[Chronon]

Since Fyron has left it lying on the ground, I suppose I will pick up the secular humanist banner and carry it for this discussion. Since it's late (almost midnight local time) I'll try to keep these brief.

1) In our modern scientific culture "myth" has a negative connotation of falsehood and superstition - thus the reluctance to associate myth with the Bible. I think Fyron has a a good point about this, though, and I don't think he was trying to be gratuitously dismissive. "Mythos," as defined by my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, is "The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people." I don't think that has negative connotations at all, and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

2) I think the Bible can be quite a useful historical document (if used correctly and not taken literally on all accounts), especially when corroborated with other sources. The information on the Hebrews and Philistines, for example (Saul, David, etc.) can be very useful in sorting out the history of the Ancient Near East. The Babylonian Captivity is another clearly historical event, as is Cyrus the Great's restoration of the Hebrews to Israel. I recognize, though, that using it as a historical tool is a completely different endeavor than using it for personal salvation (if one believes that is possible).

3) I think the question of reading the Bible literally has actually been quite a problem for theologians and scientists for quite some time. It certainly created tension between Galileo (arguing for a metaphorical reading) and his Jesuit enemies (arguing for a literal reading "the sun moves through the sky") - eventually resulting in his trial. On the other hand, such highly admired theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have urged caution in reading the Bible literally. For example, St. Augustine wrote, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians" De actis cum Felice Manicheo Or Saint Thomas Aquinas, "First, hold the truth of scripture without wavering. Second, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon if it proved with certainty to be false: lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers and obstacles be placed to their believing."

I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).