Is all history mythology?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

As represented in the Bible, temple, etc?

Probably not Johnny, probably not.

So when President Hinckley said "Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race," he was what? Giving his opinion?

[Archaea]

Adam may have been a "calling" based on a selection of who would be designated as "first man". There are so many wonderful possibilities not normally considered by fundamentalists.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So when President Hinckley said "Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race," he was what? Giving his opinion?

You familiar with Sumerian Mythology?

It has many parallels and similarities to the Adam creation story and predates the written Adam and Eve story by 2000 years.

Creation, ground raising from the waters, women from ribs, curses after eating plants, naked man not really knowing what he was doing who was borne from the clay, all parts of Sumerian cosmology.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

You familiar with Sumerian Mythology?

It has many parallels and similarities to the Adam creation story and predates the written Adam and Eve story by 2000 years.

Creation, ground raising from the waters, women from ribs, curses after eating plants, naked man not really knowing what he was doing who was borne from the clay, all parts of Sumerian cosmology.

And the Sumerian's likely got it from somebody else. Who, in all likelihood, got it from somebody else. Who, in all likelihood, was Adam.

There are strong similarities between the founding myths of various societies. I'm reading Ovid's Metamorphoses, and he details the flood that Jupiter sent to earth to destroy the degenerate race of humanity, for example.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But at some point you have to use some jargon or nomenclature to distinguish between what is fanciful and what is arguably fact in the Bible, because this is an important even necessary distinction to be made.

I'm not sure if I understand perfectly. I certainly think there's merit in determining the historicity of particular events, if only to satisfy antiquarian curiosity, but it really doesn't matter much to me if certain fantastic or supernatural episodes in the Bible are "true" or factual. I have no way of determining if, for instance, a long ago people tried to build a tower to heaven in some type of pre-historic society. What does matter to me is those who believed this story and how it affected them and their actions.

But, if you're referring to the distinction between this type of supernatural story and the basic historical texts (e.g. Chronicles) that can be somewhat established chronologically and geographically, then sure.

What I'm interested in is how myth affects history. I don't really care if the myth is "true" or not. What matters is how historical persons interacted with their myths.

Is this the distinction you're making? If so, we're on the same page.

I wonder if knowing whether there was a real flood that covered the earth, a limited flood that covered the known earth, or an allegorical flood that never happened would really change people's religious beliefs all that much (other than their belief in the flood). I really don't know.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm not sure if I understand perfectly. I certainly think there's merit in determining the historicity of particular events, if only to satisfy antiquarian curiosity, but it really doesn't matter much to me if certain fantastic or supernatural episodes in the Bible are "true" or factual. I have no way of determining if, for instance, a long ago people tried to build a tower to heaven in some type of pre-historic society. What does matter to me is those who believed this story and how it affected them and their actions.

But, if you're referring to the distinction between this type of supernatural story and the basic historical texts (e.g. Chronicles) that can be somewhat established chronologically and geographically, then sure.

What I'm interested in is how myth affects history. I don't really care if the myth is "true" or not. What matters is how historical persons interacted with their myths.

Is this the distinction you're making? If so, we're on the same page.

I wonder if knowing whether there was a real flood that covered the earth, a limited flood that covered the known earth, or an allegorical flood that never happened would really change people's religious beliefs all that much (other than their belief in the flood). I really don't know.

The slope that believers fear is stating some things are simply allegorical, then belief is not real, just made up, manufactured. Disbelievers find joy in it because anything supernatural is necessarily untrue, not historical.

For example, because we do not empirically witness persons rising from the grave, the empiricist will declare, men do not resurrect. If the historian endeavors to determine if proof exists for this allegation, both the believer and disbeliever are disturbed. The believer doesn't want the core of his belief called into question, and the disbeliever doesn't want anybody to investigate anything which "obviously isn't true" because it can't withstand empirical standards.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The slope that believers fear is stating some things are simply allegorical, then belief is not real, just made up, manufactured. Disbelievers find joy in it because anything supernatural is necessarily untrue, not historical.

For example, because we do not empirically witness persons rising from the grave, the empiricist will declare, men do not resurrect. If the historian endeavors to determine if proof exists for this allegation, both the believer and disbeliever are disturbed. The believer doesn't want the core of his belief called into question, and the disbeliever doesn't want anybody to investigate anything which "obviously isn't true" because it can't withstand empirical standards.

Thanks for a good explanation.

I don't think this type of deadlock will ever be resolved. At some level, religious participation requires faith in supernatural forces that are just that - supernatural and unexplainable by natural laws. Let the believer believe and the rationalist doubt, but when they debate each other it's maddening since they're not applying the same rules and methods. It's like they're playing cards, but one side is playing blackjack and the other side bridge.

I'm always bothered by the literalist impulse I see in certain Christian sects (and many LDS I know). Today's believers are really hung up on 'fact' [the earthly realm] and not so much on 'truth' [the spiritual/philosophical realm]. These concepts are not identical.

As Plutarch put it, "It is silly to mix earth with heaven." (Life of Romulus 28)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Thanks for a good explanation.

I don't think this type of deadlock will ever be resolved. At some level, religious participation requires faith in supernatural forces that are just that - supernatural and unexplainable by natural laws. Let the believer believe and the rationalist doubt, but when they debate each other it's maddening since they're not applying the same rules and methods. It's like they're playing cards, but one side is playing blackjack and the other side bridge.

I'm always bothered by the literalist impulse I see in certain Christian sects (and many LDS I know). Today's believers are really hung up on 'fact' [the earthly realm] and not so much on 'truth' [the spiritual/philosophical realm]. These concepts are not identical.

As Plutarch put it, "It is silly to mix earth with heaven." (Life of Romulus 28)

And for some of the reasons declared by you, I choose to believe, even if it does not withstand pure empirical observation. When the doubts have me against the wall, after examining the balance of good and bad, I can either doubt it all and live accordingly, or believe it in part to an extent that I am benefitted.

So for that part, I choose faith for covering those things which appear contradictory or contrary to reason. It does not stand to reason that a man or God rose again, but in using it in my dialectic, I benefit. It is a good life, even if I believe in things which are not as I conceive them. So the myths, traditions and historical events of our ancestors benefit me today and hopefully in the future.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And for some of the reasons declared by you, I choose to believe, even if it does not withstand pure empirical observation. When the doubts have me against the wall, after examining the balance of good and bad, I can either doubt it all and live accordingly, or believe it in part to an extent that I am benefitted.

So for that part, I choose faith for covering those things which appear contradictory or contrary to reason. It does not stand to reason that a man or God rose again, but in using it in my dialectic, I benefit. It is a good life, even if I believe in things which are not as I conceive them. So the myths, traditions and historical events of our ancestors benefit me today and hopefully in the future.

Well stated. It is a good life.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm not sure if I understand perfectly. I certainly think there's merit in determining the historicity of particular events, if only to satisfy antiquarian curiosity, but it really doesn't matter much to me if certain fantastic or supernatural episodes in the Bible are "true" or factual. I have no way of determining if, for instance, a long ago people tried to build a tower to heaven in some type of pre-historic society. What does matter to me is those who believed this story and how it affected them and their actions.

But, if you're referring to the distinction between this type of supernatural story and the basic historical texts (e.g. Chronicles) that can be somewhat established chronologically and geographically, then sure.

What I'm interested in is how myth affects history. I don't really care if the myth is "true" or not. What matters is how historical persons interacted with their myths.

Is this the distinction you're making? If so, we're on the same page.

I wonder if knowing whether there was a real flood that covered the earth, a limited flood that covered the known earth, or an allegorical flood that never happened would really change people's religious beliefs all that much (other than their belief in the flood). I really don't know.

I agree with all you say here as far as it goes. Humans' need for myths and capacity for developing and refining them is I think as interesting as any subject. Beyond this, however, it's important, at least for me, to try to see within the gossamer shroud of myth and discern the factual source, mainly to better understand myself. Deconstructing the myth to both better understand human origins and the impact of the myths upon later peoples including ourselves. And in our age this is not a hopeless task. For example, understanding that the source of the King Arthur myth was probably a remnant of Roman nobility trying to hold back the tide of barbarism engulfing his homeland is enlightening and meaningful in its own right, and informs my understanding of my own culture. For me it's important to know that's what's behind the turreted castles, Lancelot, etc.