The role of myth in the bible

Wait, so you are saying that other flood myths corroborate the historicity of the bible account?

By your methodology and standards, it is 100% accurate. How can you refute that it is?

and no it doesnt make the movie 100% accurate, it just means that we are to choose between two options on what is the correct account.

we have the actual account, we have the movie.
both supported by the same evidence.
I dont care in which you choose to have FAITH

we have the bible we have other flood accounts.
both supported by the flood!

but we have the ark. so... I choose the bible account.

on the issue of plagues.
we have the account of the bible.
we have the plague papyrii... but no competing account.
so guess what I choose the bible.

we have the conquest of canaan we have the biblical account and no competing account.
guess what I choose?

and so on...

easy... going to the list of passengers and see there was no rose dawson

Those list are incorrect and cannot be trusted. I have the screenplay, and it's perfect. It says Rose Dawson was there, so why would I listen to any list that didn't have her on it?

arbitrary choice is it?

well at least now you see my point.

What actual account? The movie is the actual account. All the rest is just idiots trying to go against the movie. They are wholly unreliable and cannot be trusted because they are idiots who can't even stick to the perfect script.

btw... I must admit I love the way this conversation has developed.

there was actually an attempt or rather an experiment performed by great lawyers philosophers etc to see if it is really possible to prove truth.
their conclusion was that... it is not possible.

because they ran into the same arguements we have now.
one said "I have photographic evidence" the other said these can be photo shopped.
and eventually they ran into a dead end.

youre empty
so are you.

I saw your point a long time ago. I just don't agree with it because it sounds like my Titanic schtick.

your academia self admitted faulty chronologies the bible cant be right wishy washy no foundation whatever just the bible cant be right sort of argument... sounds like your titanic shtick to me.

As I Am... do you admit that we have reached a tied?

It has long been said in historical circles that history cannot be proved in the way that one can prove a math theorem. It is therefore better to speak of what is most probable, all things considered.

When you ask me to prove that the bible isn't historically accurate or literal, that is putting things the wrong way around, as it is the one making the positive claim who must support that claim, while the one challenging that claim merely has to demonstrate that the support is insufficient to carry the claim.

Should the tables turn and the focus shift to my positive claim that the bible was designed as a mythic construct, then it is incumbent upon me to marshall the evidence to demonstrate that it fits the accepted parameters for myth.

But before I can do so, since there is a long-standing notion of it being literal history, the first line in supporting my mythic stance is demonstrating how the literalist take is problematic.

Unfortunately, this same line of argumentation is one that others pushing specific claims I have no part of are also using to bolster their specific claims. Hence, since you are at odds with those making claims that are both religiously and politically at odds with your own, your war with them then includes me.

Although I don't support the literalist and absolutist claim, I do understand why it is defended with such vehemence. It is competing with other litearlist absolutist claims. I am the odd one out on this because I don't support any literalist or absolutist claims. I never accepted such and cannot imagine ever doing so because I see similarities underneath the surface differences that show me that it is all divergent expressions leading to the unified whole.

in my understanding (with believing with faith and believing I have the evidence that the bible is historically accurate) the crux goes back to monotheism vs paganism.

those who are against me would use the academia to support pagan ideas of humanism that essentially man is god.

and I cant accept this, because the way I see it, is that all pagan myths are rettelling of the bible story of the flood, triune godheads (Noah's sons) emenating from the one father (Noah)
but see, thats the problem the bible carries the message that no. the sons are NOT god, and Noah was not god.
man is not god. (snake - eat and you shall be as gods)

and we claim this because then we open the door to what academia tries to promote, babylonian humanism man is god which in turn opens the door to babylonian slavery, since sooner or later one person would be a nimrod and claim he is more divine than the rest and the rest are his slaves and viola we have slave empires - babylon egypt rome vatican nwo etc etc etc.

and also, this would be supported by moral relativism which says man can know what is ultimate good and what is ultimate evil... but hey, if thats true, then is abortion good? or it is just relatively good?
which is why I must fight for the idea that man cannot know ultimate good and evil, only G-d can, and since man is not G-d... we need to leave it to G-d to tell us what is eternally good and what is eternally evil.

but, I need truth to be ultimate, and not relative in order to build the argument for this, and taking the journey of the Jewish people through history to show that.
but... as you can see, you have forced me into a dead end, in which I cannot show truth is not relative.

but, allow myself a pat in the back, for I also forced you into a dead end.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 06:31 PM

I want to deeply apologize for all the mean shit and the inappropriate stuff I said.

I want to thank you for creating the opportunity allowing me to have an insight of experience to understand more deeply the issue of absolute/relative - good/bad truth/lie.

thank you, I genuinely feel this made me a lot smarter in my spiritual mystical journey, and that divine providence has ordained that we should have this discussion for this sake.
the insights you have gained... be whatever they are.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 06:42 PM

I would say that you might have forced me into a dead end if I was a proponent of any of the stuff you ascribed to what you see as the other side in your dynamic, but I do not. I am not a humanist or in any way share the idea that man is a god, at least as it is understood in the humanist or in the traditional way that Jews and Christians take it.

My reading of the fall is not the traditional one. But in it, I see the same overall notion of the loss of perfection and the ensuing bondage that is also represented in other traditions. Stripped of the surface differences, I see the deeper aspects of these traditions tilling the same field and expressing the core truth in various ways aligned with their history and culture.

In one sense, the deepest sense, we are all slaves to this vale of tears we are chained up in. But it is a case of false identification as to who we are and the mistaken notion of being separate from each other and from God.

no, remember, your argument was that the bible is not historically accurate.
in that regard I have forced you into a dead end.

excuse me, but this is exactly what I meant by saying you have no foundation.
you are basically relaying the core pagan teaching (that my bible fights against) that we cant know absolute truth and absolute lie.
and whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, this teaching leads to slavery.

and yes, I do admit, as I has many times over, that the bible like pagan myths, does teach spiritual mystical wisdom and that its purpose is to unify the whole world and free us from bondage as the Israelites were freed from bondage in egypt the sister of babylon, but the difference is that these pagan teachings argue no absolute truth and lie, and that man CAN know absolute good and evil (tree of knowledge of good and evil snake)

btw... a very wise Rabbi told me that eventually I will run into to this tie has we have now, when trying to debate the bible.
but he also said that no, it does not prove there is no absolute truth and absolute lie as the pagan academia people so want it to be so.
and the way to solve it and show the bible is true, historically accurate and spread its message and thus defeat babylon and its bondage, is by using something the academia and paganism doesnt have.
the physical people and their physical seed Israel, who are the witnesses of the bible.

but... I dont know how to use that tool, maybe someday I will learn.

oh, and thats why academia is obsessed with trying to delegetimize the physical Jews as the original Jews of the bible, thats why rome is obsessed with making Israel into a spiritual none physical nation and give it to christians who are not linked to the bible and cannot be its witnesses.
thats why the jesuits are obsessed with promoting lies among white europeans and afro americans that they are the real Israelites and Jews are impostors, as if to take away our levearage over them and our one ultimate proof that cannot be denied.
and this is why G-d has sworn to preserve the Jews forever!

but again... I still dont know how to use that tool.
consider yourself lucky

I accept your apology. I understand that it is both sensitive and sacred ground, so vehemence is often alchemized into anger.

The mystic is what it is all about, as I see it. I am happy that you have gained a deeper insight. Instead of a dead end, it could be an open door. I would say that the pairs you speak of, good and evil, truth and lie, good and bad are all part of the duality we inherited in the fall. They are largely defined by context. The only absolute I recognize is God.

do you think the purpose of something can serve as evidence for its truthfulness?

if you do, then I would invite you to examine the purpose of the bible in defeating these very slave empires (I mean look at our track record, babylon persia greece and only rome remains [metal image of nebudchadnatzers dream in Daniel 2] )
and bringing us back to paradise and show us G-d is one and his name is one (Zechariah 14) and undo the duality we inherited by eating of the fruit, and its poison - moral relativism over absolute truth and lie.
as you probably remember as I had said in your other thread that Adam and Eve traded the knowledge of absolute truth and lie in exechange for moral relativism.

but that makes me wonder, why would you use evidence collected by academia which is a branch of the vatican and its jesuits who ultimately want a babylonian slave empire so no wonder they would do everything in their power to disregard anything supporting the bible and promote anything agaisnt the bible.

but then you might claim I am reverse engineering (and then you understand where I am coming from when I said you were reverse engineering)


P.S, the pair of truth/lie is NOT an emanation of duality!
what is truthful and what is a lie can exist in a unified none dualistic existence.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 07:42 PM

Doc, there are some interesting and fruitful lines of inquiry in your post here. I would be happy to explore them, but in order to do so, I need you to stop lumping me in with all these others you speak of. Take me as I am, not as you think I am based on comparisons to others. That way we can explore where I am coming from instead of my having to argue against misplaced perceptions.

I am not arguing those pagan teachings you assign to me. But on one level, you are correct when you say I have no foundation. It's just not in the way you state it.

In short, I do not have a foundation. I am foundation. More accurately, I just am.

OMG I wish I had some weed right now...

yes you are you are.
but I am also I am I am.
if you were JUST I am.
then... I wouldnt be.

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

and also, I must continue to argue that absolute truth and lie do have a place in a unified none dualistic existence.

but if you are JUST you are

then you are JUST an observer, with no speech, you can only absorb but not emit.

whats preventing me from simply connecting you to my foundation.

have you seen the early seasons of south park?

the mad scientists midget friend that cant speak?
and kyle's picture of a frog doll (the titanic shtick)

allow me to repharse this.

in south park the mad sceintist's (maphesto) midget buddy, can only interact with things which are his foundations, but since he doesnt emit, maphesto uses these interactions to explain the findings of the midget friend as he pleases, right or wrong.

but... if you are JUST you are, you wouldnt be able to interact with anything that is not you (since you claim you are your foundation)

then how is you interact we with me?

obviously you are connected to a foundation that is not you, but surrounds us both and everything else that you interact with.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 08:47 PM

I dont know if you are starting to see this, but jesus and christianity is a roman "titanic schtick" against Judaism and our Messiah.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 08:45 PM

Doc, there is some great stuff here. It may take some weed to grok it.

When I say I just am, I mean it in the sense of just being and not being this or that. The first mistake, the fall if you will, is away from the I am into I am this or that.

But as we have this discussion, there's a limitation of language built in, so keep that in mind because as just as all metaphor falls apart at some point, of there wouldn't be a need for the metaphor in the first place, terms that mean one thing is one context, shift in the deeper or higher context.

Yes, I am and you are, but at the same time, I am and you are not. Me, neither. But I am all the same. While this sounds like bong bullshit, it's really the core and it's in the unpacking that it becomes clear. The key is identification. When you think of you over there reading this and me over here typing it, these are waves in the Sea. Waves rise and fall but the Sea is not affected.

I will elaborate tomorrow, but I have to go now.

I would say then... that the sea is your foundation, or perhaps this is a metaphor which would eventually collapse.

ok... good night.

Yes, I am the witness. Nothing is preventing you from connecting me to your foundation because I am your foundation. It will perhaps make more sense tomorrow. I just want to hit on these points before bouncing.

Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.



As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.

Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."



And He went away again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was baptizing at first, and there He stayed.

Then many came to Him and said, "John performed no sign, but all the things that John spoke about this Man were true."

And many believed in Him there.



Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him.

But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did.



Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;

for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

I don't interact with you. I witness interaction as it happens. I am not connected to a foundation. I am foundation. It doesn't exactly surround as much as everything rises within it and falls within it. But it just is and I am That. You are too. But not the you that is separate from the me as we, these apparent entities appear to be interacting.

There is only God.

You are clay.

He is The Potter.