LP675

Your right. That’s exactly why I said, “at best misleading�. I suppose the first couple of definitions might not be ‘wrong’ in that sense, they are just likely to mislead those not familiar with the terminology (from my ‘fundamentalist’ perspective). I suppose the problem is that no one seems to agree on what exactly they mean when they say “myth�.

CX

Only if one is subscribing to a popular, but incorrect, notion of the meaning of the word "myth". I make no judgement with respect the objective reality of any given myth when talking about the same. While it may be the case that the word "myth" has a particular loaded connotation, I use the word only in the precise sense of "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society".

CX

We should be cautious to remember that most dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus describe usage rather than the etymologically correct meaning of a given word. If enough people associate a given connotation with a particular word, tha connotation, though incorrect, is often added as an alternative meaning in various dictionaries.

Sparrow

Apparently we did.

So clear it up for me LP675, is Genesis factual, mythical, useless - what? How do you reconcile humanity's current understanding of science with a direct literal reading of Genesis?

Wily Coyote

Answer: You can't. The creation stories as set forth in Genesis are purely mythical. They don't so much offer any explanation for how this earth and universe came into existence as to set forth certain doctrines essential to the Judeo-Christian mythos:

1. God is eternal and all-powerful. He pre-existed the universe and created everything in it.

2. Man was put on the earth to have dominion over the earth. He's the "lord and master," so to speak.

3. One day each week must be set aside as "the Lord's Day."

4. (Later on in Genesis) Woman is the source of all sin and misery, and man must have superiority over woman for that reason.

The Genesis myth was crafted not only in response to Babylonian and Sumerian myths about the creation of the earth (also in 7 days), but also to counter them. Most of the popular mythologies of the day gave communion with nature and women great prominence. (The "Earth Mother" scenario).

The Genesis myth ranks right up there with the Indian myth that the universe rests on an infinite stack of giant turtles and the Greco-Roman myth that Gaea emerged fully formed, out of Chaos, to create the Universe.

Boro Nut

You can't get the Heeby Jeebies from stupid people. You only get them from dark alleys. You have probably just had your cock poppied, which is not too serious in itself. Don't hold hands with someone who has warts though, or drink from a cup used by someone with nits, as you run the risk of contracting the Dreaded Lurgy and there is only one known cure but the scientists don't know what it is. Then the other kids will point at you and shout "Hit him with sticks", and even twenty seven years later, when you go for a job interview in a distant town, the bloke behind the desk will say "My my, if it isn't Manky John", and you will have to kill again to stop the voices. I know.

Boro Nut

Boro Nut

Even Jesus couldn't cure the Lurgy. I know, I checked. Take my word for it yourself if you don't believe me. It's true.

Boro Nut

offa

I suppose I am missing something? I wonder about "why isn't Jubilees mentioned?"

A day can be 24 hours, a year, seven years, or even 49 years? The multiple choice answer is all of the above.

The seven days of Creation according to Jubilees was a period of 49 years.

offa

LP675

Hmmm, your post, and that of Wily Coyote, are perfect examples of why the term is often misleading. You say:
You seem to think (and I certainly don’t think its your fault) that the labels “factual� and “mythical� are mutually exclusive choices, evinced by your questioning as to how one reconciles science with a literal reading of genesis.

Wily Coyote seems to think the same when he says:
The implication being ‘mythical’ preludes the story being factual.

Whereas CX for example when he uses the label says: “I make no judgment with respect the objective reality of any given myth when talking about the same�.

This is all I was attempting to point out. I personally don’t feel the word is particularly useful because of the confusion that always ensues upon its use. Depending on what one means when one uses the word it is misleading, or just wrong.

Sparrow

What I was asking for is your opinion on the reconciliation of Genesis with the real world as we know it. I gave you three choices, plus the 'what' intended to offer you the option of choosing none of those and explaining differently. I have no problem agreeing that some myths may have factual components, but the connotations are different. Feel free to define any terms you wish.

I'm interested how you as a self described ‘fundamentalist literalist’ reconcile one or both Genesis creation stories with the real world. Pm me if you like.