User:Nefariousski/sandbox/reply to til

I've been dreading the day I'd have to do a point by point discussion on this little project but here goes


 * Your Rajak source discusses informal use and suggests we "tread with care" which we've done (see citations, footnotes, FAQ etc...)
 * Your entire "New Testament Usage" section refers to informal usage of myth and it's from the primary source which we are discussing (not to mention the bible is hardly a reliable / neutral source in this discussion). Not to mention that you cherry pick the passages and take them out of context. They all basically "any belief that is not that of christianity is a myth" which is expected but totally moot considering the discussion is about formal usage.
 * The Quran's arabic word is a synonym for the informal use, and as such is apples and oranges as your own source clearly states in the second paragraph. This is english wikipedia and mistranslations / lack of formal / informal translations of myth in other languages isn't valid.
 * Paine's "attacks" were using informal derogatory usage which we do not use and in fact shun.
 * Reading further into Bultmann as opposed to cherry picking one sentence you'll see a clear case made for making clear seperation between perjorative usage of "myth" and formal, academic usage.
 * I don't have easy access or any prior knowledge of Boer so I'll leave this one for later
 * What point are you trying to make with the Ricker quote? He's simply stating that he doesn't believe in the biblical flood and then says that it is part of biblical mythology which is a perfectly true statement that is not used in a perjorative way (see deluge myth)
 * Your Judaism views basically both say "Jews believe the hebrew bible is factual history". Thank you master of the obvious. What point are you trying to make here? Obviously writing the article here on WP as factual history isn't an acceptable alternative so what point are you trying to make?
 * Your Hamilton quote is the first good point your page makes. He says that people may assume usage of the word "myth" to be in a perjorative sense even if it is not meant to be and further says that there are conflicting definitions. Both of which I 100% agree with, but due diligence to avoid the first issue has been performed and because we use a proper term "Creation myth" that has only one definition the second point is moot. This would carry a lot more weight as a source if "myth" was being used as a standalone term.
 * Bultmann's second quote regarding Miegge's assumption of alterior motive assumes there's some grandiose conspiracy theory amongs academics, lexographers and so on to weasel acceptable usage out of the word and again the only alternative posited is the historical / factual views of the new testament.
 * The Wright quote starts out with weasel words and considering that he's a borderline apologist I'm not suprised. He also is referencing the informal usage of the term.
 * Packer is clearly in favor of "the bible as history" and says that we should use the bible as a primary source for it's own historicity.
 * Stahlin's essay says that any alternative aside from "Truth and reality" is inacceptable. We clearly can't write this article in terms of "truth and reality".
 * Hughes makes the same assertion and also clearly is using "myth" informally.
 * From what you write about Ramm it seems like he'd be happy with our hard work to give "Myth" a good name and unmuddy the waters.
 * Grelot's point supports biblical literalism and sets the bible above other "pagan" writings which we can't (and shouldn't) do.
 * Nwachukwu's quote boils down to "Since the Hebrew point of view is that Genesis is historical fact and not Mythology we should follow suit"
 * I'm not even going to bother with the "Bible Teacher's Commentary (for pastors)" quote...
 * Or the "Bible Knowledge Commentary" feel free to read my thoughts on "It's not myth because it's different from what the pagans believe" above
 * Barnett's assumption of Biblical Truth isn't a valid counter arguement to usage of "Myth".
 * Somers and Christmyer simply state "Bible is history and not myth" any reason why?
 * Bynoe (see above post)
 * Stocker's quote amounts to "The bible is true! it's not a lie! the bible says so!"
 * Greidanus makes a good case against using myth informally (defined as "a fabulous and untrue story") which I (and more or less everyone including policy) agree with yet doesn't discuss formal usage and furthermore argues that it can't be a myth because it demythologiezes other myths. {Not to mention I don't think "Preaching Christ from Genesis" makes for a very neutral reliable source)
 * The NLT Study Bible section basically says "Genesis isn't a myth because the God of Isreal is better than the pagan gods" and then further more favors factual literal history.
 * Brigham Young's quote amounts to "I think it is literally true, I don't think it is a myth" which would be expected for the head of a religion but doesn't amount to a whole lot in this case.
 * The whole Hinduism section either uses "Myth" informally or takes offense to it's use on the grounds of "What we believe is 100% true"
 * Ugh, i'm getting tired. the rest of it is just repetition of what is above. Pull out sources that discuss why it's bad to use "myth" informally, sources that support a literal historical fact and sources that just don't like it because it offends them and the page is more or less blank. Nefariousski (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)