User talk:Anynobody/?

Good to meet you
Hi friend!

Yeah, you make a good point. Speaking of Gen 1 as creation myth is so natural in scholastic writing that even those challenging assumptions associated with that usage demonstrate that it is commonly called precisely that.

It's really good that so many people have gone into bat to defend usage found in reliable sources. I'm perfectly happy to call Genesis a creation myth myself, it just depends on context, and I don't mean avoiding offending people.

If I'm being really scrupulous, or if I want to be pointing out that Genesis actually reworks (from its point of view with disapproval) myths that preceded it, it's helpful not to confuse the artificial, counterfeit, anti-myth myth with the genuine original myths.

Man, it's so confusing trying to say this stuff. In a way, the whole thing's a technicality. Saying Genesis is a creation myth is not wrong and not pejorative, but it is a technical PoV that is disputed technically. So the title fails on a technicality, as representing only one of two technical PsoV.

No need for any of us to get hot under the collar, and the term "creation myth", meaning "symbolic narrative" will appear in the text of the article.

Personally, I mentioned that I think even the "creation" in "creation myth" expresses an assumed PoV we are all so used to we take it for granted. Not all "creation myths" actually have a Creator or creators, some see the universe as cyclical with no beginning, some see matter preceding any supernatural beings and explain how those beings arise out of the matter. The English language has many hidden presumptions derived from the Bible because even from Anglo-Saxon days, the religion of English speakers was officially, and eventually genuinely, Christian.

Keep being bold friend, I think you were 99% right, and definitely right to speak up on behalf of reliable sources. Stay in touch! Alastair Haines (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)