Mathetes

But how did this meaning get into the story? As you probably know, this particular myth predates the Bible.

Was this "deep meaning" also there when the story was a Sumerian polytheistic myth before the Hebrews were a distinct nation? Or did the meaning entered into the story when the Israeli redactor changed the god from Ea/Marduk to Yahweh?

Doctor X

Because I said so . . . damn it!

Seriously . . . the best I can offer is comparisons to other myths. Writers and adherents did not expect them to be taken literally either.

I am at a slow-ass connection, so I will link in the passages later. However, the second specifically refers to the first--Junior is irritated that the disciples forgot the lesson of the first miracle. This is in keeping with Mk's general treatment of the disciples.

--J.D.

runnerryan

Mageth,
Or maybe the story was meant to use symbolic language to communicate this truth. What I said does not depend on the literal truth of the story.

Doctor X and Toto
How does this prove an evil deity or that sin is punished in a disproportinate manner? Serious sins deserve serious consequences.

Mathetes
Yes I know the biblical author (or authors) knew about the Sumerian account. But the message of the biblical story is much different than the Sumerian story. The images from the Sumerian story were used so that images people would have been familiar with could be used to teach a different message. Jewish and Christian commentators have always used the spiritual sense of texts to draw out meanings that go beyond the literal text. Most of them would have accepted the literal truth of the text as well, but I don't think most of the ancient figures in Judaism and Christianity would have had much trouble preserving the spiritual meaning if they were presented with modern science that showed them it wasn't literally true.

"So from your assertion that "if something not true is believed by a lot of people it acquires a deeper meaning" has changed into "if something not true in a religious context is believed by a lot of people and claims to be spiritually nourishing then it acquires a deeper meaning". And still you do not provide a justification of why this is so."
If UFO and Elvis stories are literally true they do not have a deeper meaning. So if they aren't literally true they still do not have a deeper meaning. If the biblical stories are literally true they do have a deeper meaning. So if they aren't literally true they may still have a deeper meaning.

Amos

Nono, we are the literary impared people that went looking for evidence just in case it was true and we did this because it contains a hidden meaning that points at a spiritual truth behind the story. If this is true it will be true for everybody and so the flood story is a foreshadow of a metaphysical event that can happen to each one of us.

For this to be true it must be a universal truth and therefore an archetypal event that belongs to the animal man identity-- which really is the only thing that all humans have in common. In this sense are we all, either ark builders, spectators, or scoffers at ark builders, which means that not all people will survive their own flood.

In our flood story (there were several floating around in those days) the ark builders name was Noah which is a play on the word naos and already points at the inner sanctum of man to be the vessel that will carry us into the new covenant when a strange sentiment that at one time was called "involutional melancholia" comes down upon us like a flood during midlife (some call it yin/yang imbalance today).

So the ark is our soul that must be reinforced with all the knowledge we have created and tied there so it will serve us when we get to the other side. The art of arkbuilding is best expressed with tithing wherein we "also learn to count our days" (and not just our accomplishments is the implication here) so that we will have animals to tie down in the ark we built. In this sense are the animals equal to our images of knowledge that must be tied down into our soul where they become images of reality and we do this in the evening when we contemplate our day (the ark is our tree of life or subconscious mind or the lesser light that illuminates our night; incidently, dark nights means no illumination and was the reason why Lady Macbeth needed a candle at night). That we should load our life- houseboat is just confirmation that the woman saw that the TOK was good for gaining wisdom in Gen.3

In Catholic theology this vessel is called Mary who is therefore also called the Ark of the New Covenant and is why we pay our tribute to Mary instead of giving money to the church. Mary in turn is our evening star in whom we find refuse at night and she is our morning star in whom we find strenght to take on the day with a renewed fervor each day (this is about where she strikes at the head of the serpent called Eve who in her turn strikes at our heel).

The purpose of the flood is to regain paradise on earth (which is when we get to the other side) and if we ever want to enjoy heaven on earth this is the time to get there because the yin period begins just after the yang period ends. Of course, the alterative would be to take yin/yang medicine; either that or make sure you are in hell before midlife in which case the flood never comes our way.

Mageth

runnerryan:

Or maybe the story was meant to use symbolic language to communicate this truth. What I said does not depend on the literal truth of the story.

It depends on a simple literal interpretation of the story, not a metaphorical interpretation. "God sent a flood to drown a bunch of bad people. Therefore, bad people should be forewarned that God might punish them too." The flood story is not a metaphor for this "moral lesson", whether literally true or not.

Mageth

Originally posted by Mathetes
And besides, where in the Bible do these stories claim to be non-true but spiritually nourishing? They do not. They are never presented as metaphorical, other than Jesus's parables.

That's not a particularly strong argument, IMO. I've never seen any ancient myth that claimed "This story is not literally true, and is intended to be interpreted metaphorically." That's simply not the way myth works.

I do not think anybody thought the flood to be metaphorical, until it became obvious to XIX century archeology that it was impossible.

It's not reasonable, IMO, to believe nobody would have recognized the story as myth intended to convey metaphorical truths. I think it's much more reasonable to believe that some people even way back when were capable of recognizing myth when they saw (or wrote) it.

Mageth

runnerryan:

If UFO and Elvis stories are literally true they do not have a deeper meaning. So if they aren't literally true they still do not have a deeper meaning. If the biblical stories are literally true they do have a deeper meaning. So if they aren't literally true they may still have a deeper meaning.

Huh?

Mathetes

This is confusing to me. So if I take the Star Wars story line, and rewrite it again using the Holy Spirit as the Force and Jesus as Obi Wan, it suddenly acquires a deeper meaning for Jews and Christians?

Most likely they would have threatened with hell fire to anybody that doubted the vericity of the accounts... just like this present day a lot of Evangelicals do to people that doubt the flood.

I digress, though.

This is really subjective. I would argue that if UFOs are true there is a very deep meaning behind it: there are other forms of life in the universe.

I think if would help the discussion if you could explain why God chooses to tell us fairy tales instead of telling the simple truth. (Fairy tales that look disturbingly similar to other civilizations' myths.) And why subsequent religious figures take these fairy tales as truth.

Mathetes

This is what I would like to understand. What evidence do you have for this?

I did not understand your example about the repeated "breads and fish" miracle.

Mathetes

Again, I would like to see some evidence that this is so.

If this was the intent, it has failed miserably: the history of Christianity is full of examples where the literal interpretation has been defended at all costs. Not only geocentrism and evolution. In our century hundreds of thousands of Americans defend that the flood indeed happened, and that a metaphorical reading is erroneous.