Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[John53]

Eli G. Can we please get your response to Viker’s post?

Not for a month. In another thread the poster said they were going to ignore the whole forum for a month. We're being punished.

 

[Watchmen]

Not for a month. In another thread the poster said they were going to ignore the whole forum for a month. We're being punished.

Ah. Too bad.

 

[shunyadragon]

MYTH and LEGEND are not the same.

Maybe

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.

,myth definition - Google Search

a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths"

By this definition there are myths described in the text of the Bible that involve supernatural beings and events,

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated.
"the legend of King Arthur"

The definitions are similar and sometimes interchangeable.

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).

By the definitions I do not believe you can make this distinction. Legends remain unauthenticated by definition. Yes there are 'some' facts, events. and persons that my be 'confirmed as historical, but nonetheless ,ost of the Bible lacks provenance of most of the books, The Pentateuch was not written until after ~600 BCE. There are absolutely no known written Hebrew writings documenting the Pentateuch before this. The stories containing supernatural beings and events can be called myths, and other parts legend, Take your pick based on the accepted English definition.

By the definitions the Gospels may be records of myth and legend, but remain un authenticated by any independent records during the life oi Jesus or the next fifty years,

I consider most of the books of the Bible as narratives set in history mostly written after the fact, and events described without eyewitnesses, You are over estimating how much of the texts of the Bible have been documented by archaeological evidence. Yes some facts, events and persons are documented, but much of the archaeological events bring much of the Bible to serious question, and most remains unauthenticated.

Based on the text of the gospels and other later independent testimony most independent academic historians describe Joshu (Jesus Christ) of Nazareth was likely a literate Jewish Rabbi (?) that lived at the time described in the gospels, and claimed to be the Messianic King of the Jews, and he was claimed to have performed miracles, He was convicted of treason against Rome, under Pontius Pilate and crucified.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why did you bother posting this in a debate forum if you don't want to debate?

I'm really not here to debate, but seems the debate forum is the place to post controversial or opposing viewpoints. I have a cousin who is a doctor -- his parents thought he was nuts and he has a reputation for being nuts -- he will DEBATE anything -- it's like crazy.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm really not here to debate, but seems the debate forum is the place to post controversial or opposing viewpoints. I have a cousin who is a doctor -- his parents thought he was nuts and he has a reputation for being nuts -- he will DEBATE anything -- it's like crazy.

By the evidence of your post history you seriously debate the "Witness of Jehovah" perspective concerning your rejection of the sciences of abiogenes/evolution, and other subjects of the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not for a month. In another thread the poster said they were going to ignore the whole forum for a month. We're being punished.

50 lashes with a wet noodle.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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).

Most atheists that comment in forums like these use the word myth as synonymous to lie.

But that is not the case. Myth is one of the most powerful forms of literature we have. We incorporate our deepest values in myth. Often, a myth is told with a lesson in mind (though not always).

I would suggest to these myth-disparagers that they read JRR Tolkien's famous essay, "On Fairy Stories," where they can develop a more appropriate appreciation for the genre.

ILAS 2350 - University of Houston

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most atheists that comment in forums like these use the word myth as synonymous to lie.

But that is not the case. Myth is one of the most powerful forms of literature we have. We incorporate our deepest values in myth. Often, a myth is told with a lesson in mind (though not always).

I would suggest to these myth-disparagers that they read JRR Tolkien's famous essay, "On Fairy Stories," where they can develop a more appropriate appreciation for the genre.

ILAS 2350 - University of Houston

Hmm , though I am rather vehement when I say that the stories of Genesis are a myth I also quite often say that they still work as morality tales or other literary tools for learning. I will point out that due to all of the evidence confirming that they are myths for them to be true it would mean that God had to go back and plant false evidence. That is a form of lying. In other words creationists are claiming that their own God is a liar.

 

[shunyadragon]

Most atheists that comment in forums like these use the word myth as synonymous to lie.

But that is not the case. Myth is one of the most powerful forms of literature we have. We incorporate our deepest values in myth. Often, a myth is told with a lesson in mind (though not always).

I would suggest to these myth-disparagers that they read JRR Tolkien's famous essay, "On Fairy Stories," where they can develop a more appropriate appreciation for the genre.

ILAS 2350 - University of Houston

I disagree, see post #108

False generalization.

Those that believe today that the ancient myths of the Torah and the NT are true are most likely lying or extremely self-deceived.

It is likely that some atheist do not put the importance many theists place on the myths of the Torah you believe that "Myth is one of the most powerful forms of literature we have. We incorporate our deepest values in myth."

I personally put more deep meaning in Epic of Gilgamesh than the Creation story of Adam and Eve,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not competing with you; thinking that is the worst mistake that atheists make when they try to dialogue with believers. Some, less aggressive, will realize that believers are reasonable people.

I'ld just like to point out that people can be very reasonable about subject A while being totally irrational and unreasonable about subject B.

I don't like labeling people as "reasonable" or "unreasonable" as a whole for that reason.
People, both theists and atheists alike btw, can be both depending on subject.

I'm positive you can simply look around your own social circle and observe this. A friend who's for example very reasonable in taking business decisions, while being very unreasonable in his love life for example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you know that all post-Adam biblical stories are well placed in time following a natural chronology that can be reconstructed from the information contained in the books of the Bible and most of them (if not each one and all) contains elements that can be verified somehow by secular knowledge obtained by totally different means?

Even if I were to agree to that....

How is that different from the Marvel storyline being well placed in time following a natural chronology that can be reconstructed from the information contained in the comics and most of them containing elements that can be verified by secular knowledge?

They feature real places, real times, real people.

There are a couple dozen people named Peter Parker living in Manhatten, for example.

 

[shunyadragon]

What I said is easily demonstrable, and does not even need further explanation... You deniers and lovers of empty discussions want to discuss everything and are incapable of understanding or accepting anything. I don't like to waste time in boring arguments with people who talk to hear themselves talking... It's a principle I learned from the Word of God:

Titus 3:9 But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile.

Wise, isn't it? It frees me of a lot of toxic people who do nothing more that argue about everything.

1 Tim. 1:3 (...) command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Circular reasoning that you believe it is true therefore it is true, There is no historical basis for believing that the Creation story including Adam and Eve, Noahs flood or Exodus are remotely true as written. Citing scripture only reinforces the circular reasoning. To argue these points you need independent sources to support your argument. Yes, the Pentateuch was compiled after 600 BCE. The Hebrew written language did not exist at the time of Moses; therefore absolutely no written records in Hebrew exist from that time.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Those that believe today that the ancient myths of the Torah and the NT are true are most likely lying or extremely self-deceived.

I do not think this is a fair remark. I think it is actually rather common for people to believe myths. A recent Gallup poll states that 40% of Americans are creationists. I think this sort of thing is especially easy if you have grown up with a literal understanding of Genesis. I can tall you that I was in my mid 20s before I took my watershed course in anthropology and realized that evolution was true, and had a massive realignment of my world view.

 

[Bthoth]

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).

Nice way of writing the characterization of material.

It would be interesting to address the myth/legend of an old belief:
is there any verifiable evidence of a resurrection of jesus?

For example is there a state certified coroner, that signed a document, a death certificate, that can be reviewed?

Then I would like to see the coroner's education CV (curriculum vitae).

 

[Alien826]

Most atheists that comment in forums like these use the word myth as synonymous to lie.

I would say that is common among many people of many religious persuasions or none. I remember years ago saying something about "global warming" (that was before they started calling it "climate change") and got the response "that's a myth". He simply meant that he didn't think it was correct, of course.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would say that is common among many people of many religious persuasions or none. I remember years ago saying something about "global warming" (that was before they started calling it "climate change") and got the response "that's a myth". He simply meant that he didn't think it was correct, of course.

Exactly! The word is sometimes used as a synonym for lie. I just don't get it.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Christianity is based upon the belief that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true...
If the story of Adam and Eve was not believed to be literally true, then that would change all the most important underpinning of the Christian faith, namely original sin and the need for Jesus to die for the sin we inherited from Adam and Eve. It would also change other beliefs that Christians hold, such as the belief that if Adam and Eve had not sinned by eating the fruit death would have never come into the world.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe this analogy will make it clearer. Are you familiar with Aesop's fables? One of the dictionary definitions of "fable" is something which is not true. But in the context of folklore, Aesop's fables are stories that present important moral lessons; whether or not the story contains talking rabbits is beside the point.

Same with talking snakes.
The important thing is what the snake represents.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Christianity is based upon the belief that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true...

I know plenty of Christians who do not take the story of Adam and Eve literally. It is a mistake to assume that all Christians are fundamentalists. Not all Christians accept Original Sin, etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmm , though I am rather vehement when I say that the stories of Genesis are a myth I also quite often say that they still work as morality tales or other literary tools for learning. I will point out that due to all of the evidence confirming that they are myths for them to be true it would mean that God had to go back and plant false evidence. That is a form of lying. In other words creationists are claiming that their own God is a liar.

That would only be true if God had planted the Genesis story.