I don't understand the significance of link number 8 above.  It is supposedly the article when it was merged.  But the merge itself is a change from what it used to be.  It makes no sense to ask for an opinion as to whether your latest edit is better than it was after you first merged the article.  Neither version represents anyone's real input.  Also, I can't find in the revision history, the first paragraph I remember seeing in the Virgin birth (mythology) article.  According to some versions, both articles began with a paragraph about the hero.  This is not how I remember it.  
The first paragraph of Virgin birth (mythology), about 'the statement that because mythological births were not virgin births they have no relation to the Christian story' (not the exact words) was already in the first paragraph of the unfinished Virgin birth (mythology).  The finished wording may be awkward, but it is only because I try to keep material that others contributed, rather than delete it.  However, the original paragraph avoided mentioning that there are sources which show a long-standing tradition of comparison, and the strict definition of a virgin birth has been no hindrance to this tradition.  In the past, the virgin birth part hasn't shut down the whole comparison, as was attempted in the original material of Virgin birth (mythology).