Damn. Ya gotta be precise in this bunch. I should have said that
I get you now, Kent. Thanks for the explanation. If I'd read closer, I'd have seen that you said "regions" to begin with. Sorry to put you through so much typing!
*********************************************************

Evehybody seems to want to view the Bible as though it couldn't possibly have a simple, straightforward, historical meaning and context -- instead it's just a fantasy. They want the security that there is no Absolute, Unquestionable Truth - or Absolute, Unquestionable Falsehood and Deception that, even though fairly easily discernable with a child's conscience, bespeaks a burnden of personal responsibility. That way, one can more or less make it up as we go along. The Bible is important and inspiring to me from a spiritual standpoint, but I've also found it to be a treasure trove of colorful folklore. "Myth" I understand, is code for "I am intellectual enough not to be caught in the trap of being thought foolish enough to believe that any of the Bible text could be simple, straightforward, historically-based narrative. I suppose that in some circles, one could be burned at the stake for speaking of myth, folklore, and Bible in the same sentence. Of course, I've never met anyone who burned people at the stake -- but that's a really good way of framing the comment so that the total non-believers here know that a person who holds the Bible as myth and folklore is basically a harmless fuzzball who has more in common with them than they do with "the religious" who are foolish enough to believe the Bible as having any more veracity or authority than your average Archie comic book when push comes to shove. I think if people didn't dismiss the Bible's obvious, contextual meaning, they'd get a lot more out of it.

-John-