This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4 |
Threads older than 180 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot. |
Myth (perennial)
@Parise.michael: Please see the following from the archives (and that's only from the last archive page of the three): 1, 2, 3, 4. Here's also a short definition from WordNet: "A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"; a longer one from Webster: "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical". Also relevant are creation myth, origin myth, flood myth, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 11:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes but it still has the conotation that it’s an incorrect idea. Beccabodily (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Viewed as an allegory its proven to be a masterpiece of the human condition. As we become more knowledgeable and godlike we inescapably expel ourselves from the environment.
- Tusk Bilasimo (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why do so many atheists hijack Wikipedia to push to there anti religious propaganda? You very well know, that when people see the word myth they interpret it has something untrue. Atheists are using Wikipedia to push atheism instead of being fair and truthful. Wikipedia is for everyone not just atheists! Samueltheggg (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- In reply to Kleuske, Paleontology does not disprove the Adam and Eve creation story. It actually proves that humans come from a original male and female. Samueltheggg (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- You should not conflate utmost respect for mainstream science with atheism. Science does not have any opinion upon whether God or gods exist or not, but it certainly has debunked the myth the first human. WP:CHOPSY teach that it is a myth, so we kowtow to their academic learning. See also WP:BATTLEGROUND. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting here that the Encyclopedia Britannica (generally regarded as the pinnacle of encyclopedias) does NOT refer to the story as a myth. Rather, it sticks to neutral language—simply stating that it's a story from the Hebrew Bible, with significance in the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions. See: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adam-and-Eve-biblical-literary-figures In my opinion, this supports the removal of "myth". It doesn't matter whether you believe the story, it only matters that you remain neutral, skeptical, and open-minded. "Myth" implies editorial judgement which does NOT meet those criteria.Hyperglyph (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The word "myth" may not be used in that particular article, but clicking through to the full article on "Biblical literature", I quickly found this:
- The Hebrew myths of creation have superseded the racial mythologies of Latin, Germanic, Slavonic, and all other Western peoples. This is not because they contain historically factual information or scientifically adequate accounts of the universe, the beginning of life, or any other subject of knowledge, but because they furnish a profoundly theological interpretation of the universe and human existence, an intellectual framework of reality large enough to make room for developing philosophies and sciences.
- So, no, the Britannia editors do not shy away from using the word "myth" in exactly the scholarly context that this article uses it. Indeed, the article frequently contains phrases such as "probably a reflection of older mythical material", and frequently discusses the intent of the various authors thought to have contributed to the Old Testament we are familiar with. It remains open-minded (actually, rather over-flattering for my taste) about the moral value of the Bible, but makes no attempt to treat Genesis as an accurate historical source. - IMSoP (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the use of the word myth - I agree that it should be changed. You could just as easily say “according to the literature regarding the origins of humans...in the religions of Christianity, etc.” with causing controversy.
- My problem stems from the first talk post - using this definition of myth to attempt to give credence to the use of the myth in conjunction with this belief
- in 2018, when the talk was opened up...the first post read “ from Webster: "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified;” - the word originally clearly point to something historical in nature. The belief, whether or no you chose to believe it is very much current and ongoing. So.... since that definition does not say originally and ongoing, or currently, myth is an invalid term to be used here. How do we get it changed? ChocolatOpal (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- You don't. Even Christian theologians (of the non-fanatical sort) agree it's a myth. And Jewish scholars also. It's a textbook case of a myth. If this isn't a myth, then there aren't any myths. One has to be very deluded about history and science in order to consider this couple historical. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to add my two cents regarding the use of the word "myth." I don't find this term neutral at all, as it clearly implies falsehood. The story of creation is, in fact, a story, and differs from cultural myths (like Celtic, Scandinavian, etc.) in that those myths don't purport to be true. Several adherents of the Abrahamic faiths do purport these events to be true, and I doubt they have any more evidence than those who disbelieve it. If anything, this is a story, an account, or a tale, who historicity is disputed. TheKingLives (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually read the article on myth: "However, as commonly used by folklorists and academics in other relevant fields, such as anthropology, the term myth has no implication whether the narrative may be understood as true or otherwise." Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, the idea that those pre-Christian peoples didn't believe their myths to be true is ridiculous. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Please remove the word myth Digital shell (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please keep the word myth, and give those who don't understand the word the opportunity to learn something.--Doric Loon (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020
In the section "Hebrew Bible narrrative", there is an erroneous claim that "Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures". This should be changed to reflect the fact that 1 Chronicles 1 starts off with a clear reference to the same Adam as mentioned in Genesis 2-5. [1]
My suggestion: change "Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures..." to "Eve is not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, and Adam is referenced once in 1 Chronicles..." Morhc (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: I would say that a more reliable source is needed to make this change; as the source you've provided is a primary source. If you need help finding some, go to the reference desk. @Morhc. Seagull123 Φ 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean, I wasn’t really using it as a primary source. It just was something I was using to get my point across. On the Wikipedia page for Adam it lists p. 84 for the following book as a source for Adam in 1 Chronicles: Enns, Peter (2012). The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins. Baker Books. ISBN 9781587433153. Morhc (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Standardizing Information
On this page, in the intro to the "Hebrew Bible narrative" section says, "The opening chapters of the Book of Genesis provide a mythic history of the infiltration of evil into the world... Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, suggesting that although their story came to be prefixed to the Jewish story, it has little in common with it." However, this is inconsistent with the Adam page in the "Origin" section says, " (Adam appears only in chapters 1–5, with the exception of a mention at the beginning of the Books of Chronicles where, as in Genesis, he heads the list of Israel's ancestors)". This page should be updated to be more accurate because the Adam page is the correct one when consulting the Hebrew Bible. Morhc (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ^ "1 Chronicles 1 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre". www.mechon-mamre.org. Retrieved 2020-11-18.