The role of myth in the bible

That does not excuse your evil.

I must say... I am utterly confused, and perhaps I am not wise enough to understand what we are talking about.
or perhaps there is room for clarification on your part.

anyway, I understand we would continue this tomorrow.

ok, good night, As I Am

That bold part, with a bit of tweaking on minor points, is something upon which I can stand firmly in accord. This is our common ground, despite our differences, and for me, ultimately those differences fade into insignificance. So if your way is via the bible as an instrument, I'm all good with that.

So our common ground is the return out of duality to the primal pureness of the garden. While you may see this as an earthly event or realm, I am more of the above and beyond temporal existence model. But your model of ushering in a golden age is one that finds expression in many traditions though the details vary. I'm sure you won't be surprised that I regard all that as a mythic or symbolic expression of that which is above and beyond this existence.

Perhaps it's a matter of seeming conflicting terms resolving with further explication, but for me, once you enter "pair" into the mix, this is an emanation away from the nondual. So as I see it, truth/lie is still in the realm of duality, the realm of opposites. But ultimately, all tags of language cannot convey the Truth, so within the realm of the finger pointing to the moon, as the phrase goes, I would say truth is what is and lie is what is not. Truth is Reality, lie is illusion.

The whole business with the vatican and jesuits and all the nwo stuff is a tangle we'll probably never get straightened out. As I see it, these folks, along with their counterparts in the masons and that subset of jews (the bankster bunch)who are all wrapped up in earthly dominance, which I'm taking you to designate as babylon, well, these folks are always going to be hustling and tussling and stabbing each other in the back with a smile as they do that do they do so ill. Unfortunately, they seem part of the package and have been there in some for for the duration.

I am not willing to cast all academe into their flesh pots as you are, but I am surely not naive enough to think that there aren't many coopted and corrupt academics in service of these powermongering fucks.

I do my best to skip over their bullshit, which usually manifests in their interpretations and conclusions. I just look at the evidence itself and take while leaving the rest for others to argue about. It's like walking into a room and seeing two kids standing over a broken lamp and pointing fingers at each other saying the other one did it.
I just note that the lamp is broken and take that concrete evidence and go on my way. The stories or theories will shift and be refined, but the busted lamp will always be the key. I may not know the truth of the tales, but I can see that the lamp is busted and so the only stories I reject out of hand are the ones telling me the lamp isn't really broken.

As this relates to the bible, you, by virtue of being squat in the middle of the political clusterfuck and theological food fight as a matter of survival and identity, the historicity is part of the purpose you speak of--it's a vital aspect in the battle. For the sake of argument, let us say it is just as you say. Ok, but for me, that is still part of the mythic function. It's the interpretation of that history which is most valuable, not the actual events themselves.

It's the power and purpose within the interpretation that ignite that history, and to me, that's the domain of myth. So when I say it's a mythic construction, in no way an I denigrating it or reducing it, at least in my eyes, but I understand how it can be taken that way by anyone who is standing by the exclusivity claims. Still, I don't buy anybody's exclusivity claims because I can see the same truths being tucked into the narratives of the both the OT and the NT, as well as the scriptures of other traditions.

I'm sure there is room for clarification because I was rushing to get those last few posts off before I had to leave. I'll just put a few things you said yesterday and see if elaborating on them helps.

there must be some foundation for both of us to be.

The confusion may come in with my saying I am foundation. If this is taken to mean me speaking from egoic consciousness, then it is patently untrue that "I" isn't the foundation of anything but illusion. It is illusory from top to bottom, a product of the fall.

While all traditions recognize this fall, it is expressed in different ways. The Abrahamic faiths speak of it as sin, while it is seen as ignorance in the east. But express it how you will, it's the same result, a sense of separation from the Source.

But although for most, this separation seems to be a me down here and He up there somewhere, that doesn't account for His omnipresence. He ain't up there. He's right here, with us always and ever. So in that sense He is the foundation.

And now it seems we tread into the realm of blasphemy and the big lie by the snake because if I say I am foundation, it sounds on the surface that I am saying I am a god. But I am not saying that, because the fallen man, the egoic self, the unsaved sinner, however you want to put it, will never ever be a god. This is where the evil folk you refer to as babylon, those so-called humanists and the like always fail and will always fail. It matters not how much power or treasure they amass, how much magick they master, or how jacked into their transhumanist jacking off and upload themselves from carbon-based to silicon-based virtual reality or whatever their sad dreams are. They are fully fucked on that score, for having eaten the fruit, they will surely die.