All ancient stories

[lemondiesel]

first off i would like to say that in no way am i trying to convince others to believe my ways or not, just looking for some (name removed by moderator)ut.

okay, so i have spent time reading ancient Greek stories and yes i have found them silly but they also give a story as to how people think certain things happen and why they have certain things. ex: Hymn to Demeter and how it explains how they believed they had their seasons.

after i read this, does it not seem like our bible is the same way? even in the first book when god created adam and eve, does this not explain of why we have choice and free will to do what we want? i have not done much research on “adam n eve” but do catholics believe they were real? or are they symbols for why we have the choice to do good and evil or wha? any feedback would be sweet . . .

just like to leave my favorite quote behind
Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the GREEN HERB have I given you all things.”

 

[Robintrinket]

Catholics believe that Adam and Eve were real people, and that the human race descended from them. They brought original sin into the world because of their disobedience to God.

Because the Bible explains how things happened, that does not mean that it was made up just to explain them.

Some ancient stories are similar to things related in the Bible because they came from word-of-mouth traditions before they were written down. For example, the Babylonians and Greeks had a story similar to Noah and the flood, and I have read that even an Indian tribe does. (It was a flood to remember!)

The Bible is not the same as mythology, however, because the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to choose what to write. Mythologies are “silly” because the word-of-mouth traditions got very distorted over the years, and those ancient cultures’ religions also became very distorted, becoming polytheistic.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

first off i would like to say that in no way am i trying to convince others to believe my ways or not, just looking for some (name removed by moderator)ut.

okay, so i have spent time reading ancient Greek stories and yes i have found them silly but they also give a story as to how people think certain things happen and why they have certain things. ex: Hymn to Demeter and how it explains how they believed they had their seasons.

after i read this, does it not seem like our bible is the same way? even in the first book when god created adam and eve, does this not explain of why we have choice and free will to do what we want? i have not done much research on “adam n eve” but do catholics believe they were real? or are they symbols for why we have the choice to do good and evil or wha? any feedback would be sweet . . .

just like to leave my favorite quote behind
Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the GREEN HERB have I given you all things.”

The Greek Myths make no claim to be factual. Even the ancient Greeks, and the Romans who borrowed them, didn’t take them seriously half the time. And philosophers like Socrates and Plato had inklings of a supreme being in their writings. The Athenians had an altar to “The Unknown God”.

The Bible is rooted in history. If you take the New Testament for example, the circumstantial characters were real - Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Caiaphas etc.

And as archaeologists dig around the Middle East they find more and more that the history of the Old Testament is accurately portrayed.

Back in the 1920’s for example, excavations revealed about Ur of the Chaldees (Abraham’s original home), “Under the slopes of Tell al-Muqayyar lay a whole city, bathed in the bright sunshine, awakened from its long sleep after many thousand years by the patient burrowing of the archaeologists. Woolley and his companions were besides themselves with joy. For before them lay Ur, the “Ur of the Chaldees” to which the Bible refers.” (From “The Bible as History” by Werner Keller).

What you might call the mythical part (and I’m not sure it is so mythical) is the first few pages of Genesis, eleven chapters in fact. From Chapter 12, it begins with the call of Abraham, with places and historical names that more and more are being brough to light.

And Israel and the Jews are still a going concern today, along with the Church. They haven’t endured because of a myth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Christianity offers salvation. Salvation from what? There had to be a prehistoric moment in which the human race was lost. Adam and Eve committed the first, or original sin. The history of the human race from Adam to Christ was all downhill. Only with Christ are we offered redemption from the original sin by being bathed (cleansed) in the waters of baptism and by living an upright life.

Adam and Eve are not a myth. Christ is the second Adam, and Mary is the second Eve. They are not a myth either. Only the Catholic Church understands this fully and truthfully. Genesis bears witness to the existence of Alpha, and the gospels bear witness to Omega.

Christ is the Alpha and Omega of Truth made Incarnate.

 

[James_S_Saint]

In almost all myths, there is “truth behind the myth”. Myths are constructed in metaphor that blend into Platonic existence of ideas. When the atheist reads the Bible, he usually reads it much like the literalist expecting every word to be only and exactly what is apparent on the surface and thus finds it hard to believe and sees it similar to the Greek’s myths.

The big difference is whether the ideas proposed in a myth have any actual physical effect. Can a Greek god actually DO anything? The God of the Bible is not merely an idea, but an actual DOER and therein lies the significance between an ordinary myth even if metaphorically true and a Bible story that might be metaphor, but proposes a real physical effect.

The Ahdam and Eve story has a higher understanding to which the Masses are seldom privy.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

What you might call the mythical part (and I’m not sure it is so mythical) is the first few pages of Genesis, eleven chapters in fact.

Without wishing to get into the debate about evolution, genesis etc., I might just extrapolate a bit on this bit of my answer.

The first eleven chapters deal with creation, the fall, the spread of violence, the flood, the descendants of Noah, the tower of Babel and the dispersal of the human race.

First we still don’t know how the universe got here. The Big Bang, which might be called a sudden explosion of energy, seems to have more or less universal recognition amongst scientists. Substitute energy for “light” and Genesis fits in that regard.

Species give rise to the same species.

There is evidence of some sort of catastrophe ranging from massive fossil deposits, the sudden extinction of dinosaurs, to huge trees upside down in coal beds, to thousands of snap frozen mammoths.

There is the fact that whereever the European explorers went around the world, they found men already there, from the southern tip of Africa to the southern tip of South America, speaking thousands of different languages, yet many of them can be traced back to common origins. And all men are one species. One wonders why there was such a tremendous variation in languages if all men came from one stock.

There was the sudden rise of civilisations in different places such as Rome, China and the Aztecs in South America, largely disconnected from each other, each with advanced military, jewellery, and religious rites. Some quickly developed high levels of literary, philosophical and scientific sophistication.

In other words the “mythical” element of the first eleven chapters of Genesis does a pretty good job of describing things as they are.

 

[Robintrinket]

Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Humani Generis” dealt with the topic of the Bible and some harmful modern ways of interpreting it. The whole encyclical can probably be found online with a search.

Paragraph 37 says, “For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation through him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through every generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

Paragraph 38 says, “In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis… do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense…in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured… state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation…If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narratives(and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.”

In paragraph 39 says, “whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things”.

 

[lemondiesel]

feel free to correct these (my) thoughts and explain you’re thoughts or even call me blinded

The only reason i ask these questions is because I am kind of on the fence for believing. I know science will never explain why, it can only explain how.

so my thoughts…

1. Faith is earned, something i have not received yet. Faith gives someone hope, instead of believing that there is nothingness after death, which don’t get me wrong would suck, but if it happens it happens.
2. I think there is a huge difference between the Old and New Testament. I believe 100% Jesus was real because someone having that much impact on our civilization, he has to be. (same with other religious saviors)
3. Not so much today, but in early civilizations, could religion possibly have been used to gain political/social power? If we all are from the common ancestor, why do we have so many different stories. If Adam and Eve were our original “parents”, why would they not spread just one religion? Did oral traditions change as people migrated?
4. As someone said earlier that we are given the chance to clear original sin caused by Adam and Eve, what does that mean? Are we forgiven for the original disobeying God? If Adam didnt eat the forbidden fruit, how would we be were we are today? He noticed he was naked, so obviously he developed some of his own thoughts and self thinking (feel free to correct me on this, just trying to clear some stuff up in my head).
5. Related to #4, if Adam never ate the fruit, would he have ever realized he was naked? Would it not seem like God would want his own creations having their own thoughts and the free choice we have.
6. Why does the Bible explain nothing of the creation of the universe? (or at least the parts I have read)

feedback greatly appreciated

 

[Biggie]

1. Related to #4, if Adam never ate the fruit, would he have ever realized he was naked? Would it not seem like God would want his own creations having their own thoughts and the free choice we have.

You have expressed a concern that the old testament might merely be allegorical, that belief might be prevalent only because it is useful to govern people, and you are apparently struggling with belief. I was only thinking it might be helpful to simply open up a new line of thought when reading scripture.

For example, in the above, what does “nakedness” mean to you? When I read this, I think that nakedness is self-awareness. Remember, when Adam and Eve (all of humanity) ate the fruit (which indicated they concluded God had lied to them, that God is a liar), they took the well being of the human race unto themselves. The self (as opposed to the other, God) became their primary concern. This represented a fundamental breach in the terms of human existence, which God warned required man and God to walk together in love. Man discovered he was “naked” because he realized he could only refer to himself for his fulfillment, well being. I think of emerging from childhood: where once I was not self aware, I suddenly became aware.

Perhaps it is in the insight into what is written in scriptures.

 

[Robintrinket]

feel free to correct these (my) thoughts and explain you’re thoughts or even call me blinded

The only reason i ask these questions is because I am kind of on the fence for believing. I know science will never explain why, it can only explain how.

so my thoughts…

1. Faith is earned, something i have not received yet. Faith gives someone hope, instead of believing that there is nothingness after death, which don’t get me wrong would suck, but if it happens it happens.
2. I think there is a huge difference between the Old and New Testament. I believe 100% Jesus was real because someone having that much impact on our civilization, he has to be. (same with other religious saviors)
3. Not so much today, but in early civilizations, could religion possibly have been used to gain political/social power? If we all are from the common ancestor, why do we have so many different stories. If Adam and Eve were our original “parents”, why would they not spread just one religion? Did oral traditions change as people migrated?
4. As someone said earlier that we are given the chance to clear original sin caused by Adam and Eve, what does that mean? Are we forgiven for the original disobeying God? If Adam didnt eat the forbidden fruit, how would we be were we are today? He noticed he was naked, so obviously he developed some of his own thoughts and self thinking (feel free to correct me on this, just trying to clear some stuff up in my head).
5. Related to #4, if Adam never ate the fruit, would he have ever realized he was naked? Would it not seem like God would want his own creations having their own thoughts and the free choice we have.
6. Why does the Bible explain nothing of the creation of the universe? (or at least the parts I have read)

feedback greatly appreciated

1. There are so many different religions, because we are talking about thousands of years here. Adam and Eve believed in the one true God, but over the years what their descendents knew of Him became distorted, and people eventually began to worship many gods. With gossip, you can see how easily an oral story can change even over a short period of time! Another factor could be mental illness. People with mental problems can believe pretty strange things, and back then when people did not know much about God, and what little they did know was so distorted, they could probably be easily believed. You can see how religion *could *change, although all of this is guessing. There is no record of exactly how and when religions changed.
2. “Original sin” means that we are fallen, and lost sanctifying grace (this means God dwelling in our souls). We could never see God face to face in Heaven. This was why we needed Jesus to redeem us. Being “fallen” means it is easy for us to sin, and hard for us to do what is right. Yes, the whole world would be very different if it hadn’t been for Adam and Eve sinning, but God permitted them to sin, and has brought good out of it. Because Jesus redeemed us, we can be baptized and receive sanctifying grace.
3. Adam and Eve had free will (were able to choose between right and wrong) before they ate the fruit. Eating the fruit was obviously the wrong choice. Before they ate the fruit, they were actually freer and had stronger wills (the serpent lied to them). After they ate the fruit, they were ashamed because they were fallen, and more inclined to sin, including lust. God certainly did not want people to become fallen.
4. The Bible talks about God creating “the heavens” in Genesis which would include the universe. People in the days the Bible was written did not know much about outer space, and were probably not interested in much besides the earth.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Without wishing to get into the debate about evolution, genesis etc., I might just extrapolate a bit on this bit of my answer.

The first eleven chapters deal with creation, the fall, the spread of violence, the flood, the descendants of Noah, the tower of Babel and the dispersal of the human race.

First we still don’t know how the universe got here. The Big Bang, which might be called a sudden explosion of energy, seems to have more or less universal recognition amongst scientists. Substitute energy for “light” and Genesis fits in that regard.

Species give rise to the same species.

There is evidence of some sort of catastrophe ranging from massive fossil deposits, the sudden extinction of dinosaurs, to huge trees upside down in coal beds, to thousands of snap frozen mammoths.

There is the fact that whereever the European explorers went around the world, they found men already there, from the southern tip of Africa to the southern tip of South America, speaking thousands of different languages, yet many of them can be traced back to common origins. And all men are one species. One wonders why there was such a tremendous variation in languages if all men came from one stock.

There was the sudden rise of civilisations in different places such as Rome, China and the Aztecs in South America, largely disconnected from each other, each with advanced military, jewellery, and religious rites. Some quickly developed high levels of literary, philosophical and scientific sophistication.

In other words the “mythical” element of the first eleven chapters of Genesis does a pretty good job of describing things as they are.

Where is the evidence for a worldwide flood event?

 

[James_S_Saint]

“All ancient stories” have to be understood from an “ancient mindset” perspective. If any are viewed with a modern mindset, they appear as only fantasy. A mindset is not merely a belief in specific axioms, but more a unique construct of concepts. A modern mindset has a different construct of concepts from ancient mindsets. It is not a matter of which is right or wrong, but a matter of first truly understanding the concepts. This requires a translation of thoughts. What we call “life” today is not what they were thinking when they said “life” 6000 years ago in a totally different culture. What you think of as a god is not what they meant when they said “god” (or equivalent). As time passes, mindsets; constructs, language use, and common ideas change. Picking up something very old and trying to casually read it is deceiving yourself.

You can’t debate the truth of something if you don’t fully understand what was really being meant by what was being said. Why should people 6000 years ago state things in a way for you to understand rather than for their own children and those more immediately around them?

To be “naked”, in Scriptures, means that what part of you that you do not want to be seen, is being seen. The question you should be asking, is what did Eve do that caused them to have to hide a part of themselves and why? But more significantly, because they were trying to hide, what information got passed along was not intended to be easily understood by just anyone. Realize that you are “just anyone”, from whom they felt to hide a part of themselves.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“All ancient stories” have to be understood from an “ancient mindset” perspective. If any are viewed with a modern mindset, they appear as only fantasy. A mindset is not merely a belief in specific axioms, but more a unique construct of concepts. A modern mindset has a different construct of concepts from ancient mindsets. It is not a matter of which is right or wrong, but a matter of first truly understanding the concepts. This requires a translation of thoughts. What we call “life” today is not what they were thinking when they said “life” 6000 years ago in a totally different culture. What you think of as a god is not what they meant when they said “god” (or equivalent). As time passes, mindsets; constructs, language use, and common ideas change. Picking up something very old and trying to casually read it is deceiving yourself.

You can’t debate the truth of something if you don’t fully understand what was really being meant by what was being said. Why should people 6000 years ago state things in a way for you to understand rather than for their own children and those more immediately around them?

To be “naked”, in Scriptures, means that what part of you that you do not want to be seen, is being seen. The question you should be asking, is what did Eve do that caused them to have to hide a part of themselves and why? But more significantly, because they were trying to hide, what information got passed along was not intended to be easily understood by just anyone. Realize that you are “just anyone”, from whom they felt to hide a part of themselves.

Based on what you state here, would it be fair to say that this bible was not the best means of communicating to people his wishes and desires? Would you also agree that you are supporting a position of needing “special knowledge” in order to understand God?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Based on what you state here, would it be fair to say that this bible was not the best means of communicating to people his wishes and desires? Would you also agree that you are supporting a position of needing “special knowledge” in order to understand God?

“Was not”?? When is the “was” to which you refer?
“Is not”? Perhaps, but then if you do NOT use the Bible, no matter who you are, who is going to listen to you?

**Understanding **God is not what the Abramic faiths are about. It is only “special knowledge” to those who don’t have it or any use for it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“Was not”?? When is the “was” to which you refer?
“Is not”? Perhaps, but then if you do NOT use the Bible, no matter who you are, who is going to listen to you?

**Understanding **God is not what the Abramic faiths are about. It is only “special knowledge” to those who don’t have it or any use for it.

I’m not an evangelist so I don’t particulary get bothered about people listening to me or not listening to me. I have no orders to push my worldview on anyone, and find it an immoral practice in general. Re: bible. Was not, is not, highly improbable it can in the future be.

I agree understanding God can’t be what it’s about since that can not be done anyway.

How can you show use for it?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not an evangelist so I don’t particulary get bothered about people listening to me or not listening to me. I have no orders to push my worldview on anyone, and find it an immoral practice in general.

I once had that thought too, but shortly was given reason to accept otherwise.

Re: bible. Was not, is not, highly improbable it can in the future be.

If by that, you mean “not the best way to communicate”, I can very largely agree, but then the Scriptures are references. One can come to understand God without the Scriptures just like one can come to understand dialectics without studying Aristotle, but then how big is your brain such that you need no historical references whether they be totally accurate or not? Even if the Bible was completely false, it would still provide the service of contrast and comparison, not to mention the social effect of its example.

I agree understanding God can’t be what it’s about since that can not be done anyway.

I suggest to try not to be presumptuous when thinking about things that you have only obtained information about from those who never intended to understand in the first place. The atheist comically argues the existence of something defined to him only by those who never intended to understand exactly what they were talking about, but rather simply having faith in it. Scientism is no different. Very few atheists really understand real Science. Those who understand real Science don’t see Science having anything to do with God belief one way or another.

If you seek to understand God and go to the religions for such, you are looking in the wrong place. Of course, asking the atheists would be even worse since they only acquired their misunderstanding from the misunderstanding of the faithful who were not tasked with understanding, but allegiance (just as with Scientism).

How can you show use for it?

As stated above, it has its uses. But I do fear that it might be taken away entirely from all people due to how it is being used. When real, open, and honest Science finally got into how to destroy entire nations and even the planet, it was taken away from the public. The Bible is not quite the same, but when anything threatens the very existence of humanity, for whatever reason, it gains sufficient cause to be removed. Abuse it too much, and we WILL remove it entirely (“good book” or not).

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’ve obtained information from the catholic priest in personal one on one sessions. Would you still say my ways of obtaining information are flawed?

Edit to add: I do agree with you that everyone is running the risk of having the bible banned at the rate things are going.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’ve obtained information from the catholic priest in personal one on one sessions. Would you still say my ways of obtaining information are flawed?

A priest is a functionary. Do you go to the Social Security office and speak to the clerk in order to gain an understanding of civics and governing methodologies? You can gain information, but understanding is another matter entirely. Even if you were to speak directly to Obama, would you really be so foolish as to think that you were being given “understanding” rather than “persuasion” whether altruistically intended or not? ALL of the large religions are maned by their faithful, not their founders.

 

[StrawberryJam]

A priest is a functionary. Do you go to the Social Security office and speak to the clerk in order to gain an understanding of civics and governing methodologies? You can gain information, but understanding is another matter entirely. Even if you were to speak directly to Obama, would you really be so foolish as to think that you were being given “understanding” rather than “persuasion” whether altruistically intended or not? ALL of the large religions are maned by their faithful, not their founders.

I agree with that.

 

[Biggie]

I agree with that.

I disagree with that both in tone and substance. As to tone, to refer to the Catholic Church as being “manned” by its priests or to a priest as a functionary is too cute by half. In context, the use denies dignity to the function. In substance, the priest’s role in the Catholic faith should not be confused with the ministerial role of Protestant clerics. The priest stands in persona Christi in the sacraments, and the entire point of his ordination is to sanctify that role.