Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[Orbit]

Some atheists used to say the character "David" in the Bible was a legend.

Abot history: no one can change it. Someone may think some story is a legend ... but end up knowing it is a historical fact but he needed acceptable evidence.

I think you might have a small sample of atheists that you're looking at. I'm an atheist, and I think that myths are extremely valuable for their symbolic and cultural content. Myths aren't meant to be taken literally; and they encode deep cultural meaning.

As an atheist, I see value in the Creation myth, and in the myth of Adam and Eve. It doesn't make sense to me to require that myths be historically accurate, "true" or similar; their value is in their meaning.

Is the point of your thread to assert that everything in the Bible is literally true?

 

[Eli G]

So what?

So it confirms that a considered legend can be be reconsidered as a truth.

Cool. As was already pointed out, the fact that the Bible includes some real people does not mean it doesn't have mythological elements or that everything contained in it is true.

... and still, there are some needed extra-information when an atheist want to refer as something in the Bible as myth or legend. And after that there will be another different talk.

 

[Eli G]

I think you might have a small sample of atheists that you're looking at. I'm an atheist, and I think that myths are extremely valuable for their symbolic and cultural content. Myths aren't meant to be taken literally; and they encode deep cultural meaning.

As an atheist, I see value in the Creation myth, and in the myth of Adam and Eve. It doesn't make sense to me to require that myths be historically accurate, "true" or similar; their value is in their meaning.

Is the point of your thread to assert that everything in the Bible is literally true?

I am not interested on your study about "myth"... it's a superfluos content I don't need to prove my initial point. I write in simple words for general public, and I try to make my topics understandable to ordinary people who do not need so much erudition.

Again: re-read my initial post.

 

[Orbit]

I am not interested on your study about "myth"... it's a superfluos content I don't need to prove my initial point. I write in simple words for general public, and I try to make my topics understandable to ordinary people who do not need so much erudition.

Again: re-read my initial post.

Why do you avoid my question? Is this thread about asserting that the Bible is literally true? Because that seems to be your point.

 

[Quintessence]

#notallatheists

Seriously, though, when making a point it helps to not insult entire groups of people in the process. And also animals. Gods forbid the human animal is driven by emotions as neither being an animal nor having emotions is bad. I'll speak from whatever animal emotional organ I darned well please, thanks.



Personally, I'm more on board with folks learning more about the different types of knowledge just in general. It isn't taught in schools (or at least it wasn't a couple decades ago) kinda like how philosophy in general is more or less ignored in public education. It's unfortunate, but not a trend I see going away any time soon. Even the University is becoming corrupted these days with very important bodies of knowledge being diluted down and discarded in the name of the all-mighty Dollar. It's a sad time to work in education in the United States.

 

[Eli G]

Why do you avoid my question? Is this thread about asserting that the Bible is literally true? Because that seems to be your point.

If you read my first post you'll know about what this thread is.

 

[Orbit]

If you read my first post you'll know about what this thread is.

Your OP is ambiguous, hence the question.

 

[Left Coast]

So it confirms that a considered legend can be be reconsidered as a truth.

That's part of life: when new evidence is discovered, we adapt our views to align with the evidence.

By the way, evidence that shows a person was real doesn't mean other things that allegedly happened in their life are not legendary. Both things can be true.

How about you? When you get new evidence regarding the Bible, will it ever change what you currently believe about it?

... and still, there are some needed extra-information when an atheist want to refer as something in the Bible as myth or legend. And after that there will be another different talk.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Legend and myth have definitions and we can read the Bible and look at the evidence (or lack of evidence) and see that it fits the bill.

 

[Twilight Hue]

MYTH and LEGEND are not the same.

Atheists use the word "myth" to insult religious beliefs. Most of the time they don't use properly that term because they are ignorant of what a myth is.

The main differences between myth and legend are determined by the inclusion of a specific timeframe and verifiable historical information within the story. Legends can be verified as true stories to the extent that knowledge of the historical facts increases over time. For example, some biblical characters and events were considered legends until archaeological documents were discovered that confirmed them as historical.

Before calling "myth" any Biblical story, learn the truth about the information it includes; do not "speak from the liver" (only driven by animal emotions).

When it comes to talking snakes and donkeys, magical fruits, cherubim with flaming swords and the like, myth is a pretty good word to sum everything up.

Legends are typically lore, a story based on people places or events whom may or may not be real.

 

[McBell]

MYTH and LEGEND are not the same.

Atheists use the word "myth" to insult religious beliefs. Most of the time they don't use properly that term because they are ignorant of what a myth is.

The main differences between myth and legend are determined by the inclusion of a specific timeframe and verifiable historical information within the story. Legends can be verified as true stories to the extent that knowledge of the historical facts increases over time. For example, some biblical characters and events were considered legends until archaeological documents were discovered that confirmed them as historical.

Before calling "myth" any Biblical story, learn the truth about the information it includes; do not "speak from the liver" (only driven by animal emotions).

Your dislike of the certain specific definitions of the words do not erase the definitions you dislike.

Yes, they have differing definitions.
However, there is some cross over between two.
So much crossover in fact, that they are considered synonyms of each other.

So your little myth rant is nothing more than you revealing your own bias and prejudice.

Spoiler: Myth

Myth​

1​

a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon​

​

b: PARABLE, ALLEGORY​

​

2​

a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone​

especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society​

​

b: an unfounded or false notion​

​

3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence​

​

4: the whole body of myths​

​

Spoiler: Legend

Legend​

1​

a: a story coming down from the past​

especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable​

the legend of a lost continent​

​

b: a body of such stories​

​

c: a popular myth of recent origin​

​

d: a person or thing that inspires legends​

​

e: the subject of a legend​

​

2​

a: an inscription or title on an object (such as a coin)​

​

b: CAPTION sense 2b​

The legend identifies the various parts of the illustrated anatomy.​

​

c: an explanatory list of the symbols on a map or chart​

​

​

Edit note:
Fixed tags

 

[Eli G]

... How about you? When you get new evidence regarding the Bible, will it ever change what you currently believe about it?

That is not part of my topic.

Hopefully some readers may learn the differences on saying some specific character or event is a myth or a legend from a non-believer point of view. Of course, the believer's point of view about the Bible is another topic I may discuss somewhere else, or maybe I already did.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Legend and myth have definitions and we can read the Bible and look at the evidence (or lack of evidence) and see that it fits the bill.

What I meant is just what i said up here: the Bible is not a simple "story" or "character" people can called "myth" or "legend" or whatever ...

If an atheist want to call something or some character in the Bible a "myth" ... At least he has something decent to expose and not just unfounded disqualifications based on anti-Bible and anti-religious prejudices... Knowing the difference between myth and legend, and to what those terms could or should be applied is a good start.

That may be it for today. Have a wondeful day.

 

[MikeF]

Even the University is becoming corrupted these days with very important bodies of knowledge being diluted down and discarded in the name of the all-mighty Dollar.

I'd be curious to hear some example of important bodies of knowledge that are being diluted down and discarded. Seems it would be anathema to a University.

 

[Subduction Zone]

MYTH and LEGEND are not the same.

Atheists use the word "myth" to insult religious beliefs. Most of the time they don't use properly that term because they are ignorant of what a myth is.

The main differences between myth and legend are determined by the inclusion of a specific timeframe and verifiable historical information within the story. Legends can be verified as true stories to the extent that knowledge of the historical facts increases over time. For example, some biblical characters and events were considered legends until archaeological documents were discovered that confirmed them as historical.

Before calling "myth" any Biblical story, learn the truth about the information it includes; do not "speak from the liver" (only driven by animal emotions).

That occurs usually because some Christians claim that certain stories that are at best morality tales are literally true, such as the Adam and Eve myth, and that is myth be even your definition. Or the Noah's Ark myth, and though there may have been a man on a boat the degree that the story changed has definitely brought it into the realm of the mythical.

 

[Orbit]

I'd be curious to hear some example of important bodies of knowledge that are being diluted down and discarded. Seems it would be anathema to a University.

The entirety of the Humanities. Social Science is next. Soon the university will consist of Business majors and STEM majors.

 

[Left Coast]

That is not part of my topic.

Hopefully some readers may learn the differences on saying some specific character or event is a myth or a legend from a non-believer point of view. Of course, the believer's point of view about the Bible is another topic I may discuss somewhere else, or maybe I already did.

What I meant is just what i said up here: the Bible is not a simple "story" or "character" people can called "myth" or "legend" or whatever ...

If an atheist want to call something or some character in the Bible a "myth" ... At least he has something decent to expose and not just unfounded disqualifications based on anti-Bible and anti-religious prejudices... Knowing the difference between myth and legend, and to what those terms could or should be applied is a good start.

That may be it for today. Have a wondeful day.

I think I understand. You're pointing out that some elements of the Bible have been shown to be true, like Herod being a real person. My point was that just because some people in the Bible are real, doesn't mean the Bible's stories about those people aren't legends or myths.

Have a good one!

 

[Eli G]

A last note before closing today

There you have someone who does not know the difference between myths and legend. Calling "Adam and Eve" (two characters) a myth is ignorance of the concept, and calling the story of the Deluge and Noah a myth goes the same way.

There you are ... and it shows my topic may be useful for some people around here, maybe.

Take care.

 

[Orbit]

A last note before closing today

There you have someone who does not know the difference between myths and legend. Calling "Adam and Eve" (two characters) a myth is ignorance of the concept, and calling the story of the Deluge and Noah a myth goes the same way.

There you are ... and it shows my topic may be useful for some people around here, maybe.

Take care.

I think you need a dictionary.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think your characterization of "myth" is a little strange. A myth is not an "untrue story". A myth is a *cultural* story that has deep symbolic meaning for that culture. "Truth" is not the point.

A myth, you say, is not an "untrue story"? It's a story that's true? The opposite of untrue is true.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

MYTH and LEGEND are not the same.

Atheists use the word "myth" to insult religious beliefs. Most of the time they don't use properly that term because they are ignorant of what a myth is.

The main differences between myth and legend are determined by the inclusion of a specific timeframe and verifiable historical information within the story. Legends can be verified as true stories to the extent that knowledge of the historical facts increases over time. For example, some biblical characters and events were considered legends until archaeological documents were discovered that confirmed them as historical.

Before calling "myth" any Biblical story, learn the truth about the information it includes; do not "speak from the liver" (only driven by animal emotions).

Pray tell, from what source do you derive this distinction?

When I look at Dictionary.com…..
The definition of “legend” is:
noun
1. a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.
2. the body of stories of this kind, especially as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan:
6. collection of stories about an admirable person.
7. person who is the center of such stories:She became a legend in her own lifetime.
8. Archaic.
a story of the life of a saint, especially one stressing the miraculous or unrecorded deeds of the saint.

The British version:
noun

1. a popular story handed down from earlier times whose truth has not been ascertained
2. a group of such stories
   the Arthurian legend
3. a modern story that has taken on the characteristics of a traditional legendary tale
4. a person whose fame or notoriety makes him a source of exaggerated or romanticized tales or exploits

The thesaurus section for synonyms:
fable
narrative
fiction
saga
folklore
folk story
lore
folk tale
myth
mythos
mythology tale

The definition of “myth” is:
noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The thesaurus section for synonyms:
fable
delusion
fantasy
fabrication
fiction
fancy
illusion
figment
imagination
invention
legend
saga
lore
fairy story
parable
folk ballad
superstition
folk tale
tale
mythos
tradition
tall story
allegory
apologue


I don’t seem to find your distinction here….
Where might look to verify it?

 

[Quintessence]

I'd be curious to hear some example of important bodies of knowledge that are being diluted down and discarded. Seems it would be anathema to a University.

There was an opinion piece in the NYT the other day that got me thinking about it again. And it's something I've observed at my own institution. The short of it is, as state and federal support for public universities declines and the pool of college-aged students shrinks, universities are forced to shift operations to run themselves more like a business enterprise. That has a number of consequences, but among them is the gutting of the liberal arts and replacing it with "marketable" degrees to sell their school to prospective students.

See:

Opinion | Stop Corporatizing My Students

Equating successful education with successful business is changing not only what gets taught but whom.

www.nytimes.com

But all this is a bit of an aside from the OP, so I won't elaborate further here.