RE: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

Rich,
 
I can live with your use of the terms myth and metaphor, myth meaning
there is still some historical significance (although it may be
extremely minor, of course). Do you apply this same definition of myth
to other mythological writings (e.g., greek, roman, egyption, etc.)?
would make sense for greek mythology.
 
however, I dont' get the impression that this is what Don meant. Don,
care to clarify your position on myth vs. metaphor, given Rich's
comments?
 
Best,
Charles

>>> <RFaussette@aol.com> 11/22/2004 12:17:57 PM >>>

CWC
what's the difference between myth and metaphor? all mythology is
metaphor. I suppose not all metaphors are mythology, but when
discussing Christian scriptures, why should we care to make such
distinctions? are we just uncomfortable with the word 'myth'?

Best,
Charles

Charles,
IMHO
I think it makes a big difference whether genesis is myth or metaphor.
Myth has a historical basis. Metaphor is a device that likens one thing
to another for purposes of illustration.

Some people think Adam was a real person. To them, references in
genesis to Adam would be considered mythical and attempts to research
the historical Adam relevant. Others (like me) believe that Adam is a
metaphor employed to impart a theological message, no historical kernel
to be explored, but still a relevant truth to be interpreted.

rich faussette
Received on Mon Nov 22 15:21:18 2004