2006-06-26 05:03:37 · 26 answers · asked by Stammerman! 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
Some of you people should lighten up a bit.
2006-06-26 05:45:42 · update #1
The reason why I mention The Bible and not other religious texts is due to my being bought up in a Christian society. If you wish to apply the "Myths and Legend" tag to other religious texts go ahead and do it.
2006-06-26 07:14:48 · update #2
I must say that I agree with Vrixton P. Why should all people burn in Hell due to your stupidity....
2006-06-26 05:14:31 · answer #1 · answered by elmo0753 2 · 7⤊ 5⤋
No, because it is used as a religious text to a certain religion who is greatly put upon.
better yet:
Should we rename the Koran the book of Muslim Myths and Legends?
Should we rename the Upanishads the book of Hindu Myths and Legends"
Should we rename the US Constitution as the paper of Myths and Legends?
Should we rename the Book of Mormon the book of Mormon Myths and Legends?
If we do that for one religion, why not do it to the rest?
Is it because we hate Christians?
If we do, just leave them alone.
Either the Christians or the World is going to hell.
2006-06-26 05:09:27 · answer #2 · answered by Vrixton P 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sir William Ramsay, one of history's greatest archaeologists, devoted 25 years of his life to using archaeology to disprove, or at least discredit, the Bible book of the Acts of the Apostles which describes early Christianity. In the end his conclusion was that its writer, the doctor Luke, was among the first rank of historians and there was every reason to trust his record of events, events which formed the sequel to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Now if the Bible passes all the tests which we can reasonably apply, and if we're satisfied, on a purely factual and historical basis, that it's authentic and trustworthy, then surely now it's worth considering its claim to be God's communication to us. Near the end of the fourth Gospel we read:
'And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name'
( John 20:30-31)
Nowadays none of the original writings of the New Testament books and letters still exist. The same, of course, holds true for all ancient literature - the originals have long since gone. So it's worth asking: 'How do the people who study these things decide that ancient copies are trustworthy - things like Julius Caesar's reports of his Gallic Wars, for example?'
Two of the main things they do are work out how many copies there are in existence and then work out how big the gap in time is between the oldest copy and when the original would've been written. The more copies that exist, and the smaller the gap in time between the oldest copy and the original, then the more trustworthy the writings are reckoned to be. Take the case we've mentioned about Caesar's reports of his Gallic Wars. Today we have about ten copies and these date to about 1,000 years after his death. However, historians still believe them trustworthy. Now compare the evidence for the Bible record of Jesus. Thankfully lots of really old copies of what was written still survive - there are literally thousands of copies made from the original and dating back to only about 100 years after Christ's death. If any ancient record can be judged by these standards to be authentic and an accurate record of events, then it has just got to be the Bible in all that it has to tell us about the life of Jesus.
Apart from being the world's best seller year on year, the Bible is the most reliable document on the planet. It has been attacked and criticised for thousands of years, but has survived and thrives. No other document has been translated into more languages than the Bible.
The British and Foreign Bible Society produced biblical texts in 700 languages and dialects. This organisation also managed to distributed over 550 million copies of the Bible to people all over the world. The United Bible Societies was established in 1946 to improve cooperation between the various societies. It now has a worldwide fellowship of over 130 Bible Societies. By 2002 the bible in complete or partial form was available in 2,303 languages
2006-06-26 06:03:45 · answer #3 · answered by mikeoxley242 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They weren't historic Hebrew legends. They have been Sumerian and Canaanite legends that have been re-interpreted by employing the classic Israelites. you would be able to be certain some remnants of this interior the Bible. evaluate that the Israelites have been polytheistic up till the Babylonian exile. it is quite interior the Bible by way of fact the explanation why they lost Israel. The deities they have been worshiping (ie: Baal Hadad & Asherah) come from the Canaanites. think of roughly this for a 2d... evaluate the early books of the Bible that they might have had in historic Israel. Do you think of that they might study those books and say each thing grew to become into from Yahweh, then turn around and worship distinctive different deities? of course no longer. the unique Biblical texts experienced a redaction after the Babylonian exile, which coincided with the swap over to Rabbinical Judaism. It replaced those different deities roles, and made Yahweh their purely god. This made them a monotheistic faith. even with the incontrovertible fact that, you would be able to be certain the remnants as i discussed till now. case in point is Deuteronomy 32:8, and Psalms 80 two. In those cases, you spot El (who grew to become into the Canaanite father of the gods) pleasing his place by way of fact the administrative deity. In Psalms 80 two it easily talks concerning the divine assembly, which grew to become into on the middle of the Canaanite ideals. yet another occasion is El Shaddai. Shaddai possibly comes from the inspiration "shad", meaning breast. that could recommend "El Shaddai" should not be translated as "God Almighty". this might look to line up with the situation of El Shaddai. in case you seem on the cases whilst that call is used interior the Bible, very virtually each time it quite is giving a fertility blessing. Now think of of the statues of Asherah that they have got got here across all in excavations, interior the classic Israeli properties. a woman discern keeping great breasts. And Asherah grew to become right into a fertility goddess. See the relationship?
2016-12-09 01:49:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, because it is a true book. consider the writings of the historian, Josephus. he was a historian who lived at the same time as Jesus, and he wrote of Jesus. in fact, most of the people mentioned in the bible were recorded in secular history as well. should the bible be renamed Hebrew Myths and Legends? Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!! It is the inspired word of God, and i do not have the nerve to trifle.
2006-06-26 05:10:35 · answer #5 · answered by dude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I would prefer "Popular Middle-Eastern Myths and Legends, second edition" It should also come with a warning label, on the count of all the violence, rape, incest, slavery and sexist overtones found in it. Children really should not be exposed to that kind of material without understanding the barbaric and superstitious nature of the people who wrote it. I am not sure too many adults understand it but, it sure ain't for kids.
2006-06-26 05:11:15 · answer #6 · answered by happyharrytick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bible only means 'book' and refers to the place where it was first assembled, Biblos, and I think the Hebrews might be offended as they don't believe in the New Testament. I say leave well enough alone because it would only cause unnecessary drama. I see the point you're trying to make though.
2006-06-26 09:17:52 · answer #7 · answered by Aingeal 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because it's a religion and about half the world still believes in it. If we did that, not only would we disrespect Christians, we would have to rename the torah and all other religious books.
2006-06-26 05:09:35 · answer #8 · answered by pseudonym 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - why should it be renamed?
To Christians it is their holy book and so it would be extremely disrespectful to think you could just go around giving it whatever title took your fancy.
To those who don't believe, they already think it is just a collection of myths and legends, so no need to rename it for them.
2006-06-26 05:09:39 · answer #9 · answered by peggy*moo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is mythology in just about everything. If you pick up any encyclopedia or history book even published today it will not be totally accurate to even the recent past. Even newspapers print news mythology based on not pissing off sponsors and what will sell. However it is all based on something true and real. The idea for me at least, is to understand what that truth is.
2006-06-26 05:08:22 · answer #10 · answered by Fantasy Girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The word bible itself has no meaning other than this book. The name does not imply that it isn't myths and legends. Besides, bible is shorter.
2006-06-26 05:08:07 · answer #11 · answered by x 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋