Re: Something must change

James Taggart (
Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:25:00 -0400

Maybe I don't follow you here. There are different meanings of truth.
Aesop's fables are both true and fictional. The story is fictional, the
meaning of the story is true. Parts of the Bible (the parables at the
least) are also interpreted in the same way. The Lord of the Rings is
fictional but not true in that there is no inteneded "meaning" of the

BTW I think the genaeologies in the Old Testament are an artifact from the
oral tradition from which the Bible comes. They contribute to the New
Testament by providing a way to trace Jesus' lineage, but I'm not sure they
convey a lot of information to the Old Testament (I'm sure I'll get blasted
for saying that, away!)

"Glenn R. Morton" <> on 08/22/98 06:54:42 PM

As I have been thinking about my analogy in other notes with the Lord of
the Rings, would it make a lot of sense for an English teacher to tell his
class that the Lord of the Rings is "True but fictional"? How would a
student evaluate such a statement? To appeal to a Wittgensteinian type of
analysis, the 'true but fictional' phrase is a misuse of language. We
don't use those words in that manner EXCEPT when it comes to the Bible. We
Christians certainly don't use such language in relation to other religious
books, such as the Koran, the Bhagadvagitta, or the book of Mormon. Is the
Bhagadvagitta 'true but non-historical?'