You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods? - The implications.
Creation myths (or any religious tales) were not made with natural processes as advocated by science in mind. These texts are more like poetry or even dreams, trying to make sense of what a human existence entails. They are humanity's attempt to express its own profundity.
I think that explanation may be a bit simplistic, a just so story...
Simplistic how? I certainly did not advocate them as mere stories. You can hardly find a better teacher than the bible when it comes to answering questions about human psychology. This is absolutely not diminishing its value, as the mind encapsulates all things.
Oral traditions are so far back in the mists of time, the amount of speculation required to explain them is on a par with any other explanation.
Religious tales however claim divine revelation and if that claim is true, the Revalator in this case, would have such knowledge and could layer it into the revealed narrative.
That I think would set such tales apart from oral myths as these would reflect other complexities.
Of tales which have survived through millennia, we can be sure as to their gravity. We strongly relate to them. Why else would they survive, reemerge or have the power to change one's convictions? Ever since speech first took place, the ideas within the stories and dreams we have conjured up have had to stand the test of time. Only the common themes among them; the most repeatable; relatable; and true (true from the human perspective) makes it to the end, written or not. These are so refined that their significance becomes religious.
To me, it matters little if the ideas we have come to call gods are found outside or inside the mind (is this distinction even possible?). They are equally true regardless.