Books about Christian mythology for non-Christians?

[MelanieM]

Does anyone have a recommendation for a great kids book of Christian bible stories suitable for a non-Christian home? Is there anything out there that is similar to the D'Aulaires Book of Greek Myths with Christian content?

 

Basically I'd like to find something that doesn't speak to the reader as if s/he believes the story as fact, or necessarily worships the Christian God. Suggestions?

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

ETA: This is a fascinating thread, but if you don't want to wade through the entire thing to find the posts that actually answer this question, here they are:

 

Not that I've found. However, Geraldine McCaughrean's two Bible retellings come close: God's People and God's Kingdom. These are suitable for grammar stage children. Also, DK publishes two children's Bibles which include retellings, picture, maps, and plenty of contextual information and explanation: The Children's Illustrated Bible, and the Illustrated Family Bible. The first is probably a bit more suitable for younger children, though both are excellent. Be careful if ordering The Children's Illustrated Bible online... there are two editions of this; one is tiny and has near microscopic print. I've linked to the larger one. I'd also recommend Ancient Israelites and Their Neighbors, a project based book with plenty of background information.

 

I would recommend DK's The Children's Illustrated Bible.

 

(emphasis mine!)

 

This book tells the creation stories of far more than just Christianity, but my kids and I enjoyed "In The Beginning: Creation Stories from Around the World" by Virginia Hamilton. ISBN 0-15-238742-0

 

 

Hi, we just use an ordinary children's Bible. We also occasionally read from the KJV (for some special passages that tend to lose their poetic beauty when drastically simplified), and sometimes tell, rather than read, Biblical narratives.

 

That version has pretty easy language, especially in the stories.

 

Then either read:

Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Ruth, Esther, Matthew, Luke, and Acts

 

or get an old book that has the traditional one year lectionary in it (I suggest The Lutheran Hymnal, 1941, which contains suggested epistle and gospel readings for each Sunday of the year plus other feast days) and follow it for a year, reading in the NIV and also in the KJV to get the old language.

 

The first plan will expose your children to many of the most familiar stories in the Bible, without anything except the specific Bible words--no commentary. If you want a few more very well known passages that are not in stories, add Psalms 19, 23, 100, and 150, and Isaiah 1, 2, 9, 12, I Cor 13-15, and maybe Revelation 3:20.

 

The second plan will focus exclusively on the New Testament, but will expose your children to the most familiar NT passages in the English language.

 

 

We plan to use Old Testament for Teens from Prufrock Press. I have heard they have plans to release a New Testament version as well.

 

And here is a link to a one year lectionary (similar, if not pretty much identical, to the one Carol in Cal mentioned).

 

I like the DK style retellings by Selina Hastings. It covers most of the stories in the Bible, even the ones that are of people being foolish and having consequences, that often don't make it into the average Bible storybook (ex, David & Bathsheba, Baalam.) I think that these are lovely books that are well written and add a lot through the use of the sidebar photos and maps.

 

 

 

To answer the OP, we have the DK Children's Illustrated Bible and she's heard most of the major stories, as she has with the sacred stories of other religions. You will probably want to stick with a children's bible or book of stories rather than use the adult versions as, well, the adult version contains a lot of "adult" material. Some of the material regarding Abraham and his actions concerning his wife, for instance, in Genesis 12 and again in Genesis 20 are not something that I would want to necessarily discuss with my child until she is much older.

 

I think the easiest thing to do would be to buy an ICB (International Children's Bible - it's written at a 3rd grade reading level-like 12 bucks online) and just reading through Matthew. Matthew is FULL of famous bible stories - like Jesus walking on the water, John the Baptist, the census of King Herod, the Sermon on the Mount, the crucifixion, etc. It's not preachy or opinionated (if that worries you), it's just the ancient text written as a recording of events.

 

The back of the ICB has an index of all the famous stories like the Ten Commandments, etc. There are also little summaries at the top of each page to let you know what that page is talking about...so you can easily flip through to find a story.

 

 

I am a deist and have been looking for books to educate my kids on different religions. I have found a couple but have not received them yet - Sacred Myths: Stories of World Religions by Marilyn McFarlane and One World, Many Religions: The Ways We Worship by Mary Pope Osborne.

 

There is a series by Anita Ganeri - Christian Stories, Buddhist Stories etc - that we have enjoyed. They include some of the pivotal stories, plus some explanations of history, festivals etc.

 

As far as theology... why Christians believe what they believe and how the Bible all ties together, "Basic Christianity" by John Stott might be helpful.... but I haven't read it so I don't know how it is presented and it may be more "trying to convince you" than what you are looking for.

 

Melanie, Just a thought. I was looking for the same thing a while back and ended up with a different (and, in my case, better) solution. I asked my in-laws, who are Christian, to talk with my son. Now, my in-laws were teachers and knew what we were looking for - not evangelizing, but sharing...sharing some bible stories that are dear to their hearts. They told him (well, us) what and why they believed what they do...in an historical and personal context. It was done in a beautiful way. I will never forget it. And neither will my in-laws.

 

Now, my son is 13. He knows what we, his parents, believe. And now he knows what his grandparents believe. He is a better person because of it.

 

 

 

You might want to check out The Bible And It's Influence. Along with detailed discussion of the books of the Bible from beginning to end, it explains how these works influenced culture, art, politics, etc. I have to add that I have not held it in my hands yet, but I have heard good things about it from people I like. It appears to be a beautiful book as well.

Best wishes! :)

 

 

Click the little arrow at the top of a quote to go directly to that post.

Edited February 5, 2010 by MelanieM

[Satori]

I'd also love this! I was just going to post something similar (for all religions) on this board. I found Marduk the Mighty which covers several creation stories that we love.

[Julie in MN]

I personally vote for moving this to the general board.

 

I know you're looking for "books" technically. But surely you're aware that using the term "mythology" is insulting my intelligence and insinuating that I have no historical, scientific, or physical evidence for my beliefs.

 

Sorry, but I have strong opinions when you get down to the core of my being.

Julie

[TheCoffeeChick]

I personally vote for moving this to the general board.

 

I know you're looking for "books" technically. But surely you're aware that using the term "mythology" is insulting my intelligence and insinuating that I have no historical, scientific, or physical evidence for my beliefs.

 

Sorry, but I have strong opinions when you get down to the core of my being.

Julie

 

:iagree: I thought for sure the OP was a troll with a statement like that. :glare:

Edited February 3, 2010 by BramFam

[Kathleen in VA]

I personally vote for moving this to the general board.

 

I know you're looking for "books" technically. But surely you're aware that using the term "mythology" is insulting my intelligence and insinuating that I have no historical, scientific, or physical evidence for my beliefs.

 

Sorry, but I have strong opinions when you get down to the core of my being.

Julie

 

Yes, what she said.

[Spy Car]

I personally vote for moving this to the general board.

 

I know you're looking for "books" technically. But surely you're aware that using the term "mythology" is insulting my intelligence and insinuating that I have no historical, scientific, or physical evidence for my beliefs.

 

Sorry, but I have strong opinions when you get down to the core of my being.

Julie

 

Julie, I understand why you're upset if you are conflating the true meaning of the terms myth or mythology, as they have come to us though the Greek concept of mythos, with the vulgarized meaning in common usage that myth or mythology means falsehood or false story. But the latter usage is the corruption of an old and fine term, and you really ought not to be offended.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this as the definition of "myth":

 

"A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology*, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon."

 

*aetiology: 1. The assignment of a cause, the rendering of a reason; also, the reason annexed, the wherefore of a command or utterance.

 

On a "classical education forum" I believe we should not take offense in the terms myth or mythology being used in their classic sense.

 

Respectfully,

 

Bill

[abbeyej]

I think any number of Bible story books that don't include commentary could be used for your purposes. Most bookstores with a children's department will carry a small selection of these, and you can look for one with pictures and a reading level that would appeal to your kids. Dorling Kindersley publishes several that would work fine for you.

 

It really comes down to your presentation, whether these are "the mythology of another Religion" or "our sacred stories". As long as you just go for a basic retelling of the most interesting stories of the Bible, I think you'll be fine. Just avoid a Bible story book that includes additional devotions or commentary...

[nmoira]

 

Does anyone have a recommendation for a great kids book of Christian bible stories suitable for a non-Christian home? Is there anything out there that is similar to the D'Aulaires Book of Greek Myths with Christian content?

Not that I've found. However, Geraldine McCaughrean's two Bible retellings come close: God's People and God's Kingdom. These are suitable for grammar stage children. Also, DK publishes two children's Bibles which include retellings, picture, maps, and plenty of contextual information and explanation: The Children's Illustrated Bible, and the Illustrated Family Bible. The first is probably a bit more suitable for younger children, though both are excellent. Be careful if ordering The Children's Illustrated Bible online... there are two editions of this; one is tiny and has near microscopic print. I've linked to the larger one. I'd also recommend Ancient Israelites and Their Neighbors, a project based book with plenty of background information.

[forty-two]

Why can't you just use a children's Bible - consider it as a simplified primary source? I've not read the D'Aulaire book, but all the myth collections and simplified retellings of the Iliad/Odyssey/Aeneid I've read just tell the stories, with no commentary about their factualness or lack thereof. And there is no difference in presentation b/w my kids' Bible storybooks and all their other storybooks - I have to provide the real/fantasy context.

 

And yeah, I was a bit taken aback by the "Christian myth" wording. It is my understanding that the ancient Greeks/Romans didn't see their myths as factual - as having occurred in reality just as described in the myths, whereas Christians see the Bible as relating real, historical facts - not just stories that teach real truths.

[patchfire]

Not that I've found. However, Geraldine McCaughrean's two Bible retellings come close: God's People and God's Kingdom. These are suitable for grammar stage children.

 

These would be my recommendations. It's difficult to find material that treats the Bible respectfully yet not as literal truth.

[gandpsmommy]

I would recommend DK's The Children's Illustrated Bible.

[Saille]

I personally vote for moving this to the general board.

 

I know you're looking for "books" technically. But surely you're aware that using the term "mythology" is insulting my intelligence and insinuating that I have no historical, scientific, or physical evidence for my beliefs.

 

Sorry, but I have strong opinions when you get down to the core of my being.

Julie

 

Julie, within the last day a thread was posted that used the term "mythology" to address non-Christian stories about Gods and Goddesses. There are pantheists and polytheists on this board who might very well have had the same reaction you are having.

 

I'm good with Bill's definition.

 

It's not a book of stories, more of a curriculum with stories included, I think, but some folks on the boards have liked Timeless Themes to provide an introduction to Judeo-Christian tales.

[MelanieM]

I'd also love this! I was just going to post something similar (for all religions) on this board. I found Marduk the Mighty which covers several creation stories that we love.

 

Hiya Angela! (I used to run TBW; nice to connect with you here!) Thanks for that recommendation. I'll check if my library has it.

 

Julie, I understand why you're upset if you are conflating the true meaning of the terms myth or mythology, as they have come to us though the Greek concept of mythos, with the vulgarized meaning in common usage that myth or mythology means falsehood or false story. But the latter usage is the corruption of an old and fine term, and you really ought not to be offended.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this as the definition of "myth":

 

"A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology*, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon."

 

*aetiology: 1. The assignment of a cause, the rendering of a reason; also, the reason annexed, the wherefore of a command or utterance.

 

On a "classical education forum" I believe we should not take offense in the terms myth or mythology being used in their classic sense.

 

Respectfully,

 

Bill

 

Thank you, Bill! This, exactly.

 

Not that I've found. However, Geraldine McCaughrean's two Bible retellings come close: God's People and God's Kingdom. These are suitable for grammar stage children. Also, DK publishes two children's Bibles which include retellings, picture, maps, and plenty of contextual information and explanation: The Children's Illustrated Bible, and the Illustrated Family Bible. The first is probably a bit more suitable for younger children, though both are excellent. Be careful if ordering The Children's Illustrated Bible online... there are two editions of this; one is tiny and has near microscopic print. I've linked to the larger one. I'd also recommend Ancient Israelites and Their Neighbors, a project based book with plenty of background information.

 

Thank you! I just took a look inside at Amazon, and these all look amazing!

 

Why can't you just use a children's Bible - consider it as a simplified primary source?

 

Yes, I can absolutely do this. But there are so very many children's bibles out there that I'd prefer not to have to sort through them all to find one that fits my needs. Thus the thread asking for suggestions. ;) (As an aside... is bible meant to be capitalized? I wonder if I'm in error using a lower case 'b'.)

 

And yeah, I was a bit taken aback by the "Christian myth" wording. It is my understanding that the ancient Greeks/Romans didn't see their myths as factual - as having occurred in reality just as described in the myths, whereas Christians see the Bible as relating real, historical facts - not just stories that teach real truths.

 

Actually, I know Christians that do not view many Christian stories as fact, and I suspect that there were ancient Romans and Greeks who took their stories quite literally.

Edited February 3, 2010 by MelanieM

[hmschooling]

Originally Posted by Julie in MN

I personally vote for moving this to the general board.

 

I know you're looking for "books" technically. But surely you're aware that using the term "mythology" is insulting my intelligence and insinuating that I have no historical, scientific, or physical evidence for my beliefs.

 

Sorry, but I have strong opinions when you get down to the core of my being.

Julie

 

:iagree: I thought for sure the OP was a troll with a statement like that. :glare:

:iagree:

 

Ya know, it's not the denotation that matters, but the connotation. It's how a word is used today...and I agree that it bothers me that someone would call it Christian Mythology knowing that that's not typically a term used to describe Bible stories and it WILL offend people. I don't care how you define it, I wouldn't go around saying how gay I am or that you look queer with that hat on. I would say I'm happy and you look weird. (not saying you do! LOL) Even though those words have a different denotation than modern society's connotation, it doesn't make it okay to use them. Same thing IMHO. Bible Stories are Bible stories, not Christian myth. Sorry, I'm stepping off my soap box now.

[forty-two]

Yes, I can absolutely do this. But there are so very many children's bibles out there that I'd prefer not to have to sort through them all to find one that fits my needs. Thus the thread asking for suggestions. ;) (As an aside... is bible meant to be capitalized? I wonder if I'm in error using a lower case 'b'.)

Ok; I saw your op as wanting a book in which it explicitly said that the Bible stories were factually untrue, and I wasn't sure why that was necessary - as a children's Bible would accomplish the same thing (and be easier to find, to boot). As to Bible/bible, in general, I capitalize Bible when referring to the Judeo-Christian scriptures - it's THE Bible ;) - but not when referring to something as A bible - e.g. most sci-fi shows have a master reference of characters/events/backstory that they call the bible for their show.

 

Actually, I know Christians that do not view many Christian stories as fact, and I suspect that there were ancient Romans and Greeks who took their stories quite literally.

No argument that some Christians don't see some/all of the Bible as historical fact. As to the second, I'm genuinely curious. I got what I said - myths are true but not factual - from a Hellenistic pagan. When asked if he "really believed the Greek myths are true", he said he saw them as allegories - that they embodied and taught real truth about the gods and about morality, but weren't necessarily historically factual. He implied that was the way educated pagans had always considered them, even (especially) in ancient Greece.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

Ya know, it's not the denotation that matters, but the connotation. It's how a word is used today...and I agree that it bothers me that someone would call it Christian Mythology knowing that that's not typically a term used to describe Bible stories and it WILL offend people. I don't care how you define it, I wouldn't go around saying how gay I am or that you look queer with that hat on. I would say I'm happy and you look weird. (not saying you do! LOL) Even though those words have a different denotation than modern society's connotation, it doesn't make it okay to use them. Same thing IMHO. Bible Stories are Bible stories, not Christian myth. Sorry, I'm stepping off my soap box now.

 

I hate to sidetrack a thread, but it simply not so that the term "Christian Mythology" doesn't have legitimate currency in our language.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology

 

"Myth" and "Mythology" are a neutral terms, and ones that do not imply a story is either true or false.

 

To object to the phrase "Christian Mythology" on the basis that some people (who don't know what the word means and use it wrongly to mean "false" or "falsehood") means that when the phrase Greek Mythology or Hindu Mythology or Norse Mythology or the Mythology of an other peoples is used that we are to read the meaning as "Greek Falsehoods", "Hindu Falsehoods" etc.

 

Is that acceptable usage? I think not.

 

Bill

Edited February 3, 2010 by Spy Car

[MelanieM]

 

Ya know, it's not the denotation that matters, but the connotation. It's how a word is used today...and I agree that it bothers me that someone would call it Christian Mythology knowing that that's not typically a term used to describe Bible stories and it WILL offend people. I don't care how you define it, I wouldn't go around saying how gay I am or that you look queer with that hat on. I would say I'm happy and you look weird. (not saying you do! LOL) Even though those words have a different denotation than modern society's connotation, it doesn't make it okay to use them. Same thing IMHO. Bible Stories are Bible stories, not Christian myth. Sorry, I'm stepping off my soap box now.

 

I understand what you're trying to say. (Though I don't think the examples compare.) However, I probably do a hundred things a day that would offend someone. I'm not going out of my way to upset people, but nor am I going to go out of my way to modify my thoughts and beliefs so that no one anywhere is ever offended by my behaviour.

 

I am a pantheist, and I have a great deal of respect for the religious stories of cultures from around the world. I see no more problem with the term Christian mythology than I do Greek mythology. Either the word is acceptable when used to describe stories from a culture or religion, or it isn't. I can understand an argument that says it is not an ok term used to describe someone's religious beliefs across the board (I wouldn't agree with that, as I feel the definition fits, but I could understand it), but I'm not sure why it should be ok in one instance and not another.

 

Obviously people have a right to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by. But I don't know that it is just to accuse someone of intentionally offensive behaviour simply because they are *properly* using a word in a way that you find displeasing.

Edited February 3, 2010 by MelanieM

[pageta]

I would recommend DK's The Children's Illustrated Bible.

 

Yes, that is what I was going to recommend. I would compare it to the Usborne Illustrated History Encyclopedia. The have pictures of historical artifacts, places over where the stories supposedly took place (like the Sea of Galilee, which is a real place), and examples of foods and crops and such that are discussed in the stories. My kids really enjoy it.

[Saille]

:iagree:

 

Ya know, it's not the denotation that matters, but the connotation. It's how a word is used today...and I agree that it bothers me that someone would call it Christian Mythology knowing that that's not typically a term used to describe Bible stories and it WILL offend people. I don't care how you define it, I wouldn't go around saying how gay I am or that you look queer with that hat on. I would say I'm happy and you look weird. (not saying you do! LOL) Even though those words have a different denotation than modern society's connotation, it doesn't make it okay to use them. Same thing IMHO. Bible Stories are Bible stories, not Christian myth. Sorry, I'm stepping off my soap box now.

 

I don't think those are really parallel examples. "Mythology" is not a slur in the same way that "gay" and "queer" are sometimes used as slurs. It doesn't have a negative societal connotation; it had a negative connotation to some Christians who read it.

 

I must admit that I am frustrated at the strong reaction posted upthread. One can believe very strongly that one has discovered the absolute truth, but that does not mean that everyone else is going to come to the same conclusion. As they say, "Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you". It is every bit as legitimate for someone to refer to Biblical tales as mythology as it is to refer to Greco-Roman deity tales that way.

 

I don't have a problem with strong opinions. However, there are almost 15,000 members of this community. We're all going to be confronted with people who believe differently than we do. To have a gut reaction that others should give way...I don't think that's reasonable.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Saille

[MelanieM]

Ok; I saw your op as wanting a book in which it explicitly said that the Bible stories were factually untrue, and I wasn't sure why that was necessary - as a children's Bible would accomplish the same thing (and be easier to find, to boot). As to Bible/bible, in general, I capitalize Bible when referring to the Judeo-Christian scriptures - it's THE Bible ;) - but not when referring to something as A bible - e.g. most sci-fi shows have a master reference of characters/events/backstory that they call the bible for their show.

 

 

Ah. No, I don't want a book that says "here's a story, but it's not true". That would be as bad (to me) as the alternative! I just want a book of stories that doesn't imply the information is factual. Basically, as someone said above, a book without the commentary (either way) would be great!

 

And thanks for your thoughts on Bible/bible. :)

 

No argument that some Christians don't see some/all of the Bible as historical fact. As to the second, I'm genuinely curious. I got what I said - myths are true but not factual - from a Hellenistic pagan. When asked if he "really believed the Greek myths are true", he said he saw them as allegories - that they embodied and taught real truth about the gods and about morality, but weren't necessarily historically factual. He implied that was the way educated pagans had always considered them, even (especially) in ancient Greece.

 

I've not read anything indepth on this subject, but if the way people are today regarding their religious views is any indication, I would suspect having two camps on this front is pretty common. And I imagine that the "educated" people would get into a whole lot of trouble trying to tell the "uneducated" people that they believe what they believe because they simply aren't educated enough to know otherwise. (Ack! I can only imagine that conversation, then or now.)

 

I hate to sidetrack a thread, but it simply not so that the term "Christian Mythology" doesn't have legitimate currency in our language.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology

 

"Myth" and "Mythology" are a neutral terms, and ones that do not imply a story is either true or false.

 

To object to the phrase "Christian Mythology" on the basis that some people (who don't know what the word means and use it wrongly to mean "false" or "falsehood") means that when the phrase Greek Mythology or Hindu Mythology or Norse Mythology or the Mythology of an other peoples is used that were are to read the meaning as "Greek Falsehoods", "Hindu Falsehoods" etc.

 

Is that acceptable usage? I think not.

 

Bill

 

YES! This is what I was trying to get at above. (I was cross-posting with you Bill, and should have just waited!) Either it's ok, or it isn't. But why in the world would someone believe it is not acceptable for their own beliefs and then use the term to describe the beliefs of other cultures?

[Jyniffrec]

Demi (an author) would be a good choice for saint stories. I don't believe she is Christian.

[LittleIzumi]

I hate to sidetrack a thread, but it simply not so that the term "Christian Mythology" doesn't have legitimate currency in our language.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology

 

"Myth" and "Mythology" are a neutral terms, and ones that do not imply a story is either true or false.

 

 

Bill

 

Despite its actual meaning, "myth" is used quite often nowadays to mean a falsehood. Just think about MythBusters--not creation story busters--perpetuated but false story busters. I can completely understand calling it "Christian mythology" esp from a non-Christian point of view, but I also understand why people are getting upset about it. The current connotation is what jumps to people's minds, not the technical definition. :)

 

I'd just go for a children's Bible/Bible stories, myself. It's hard to get more basic than that! We use this one ourselves.

Edited February 3, 2010 by LittleIzumi

[Saille]

Despite its actual meaning, "myth" is used quite often nowadays to mean a falsehood. Just think about MythBusters--not creation story busters--perpetuated but false story busters. I can completely understand calling it "Christian mythology" esp from a non-Christian point of view, but I also understand why people are getting upset about it. The current connotation is what jumps to people's minds, not the technical definition.

 

I see what you're saying. That's kind of my point. Why is it OK for someone to get hacked off on this thread and not on the other?

 

On the thread I'm referencing, someone (without ill intent, AFAIK), referred to Greco-Roman religious beliefs as "crazy". And no one freaked out, she was just gently reminded that her words might offend certain members of the board. And that was it.

 

So this is really standing out to me as the other end of the reaction scale. I understand the poster's feelings, but I'm feeling cynical about the tone of entitlement in the post.

[Allearia]

Thanks for this thread. We have been looking for something similar. We heard a lot of Christian stories in the Story of the World, and from a couple of Jim Weiss CDs.

[Spy Car]

Despite its actual meaning, "myth" is used quite often nowadays to mean a falsehood. Just think about MythBusters--not creation story busters--perpetuated but false story busters. I can completely understand calling it "Christian mythology" esp from a non-Christian point of view, but I also understand why people are getting upset about it. The current connotation is what jumps to people's minds, not the technical definition. :)

 

 

I won't argue that the term myth hasn't been vulgarized by reality-show producers (and others) it has. But the fact remains there is a long tradition of scholastic use that continues to this day, and that usage is the correct use.

 

I'd assume as community of people interested in Classical Education we would use terms like Myth and Mythology in their proper classical meaning and context, and not let our standards be lowered to those of the barbarians.

 

You gotta have hope :D

 

Bill

[MelanieM]

I'd just go for a children's Bible/Bible stories, myself. It's hard to get more basic than that! We use this one ourselves.

 

Thank you for the link! I'm sure this is a lovely book, but please allow me to use this example to illustrate why any random children's bible won't do for us...

 

The first line in the introduction: "This book will help you read and understand some of the stories from the New Testament. These stories are taken from a book that is sacred. As you read these stories, remember they are about real people who lived long ago." (emphasis mine) This is not what we believe across the board, and so I don't want a book that suggests this to my kids.

 

Then, if you move on to the first story, you'll see a lot of references to "we". I really don't want something that talks about how "we" believe this or that, because in my home, we don't. This is actually the type of thing that is hardest to avoid as a non-Christian dealing with books written for Christians.

 

So, these are the types of things that would make a suggestion a poor choice for a non-Christian home. I know you were simply pointing out what you're using and didn't actually suggest this book for me, but I'm using it to illustrate why it's difficult to just go choose any book of bible stories for children and be done with it.

[Daisy]

I'm a Christian and I'm not seeing the big deal. I don't expect everyone on this board to believe the same way I do. I call the Jakarta Tales, Indian mythology, others might believe them to be something more than that.

 

Offense is something we choose. Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. Prov 19:11

 

Extending grace to someone using the term mythology does not lessen our (the christian's) belief in the veracity of Scripture. I prefer to assume people aren't out to tick me off.

 

DK would have been my suggestion but it has already been suggested. :)

Edited February 3, 2010 by Daisy

[forty-two]

I hate to sidetrack a thread, but it simply not so that the term "Christian Mythology" doesn't have legitimate currency in our language.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology

 

"Myth" and "Mythology" are a neutral terms, and ones that do not imply a story is either true or false.

To be fair, the site you linked to said that the early Christian apostles deliberately resisted referring to Christian narratives as myths, because of the association with pagan sacred stories, and in fact pioneered the usage of myth=falsehood - in Scripture, no less. After nearly two millenia of usage, I think that using myth to mean falsehood can safely be considered a legitimate use of the word, and not just a johnny-come-lately misappropriation.

 

As well, that site indicates that on the whole most Christians throughout the past two millenia did NOT consider "Christian mythology" to be a legitimate concept, and in fact most people who do - with some notable exceptions - consider those Christian myths to be historically false. It may be a legitimate usage in academia, but per that link, it has very little traction in Christianity as a whole, either historically or presently.

 

To object to the phrase "Christian Mythology" on the basis that some people (who don't know what the word means and use it wrongly to mean "false" or "falsehood") means that when the phrase Greek Mythology or Hindu Mythology or Norse Mythology or the Mythology of an other peoples is used that we are to read the meaning as "Greek Falsehoods", "Hindu Falsehoods" etc.

 

Is that acceptable usage? I think not.

 

Bill

 

YES! This is what I was trying to get at above. (I was cross-posting with you Bill, and should have just waited!) Either it's ok, or it isn't. But why in the world would someone believe it is not acceptable for their own beliefs and then use the term to describe the beliefs of other cultures?

That's why I've been trying to clarify whether myths, in the sacred story sense, are generally considered *by those who hold them sacred* to be both philosophically true AND factually true, or just philosophically true.

 

The Hellenistic reconstructionist pagan I referenced before, who is my only source of info thus far, indicated that the Greek myths were considered - both in ancient Greece and by modern Hellenistic pagans - as philosophically true, but factually false. Sort of like Jesus' parables in the Bible - He conveyed real Truth through those stories, but the stories themselves weren't actual fact, but were a made-up example.

 

But most Christians see the stories of the Bible as not just conveying philosophical truth, but as also being historically true. This historicity is quite central to the beliefs and doctrine of most Christian denominations.

 

So if "myth" *does* just mean philosophically true, and can be historically false *in the eyes of those who believe and value those myths*, then that could explain a lot of the apparent double standard - Christians consider their sacred stories *differently* than the cultures whose sacred stories are commonly referred to as myths consider(ed) their stories. And so it is legitimate that Christians would feel it is important to maintain the distinction.

[forty-two]

That's why I've been trying to clarify whether myths, in the sacred story sense, are generally considered *by those who hold them sacred* to be both philosophically true AND factually true, or just philosophically true.

<snip>

But most Christians see the stories of the Bible as not just conveying philosophical truth, but as also being historically true. This historicity is quite central to the beliefs and doctrine of most Christian denominations.

 

C.S. Lewis seems to support the idea that myths in general are thought to just be philosophically true - when he talks about Christianity being "True Myth", he doesn't mean that in the sense that the pagan myths had no philosophical truth to convey, but that the Christian mythology is also *historically* true. The "True" part of Lewis' True Myth refers exclusively to *historical fact*; the "Myth" part covers the claims to philosophical truth.

[Jen+4dc]

I'm a Christian and I'm not seeing the big deal. I don't expect everyone on this board to believe the same way I do. I call the Jakarta Tales, Indian mythology, others might believe them to be something more than that.

 

Offense is something we choose. Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. Prov 19:11

 

Extending grace to someone using the term mythology does not lessen our (the christian's) belief in the veracity of Scripture. I prefer to assume people aren't out to tick me off.

 

DK would have been my suggestion but it has already been suggested. :)

(emphasis mine!)

 

:iagree: I know there used to be at least one woman on these boards who said she worshipped Zeus, there are certainly people in the world who consider the "myths" from India and China to be historically true. Why should I care what people call my stories? I know they are true, I'm teaching my children that they are true and I hope they will come to that knowledge and belief and testimony for themselves.

 

I think this got blown way out of proportion.

 

In reference to the OP's original question: This book tells the creation stories of far more than just Christianity, but my kids and I enjoyed "In The Beginning: Creation Stories from Around the World" by Virginia Hamilton. ISBN 0-15-238742-0

 

It just tells the stories without any commentary. At the beginning of the book is a section entitled "A Note from the Author" where she says,

 

"Narratives in this book are stories called myths. THey are about a god or gods, about superhuman beings, animals, plants, and about the first people onthe earth. They are truth to the people who believe in them and live by them. They give the people guidance and spiritual strength....Myth stories present themselves as truth and as accounts ofactual facts no matter how different these facts or truths may be from our ordinary, "real" experience. There are myths that are sacred or religious. And in all of them, there is the feeling that the unusual or divine events are inevitable."

 

She says a lot more but I think that gives you the idea. The stories are then told in each chapter without commentary on their truthfulness or lack thereof.

 

HTH

[Spy Car]

To be fair, the site you linked to said that the early Christian apostles deliberately resisted referring to Christian narratives as myths, because of the association with pagan sacred stories, and in fact pioneered the usage of myth=falsehood - in Scripture, no less. After nearly two millenia of usage, I think that using myth to mean falsehood can safely be considered a legitimate use of the word, and not just a johnny-come-lately misappropriation.

 

As well, that site indicates that on the whole most Christians throughout the past two millenia did NOT consider "Christian mythology" to be a legitimate concept, and in fact most people who do - with some notable exceptions - consider those Christian myths to be historically false. It may be a legitimate usage in academia, but per that link, it has very little traction in Christianity as a whole, either historically or presently.

 

The term does have significant traction in academic circles. I'm very much in sympathy with the words of Catholic priest and scholar Andrew Greeley who is quoted in the Wikipedia article:

 

"Many Christians have objected to my use of this word [myth] even when I define it specifically. They are terrified by a word which may even have a slight suggestion of fantasy. However, my usage is the one that is common among historians of religion, literary critics, and social scientists. It is a valuable and helpful usage; there is no other word which conveys what these scholarly traditions mean when they refer to myth. The Christian would be well advised to get over his fear of the word and appreciate how important a tool it can be for understanding the content of his faith."

 

Further, I'm not surprised some early Christians objected to their sacred stories being lumped into any sort of classification with Greek or Roman sacred stories, just as I'm sure there were Romans and Greeks who were affronted that the Christian or Hebrew stories would be compared with their own.

 

Belief that ones own sacred stories are true, and everyone elses are false, is not a new tendency in human affairs.

 

Still we have a scholastic term of long and well-established importance that I'd hate to lose because some would claim their scared stories are exclusively true and everyone else's are false. The scholastic "classical" use of the term is wholly neutral.

 

That's why I've been trying to clarify whether myths, in the sacred story sense, are generally considered *by those who hold them sacred* to be both philosophically true AND factually true, or just philosophically true.

 

The Hellenistic reconstructionist pagan I referenced before, who is my only source of info thus far, indicated that the Greek myths were considered - both in ancient Greece and by modern Hellenistic pagans - as philosophically true, but factually false. Sort of like Jesus' parables in the Bible - He conveyed real Truth through those stories, but the stories themselves weren't actual fact, but were a made-up example.

 

My understanding (which is not the last word) is that like those who have religious beliefs in our own society some Hellenists believed their myths were historically true, others who believed they contained "truths" that weren't necessarily historical. And that there were people who didn't believe any of it.

 

But most Christians see the stories of the Bible as not just conveying philosophical truth, but as also being historically true. This historicity is quite central to the beliefs and doctrine of most Christian denominations.

 

Except this isn't true. More than half the world's Christians belong to denominations that look to scared stories such as Genesis and find "mythic" not strictly "historical" truth in the creation account.

 

There are obviously fundamentalist/literalists who strongly feel other-wise, but in world-wide numbers those are in the minority in their affiliations.

 

So if "myth" *does* just mean philosophically true, and can be historically false *in the eyes of those who believe and value those myths*, then that could explain a lot of the apparent double standard - Christians consider their sacred stories *differently* than the cultures whose sacred stories are commonly referred to as myths consider(ed) their stories. And so it is legitimate that Christians would feel it is important to maintain the distinction.

 

Not necessarily, as I have shown. And why corrupt a scholastically useful term because some want to claim all beliefs, other than their own, are false?

 

Bill

Edited February 4, 2010 by Spy Car

[Miss Sherry]

:iagree:

 

Ya know, it's not the denotation that matters, but the connotation. It's how a word is used today...and I agree that it bothers me that someone would call it Christian Mythology knowing that that's not typically a term used to describe Bible stories and it WILL offend people. I don't care how you define it, I wouldn't go around saying how gay I am or that you look queer with that hat on. I would say I'm happy and you look weird. (not saying you do! LOL) Even though those words have a different denotation than modern society's connotation, it doesn't make it okay to use them. Same thing IMHO. Bible Stories are Bible stories, not Christian myth. Sorry, I'm stepping off my soap box now.

 

I agree with this , hmschooling.

Considering how inflammatory the original post was to a lot of people, not just maybe 1 or 2, people responding have been very civil. But not because the first post wasn't rude.

[IsabelC]

Hi, we just use an ordinary children's Bible. We also occasionally read from the KJV (for some special passages that tend to lose their poetic beauty when drastically simplified), and sometimes tell, rather than read, Biblical narratives. I haven't really found the need for an explicitly 'non-Christian' version: we just avoid anything specifically designed to bring children to Christianity (sorry if that's a woolly kind of expression, just trying to put it in a way that is non confrontational). The kids don't really make much distinction between the great stories of the Bible and those of Greek mythology (or Grimms Fairy Tales, for that matter: they love 'em all!), although they are aware that some people believe the Bible to be true. Obviously we will endeavor to give them some understanding of religion later on, but at this age they just don't really get it.

 

ETA - I have just reread the OP and can't for the life of me see how it could possibly be construed as offensive. (Unless it has been edited?) Surely we shouldn't all feel obliged to write under the assumption that others will misunderstand words? It reminds me of the David Howard incident (he got in trouble for using the word niggardly because some people who were unaware of its etymology mistook it for a racist comment).

Edited February 4, 2010 by Hotdrink

[prairie rose]

I don't care how you define it, I wouldn't go around saying how gay I am or that you look queer with that hat on. I would say I'm happy and you look weird. (not saying you do! LOL)

 

So does that mean that my MIL, who is British, and uses the word queer quite often to describe something strange or unusual or gay to describe something happy or joyous, is in the wrong? I even use these words, particularly around my dh's British relatives but because I use them often with them, they also slip into my everyday vocabulary from time to time. No one has had a problem understanding that I'm using the word in the traditional sense and not the pop culture sense. Many words have multiple definitions, why would it be inappropriate to use a definition other than the first one listed in the dictionary as long as it is used in the proper context?

 

I am an atheist and I do put Bible stories in the same category as Greek and Indian myths. I believe all the stories are worth hearing and learning to be well learned and relevant. For instance I want my kids to know what "food of the gods" is and what it means to be "facing Goliath" but I don't teach any of the stories as truths. I find it funny actually that I could anger someone with that information. Why would it make someone else anger that I don't believe what they believe? I don't get it. Sue me. :tongue_smilie:

 

I agree with this has been blown way out of proportion. I tell my kids daily that no one can make you mad. You can choose to be mad but they cannot make you mad because you are in control of your own emotions. I also find it amusing that some Christians will beat down every other religion in the world as untrue but if you even hint that the stories in the Bible may well be just stories, you will be dragged over the coals. :tongue_smilie:

 

OP: Even though we are atheist, I have a Bible and a Children's story Bible. I just discuss with the kids as we read the stories what we believe just as anyone else would. So far, it's not caused any problems or confusion in our house. ;)

[prairie rose]

I agree with this , hmschooling.

Considering how inflammatory the original post was to a lot of people, not just maybe 1 or 2, people responding have been very civil. But not because the first post wasn't rude.

 

If it's rude to consider Christian stories myth, why is acceptable to consider Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian and other stories myths? Is it because most of the people who believed these stories to be true are dead? I'm really curious now...if calling someone's stories myths is rude, is this true in all cases? Or just Christian stories? :bigear:

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with this , hmschooling.

Considering how inflammatory the original post was to a lot of people, not just maybe 1 or 2, people responding have been very civil. But not because the first post wasn't rude.

 

I'm a Christian and I didn't find the OP to be offensive, rude or inflammatory. It's one thing to believe your religion is the one true religion, it's another thing to insist people of other religions treat it that way. THAT is ethnocentric and offensive.

[PollyOR]

I'm surprised by the reaction to the original post. Yes, this board is diverse. Some of my favorite posters have been run away from the Hive due to threads like this one. I hope it doesn't happen again!

[IsabelC]

If it's rude to consider Christian stories myth, why is acceptable to consider Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian and other stories myths?

 

Probably because there are more Christian people than people of any other (or no) religious group active on this forum. ;) (Although, to be fair, many Christian members do not appear to have any problem with the fact that not everybody holds their beliefs.)

[Carol in Cal.]

Thank you for the link! I'm sure this is a lovely book, but please allow me to use this example to illustrate why any random children's bible won't do for us...

 

The first line in the introduction: "This book will help you read and understand some of the stories from the New Testament. These stories are taken from a book that is sacred. As you read these stories, remember they are about real people who lived long ago." (emphasis mine) This is not what we believe across the board, and so I don't want a book that suggests this to my kids.

 

Then, if you move on to the first story, you'll see a lot of references to "we". I really don't want something that talks about how "we" believe this or that, because in my home, we don't. This is actually the type of thing that is hardest to avoid as a non-Christian dealing with books written for Christians.

 

So, these are the types of things that would make a suggestion a poor choice for a non-Christian home. I know you were simply pointing out what you're using and didn't actually suggest this book for me, but I'm using it to illustrate why it's difficult to just go choose any book of bible stories for children and be done with it.

 

That version has pretty easy language, especially in the stories.

 

Then either read:

Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Ruth, Esther, Matthew, Luke, and Acts

 

or get an old book that has the traditional one year lectionary in it (I suggest The Lutheran Hymnal, 1941, which contains suggested epistle and gospel readings for each Sunday of the year plus other feast days) and follow it for a year, reading in the NIV and also in the KJV to get the old language.

 

The first plan will expose your children to many of the most familiar stories in the Bible, without anything except the specific Bible words--no commentary. If you want a few more very well known passages that are not in stories, add Psalms 19, 23, 100, and 150, and Isaiah 1, 2, 9, 12, I Cor 13-15, and maybe Revelation 3:20.

 

The second plan will focus exclusively on the New Testament, but will expose your children to the most familiar NT passages in the English language.

 

Really, if you don't want commentary, this is the way to do it. I have looked at a lot of children's Bible story books, and they all have a slant. The slants are quite different from each other, but they are definitely there in all of them.

[smrtmama]

We probably aren't introducing anything more than a basic framework of the more culturally relevant stories until middle school. The kids know who the central figures of Christian mythology are, but we won't delve into the larger sociocultural ramifications until the next pass through history. We did the same with other mythology -- they know the most important gods/goddesses and a few stories, but not the particulars of the forms of worship or the things done in the names of the various religions.

 

We plan to use Old Testament for Teens from Prufrock Press. I have heard they have plans to release a New Testament version as well.

[forty-two]

That version has pretty easy language, especially in the stories.

 

Then either read:

Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Ruth, Esther, Matthew, Luke, and Acts

 

or get an old book that has the traditional one year lectionary in it (I suggest The Lutheran Hymnal, 1941, which contains suggested epistle and gospel readings for each Sunday of the year plus other feast days) and follow it for a year, reading in the NIV and also in the KJV to get the old language.

 

The first plan will expose your children to many of the most familiar stories in the Bible, without anything except the specific Bible words--no commentary. If you want a few more very well known passages that are not in stories, add Psalms 19, 23, 100, and 150, and Isaiah 1, 2, 9, 12, I Cor 13-15, and maybe Revelation 3:20.

 

The second plan will focus exclusively on the New Testament, but will expose your children to the most familiar NT passages in the English language.

 

Really, if you don't want commentary, this is the way to do it. I have looked at a lot of children's Bible story books, and they all have a slant. The slants are quite different from each other, but they are definitely there in all of them.

:iagree: And here is a link to a one year lectionary (similar, if not pretty much identical, to the one Carol in Cal mentioned).

[Carol in Cal.]

I agree with this , hmschooling.

Considering how inflammatory the original post was to a lot of people, not just maybe 1 or 2, people responding have been very civil. But not because the first post wasn't rude.

 

You know, I've been thinking about why that is.

 

And I guess for one thing, I think of mythology as quite old and untrue, and the Bible as living and true. And I do recognize, obviously, that that is not everyone's point of view, particularly not that of the original poster.

 

However, it's unreasonable to ask about versions of Bible stories, which is a question that is MOST likely to be answered by Christians, in such a way as to insult the beliefs of most of the people that you're going to end up talking with. And using the word 'myth' does just that--it insults the beliefs of those who believe these stories to be both sacred and true. And, yes, there is an less commonly used definition of the word 'myth' that is not so insulting, but it's not in common parlance, and is not the most obvious meaning of the word in context.

 

A better way to make this request would be to ask for resources that tell Bible stories but don't teach them as necessarily true. This is because the term "Bible stories" is in common use everywhere, and doesn't imply the truthfulness or not of the stories themselves.

 

As a Christian, if I were asking about another faith, I would be especially careful to do so respectfully. And I appreciate it when others show my faith the same kind of respect.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Carol in Cal.

[Mom-ninja.]

nmoira, thanks for all the links. Amazon thanks you too. ;)

 

 

 

For all those offended....imagine yourself in the shoes of a non-Christian. Plenty of opportunity to let yourself feel offended, I can assure you.

 

I remember one thread of someone asking for a different forum because all the non-Christians posting here made her feel "dirty". Nice, wouldn't you say?

 

If you can't say Christian Mythology then you can't say (FIll in blank) Mythology either. Respect should be mutual.

[Haiku]

I can completely understand calling it "Christian mythology" esp from a non-Christian point of view, but I also understand why people are getting upset about it.

 

Do Christians (here and elsewhere) understand how they routinely belittle other people's beliefs with their One True God references and the like? Something (could it be expereince?) tells me that most Christians don't care that they are casting aspersions at other faiths, but when someone dares to inadvertently do it to Christianity, watch out!!

 

Tara

Edited February 4, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator
punctuation

[Mrs Mungo]

As a Christian, if I were asking about another faith, I would be especially careful to do so respectfully. And I appreciate it when others show my taith the same kind of respect.

 

Religious mythology is a term of extremely common use. Look up Hindu Mythology, you'll come up with tons of sites. Even SOTW implies Hinduism is a dead religion (pg 225, "The people of ancient India worshipped Shiva, Ganga and many other gods."). But it's not a dead, ancient religion. It's a religion with over 900 million adherents.

[Carol in Cal.]

Do Christians (here and elsewhere) understand how they routinely belittle other people's beliefs with their One True God references and the like? Something (could it be expereince?) tells me that most Christians don't care that they are casting aspersions at other faiths, but when someone dares to inadvertently do it to Christianity, watch out!!

 

Tara

 

When someone says something that is clearly directed to other Christians, they should be polite, but they can also express their mutual beliefs I think. Or to other pagans, or Jews, or Muslims, or Hindus or to whatever other faith that applies.

 

But if someone approaches the broad group or approaches people of another faith, specifically, that is a time to be extra careful about making those pesky assumptions or casting broad aspersions.

 

I am tempted to make an analogous example to illustrate this, but I just can't bring myself to do it. I don't think it would be polite.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am tempted to make an analogous example to illustrate this, but I just can't bring myself to do it. I don't think it would be polite.

 

I think this thread was analogous. A few people pointed out this issue in a nice manner, but nobody took serious offense.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Haiku]

When someone says something that is clearly directed to other Christians, they should be polite, but they can also express their mutual beliefs I think.

 

Do you honestly think this kind of talk is limited to Christians amongst themselves?

 

Tara

[IsabelC]

Given OP was asking for sec/non-xtian resources, the thread was hardly directed at xtians!

[Carol in Cal.]

Do you honestly think this kind of talk is limited to Christians amongst themselves?

 

Tara

 

But when it's not, I tend to object to it myself, unless there has been a clear request from a non-Christian to a Christian to clarify their own beliefs.