Myth also defines as a widely held but false belief or idea.
So perhaps being a little more Clear on what wording you use might help to eliminate all these replies.
Creation sequence in NOAH: is it unbiblical?
- Thread starter Flavio
- Start date
- Status
Myth also defines as a widely held but false belief or idea.
So perhaps being a little more Clear on what wording you use might help to eliminate all these replies.
Myth also defines as a widely held but false belief or idea.
So perhaps being a little more Clear on what wording you use might help to eliminate all these replies.
Ah, yes. Clarification is always a good thing to do. I was using the word 'myth' in its original and primary sense, which I provided above. So, per the definition I offered, do you agree that the flood story is a myth? Not sure why you didn't answer this by now.
You should carefully re-read my questions, because the post you linked to does not answer them.
I have encountered professing Christians that believe that not just Noah, but Adam, Eve and many events and people from the Hebrew Scriptures as being "myth" (in this case "myth" meaning just a story to illustrate truth...the characters didn't really live and exist) since it was a "common practice" of eastern writings to express a point, principle or truth through fictional events and people. So I ask them about people like Adam, Eve, Seth, Enosh, Methuselah, Noah and Shem...are they fictional? They respond yes. I then ask them at what point characters in the Hebrew Scriptures did people become real people? Was Jacob real? How about Abraham...or Moses? How do you know...what's the determining factor? Was Jesus real? To this they reply "of course He was!" Really? How can that possibly be? You have people in His lineage that were fictional. It would be no different than putting Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny in His lineage...myths can only begat myths. As you read the New Testament it also appears that Jesus and His disciples believed in Adam, Eve, Noah, the flood, the ark and the patriarchs. There is no evidence they thought these were fictional. They wrote with clear language they believed it. Were they mistaken? Yes? Then why should we believe anything they write? No? They weren't mistaken...then those people and events weren't fictional? Not all leave convinced...but they do leave confused at the inconsistency of what they claim.
Countryside,
Determining what is and isn't historical in the Bible can be a very big task. I'd be happy to get into specifics with you if you'd like, but, for starters, I think it is rather clear that the story of Noah's ark must be taken as a figurative story. If you want to say that the text is dealing in hyperbole and not metaphor, then I'd consider that a more plausible position that a literal reading.
Determining what is and isn't historical in the Bible can be a very big task. I'd be happy to get into specifics with you if you'd like, but, for starters, I think it is rather clear that the story of Noah's ark must be taken as a figurative story. If you want to say that the text is dealing in hyperbole and not metaphor, then I'd consider that a more plausible position that a literal reading.
Rudy,
I answered your question.
When words have more then one meaning then please make sure which one is used.
The word of God is truth. You take it as truth.
Blessings
Blessings
\
No, you did not answer my questions, but we can move on.
When I called the flood story a myth, I made it quite clear that I believed the story to essentially be a parable. I explicitly stated that it is a figurative story which teaches important TRUTHS. That was your mistake in assuming I meant "lie" by "myth", so try to be more careful.
No, you did not answer my questions, but we can move on.
When I called the flood story a myth, I made it quite clear that I believed the story to essentially be a parable. I explicitly stated that it is a figurative story which teaches important TRUTHS. That was your mistake in assuming I meant "lie" by "myth", so try to be more careful.
Taking it as Truth is not the question. Taking it literally is the question.
RudyL33
A Friendly Reminder
Any time you use a word with multiple meanings, please do not assume you made your point clear and it is the other persons fault if they do not know what you are talking about.
Blessings
FCJ
So what you take the word of God partially?
I made no assumption; you did. You did not ask for clarification before I offered it.
Remember, this is what you said: "It's your entire myth thing. Nothing in the written word of God is myth."
Nope. I just understand that the Bible often utilized metaphor. Do you dispute this?
Look Please make sure you are clear in what you mean. The word myth has Two Meanings. So please do not assume every one knows which you are using.
Now sir this conversation is finished.
Thank you and have a blessed day.
This post is bewildering.
When you initially asked me to explain what I meant, I asked you which part specifically you needed clarification on. You did not take the opportunity to ask me what I meant by the word 'myth'. Instead, you wrongly assumed that I meant a meaning other than my intended meaning, even though my statements made my intended meaning clear. I mean, think about this for a minute. I stated that the flood story is a metaphorical story that teaches important truths, and you went on to conclude that I was claiming the story to be a lie. This shows me that you're just not reading carefully.
Greetings,
If you mean by metaphor ... speaking in Parables then yes
If you mean by metaphor.....a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
Then No.
Blessings
So is Jesus literally a vine? A door?
It would be folly to approach the Biblical flood story as anything but myth. Like any good myth, the flood story illustrates important truths, and we do the story an injustice by treating it as literal history.
- Status