[ QUOTE ]
No offense taken Jack, whether you take me seriously or not doesn't affect me much. I never stated my belief or interpretation as golden, just what I am under the belief is the most widely accepted as opposed to one of the later adapted fringe translations. If you believe you can't "correct" mythology then you should tell the vatican theologians they are out of a job, as their existence is purely to read and re-read translations to determine accurate translations and then make alterations to such, thus determining Vatican Law. It's very similar to what our Congress does in fact by trying to determine what was intended and what was not purely upon speculation, in the constitution a document written by people they have never met or known. Or perhaps the scientists who still debate over theories of gravity and Evolution and things even far more widely accepted. These are non-absolutes that are "corrected" and "restated" even though they have no tangible proof of reality to be based upon in the first place. So the idea that one cannot correct something in incorrect, because to do so is our very human nature, especially that of an analytical or logical mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm... I hate to jump in, (I admit I have no knowledge of Greek mythology,) but did you just compare scientists refining theories and experimenting to your own selective interperation of Greek mythology?
Okay, well, anyways, let's talk about correcting. All the examples you cited have written sources. Judges may interpret the Constitution, but they're still basing it off the Constitution. Theologians may debate over translations and meanings of the Christian Gospels, but they still have actual written Gospels to base it off of.
And scientists... they have experiments. Sorry, but scientists do base their theories (explanation of natural phenomenom supported by experiments) on either observation, experimentation, or mathematical models. Sure, they might be wrong, but all those theories of natural selection and gravity? Well, Newton definitely had the math for some of his gravity postulates, and Darwin did take meticulous notes to support the idea of adaptation.
But that's all tangent. Here's my point. You claim to be "correcting" a mythology. One, you can't claim to know the original, so that's out of the question.
Two, as Jack said, its a MYTHOLOGY! You can't correct it!
"A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes."
"A body of traditional beliefs and notions accumulated about a particular subject."
You can't say, (especially to a dead religion and culture and people), "Oh, your beliefs need to be corrected! That story you believe in isn't right!" Well, you can, be you'd be trying to convert them to your ideas. Besides, they're dead.
Sorry if this makes no sense, but I so appalled that I had to type a response, even if it doesn't articulate my ideas so well.
(The above is not a flame. ^_^)
