"Bill, what do you think of religious myth? Do you think they were intended to be accepted as factual representations of history ..."

Joe.. it depends on which ones. If they were originally presented AS myths, the answer is obvious... they must be assumed to carry some sort of message...using images & metaphor.

The problem is that many of the older ones 'feel like' they were either believed to be true at the start, or were so compelling that they soon moved into the category of 'almost truths', moderated only by interpretation & translation. I think this because of the reverence and stalwart defense put up when their relevance is questioned... or when artifacts are involved. As Steve indicates, myths which sound good are very often adopted AS truth & fact by the common people of any religion. It happens in Buddhism and certain trees are revered as somehow directly connected to the person. Christianity has many stories, artifacts & locations which have become icons and are defended as if they are fact, whether or not they were originally intended just as educational, inspirational myths.... and it is hard to tell the difference.... and church leaders often find treating them AS fact makes it easier to ....ummm.... herd the sheep. The "Master of the Sheepfold" needs a dedicated "hireling shepherd" to go out in the storm for one stray sheep.
I think that, if a religion is successful, the connection between myth & reality almost automatically assumes a path toward belief. You are, as you are probably aware, a fairly uncommon sort of Catholic in your ability to balance belief with metaphor. I;d with that, for practical reasons, there were more like you... but I suspect that most of the flock wants simpler answers.