[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Myths are always at least loosely based off of reality. The Bible is (whether you wish to accept it or not) a myth. After all, mythology is a collection of stories that define the moral values of a culture that are not meant to be literal. The Bible is a set of stories that Christians and Jews use to define their sense of morality. Myths are most often not (well, never) literal representations of fact; that is not their purpose.[/QB]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... you do not know what the term mythology means. It has absolutely nothing to do with fairy tales. I guess I will have to repeat myself: mythology is a collection of tales that define the moral values of a culture. Hmm... the Bible is a collection of tales, which Jews and Christians essentially get their moral values from. Therefore, Bible = mythology.

The Odyssey was passed down as historical record. Does that make everything it says historical fact? No way. Most religious texts/tales were passed down as historical record. The Bible is nothing special in this regard. It has parts based on reality, and parts that are fictional, dramatized for effect.

I am quite aware of the definition of mythology. Myths do not necessarily define the morals of a culture. They explain cultural practices and natural phenomena. Morality may or may not be associated with them. You seem to be saying that the only moral basis of a culture (particularly an ancient one) is myth. This isn't so. The morality dictated within the bible was shaped by the conditions and leaders at the time. The leaders themselves were guided by religious beliefs though and perhaps that is something that you are not comfortable with.

Comparing the bible to the odyssey is just an attempt to minimise the bible, nothing more. The odyssey is a literary construct showing the heroes journey through a supernatural landscape that required the heroes to stab cyclops in the eye and resist the unnatural lures of the siren (IIRC). The more fantastical elements of the bible are, for the most part, limited to visions by various prophets and environmental effects attributed to god. Both of which are well within the realms of modern comprehension and acceptance.

Also, the bible (again, for the most part) is meant to be taken literally, and so does not really qualify as myth. Why did I have to qualify that? Because you have Take various scriptures in context. If prophet X tells his people about his vision it means that prophet X has literally had a vision and is acting upon it. It does not mean that the contents of said vision were walking around in biblical times.

Your implication that the bible is merely a collection of 'tales' minimizes any historical import that it may have and tries to force it into a Category of literature to which it does not belong.