rewriting the bible part 2 - exodus

[Aractus]

It has nothing to do with multiple authors or single authors. It has to do with the fact that Myths are an unconscious creation, whereas Fiction is a conscious creation.

What an absurd suggestion fobbed off as fact.  The only manner in which this statement could even make -sense- is if you were suggesting that myths were akin to auto-writing, which I'm pretty sure you're not, and it wouldn't be a difference with regards to other types of fiction in any case.  If you mean to say that the narratives presented in myth take form, to some extent, based upon the human subconscious.......then, again, that's not a difference with regards to any other subset of fiction (hell, even non-fiction in influenced by our subconscious, in the manner that we frame a story or, at a fundamental level, what we choose to tell stories about).   If you mean to say that a myth is different than a NYT police procedural, well, no shit.....but they aren't different in -any- sense of their fictive natures, or that they both express and arise from the authors subconscious mind, or that the author consciously chose the details of one narrative but not the other.

Perhaps you could find some other way to express what you mean here?

Here you are: .

Myths ARE metaphysical, and distinct from fiction. End of story. If you can't grasp this very simple concept then you clearly are not a critical thinker Rhythm. They have a completely different form and function to fiction, so I'll repeat myself: Fiction is a deliberately created work. Myths are an unconscious creation. And we know they have similarities to other unconscious beliefs or knowledge. For example a baby doesn't need to be taught how to suckle. It's pre-existing knowledge that serves a function. Mythology is similar but distinct - it's not purely pre-existing knowledge (although it could be based on it), but they are beliefs that distinct cultures and religions have developed nonetheless.

So let me put this straight: No single person or group of people decided to invent the Hebrew Patriarchs. They merely wrote down their beliefs.

[Drich]

Apparently you do not value truth and research as you pretend to..

Your research always seems to come from religious sources.  They start with a belief, and then throw anything in there (mostly lies and misinterpretations) to fit their belief and then hold it up as proof.  They can be easily dismissed as anti-intellectual and not real research.  

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"  --  after having thrown a flashlight in the trash.

Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a flash light.

Hey, sport...

Truth is Truth despite the source.

Do you know what small minds do when they can not refute the truth? They attack the messenger. When you see one side of an argument switch from the subject being discussed, to that person attack the messenger (Ad Hom attack) they can be identified as a 'limited thinker/small minded person."

My source that identified the Asiatics (in your post) as being Semitic speaking people was the Encyclopedia Britannica. Maybe you just too young to remember what the E/B was.. It was 'Google' before their was Google on everything science. Hardly a religious source.

And speaking of my sources I Rarly if EVER quote a religious source unless it specifically deals with a Religious topic and can not be honorably be sourced any other way.

So looks like your FAIL was complete.

[Drich]

This (your) whole mess/responce is one big Equivocation fallacy.

...

So again to be clear, because it is not February you can not or will not reason? Or maybe you didn't see the rest of the topic specific content that refuted each and every point you made.

If you did, then please explain how your meme addresses the counter argument i left you. Or are you like the 'good Dr Fuz" trying to attack the messenger rather than the message?

[RoadRunner79]

Once again if you want to add your own foot notes or even information go ahead.

There was a old story of how the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians and how moses lead his people to freedom. 
Let's get some things things clear. They were never in Egypt nor they were slaves in Egypt. And thus the story
is fiction. The stories themselves came about in the 8th and 5th centuries B.C.E respectively. It's mythical story
telling nothing more nothing less. 

That's  pretty much it for book 2 making that bible smaller one book at a time.

What is the basis for this conclusion?

[Minimalist]

They attack the messenger.

But you are such a shitty messenger, Dripshit.  You deserve it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here you are: .

Myths ARE metaphysical, and distinct from fiction. End of story. If you can't grasp this very simple concept then you clearly are not a critical thinker Rhythm. They have a completely different form and function to fiction, so I'll repeat myself: Fiction is a deliberately created work. Myths are an unconscious creation. And we know they have similarities to other unconscious beliefs or knowledge. For example a baby doesn't need to be taught how to suckle. It's pre-existing knowledge that serves a function. Mythology is similar but distinct - it's not purely pre-existing knowledge (although it could be based on it), but they are beliefs that distinct cultures and religions have developed nonetheless.

So let me put this straight: No single person or group of people decided to invent the Hebrew Patriarchs. They merely wrote down their beliefs.

Way to drop the ball on that link.  Random Internet Shaman thinks that myths are super duper important and different from fiction, not the least of which because they allow shamans to perform fucking miracles.....gee...I'm convinced..................?

Myths are fiction, being fiction that addresses the metaphysical doesn't make them any less so, and myths aren't the only type of fiction that address the metaphysical.  I'm not sure how you could decide that myth has a different form or function than fiction, as though there was only one form or function to myth -or- other works of fiction?  Different cultures have developed distinct narrative forms, this is true regardless of what sort of narrative they are telling.  A cop show in the US and a cop show in the UK are a bit different.  The bit about pre-existing knowledge was lunacy, you seemed to have realize it as soon as you wrote it.

No single person wrote the entire corpus of star wars fiction either, and peoples beliefs are writ very large in each and -every- one of them. I'm really still not sure what you're trying to say here. The things that people believed aren't any more or less fictive for having people believe in them. Some one, many someones, came up with the words spoken. That they put those words into the mouth of a character they may not have invented is no different than an author putting words in the mouth of Vader. That they may have hoped to convey a deeper message with those words or stories is, again, no different than the aspirations of the authors of countless other works of fiction.

Are myths different, sure..different than legends or police procedurals. Are myths different than fiction....wtf? It's like asking if house cats are different. Different than cougars, different than cheetahs. Still a bunch of felines.

[Aractus]

No single person wrote the entire corpus of star wars fiction either, and peoples beliefs are writ very large in each and -every- one of them.

That's not a bad example, but it doesn't come anywhere near close to approaching the attributes and complexities of mythology. Star Wars is a story that was invented by a single person, and then expanded upon. Fans and critics and subsequent writers, actors, directors, producers, then go on to put in their own input; but in different capacities. A writer and a director for example choose a deliberate path (or paths) for the story to take.

Why not talk Jurassic Park as there are two distinct branches that exist of that: the two books by the late Michael Crichton, and the four three two films. See for some people some films exist and are a part of the franchise and others are not. But also, knowing what we know today would have forged a different paradigm for the first Jurassic Park novel by Crichton. About that I have little doubt because Crichton was willing to contradict himself on the T-Rex's vision being based on movement in The Lost World: Yet Spielberg was not so willing to contradict the previous work. It's interesting.

We can look at other works. Dario Argento for example. Today he's a washed-up director, but he was once a great director - in fact the greatest director - in the giallo genre. Grappling with this concept is difficult. I know because I've seen some of his later works and I just don't understand where it all went horribly wrong. Paul Verhoeven - now he made some great films. Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers. Basic Instinct - a commercial success if not a critical one. But he also made Showgirls and Hollow Man.

All of this encompasses a broader understanding from the individual works themselves, but that doesn't make them mythological. Mythology is an anthropological concept, as well as a metaphysical one. Fiction is invented, and is some form of art or literature. Myths are more organic, they are not invented and have a metaphysical reality that fictional stories do not. It may seem difficult to grasp, but no one invented the Exodus story - it's organic. That's why, for example, the Pharaoh has no name, even though in a true historical story written down he should have a clear identity.

[The Grand Nudger]

All of this encompasses a broader understanding from the individual works themselves, but that doesn't make them mythological. Mythology is an anthropological concept, as well as a metaphysical one. Fiction is invented, and is some form of art or literature. Myths are more organic, they are not invented and have a metaphysical reality that fictional stories do not. It may seem difficult to grasp, but no one invented the Exodus story - it's organic. That's why, for example, the Pharaoh has no name, even though in a true historical story written down he should have a clear identity.

No one invented the "good guy saves the girl" narrative either, in that sense.  Any specific mythology is as invented (and inventive) as any other work of fiction, and is just as much a work of art, and literature.  The metaphysical reality of myth is no different than the metaphysical reality of any other work of fiction.  Take a look at our movies before and after 9/11.  

Tell me that no one chose to make pharoah, even in the abstract, the antagonist? Tell me that no one invented the plagues.  Tell me that no one invented the details of the story, such as they are.  Tell me that they're non-fiction? You can't, because you know better.

[Aractus]

You completely missed my point. The Pharaoh has no name because the Jews/proto-Jews with the mythology did not know who Moses interacted with. That's reflected in what is written down. They had a mythological belief in Moses, not Pharaoh. To them he must have interacted with "some Pharaoh", but it wasn't important who it was.

As myths grow the details are filled. Exodus was revised throughout the centuries, there's no way to go back to the original iteration of the work. We don't know for certain what was added by recension, though we have a good idea. Seemingly intricate detail does not mean it's fiction, it's reflective of what the writer felt/believed/added to the story.