Talk:Adam and Eve

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)

It is an "incorrect idea". Paleontology has significantly progressed since the inception of this story. Kleuske (talk)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

I need to change the fact that it calls this a myth. It HAS NOT been proven to be a myth and it is just as justified as scientific theories!! The Big Bang Theory isn’t called a myth, even though it hasn’t been proven to be true yet. I plan to change where it calls it a myth, so it instead states that the “Abrahamic religions” state it, rather than “the myth states”. This is unacceptable. SporadicSpork (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:TE and WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"NOBIGOTS," except if you're an atheist[ic] bigot, then "BIGOTSAOKAY!" 67.4.76.65 (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu#Atheism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So, let's be logically consistent here

If Adam and Eve were alleged myths (with no actual evidence/proof of that assertion given, of course, but only bare citations of a couple of conveniently selected sources while ignoring other sources that say otherwise), then Cain, Abel, and Seth (as well as their many other sons and daughters) were myths, which makes Enos[h] a myth, which makes Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, etc., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., Matthat, Heli, and Joseph myths, which makes Jesus a myth, which makes all his disciples and followers myths, which makes a lot of editing needed on Wikipedia to insert the word "myth" into the articles for every single biblical figure -- if the godless, atheist editors and admins were logically consistent, which they aren't and never will be. All the whole matter of inserting the word "myth" into this article is about is their need to express their POV displeasure, disagreement, and hate against religion -- and specifically Judeo-Christianity -- in a supposedly intelligent and legitimate way which is really just a barely disguised method of trolling. 67.4.76.65 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a millenia-long slippery slope fallacy. By that reasoning, if you want to be consistent, then you would be a myth.

Or one could read Adam and Eve to be a stand in for "the first sapient hominids." It's not like the Bible ever uses allegory. Or metaphor. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's logical consistency, which you don't want to admit. Explain to me how it's not. If Adam and Eve are myths, then why aren't Cain, Abel, Seth, and all their other children myths? Logically, they'd have to be. Then that would logically make their grandchildren myths, and their great-grandchildren myths, etc., ad infinitum. Where do you cut off the "they're myths" idea and presume the reality of the persons mentioned? How do you know that's where to cut it off? Can you logically, rationally defend that idea, or just illogically, indefensibly throw out the "NOBIGOTS," "POV," "slippery slope" nonsense? 67.4.76.65 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea of a first man is mythical thinking, it is not scientific thinking. No amount of sophistry will change that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Still don't see why we're listening to you if you're a myth. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely WP:NOTAFORUM applies here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTHERE. Will expand their block as necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this rant was designed to evoke a reaction like "of course not, that would be ridiculous", but honestly, why shouldn't the whole of the Bible be referred to as mythology? The sentence "according to the myths of Christianity, Jesus rose from the dead" would sound perfectly reasonable to me, in precisely the same way as "according to the myths of Ancient Greece, Cronus was the father of Zeus". The only difference I can see is that it's easier to find current believers in Christ than in Zeus, but it's just as easy to find people who believe in neither. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to shoe-horn the term into every article to make a point, but there are plenty of contexts where it would be appropriate. - IMSoP (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, and many Christian theologians would gladly grant that point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 7 September 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.

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)