Codex Sinaiticus
Þis tramet to me Willelm (Codex Sinaiticus) gebyreð
adihtPeople coming here may be looking for a clear explanation of why I have left the (en:) project: I WON'T WORK FOR ANY PROJECT THAT REDEFINES THE LIVING RELIGIONS AS "MYTHOLOGICAL", PRETENDS THAT IS "NEUTRAL", AND ENFORCES THIS "NEUTRALITY" THROUGH THE USE OF BLOCKS TO PUNISH THOSE WHO DISSENT. THIS IS PURELY FASCISTIC BEHAVIOUR, AND I WILL BE STRICKING UNTIL A CLEAR POLICY THAT DISTINGUISHES LIVING RELIGIONS FROM "MYTHOLOGY" IS ADDRESSED!
Correct and True Etymology of English words "Myth, Mythology"
adihtGreek μυθολογια "legend, storytelling" is derived from μυθος "speech, thought, story, myth", itself of unknown origin. English mythology is in use since the 15th century, in the meaning "an exposition of myths". The current meaning of "body of myths" itself dates to 1781 (OED). The adjective mythical dates to 1678; English use of myth is later, first attested in 1830, in its original English meaning of "untrue story":
- "These two stories are very good illustrations of the origin of myths, by means of which, even the most natural sentiment is traced to its cause in the circumstances of fabulous history." Westminster Review 12:44 (1830)
- This is the earliest known usage of "myth" in English. In case anyone didn't know, in 1830 English "fabulous" doesn't mean "wonderfully aesthetic", it is the adjectival form of "fable", that is referring to a fantasy or fairytale. In 1830 the term "myth" was new, so it carries what we call a gloss, things "by means of which even the most natural sentiment is traced to its cause in the circumstances of fabulous (i.e., fictional) history.". This was not only the original use of the word, but the original academic use of the word, note the source, Westminster Review. That is still the way most all people define "myth" today. It's for reasons like this, that Wikipedia is so notorious for its mental disconnect with mainstream thought, and its enforced use of its own internal terminology / jargon, or to put it less nicely, doublespeak.
In 2005, a single-purpose account added "mythology categories" to a wide range of articles including Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Virgin Birth, Sermon on the Mount, Transubstantiation, and many others, creating a huge uproar. The outcome of the discussions then was overwhelmingly to reject the categories as inflammatory, non-neutral, and inappropriate. It was agreed at that time that theological and scriptural articles do not fall into the category of "mythology" and today, none of these articles are so categorised, apart from Noah's Ark.
Just last month, en:WP:RELIGION undertook to move the article "Yoruba mythology" to Yoruba religion. This is because the term "mythology" is held to be demeaning, because Yoruba religion is still practised today, and the Yoruba who practice it constitute a significant viewpoint. I agree fully with this decision, but it is indeed regrettable that so much resistance is facing the prospect of extending the same consideration to the canonical Book of Genesis. The Churches have drawn the line to indicate their viewpoint, by indicating which particular books they consider canonical, inspired texts. Genesis is among them with no exceptions as far as I know. What gives Wikipedia the right to draw the line so as to exclude other Biblical Books from "mythology", but include the stories of Genesis? No books that are considered sacred scripture by ANY large religion of today should be portrayed as "mythology". That's simple common sense. We shouldn't call the Quran or Book of Mormon or Guru Granth Sahib "mythology" either, we shouldn't call anyone's sacred books widely adhered to today "mythology".
- Now things like Hesiod and Orpheus are another story, I think the reason Hesiod and Orpheus have conventionally been referred to as "mythology" for some time is because no significant numbers of people have ever come forward claiming to believe these books to be historical or literally true since the year 400. At least I will go out on a limb and say I don't know of any, not a single one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's pretty safe to say they have been discarded, and nobody objects to the conventional use of "mythology" for these. But please realize that this is not the case with Christian, Muslim or Bahai writings, nor indeed the writings of many other living religions.
THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 MILLION BAHAIS IN THE WORLD ALONE, WHO REVERE NOAH AS A PROPHET, THAT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY FOR A "SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINT" BUT WIKIPEDIA CONSIDERS IT "NEUTRAL" TO TELL THEM THEIR BELIEFS ARE NOW MYTHOLOGY, TO THE POINT OF EVEN BLOCKING THOSE WHO DISSENT. THERE ARE 1.4 BILLION MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD WHO ALSO REVERE NOAH AS A PROPHET, ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINT. I HAVEN'T EVEN ATTEMPTED TO COUNT THE NUMBERS OF CHRISTIANS OR JEWS WHO HAVE THIS VIEWPOINT YET. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Mandaeans Abrahamic?
adihtTime is on my side. Sooner or later, Wikipedia is going to have to reconcile itself with the reality that the Sabian religions are not "Abrahamic", and consider Abraham to be a false prophet; and that Bahá'í Faith is fully Abrahamic and not lumped together with the Sabians; and that there is no such classification known to man as "quasi-Abrahamic", let alone a generally accepted one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Breaking News!
adihtGENUINE WIKIPEDIA COIN: "Quasi-Abrahamic"
Wikipedia, the online Encyclopedia anyone may edit, has coined a new, previously unheard-of classification: "Quasi-Abrahamic"! Thus proving its remarkable innovative, original ability yet again to make stunning research breakthroughs for the betterment of mankind. The new usage and definition of this term is in application to what were previously known as the "Sabian religions", plus Bahai Faith. A Wikipedia spokesman said he had already been in contact with Websters about the new entry in next years Collegiate Dictionary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Elaborating further, the spokesman stated: "You see, we couldn't exactly just call them 'Abrahamic', innit? I mean the Sabians say they don't even believe in Abraham, so that's no good. And as for the Bahai's - well, it was determined that they are indeed from a country that starts with I. So that's probably close enough then. Anyway, who cares?" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
An example of this innovative usage of the brand-new classification "quasi-Abrahamic" may now be seen at the article Noah's Ark!
I've replied to your comment at Talk:Germania --Saforrest 19:13, 1 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)