30,000 feet of water?????

[Dan From Smithville]

Myth is a form of fiction, and so does requires a degree of the 'suspension of disbelief'. Some people take this to an absurd extreme by completely rejecting their disbelief.

Wouldn't suspending disbelief and rejecting disbelief functionally amount to the same thing?

Nevertheless, they are still capable of recognizing and grasping that a myth is intended to convey an ideal through the intellectual mechanisms of symbolism, allegory, and metaphor.

Are they? Perhaps some do. But I think that many get so caught up in the idea of trying to factualize their mythologies, that they lose sight of the points of the stories that I agree with you are the important parts of those stories.

Meanwhile, those who argue with them based on the lack of accurate factuality are just ignoring the fact that myths do not adhere to factuality because they are symbolic in their essential nature and purpose, and are intended to convey ideals, not facts.

What about those that view their cultural myths as actual, historical and factual? You seem to be giving them a pass while taking your attack to the usual group that vexes you personally.

So of the two groups, at least the literalists are capable of recognizing the actual purpose of mythical stories whereas their antagonists just completely ignore this.

A literalist would literally believe the story is a fact regardless of the symbolism and lessons conveyed within.

From all I have seen, those that reject a myth as a literal event are doing just that and not rejecting any particular symbolic meaning or that no such meanings within those stories are seen to exist for them.

I follow the Bible, recognizing the symbolism and lessons therein, but I don't accept that the creation account and the global flood in Genesis are an historical and scientific account of actual events. Further, I'm not aware that those that do accept them as literal events have greater insight into those lessons simply for believing they describe real events. Sometimes, it seems they do not. As if all the struggle to force the facts to fit and make them real events deprives them of the value of the lessons they contain.

You seem to like to paint people into overly-generalized corners with your big brush. I think this misrepresents them and misses crucial details, similarities and differences.

 

[We Never Know]

I've always been curious about the great flood story in the Bible.
Supposedly God flooded the earth with a rainstorm for 40 days and nights.
That does not jive with me for several reasons.....
Mt. Everest is the highest natural point on earth and over 29,000 feet. The flood supposedly covered the entire earth with enough water to kill everything and everyone including the Nepheliem which were reported to be giants.
That means 30,000 feet just came and went from nowhere. There is not enough water on earth to provide that much rain.
Then the earth was repopulated by only 8 people that were one family ( Noah sons and wives ) which would mean that not only would our current civilization would be based on incest but there would only be one race on the entire planet.( not meant as racism!!!!!!) Apparently this is not true which makes me even more suspicious especially after finding out the holy Bible has been edited as early as 1875 or 1877 AD...this is the first time the words "God" and "Lord" were ever in the bible.

"Then the earth was repopulated by only 8 people that were one family ( Noah sons and wives ) which would mean that not only would our current civilization would be based on incest but there would only be one race on the entire planet"

And with Adam and Eve it would have been the same but with only two people.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's a very common human problem. Even an existential one, ultimately.

But the point is that your battle with this issue completely ignores the function and purpose of myth. While the literalists you are arguing with are only concerned with the myth and it's purpose, so this whole debate becomes a never-ending exchange of people talking right past each other. One focused on the myth and it's meaning for them, the other focused on the myth not being factual.

Of the two, it's the latter group that are really missing the mark the most.

I'm not missing anything, and I have no issues with those who recognise these things as myths. My beef is with those who insist on believing nonsense, such as the YEC believers, and who will, by doing so, cut themselves off from so much useful knowledge and diminish their own intelligence in the process. So my thinking is entirely benevolent towards them.

 

[PureX]

Wouldn't suspending disbelief and rejecting disbelief functionally amount to the same thing?

Yes, within the context of the myth. But rejecting disbelief has far broader connotations than just the myth at hand.

Are they? Perhaps some do. But I think that many get so caught up in the idea of trying to factualize their mythologies, that they lose sight of the points of the stories that I agree with you are the important parts of those stories.

They only do that because the myth that has meaning for them is being attacked and labeled meaningless because it is not factually accurate.

What about those that view their cultural myths as actual, historical and factual? You seem to be giving them a pass while taking your attack to the usual group that vexes you personally.

I am not "vexed" by either group.

Myths are a mixture of fact and symbolic fiction. We either recognize this and appreciate that factuality is not required for the myth to serve it's purpose, or we will not understand any of it and reject it out of hand. Complaining that myth is not fact is a fool's errand since it ignores what myth actually is, and what it's for.

A literalist would literally believe the story is a fact regardless of the symbolism and lessons conveyed within.

@Mock Turtle You cannot control what other people choose to believe. You can't even control what they do most of the time. Nor do you have any special access to the truth of things, yourself. So I don't see why you are wasting time and energy trying to control what is not yours to control.

From all I have seen, those that reject a myth as a literal event are doing just that and not rejecting any particular symbolic meaning or that no such meanings within those stories are seen to exist for them.

They are not "rejecting the myth as a literal event". They may be misunderstanding the myth because they are insisting that it be taken as a factual when it's not. But they still recognize the myth is being representationalof a meaningful ideal.

I follow the Bible, recognizing the symbolism and lessons therein, but I don't accept that the creation account and the global flood in Genesis are an historical and scientific account of actual events. Further, I'm not aware that those that do accept them as literal events have greater insight into those lessons simply for believing they describe real events. Sometimes, it seems they do not. As if all the struggle to force the facts to fit and make them real events deprives them of the value of the lessons they contain.

You seem to like to paint people into overly-generalized corners with your big brush. I think this misrepresents them and misses crucial details, similarities and differences.

At some point we will have to generalize or there can be no discussion at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, within the context of the myth. But rejecting disbelief has far broader connotations than just the myth at hand.

And they are?

They only do that because the myth that has meaning for them is being attacked and labeled meaningless because it is not factually accurate.

I disagree. The attempt to paint it as a real event is why it is met with skepticism and facts.

I am not "vexed" by either group.

I don't agree. The evidence is in my favor.

Myths are a mixture of fact and symbolic fiction. We either recognize this and appreciate that factuality is not required for the myth to serve it's purpose, or we will not understand any of it and reject it out of hand. Complaining that myth is not fact is a fool's errand since it ignores what myth actually is, and what it's for.

You haven't convinced me that any of this is reasonable summation of the facts. Rejecting the reality of a myth doesn't default to total rejection of the story or any symbolic nature it contains. I said this already and you are just doubling down on prior claims.

You cannot control what other people choose to believe.

This is not a subject of the conversation. However, you can persuade people to follow your view.

You can't even control what they do most of the time. Nor do you have any special access to the truth of things. So I don't see why you are wasting time and energy trying to control what is not yours to control.

What is the point of all of this? It seems to veer off the path with a bunch of meaningless generalizations.

They are not "rejecting the myth as a literal event".

People are rejecting it as a literal event when it is posed as a literal event without any basis to consider it so.

They may be misunderstanding the myth because they are insisting that it be taken as a factual when it's not. But they still recognize the myth is being representationalof a meaningful ideal.

Even supporters of the myth can misunderstand it. That isn't really a criteria worth worrying about in the myth versus fact argument.

At some point we will have to generalize or there can be no discussion at all.

But not over generalizing to sing zingers at the group that clearly vexes you.

 

[Brian2]

I've always been curious about the great flood story in the Bible.
Supposedly God flooded the earth with a rainstorm for 40 days and nights.
That does not jive with me for several reasons.....
Mt. Everest is the highest natural point on earth and over 29,000 feet. The flood supposedly covered the entire earth with enough water to kill everything and everyone including the Nepheliem which were reported to be giants.
That means 30,000 feet just came and went from nowhere. There is not enough water on earth to provide that much rain.
Then the earth was repopulated by only 8 people that were one family ( Noah sons and wives ) which would mean that not only would our current civilization would be based on incest but there would only be one race on the entire planet.( not meant as racism!!!!!!) Apparently this is not true which makes me even more suspicious especially after finding out the holy Bible has been edited as early as 1875 or 1877 AD...this is the first time the words "God" and "Lord" were ever in the bible.

40 days and 40 nights is not just a "rainstorm" and anyway the Bible says that there was more to it than that. It says that the fountains of the great deep burst forth (Gen 7:11) whatever that means. But it has been discovered that there is a lot of water in the earth's mantle if this had anything to do with it. There are other interpretations also of what it might mean.
You are just plain wrong about the first time that "God" and "Lord" were ever in the Bible and about the Bible being edited.
If the flood covered the whole globe and wiped out all people except for Noah and his family then why does the Bible have the Nephilim in later parts of the Bible?
The truth imo is that there was a huge flood in the land where Noah was which covered the big hills in the area and killed the people and animals of the land where Noah was.
Interestingly this huge flood has been found in geology studies and it has been worked out that a very large flood (maybe hundreds of Kilometers wide) is possible in that area and the water would hang around for a long time because the land is the lowest part of the earth and the slope is not very great.
So what does something like this do to the flood story in the Bible? Nothing really, since the story can be translated to mean a large local flood. eg the word for 'earth' can legitimately be translated 'land'. The word for 'mountain' can legitimately be translated as 'hill'.

 

[PureX]

And they are?

Fox phony news.

I disagree. The attempt to paint it as a real event is why it is met with skepticism and facts.

But what you don't understand is that this is irrelevant to the meaning and purpose of the myth. It's only a problem in a much broader context. Because the myth never depended on accurate facts for it's value or purpose.

I don't agree. The evidence is in my favor.

Evidence is irrelevant to the meaning and purpose of myth.

You haven't convinced me that any of this is reasonable summation of the facts.

That isn't my responsibility. And it has nothing to do with mythology, anyway.

Rejecting the reality of a myth doesn't default to total rejection of the story or any symbolic nature it contains.

Rejecting the reality of a myth is irrelevant since the myth does not require or depend on factual reality to convey it's ideals.

I said this already and you are just doubling down on prior claims.

This is not a subject of the conversation. However, you can persuade people to follow your view.

What is the point of all of this?

Good question. You seem to want to fight a battle that is not before you.

It seems to veer off the path with a bunch of meaningless generalizations.

People are rejecting it as a literal event when it is posed as a literal event without any basis to consider it so.

And once again, this is irrelevant as myth neither require nor demand factual reality to convey their ideals.

Even supporters of the myth can misunderstand it. That isn't really a criteria worth worrying about in the myth versus fact argument.

But not over generalizing to sing zingers at the group that clearly vexes you.

I am not "vexed" at anyone about anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

15 cubits.

How many cubits per foot lambert are there?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

a myth is intended to convey an ideal through the intellectual mechanisms of symbolism, allegory, and metaphor.

Myth isn't metaphor or allegory. The three are specific literary forms with only the latter two using symbolism, where symbolism means one thing standing for another. She was the apple of his eye is metaphor, where the apple is a desirable and valuable object standing for "she." Allegories are longer accounts, but still substitute symbolic characters and deeds for known actual characters and deeds. In Gulliver's Travels, Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era was symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap.

As I explained on this thread yesterday here, myths are erroneous speculations that intend to explain reality as the mythicists find it - why the world is how they find it, and in the case of biblical myths, with the assumption that a tri-omni deity (which includes omnibenevolence) rules nature and their lives.

Myth is a form of fiction, and so does requires a degree of the 'suspension of disbelief'.

Fictions they are, but they're not intended to be that. Mythicists aren't writing to entertain.

your battle with this issue completely ignores the function and purpose of myth

I find no value there. I prefer plain speaking (expository writing). I've never learned anything from a myth. When people tell me that the myth stands for this or means that, I understand that as taking ideas they learned empirically or were taught in plain language elsewhere and retrofitting them to the story.

I mentioned the myth of Job in the link I just provided. To me, that's a meaningless story. On a previous and now defunct message board, I had a now lost discussion of the meaning of that story in which three different believers gave three different and widely disparate interpretations. I wish I could find or remember them, but they're not necessary here.

My point is that these people were doing what I just described as retrofitting meanings after the fact.

Unlike myths, some or maybe all fables end with an explicitly stated moral of the story, which probably ought to be at the beginning with the fable being offered as a fictional illustration of the principle.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd love to treat YHWH in a mysterious way lol.

I'd give'm a spank'n.
And not the erotic kind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fox phony news.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

But what you don't understand is that this is irrelevant to the meaning and purpose of the myth.

I do understand that it is irrelevant to the meaning. I also understand that many insist their favorite myths are fact.

It's only a problem in a much broader context. Because the myth never depended on accurate facts for it's value or purpose.

That may be true, but the issue is that you consider those that do not accept myths as factual without any do so are seen by you as inferior and unable to recognize symbolism, lessons or meaning in the myths. I disagree. The opposite of your position is that accepting them as fact is the only way to see these more meaningful components. I disagree with that too.

Evidence is irrelevant to the meaning and purpose of myth.

But not to the establishment of a mythical condition as a factual condition.

That isn't my responsibility. And it has nothing to do with mythology, anyway.

We both have responsibilities here. If you don't care what yours are, then what is the point of posting in the first place? I suppose wave things away if you can't address them.

Rejecting the reality of a myth is irrelevant since the myth does not require or depend on factual reality to convey it's ideals.

I've said. But rejecting it also does not mean missing whatever "ideals" it may contain either.

Good question. You seem to want to fight a battle that is not before you.

Interesting. I'll take that as projection.

And once again, this is irrelevant as myth neither require nor demand factual reality to convey their ideals.

You avoid the facts and keep doubling down. The reality is that people insist their favorite myths are fact and others are at liberty to reject that and both can get or miss the lessons within. These are independent of each and not dependent as you seem ebb and flow over.

I am not "vexed" at anyone about anything.

I beg to differ. Your target audience vexes you are you wouldn't be couching your posts alluding to a group that rejects the factualization of mythology.

 

[PureX]

As I explained on this thread yesterday here, myths are erroneous speculations that intend to explain reality as the mythicists find it ...

There it is! There's that pugnacious bias. We knew it was lurking around here somewhere, just waiting to pop up and dismiss and condemn an entire genre of story-telling and literature because it's ignores the facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There it is! There's that pugnacious bias. We knew it was lurking around here somewhere, just waiting to pop up and dismiss and condemn an entire genre of story-telling and literature because it's ignores the facts.

And there is what vexes you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There it is! There's that pugnacious bias. We knew it was lurking around here somewhere, just waiting to pop up and dismiss and condemn an entire genre of story-telling and literature because it's ignores the facts.

So no rebuttal then - just dismissal with the wave of a hand? Concession accepted.

Condemn? Did you mean reject?

Pugnacious bias? Did you feel personally attacked? Did you think I was fighting rather than debating? Dan also sees you a vexed by my words. Isn't it you that is being pugnacious here by choosing to see dispassionate debate as war and going on the attack verbally? You're projecting.

That's the difference between your world and mine. You and I disagree, and I dispassionately give my arguments, whereas you don't make counterarguments but become emotional and personal.

 

[PureX]

... but the issue is that you consider those that do not accept myths as factual without any do so are seen by you as inferior and unable to recognize symbolism, lessons or meaning in the myths.

Not unable, just unwilling. They believe that facts = truth, so when they determine that mythical stories ignore accurate factuality, they just assume that myths also ignore the truth. Which is quite wrong.

The opposite of your position is that accepting them as fact is the only way to see these more meaningful components. I disagree with that too.

But that's an issue of interpretation (mythology). THAT is a discussion worth having with people, I think. Whereas stating that myths are not factual is not a discussion worth having. Those who believe they are factual will not change their mind just because someone else says otherwise. Clearly, they have already chosen to forfeit reason, so there isn't going to be any reasoning with them. And those who already know that myths are not especially factual probably also know that this is irrelevant to their purpose. Those who don't, like the others that don't, aren't going to listen to reason, either, or they'd already know better.

We both have responsibilities here. If you don't care what yours are, then what is the point of posting in the first place? I suppose wave things away if you can't address them.

I am not here to fight with anyone else's ignorance. If "Bob" believe in a global flood there is nothing I can say that will be likely to change his mind on that. He will have already rejected the reasoning that I would use to counter that belief. Just as there is nothing I can say to change "Bill's" mind that such a flood was absolutely impossible. But since myths are not required to be factual to convey their ideological message, I could still discuss how we are interpreting the story's message with either Bob or Bill. And consider what it might mean to us in our current lives. Since this is actually what the mythical story was created for.

But this very rarely ever happens now days because the scientism cultists among us want to dismiss as irrelevant anything that is not "scientifically factual" and "materially evidenced". And especially if it has anything to do with religion.

The reality is that people insist their favorite myths are fact and others are at liberty to reject that and both can get or miss the lessons within. These are independent of each and not dependent as you seem ebb and flow over.

None of that has anything to do with the actual value or wisdom of the myth. To find that, we have to actually interpret the story. And stop fussing over whether or not we "accept" or "reject" it as fact. Which is honestly neither here nor there.

I beg to differ.

You don't have to beg. You can just differ.

 

[PureX]

So no rebuttal then - just dismissal with the wave of a hand? Concession accepted.

Condemn? Did you mean reject?

Pugnacious bias? Did you feel personally attacked? Did you think I was fighting rather than debating? Dan also sees you a vexed by my words. Isn't it you that is being pugnacious here by choosing to see dispassionate debate as war and going on the attack verbally? You're projecting.

That's the difference between your world and mine. You and I disagree, and I dispassionately give my arguments, whereas you don't make counterarguments but become emotional and personal.

Just because I am not here to fight with anyone else's willful ignorance doesn't mean I don't see it, or won't say so. I'm not "vexed". I'm just observant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe he did , but that's just my opinion and I why I asked if those references could be explained?

Magic poofing.

The story doesn't work at all without God being able to magically poof stuff into existence, and if we assume that God can magically poof stuff into existence, then that can be the explanation for absolutely anything.

 

[Audie]

How many cubits per foot lambert are there?

Lambert is a downscale bag I don’t want…Lambo is a car i don’t want..

Ah a measure of luminosity? That doesn’t make sense.

I think ya is a moldy old swab what’s getting barnacles in your binacle.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think ya is a moldy old swab what’s getting barnacles in your binacle.

Nuthin gets past you.

 

[Audie]

Nuthin gets past you.

Perspicacity R us.