I have been listening to and thinking about myth and how it works in our lives. I don't really care about myth, in one sense, because myth to me is not honesty, which is factual truth or based in the real world.....This is the problem with Scripture and its message, which I find to be unbelievable.
Some, though, believe that Scripture is the scribal attempts at re-construction or re-creation of life's encounters with literature, etc. But, here is where even describing history in this way is problematic. I will try to describe the problem, at least as I see it (for I am not a scholar).
(I will change the circumstances to protect the identities of those who I am writing about)
Some think that personal history is straightforward, but it is not. There is a real objective experience of a life (a fact, based in time, based on the objective), but that very life is still understood within many contexts (social, political, spiritual). This one life exchanged information about the "facts" and understood the "problem". The problem was interpretation.
In discussing this life, it was assessed that it had no "discipline" by one judgment, but by another's judgment, this life had only had "discipline". One based their interpretation on the facts of specific occurance of punishment. The other based their understanding upon the whole message or thrust given to that life. This interpretation was a more consuming, prevasive message of "disicpline", meaning, annihlation of life through invisibility. I am sure they both thought they were right in regards to this one life. Which one was right? It depends on what one understands discipline to mean and what life means, or should mean.
So, the problem of history is one of perspective, purpose, and meaning. These problems are historical, social and contextual problems, which means that language, culture and literature is everything....