Chris Weimer

Look at many of our own knowledgeable Christians. Roger Pearse has, as far as I know, always maintained that Genesis is metaphorical, and this belief is an ancient one.

Jayhawker Soule

No, but this fact renders the OP no less arrogant and childish in my opinion.

figuer

Why not? Why should hymns to gods lie outside the realm of mythology? Is there some kind of psychological block to the correct labelling of religious texts as mythology?

I have read the term in many places, and heard it used by university professors.

I don't see why non-Christians would have an issue with the term...unless they were still emotional tied to their old beliefs.

Chris Weimer

It's a misapplication of the term "mythology". The myths aren't the poems themselves. And besides, switching out the title for a general "Hindu mythology" is a) misleading, as "Hindu mythology" is far more encompassing than one representation, the Vedas, and b) denigrating, as instead of evaluating the Vedas for what they are, they're thrown aside with a mere label, an inaccurate one at that.

In what context? Referring to what? I seriously doubt that it was used to describe the Bible, for the simple fact is that the Bible is not mythology, any more than Ovid's Metamorphoses is not mythology. The Bible may contain mythology, such as the mythic origins account in Genesis, but there is no way that Proverbs can be considered "mythological", or the epistles of Paul. It's fatuous at best and seriously ignorant to lump everything together. Besides, it's not even very encompassing, as it leaves out works containing important myths such as Enoch, or various Christian legends of the Saints.

Magdlyn

Satan didn't fall.

Lucifer (the Light Bringer) was a Babylonian king.

Chris Weimer

Not only didn't Satan fall, but it wasn't even in Genesis. That story was in Genesis.

This is why we should let people ignorant of the stories decide what is mythology and what isn't. If you can't even understand the stories, how can you be confident that your assessment of myth or history is accurate or not?

figuer

I am well aware that the sections of Isaiah and Ezekiel usually referred to as "the fall of Satan" by Christians are actually about earthly kings. But the fact that the phrases like "covering Cherub" are used has led to the general interpretation that they are allegories about the fall of the Satan. It is a fact that this is the interpretation of many believers, thus it is an element of Judeo-Christian mythology.

figuer

Why should I let your narrow, sterile interpretation of things prevail? I understand the stories very well, both in their original context and in the contemporary Christian interpretation of them (this last being my main preoccupation). That a collection of mythological text contains also books of wisdom, worship, historical sections etc. does not invalidate that it has as a whole a mythological function.

Is Genesis not a myth? Is Exodus not a Myth? Joshua..Judges..? Are the Chronicles and Kings not filled with mythical and legendary subjects. Daniel? The Gospels are not a myth? The Pauline letters are not musings about the meaning of myths? Revelations is not a myth?

Chris Weimer

No, it's an ancient text.

Ditto.

Some of it, yes.

It's an apocalyptic text.

No.

No.

No. Perhaps you should re-educate yourself on what is a myth.

Magdlyn

Not sure about the "covering cherub" thing. What's that?

Yes, the idea that Satan is a fallen angel and that the shaytan of the Tanach was conflated with "Lucifer" and "Beelzebub" is a part of xian mythology is true. But it's not actually in the Bible. Would your proposed book explain that in the notes or something?