Jump to content

Talk:Adam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Making this article redirect to "Adam and Eve"

Please, remove all pictures of Adam! Do not or never publish pictures of any people that you "Wiki" and other billion people in this world have never seen. Stay sharp if this is called encyclopedia and respect every human own vision of Adam. Think "Wiki",what happens if all living people and all before sends their own sights of Adam?Soylar 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is completely ridiculous. We didn't paint these pictures, famous painters did, many of them centuries ago. If people have been OK with the picture of Adam on the right, for example, for half a millennium, then why shouldn't Wikipedia be OK with it? Also, Wikipedia does not conform to any particular religion but is instead a neutral encyclopedia, so we shouldn't remove pictures just because some particular branch of some particular religion thinks they're offensive. JIP | Talk 06:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been fixing disambiguation links to Adam all day. The vast majority refer to the Biblical figure who is currently served by the article Adam and Eve which includes a link to Adam (disambiguation) at the top. Therefore, I am changing Adam to redirect to Adam and Eve rather than Adam (disambiguation). Also, Adam (name) exists and redirects to Adam (disambiguation), which does not seem quite appropriate...Benanhalt 08:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, "Adam" shouldn't be a redirect at all. Why is there a disambiguation page? Adam ist a name as any other. I will move that one here soon. --Nina 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay!

Finally, an article for one of the most important figures in the entire history of Abrahamic saga: Adam. Fantastic. Now we just need to expand it, avoid inconsistencies or redundancies with Adam and Eve, and start on an Eve counterpart. About time! -Silence 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic view

If you are going to add the Muslim Prophet to the Adam section it should be clearly delienated that this is from Muslim sources. Just like it should be clear when Adam is being discussed from Christian and Jewish sources. You do not want to give the wrong impression that each of these groups are unanimous in their view of Adam. Make sure that the Christiam, Muslim and Jewish sources are represented seperately within the article.

Regarding the merge: The Islamic view article is way to large, it would unbalance the article. I rather have it renamed in the same maner as Islamic view of Jesus and Islamic view of Moses: Islamic view of Adam. Acutaly, im going to be bold and do it. --Striver 00:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Islam section now is quite poor; I've put up a cleanup tag. First of all, it is not made clear that the account is based not on the Quran, but on later myths. Secondly, it reads like proselytizing. The rest of the article is quite good, and so is the 'Islamic view of Adam' article, so this should be addressed. 81.19.57.130 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic view not very different

I found the Islamic View section to describe the making of Adam as the main difference. But the christain/Jewish view discuss another aspect. The Islamic version of the same story discussed in the Christain/Jewish view is almost identical. It is almost misleading to imply to users that Islamic View is different to begin with. I would like to highlight how Jewish, Christain and Muslim views have the same story of how Addam took an apply from the tree of knowledge..

I have been trying to make a reference in the Islamic View section to translated (Khalifa) version of Quran on quranbrowser.org. They are copyrighted, so i put an external link but i got a warning message saying that i am using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising.

Sections 20:115 to 20:121 of Quran show the same Adam&Eve story common to all Abrahamic relgions.Isaidi 08:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says that Jews or Christians consider Adam a prophet?

What's the authority for this? I believe that it's untrue. 38.98.107.250 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that Adam was considered a prophet in Christianity. Does anyone have a source for this? -- BenStevenson 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Roman Catholic, and I don't know if any Christians or Jews consider Adam a prophet. Enoch son of Jared was the first prophet that I am aware of. Arnie Gov 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of would be Gen 3, where God promises salvation to come. But Adam as a prophet? I don't think so.DaveTroy 11:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia's definition of a prophet (In religion, a prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has directly encountered the numinous and serves as an intermediary with man for the divine) then Adam should most certainly be considered a prophet. Rwf5 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct -- anyone to whom God speaks is a prophet -- it's a universal generalization, All A's are B's. If God spoke to Adam, he would be a prophet. Considering a literal interpretation of the Bible as a primary source for God speaking to Adam, he would thus be a prophet. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam means to Blush

According Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Adam means: "to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)."

[Strong's Hebrew Lexicon]

Arnie Gov 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon lists that as a different word. It could bre related (in that the ground is red, or something like that) but it has nothing to do with Adam's name. StAnselm 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is what the Strong's link gives.

Result of search for "Adam":

  • 119 'adam aw-dam' to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
  • 120 'adam aw-dawm' from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
  • 121 'Adam aw-dawm' the same as 120; Adam the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine:--Adam.
  • 1893 Hebel heh'-bel the same as 1892; Hebel, the son of Adam:--Abel.
  • 5731 `Eden ay'-den the same as 5730 (masculine); Eden, the region of Adam's home:--Eden.
  • 8352 Sheth shayth from 7896; put, i.e. substituted; Sheth, third son of Adam:--Seth, Sheth.
Good for you to try to accomodate all the data into the article. The problem is that the search is fairly crude, and shows all entries with the character string Adam in the text. Hence Hebel, Eden and Sheth show up in the output, although they are not definitions of the Hebrew word adam.
A more refined source is needed to explain the difference between Strong's words 119, 120 and 121. StAnselm points to Brown-Driver-Briggs which makes it very clear that 120 adam and 121 Adam are from the same root meaning man (in a generic sense, i.e. mankind). There is a feminine noun from this same root, adamah, which means earth or land and is actually linked in the Genesis text with the word for man.
Word 119 is from a different root (but spelled the same way) and meaning red. I've corrected the text and footnoted as per this comment. Cheers. Alastair Haines 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Judeo vs Christian view

Just noticed a few things in this section.

First, the part about the serpant being "commonly understood to be Satan" should be changed to something like "commonly understood by Christians to be Satan," as I'm pretty darn sure this is not a common Jewish belief.

The other is the part about God walking through the garden. I'm not sure whether or not this is correct for all Christian faiths, but it is definately not the Jewish veiw; Jews believe that God is everywhere always, and does not 'walk' through gardens as a man does. The translation from the Torah of this passage is more along the lines of 'They heard the voice of god moving in the garden as the breeze of the day.'

I don't know who wants to change these or how, but it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Adam

  • Good point. I'm planning on doing some work on this page. Maybe two sections: "Judeo-Christian" and "Christian". Obviously, Adam is also relevant to the Christian doctrine fo the Fall. StAnselm 09:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely in this day very few Christians or Jews believe the story of Adam literally - but this section is written as though they did. I suggest a better title would be somethng like "Story as told in traditional Christian and Jewish literature". I have had resistance to my edit along these lines. Abtract 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

But Judeo-Christian does refer to a traditional view, anyway. "Story as told in traditional Christian and Jewish literature" doesn't sound all that neutral to me. StAnselm 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim inclusion

If we are to be genuinely inclusive of Islam, we need to use their name for Tanakh/Old Testament, which is Torat, cognate to Torah. They do not have precisely the same reference, but both do refer to Genesis. This book is called In the Beginning (b'reshit) in Hebrew. I don't know what it is called in Arabic.

We should also consider simply using English terms. Many of the distinctions are linguistic rather than theological. Old Testament certainly assumes Christian theology, but Hebrew Bible does not. It is not POV to use English at English Wiki. Where NPOV terms exist in English, it avoids clutter if we use them, rather than listing autonyms from every language that has discussion of a topic.

Any comments? Alastair Haines 04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely -- instead of having pages like "Islamic view of Adam", the information in said article should be placed here. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkic languages

Reference to Turkic languages and the speculation about a common origin removed. "Adam" means "man" in many Middle Eastern languages, including Persian and Hindustani (see Saadi's "Bani Adam"). Suggesting a common origin for three different language families because of only one word is only speculation.

The word "adam" or "adami" or "admi" was borrowed into Middle Eastern, Central Asian and Indian languages from Arabic, as a result of Islamic influence in these areas. The word "admi" in Urdu means descendant of Adam. The corresponding Hindi word, manush, means a descendant of Manu, the progenerator of mankind in Hindu mythology. So, the choice between "manush" and "admi" has a religious connotation to it and often, though not always, shows the speakers religious affiliation. Also non-Muslims use plenty of Arabic/Semitic derived words due to the long Muslim rule in the area. That doesn't change the fact that the languages are unrelated to the Semitic langauge family.

In some Fenno-Ugrian languages, the word for man is borrowed from neighbouring Indo-European languages, e.g. "mies" in Finnish is taken from Slavic or Baltic, "man" in Estonian is a Germanic loan.

No one would argue that Finnish is a Slavic language or that Estonian is a Germanic language! And just because both the Slavic word (mish, mush etc.) and the Germanic word are probably cognates to the Indo-Aryan "manush", the presence of this and many other Indo-European loans in Finnish and Estonian would hardly give any grounds for including the Fenno-Ugrian language family into the Indo-European family.

As with the case of Indian languages, rich with many Semitic loans, and Fenno-Ugrian languages, with their many Indo-European loans, the Semitic words in Turkic languages are only a sign of long-lasting language contact between Semitic and Turkic languages. The Turkic peoples have been exposed to Semitic languages, religions and culture since centuries before the Islamic conquests. E.g. the pre-Islamic Uyghur script is based on Semitic script introduced by the Arameans.

Christianity, Manichaeism and Judaism were familiar to the Turkic peoples before the advent of Islam.

Most Semitic loans are from Arabic, but while "adam" may be an Arabic loan or it could just as well be an older loan. However, it is, without doubt, a loan!

Non-neutral language regarding apocrypha

I removed the clause "have little to no significance with the Judeo-Christian tradition" from the first paragraph of the Hebrew Bible section. There are some problems of fact and point of view with that statement. Factually, the apocrypha mentioned does have significance in tradition - Enochian texts are important to gnostic sects, Enoch and Jubilee are in Ethiopian Orthodox scripture, and Adam and Eve is has importance in the realm of theological history. The point of view problem is rooted in the factual problem of the statement, which perhaps belie a Western-Christian bias by underplaying the relevance of Ethiopian Orthodoxy in the larger Judeo-Christian world.

Please do not restore this clause without relevant justification regarding factuality and bias, or it will be reverted. Apocrypha is an important part of theology, both past and present, and widely studied apocrypha can never properly be regarded as insignificant to tradition. It often provides a counterpoint to contemporary mainstream doctrine, and often is the reason that certain beliefs were codified in the first place. Erielhonan 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remove Michelangelo picture

Please Remove this Picture 87.109.245.245 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

this Michelangelo's art not match for this article.it will heart muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.51.194 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture at the top of the article makes it global to the article, consequently making the article very Christian-centrist/oriented; We could move it down to within the "Hebrew Bible" section (and it would even be more appropriate if there was a Christianity section), this might be a bit more fair to all. --Jerome Potts (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a strong tradition of iconography within Islam. It's only been within the last few decades, with the spread of Wahabi-style fundamentalism, that some Muslims have decided on behalf of their brethren that images are hurtful. The Michelangelo can be left in place without hurting very many Muslims.PiCo (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
These discussions have now been resolved. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Islam? Michelangelo's painting does not help indicate who Adam was, nor does it provide any information about Adam. It does not reveal any sort of relationship between God and Adam, except perhaps to exhibit God as an older, white-hairier form of Adam. Is this meant to indicate that Adam will be God or a god when he ages? How does this contribute to the article, except to identify the subject of the article with he who was portrayed by Michelangelo? And this identification is POV, as it does not fit in with the Jewish perspective (and perhaps as evidenced by the above, the Islamic perspective either) of Adam and his relationship to God. I vote to strike it from the article. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is shown because Michelangelo is a very notable painter, and this painting is an extremely notable depiction of Adam. If you have anything yet more notable, feel free to suggest it. Just remember that Wikipedia is exclusively about notability, not Truth. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Prophet in Islam

I am fed up with reverting this [1]. I am going to leave it now as no-one else seems bothered by it. Abtract 23:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of vandalism

There's some superfluous garbage in the first paragraph that has nothing to do with the subject. I tried to fix it but wasn't able to delete anything without garbling the remaining code. Misterdoe (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see the nonsense additions to the first paragraph were removed. Misterdoe (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The so-called having to “reconciling”

The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.

A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey “Science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all races are . . . descended from the same first man.”—Heredity in Humans (Philadelphia and New York, 1972), Amram Scheinfeld, p. 238. From time to time, new methods of dating are developed. How reliable are these? Regarding one known as thermoluminescence, The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says: “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.” Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.

Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”

It should be noted, however, that scientists believe that the age of the earth itself is much greater than the age of man. The Bible does not disagree with that.

“The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.”—The Races of Mankind (New York, 1978), Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, p. 3.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Move according to the rule WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. See WhatLinksHere for assistance. Sasha l (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title of the page

The number one thing that bothers me is the name of the page: Adam (Bible). Isn't it odd that the article is called this way, only to start right off by mentioning different religions and belief systems that "include" him and that do not all use the Bible? Puceron (talk)­~ —Preceding comment was added at 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They use him for religious expediency. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Why is there an arabic translation provided? There are no other translations to other languaged provided? If Arabic is provided, all 50, 70, 180 or whatever the number of languages out there should similarly be provided. Hebrew is included because and only because Genesis was originally in Hebrew and Adam is a transliteration of a Hebrew word. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Arabic is a translation, I think it's Adam's name from the Qur'an. If that's right I think it should stay. (I realize I'm replying a year after the question was asked; but the issue should be resolved definitively)--illumi (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
But the form in the Qur'an is nothing more than a adaptation of the Byzantine Greek form which was itself just an adaptation of the original Hebrew, it should go. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
By taking this argument to its conclusion, all figures from the Torah should ultimately only be referred to in non-transliterated Hebrew. Or characters from Tolstoy's novels in Cyrillic. The fact that Adam is an important figure in the Qur'an, and the Qur'an in Arabic is the central text of a major religion, is plenty of support for including his name in Arabic. Erielhonan 05:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Every now and then I look through Awake! or The Watchtower, when they've been left lying around, and one of the things that struck me was the very harsh judgment of Adam. As I recall he is one of the very few figures that the Witnesses flatly assert will not be resurrected, I suppose because he disobeyed a direct order of God when there was no doubt from whom it came. Or something like that.

If someone has reliable sources and could summarize the Witness view here, I think it would be a good addition. It would be particularly interesting contrasted with the Mormon view. --Trovatore (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1965 Watchtower has a section called "What Hope for Adam and Eve". (w65 3/15 p167-174) In this section it describes how a "willful" sinning especially coupled with "unrepentence" will not receive a hope for ressurection. This article also describes what you were mentioning that, because Adam and Eve both had the command that if they ate from the tree they would "positively die" and since they received this command directly from God himself, they were held accountable more so. However it notes that neither Adam nor Eve apologized. In fact, when confronted by God, Adam blamed everyone else but himself when he stated. "This woman you have given me." Pretty much putting the blame for his wrong doing onto God and Eve. The article also brings out another interesting point about Adam. Referring to 1 Timothy 2:13,14 Eve was deceived, Adam was not. Which supports that though both of them out right disobeyed, Eve was deceived into doing so, while Adam willingly disobeyed. Interesting stuff. There are tons of JW literature concerning Adam and Eve and their not receiving ressurection for what they call the "Edenic Rebellion", but this article is a good one since it covers it thoroughly and specifically addresses the issue. Brocknroll81 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on etymology

People should be careful about relying on 100 year old encylopedias for info on the etymology of "Adam" when editing the etymology section. I've tried to keep sensible and honest info in while removing wild conjectures that may have sounded feasible 100 years ago but which have subsequently been rejected like the claim that "adam" was a designation for the Semites as opposed to black people - there is not a shred of textual evidence supporting such a usage of the term, nor evidence of it being used to mean red or ruddy (although its agreed to be related to the attested Hedrew words for red and ruddy (adom and admoni). A lot of people also seem to have a misconception that adam is the normal Hebrew word for "man" or "humans / mankind". This is not the case. Normal Hebrew (both Biblical and modern) for a man is ish and people/humans are anashim (the plural of ish). In Genesis one finds "adam" with (added definite article ha-) being used for "people/mankind" but as the article explains this usage results from the fact that Adam is the ancestor of all people in Genesis, in other words its usage is a form of synechdoche, the term is primarily a person's name and the usage for "mankind" is poetic. One also find ben-Adam literally "son (descendant) of Adam" used as a poetic term for a human being in place of the normal word ish. Similarities between the way adam is used in Genesis and the way "man" is used in English results from the KJV translation where ha-Adam is translated "man" which probably contributes to the misconception that "man" is the primary meaning instead of the poetic meaning. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rabbinic Juadaisn views

The bible states that Adam is the father of ALL humans alive today. It makes this clear by listing all generations from Adam Noah and Noah. Noah is the father of all mankind since the word was destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.242.235 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian view?

I'm not sure why this is, but the Christian view isn't even mentioned in this article. The Jewish view is, the Muslim view is, the LDS view is, the Bahai view is, the Druze view is, yet the Christian view isn't! Why is this? The introduction mentions that Adam is an important figure in the 3 Abrahamic faiths, but only mentions 2 of them in the rest of the article. The Christian view is obviously not the same as the Jewish one, as Christians do not accept the Talmud and believe in a different concept of Satan to that of the Jews. I really do think the Christian view should be mentioned in this article. 84.65.31.15 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. It seems a vandal had deleted it about a month ago. I've readded it. - SimonP (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lillith

No mention of Lilith or other apocrypha? Why?

Why is there no mention of any of the apocryphical myths surrounding Adam? To not present as such and only present the straight-forward teaching of the various religions is biased and against Wiki's guidelines and purpose. As Lilith has her own article (rightly so), there should be an apocryphical sub-section to the Adam article that provides a short summary of the various non-cannon accounts and provide some links and re-directs.

At the very least, the section on the Jewish view should mention the accounts found in the Midrash Abkir and Zohar that concern Adam, and relate the well-known Jewish myth about Adam's three wives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree on this point. To blatantly ignore certain historical sources (especially when dealing with a mythic figure interpreted differently from different cultures) simply because it does not conform to the mainstream view is biased and against Wiki's guidelines.
I see recently you added a paragraph explaining some of this and it was removed (without the editor stating a reason on the Talk page). Upon looking at your edits they were properly sourced and written relatively unbiased so I have restored them. Perhaps apocrypha should be given its own section in the article, but the information should not be removed outright or ignored.
Additionally, it might make more sense to change the headline to Judaic or Hebrew View as opposed to Hebrew Bible. We do not limit to the Islamic view to only the Koran. Adam is a mythical figure that dates before the writing of the Bible, thus the section should encompass the entire tradition, not the most well known and biased viewpoint. -Flygongengar (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a side-note, both the Eve and the Adam and Eve articles includes references to this information, so there is no reason for only the Adam article to be exempt. It could probably use some work and re-wording but it should still be there. - Flygongengar (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Balanced presentation of Lilith

As the apocryphal view of Lilith appears to belong to a relatively small minority, I see no reason to present it on equal footing with the biblical view.
I'm not sure the best way to change the article to present this, so for now I have added that it was folklore mainly during the 8th-10th century medieval period.
I also restructured this Lilith section of talk page to keep Lilith discussion together. Daniel De Mol (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While I think it's proper to include information about Lilith in this article, I feel that it is improper to mention her in the opening paragraph. Adam is regarded as a genuine historical figure by people of numerous faiths, while Lilith is universially regarded as a ficticious character. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to removing the last sentence? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to follow up, as no one objected (or is interested), I went ahead and made this change. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

introductory first paragraph(s)

I'd like to have more introductory information in the first few paragraphs, perhaps a list of religious texts that include Adam in them.

I've copied over some stuff from the Russian Wikipedia below to see if we can find equivalent articles on here and maybe find sources:

Adam is revered as a prophet in Islam, and in the Mandi and Bahaism religions.

In comparative religion the story of Adam is considered an example of anthropogenic myth.{I think this refers to creation story}

The biblical story of Adam introduced the world of art and culture to a number of characters, such as: Eden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree of Life, the forbidden fruit, the serpent, the expulsion from paradise.

here's a link to a Google translate of the Russian page.--illumi (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanna change the first paragraph to:

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم) is a prominent figure in Abrahamic Religions, the first man created by God in the Christian Bible and the Judaic Torah, he is also noted in the Islamic Qur'an [citation needed?]. His wife was Eve.[1]

Then maybe have another paragraph giving the paragraph from the Russian article about Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil etc, and perhaps an overview of the story (the elements that are universal through religions anyway).
Changing from Genesis to the name of the books (The Hebrew and Christian Bible) seems better, I think it'd be more widely understood by people who aren't of either religion (or who aren't very religious). I'm also trying to give more oomph to the introduction, it felt rather understated before, Adam is one of the first figures in the Bible so it'd make sense to give an idea of how widespread knowledge of him is. I also'd like to clearly state at the opening whether or not Adam exists in Islam (I'm not totally clear if this is a fact or not as of this moment)--illumi (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Adam and Eve." Encyclopædia Britannica.
A slight problem, I've confirmed Adam exists in the Islamic Qur'an, but there is a technicality in that the Qur'an doesn't state that he's the first man created by God, although it does state that God created him (this is according to my sources). I guessed that in Islam he was the first man (it just doesn't say that in the Qur'an), and I've reorganized my idea for the first paragraph and now added it to the article. But now I see user:St.Trond recently removed an unrelated statement that Adam is the first man. In hindsight my sources did not say that he was the first man created by God in Islam at all, I guess I actually assumed that bit: I'd be fine with it being removed from the first paragraph until a source can be found to clarify this. My sources did seem to say that Eve was the first woman, which would make it confusing if Adam's not the first man. --illumi (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of adam arabic

The word Adam comes from the word "adem" اديم which means earth soil because he was created from earth soil.

This is metion in the arabic wikipedia by the way.

Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.24.26 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam's Parents

I really must object the listing of "God" as Adam's parent in the little template box. That field is irrelevant and you know that it doesn't belong there. If anything God is the creator and not the parent but that is too obvious it's not noteworthy. I suggest removal. 114.75.184.218 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bible calls God Adam's father. Look up the Gospel of Luke 3:38. I appreciate that some people, especially those with a Muslim upbringing, find it offensive to hear God being referred to as a father. But, the Bible clearly uses that expression. Perphaps, "God" could be removed from the template box and then reference to God being Adam's father could be mentioned in passing in the section that speaks about the Biblical view of Adam, and in that case it would be a good idea to add the Bible verse as a source. Al-Shaheed (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Theological Significance of Adam

This section needs to be majorly cleaned up. The language is unfocused and sophomoric, particularly in the first few sentences. I would have done it myself but I don't have enough of a grasp of the actual issues involved to fix the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.165.155 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually removed this section. I hope I haven't overstepped any boundries here. I removed it because it was simply proselytizing. The section attempted to present someone's personal interpretation of Adam's significance as fact. (Not to mention, of course, the issues mentioned above.) Joefromrandb (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

LDS View

The Adam-God Theory does not belong in this article. It is not accepted by the LDS Church. Why is it even on here?--CABEGOD (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be taken out. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Suplemental (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It was at one time, by the leader of the LDS church. That makes it notable. It's clearly stated that this is not the LDS view, but omitting it entirely seems more like censorship. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would not say the subject has received "significant coverage" which is required with regard to notability. Also, try reading the source for that section: Our Own Liahona. It doesn't support the Adam-God theory in any way. --Suplemental (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That citation is from Brigham Young. Spin it however you want, he said what he said. It's appropriate to clarify that this is not the LDS position, and the article does that. But omitting it entirely, as I said, is censorship. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Lisa, I'm not sure it's a "spin" to remove that. The article is called "Adam" and the section is called "LDS view". If this article and section were "Odd things Brigham Young said" or "Disavowed Beliefs of the LDS" I think you would have a point. But it's not.
The sections are simply giving a sampling of some various churches views of Adam. Therefore, as Brigham's views are not the LDS faith's views, they have no place in this section and article. They would have great relevence to a section about splinter group's beliefs, and I've put them there - temporarily. It needs a citation of which churches are the "splinter groups" you are refering to. Alexandria177 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Children

The statement that Adam and Eve had "many other children", excluding Cain, Abel, and Seth, is speculative. Also, whilst it is proper to list the two children mentioned in the Book of Jubilees, it should also be mentioned that that book is considered cannon by a tiny fraction of those who believe Adam and Eve to be the first human beings (i.e. Jews, Christians, and Muslims). I believe that the Book of Jubilees is considered cannon only by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and possibly a fraction of the Coptic Orthodox Church.Mk5384 (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick check of the Wikipedia article. It says that the Book of Jubilees is regarded as cannon by the Ethopian Orthodox Church, and Beta Israel Jews.Mk5384 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced statement about "many other children". I also noted that the Book of Jubilees is not considered cannon by most Abrahamic faiths.Mk5384 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Druze

the link is gone, although i believe the Druze DO believe in Adam (and Eve) as they are Abrahamic, but now there is no corroboration on "cosmic forces" (sorry), but I DO think the Druze should be included, I'll try and find something although they are very secretive...

thanks Dava Dava4444 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Adam was a Muslim"

I removed this from the article:

Islam indicates that because Adam was the first human, as a prophet he was also the first Muslim ("one who submitted to God"), thus teaching that the "word of God" is the oldest such religion that Islam has represented.

The reason is that according to the Koran, Muslim was only used since Abraham, and then about his descendants.

[22.78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

Please provide a source and description. St.Trond (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Seventh Day Adventist

I removed the part about their views on creation in general. I left in their views on "Adam". The material would be better put in an article on their views in general, not here. Alexandria177 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

LDS Splinter Groups

I believe that should come out. It is uncited, and this is about Adam. In showing views of Adam, I wonder about how small an offshoot of differing faiths we need to show. The SDA, LDS and JWs do have varying - quite varying - beliefs about Adam, and there is some merit in showing them. But to list out every single denominational offshoot would make this article endless. I propose that the section on the LDS splinter groups be removed in it's entirety. Alexandria177 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, lookie there, Adam and Eve (LDS Church) and Adam-God theory, lots of red meat. The three grafs should be moved directly to the latter article; the former article correctly contains one graf; and this article should have just one or two sentences on "there is an Adam-God theory", perhaps naming the denoms. JJB 22:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
So, I'm a bit new - how do we go about this? Alexandria177 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Cut and paste, a little common sense, and edit summaries:  Done. In general, it's usually easy to move overspecific text from a general article after finding the appropriate equally specific article. JJB 05:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Alexandria177 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientific View

Why isn't there a section regarding the scientific consensus of the validity of the Adam and Eve story? I feel it would add some encyclopaedic value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.186.62 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

i second this. this article is very lacking.

--Volound (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam as the first hermaphrodite

The translation of Adam as a generic term for mankind is not the only possible translation. Adam, the individual, could have been created both male and female in the image of God (i.e. having both sets of genitals). Suggesting that Adam was not the first man but the first hermaphrodite. This would be more in line with the concept of God as being all encompassing, both male and female rather than the limited genderising of God as masculine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.125.219 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a fascinating interpretation...do you have any reliable sources that discuss this theory? Note that per WP:OR, we can't insert our own hypotheses or research into Wikipedia--all we can do is report what reliable sources have already said. If you do know of such sources, please post them here and we can see if they can/should be added to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are three different ways the Hebrew word "adam" is used in Genesis. "Adam" can just mean the generic term for mankind in general,male in particular, or as a title as is seen in ancient Near Eastern parallels where the lu-sign for ruler means "man". In Genesis 1:27 the term "Adam" includes both male and female referring to all humanity. Richard S. Hess (1990). "Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis". I believe the unsigned is referring to Adam Kadom the primeval soul that contained all human souls- the 2nd usage of Adam per Hess. As Kadam has it's own page and is linked from Adam, I would refer the unsigned to make additions on that page and, vote to close this topic.

--Ashadeofdarkness (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sumerian Adam

Should we not add a section on the correlation scholars have posed to the Sumerian linage, especially given that several theological texts are known to derive from older Sumerian sources e.g. Epic of Gilgamesh-Noah?

Biblical Adam may be the same man named Alulim the first king in the Sumerian King List, who lived before the great flood. He was the first king of Eridu which may be the Biblical Eden. Adam is also equated with Adapa, the first sage of Eridu. Shea explains that the "p" in Adapa could change to "m" in Hebrew giving the name Adama. WILLIAM H. SHEA (1977). "ADAM IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN TRADITIONS".
There are three different ways the Hebrew word "adam" is used in Genesis. "Adam" can just mean the generic term for mankind in general, or male in particular. In Genesis 1:27 the term "Adam" includes both male and female referring to all humanity. In Genesis Two "Adam" refers to a male in contrast to a female. The second use is a historical person named Adam. Hess states that not until chapter 4:25 is a historical person meant. The third use of "Adam" as a title, is seen in ancient Near Eastern parallels where the lu-sign for ruler means "man". The Hebrew Adam and the Sumerian Adam are similar in usage. Both can mean humans or humanity. Richard S. Hess (1990). "Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis".
As a general rule in the Hebrew, when Adam has a definite article, it means man or human; while Adam with no article is a personal name. Victor P. Hamilton (1990). "The book of Genesis:chapters 1-17".

--Ashadeofdarkness (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam → Adam (Biblical figure) – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC) This article was moved from Adam (Bible) to Adam without discussion in December 2008. That move was in error, in my opinion. There are simply too many other uses -- between Adam (given name) and all of the entries on Adam (disambiguation) for the Judeo-Christian figure to be considered primary. Remember, it has to be more likely than all other uses combined to be considered the primary topic. Powers T 12:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So, I see a lot of opinions above, but usually if we're going to move based on issues of primary topic, we need some sort of evidence that this is or isn't the primary topic. Does anyone have any either way? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, traffic stats for Adam (disambiguation) are fairly high, averaging about 60 hits per day. That's a pretty high number. (Comparing to the stats for Adam would be pointless, since the latter would include direct links.) Other than that, it's mostly going on the sheer number of alternative uses -- it seems unlikely that any one of them is overwhelmingly primary. Powers T 02:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose AFAIK the biblical Adam is clearly the primary topic. Flamarande (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you have any evidence? Powers T 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Is this the part where I can use the "mighty and impressive Google-numbers"? Very well, a search of 'Adam bible' received 67,500,000 results (0.17 seconds)? Do you have any evidence that the biblical Adam isn't the primary topic of 'Adam' as far as the English language is concerned? Flamarande (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, aside from the sheer number of alternative uses, there's the fact that only one link on the first five pages of search results for "Adam" refers to the Biblical figure -- and that sole link happens to be this very article. Powers T 18:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but that depends of the individual settings of your computer. My search results are overwhelmingly in favour of the biblical Adam. In the end we should truly ask ourselves: How many famous Adams do we know of? If I ask somebody else: "Who is Adam?" what is the most probably answer? The most probably answer is the primary topic. Flamarande (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, yes, if you "prime the pump", so to speak, by using the word "Who" to indicate that you're looking for a person, it'd be no surprise if non-person uses of the word don't come up. As for the Google search, the result is no different when I turn off personalized search. Powers T 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
              • If you asked them "What is Adam?", they'd be scratching their heads. Famous persons with the given name Adam are not really in competition with this Adam, if you ask me. You couldn't even considering titling their article "Adam", but is that not the most obvious title for this article? Srnec (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support by policy. The following statistics are on articles linked from the Adam disambiguation page in 2011, courtesy of [2].
Interesting articles:
Adam: 224,122 hits (30701 average per month)
Adam (disambiguation): 19,531 hits (2675 average per month)
Adam (name): 7,279 hits (997 average per month)
Adam (surname): 2,133 hits (292 average per month)
Selected other articles:
Adam tablet: 132,218 hits (18125 average per month)
Adam (film): 104,256 hits (14281 average per month)
Adam Kadmon: 40,441 hits (5540 average per month)
Adam (Buffy the Vampire Slayer): 24,669 hits (3379 average per month)
Adam (Torchwood): 23,467 hits (3216 average per month)
Adolphe Adam: 18,527 hits (2538 average per month)
Adam (TV film): 12,277 hits (1681 average per month)
Adam Aircraft Industries: 11,525 hits (1578 average per month)
Prince Adam: 8,210 hits (1124 average per month)
Adam Motor Company: 8,187 hits (1121 average per month)
Totals:
Adam: 224,122 hits (30701 average per month)
Selected other articles: 383,777 (52583 average per month)
Conclusion: Even with the high number of hits to Adam (disambiguation) that undoubtedly came from mistaken visits to Adam, and the fact that not all of the disambiguation articles were even checked, it is clear that the article on the biblical character is absolutely not the primary topic under Wikipedia's definition at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: a topic is primary if it is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be the subject searched after. The above statistics show that the Adam biblical character article fails this standard, and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "if there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page". TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Some of those other articles make sense, but is there anyone typing "Adam" and expecting to arrive at "Adam Kadmon"? By that logic, every first name should go to a disambiguation page, even things like Steve, Robert, that currently go to pages explaining the name. However, a number of those above do seem like reasonable targets--I'm sure some of the people meant to search for the tv show or the Prince or the Buffy character. I'm leaning towards supporting the move, but, as someone above pointed out, it can't be to Adam (Bible), since this article covers a variety of religions that don't use the Bible. Perhaps Adam (religious figure)? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
As you'll see from reading Adam Kadmon, the subject is referred to as simply 'Adam' throughout, and the 'Kadmon' portion appears to exist to disambiguate the biblical Adam person from the kabbalist Adam concept. This is also why 'Adam (religious figure)' wouldn't be appropriate, since there are multiple 'Adams' in different religions, especially Abrahamic. I would maintain that Adam (biblical figure) would be the most appropriate name. I misread a subsection while skimming. I agree that Adam (religious figure) is suitable. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem ignoring our primary topic guideline in this instance. Of course, we don't even have to ignore the rules here, since the cited guideline also says:
An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.
By its very nature the guideline biases the encyclopedia towards topics of interest to people surfing the web. I have never heard of the tablet or the film, and looking at the articles I'm not surprised. If we were to search reliable sources, which Adam would come up more often: the guy from Genesis, the 2009 film or the Indian-made tablet? There is far more educational value in this article than in the others competing with it for primacy, and this is a vital article, whereas the others are not. Srnec (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That you personally haven't heard of some of the other uses of Adam isn't really relevant. I could run the statistics further back than since the beginning of this year and still find that cumulative hits on other pages outweigh that on the biblical figure. It's clear from the statistics that there isn't just significant interest in other topics, but the article on the religious figure, despite holding the primary title, still only accounts for a third of interest in the articles inspected, and less if all of the articles on the disambiguation were to be examined. Educational value is clearly subjective and a film or technology student would certainly find more value in learning about films and tablets than a religious figure. Additionally, Adam is not a vital article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that a film or technology student would certainly find more value in learning about films and tablets than a religious figure. I already hinted above that there is a danger of a systematic bias in favour of things found interesting to people like, say, film or technology students. I should have said that Adam is a vital topic, not article. An encyclopedia which finds no place to mention Adam is probably worthless as an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that does not mention the 2009 film or the Indian tablet is, well, just like almost every other encyclopedia ever made. I'm not saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be more than just another encyclopedia, so by all means let's have the articles on recent films and tablets. What I am saying is that looking at page hits to determine a primary topic is generally worthless. Srnec (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
But we're not considering removing the article on Adam, we're simply considering moving it to another title (eg. 'Adam (religious figure)') and making 'Adam' a disambiguation page. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help people find and navigate to the article they're looking for, and it seems clear that there are plenty of people looking for 'Adam's that aren't the biblical Adam. Under the new proposal, a user looking for this article would search 'Adam', get the disambiguation page and click the first link to 'Adam (biblical figure)', as opposed to users looking for any of the other articles searching 'Adam' and then having to click 'for other users, go here', and then having to click the article they want. We're talking about making it easier for the two thirds of people looking for other Adam articles to find what they want, not to suppress, remove or hinder the article on the biblical figure in any way. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If there is a danger of systemic bias here, it is toward inflating the importance of mythological figures over more concrete and relevant entries. Powers T 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No. The myth of Adam is incomparably more important than ephemeral technologies. But I'm not accusing anyone of trying "to suppress, remove or hinder" his coverage. I just think the reader trying to learn about Adam should be privileged over the reader trying to learn about a recent movie or technology. Because this is an encyclopedia: some topics are more important to it than others (a guide, but not a rule, is to look at what other encyclopedias cover). —Srnec (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
And that's the problem. You're privileging the mythological figure because you think he's more "important". But it's not our place to judge importance. We judge notability, simply for matters of practicality, but we only take that into account when it comes to inclusion or exclusion. When it comes to article naming and primary topics, we generally aim to give readers what they're looking for as quickly as possible. But because so many editors here come from Judeo-Christian cultures, they automatically think this Adam is more important just because he appears in the Bible. Powers T 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This seems to assume that the cultural background of the editors doesn't accurately reflect that of the readers, populationwise. I would have thought it more reasonable to assume that it does, if anything. It's an interesting question... Evidence either way? Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The last move request for Avatar seems to show editors privileging a non-Judeo-Christian religious concept over a recent movie with obvious Judeo-Christian symbolism. This Adam is important because the Judeo-Christian tradition is important. Full stop. It has nothing to do either with editors' or readers' preferences in general. I said that we should privilege certain readers (not Adam) because some information is more important (not some people, like either certain readers or certain Biblical figures) to this project than other information. Srnec (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting points, but they don't appear to address the specific issue I raised at all. Are you sure you have the indentation right? Andrewa (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I was responding to Powers. Sorry if my indentation confused you (or him). Srnec (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—The hit count list above demonstrates recentism at its finest. The main contenders, the tablet and the movie, are both out within the last couple years. Of course they have tons of hits. Will they still be as popular in 5 years? Without either of them, Adam from Genesis is the primary topic again, as far as I can tell, so keep it here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the most important dudes in the Old Testament and what most people likely think of when they heard "Adam" alone, not in conjunction with a surname. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC certainly applies. JIP | Talk 16:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Comes under the perennial proposal category. Yes, there are lots of people called Adam, like any Biblical figure except perhaps God, but a few remain cultural landmarks, and this is one of them. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • How in the world does this count as a perennial proposal? As far as I can tell, it's never been proposed before; in fact, the article started out at Adam (Bible), near as I can tell. Powers T 12:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Quite right, although it's not clear to me exactly what the previous #Requested move proposal was. But similar proposals have been made for David, for example, see Talk:David/Archive 1#Requested move, and others. Andrewa (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That previous proposal moved this article to the current title from, I believe, Adam (Bible). I think. Powers T 16:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Hmmm, that move occurred on 11 December 2008 [3] while the previous RM was closed as no consensus on 20 April 2008 so that doesn't really make sense. But (as is pointed out very early above) moving it back to Adam (Bible) isn't a good option either, assuming the current lead is correct about his prominence in the Quran. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
            • The current proposal is Adam (religious figure) but other suggestions are of course welcome. Our guidelines clearly recommend putting a disambiguation page at Adam, and I'd reject calls to dismiss other results as recentism as narrow-minded - both other articles have existed for two years and have only grown in interest, rather than declined. We're certainly no crystal ball but I'd be willing to support that they'll both be reasonably well visited in another 5 years to justify the disambiguation page as the main page here. Recentism isn't a free pass, and two years of sustained interest can't be so easily dismissed. Disambiguation pages are itended to aid navigation, they make no assertions about relative importance. The biblical figure of Adam being moved to Adam (religious figure) should in no way be perceived as a reflection on that topic's importance to particular groups or individuals, it's a purely mechanical decision to aid navigation for significant numbers of users who simply aren't looking for this topic. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Agree with most of this but not all. IMO it's unlikely that such a cultural icon will fade into relative obscurity any time soon. Agree that it (and every Biblical figure currently at an undisambiguated name, probably) will be the subject of repeated attempts to move, and for the same reason... people reuse names, and the more famous the more they reuse them. And maybe, eventually, consensus will change... although personally I hope it will actually go in the other direction... for example I also think Pascal should redirect to Blaise Pascal, despite any Google test (web, books, whatever) telling me it's a programming language (and a good one, a guy called Wirth gave me some pointers on using it once... glad to see he gets a DAB too, at least we're consistent in that). Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
                • But that's just the problem with subjective "feelings" about what a primary topic should be. You may feel that since Blaise Pascal is far more important than any other pascal -- including the unit of measurement named after him -- but that's just your opinion based on your respect for and knowledge of the man's work. It's much better to try to use more objective metrics, such as looking at what readers are most commonly looking for -- not what we think they ought to read about when they search for a particular name. Powers T 12:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • I think we need to do both. Agree that this is a problem with subjective assessments, but there's a rather more subtle and equally important problem with objective assessments, in that we need to set the criteria somehow, and we don't always do this perfectly, partly because at some stage in the process we've appealed to subjective criteria in setting these objective criteria in the first place. That's why we have consensus and WP:IAR as policies, rather than just a set of objective criteria. Andrewa (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • Oh, absolutely. The problem is when IAR becomes an excuse for failing to recognize a systemic bias when it rears its head. So many of our editors are surrounded by Judeo-Christian imagery and iconography that it's difficult to remember sometimes that the myths and legends of that tradition are not universal. Powers T 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • Agreed. Just as other editors are equally committed to other worldviews, as are our readers, to whom WP:AT of course gives priority. I'm a Christian of what I hope is the more radical flavour, you seem to me to be close to the equally extreme (or if you prefer, committed) position of Thomas Huxley, and this is reflected not just in what we believe but, more important, in what we tend to read and who tends to be included in our deepest and most open reflections. That's why WP:AGF is another key policy. See User:Andrewa/creed for more of this. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose While clearly not all biblical names are a primary topic, this one seems clear to be. I see nothing wrong with this article being at this name. --Jayron32 01:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Evangelicals question the existence of Adam & Eve

On the other hand, we could discuss the debate illustrated here: [4]. "But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all." "Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science." Others are quoted, for and against. I'm not sure how much this should be here and how much at Adam and Eve. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't actually discuss such things, we should instead report the discussions of citeable authorities. That may seem a quibble but I think it's a very important one. As editors, our own opinions on the matter are neither relevant in articles, nor even in talk pages except for the special and negative purpose of sometimes disqualifying ourselves from talk page discussions for COI reasons. Of course we need to balance possible COI against the fact of life that the things we are knowledgeable about, and interested in writing about, tend to be things about which we also have opinions. And of course this is an issue both for Christians such as myself and followers of other religions, and for those who see religion itself as a bad thing, for whatever reason.
Anyway, at the risk of quibbling, I hope that part of my contribution to this sometimes tricky area of discussion can be positive. With an academic background in formal logic and a professional background in audit, I can claim some expertise in splitting hairs. The trick is to make such pedantry productive. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Obviously, Doug meant that Wikipedia could discuss the debate. This could at least be mentioned if the source is considered reliable, the opinion notable and the mention remains short enough not to run afoul of WP:UNDUE. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Canaanite as a language

Hello, I just wanted to draw attention to a confusing aspect of this article. Under the Individual/humanity and etymology section it states that אָדָם‎ comes from "the earlier Canaanite 'adam" and then cites a Jewish Encyclopedia page (which doesn't mention a 'Canaanite' language) and the NIV Study Bible which I do not have a copy of. The problem as I see it is two-fold.

First, there was not one 'Canaanite language' as our very own wikipedia article Canannite language makes clear. I believe this misunderstanding comes from the fact that the Biblical text often times lumps all of the people living in the land of Canaan as being one homogenous group. But, as we see in other parts of the Bible and in a lot of other ancient artifacts, the peoples living in Canaan actually had different cultures, religions, and dialects (even if their languages mostly fell into one linguistic family). What that means is, just like today we could learn to speak French, Italian, and Latin we can't learn to speak Romance language.

Second, in my (admittedly very brief) investigation, I cannot find a clear etymology of the word in question. Brown Driver and Briggs suggest a link between אָדָם‎ and (what appears to be a hypothetical) Assyrian adâmu.

Citing the Assyrian seems more reliable to me, especially since the transliteration of the 'Canaanite' appears to simply be a transliteration of the Hebrew which calls into question its validity. In other words 'adam could easily be someone's transliteration of אָדָם and not come from some mystery Canaanite language. However, I don't simply want to remove this link because it is well sourced and I cannot personally verify the source. It just seems a little suspicious to me.

Canaanite is a family of languages. Does anyone have a source mentioning a possible link between a particular Canaanite language and the Hebrew word אָדָם‎? Or, would we all feel comfortable changing the text to say something like "in the same way as the earlier Canaanite languages used 'adam."? If anyone happens to have the source that the article is currently referencing it may be able to illuminate the situation a little better.

Thank you for your time, I know that it sounds like a minute detail that doesn't matter, but linguistics is important. BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew is one of the Canaanite languages, so presumably "Canaanite language" means "Proto-Canaanite language" here (the reconstructed most recent common ancestor of all Canaanite languages). (It can also be used to refer to some unspecified preliterary period somewhat later or even somewhat earlier than the beginning of the dialectal divergence of Proto-Canaanite; say, sometime in the 2nd millennium BC or 3rd millennium BC if the divergence started at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, i. e., approx. 2000 BC). The word in question would seem to be inherited from Proto-Canaanite. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there OR here?

In the New Testament, Jesus is invoked as the last Adam, and is contrasted against Adam.1 Corinthians 15:45–47 Quote: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven." Adam is invoked as bringing death (through sin) whereas Jesus is invoked as bringing life to mankind.Romans 51 Corinthians 15:21–22 Quote: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research. None of what you are presenting here matters.Jasonasosa (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Where is the original research (WP:OR)? Jesanj (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bible is a primary source. Interpreting what a Bible verse means is always original research. In order to include such info, we need reliable secondary sources that explain what these mean. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I get that. I'm saying I don't see the interpretation. I'll look for a secondary source though... Jesanj (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Click on Romans 5th chapter. It says "Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ", for example. Jesanj (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove "creation myth"

In the first sentence, it says "...according to the creation myths of Abrahamic religions...." Creation myth should be removed because it would not change the meaning of the sentence, and removing it would also remove the extremely obvious atheist bias. Zenkai251 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections? Ok, good. Zenkai251 (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we should mirror whatever consensus exists at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Jesanj (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
And there's no atheist bias... Do you have a reliable source for that charge? Jesanj (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I see no justification for this article mirroring the article that you are referring to. I think that articles in general exist as separate entities. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with User:Bus stop. Articles ought not mirror each other's content. Find a good reference and edit it appropriately. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an atheist bias, it's a fact. Do you think any Christian, Jew, or Muslim would call it a "myth"? The answer to that question is a definite NO. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Peter Schäfer does here [5]. Then there's Howard Schwartz (writer and editor) here [6] who writes a lot about Jewish mythology. That took a couple of minutes. Oh, and obviously I object, that's why IU put it bck. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Here are some simple facts that no one can ignore:
Anti-religious/Atheist POV (which is the way it is now)
Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to the creation myths of Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God.
Christian/Jew/Muslim/etc POV
Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was the first man created by God.
Neutral POV (the way it SHOULD be)
Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God.
Zenkai251 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You've been told often enough that you are misrepresenting what is made by 'creation myth'. You've ignored the fact that I've shown you wrong about your claim that no Christian Jew or Muslim would call it a myth (and note that no one is using the word 'myth' on its own here in any case. It isn't anti-religious to call something a creation myth. And by the way, stop calling people atheists when they haven't stated on their user page or somewhere that they are atheistic. As I've pointed out, you can be religious and talk about creation myths. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying you don't care about neutrality? If so, you have no place on wikipedia. Zenkai251 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No characterization of this material is called for. It is gratuitous and a contrivance to pigeonhole the material in any way at the top of the article. There is no justification for saying for instance that:
"Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to the creation myths of Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God."
"Creation myths" is a characterization of the material being referred to. It is not the only characterization available for this material. It is probably not the most prominent characterization of the material being referred to. There is no cause for characterizing the material in any way in the first sentence of the article.
"Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to the Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God."
The above is sufficient. It is also preferable because it refrains from characterizing the referred-to material in any way that does not receive universal support. In fact many do not characterize the referred-to material as a "creation myth". We should leave out gratuitous characterizations. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
@Zenkai 251. Do you have a reliable source saying creation myth carries an atheist bias? I created the article political myth. Like creation myth, that has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. There is no POV in using it, as Dougweller showed with sources, which also demonstrates he belongs here. Jesanj (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, depending upon how long the wording of the lead is, it can be easily left out. Jesanj (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you and Dougweller atheists? Zenkai251 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The individual religious convictions of editors have no bearing in this discussing this article. One can still believe in a god or gods and still believe this is a myth and/or not a true story. Creation myth should stand.--Adam in MO Talk 22:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Zenkai, asking other users that on an article talk page is wholly inappropriate. See WP:PA and WP:Talk. No user has any obligation to disclose their religious affiliation on wikipedia in order to edit, and indeed "calling them out" on such issues is poisoning the well. Please stop. Dougweller has presented sources for his view, defending the current wording. I would encourage you to do the same.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but I am a theist, and not only do think the phrase "creation myth" is unbiased, but I actually find it helpful in providing a clear context for the first sentence. The creation myth article is a "must link" somewhere in this article (the story of Adam is clearly one of many stories used by religions to explain the origin of the world/universe/humanity), and the lead sentence actually seems like the most appropriate. Putting "creation myth" in the lead is no different than the fact that the word theory is linked in the first sentence of General relativity. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Prolonged discussion of other editors' religious convictions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • Note It is most definitely important that we know their religious beliefs. If they are indeed atheists, it would prove the bias they show towards articles such as these. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Note It's none of your (Zenkai251) business what their bias is. POV is apart of wiki... it's just how well we spread it evenly. Jasonasosa (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
NoteIt's supposed to be a NPOV. Also, the bias doesn't seem so "evenly spread". Zenkai251 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
(-POV X -POV = +POV) :p Jasonasosa (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Zenkai, you've been warned by multiple editors now that this sort of behavior is out of line. Please stop. Sources have been furnished supporting the current wording. Please provideyour own, and in all cases, keep the discussion focused on content, not on contributors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually pretty hard to work the phrase "creation myth" into the lead sentence. Adam himself isn't a myth, he's a figure in a myth - it's not easy to put that into the first sentence. I'd be happy to leave it out. PiCo (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Second thought: You could get round by saying Adam is the "mythical First Man" in Genesis. (And I wouldn't worry too much about the Koranic Adam - Mohammed was simply borrowing the name from the Jews and Christians). PiCo (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Using Hendel as a source

I've re-written the lead using Hendel's article on "Adam" in Eerdman's bible dictionary - it's a far better source than the Encyclopedia Britannica, for obvious reasons. Not that Hendel distinguishes four separate meanings of the word Adam - this is absolutely essential, as Adam the first man is only one of those four. I've also gone on and corrected later parts of the article which have misinterpreted Hendel. PiCo (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the content or the source. It is already covered in the Etymology section, so there is no need to lead with it in the intro. The intro needs to contain the source(s) from which the biblical figure came from.Jasonasosa (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. Nothing wrong with what source? Nothing wrong with what content? The intro needs to contain the sources the biblical figure came from? What sources are those? PiCo (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant that there was nothing wrong with your (User:PiCo) content and source (Hendel)... However, what you had in the intro is already covered in the Etymology section. It could stay in the intro... but eliminating what was there prior to your edit, was really the most incorrect thing to do. - Jasonasosa (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've only made a small edit to your reinstated original lead (a few words that I find redundant). I still think we need to inform readers, in the lead, that "Adam" isn't only an individual "first man" - it's a generic term meaning "mankind", and (although Hendel doesn't say this) it only becomes the First Man in about halfway through Genesis 2, when the initial "ha-" is dropped (turning ha-adam, "the man", into simply Adam, "Man" - which Christian tradition interprets, though wrongly, as a personal name). This can be sourced from any number of Genesis commentaries. PiCo (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hendel may be a fine source, but you are misquoting it. The Immaculate Conception has a meaning, and it is not the means by which Jesus was conceived; the Immaculate Conception always refers to Mary, as the Virgin Birth refers to Jesus. Also, Hendel doesn't use the phrase "immaculate conception" in the citation posted, while the link to the Wikipedia article on "Immaculate Conception" informs readers right away that it doesn't refer to Jesus. I changed the text and link a while back, but someone reversed it without researching it. Feel free to brush up my wording (as long as it fixes this error), but I'm changing it back.Jim Casy (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing content

There is consensus to keep the phrase "creation myth" in the lead. Please stop removing it.--Adam in MO Talk 02:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no there's not. Did you read the discussion above? I doubt you did. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
@Zenkai, the discussion above was not consensus to remove "creation myth". It was mostly off-topic ranting about how some editors here are atheists and/or biased. Please establish firm consensus before making that change again. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Adam in MO—this is not even an article on "Genesis". You are arguing to insert in an article on "Adam" that "Genesis" is a "Creation myth" and you are arguing that that characterization be placed in the Lead. That is uncalled for. In fact no characterization in any way is called for of "Genesis" in the Lead of the article on "Adam". Such an addition of material is gratuitous. If no editor objected, then that might be acceptable. But you are arguing for a fundamentally untenable position. As long as several editors are objecting to this material, you should be acceding to their requests. When you call "Genesis", in an article on "Adam", a "creation myth", and you do so in the Lead, you tend to introduce an anti-religious element. There is certainly a valid and a responsible and a scholarly use for the term "creation myth". But it can't, or shouldn't, just be tossed in anywhere. No matter where or how it is used it tends to impart a characterization of "falseness". In this article we find for instance:
"To be fair, Scientology’s Xenu story is no more scientifically untenable than other faiths’ origin myths. If there is no testable means of determining which creation cosmogony is correct, perhaps they are all astounding science fictions."
In this case the phrase used is not "creation myth" but something similar; in this instance we find the phrase "origin myths". But note the emphasis in the surrounding language. "Origin myth" is used within a general theme of "falseness" in that particular Scientific American magazine article. We read phrases like "scientifically untenable", "no testable means", "science fictions". That also happens to be the last paragraph in that magazine article, and it is the subject of that article—Scientology—that is being alluded to as an "origin myth".
We would not be writing an encyclopedia article responsibly if we start out an article with the contrived characterization of the subject matter as "false". "Genesis" is not even the subject of this article, yet some are arguing that we should be offering an opinion on "Genesis" in the Lead of the article on "Adam". Sometimes "Genesis" is simply referred to as a "story" or an "account". That reference, as a characterization, is different from the reference to "Genesis" as a "creation myth". We should be writing responsibly and not unnecessarily characterizing, especially where characterization is not even called for. Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
So what is your proposal? What is special about the words on that page of the Book of Genesis that somehow elevate it above that of other origin myths? I am sorry that you don't like it but Genesis is a myth. It is an explanation of origins from a divine source. It doesn't matter if you think it is true or not. It doesn't matter if you don't like the word myth or not. Genesis is a myth.--Adam in MO Talk 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Genesis 1-11 is indeed a collection of myths; and Adam is indeed a mythical person, not a real one; but, nevertheless, I see no need to shoehorn the word "myth" into the lead if it doesn't "flow" naturally from the sense of what's being said, and it doesn't. PiCo (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that he is is known as a central figure in a creation myth is an important detail about him, and I think omitting it for the sake of "flow" would be a mistake. Do we leave out mention of "fruit" in the article on apples if it doesn't flow with the rest of the wording? No. We structure our wording around that point because it is a defining characteristic of an apple. The story of Adam is a creation myth; that descriptor encapsulates and contextualizes the entirety of the work in a way no other label can. There may be reasons not to use "creation myth" in the lead, but "flow" is not one of them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Again, speaking as a theist (to Bus stop), it is simply disingenuous to argue that any primary religious document (or an oral tradition, for those that aren't written) is not a myth. I literally don't understand how this is even a matter of debate. A myth is a type of literature/story. The Genesis narrative is one such story. That some people belief it makes it no more or less a myth. It's just like the fact that a scientific theory remains a theory no matter how many scientists concur with it; even if it were disproven, it would still fall into the category of theory. Maybe Zenkai and Bus stop need to take this up at WP:NPOVN or somewhere... Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the KJV and other things

I know the King James is beautiful, but it's not very accurate - scholarship has advanced quite a bit since the 17th century. Please, drop the quotes from the KJV and go to a good modern translation - the JPS is excellent, but there are others. Also, be careful about meanings - a simple phrase like "dominion" (where Adam is told he has "dominion" over all creation) isn't nearly as straightforward as they told you in Sunday School. PiCo (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Intro text.

I dont understand why you keep reverting the edit. It is not prohibited to add more information. And there is also no reason to let the Genesis be preceded in contrast with the Qur'an, as stated by Dominus Vobisdu. Is this a sign of anti-Islamic behaviour? Runehelmet (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In a sense, you're right; the article's lead doesn't adequately summarize it's contents. However, it's not appropriate to place new material there that isn't covered in the body. I'm going to try rewriting the lead right now. to summarize the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Creation myth (let's try this again)

The "creation myth" phrase was re-added to the article introductory sentence and the editor commented that it had been repeatedly discussed and that consensus had been reached that it was correct per sources. First, no sources are provided in the article introduction (which is standard on wikipedia). So the "per sources" comment is not valid. Second, sources don't make it "correct." They just make it sourced. Third, I read the discussions--no consensus was ever reached. The debated ended by attrition. The concept of the creation story/creation myth is addressed further down in the article and a link is provided to the main article on that subject. Since treatment of the topic and direction to further sources is given in its appropriate place, then I see no reason why the article introduction should not be rendered more neutral by omitting the phrase "creation myth." Interested readers will be able to find all that they need for further analysis of the 'creation myths' concept by reading the pertinent portions of the body of the article. Furthermore, the phrase "creation myth" is merely iterative to those who don't believe in the Abrahamic religions anyway. Those who oppose the concept of a 'myth' are appeased by omitting the phrase from the introductory sentence while those who feel that it is a myth gain nothing by its presence and lose nothing by its removal. I am in the camp that feels that wikipedia should be as neutral as is possible without compromising validity. Leaving the discussion of (and links to) the creation story as written in the body of the article, while omitting it from the introduction is the best compromise. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot. Please talk it over and establish consensus first before reverting other editors on the article. Compromises are arrived at with input from multiple editors... not proposed and enacted by a single editor with no outside input. I'll also point out that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. As you indicate, "sources don't make it 'correct.' They just make it sourced"... and that's all that matters.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you see what you just did? You reverted my edit without reaching consensus and then told me not to revert edits without reaching consensus. I'm not trying to engage in an edit war. Though I am editing boldly per policy.
I agree, wikipedia is about verifiability but both sides of this debate can be verified by sources. So that is not the issue at hand. It comes down to neutrality and accuracy--not truth or verifiability. Thanks. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD and WP:CON. You're proposing that we change the article to remove "creation myth", a term which has been present in the article for some time, and received broad support in numerous discussions. Making proposals is fine, but the way to do that is to talk it out first. If you believe your position is well supported in the sources, it would be helpful for you to list them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death on this and related articles, and the consensus is to use "myth", as do the reliable scholarly sources. Further discussion is pointless per WP:DEADHORSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
While sources don't have to be used in the lead per WP:MOS, they can be. MorbidAnatomy, if a source that used the term "creation myth" were added after that phrase, would that satisfy you? Personally, I don't understand the concern with the word; as someone even believes (in part) in the story, I consider myth to be wonderful term, completely neutral, and perfectly encapsulating the fact that this is in no way a verified historical "fact", does not have any independent corroboration in archeology or even comparable texts, and is a matter of faith among those who believe it to be accurate. That sounds just like a myth to me.
Regarding the process, though, Mann jess is correct: since you (MorbidAnatomy) are the one seeking to make a controversial change, its up to you to establish a consensus for that change. Your initial removal of the phrase was fine (though it would have helped if you'd looked through the history and seen we've been through it before, it's in no way required), but now that you see a strong consensus for keeping the phrase, you'll need to figure out if you can change that consensus. You are always welcome to pursue dispute resolution if you would like the input of uninvolved editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
What you (or I) may think of the word shouldn't be the issue. It's what the average reader thinks. I'm positive that for the majority of people, when they read or hear the word, they think of the third definition found on wiktionary. Maybe you were taught the first definition in school, but I know that I, and the people I know, weren't. And I think we need to keep the reader in mind, first and foremost. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The use of the term "creation myth" in the lead of the article constitutes the gratuitous bashing of religion. The term "creation myth" clearly favors the sensibilities of nonbelievers. That is where the "gratuitousness" arises—there is no need for any characterization whatsoever. The sentence reads fine as follows:
"According to the Abrahamic religions, he is the first human."
Instead editors are arguing for the contrived inclusion of a gratuitous characterization, as follows:
"According to the creation myth of Abrahamic religions, he is the first human."
In the body of the article this area of characterization can be expanded upon fully to bring all readers up to speed on the terminology and what it means and what it does not mean. In the lead it is uncalled for. In the lead the insertion of such terminology is jarring and easily misunderstood. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
So, anyone want to offer up any actual evidence to back up these claims? Musdan, do you have any evidence that the more common definition is not the first one in wiktionary? Bus stop, do you have any evidence that calling something a myth is bashing? Simply asserting that something is POV or bashing or negative does not necessarily make it so. Also, just to make this a little easier (and maybe faster), could someone above supporting the term provide a direct quotation or two that justifies the term? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Added a source. Noformation Talk 06:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Qwyrxian—despite any extent of academic usage, the term "creation myth" is more likely to be misunderstood than to be understood. It is a contrivance to overlook the development of an article. An article starts with the general and moves on to the specific. The lead is for the general; in the body of the article we tackle the specific. In the case of religion, there is good reason to avoid clobbering the reader from the outset with the implication of "falsehood". This is not something that is required of an article on the figure "Adam", that is a significant component of a religious body of thought. The immediate characterization of that body of thought as "myth" is off-putting to those for whom a degree of respect and reverence is tastefully expected. But the term "creation myth" has applicability here. It is the heading under which all such explanations of a non-scientific nature of the origin of the world are placed. I am not denying that the story of Genesis and the character Adam are placed, at least academically, in a category of creation myths. But there are those who do not embrace this particular characterization or pigeonholing. Therefore we should not be foisting a characterization that is not universally held, on the reader, in the lead. There is plenty of space for expanding on the place of the terminology that we are discussing—in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia of knowledge, WP is supposed to represent academia and does so using academic sources. Your opinion is irrelevant, what matters is what sources say - this is the entire point of WP:NPOV. Secondly, people make all sorts of claims regarding common usage but the fact of the matter is that no one has produced any sources regarding the most commonly used definition, nor whether people know multiple definitions, nor anything else regarding public perception of myth. Not that it really matters per point #1, but still, it just illustrates that some people on WP believe that most people won't know the definition of the word when they really have no evidence, save for possible anecdotes, to support the assertion. If we're going to call old greek religious beliefs mythology there's no reason to do differently for Christianity - the fact that people still believe this mythology is not really relevant as to whether or not it's mythology. Noformation Talk 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding sourcing, A dictionary of creation myths (page 113) is direct and accessible. That may be a good addition here. There are less direct alternatives in Christian mythology and elsewhere. One is "Christian Mythology" (page 22) by George Every. No google books or amazon preview is available, however. There are others.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If Christian scholars talk about Christian myths and mythology (and of course they do), then using the word isn't anti-Christian. There is a 'simple Wikipedia' which might not use the word, but we are the real thing, a real encyclopedia and shouldnt avoid it where appropriate, any more than we should avoid using images of Mohammed where appropriate. We shouldn't be exempting specific religions from certain words. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I apologize for starting all of this. When I made my initial edit it didn't even occur to me that this would be such a huge ordeal. I thought I was just rendering the article more neutral and simplifying the text. I didn't review the article history to see that this had been done before because I didn't realize that it would extend beyond a matter of neutrality. In hindsight, I guess it should have been obvious.

Dougweller, your statement is not really valid. "Christian scholars" aren't necessarily Christians and they actually do use anti-Christian language quite frequently. But that topic is a tangent from the main discussion. Editors who favor retaining the "creation myth" have repeatedly demanded sources from those who prefer it's removal. Yet sourcing is not the issue here. Both sides of the argument can find sources supporting whether or not the word "myth" is appropriate. The question at hand is not one of verifiability. The question at hand is whether or not including the phrase "creation myth" in the opening sentence actually adds anything of value to the article. So lets please stop demanding sources and asserting definitions. That is not the issue. Those who favor its inclusion have not yet provided clear explanation of what its inclusion in the opening statement does to benefit the article. Phrasing the opening sentence as "Adam, according to the Abrahamic religions, was the first human" provides an ample amount of context and preface to the ensuing text of the article without the redundancy which is added by including "the creation myth of" in the clause. Furthermore, its omission leaves no room for further argument about bias--while it's inclusion causes all this debate. No one will debate that the story of Adam is found in the Abrahamic religious texts. Many will (and have) debated whether or not it is a myth. I maintain that the most appropriate place to introduce the concept of creation myth (and redirect to the appropriate main article) is in the body of the article, not the opening sentence. The article is equally valid, sourced, verified, and rendered more neutral by this. Please address these points specifically. Sources and verifiability are not the issue. Thank you. (you'll notice that I didn't revert this time). I'm all ears. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MA, you've said repeatedly that "both sides can find sources", but I've asked for them and have yet to see any. Per WP:V, we cannot represent any view in the article without sources. Your next reply should be links to sources and nothing else. To answer your question anyway, the label is important because the story of Adam is, itself, a creation myth. We are not talking about a figure simply appearing in a religious text (like Jesus or Mohammed); we are directly and explicitly defining a central figure within a creation myth, and excluding the label for ideological reasons would be a disservice to that definition.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally, an answer to the actual question at hand. Thank you. Jess, I see your point and I think it is reasonable--though I still disagree with it. The first part of your most recent post demonstrates to me why this topic has never truly reached consensus on this talk page and has only been brought to a close through attrition. You once again diverted to the subject of sources. All of that has come and gone in the archives of the talk page on the Creation Myth article. I was trying very hard to avoid restarting that here, which is why I was merely giving the summary statement that both sides of the myth debate and the sources they apparently choose to accept. This article is about Adam and the talk page is to improve upon that topic--not debate what "myth" means. I maintain that the inclusion of the phrase in the opening statement provides nothing beyond the context of the Abrahamic religions statement. The quality of the article is in no way enhanced by its inclusion in the opening sentence. But I am now exhausted by people repeatedly dodging that point to rehash the definition and source debate. Forget it. Thank you for your time and efforts. Attrition wins again. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MA, I'm sorry that you feel exhausted by the discussion. I understand where you're coming from. However, if you think that we are "diverting to the subject of sources", you are missing the point of wikipedia. The one and only thing we care about is the sources. When we have a bunch representing one view, and none presented to represent another, we as editors do not have any choice in what we print. That is why consensus is as firm as it is. If you'd like to come back to the discussion later and present sources supporting an alternate view, then we can reopen the discussion then. Hopefully I'll see you around elsewhere. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge in progress: Islamic Views on Adam

As the actual content on the Islamic Views of Adam page is mimimal, and no objections were raised when asked in talk of that page, I am merging it with the section on this page. This section could use significant expansion and work, I'd love it if any third-party sources could be found (so much bloody hadith synthesis) particularly on the subject of Adam's Prophethood. Peter Deer (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hope I did this right! Peter Deer (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Islamic's Forgiveness vs Christianity's Redemption (Intro)

The intro contains the sentence:

In addition, Islam holds that Adam was eventually forgiven, while Christianity holds that redemption occurred only later through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that this statement is incorrectly associating the Islamic concept of forgiveness with the Christian concept of redemption.
In my limited experience the Islamic and Christian concepts of forgiveness are almost synonymous.
I suggest that the sentence be removed as it is both:

On the German Wikipedia, "Adam" redirects to "Adam und Eva". This is the error message I got while trying to add a link for German on "Adam":

Site link Adam und Eva is already used by item Adam and Eve (Q58701). Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Feel free to ask at Project chat if you are unsure.

This suggestion seems kind of silly. English Wikipedia has chosen to split up the topics, while German Wikipedia has combined them. Why should both wikis have to have a one to one structure in order for the articles to have relevant inter-language links?

The bottom line is that if I'm on English Wikipedia's "Adam" or "Adam and Eve", and I want to read about Adam in German, "Adam und Eva" is where I want to go, so both English articles should have this link. Attys (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Genesis 1:26 - Bereshit 1:26 (torah)

Why have I not seen any commentary about this?

Torah: [1] Cant use it but it says: our image and likeness

King James Bible: [2] Cant use it but it says: our image... our likeness

Sumerian "Creation" tablets. I have been comparing the Sumerian creation (myth) with the Bible and Torah. Need a reference to the creation myth tablets. The Wikipedia reference dates it to 1900bc. Research that I have been doing on it dates the tablets back to just before the pyramids were built. It points to a lot of things were changed in the history when the Babylonians and the Akkadians took over the kingdom around 3500BC. I read that the Egyptian Kings got their schooling from Mesopotamia, learning advanced math, geometry and astronomy. Their number systems back then was based 60-60 like our 360 degrees-minutes-seconds and 12/24 hour clock. They understood Pi and the golden number. All these were decoded from the Sumerian tablets. There is references to the 9 planets in our solar system back then and tablets with distances to local stars.

Nobody has commented on God creating man in "OUR" image and likeness? Are we still being repressed or censored my a monotheistic culture? I know that we all have been taught about Adam being the first human, but what about where the Torah and Bible came from? The Sumerian "Creation Myth" seems to me to be not a myth but stories that were handed down and finally transcribed onto a tablet. Is it a coincidence that the stories parallel the bible in so many ways including the great flood?

My main point here is that Adamu or Adam or ha'adam (the man) as God was narrating it was created in OUR image implying that God was not alone. My perspective on this is that OUR refers to what we interpret now as His angels. Back then the Sumerians, and up to and including the Romans, and the Greeks, believed in the "gods" and that they were not of this earth. The "gods" were here for a very, very long time and were mining gold. They got tired of the labour and decided to create a helper "man" to do the work for them so they could rest on the seventh day. Just like the most of the amateur archeologists ignore the fact that 6000 years ago water levels were a lot higher than they are now, most amateur historians are ignoring the fact that we interpret our history differently now than we did 5000 years ago. Things are not the same now that they were at the end of the last ice age and how we perceive "God" now is different.

I hope that in the discussions about Adam - the man, that somebody finds the wisdom to include the reference to God in PLURAL.

Thank You,

References

  1. ^ http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=1&chapter=1&verse=26&portion=1
  2. ^ http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-26/

Mdc on ca (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)mdc_on_ca

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam/Archive_1&oldid=1255287251"