It looks like njtt is actually an atheist!
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16437237&postcount=242
Sorry I assumed that the replies would be from the people I directed this thread towards - liberal Christians…
Yes, all myths. There are myths in the Bible because it is (mostly) a collection of myths.
Scholars write about myths all the time. They have written extensively about the Greek myths, for instance. That does not mean they think the stories are literally true. Furthermore myths can be important, and can influence people’s behavior even when they are not believed to be true.
njtt:
Hundreds of millions of people believe that the Bible is literally true. But anyway your belief that the genealogies are myths is irrelevant to this thread because I was looking for Christian responses.
“Just myths?” That is an absurd statement.
Myths are important. Myths can be more “true” than simple factual records. A myth illustrates history and traditions, it interprets them in a readily understandable way. If you are not understanding the purpose or meaning of a myth, that means that your cultural background is different than the writer (and original intended audience) for that myth.
In modern America, we have many myths about the country’s origin which present the ideals of the Founding Fathers in a way that school children and NASCAR fans can understand. People who actualy care can read the Federalist Papers and see that it wasn’t all so clear at the time. But no one needs to study the Federalist Papers to know what is expected of a citizen of the US, because we have the myths to guide us.
What is the purpose or meaning of all of the numbers in the genealogies “myth”?
Don’t know. Don’t particularly care. I am not a Fundamentalist and therefore I do not believe that if I misinterpret a part of the Bible I am doomed to everlasting torment in Hell.
And, tradition has it that God held off on the flood until Methuselah had died.
Neither the title character nor the ship nor most of the events described in Ramage at Trafalgar are at all factual, but the battle described therein most certainly happened.
It isn’t Genesis that’s a book of poetry, it’s the Song of Songs.
The genealogies are similar to the “origin myths” of other cultures. They’re what comes out of trying to track such things with inadequate tools; they also contain symbolic information and explanations on the relationships of different groups within the culture in question and with their neighbors. Some of the symbolic information contained in the genealogies in Genesis has already been explained by previous posters (the “shortened lifes” bit, for example).
Also, “non-literalist” does not equal “liberal”.
Concur. ‘Myth’ is not necessarily synonymous with “obvious, worthless fiction”.
So if I say that the bible is a myth, that makes me not a true Christian? Do I have to agree with you just to keep my Christianity intact?
A little Google-fu produces:
THE MEANING OF THE CHRONOGENEALOGIES OF GENESIS 5 AND 11
by Gerhard F. Hasel
Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology
Andrews University
If you’re up to some reading.
The Bible isn’t a book - it’s a collection of books/letters/etc - what is true of one part may not be true of another.
That doesn’t really answer your underlying point about why Christians might choose to believe any part of it, but I think the phrase “liberal Christians can readily admit they have a book of myth/fiction” is too simplistic to let stand.
Liberal Christian here. To clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding by the OP: The first creation story in Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3 is believed (by scholars and people like me) to be a poem. The second creation story beginning in Genesis 2:4 is a prose narrative from a different source. I don’t think anyone thinks that the genealogies are poems.
I believe I may have been responsible for his misunderstanding, as on the other thread I mentioned that I understand Genesis to be poems and origin myth. He picked on the geneologies as a non-poetic section of the book, and seems to feel that the six-days will be validated if a person mentioned in the geneologies happens to have actually lived.
I do not understand the Fundamentalist / Literalist interpretation well enough to comment, but it seems that they feel that a historical verification of one line will somehow make the rest factual through osmosis.
Isn’t the real question here: “Why aren’t liberals more conservative?”
In the context of this discussion, it should be noted that Professor Hasel appears to be a biblical literalist, not a “Liberal Christian.”
OK, so Jesus probably didn’t create the universe, walk on water, raise the dead, or arise himself, but there most likely was a preacher who had a loyal following?
Not really a great analogy, because we have plenty of other evidence for the Battle of Trafalgar. If there was no other evidence of a man named Napoleon or Nelson, and modern historians didn’t believe France actually had a navy in 1805, we wouldn’t be able to look at the book and take the battle as a real event any more than the characters.
If you’re going to compare The Bible to another work of fiction to justify picking and choosing you need independent evidence that what you pick and choose is more likely to be true than the rest.
Just so you know, this MB does not allow you to restrict posting in your threads only to certain types of people. Anyone is free to post in any thread unless a moderator has told them otherwise.
That’s a good question. What does one have to agree with to be a true Christian? I would think you should follow the teachings of “Christ” however that’s problematic if all you have is myths about who he was and what he taught.