Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[Orbit]

Oh, I used to read Alan Watts. Consider(ed) him way out there.

I can't see what your reply has to do with what I posted, but whatever.

 

[ChristineM]

Legend : a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated

Myth : a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Long live the OED.

The only difference seems to be magic

 

[YoursTrue]

I can't see what your reply has to do with what I posted, but whatever.

that's ok, you're quoting Mr. Watts in your signature so it reminded me that I used to read his book, and at the time anyway even though I didn't believe in God as I do now, I thought his book was a lot of hokum. I was looking for God, and gave up my search after reading his writings but yes, later I found what I was looking for. Not from Mr. Watts though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Legend : a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated

Myth : a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Long live the OED.

The only difference seems to be magic

both -- not true. Now we're up to not authenticated. as the possibility of maybe it's true. No evidence. Explanations or descriptios of natural or social phenomenon maybe true or maybe not true, I guess, according to ChristineM and I suppose some others.

 

[Orbit]

that's ok, you're quoting Mr. Watts in your signature so it reminded me that I used to read his book, and at the time anyway even though I didn't believe in God as I do now, I thought his book was a lot of hokum. I was looking for God, and gave up my search after reading his writings but yes, later I found what I was looking for. Not from Mr. Watts though.

What did you find to be "hokum"? All he does is explain Hinduism, Buddhism, meditation, and never once does he tell anyone what they should believe.

 

[ChristineM]

both -- not true. Now we're up to not authenticated. as the possibility of maybe it's true. No evidence. Explanations or descriptios of natural or social phenomenon maybe true or maybe not true, I guess, according to ChristineM and I suppose some others.

Tell the Oxford English dictionary thst they are wrong. Tell me their answer when they reply.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Since I did my homework about learning those differences and resuming them for others here in a very simple way, maybe someone else does his homework and share what are the differences he'll learn and help those ignorant lovers of pointless arguments.

I did some homework (admittedly it didn’t take much) and I showed my work.
Will you not show yours?
Or at least link us to it so that we may determine if perhaps it was misconstrued or ill perceived?

Unfortunately, some people don't understand what it means to be informed, even though they are very good at pointless arguments.

I fear this is precipitously close to a idiom I once heard about a pot and a kettle!

 

[McBell]

I can't think of any event narrated in the Bible that can appropriately be called a myth.

And yet i presented from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions that flat out would include the whole Bible...
You conveniently completely ignored it.

The Bible has an advantage that no other religious document has: all its stories are embedded in a historical framework and a completely verifiable chronological order.

Interesting claim.
Now all you have to do is support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell the Oxford English dictionary thst they are wrong. Tell me their answer when they reply.

Those guys are just a bunch of jerks. Do you know how many times I have sent in spelling corrections to them? Not one word. Not one!

 

[ChristineM]

Those guys are just a bunch of jerks. Do you know how many times I have sent in spelling corrections to them? Not one word. Not one!

I'm afraid they use English spelling not the mongrel American spelling so they probably didn't reply because they didn't want to embarrass you ;-)

 

[Heyo]

So, it looks like some people don't understand (or don't mind) the differences between myth and legend.

Although some atheists do not believe it, there is also a lot of ignorance among them as well as among religious people... I only try to help from time to time with some pertinent information.

Unfortunately, some people don't understand what it means to be informed, even though they are very good at pointless arguments.

Since I did my homework about learning those differences and resuming them for others here in a very simple way, maybe someone else does his homework and share what are the differences he'll learn and help those ignorant lovers of pointless arguments.

Have a nice weekend.

It's not that we don't care about the difference between myth and legend, it's that nobody here agrees with your definition of the terms, including all the dictionaries. Multiple people "did their homework" and cited their sources. You didn't.
Where do your definitions come from? There are multiple dictionaries around and they do not always agree. Just link to your source and we'll discuss its validity.

 

[Heyo]

I'm afraid they use English spelling not the mongrel American spelling so they probably didn't reply because they didn't want to embarrass you ;-)

I propose we drop the differentiation between American English and English English (British English). It isn't only British, it's international. English is written and spoken all over the world and, aside from some slang, it is the same English. Only in the US they speak and write Ameristanish. Calling English English international English reminds the Yanks how they are "special".

 

[sayak83]

Sorry for my honesty but calling the Bible a "myth" goes beyond ignorance of the term, extending to ignorance of what the Bible really is.

Bible is certainly a compendium of myths.
Myth - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

I propose we drop the differentiation between American English and English English (British English). ...

Where is the fun in that?

 

[Eli G]

... nobody here agrees with your definition of the terms, including all the dictionaries. Multiple people "did their homework" and cited their sources. You didn't.
Where do your definitions come from? There are multiple dictionaries around and they do not always agree. Just link to your source and we'll discuss its validity.

I never gave any "definition" of myth or legend ... LOL.
You, people, are so useless arguments lovers.
This is not a place to give definitions; this is a simple debate forum.

This was my original post:

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).

Do you see any "definition" there?

Some posters have talked about some differences between what would be a myth and what is a legend. It is evident that both concepts do not refer to identical objects. Among the differences between the two are those that I mentioned informally in my post: the legends are more specific in the time in which the event occurs and/or the character lives, and there is some credible info inside the story.

Myths are something totally different. They lack a specific time of occurrence and usually include fantastic stories that are difficult to accept by common sense.

I don't need to present in this forum a conference about how did I know those differences. If you need extra info, do YOUR homework as I did mine. Pssss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never gave any "definition" of myth or legend ... LOL.
You, people, are so useless arguments lovers.
This is not a place to give definitions; this is a simple debate forum.

This was my original post:

Do you see any "definition" there?

Some posters have talked about some differences between what would be a myth and what is a legend. It is evident that both concepts do not refer to identical objects. Among the differences between the two are those that I mentioned informally in my post: the legends are more specific in the time in which the event occurs and/or the character lives, and there is some credible info inside the story.

Myths are something totally different. They lack a specific time of occurrence and usually include fantastic stories that are difficult to accept by common sense.

I don't need to present in this forum a conference about how did I know those differences. If you need extra info, do YOUR homework as I did mine. Pssss.

Yes, there is an implied definition there. So according to your definition Adam and Eve are mythical. As well as Noah and family. The supposed time frames refute their existence. Heck science refutes both of their existence. Moses appears to be mythical too since there is no credible evidence for his story. Since those are the main people I call mythical and by your definition they are why are you complaining?

 

[Eli G]

A useful exercise would be to compare biblical stories with stories from books that Hindus consider sacred, or with Greek epic stories.

Most likely you would realize the differences between what is legend and what is myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A useful exercise would be to compare biblical stories with stories from books that Hindus consider sacred, or with Greek epic stories.

Most likely you would realize the differences between what is legend and what is myth.

You do realize that much of the Bible is mythical, by your definition, don't you?

 

[Eli G]

And you haven't realized that I ignore you because I'm not interested in maintaining any dialogue with you?

PS: Have an excellent rest of the weekend.
That was it.

 

[Heyo]

I never gave any "definition" of myth or legend ... LOL.
You, people, are so useless arguments lovers.
This is not a place to give definitions; this is a simple debate forum.

This was my original post:

Do you see any "definition" there?

Some posters have talked about some differences between what would be a myth and what is a legend. It is evident that both concepts do not refer to identical objects. Among the differences between the two are those that I mentioned informally in my post: the legends are more specific in the time in which the event occurs and/or the character lives, and there is some credible info inside the story.

Myths are something totally different. They lack a specific time of occurrence and usually include fantastic stories that are difficult to accept by common sense.

I don't need to present in this forum a conference about how did I know those differences. If you need extra info, do YOUR homework as I did mine. Pssss.

"What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - the Hitch

So, I dismiss your time frame definition and replace it with my own. The main difference between a myth and a legend is that myths are made up stories to explain something, especially origin stories; legends have some basis in reality but are embellished beyond recognition. The foundational stories of the bible, the Gita and the Vedas are all mythological. Sagas like King Arthur, Siegfried or the Vinland saga are legendary. Legends also have fantastic elements like anything magical, so that is not a difference.

You may or may have not followed the current discussion whether the Jesus story is mythical. Dr. Carrier holds that position. Other scholars try to defend a historical Jesus. Note that we have a timeline for that story. The difference is the historical basis.
I think it is most likely that Jesus is a legendary tale. We don't have any verified historical basis but a totally fabricated story would need a conspiracy, at least between Paul and Peter. Therefor it is much more likely that some apocalyptic preacher existed at the beginning of the 1st c and his bio was embellished with more stories.