A myth is (a)etiological if it is written to try to explain things around them. A myth's value is not judged by the veracity of its 'scientific' claims, but the morality it espouses.
For example: No Greek knew who really invented pan pipes, so they devised a story to explain it. In this case, the god Pan was chasing some water nymph. When she reached the banks of her river, she turned herself into a reed. Pan was so distraught about losing her than he cut down some reeds and made pan pipes out of them, so he could remember her forever.
Modern Biblical scholars acknowledge at least four main branches of Judiac thought represented in the Pentateuch (first five books of Hebrew Scripture, or Torah): Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomic. Each of these represent Jewish cultures that developed relatively independently of each other and came together to form a common heritage. Naturally, one group didn't want their stories excised any more than another, so as a result, the Pentateuch effort tried to preserve as much of each as possible. As it turns out, having multiple sources (some of which were fragmentary), it can have a disjunct presentation.
As this pertains to the Creation story, the first and second chapters essentially discuss creation from the Priestly and Yahwist perspectives (respectively). The former tends to present things in abstract, severe theological terms, whereas the latter strives for a more moralistic (and anthropomorphic) tone. Quoting the introduction to my Bible, 'To make the truths contained in [the Creation story] intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them, they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among that people at that time. For this reason, the truths themselves must therefore be clearly distingished from their literary garb.' This is just shorthand for, 'The science here is the best that the writers had available at the time.'
The first chapter describes a firmament, a physical barrier between heaven and earth, a wall if you will. Earth was below it, the sky was 'painted' on it. God gave a day light source and a night light source that sit on the dome of the sky. And, in preparation for the flood, there was a repository of water with little floodgates. Sheol was beneath the earth, and the earth rested on columns on some undescribed flat surface.
Now, we KNOW that there is no wall between heaven and earth, that the sun, moon and stars are not sitting on some dome with flood gates.
The story is etiological. It was explaining the truths of the universe to a people in a way they could understand. The truth are about the divine wonder of creation, not the mechanics.
Why is childbirth painful? Why would God do that to women? Why, if God made this great place, do we have to work so hard? See chapter two. Eve sinned. She made Adam sin (so the story says). She is punished. Adam, for having sinned, was thrown out of paradise and forced to work for a living.
This story is etiological. By getting people to accept the nature of the universe, it allows them to be thankful for it rather than resentful of it. It's not about the factuality of women made from ribs and Trees of Good and Evil, it's an effort to explain why the notions of good and evil exist in a world created by a perfect God, to help people accept them as truths of the universe and deal with them in an appropriate manner.
Read this familiar story, no doubt influenced by the Genesis Flood story:
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-ovid.html
I want someone to explain to me rationally why this story is less factually true than the Genesis Creation and Flood stories.
I'm not arguing the theological merits of the Greek/Roman story are comparable to those of the Judeo-Christian one. I'm talking factual events.
I don't see how one can be more or less easily maintained than the other without playing the It's in the Bible, it has to be true card.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioIf you were to hear two different stories about the same event
A myth is (a)etiological if it is written to try to explain things around them. A myth's value is not judged by the veracity of its 'scientific' claims, but the morality it espouses.
For example: No Greek knew who really invented pan pipes, so they devised a story to explain it. In this case, the god Pan was chasing some water nymph. When she reache ...[text shortened]... tained than the other without playing the It's in the Bible, it has to be true card.
Nemesio
and they were completely different, one was told to you by a
friend you completely trusted and another was not, would you
be predisposed to believe one over the other?
Originally posted by KellyJayProvided the stories told were not self-contradictory,
If you were to hear two different stories about the same event
and they were completely different, one was told to you by a
friend you completely trusted and another was not, would you
be predisposed to believe one over the other?
nor in contradiction to any facts about reality
that I already hold true, I would be predisposed to
believe the trusted friend's story. In other words, with all
else being equal, there is nothing to compel me to
believe a stranger's assertions over a trusted friend's.
That's essentially the meaning of 'trusted friend', to me.
Dr. Cribs
Ditto Cribs, but I'd add a little more to that.
I have several, very different trusted friends. One has a good memory, the other does not. The one with the good memory is bad at math, but the one with a bad memory is good at math.
When friend A tells me that something happened a certain way, I am inclined to believe him carte blanche. When friend B tells me (in ernest) about an event, I am skeptical based on experience.
When friend A tells me (in ernest) that I owe him 6 bucks, I check his math (experience tells me to do this). When friend B tells me I own him 6 bucks, I cough it up.
In either case, a trusted friend can be reiliable for some things and unreliable for others. I trust their intent 100% in either case, but not always the fruits of their intentions.
With respect to the stories at hand, both the Greek story and Judeo-Christian (and the Babylonian and Sumerain stories from which the latter is based) are all old friends of mine. Maybe you haven't met them. Maybe you should.
This doesn't impact the question I posed, however. Why is one more factually credible than the other?
I maintain it isn't about factual credibility. It's about faith. In this case faith and reason are at odds. And that's fine, if you don't mind suspending reason. If you want to believe it factually, historically happened, then I support that, but it's not reasonable.
In my system, I can have a deep and passionate faith in the meaning of the story and believe that it has no basis in factuality. I can have my cake and eat it, too. My faith in the Truths of the story is not shaken by the fact that it isn't true, if you see what I mean.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioWith friends and many areas of life there is almost always going to
Ditto Cribs, but I'd add a little more to that.
I have several, very different trusted friends. One has a good memory, the other does not. The one with the good memory is bad at math, but the one with a bad memory is good at math.
When friend A tells me that something happened a certain way, I am inclined to believe him carte blanche. When friend B ...[text shortened]... s of the story is not shaken by the fact that it isn't true, if you see what I mean.
Nemesio
be some wiggle room, that is to say room for doubt. You asked
about two different stories, my reply was about two sources one
I had some familuarity with and found trustworthy. It is that way
with me and God, it isn't just a mere intellectual acceptance of
a first cause with me, and because of that I'm much more prone
to believe the creation story within Genesis than I am other myths.
My life wasn't turned around at age 25 by a Greek myth, Roman
myth, an American Indian myth. The foundation of what happened
to me started in Genesis. You were asking for a reason, I am
simply giving you mine, if it isn't what you would agree too. Well
that really wasn't part of the equation for me, I had to make up
my own mind. As far as holes in the story, there are not that many
foundational belief systems running around today that do not have
gapping holes or issues in them, that would be true of the Big Bang
and the evolutionary process that follows.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, et alia,
As far as holes in the story, there are not that many
foundational belief systems running around today that do not have
gapping holes or issues in them, that would be true of the Big Bang
and the evolutionary process that follows.
I hope you haven't misunderstood me: I have no problem with what you believe. I would never deign to tell people what they should and should not believe.
You will admit, however, that your quote above suggests that you recognize that the Genesis story, as well as every other creation story mentioned, is in-credible; that is, not believable to the rational mind.
That's fine. Its not being rational doesn't 'prove' anything. If you were transformed by something and it made you a better person, then suspending rationale and having faith in an in-credible story is fine, as long as you allow someone else to believe in their in-credible story (be it the Babylonian, Native American, or scientific) and are comfortable with that, too. And if you feel that believing in historicity of these in-credible stories is a fundament of faith, then suspend your rationale whenever you want.
It's when people try to argue that the story is rational that things start to break down. The Genesis story is no more factually credible (that is, consistent with the laws of nature as we have studied and experienced them up until this point) than any other creation story (given that they are all essentially the same).
Someone posted this recently: 'I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.' Galileo Galilei.
For me, I am as deeply moved by these stories as you, but I do not believe their historicity. I don't have to suspend my rationale for one moment; I feel their lack of truth does not invalidate their lack of Truth (if you see what I mean). Like Galileo, I cannot in good conscience suspend my reason when reading the Bible, but this does not rob me one iota of benefiting from the many places wherein one can find Truth.
If you are comfortable suspending reason, you won't find an argument from me. But to state that the Genesis story is perfectly reasonable and others are myth is very difficult to rationally maintain, given their obvious similarities. God is just as likely to have 'effected' any one of these stories.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioI do not believe I have suspended reason, as a matter of fact I have
Kelly, et alia,
I hope you haven't misunderstood me: I have no problem with what you believe. I would never deign to tell people what they should and should not believe.
You will admit, however, that your quote above suggests that you recognize that the Genesis story, as well as every other creation story mentioned, is in-credible; that is, not believa ...[text shortened]... s similarities. God is just as likely to have 'effected' any one of these stories.
Nemesio
for a the longest time given these questions a lot of thought.
Simply having an in-credible story before me does mean it has to
be false, or for that matter true. Our minds, our rational are simply
us taking in what we believe to be true, and molding how we view
the universe together with those facts. For me, I believe God to be
alive and real, so He has to be a major foundational point in how
I view the universe. Those that do not accept him will always leave
the possibility of Him out of their thinking, and to-date more than
a few of them will mock the idea of God and His influence on the
universe around them.
I don't believe I have done anything to force or even belittle the
beliefs of others here; however, I cannot say the same for some who
have taken it upon them selves to discuss my faith. I am not including
you or even the majority here in that, but it only takes a small time
to see that in my opinion. I do not view the world, us against them
but a fractured us. So I’m not against anyone here in that it is the
Christians against the non-Christians. As far as I’m concern it is
body human and those returning to the source of all life in Christ.
That keeps me at least in theory from seeing sides in these types
of debates, I do not want to be a stumbling block for anyone who
may need to call on God in Christ in this life.
As far as similarities in stories for creation and floods go, it seems
more likely to me that they were all talking about the same events.
Due to the passage of time the stories change, some hold closer
to what happened than others, it is always like that with us. Which is
why we record events now in such great detail, but even now if you
listen to the news you can still see how people can talk about the
same events and still draw different veiws on the how, what, and whys
of each event.
Originally posted by nemesioThis is precisely why Wittgenstein claimed that it ought not matter at all to a Christian whether the Bible is accurate.
In my system, I can have a deep and passionate faith in the meaning of the story and believe that it has no basis in factuality. I can have my cake and eat it, too. My faith in the Truths of the story is not shaken by the fact that it isn't true, if you see what I mean.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesio
A myth is (a)etiological if it is written to try to explain things around them. A myth's value is not judged by the veracity of its 'scientific' claims, but the morality it espouses.
I don't see how one can be more or less easily maintained than the other without playing the It's in the Bible, it has to be true card.
Nemesio
Thanks for the Bible lesson. Next week I think I'll teach evolution 101 and explain how evolutionists don't actually believe in mutation ;(
Curious, ever read the entire OT ? PS, what kinda Christian believes Jesus dying for his sins, yet Adam and Eve not eating the forbidden fruit ? Where do you get these myth lovin Christians from ?
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianUm, the smart ones? The ones who are sophisticated enough to recognize a metaphor? Wait...was this a rhetorical question? What kind of Christian believes that the same putative loving God of the New Testament also ordered genocide in Canaan?
PS, what kinda Christian believes Jesus dying for his sins, yet Adam and Eve not eating the forbidden fruit ?
Originally posted by bbarrSame God in the O.T. as in the N.T. he does not change.
Um, the smart ones? The ones who are sophisticated enough to recognize a metaphor? Wait...was this a rhetorical question? What kind of Christian believes that the same putative loving God of the New Testament also ordered genocide in Canaan?
Originally posted by bbarr
Um, the smart ones? The ones who are sophisticated enough to recognize a metaphor?
A Christian believing God's only son had to be crucified for a 'metaphor' ... sophisticated ? smart ? * grin *
Wait...was this a rhetorical question? What kind of Christian believes that the same putative loving God of the New Testament also ordered genocide in Canaan?
Nope, see that was just another metaphor, didn't really happen. Any smart , sophisticated Christian will tell you that. Afterall balls of rain from the sky ? Impossible. Any evidence, none whatsoever.
PS.. you think the God of the NT doesn't kill ?
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianA Christian believing God's only son had to be crucified for a 'metaphor' ... sophisticated ? smart ? * grin *
No, a Christian believing both that Christ had to be crucified to redeem humanity, and that humanity's need for redemption is independent of the literalality of the story of Adam and Eve. A Christian can believe that the story of the Fall is a metaphor, but as a metaphor it points to humanity's need for redemption.
Nope, see that was just another metaphor, didn't really happen. Any smart , sophisticated Christian will tell you that. Afterall balls of rain from the sky ? Impossible. Any evidence, none whatsoever.
Yes, I figured no smart and sophisticated Christian would believe that God actually ordered genocide, or kill innocent Egyptian children, etc. This is clearly metaphor, as any God who actually engaged in these acts would be immoral, and hence undeserving of worship. Thanks for the confirmation.
PS.. you think the God of the NT doesn't kill ?
Immaterial. To the extent that God goes about killing folks, he is immoral and hence undeserving of worship. This is why any smart and sophisticated Christian will interpret Biblical accounts that initially suggest otherwise as metaphor, and search for their spiritual meaning.
Originally posted by bbarr
A Christian can believe that the story of the Fall is a metaphor, but as a metaphor it points to humanity's need for redemption.
Why would humanity need redemption ?
Yes, I figured no smart and sophisticated Christian would believe that God actually ordered genocide, or kill innocent Egyptian children, etc. This is clearly metaphor, as any God who actually engaged in these acts would be immoral, and hence undeserving of worship. Thanks for the confirmation.
Curious, do these Christians also ignore the book of Revelation or believe Jesus did not use a whip to drive out the innocent merchants dealing in the church ?
Immaterial. To the extent that God goes about killing folks, he is immoral and hence undeserving of worship. This is why any smart and sophisticated Christian will interpret Biblical accounts that initially suggest otherwise as metaphor, and search for their spiritual meaning.
1. Is this the same God that would not have destroyed Sodom had there existed just 5 righteous people in the entire city ? Jesus certainly never seemed to question God's beliefs not the 'myths' in the OT, yet we should ?
And then there was Peter. 2 Peter 3v3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. "
How do these Christians distinguish myth from fact ?
Seems instead of judging mankind and accepting their sinfull nature, these smart Christians judge the biblical God, then create a God they like and then procees to worship that one. Alas sadly you are describing shortcomings of many real-life Christians, but 'smart' is not an adjective I would use to describe them.