>Glenn seems to be using the term "myth" here in its common sense, to refer
> to
>a legendary story without any ties to historical reality. In a literary
> sense,
>however, the term "myth" can also be applied to a story which attempts to
>explain a basic truth using allegory or some other non-literal device.
Yes, you are correct that I am using myth in its common meaning. When you use
the term "non-literal" it means the events didn't happen as described. What
does it mean to say that Genesis 1-11 is "non-literal"? Does it mean that
God didn't really create the world? That He didn't create the animals? Does
it mean that there really was no flood? No Tower of Babel? So where do we
stop? Is Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac allegory?
I know that lots of believers with whom I will much enjoy sharing eternal
fellowship, do not have the problem with this that I do. I personally can
not go the way of allegory. To me it is a crucial test of whether or not we
really are worshipping the Creator of the universe if what He relates to us
is true.
If our God is truly the Creator of the universe, (meaning he is that
powerful) why on earth couldn't He give a simplified statement of the truth
to the people? He didn't need a lot of detail, just enough so that we would
know it is true. If he felt satisfied to give an untrue account of the
creation via a "non-literal device" can I really be sure that He isn't also
giving me an untrue account of the resurrection via a "non-literal device"?
Afterall, everyone knows that dead people don't get up.
I manage a group of geophysicists who are engaged in reconstructing earth
history. Their job is to come up with a sequence of events which they
believe ACTUALLY happened in the areas they are exporing for oil in. If one
of these guys came to me one day with a foolish and ridiculous tale of the
geohistory of the region and then told me that he was telling me the truth
via a "non-literal device", a myth, or an allegory, I would fire the man
right there on the spot! I pay him to tell me the truth, and nothing less
than the truth as he has deduced it. He can be wrong, based on incomplete or
erroneous information, but he better not try to tell me a fable. I am going
to invest several millions of my employer's dollars based upon what that man
tells me. If I expect that from someone who works for me, why should I
expect less accuracy from the God who actually created this place? After
all, I am going to invest something far more precious than mere millions of
dollars. I am going to invest my LIFE! And I am going to ask others to
invest their lives also.
I
>personally think that this is the genre into which Genesis 1 properly falls
>[expressing theological truth, but not via a literal, historical
> narrative].
>Since "myth" implies "non-truth" to many people, other terms for this genre
>have been suggested which do not have negative connotations.
Unfortunately, it implies this because if you say the flood account is true
but mythical, and then someone asks where is the evidence for the flood. You
have to tell them "You aren't supposed to look for evidence, this is a mythic
saga". To most people that sounds like what you are told if you ask to see
the home Santa Claus lives in.
For example,
> Karl
>Barth used "saga" in Church Dogmatics as a general category referring to
>stories which convey truth, but which are beyond the scope of modern
> historical
>science since they refer to non-observable, supernatural events.
The flood does not fall into a non-observable supernatural event. It may have
been supernatural, but it should have left physical evidence of itself. If
it was a local flood, where are those sediments? If it was global, why does
the geological data argue so strongly against it.
>Glenn, could you repost your Talk.Origins comments to the ASA listserv? I
>missed them and would be interested to hear your candidate scenario...
>
I will be delighted to post it and see if you all want to engage in a feeding
frenzy. I was disappointed that I was not attacked on T.O. because I love a
good debate. I have made a few minor alterations but it outlines the
scenario. It will be in a post that follows.
glenn