is anecdotal or an allegory. (At this point it is wise to distinguish between the symbolism of prophetic books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation, etc to focus on the examples given) Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Quote: bevin said: She did not make a single prediction of an significant unlikely event before it happened. /Bevin The Paulson Collection of Ellen G. White Letters, page 215, paragraph 7 [:"blue"] "The touch of the Lord's finger will lay in ruins the most costly and the highest of buildings..." [/] While this reference does not specify what buildings, it is doubtful many would have seen the comment as credible before 9/11. However, even correct predictions do not necessarily prove the message to be from God. One has to believe His Word before any credence is given to His servants. [:"red"] " Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the LORD your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper." [/] 2 Chronicles 20:20 KJV Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Quote: "The touch of the Lord's finger will lay in ruins the most costly and the highest of buildings..." While this reference does not specify what buildings, it is doubtful many would have seen the comment as credible before 9/11. However, even correct predictions do not necessarily prove the message to be from God. One has to believe His Word before any credence is given to His servants. With this method of interpretation we all could be prophets. For example I will say that the Lord told me that He will bring to an end those companies that destroy the earth. It is almost certain that, given enough time, some company that damages the environment with go bankrupt or will have some disaster that wipes them out. The nature of things in this world is that they go in cycles. I dare say we could take many quotes from the dialogs in Club Adventist and claim that they are prophetic simply because they happen to be similar to some event we observe. I would note that, even though we have a strong religious right pushing to control government, which is not something new, it existed in Ellen White's day, we have nothing close to some death penalty for Sabbath Keepers. I see no movement in the "New Age" that would join the Catholic Church and Protestants in uniting against Adventists around a Sabbath Day. In fact, that would be abhorent to most "New Age" thinking and values. In fact, the idea of forced doctrine is one of the major points of contention between "New age" thinking and fundamental Christianity. So, given enough time, we might see something that approximates a joining of forces, but it does not look likely today. How long are we going to hold on to the idea that Ellen White was some kind of prophet? Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amelia Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> How long are we going to hold on to the idea that Ellen White was some kind of prophet? <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Who do you mean by "we"? I believe she was some kind of prophet. Quote <p><span style="color:#0000FF;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">"Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you."</span></span> Eph 4:29</span><br><br><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/gizmotimetemp_both/US/OR/Fairview.gif" alt="Fairview.gif"> Fairview Or</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted September 24, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 24, 2005 To all: Some of the stories that surround EGW, her life and ministry are simply myth, unsupported, unfounded, and fail logical and Biblical tests for a prophet. Yet, while some are such, people can believe that she was a prophet in the Biblical sense. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Quote: cardw said: "For example I will say that the Lord told me that He will bring to an end those companies that destroy the earth. It is almost certain that, given enough time, some company that damages the environment with go bankrupt or will have some disaster that wipes them out." [:"red"] ""Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." [/] Matt 13:13 NASB Why, Lord?" [:"red"] "And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. [/] Matt 13:10-13 NASB [:"red"] "Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." [/] John 9:41 NASB Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Quote: "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Matt 13:10-13 NASB Ellen White was not speaking in parables so this is so far out of context its pretty close to slander. Quote: Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." John 9:41 NASB And yet you claim to see. So who is sinning? I have continued to state that no one can know and you have stated that you know. So who is claiming to see? Ellen White claimed that she could see and it would then follow that she must be sinning as well. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_McQueen Posted September 25, 2005 Author Share Posted September 25, 2005 Errr.....can we get back on topic please. Ta Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 25, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 25, 2005 I second the motion - we were talking about the Bible, let's do it, because I think it's important. I think the myth discussion fits in to the miracle discussion. Do we believe Jesus really fed 5000? If he did, that would be a miracle. If it was just sharing out lunch with 50, conceivably that could just be creative cookng... We've done ourselves a lot of disservices in this area in the past - I remember pastors explaining that certain tide and wind conditions in the Red Sea could lead to a path across it sometimes, for example. I don't believe in a 'God of the Gaps', where God gets smaller as science gets bigger. I also believe in the existence of miracles. So a question back to you, David: if we posit that miracles exist, does the 'myth' question go away? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Quote: I don't believe in a 'God of the Gaps', where God gets smaller as science gets bigger. I also believe in the existence of miracles. I believe in a God that is creating the natural world. I don't need the miracles to support this belief, and I don't think there is enough evidence for the miracles to enable them to be used to support this belief. There really is only three major possibilities. (a) There is no God ( There is one nice God © There is one or more not-nice Gods The © possibility would be likely if there was lots of non-natural nasty things happening. There isn't. As far as we can tell, the universe we live in obeys some very fixed rules and those rules are not malicious. Most of the time (a) and ( are indistinguishable. There are events in our own lives that we can not distinguish between (a) God intervening for us, ( good luck, and © a misunderstanding of what happened. It is our personality that tends to make us choose one of the three options. However there are times when we are faced with some very specific choices involving selecting between an action that is good for us and bad for others, versus bad for us and good for others. This is the fundamental choice that we have to make - selfish versus selfless. Do you "love your neighbor as yourself"? This is the fundamental choice of christianity. It is an easier choice to make if you believe that this world is not your final home - because really you are not giving up anything of value. People want to believe in creation, miracles, and a certainty of a second coming because it changes the fundamental from "me or them" to "me get more later, they get more now" - it lets the decider continue to be selfish. People are really uncomfortable when I threaten this prop. Having said all this, there is no fundamental reason why a single nice God (or one or more not-nice ones) would not perform miracles. I do have, however, fundamental concerns about a 'nice God' who would create a massive illusion of a long-age earth, and them condemn people who choose to believe the illusion is the truth. Creation and pre-Babylonian parts of the Bible are best explained by long history of primitive peoples misunderstanding and oversimplifying their world. As a Jewish Rabbi commented on the History Channel this week - looking at the long-destroyed cities of the plans, it would be very easy for nomads to develop stories of sinful people and vengeful gods. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Quote: There really is only three major possibilities. (a) There is no God ( There is one nice God © There is one or more not-nice Gods I think these are very good summaries of major possibilities within a binary (good and evil) universe. There are some other possibilities. One is that we have mislabeled evil. Another is that morality is analog. Another is that good and evil are illusions. There is a line of thought that says that goodness is only one step away from evil. Just as those nomads, who assumed there must be a just god, made up myths to make sense of their assumptions, we are now making myths about God to make sense of our assumptions. It is our assumptions that form the path of our rationalizations and at some point we have to have assumptions, which are not provable. My assumption is that it is unlikely that anyone has sufficient knowlege to form any assumption about God. This is fairly easy to demonstrate. And from that assumption I can see the sense in Jesus asking us to not judge. There is saying that if we want to live in a binary (good is rewarded, evil is punished) universe then the result of an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth will be that we will all be blind and toothless. I tend to believe that we are all part of a greater whole and the suffering we see in the world is due to imbalances in the whole system. In that world view, self centeredness would be destructive. Not because it is evil, but due to ignorance. There is an ignorance of the destructive nature of self centeredness to the individual and to the world at large. Quote: People want to believe in creation, miracles, and a certainty of a second coming because it changes the fundamental from "me or them" to "me get more later, they get more now" - it lets the decider continue to be selfish. This is a great point. I might word it like this. Christianity today promotes self centeredness because it focuses on personal salvation. My sins, my good deeds, etc. The "goodness" in Christianity today is too self conscious. It is only one step away from evil because it does not come from an authentic empathy for the suffering of other people or from an understanding of the whole. It is focused on what one SHOULD do as a Christian. I'm not talking about individuals here, but the public presentation of Christianity in the world today. The subconscious question presented is, "What do I have to do to qualify for the saved club?" This has been demonstrated lately by some of the Faith Based organizations providing help for the victims of Katrina implying that they are "better" at doing the job since they are faith based. If one is truly faith based, there would be no need to compare. Quote: Creation and pre-Babylonian parts of the Bible are best explained by long history of primitive peoples misunderstanding and oversimplifying their world. As a Jewish Rabbi commented on the History Channel this week - looking at the long-destroyed cities of the plans, it would be very easy for nomads to develop stories of sinful people and vengeful gods. This makes a lot of sense because we can observe this process in every culture. There are many myths of other cultures that we easily dismiss, but because this mythology is our own, we have a lot harder time seeing it in the same manner. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_McQueen Posted September 25, 2005 Author Share Posted September 25, 2005 Quote: So a question back to you, David: if we posit that miracles exist, does the 'myth' question go away? Hey Bravus, Not at all. The most obvious example is that of Job. Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted September 28, 2005 The story of Job is certainly a myth - in the sense that it is a story with deep resonances for us that is intended to teach us something. Remember, though, that saying it's a 'myth' is not yet making any statement about whether it really happened. OK, say there was a guy named Job, and all the bad stuff in the book happened to him, and his response was as it says in the book, and he had the same conversations with his friends, and reported the same conversation with God. But say the author inferred, rather than was shown in vision, the original challenge from Satan to God. Would that fundamentally change the meaning and/or value of the Book of Job? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.