Talk:Adam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removing "atheist" content

Content is currently being removed under the guise that it is from "an atheist troll". I don't see how the material is trolling or vandalism, as has been claimed. The most recent revert is here. I've been unable to draw the new editor who is reverting to discuss his position. Please post here to discuss the topic before removing the material again. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Creation of Adam date

According to the book "Genesis Genealogies" by Rev. Abraham Park, which contains the Chronology of the Patriarchs, Adam was created in 4,114 BC. Any thoughts on this? NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually his existence is disputed, and we certainly don't know a date. Park in any case fails WP:RS To actually state that Adam was born (which I still think requires a mother and a father, both homo sapiens) violates WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Mdc_on_ca (talk) added:

It needs to be noted here that many people believe that Adam was created through genetic manipulation of the native Homo Sapiens of Earth and the "Gods" who were Extra Terrestrials. Homo Sapiens made a giant leap in intelligence and brain volume that does not align with standard evolution rate.

It should also be noted that there is proof of intelligent life on Earth at least 10,000 years ago in Göbekli Tepe, Turkey. There are giant multi tonne stones with intricate carvings as part of a village that was buried about 10,000 years ago. (Possibly by flood??) If the "intelligent" people that carved and moved the giant stones then were human, then the birth date of Adam had to be before that. It is possible that non-humans built it but I personally believe humans constructed it.

It also needs to be mentioned here the other theories. Current religion implies that out current monotheistic "God" created Adam and then created Eve from Adam and that all people on Earth descended from them. The date is unclear in every reference but it is assumed to be before the great flood about 8000 years ago. Scientists are now linking the last ice age (26,000 to 13,300 years ago) to human evolution history.

Mdc on ca (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:No original research. Wikipedia sides with mainstream science and history. We don't say "many people" when it's really "ironically oblivious fantasy authors Zecharia Sitchen and Erich von Däniken, and their overly credulous and under parsimonious fans." We do not cite our own articles. When we cite sources, they have to actually support the claims that they're being cited for (for example, Genetic engineering says jack shit about Adam). Science says that modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens is way the fuck older than 10,000 years old, so the date for "Adam" is well the hell before Göbekli Tepe, which makes it far less of a surprise. Occam's razor would limit us to assuming that intelligent humans built it since we know those were around but we still haven't found any solid evidence for extraterrestrial life (let alone intelligent extraterrestrial life).

Other theories do not need to be mentioned if mainstream academia thinks those other theories are crazy fantasies. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Bible Origins

Genesis 1:26 - Bereshit 1:26 (torah) Why have I not seen any commentary about this?

Torah: says: "our image and likeness"

King James Bible: "our image... our likeness"

Sumerian "Creation" tablets. I have been comparing the Sumerian creation (myth) with the Bible and Torah. The Wikipedia reference dates it to 1600bc. Some people like Sitchin believe that the tablets date 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.

There is a theory that 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 archaeologists 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 a monotheistic "God" now is different.

I hope that in the discussions about Adam - the man, that somebody finds the wisdom to change the interpretation of the reference to God as PLURAL.

References

Mdc on ca (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)mdc_on_ca (Edited) Mdc on ca (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC) brought back from archive for editing

Wikipedia regards the works of Sitchin, von Däniken, and other "ancient astronauts" advocates as crackpottery. Wikipedia does not use original research. Wikipedia does not dedicate any space to works not covered by professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Talk pages are not for discussing the general topic but for improvement of the article. The "Our" image bit is taken to mean God was conversing with lesser deities (if you ask historians, per archaeological evidence that the Israelites were more henotheistic than monotheistic) or angels (if you ask most theologians, as if there's any practical difference between henotheism and monotheism). References are not places for you to stuck in opinions outright wrong claims like 'some of Sitchin's theories make sense.' Sitchin made up claims of nine planets with accurate distances (and the few things that could be misconstrued as any additional knowledge beyond the naked-eye astronomy is usually way off), and missed that the Sumerians had possibly one of the most inefficient writing systems possible, and used base 12/60 because you can count 12 knuckles with your thumb on one hand (times 5 fingers on the other, there's 60). Oh, and nevermind that the Sumerians completely lacked a vocabulary necessary to be usable slaves of a technologically advanced race. There is a reason that most mainstream academia does not even bother to dismiss Sitchin's claims: they are not even wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam in Yazidi / Ezidi Religion

As the Ezidi (sometimes called Yazidi) religion is older than christianity and possible also older than the jewish fate, one should include aspects from this religion. In addition, the Bible mentions the paradise to be at the sources of Euphates and Tigris rivers, that is in the northen part of Kurdiwtan, where the Ezidi religion is present (while its centre is the Jurdish northern Iraq).

There, Adam as name means either "The First" or "The First Rightful", which explains, that in some Qewls (Ezidi oral stories of the origin of their religion) Adam is the first man created by God, sometime the first of God's crations that shall rule above all others including the seven (arch-)angels. He had a wife Eve (Hewa in Kurdish), who brought hiom to sin, while this first sin was not to eat an apple but to eat wheat. In this context the origin of sin by doing this is much clearer. Having wheat means agriculture instead of nomadic gathering and hunting. It means with doing so (eating the wheat) there also comes possession (of fields, which is not necessary for nomads) and heritage, and certainly fight for something to posess.

Further, Adam and Eve are not the only humans, as the Ezidis themselves view their heritage as children of Adam, but not of Eve.

As this religion was present in Mesopotamia four milennia ago and even earlier, it is possible, even probable, that some or many aspects of Adam and Eve were copied from the Ezidi "original". Knowledge of the Adam and Eve story can be assumed to be present in the Sumer culture, Medic culture and pre-silamic Iranian and Arabian cultures, and hence could have found its way easily into Hebrow chronicles, as they were recorded at or later as Moses' arrival in present day Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.83.100.218 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A Christian theologian on myth

Christian theologian Conrad Hyers wrote that

...myth today has come to have negative connotations which are the complete opposite of its meaning in a religious context... In a religious context, however, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth, the most basic and important truths of all. By them people regulate and interpret their lives and find worth and purpose in their existence. Myths put one in touch with sacred realities, the fundamental sources of being, power, and truth. They are seen not only as being the opposite of error but also as being clearly distinguishable from stories told for entertainment and from the workaday, domestic, practical language of a people. They provide answers to the mysteries of being and becoming, mysteries which, as mysteries, are hidden, yet mysteries which are revealed through story and ritual. Myths deal not only with truth but with ultimate truth.

*Hyers, Conradl (1984). The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0804201254. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Mathews 1996

This source seems to be missing at the bottom, although there are existing sfn references to it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 11:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have found which source it was and have added it. —PaleoNeonate - 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I've finished - or at least I'm tired of this. Any suggestions/comments? PiCo (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to follow your edits and do small fixes here and there. Two things that surprised me:

1. Although the topic is not unfamiliar to me, I did not know or consider plausible that the Apocalypse of Moses could have had an influence on early Christianity. I thought that it was a much later work. I see that scholars' opinions vary about this and that some propose that a 1st century origin is possible.
2. It's possible that the Islam section could be reworded to sound less "factual".

Overall, thanks for working on this. —PaleoNeonate - 04:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210050956/http://www.adventist.org/ to http://www.adventist.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Adam Chronologies

There is a reason in calendar and astronomy in every date (it is not genealogy). Please do add to this list to make it the big reality of efforts thru history that it was. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• NeoBabylon of 747bc (5200bc +2256 to Arpaxad 2945bc)
• Christian Eusebius (Greek 5200bc +2242 to Flood 2958bc)
• Christian Africanus (Hindu 5500bc to Nordic 500AD)
• Christian Hippolytus (Hindu 5500bc)
• Septuagint (Egyptian 5346bc) +2256 to Flood 3090bc
• Mohammad (Moslem 5378bc) +2256 to Flood 3122bc to 622AD
• Ahau Pacal Votan =Lord Shield Heart (Mayan 5370bc) +2256 to Flood 3114bc to 630AD
• Beatus of Liebana (Greek 5200bc mistotal of 5227 years) to 800AD
• Jewish Demetrius (5307bc) +2262 to Flood (based on 1843bc as death of Salem Melkizedek in year 1200) and based on 300-year Babylon as 2007bc Marduk to 1707bc as 3600am)
• Jewish Eupolemus (5307bc) +1662 to Flood
• Seder Olam Rabbah (Jewish 3761bc) 19-year lunar
• Columbus (4508bc) +Samaritan 1556 to Samaritan 2960bc Flood to 1492AD
• The Big Three Spain & France & Dutch versus Britain (4267bc) +Samaritan 1307 to Samaritan 2960bc Flood to 1733AD (This inspires the 30-year Christ as Daniels 2300 in 1763AD war with Dutch)
• Ussher (KJV 4004bc) +Hebrew 1656 to 2349bc Flood
• William Whiston (4485bc) +Samaritan 1556 to 2929bc Flood a Halley comet miscalculation to 1515AD
• William Whiston (4236bc) +Samaritan 1307 to 2929bc Flood a Halley comet miscalculation to 1766AD
• Jasher (3904bc) + Samaritan 1556 to 2349bc Flood
• Adventist (Adventist 4128bc) using 450-year judges Acts 13:20
• Russell (4128bc)
• Rutherford (4028bc)
• WatchTower 4026bc)

75.86.172.174 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've moved this down to the bottom because the usual practice on discussion pages is to put the newest comment at the bottom. This way, people who are looking for recent conversations will find it easier. If I left it on top, people would assume it was old news and most likely ignore it. Alephb (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange changes to this article recently

Yesterday, I signed on to Wikipedia's Adam article to look for information for my daughter's Bible class. I was very surprised that traditional Christian viewpoints seemed to be substantially missing from the beginning of the article. For instance, the idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. I did a quick edit (adding that information with three footnotes for one sentence) and left home. When I came home that evening, my edits were gone, and I had a personal message from someone who referred to himself as friendly to the "hacker culture" As well as containing anti-Christian sentiments.

I read the remainder of the article after the change had been made, and realized that it is QUITE strange. I believe it has been intentionally vandalized to remove all Christian reference to this major figure of Christianity. And I believe all edits that Christians add - no matter how well documented, are being removed by one or two vandals.

I must begin here for a dispute resolution. So, I am beginning here. Elpiniki (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't just add a source. You made an unjustified change to this sentence. Before you came along, it read, "The majority view among scholars is that the book of Genesis dates from the Achaemenid empire . . ." Then you changed it to, "But,the majority view among Jewish scholars." If you want your edits to stay on Wikipedia, a good start would be explaining why you claimed that dating Genesis to the Achaemenid empire is a specifically "Jewish" thing. Making a broad statement about Jewish scholarship without citing a source to back that statement up is WP:OR, and fails WP:V, two policies you should read before making any more edits. Alephb (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled why you're replying when you're not the one who sent me the first comment and took credit for the change. The unsupported comment that I changed stated that the MAJORITY of scholars believe this bizarrely late date. I looked at the footnotes, and noticed a long list of Jewish names, and guessed that these might be Jewish books. If that is not true, I'm happy to change this word in another way. For instance, I'd be happy to simply name the scholars who actually support this view by name. Or I'd be happy to name some other category - for instance, modern Unitarian scholars, or modern secular scholars. But "majority" is unsupported and inaccurate. The traditional scholarly view amongst Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian scholars (and therefore the majority) is that the Books of Moses are the Books of Moses - who lived about 1500 BC. Suggest a change - that does attempt to eradicate the Christian world view, and I'll be happy to re-word it in some appropriate way.Elpiniki (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a Christian world view, not the Christian world view. See for instance Mosaic authorship and, as just one example, Book of Deuteronomy. You've got a lot of work to do if you are going to change all the relevant articles. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Second on a not the, emphasizing that that a traditional view was inherited from Judaism but that "traditional" and "current majority" are completely unrelated terms. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest a way to reword this so that ALL relevant views are included, or shall I just continue with the next step in dispute resolution? It is not acceptable to remove all references to Traditional Christianity and pretend that the article is complete. A Wiki should not be controlled by a handful of people who are hostile to mainstream Christian content - especially when it is an article about a major figure of Christianity. Elpiniki (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning.

As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Elpiniki: Re I believe all edits that Christians add - no matter how well documented, are being removed by one or two vandals, see WP:Assume good faith. I'm a Christian and I rarely get my edits removed. That's because I only add stuff if I cite a mainstream academic source while doing so, instead of looking at last names and going "guess they're Jews or something." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The dispute resolution board says I should notify other users when I file one. This is the only way to do that - I'm filing a dispute. I still welcome any suggestions on how to include all views in this article. Elpiniki (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Good luck. Have you filed at DRN yet? Alephb (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elpiniki: The more I look over this, the more I have to conclude that the fundamental problem here is that you're acting as though anyone who disagrees with you must be anti-Christian. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have accused Tgeorgescu of leaving an anti-Christian message on your user page when he said nothing against Christianity but did advise you not to post your subjective beliefs as fact. (Should we allow Scientologists and Hindus to post their beliefs as facts?) If that was not the case, you would not be treating the removal of an irrelevant statement as censorship of Christianity. And the kicker is, the view you are pushing as traditional isn't the only option that Christians have.

All of the preachers I've had (Baptists in the Bible Belt who would argue that Moses was absolutely a historical figure) take the Documentary hypothesis and Supplementary hypothesis for granted. Pretty much any Catholic I've spoken with has either already heard of the Documentary Hypothesis or figures it's plausible enough (and the few exceptions I've encountered were the sort who figured I was going to hell because I'm a protestant). The Documentary Hypothesis is commonly taught in most seminaries. I'm not saying this to say that your belief is wrong, I'm saying this to show you that there is more diversity in Christian doctrine than you realize. Our unity is in Christ, we're free to completely disagree on pretty much everything else. If you can't accept that, maybe you'll be happier on another site.

Now that that's out of the way, you've not given any adequate reason for bringing up Mosaic authorship in the middle of the article about Adam. The authorship of the Torah is irrelevant except where it concerns the development of the depiction of Adam and where the depiction of Adam has especially affected Biblical scholarship.

You've also failed to cite any academic sources for your claims. I don't even mean secular sources, I mean sources by professional scholars. No, being a preacher or priest isn't enough, they have to have credentials outside of that. Peter Enns, cited in this article, is an Evangelical.

You've also not demonstrated that the current statement re majority is not supported by the citation already in the article. You claimed that it was unsourced, but there is a citation further along the paragraph. Your statement I looked at the footnotes, and noticed a long list of Jewish names, and guessed that these might be Jewish books raises serious concerns-- no, I can only be blunt about this: it's obvious that you don't know how to follow a citation. Your conclusion in this article is like seeing the CIA Factbook cited in the India article and concluding that India must be a part of the United States. When you see a statement in an article, keep reading until you get to a blue number. Click on the blue number. That's the citation for that statement. The citation says what book is supporting a statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This whole debate went so much over-board (speaking of what Wikipedians find appropriate) that it is hilarious to read. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I put my edit back on - and it was immediately removed again. It clearly proves the vandalism of this article that I am alleging. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the documentary hypothesis - but there IS something wrong with censoring out the millenia-old concept of Mosaic authorship.

I'm putting my edit here: "Traditional Christian teaching is that the Book of Genesis, which tells of the life of Adam, was written by Moses[3][4] around 1500 B.C.[5]." Citations are to Protestant Scholar Gleason Archer and Catholic site, http://catholicstraightanswers.com/did-moses-write-the-pentatech/. https://www.jashow.org/articles/bible/biblical-archaeology/what-evidence-proves-moses-wrote-the-first-five-books-of-the-bible/ In case any curious readers wish to see the Truth rather than tne censored versionElpiniki (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of vandalism just because they disagree with you is a bit much. Alephb (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify the bullying I'm receiving on this topic: I got a personal message that stated "Our house, our rules." despite the fact that Wikipedia has no ownership. ALL references to Mosaic Authorship of the Books of Moses are being censored out by force and bullying. I'm ONLY asking one line mentioning it - and it is being shouted down with really long arguments about all sorts of off-topic stuff. Elpiniki (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your sources are hardly adequate. Gleason Archer was a a well known biblical inerrantist and Father Saunders just a priest with a website. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Why it is hilarious: it has to begin with explaining the OP questions like What is scholarship? What is an encyclopedia? What is knowledge? Which point of view should our articles have? Are all books equal? Without understanding these questions it is a matter of WP:CIR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to adding something about the traditional view of Mosaic authorship, but why is this (to my mind) pretty insignificant point (ie authorship) getting so much attention?PiCo (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Elpiniki, what do you think of the rest of the article? Does it contain useful material for you?PiCo (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

@PiCo: Your edit summary was inaccurate because the original edition was what you removed from Etymology last month,[1] these edits were standing there for many years. You have entirely removed the origins yet you have changed the section to "Origin and use", it makes no sense. In any case we cannot ignore the number of scholarly sources and narrow the scope. Information has been sourced to reliable sources from J. Wiley & Sons., Inner Traditions / Bear & Co, Routledge and even the Bloomsbury that you have partially included. You can't remove the content without gaining consensus per WP:BRD, especially when you have been reverted. I am not objecting to what you had included or your removal of other sections but this one needs to stay. If you want to read something scholarly about this word,[2][3][4][5] are good ones for you. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@D4iNa4, I believe that my edit summary said the original was more informative, not that the text you want isn't accurate or well sourced. As Barr said long ago, etymology tells us very little about the meaning of words, in the bible or elsewhere. The Primeval History (the story of Adam and the rest of Genesis to chapter 11) doesn't depend on what the root means or on ancient Adamu, but on what the author intended. For his purposes, what counted was the correspondence between "earth" and "man", man being formed from earth and returning to earth. This is why your text is not informative. I'm reverting, and if you wish to take it further I suggest you do so at dispute resolution. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That means you should either rewrite the meaning or expand it in place of removing long standing content about the origins of the word. Varieties of origins of this word are much recognized by scholars and it is informative to tell about them since they backed by reliable sources. By removing the origins of the subject you are just narrowing the scope and misleading editors to think that this is all we got, when scholarly literature is much more. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the removed information is correct, just whether it belongs here. In that respect, it seems hard to argue that it isn't relevant to the topic, and I can't see why it shouldn't be included. Now, it may well be that it's misleading in terms of the original author's intentions in using it, but that would require some additional commentary to put it in context, not simply deletion. Explain why it's not relevant in that particular context (with sources) rather than just deleting it. Anaxial (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The description "much later" for the date of composition seems rather silly. The mainstream view is a date of composition between the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, while the minority view is a date of composition between the 5th and 3rd century BCE. That is a window of 200-300 years, covering most of the Achaemenid period and the beginnings of the Hellenistic era. There is not much of a difference in estimates. Dimadick (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that the new version of etymology is incomplete and not sensible. It doesn't shows non-semitic roots of the word that are accurately support by reliable sources. Largely depends on 3-4 sources, one of them being WP:PRIMARY source. Lorstaking (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

OUTSIDE VIEW. I've just been reading the 1962 (rep.1981) edition of The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible , the entry on Adam, and turned to Wikipedia for a layman's introduction to 'Adam'. The Wikipedia entry just simply cannot compete with the scholarly discussion in the former encyclopedia. It refers to the different interpretations and etymologies of 'Adam' (humankind, man, play on the word 'earth') and how these relate to the different 'writers' or traditions in the composition of 'Genesis'. I suggest somehow this scholarship gets translated into the Wiki entry. Presscom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

Don,t consider Ahmediyas as muslaim view. It can be narrated separately , if needed. They have no connection with Islam. 115.186.151.109 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

This article here is fully consistent with our Ahmadiyya article, which in turn is fully in keeping with our WP:NPOV policy as discussed extensively in the history and talkpage of that article. DMacks (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is a joke.

Why on earth is Adam treated like a historical person. Died 930 old? Spouse: Eve. Born: 6th day. (And then a source!)

This page needs some serious work. (Also I noticed the same thing in an article about Noah's sons so this is probably a problem in a number of articles.)

If someone knows how to fix this, go right ahead. I need a little bit of time to think about it because there really is a lot of confusing and contradictory stuff here. Nateguimondart (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issue with the infobox

We really need to sort out infoboxes for religious figures whose existence is highly debatable. The infobox clearly treats Adam as a historical figure. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox in this article is Template:Infobox Saint which fails to distinguish between historical figures and mythological characters. We could instead use Template:Infobox character (for fictional characters) or Template:Infobox deity ("for any god, deity or mythological figure who is worshiped in a religion or cult") Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Subjective claims

This article contains several assertions unsupported or contradicted by its sources.

• The majority view among scholars is that the book of Genesis dates from the Persian period (the 5th and 4th centuries BCE)...
  The cited source suggests that the final editing of Genesis most likely occurred during this period, based on much older traditions. The author makes no attempt to provide evidence that this is a majority view among scholars. If you define a Biblical scholar as someone with an advanced degree who vocationally studies, teaches, and writes about the Bible, it's likely that a majority, certainly a substantial minority, hold to Mosaic authorship of Genesis; placing it in the early to mid 2nd millennium BC.
• Scientific evidence does not support the idea that the entire human population descends from a single man.
  The follow-up statement and cited source have no bearing on this assertion, unless your claim is that the first generation of humans included on the order of 4169 individuals. Indeed, the authors are far more circumspect in their conclusion:
  We conclude that a species’ or population’s [minimum viable population size] is context-specific, and there are no simple short-cuts to its derivation.
  Explanations for the chicken or the egg dilemma appear to accept that there was, indeed, a first chicken.
• The idea [of original sin] is not found in Judaism (nor in Islam), and was introduced by the Apostle Paul...
  It's a stretch to draw this conclusion from the first of two cited sources, and the second contradicts it:
  Paul is not constructing an original argument that sin and death were released into the world through Adam, but presupposes that this understanding of sin is known to his readers...
  Original sin is explicit, e.g., in Gen 2:17; 3:16-19, and implicit in countless passages, e.g., 1Ki 8:46; Psa 51:5; Pro 20:9; Ecc 7:20; Isa 53:6. It's also a common theme in the Gospels, e.g., Mt 6:14-15, 26:28; Jn 1:29, 3:16-18, 8:7. The concept was hardly original to Paul (although he admittedly had a lot to say about it).

All that said, many hold to the skeptical views expressed here, and they merit objective analysis; perhaps in a section after In Islam entitled Source criticism or some such. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 15:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Original sin explicitly identifies the topic as Christian and with multiple secondary cites is clear that mainstream Judaism and Islam do not subscribe to it. DMacks (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying that original sin is not a doctrine within mainstream Judaism or Islam and saying that Paul came up with the idea are very different things. As indicated above, neither cited source (there are only two) supports this claim, and one contradicts it. (To my knowledge, a cross-linked Wikipedia article does not meet the standard of a reliable source.) –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 21:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The lack of the existence of a single male descendant for all humanity (as a species) is pretty straightforwardly attested to in the sources. It's unclear why you think that's not the case. The source clearly explains why there is no "first generation of humans". jps (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship of anything is a strictly religious belief and is not part of historical scholarship on the subject. The sources indicate that this is the case as well. jps (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would we require a common descendant of all humans? What would this establish? Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Presumably, there are some literalists who would like there to be evidence for a single pair of humans being the ancestors of all humanity as this would corroborate the Adam and Eve mythology. jps (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It only takes a few seconds to pull up scientific articles that counter those presented in the summary of this article, the most important section, which the majority of people will stop their reading at. Supposing that those two sources can speak for all of science to a degree warranting a summation that it is a fact, that science doesn't in fact support Adam as the original man, is inaccurate. Richard Dawkins is a very smart man, but he doesn't speak for every scientist on earth. It could also be noted that as a blatantly vocal opponent of creationism, his position on the topic is inherently slanted to a degree which makes its inclusion here just as slanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StryyderKoB (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Science can never affirm miracles or special creation, see methodological naturalism. Wikipedia is slanted against creationism. This is hardly news and we want everybody to know it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm going to get to the bottom of it. Of course Adam is euhemerized myth.

There has got to be away to simplify and clarify this article, and there is no reason it should read like a biography. Nateguimondart (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing pov tag: The pov tag covering the entire article was added by DougWeller on 16 October. Presumably it was added as a result of this thread, and specifically the concerns raised by Blue Hoopy Frood when he/she opened this thread on 23 September. I am now removing the tag, because the thread appears to be dormant and because the points raised Hoopy appear to be baseless. I'll address each of them:

• The article says that The majority view among scholars is that the book of Genesis dates from the Persian period (the 5th and 4th centuries BCE)... Hoopy says the cited source does not support this, but it does: "It is widely agreed that the Persian period is the most likely setting for the final editing of Genesis." Hoopy states his/her own belief that Genesis dates from the 2nd millennium BCE, but provides no citation in support. We must therefore re4spect our source.
• The article says there is no scientific evidence to support the Genesis idea of a single ancestor for all humans. Hoopy disputes the sources used to support this, and I have to agree that the two sources cited are not RS. Nevertheless, it is basic common knowledge that humans evolved gradually over many millions of years from primate ancestors, and that there is no evidence to support the Genesis picture of a single human ancestor with no antecedents. I think we can allow this to stand.
• Hoopy says that this statement: The idea [of original sin] is not found in Judaism (nor in Islam), and was introduced by the Apostle Paul... is not supported by the cited sources, but in fact it is, and quite explicitly: "[Neither Islam nor Judaism sees human nature as irrevocably tainted by some sort of original sin"]. (This references the first part of the sentence; the second, on the role of Paul, references Boring's book, where Boring is saying that Paul in Romans introduced the idea of Adam's original sin into Christianity).

As Hoopy's arguments are unfounded, and as the discussion seems to have died, and also as I took no part in it, I'm removing the tag.Achar Sva (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Minimum viable population

Someone tagged this as a non sequitur: Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported concerning vertebrates "a cross-species frequency distribution of" minimum viable population "with a median of 4169 individuals (95% CI = 3577–5129)." I have to agree with the editor that tagged it. It's in the lead, but there is no content in the article to support its inclusion. I suppose it might make sense (reworded and expanded) if there was a "Historicity of Adam" section, but there isn't. (I'm not saying there should be such a section, just that it's the only context I can think of that this information would make sense.) I suggest it be removed; thoughts? Objections? Schazjmd (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, deleted. Not exactly because it would be a non sequitur, but because it would take too long to explain, and this article isn't a lesson in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Irish Post

Debunked at https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/11/26/no-humans-are-probably-not-all-descended-from-a-single-couple-who-lived-200000-years-ago/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Job

The book of Job predates Chronicles. Why then does the article use Chronicles to date the first mention of Adam. In fact I believe Job predates Genesis. The dating of the first mention of Adam in this article is incorrect. Sir Matatyahu (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding to the story of Adam and his women...the quran didnt name Eve bye name.. and to more info the quran didnt even said that Adam was the first man but the first human being hi is the father of humanity not the father of human speeshes who was already existed many dacades before . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.70.5 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add why he was really expelled from the Garden of Eden

Change "In both Genesis and Quran, Adam and his wife were expelled from a Garden of Eden for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" to "In both Genesis and Quran, Adam and his wife were expelled from a Garden of Eden for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which they were commanded by God to not eat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.211.173 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding pictures

the pictures of tied to prophet Adam need to be removed since it interferes with Islam SuperRegex (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Please visit WP:NOTCENSORED to understand the reason (along with some fundamental aspects of Wikipedia of which you might not be aware). DMacks (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fringe

You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu okay man, please actually engage with other editors instead of doing this.CycoMa (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: See Merritt, Jonathan (30 January 2019). "Teaching the Bible in Public Schools Is a Bad Idea—For Christians". The Atlantic. Retrieved 11 July 2021. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

My issue is that it doesn’t seem like you are probably engaging with other editors on this.CycoMa (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: The broader question is: how do we convey meaning? I chose that the best way to convey meaning in this case was to quote what others have said, since they said it better than I could say it.

As to the article from The Atlantic, Wikipedia is in the same position as public schools: teaching the Bible in public schools is a bad idea for evangelicals, and teaching the Bible inside Wikipedia is a bad idea for evangelicals. Since both public schools and Wikipedia are religiously neutral (WP:RNPOV).

So, there are not just two sides (evangelical vs. atheist), but public schools and Wikipedia are neutral in respect to thousands of different religions, and in respect to lack of religion.

To fill in the details of what Bible literacy means for public schools and for Wikipedia:

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God; Beardsley Ruml "Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)"

Quoted by tgeorgescu

In 1999, Attorney General of Georgia Thurbert Baker issued an opinion on the state's proposed adoption of the NCBCPS courses. Baker wrote that the teaching of the classes might not survive legal challenge under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Baker noted that, under the Supreme Court's decisions in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Bible courses in public schools "may survive First Amendment scrutiny only if their content is determined to be secular and they are taught in a secular, objective manner." Baker added that "with respect to the State constitution, the use of public funds to teach the Bible courses in question may be held to constitute 'aid' to a particular religion, i.e., Christianity, if appropriate instruction regarding other religions is not included or if the instruction is not offered in a neutral and objective manner."

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@Tgeorgescu: I think you're attacking the strawman here. This article is not just about the creation story of Bible and Christianity. It is about Abrahamic religions in general. Also, this is no classroom. So citing these cases aren’t really helpful. I do not know how the changes I proposed are contradictory to scientific teachings. The article uses the method of attribution for all its claims. Why then do we have to proclaim, in the name of science, that the story of Adam is mythical? What does science really tell about it? When did science start delving into the unobservable realm? Where is its demarcation line? When the article refers to Adam as "the first man," it plainly relates to Abrahamic religious teachings. It does not state, in the language of Wikipedia, that Adam was “the first man” or something like that. It would be really problematic, if it did. That is, however, not the case here. On the contrary, the article in its current state is unduly attacking the creation narrative of Abrahamic religions using science as a shield when science really has nothing to say about it. Mosesheron (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron:

Start at the beginning. Many conservative Christians believe that the opening of the book of Genesis teaches a literal seven-day creation of the world by God around 6,000 years ago. But most academic Bible scholars believe that this text should be read poetically, and not as history or science. They interpret these passages as making theological points from the perspective of its ancient writers, rather than commenting on the truthfulness of Darwinian evolution or any other modern debate. Additionally, most conservative Christians believe that when Genesis tells about Adam and Eve, it is referencing two historical figures who were the first humans who ever lived. But geneticists assert that modern humans descend from a population of people, not a single pair of individuals.

— Jonathan Merritt, Teaching the Bible in Public Schools Is a Bad Idea—For Christians

We a friendly to editors of every religion, but, by Jove, we won't allow anyone to detract from the academic consensus in mainstream academia (mainstream Bible scholarship, religious studies, mainstream history, mainstream biology) that Adam and Eve are part of a myth. See WP:GEVAL. Ask any historian worth his salt if Adam and Eve were historical persons and he will laugh at your ignorance. In the mainstream academia some beliefs lost the game, and it is not our task to WP:RGW. Was there any final scientific experiment that elves and fairies don't exist? None. Yet it is consensually accepted that elves and fairies don't exist. Well, except for adepts Anthroposophy, which are WP:FRINGE anyway. So proponents of historical Adam and Eve will be treated here as proponents of historical elves and fairies. So, for Wikipedia there is no turning back: the idea that humanity originated from a pair of one man and one woman is a myth. Why? Because Wikipedia highly values mainstream scholarship and mainstream science. This is not the venue for re-litigating their consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I did this. This edit does not try to justify anything. Stating the story with proper attribution does not validate that story. And why are you supposing so many things? Who is proposing a theory of Historical Adam and Eve? These talks are unnecessary. Mosesheron (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: For one or another reason, you try to dodge the word myth for what is most definitely a myth according to the overwhelming consensus of mainstream academia. Wikipedia is not the venue for re-litigating the fact that that is a myth. Do not try to pamper the word myth. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: you have already reverted it, and I am not edit warring. Am I? Please do not forget to assume good faith. You are kind of making an impression that disagreeing with something in good faith is offence or soemthing. Mosesheron (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: Sorry, Bible articles are haunted by Bible thumping trolls who did not get the idea that they've lost the game in mainstream Bible scholarship. Or who simply want to demonize everyone who is not a fundamentalist believer. I guess that since you did not start an edit war, you are not a troll. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I agree with you. Islam related articles have same problems. I know that because I patrol Islam related articles from time to and that happens to be my primary area of interest. New editors mostly use religious texts as references and that has become an epidemic there. But anyway, I made the change as it involves other religions as well, with billions of followers worldwide. And simply calling those beliefs “wrong and false” (which is what myth ordinarily means I suppose) is something I coudn't come to terms with. I understand the situation in Europe and United States is a little different. Although by the time I make this comment myth has perhaps lost its ordinary meaning. Mosesheron (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Question do you guys know what myth means from a academic perspective?CycoMa (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Marcus Borg has suggested that "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars."<ref>[http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/david-friedrich-strauss/ Marcus Borg, David Friedrich Strauss:Miracles and Myth.]</ref>

— from David Strauss

@CycoMa: So "myth" does not mean "false", it simply means "unproven". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu yeah I know that. Myth from a academic perspective does not mean false.

It basically means a traditional story that explains something of has religious significance, the other guy it’s assuming it means something else.CycoMa (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting. I do not know what this "academic perspective" on myth really is. I took its ordinary meaning, which inter alia says "a widely held but false belief or idea." English also is not my mother tongue. So it is unlikely that I would be familiar with such esoteric dimensions. Also, this is not related to the locus of this discussion, but I am not sure why one shouldn't accept its ordinary meaning. Mosesheron (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Science does not disprove the divine creation of Adam.

Justification for these edits of mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&oldid=1033203117 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&oldid=1033203491 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&oldid=1033203568

While DNA sequences have led scientists to predict that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps should be from about 6 million years ago, the predicted fossil has never been found. Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor#Fossil_evidence.

MDaxo (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE, WP:REDFLAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Saint Adam

According to a non-citable source, Eastern Christians and medieval Germans celebrated Saint Adam and Saint Eve on December 24th. The representation of the tree would be (one of) the origins of the Christmas tree. The current article barely mentions December 24th. If there were particular rites to their feast, it should be mentioned. --Error (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

This biography article does not mention his or her nationality, which is a standard in Wikipedia.151.38.69.234 (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Even accepting that Adam was real, there is no indication that such a thing as nationality existed back then. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

He was Jewish. Achar Sva (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

actually being jewish didnt exist until abraham . Judaism didnt exist nor did its people exist under the term jewish back then when adam was alive. the page on the origin of Judaism clearly states that abraham was the first jew 50.205.22.46 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

I’m requesting that some details be added to the following passage, to improve conceptual and factual content.

Current text: “The Genesis creation myth[b] was adopted by both Christianity and Islam, and the name of Adam accordingly appears in the Christian scriptures and in the Quran.”

I request that the passage say something more like the following:

Edited text: “The Genesis creation myth[b] was adopted from Judaism by both Christianity and Islam, and the name of Adam accordingly appears in the Hebrew Bible (specifically in the Torah), the Christian scriptures and in the Quran.”

These edits spell out the interrelatedness of the Abrahamic faiths more thoroughly and accurately. The first edit also explains the cognitive question prompted by the phrase “adopted by” — where/who was this adoption *from*? 76.249.135.92 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Probably not relevant enough for inclusion. It would seem obvious to me that the adoption was from Judaism by surrounding text, and the second part of the request is likely even more redundant; not to bash your request or you as a contributor. If you disagree, feel free to let me know and we can talk about it if you wish. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 22:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oldest Version - From Ugarit in 1300BC

Review of "Adam, Eve, and the Devil" by Marjo Korpel & Johannes de Moor (Sheffield, 2014)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265184845_Review_of_Adam_Eve_and_the_Devil_by_Marjo_Korpel_Johannes_de_Moor_Sheffield_2014

The oldest version of this myth, which pre-dates the Bible, comes from Ugarit around 1300BC. It is very similar to the biblical version, but is longer and adds additional Gods like Horanu; he is called Adammu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:c300:290:a15c:4384:47a:5693 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Questionable claim in the "Composition" section

The article makes a dubious claim in the "Composition of the Adam narrative" where it states: "the absence of all the other characters and incidents mentioned in chapters 1–11 of Genesis from the rest of the Hebrew Bible has led a sizeable minority to the conclusion that these chapters were composed much later than those that follow, possibly in the 3rd century BCE"; and quotes a book of Russell Gmirkin as a reference to that claim. Aside of the fact that Gmirkin's views are known to be WP:FRINGE and have received considerable criticisms, John Van Seters made exactly the opposite claim in a review of his book, citing references to the Genesis 1-11 narratives in other books of the Hebrew Bible (such as Second Isaiah) as evidence against the idea that said narratives were composed in the Hellenistic period.

I think we should rewrite that part of the section in order to make clear that there are scholars who view the Genesis 1-11 narratives present in other parts of the Old Testament, and so Gmirkin's claims are disputable. Potatín5 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

I’m requesting that some details be added to the following passage, to improve conceptual and factual content.

Current text: “The Genesis creation myth[b] was adopted by both Christianity and Islam, and the name of Adam accordingly appears in the Christian scriptures and in the Quran.”

I request that the passage say something more like the following:

Edited text: “The Genesis creation myth[b] was adopted from Judaism by both Christianity and Islam, and the name of Adam accordingly appears in the Hebrew Bible (specifically in the Torah), the Christian scriptures and in the Quran.”

These edits spell out the interrelatedness of the Abrahamic faiths more thoroughly and accurately. The first edit also explains the cognitive question prompted by the phrase “adopted by” — where/who was this adoption *from*? 76.249.135.92 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Probably not relevant enough for inclusion. It would seem obvious to me that the adoption was from Judaism by surrounding text, and the second part of the request is likely even more redundant; not to bash your request or you as a contributor. If you disagree, feel free to let me know and we can talk about it if you wish. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 22:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oldest Version - From Ugarit in 1300BC

Review of "Adam, Eve, and the Devil" by Marjo Korpel & Johannes de Moor (Sheffield, 2014)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265184845_Review_of_Adam_Eve_and_the_Devil_by_Marjo_Korpel_Johannes_de_Moor_Sheffield_2014

The oldest version of this myth, which pre-dates the Bible, comes from Ugarit around 1300BC. It is very similar to the biblical version, but is longer and adds additional Gods like Horanu; he is called Adammu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:c300:290:a15c:4384:47a:5693 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Questionable claim in the "Composition" section

The article makes a dubious claim in the "Composition of the Adam narrative" where it states: "the absence of all the other characters and incidents mentioned in chapters 1–11 of Genesis from the rest of the Hebrew Bible has led a sizeable minority to the conclusion that these chapters were composed much later than those that follow, possibly in the 3rd century BCE"; and quotes a book of Russell Gmirkin as a reference to that claim. Aside of the fact that Gmirkin's views are known to be WP:FRINGE and have received considerable criticisms, John Van Seters made exactly the opposite claim in a review of his book, citing references to the Genesis 1-11 narratives in other books of the Hebrew Bible (such as Second Isaiah) as evidence against the idea that said narratives were composed in the Hellenistic period.

I think we should rewrite that part of the section in order to make clear that there are scholars who view the Genesis 1-11 narratives present in other parts of the Old Testament, and so Gmirkin's claims are disputable. Potatín5 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

@Onengsevia: Your edit violates both WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. Do you think it complies with WP:NPOV? I mean But nonetheless other scientist has also went against this, causing a debate in the scientific community. As of 2022, there is no such controversy inside the scientific community. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest i knew some people like you were going to attack, I am not even going to bother. Onengsevia (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Onengsevia:

You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense about Sri Lanka and India

The Islam section contains a lot of nonsense about Sri Lanka and India which cites a ridiculous book. This source isn't relevant to 99.999999% of 2B Muslims, so please remove that entire paragraph. 23.28.65.253 (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

First person

manu was the first person make it correct google 2400:80C0:1101:8BC:F91C:F8:DAF4:600C (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Important thing...

Adam is belong from islam religion that quran proved that... Then you say that adam is belong from Christian religion that are not right because quran proved that... 103.94.255.180 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"that quran proved that" The Quran can not prove anything. It is neither a scholarly study of human history, not a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Adam in the Quran

According to a revelation received by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the community, the Adam mentioned in the Quran was born 4,598 years before Muhammad.[44] mirza ghulam never recei ved revelation, prophet Muhammad SAW was the last prophet to receive revelation..correct your information

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page, not the top. ‌Wikipedia does not take sides between different claims to divine revelation; as long as they are covered by reliable sources, we cover them. Bishonen | tålk 19:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC).

Adam isn't the first human

There is no section in the Bible that states Adam or Eve are the first humans, in fact, there's parts in the Bible where it implies there's other humans who are not the Children of Adam and Eve. See the Curse of Cain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.215.87.171 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

We aim to summarise what reliable sources say about any subject. There appears to be a citation to an appropriate academic source supporting the assertion about Adam being the name given to the first human. I'm no expert in the subject area, but if you want to challenge what the article says you are going to have to bring reliable secondary sources discussing the subject that disagree with that assertion. Note that in this case, the Bible is a primary source - we don't interpret it ourselves, we look to what scholars say about it. So, please cite the sources that support your position. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Books, esp most recent, by John Walton, Prof OT Emeritus, Wheaton college. DR-Martureo (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

See also Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve. DR-Martureo (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Adam was the first person created. Satan and the fallen angels used a small puddle of Eve's menstruation blood to turn the evil Cain to flesh and blood and entered him in Eve's womb. Adam is not the father of Cain, or Cain's twin sister. They both had blonde hair. Abel was also the twin brother to his twin sister. Seth didn't have a twin. 2603:6011:601:1D00:9436:D710:9D07:B55C (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What? Please tell me you made this up for funsies? Blitterbug 05:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

“first human-being aware of God”

I don’t see this corroborated in the body of the article or in relevant literature. Am I missing something? IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I added this descriptor to encompass as many ideas surrounding Adam as possible. For example, some theologicans proposed the idea of Pre-Adamite. It should not be understood to be exclusive or implying that there is a common belief about humans unaware of God preceeding Adam. If you think it is distracting, I would be fine with this descriptor being removed as per MOS:LEAD. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

On a second look, the Druze are mentioned, who speak about Adam as " the first spokesman (natiq), who helped to transmit the foundational teachings of monotheism (tawhid) intended for a larger audience" VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Adam was not born

The infobox says he was born on Day 6, 1 AM, but he was not born; he was directly created. Should the infobox be changed to say "Created" and "Died" instead of "Born" and "Died"? Luke10.27 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

lead section

The lead section has paragraphs on the view of Adam from Christian, Muslim, and Gnostic viewpoints. It seems to me that there a similar paragraph about the Jewish viewpoint. Ike9898 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason is that the leadsection is a summary of the article, but there is no section about Judaism in the body of text. (And no, Judaism is not Christianity without the New Testament). As soon as there is a section dedicated to the concept of Adam from Judaism, based on reliable sources (Original researches from Torah, Tanakh, etc. are not reliable), a paragraph for the Jewish perspective can be added. Therefore, the lead should be added by another topic as soon as there is more in the body of text.

best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: This is a lot of text that doesn't really come across as encyclopedic. PianoDan (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)