Chaos?

[JanusThePaladin]

You're the first person, beyond myself, who I have ever heard refer to the Bible as Myth. Just because it seems like many around you see it as myth, that doesn't mean the majority do. In my opinion, alot of the Suikoden world is taken from ours, then distorted in a specific way. Then again, I could be reading into it to much. Regardless, you can't only go off the opinions of some specific people, you have to listen to as many as possible, and use very good, competent references before you start arguing a point. Unless you're expressing it as theory, which you are clearly not.

[son_michael]

Why does everyone swear up and down that the creation isnt litteral? did konami actually say there wasnt beings fighting or that they were just telling bull to entertain people

WHY CANT THERE ACTUALLY BE A SWORD AND SHIELD THAT WAS CREATED FROM ANOTHER ENTITY WHO WAS LONELY?!

WHY CANT SWORD AND SHIELD BE ACTUAL GODS WITH FANCY SHIRTS AND THE JEWELS TRANSFORM INTO THE 27 TRUE RUNES?!

THINGS ARENT SUPPOSED TO MAKE SENSE IN FICTION!

MY PERSONAL OPPINION IS THAT THE TRUE RUNES REPRESENT EMOTIONS AND DIFFERENT ABILITIES/POWERS IN SWORD AND SHIELD AND ALSO REPRESENT GOOD AND EVIL EXAMPLE ROP ATONEMENT/ FORGIVENESS AND BLUE MOON RUNE WITH COMPASSION AND BLOODLUST


ANYWAY WHY CANT YOU PEOPLE ACCEPT THAT THE CREATION IS TRUE!? UNLESS SOMEONE TELLS ME KONAMI STATES THAT ITS JUST A STORY AND DIDNT ACTUALLY HAPPEN IM GONNA BELIEVE IT DID! AND YOU ALL SHOULD 2!

for a more detailed look into my oppinion on the creation please look at the "my theory on the creation and 27 true runes" thread its in this plotline theorys section

[demon eye]

You're the first person, beyond myself, who I have ever heard refer to the Bible as Myth. Just because it seems like many around you see it as myth, that doesn't mean the majority do. In my opinion, alot of the Suikoden world is taken from ours, then distorted in a specific way. Then again, I could be reading into it to much. Regardless, you can't only go off the opinions of some specific people, you have to listen to as many as possible, and use very good, competent references before you start arguing a point. Unless you're expressing it as theory, which you are clearly not.

LOL. More Bible stuff, huh? First off, I didn't say the whole Bible was a myth. I specifically gave reference to the Old Testament of the Bible being referenced to as a myth. Also, I wouldn't give reference to 'people around me'. I stated that many prominent theologians refer to the Old Testament as a story containing myth. I could care less about a majority as I'm not trying to give an opinion poll or anything like that. I already stated that anyone can believe what they want to believe, but the fact is that many of the stories in the Old Testament of the Bible contain stories that can be seen as myth which try to explain a phenomena of some kind. I'm sure you read it and you would know the exact stories I'm referring to.

I'm not 'going off' of any opinion. I'm stating a view or perspective that has been widely held by many. Whether you want to accept it as reality or not is up to you. People can believe whatever they want and that is cool and copastetic to me. Do what you do, but don't tell me I have to listen to as many 'good' opinions and use very good competent references. You could not possibly know how many opinions or references I have received or listened to.

But, let me ask you a few questions. Where are your very good and competent references? What is the source of your argument? To what do you base your premise and conclusion? Where is the evidence supporting your position? You tell me not to go off on opinions of specific people, but you are in fact basing your argument on opinions and ideals of specific people. Your views and ideals come from others and you can choose what you will consider fact, but you use others ideas to come to a choice. So,am I to just go by what you say? I don't even disagree with you, but I'm stating something contrary to your belief, so should I just assume that you are correct when there is actual evidence behind my claims?

Fact, the only being that could know how the world began would be God and God alone. So, God would be the only good and competent reference not some human being. Hence, the story could have been convoluted and manipulated into the way that individual saw it, correct? There are thousands of creation stories in existence today. Which one should we believe and take as concrete? Hmm, I don't know, but one thing is for sure there is a reason why they are called the creation myths.

So, all that is left is conjecture, opinion and theoritizations and I'm not even suggesting that those theories are true. I'm telling you that it is fact that some believe the stories in the Old Testament of the Bible to be myths and that it is fact that some of those people are priests, reverends, deacons, bishops and other prominent theologians some of them being people I've associated with and many of them not being people I have associated with. So, you can take that any way you want, but remember it's not my opinion at all as I've stated many of times that you can believe whatever you want to believe and in whatever way that suits you best. So before you try to claim what I am 'clearly' not doing please try to understand what I'm actually stating.

I have in no way given my own opinion on the subject. I have stated, 'clearly', that many believe the story to be a myth. I have not stated what I believe the Old Testament's stories to be because it's not important for my argument because people should believe whatever they want to believe. I'm just stating to you that is fact that some people believe the Old Testament stories to be myth and some of those people are prominent theologians. So, you can take that any way you want to it matters to me not. Thus concludes anything else I will mention about the Bible in any way, shape or form because this is not the place to do so.

As for the statement by son_michael, you can take it literal if that suits you, but the fact is that even in the game they call the story a myth. Myths in nature aren't supposed to be taken literally. They are just stories meant to explain an unexplainable event.

You are correct that things aren't supposed to make sense. So, by all means, accept whatever you will, but I won't just accept anything and I won't say that creation story is wrong either. But, the characters in the game just call the story a myth. A myth is not meant to be taken as fact. If you want to believe the Sword became the sky and the Shield became the earth, then do so.

I, for one, will not stop you. But, like I said before, there is a reason why they call the story a myth. And Konami states many times in the game that the so-called creation story is a myth. So, believe what you want, but please don't tell people what they should do. People can believe whatever they choose to believe.

If you want the myth to be how things actually happened, then that is great as I'm positive the creators won't go back and actually show us what really happened so we will never know if it is true or not. So, we will just have to accept the myth as either true or false. Either way suits me fine, but once again, there's a reason why they call it a myth.

And True Runes could be seen as beyond good and evil. They govern particular aspects of the Suikoden World as representatives or symbols of a particular emotion or naturally occuring phenomena. Good and Evil is a moral platitude, the True Runes are beyond morality.

[son_michael]

Demon eye if Konami has indeed said its just a myth or if it I play 1 of the games and I find all the characters calling it a myth then I will believe its a myth

I have yet to play 2 so maybe thats where you find out its a myth

I like to think that sword and shield were in the actual form of human brothers and that the true runes are extensions of them in every aspect

ever notice how most runes have a shield attack and sword attack?

rop 3rd lv magic is sword just for an example

but hey either way thanks for the insight demon eye I hope I dont find any evidence that says its a myth

[demon eye]

How many times do I have to say it? Please believe whatever you want to believe. It won't scrape skin off of my back. And in Suikoden 3, Luc mentions it as a myth or was that Geddoe? I know the manga mentions it.

And, not every True Rune has an attack reminiscent of the Sword and Shield. Dragon Rune, Sovereign Rune, Beast Rune, True Wind Rune, True Fire Rune, True Water Rune and the Gate Rune (Pale Gate Rune is its lesser form) so far have not been shown to have anything similar to a sword or shield spell.

Also, I could include the Blue Moon Rune in that, as well. So, I don't see how 3 True Runes having a spell to do with the use of a 'sword' has any credible evidence. I'd think you would have emphasized the use of angels on the cursed True Runes for a more suitable argument as that is a lot more prevelant.

If anything, the True Runes are symbolic representations of motifs for a lack of a better word. Many represent a particular aspect of the known Suikoden World. The Bright Shield and Black Sword Runes are possibly symbols representing what could be thought of as the Sword and Shield.

[Viki]

First off please try not to include any religions in any topic.
Many people might believe in the Bible.

the opening sequence resembles much the story of Riou and Jowy.
When there's that face with the tear i think it's the war between Highland an Citystate this is because when u r crying either u're feeling sadness or anger, the war is the same. Form the tear two items were shown. These were the Sword and Shield, now this can mean 2 things:
1) the creation of the world and the 27 true runes or
2) the brightshield rune and the black blade rune.

Now i mixed them up together and thought sword and shield fight and bright shield rune and black blade runes had to fight each other, so till there they're both the same.
Now the sword and shield fight to see wther wich one is the best but both were good to destroy each other, the sword formed the sky and the shield formed the earth. Then there were 27 jewels which were the true runes.
The two aspects also have to fight each other in order to get one whole true rune. In order to to get the true rune is to sacrifice a friendship. Jowy and Riou couldn't fight each other.
That's the first difference that the sword and shield fought but the 2 aspects didn't and even if hey did fight each other the bright shield rune would have won.

There are many point of views to this i mean the rune of beginning does it mean it is really a rune that started the world of suiko.
Coz if the sword and shield are supposed to be the same as the black blade rune and the bright shield rune then they really don't match i'm not sure of this that's why i need some replies.

[Vincent of Scarlet Moon]

While I'm confident that the Sword and Shield myth is probably a metaphor for something more realistic (remember, something is up about the Suikoden world, it's only 1,000 years old, after all, this isn't a normal planet we're talking about) the general RPG rule seems to be that myths, legends and the like are generally mostly true.

So I wouldn't be so surprised if Sword and Shield ended up being two yet-to-be-revealed demi-god characters or something.

[Id]

I would be surprised.
The sword and shield myth is sued to explain how the true runes exist. Its like all creation myths. It's probably not literal.

[xXSqualleoNXx]

If I remember correctly the True Runes are supposed to be part of the Myth of Creation yet they exist too. Not many people know they exist because of the widespread belief of it being a Legend. I'm in the belief that the Myth of Creation in Suikoden might have at least a little to do with the real Creation of the Suikoden world. We have yet to see a Suikoden explaining religious beliefs. The more we have gotten was the Grassland Tribes and their Spirits, and Zexen and the Gods and main Goddess. Even then it was just a little thing to make the differences between the two nations more bigger.

[Agremsep]

Please people. It is only a game. It is only 1 volume out of 12 Old Books in the library at the HQ. The game creators just wanted to give us a slight hint on how the 27 True Runes were created/existed in the Suiko world.

Considering it as a myth, we can draw up whatever conclusions , whether it is about 2 actual weapons fight, 2 gods fighting, 2 characters, 2 elements or whatever it is, the MAIN POINT of this myth is to give us an idea on how the 27 True Runes came to be. That is the sole purpose of the creation of this book by the creators. That is all.

There is no point in relating to the Bible and later on drag the whole Bible itself into discussion about its stories and start proving this point and that or this fact and that fact and vice versa.

So I wouldn't be so surprised if Sword and Shield ended up being two yet-to-be-revealed demi-god characters or something.

The Beast Rune has its way to manifest itself into the real world as 3 Headed Demon Wolf.

[ReikenGaryu]

Yeah, as if the Bible isn't metaphorical. Sheesh.

[demon eye]

That's my point exactly. Everything is metaphorical. You can make the story into whatever you want it to mean. It's a personal thing. If you want the story to be exactly true then it can be true to you. The game just gave us something to ponder about.

[Optimus Prime]

Actually the Bible is rather historical in the Old Testament. We see the rise of many empires including the Egyptians, Persians, Assyirians, Babylonians, and even the Israelites as they strive to find an identity which can all be accepted by modern archeologists. Only in the latter New Testament does it become metaphorical, ie "A camel has an easier time going through the eye of a needle than a rich man's chances of getting into Heaven." Just a little FYI.