Talk:Creation myth/Archive 5

A Christian theologian on myth - should we add this to the article?

Christian theologian Conrad Hyers wrote that

...myth today has come to have negative connotations which are the complete opposite of its meaning in a religious context... In a religious context, however, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth, the most basic and important truths of all. By them people regulate and interpret their lives and find worth and purpose in their existence. Myths put one in touch with sacred realities, the fundamental sources of being, power, and truth. They are seen not only as being the opposite of error but also as being clearly distinguishable from stories told for entertainment and from the workaday, domestic, practical language of a people. They provide answers to the mysteries of being and becoming, mysteries which, as mysteries, are hidden, yet mysteries which are revealed through story and ritual. Myths deal not only with truth but with ultimate truth.

*Hyers, Conradl (1984). The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0804201254.

References

Doug Weller talk 06:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

While that kind of reasoning personally makes me want to bang my head against a wall, I think it is representative of how religions think of their stories, and of the kind of answers you get when you try to pin down whether a sophisticated religious person really thinks such or such miracle happens. I would not object to this being added. Ideally, I would like to see a counterpoint by a philosopher who cares whether things are, you know, just true, as opposed to "supremely true". Will archive the duplicate thread. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The quote from Hyers is nonsensical. The common modern understanding and definition of the word myth is a false notion or some false historical belief. If you are going to refer to creation as a supreme truth and yet at the same time a myth you have now defined yourself as oxymoronic, it's clearly a contradiction in terms. The term creation myth is in reality a false description and would best be represented as a narrative, since to prove there is no God or creator is in fact impossible. WhyJesus (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So do you have a reference for your definition? Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I see the editor has been blocked for 31 hours for disruption. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

An easy source for a definition comes from a dictionary such as Merriam-Webster: 2(b) "an unfounded or false notion". Better yet here's a quote from a published scholar in the area of myth, particularly Greek mythology - "The concept of myth that we have inherited from the Greeks belongs, by reason of its origins and history, to a tradition of thought peculiar to Western civilization in which myth is defined in terms of what is not myth, being opposed to reality (myth is fiction) and secondly, to what is rational (myth is absurd). If the development of the study of myth in modern times is to be understood, it must be considered in the context of this line of thought and tradition." (Jean-Pierre Vernant was a Professor of Comparative Study of Religions at the Collège de France in Paris). Anyway just Google any modern usage of the word myth it is used primarily to depict some thing, person or subject as false. So as I suggested in the page regarding Adam and Eve that subject be referred to as a creation narrative rather than myth. A perfectly reasonable edit or suggestion imho. WhyJesus (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As it says above...Lengthy discussion of this usage can be found in the archives of this talk page (and in those of the talk pages of a number of related articles). Please WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creation myth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130416014825/http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/onlinecollection/object_collection.php?objectid=26663&lefttxt=tissot to http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/onlinecollection/object_collection.php?objectid=26663&lefttxt=tissot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbolic?

Not only is it blatantly obvious that the intention behind most creation myths is to provide a model of origin (see almost every single creation myth for examples) and not to be symbolic.

Not only that but the lead contradicts itself. The first paragraph makes a sweeping statement that creation myths are symbolic but in the proceeding paragraphs it says not all of them are symbolic. So which is it? Are they symbolic narratives or is it that only some are?185.65.172.150 (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is similar to the situation at the other article (Teleological argument): per WP:BRD, if edits have been reverted, consensus should normally be established here before reinstating your changes. Also pinging Theroadislong for their opinion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The lede summarises the body of the article, the article includes plenty of references to "symbolic narrative" so that's why the lede does too. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that. However the statement Xs are Y means all Xs are Y which is not the case. It's a Universal affirmative. 185.65.172.150 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's jargon anyway. "Symbolic" links to the "Symbol" article giving no clue as to what the heck a "symbolic narrative" is as compared to merely a "narrative". I argue that "symbolic" be removed based only on it's lack of clarity(!).  :-) For your argument above to have any foundation, you-all need to first make "symbolic narrative" clear without jargon. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement with removing "symbolic" based on it being WP:jargon, I removed it. If someone knows what a "symbolic narrative" is as opposed to simply a "narrative", you're welcome to replace the word in a way that makes it clear as to its meaning. Afterwards, you can all go back to arguing over whether or not to say what it means (whatever it is that it means).  :-) 66.31.54.242 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If it goes back in, a clarifying footnote would be helpful. Leeming, David Adams (1994), A Dictionary of Creation Myths, Oxford University Press, pp. vii, viii, ISBN 978-0-19-510275-8 might be helpful, or might not -- reading it gave me a headache. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I say. Just a little explanation is needed for what I think is philosopher jargon. No big deal. I'd add it, but I don't know what it means, because, you know, because it's frickin' MOS:JARGON.  :-)  Right, and scrolling down to maybe decipher a cryptic usage in the lede gives me a headache too, man. It's unencyclopedic to require scrolling and deciphering to understand lede text. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it with a better link. Terms which are not always obvious are best wikilinked (now to religious symbolism). I also added another source. A previously existing quote in one of the first paragraph's footnotes also explained it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The text now links to religious symbol, which, in my view, is far from optimal, since that article is about iconic identifying symbols of various religions such as the crescent and star, the cross, the dharma wheel, and the star of David. Allegory might be more apt, but it will need a slicker wordsmith than yours truly to cast it so it works seamlessly in context. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Chaos/cosmos

Is this concordant with widely accepted usage, or is it peculiar to a single author? Just plain Bill (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It literally says so on the wikipedia "cosmos" page that this is the opposite of chaos. Cosmos means the universe as ordered whole or system, which clearly is the opposite of an "unformed mass". I base myself on the writings of Mircea Eliade and on common sense. Order and disorder are a pair, as are cosmos and chaos. While you may say that these are synonyms, I would say that order and disorder are two phenomena that keep a certain balance in this cosmos, like yin and yang, while chaos opposes the cosmos itself. That aside, since these creation myths are usually cosmic creation myths, as in cosmos from chaos, I think pattern and randomness (order and disorder) have nothing to do with it, or may be misleading because of their scientific usage. Cosmos and Chaos may be explained as the extreme ends of these phenomena, like, fully formed and coherent with perceivable patterns (cosmos) and completely unformed, or entangled without any coherence and thus without any regularities that can be perceived (chaos). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlensink (talk • contribs) 07:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Editor2020 (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Sadly, "common sense" is not a valid source, while some other book full of incorrect information may be a valid source just because of its status of being published. I will leave this information in the talk for now, if that is okay. I think it's a valid point of view, and perhaps I will find other sources than Eliade to back it up. The creation from chaos myths definitely imply cosmos from chaos, so I probably will find other sources. For now it's okay if it is just on the talk page so others may think about this as well. In the end, it's all speculation and linguistics anyway. :-) - Wlensink

Definition too narrow?

David Adams Leeming[1] is an academic expert on creation myths. He writes that there are a number of types. "They include creation from nothing (ex nihilo), creation from a preexisting, undifferentiated or chaotic state represented by primal elements or sometimes by a primal object such as a cosmic egg (Chaos), creation from the union, separation, division or sacrifice— even dismemberment—of world parents (World Parents), creation by way of a hole in the earth (emergence), and creation by means of diving into the depths of the primordial waters."[2] See also[3]. @Achar Sva: I think the problem is with this article, the Debate between sheep and grain {or myth of cattle and grain} is a creation myth. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Leeming would be correct about ex nihilo if he restricted this to the modern day, but not if he's talking about the period prior to the 2nd century AD. It came from an older belief-system in which matter was considered eternal, and the gods emerged from it in a process of differentiation (so the gods themselves were "created", although not by any divine being). The Greeks had a saying for it, ex nihilo nihil fit,(the Latin version), meaning "nothing (can) come from nothing". Plato accepted this in his "Timaeus", expressing it as "everything has a cause". Then in the 2nd century Christian theologians said, right, if everything must have a cause, then matter must have a cause, and that cause is God, who is the ultimate cause. This turned Plato on his head, but became the accepted common-sense orthodoxy of Christianity, Judaism and Islam for the next two thousand years until challenged by modern scientific cosmology, which says the universe has no need of a creator.

Personally I'd avoid Leeming, as everyone else disagrees with him. See, for example, Nicholas Bunnin and Jiyuan Yu in the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, p.149: they point out the centrality of matter, it's non-eternal nature and dependence on an eternal Creator (and although they don't say it, no such divine being existed prior to Christianity and Second Temple Judaism).

A better way of organising the article would be to take a section for the various types of creation myth that existed prior to the emergence of ex nihilo, followed by a section on ex nihilo explaining how it was a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 in reaction to 2nd century Gnosticism and the Neo-Platonics. A different source is needed, too - Leeming is not reliable. I'd suggest Tamra Andrews' "Dictionary of Nature Myths", pp.48-49, which is much clearer and far more mainstream.Achar Sva (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick response - the Blackwell dictionary doesn't discuss creation myths so I don't think it should be used. Tamara Andrews doesn't mention any other type of myth than those about the creation of the world, but as she uses Leeming as a source she doesn't seem to share your opinion of him. I still think that his views should be shown. As for the specific myth we're discussing, there are of course sources saying that in part it's a creation myth. eg [4] and [5]. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Those sources don't support the idea that Dialogue Between Sheep and Grain is about ex nihilo creation - "it portrays a world before sheep and grain when the gods lived on the Holy Mound..." A Holy Mound (the earth-mountain) isn't nothing. Achar Sva (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Creatio Ex Nihilo

There is an obvious glaring mistake in the text. It says that creatio ex nihilo means the coming of creation out of "the thought, word, dream or bodily secretions of a divine being." This is definitely 100% false. The term ex nihilo means: "out of nothing", and implies much like the ayin/yesh in Kaballa that creation came from nothing, not from anything else. It is contrasted by creatio ex materia, (from some primal matter like chaos), creatio deo (from God or a divine being) and creatio continua (a continuous unfolding or 'it has always existed'). This needs to be corrected in my opinion. There is a citation, but maybe this source misinterpreted the facts. The more I look into this text, the less coherent I find it. However, I will not "be bold", since any edit will apparently inevitably be inverted and seems to me a waste of time. - Wlensink

That viewpoint seems as sensible as other viewpoints regarding this. However, as presented above, it is unverifiable (see WP:V) original research (see WP:NOR). If material supporting that viewpoint has been published in reliable sources, that viewpoint should be presented in the article in proportion to the prominence of that supporting material in relation to material supporting other viewpoints (see WP:DUE). FYI, I did some quick googling re creation, ex nihilo, and secretion, and came up with this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to assume that a literal translation is its normal meaning. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall what led me to make that previous comment. That aside, in the time intervening I have read the book A Universe from Nothing. Quoting:

we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarify the meaning of "gid"

Text in Earth Diver section states, "One day, the chief's daughter was afflicted with a mysterious illness, and the only cure recommended for her (revealed in a dream) was to lie beside a tree and to have it be gid up." 2600:1700:3F7B:20F:46B:8524:16B:F979 (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. Luckily, a peek at the source is available on google books, showing "have it be dug up" which makes sense. Thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comparative Mythology

I copy/pasted the first few paragraphs of this article and added it to the list of motifs within the "Comparative Mythology" article. Feel free to visit and/or change/amend/improve/etc. anything you see fit. Gizziiusa (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)gizziiusa

Eh...

Someone's obviously taken a lot of care with the article so I'll leave it to the local tenants to figure out how to fit in interesting idea of the Chinese minority Yi culture that somehow or another a tiger was ultimately responsible for the creation of the world. Seems unusual to have an animal involved, even one with as much going for it as the tiger. — LlywelynII 11:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Cosmogony

The fact that the namespace is used for something else has no relation whatsoever for this still being a COMMON ENGLISH name for this topic. You should have checked beforehand with Google Books, Hathi, &c. instead of the revert but fair enough to want sourcing for each point of an article as well tended as this one. If you need more, they're easily multiplied but that really should be unnecessary. It's easily verified that plenty of people prefer to just say 'cosmogony' instead of 'cosmogonic myth'. (It's fine to remove the link I added though, if you feel that's unhelpful or misplaced.) — LlywelynII 11:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at that ref, which says: "The motif of creation through thought appears first in Greece...in a mythical cosmogony", and elsewhere in this ref it seems comparably modified or as an adjective rather than simply a direct synonym. That's consistent with how our Creation myth and Cosmogony articles seem to define themselves: the former as a subset of the latter. I agree with including this term, since it's clearly related to this topic. I merely object to saying it's an equally valid synonym. Even if it is sometimes used that way, it's at least often not an exact match, so I don't want to imply that it universally is. I took a whack at clarifying this technical relationship. DMacks (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 12:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Creation myth → Creation narrative – The current title of this article isn't exactly neutral, I know that technically the usage of the term "myth" in this article is using the far less common definition, "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon", and not the common definition, "something that is false". However, as stated previously, it is the far less common definition, so people may often take the title the wrong way when seeing it. I propose the title "Creation narrative" instead so the title is more obviously neutral to all active religions that have creation stories. It is also much more convenient for editors and readers to not have a lengthy explanation on why the usage of "myth" is neutral, and it allows articles to be more concise as they do not have to waste space with explanations. This naming has already been in use for a while in 3 other articles: Genesis creation narrative (in use for 13 years), Korean creation narratives (in use since article creation 3 years ago), and Tenrikyo creation narrative (in use since article creation 5 years ago). – Treetoes023 (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - you are picking out one word that you don't like, but we need to look at the title as a whole. I'll start however by noting that we have articles on Christian mythology, Islamic mythology etc. Also, Category:Creation myths includes 44 links using myth and only 4 using narrative. I note that the Tenrikyo article even says "The Tenrikyo creation narrative is the creation myth of the Tenrikyo relig[ion." which means the title should call it what the article itself says it is. An ordinary Google search for "Creation narrative" throws up about 161,000 hits, while "Creation myth" produces about 1,030,000. Using Google scholar, it's about 12,500 to 38,700. I have no idea why you didn't check this - have you read WP:Common name? Alsoi, is there a reason you haven't suggested renaming other articles? Eg. Ancient Egyptian creation myths which you've also edited? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The sources in the article (as well as Scholar and Books searches) certainly show that the current title is the unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME, so I'm not sure how the title isn't neutral. A colloquial misunderstanding of the meaning of a word does not give cause to accommodate that misunderstanding; we certainly wouldn't rename Theory of relativity just because the meaning of scientific theory is sometimes misunderstood. - Aoidh (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME, nuff said. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - it seems like it would be better to move articles that say creation narrative to say "creation myth".

aaronneallucas (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aplucas0703 Agreed. Doug Weller talk 07:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Thank you, Aplucas0703. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Creation myths are the topic. I can't speak to any other "creation narrative" title, but the Genesis one is that way in order to keep the article tightly focused on the text and its interpretation. That is, the Genesis creation narrative is a text, a passage within a book. Srnec (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Following on that, I made this WP:BOLD edit to that article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

{update) that edit was reverted. The revert is currently under discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative § First sentence and what this article subject is. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your statement. TRINITYNTB (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@TRINITYNTB It isn't clear who you are replying to. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the statement made by Treetoes023 that the term “creation narrative” is more neutral (and should be used) and that the term “myth” is not. TRINITYNTB (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@TRINITYNTB Your opinion doesn't count, what you need to do is quote policies and guidelines backing it. This is not a poll. See WP:!VOTE Doug Weller talk 08:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Völuspá is not a part of Gylfaginning

Völuspá is referred in the text as the first poem in Gylfaginning, suggesting that Gylfaginning is a collection of poems. It should instead say that Völuspá is the first poem in the Elder Edda (or Poetic Edda), a collection of anonymous poems, and that the myth is also explained in Gylfaginning, which is a prose writing by Snorri Sturluson (part of a longer work commonly called Snorra Edda or Prose Edda). Geologichamamé (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)