Jump to content

Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

PROPOSAL

A more accurate title of this article would be "Modern philosophers' opinions concerning Creation account(s) in Genesis". There is precious little about the creation account in this article, what it says, how it fits within the ancient Hebrew Weltanschauung, his concept of history, how to know God (if there is such). It lacks even a linguistic analysis and historical literary comparisons. If I didn't have some ideas about these question from other sources, I would be ignorant of them from this article.

From another perspective, why does this article exist at all? Most of it just rehashes what was covered in greater detail in other articles, in particular, that concerning Form Criticism. If it were up to me, I would flag this article for deletion, not because of NPOV problems, but because it has almost nothing original (not part of other wikipekia articles) to say. In short, it appears to be a waste of wikipedia bandwidth.

Melamed 18 Jan 2005

what would you place on this page? Ungtss 14:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)i would place this question. is there a limited amount of space ? there just isnt room on i dont know what to call it ?hello hello can any body here me ?

First I would remove all the discussion about the JEPD theory and Formkritik, referring people to the articles in Wikipedia that discuss these themes in greater detail. Further, I'd remove the question of Mosaic authorship as that is irrelevant to the story of creation, better handled under the Wikipedia article on Genesis. I would also edit out repetitious elements in the article, which make up a large portion of what remains. That leaves us with an article about one third the size or less. And it still does not address how the Genesis account of creation fits within the larger picture of ancient Hebrew beliefs nor its literary style.

If I were to write this article, I'd first have a description of the ideas included in the text itself, showing the literary style that indicates that chapter 1 - 2:4 are one document, then 2:5 - 5:2 the second document, according to an ancient literary style that went out of use 1500 - 1800 BC.

Further, I’d show how the Genesis account of creation resonated in later Jewish writings, such as Exodus 20 where it serves as the reason for the seven day week and the Sabbath.

Only then would I mention modern interpretations of the Genesis creation, how modern people view the text and the message it conveys. This can afford to be fairly short, with extensive hyperlinks to the other articles which cover those issues in greater detail.

Melamed 28 Jan 2005

I think I like what you are proposing, but for such a wholesale change, it's probably best to wait for some more people agreeing.
Also, I am wary of your comments about "an ancient literary style", as I subscribe to the view that the Genesis actually is composed of separate original documents (i.e. as per, or similar to, Wiseman), not just having a style that makes it look that way, which is how I read your comments above.
Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
all these sound like good ideas to me -- feel free to take a stab at your ideas, melamed -- we'll follow things where they go:). Ungtss 14:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Melamed. I came to this article looking for information about the creation story of Genesis and instead have an article about the Theories of Interpretation of the Creation Myth of Genesis. While it is an interesting article it doesn't really help a person who doesn't already know the Creation story. Think the title of this article should be changed. hdstubbs November 3, 2005
I agree that this article is currently dominated by a giant debate over the source criticism of Genesis 1-2 and Mosaic authorship. If there is a way to edit down those sections, while referring readers to other places that deal with them (e.g. the Genesis article) I'm all for it. The rest sounds like it would be difficult to do within an NPOV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demmeis (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

old proposals

i would like to change the name of this article to "Creation account(s) in Genesis," because there is a dispute as to whether there is one more more accounts in the text. I would also like to replace the text in this article with the text in Creation account(s) in Genesis, which describes both POVs with regard to the text in a more evenhanded, NPOV fashion. Any thoughts? Ungtss 23:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

alright. any opinions, cheesedreams? Ungtss 00:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) the new article, incidentally, is a thorough edit of the old one, and not a new article. i copied, pasted, and edited.

You should either (a) edit the original article, or (b) copy paste and edit in your sandbox and append the page to your user page for discussion, linking from the talk page of the original article.
This is the article, not your page, and the neutrality of this article is all I am willing to discuss. If you dispute the neutrality of this article, then either change it, or complain in this talk page.
I am probably not the only person with any kind of interest in this proposed title change, and you should wait 48 hours at least to see if anyone who lives in another timezone, or is out tonight, or something, makes comment. CheeseDreams 00:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Let's see. :) The problem seems to be that the page title "Creation accounts in Genesis" implies the POV that there are two different accounts in Genesis. And some people say that there is only ONE account in Genesis. Is that right? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that about sums it up, i think:). any thoughts about how to resolve the issue? Ungtss 04:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that we open the discussion on the Creationism page where the master ToDo list is discussed and maintained. Creationism is the highest level page in this series. I'll open the question--if you did not already open it there. ;) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bible versions (Birds)

I have changed the biblical quote to the KJV version. It is an important point to note that different translations differ quite substantially. Some (particularly the modern ones) gloss over ambiguities and conflicts which are distinctly present in the Hebrew text.

The KJV is derived from an almost word-for-word (with small POV bias against organised religion - e.g. translating "elder" rather than "priest" (which was corrected at the KJV)) translation, which is itself derived from the celebrated Textus Receptus, the most reliable version of the bible around at the time, which Erasmus painstakingly compiled from all the available versions known, comparing and judging (with NPOV) which edits were the original (by being in the majority of the versions).

Consequently, the KJV does tend to follow the Hebrew fairly accurately, keeping the ambiguities, even when they would have been controversial, even down to the ambiguity over Daniel and Ashpenaz' homosexual-or-not relationship.

However, more modern translations, particularly the New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible, translate with heavy bias, e.g. "homosexuality is absolutely forbidden" rather than "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman" (the hebrew literally says "a man shall not with another man lay [X] layings of a woman", where the [X] is missing, and usually assumed to be "with the" though it can equally be the not-condemning-homosexuality-at-all "in the")

There are many many other places where they edit the text to their POV. In this case, editing is done to obscure the problem, wheras the KJV, in its fairly NPOV style preserves the potential discrepency. This is why I have replaced the quotation, as the others seek to POV the issue. CheeseDreams 01:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on now, so I won't comment further than to say that much of this (and further comments below) is utter hogwash. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For example, "soft adulterers" (which is a rather bizarre phrase) is translated in some modern bibles as "practising homosexuals" which is extremely POV. The KJV was under strict instructions to be accurate, and was created at a time of extreme religious tumoult, and thus HAD to be as accurate as possible with respect to the two sides at the time to avoid dangerous anti-monarchial (due to the king's commissioning of the text) religious riots. Many many modern versions are created by groups who consist 100% of evangelicals - the likelyhood that this will produce an NPOV and accurate translation of the text is significantly small, compared to a group of more mixed religion. CheeseDreams 20:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps "soft adulterers" meant something clearer when the AV (KJV) was translated; that's one of the main problems with the AV--English has changed since then. Perhaps it even meant "practicing homosexuals"? So what if "practicing homosexuals" is POV? The Bible is God's POV, not Wikipedia. The question is not whether or not the different translation is POV, but whether or not it is accurate. Modern translations have been produced for various reasons, and some are designed to be easier to read more than to be accurate. But others are designed to be accurate. Some are done by a single individual, most are done by a group, and in some cases that is a wide and varied group. The Preface of the NIV lists representatives of the "Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches" to "safeguard the translation from sectarian bias". I expect that's a wider range than was involved in producing the AV. Whilst humans are fallible, your bigoted assertion that the likelihood that a group of evangelicals could produce an accurate translation is significantly small is unwarranted. Philip J. Rayment 22:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, not really, the KJV tried to keep as much ambiguity in the phrasing as possible (though the english words they used have since become more loaded with POV meaning, so it is not so obvious). No one really has much idea what "soft adulterers" is referring to. "Practicing homosexuals" is POV translation - i.e. unreliable due to bias. The bible is NOT in english. If you look at the list of groups you have just given for the NIV, they are ALL protestant. The NIV also obscures texts which are more notably inconsistent/discontinuous in the hebrew/greek, by fitting the translation into the POV "the bible is consistent and continuous", the KJV tried to keep the ambiguity (resulting in some rather nice language as a bye-product). A group of evangelicals produced a translation with a sidenote saying "Practicing homosexuals means adult men who sexually abuse young boys" - how is that accurate? CheeseDreams 22:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To decide if it's accurate, perhaps we should look at the actual passage. But I can't find "soft adulterers" in the AV. Where is it?
Are you suggesting that the AV committee were not all protestants? If so, please supply evidence.
And while you are at it, perhaps you could supply evidence that the AV committee:
  • Did not have the opinion that "the bible is consistent and continuous"
  • Tried to "keep the ambiguity" of the original rather than translated ambiguously because they didn't know the language as well as the original authors.
What translation has the sidenote you refer to, and for what passage if it's not the same one as already referred to?
Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Soft adulterers" is the literal translation of the greek text.
The church of england (who supplied many of the comittee (though not all)) is not protestant (check it's official status if you like - it claims to be catholic).
The translators had excellent Greek, however, interpretation of the meaning of the text by different (highly politically active) factions varied extensively, therefore, to avoid taking sides and causing a political crisis, the translators deliberately avoided choosing one translation as better, preferring to retain ambiguity allowing both sides to claim their own idea of the meaning.
The KJV comittee based their version on a text known to be discontinuous.
The version with the sidenote is something like the "New American Bible" but there are so many similarly named versions that I am not sure what the exact title is, unfortunately.
CheeseDreams 20:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see much point in continuing this argument, as it has all the hallmarks of clutching at straws, and trolling, and is irrelevant to the article. CheeseDreams 20:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The definition of "protestant" seems to vary according to who one is talking to. ;-|. The Church of England isn't protestant? Then you were wrong in claiming that all the churches involved in the NIV translation were protestant, because the first one listed--Anglican--is the Church of England!
So what is the reference for "soft adulterers"?
Restating that the text was known to be discontinuous is not providing evidence.
If this discussion is irrelevant, why did you start it?
Philip J. Rayment 01:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, you started it (with the comment "much of this (and further comments below) is utter hogwash"). CheeseDreams 01:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i understand your concern about translations ... however, i think it's strongly pov to say that one translation is "right" and the others are wrong, just because the kjv is contradictory. from my understanding of the hebrew, 'owph (foul) could equally refer to mayim sharats (let the waters bring forth) as to 'amar (said). i.e. i think the kjv interpretation is no more valid than the others in the original language ... and ultimately the kjv makes no sense. may i suggest that if you want to do it in an npov way, you apply the hebrew grammar and do a full analysis ... or note that the vast majority of english versions, translated by competent hebrew scholars, interpret it differently than you do? Ungtss 05:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not saying that one tranlation is right, I am saying that one translation is closer to the Hebrew original from the others. Any ambiguity in the Hebrew tended to be left in the translation, thus the KJV doesnt have as much bias.
The majority of versions are modern evangelical translations. Most other denominations see no point in changing their version, so there is little proliferation of the others.
I have looked at the Hebrew (via this website), though Im absolutely rubbish at translating it. It is generally recognised that translators have a POV and apply it to their translation (look at the New American Bible or New Jerusalem Bible for extreme examples of this (these can be viewed via the previously mentioned website)). Since most modern translations are by evangelical groups, this POV will be towards theirs.
The KJV was produced by a large collection of scholars, with various POV, from what is recognised as one of the most neutral and accurate attempts to obtain an original version in greek / hebrew (from the various differing manuscripts) (this attempt is known as the Textus Receptus). This large differing collection of people makes them more likely to produce a neutral version. The same is true for the few other versions which use a wide range of people of different opinions.
The translation, for example, of "They wept one another, until david had exceeded" retains the ambiguity of whether it is about gay sex (The hebrew technically translates "enlarged" rather than "exceeded", which would imply an erection) or just two friends crying (even though Jonathon has stripped naked before David) wheras the translation "They shook hands and cried together" is clearly a POV spin on this.
In the first part of Genesis, the ambiguity of whether there are two versions of the story or one, present in the Hebrew, is retained in the KJV; it isn't in the NIV. The KJV therefore is more NPOV on such things.
Since this is about ambiguity, then using the NIV version would clearly make people wonder why there was an issue at all. Using the KJV makes it more clear, whilst at the same time not taking sides on the issue.
The fact that the KJV is vague is the whole advantage to using it. It preserves the ambiguity of the original and avoids making a POV decision on how to translate it. The issue about "birds" is indeed that it could refer equally to the waters or to said. That is the whole reason for the ambiguity. The KJV maintains this ambiguity, which is why, in this case, it is a better translation. The one account theory takes it that it refers to said, wheras the two account theory takes it that it refers to waters.
Note that the words in [square brackets] are italicised in the KJV to show that they are inserted into the text by the translators in order for it to make sense. These words are absent from the original completely. The KJV is one of the only versions to admit where it inserts text that is not in the original. This is an important NPOV advantage.
CheeseDreams 12:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you insist on having both versions in the text then I would like a word for word translation from hebrew to be included as well (i.e. one which translates each word independantly and does not re-arrange the sentance or insert text). Since you seem to comprehend hebrew better than me, could you do this? CheeseDreams 12:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think we need the KJV or RSV quotes on this passage any more. As the versions don't differ on the second passage, can they be replaced with either a paraphrase, or just one of the versions (I would prefer the paraphrase, as otherwise people will keep changing the text to their preferred version, or adding their version). CheeseDreams 14:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No prob -- i'd like to leave the full text of the second in, tho, since it illustrates the single account claim that the second account is more focused on Man's role ... eh?
Ok, that seems fine. I have edited the text a bit - we don't need the original hebrew (people can look that up if they are really that bothered). I have taken out the discussion on bible versions, as that belongs in another article (about difference between bible translations, I don't know what the article is called, or whether it exists yet). It looks a bit neater now. I changed your description of the ambiguity, as I thought of a shorter more explanitary one (pointing out how miniscule, but significant, the difference is) Oh, and I put in a link to a detail on the RSV. CheeseDreams 15:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good work:). Ungtss 15:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarity please, with these "birds"

--- Begin save container for a word for word translation

In the first section, birds are described as being created as follows:

  • "'elohiym 'amar mayim sharats sherets nephesh chay `owph `uwph `al 'erets paniym raqiya` shamayim."
  • Literally, "God said waters bring forth creature having life birds fly above earth open firmament heaven"

It is unclear to biblical translators whether the passage should be divided as:

  • "God said waters bring forth creature and God said birds fly above earth", or
  • "God said waters bring forth creature having life and waters bring forth birds fly above earth."

Due to this ambiguity in the text, English translations differ.

--- End save container for a word for word translationg

What was wrong with the above word for word translation? I thought it explained the issue of this page rather clearly--and rather efficiently. :)) After all, the point of this page is to explain why some people think the two recitations of events differ, is it not? Without something like the above--or an alternative word for word explanation--people like me will not know what on earth this page is talking about!  :(( What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 16:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i like it ... any dissent? Ungtss 16:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The word-for-word translation is VERY IMPORTANT. It explains why people actually bother discussing this point. CheeseDreams 19:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- Begin container preserving the BlueLetterBible links

Chapter 1 and Chapter 2

--- End container preserving the BlueLetterBible links

<<Blueletterbible does not have ALL versions of the text, I can name many not available there. Selecting the KJV is POV. Readers should be free to choose their own>>

Hold on.  :(( Having the links to the BlueLetterBible versions makes a better page.  :)) What is your objection to having these links? ---Rednblu | Talk

i think his concern is that not ALL the versions are represented -- he seems to think it's pov to pick one. although i think it would be nice to have links to all versions, i don't think it's pov to have links to all the major ones. may i suggest that we put the links back in since it represents ALMOST all the versions ... and if Mr. Cheesedreams wants to add links to other versions, he puts them in too, instead of leaving the page without any link to the actual story it's talking about? Ungtss 01:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How difficult is it for a user to find a copy of the bible themselves and find the first chapter of the first book?
I fail to see why it is necessary to point them to a website, when Google is amazingly good at finding bible links (Just type in "Genesis 1" and "KJV" for example (genesis 1 being in speech marks)).
There are SO many other versions. For example, The New American Bible. There are also the New English Bible (which is NOT on blueletterbible). If you want to point to blueletterbible, add it as an external link at the base of the page, and point it to a neutral page on blueletterbible, such as the introductory page.
The blueletterbible only represents about 10 versions. There are significantly more than this in existance, at least twice as many.
To pick the RSV, or the KJV is POV as to which is better, to list 20 or 30 different links IN THE BODY of an article is messy. CheeseDreams 07:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What if you put links to BlueLetterBible and to BibleGateway [1] (which has even more translations available -- we'd have to see if any are particularly worthwhile) and to US Catholic Bishops (New American) [2] [3], but in the "External Links" section. You can indicate in the text that there are resources in "External Links" to provide various translations of the two chapters. By linking to one text in the actual article, we are favoring that translation, but it would be unwieldy to provide lots of links there. It might be worth individually linking some 5-6 major translations, plus the Hebrew text, indicating that there are more available at those sites. Mpolo 08:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
External links is fine for a collection of bible websites. (The hebrew is available on blueletter bible)CheeseDreams 09:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be much better to have the external links right up there in the lead section--like in a table. Give the link and the number of translations available there. It would be impressive! The number of translations says more to me than the words in the texts. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Table added. Ungtss 15:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it counts as content. I think it counts as links. CheeseDreams 19:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

How about a table something like the following? What are the other sites? :((

Chapter 1 12 translations Fix site! 45 translations Fix site! 10 translations Fix site! 17 translations
Chapter 2 12 translations Fix site! 45 translations Fix site! 10 translations Fix site! 17 translations

What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 16:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let us quote actual proponents here; this is not personal research!

<<They claim that there is no reason to assume that understanding of Ancient Hebrew grammer is sufficiently lacking for the sentence to be unambiguous, given the significant knowledge of early languages that is built up by Comparative Philology.>>

May I point out that the above sentence does not make sense. And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for now that you can explain it. Now maybe I don't understand which BC century Comparative philology began. ;) Or maybe I am wrong in having the impression that 1500 BC writing technology was fragile; miscopies were easy; no Xeroxes.  :( Or maybe I have a wrong impression that ancient scribes tried to preserve even ambiguous phrases from the sacred past in hope that someone would finally figure them out. In any case, you will score ten points--not just one--in my book if you can quote an actual scholar who said anything similar to the above assertion. In the meantime, I suggest that we cut that sentence here to the TalkPage for preservation while you begin that long search to find some reputable scholar who said anything even close to "They claim that there is no reason to assume that understanding of Ancient Hebrew grammer is sufficiently lacking for the sentence to be unambiguous, given the significant knowledge of early languages that is built up by Comparative Philology." Who is They? What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that the text is restored to the article until you can provide a reputable scholar who suggests the counterclaim in the article. CheeseDreams 23:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I changed that link to work. It is now Historical linguistics. Does that make any sense to you? The basis of the argument is that language A is related to language B, therefore we interpolate to work out what language AB(the ancestor) was like. Further we can work out what B was like in missing detail B.45b by the corresponding detail in A.45b and lots of academic discussion. I.e. by knowing Modern Hebrew, bits of Aramaic, bits of Demotic, bits of .... and obviously bits of Ancient Hebrew, we can fill in the blanks, particularly as there are not so many. This is the basic principle of Historical linguistics (also called Comparative Philology). The bible was not written in 1500BC. Please check the articles on the origin of writing. From Hebrew Alphabet This script was borrowed by the Hebrews during the 12th or 11th century BC, and around the 9th century BC, a distinct Hebrew variant, the original "Hebrew script", emerged. I.e. no Hebrew writing before 12th century. CheeseDreams 23:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

No the sentences

  • "In addition, they point out that having written the Hebrew text, the author would surely have noted the ambiguity and corrected it, unless there was a reason to keep the implication of birds being created from the waters. They claim that there is no reason to assume that understanding of Ancient Hebrew grammer is sufficiently lacking for the sentence to be unambiguous, given the significant knowledge of early languages that is built up by Historical linguistics"

do not make sense in this paragraph. I have a couple of citations to support the preceding sentences in that paragraph. I am looking for a better citation. ---Rednblu | Talk 03:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

citations should be referenced at the bottom of the page. Don't add too much bulk to just one side of the argument, it is POV. I have tagged certain parts out until the documentary hypothesis is pointed out in similar detail (also note that variations on the documentary hypothesis are the majority academic view, so suggesting it isn't by a whole section is rather distoring).
since you seem to have a particular interest in the documentary hypothesis, would you be so kind as to flesh out the other side? Ungtss 14:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have reworded the birds section for readability. CheeseDreams 21:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, the they is Documentary hypothesis#Internal textual evidence

Begin preservation container of cut text

---

Conclusions if there is one account

[Identify the proponents of the one account version by name here and summarize their conclusions.]

Conclusions if there are two accounts

[Identify the proponents of the two accounts version by name here and summarize their conclusions.]

Scholarly alternative: The texts can be read either way

Biblical scholar Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2001) proposes that Genesis 1 and 2 can be seen as either one painting with two panels or as two separate paintings. Both are appropriate. She draws the parallel with the ancient story-telling technique that Kurosawa employed in the movie Rashomon. In that movie, the same series of events are told through the eyes of four different people, and of course realistically there are contradictions in the different narratives. And you could make sense out that movie either as four different stories or as four people having four different realistic narratives of the same story.

Accordingly, Ms. Reis analyzes Genesis 1 as God's narrative and Genesis 2 as man's narrative. In Genesis 1, the style of narration is very orderly and logical, proceeding from basics like heaven and earth, through plants and animals to man and woman. And everything is "good" or "very good." Ms. Reis suggests that the story-teller has a bit of whimsy in noting how perfect everything is from God's view.

In contrast, in Genesis 2, man tells the story from his own self-centeredness. Man is created first, of course. And there are a few flaws. Man is alone, without a woman. Whereas, in Genesis 1, the phrase is "heaven and earth" repeated several times, in Genesis 2, God makes "earth and heaven." And another thing, in Genesis 2, there is that troubling notice that "there was no one to till the ground." That sounds like a lot of work, an unending task--very unlike the completeness of Genesis 1.

Even the words used in Genesis 1 suggest serenity, the godly plane of existence. For example, in Genesis 1, the word for God is Elohim, the generic and distant God, while God's name in Genesis 2 is the personal and very sacred YHWH Elohim, the Lord of God. Even the verb of making is different in the two narratives, in the first narrative the verb is the Hebrew "arb" which means "create from nothing," something that only God can do. In contrast, the verb in the second narrative means "make"; God "made earth and heaven." Maybe man cannot make earth and heaven, but at least man can make many things from what is already at hand. And then there is that interesting inventory of gold and lapis lazuli and where they can be found--only in the second narrative, of course. From God's view in the first narrative, gold is not even mentioned; gold is something of interest only in man's narrative.

From all of these clues, Ms. Reis suggests that Genesis 1 and 2 make sense either way, just as for Kurosawa's Rashomon. They make sense as two different stories. Or they make sense as two narratives of the same story from different personal perspectives: that of God and that of man.

  • IMO, a very good observation and summary. Just as two or three witnesses' accounts of an event may differ in detail and perspective yet can still all be true in what they tell and relate to the same event, so too with the Genesis 1 & 2 renderings of creation. From a Wiki-NPOV perspective this is not an attempt to prove creation, however it does indicate one position from which the creation account can be interpreted. - HTUK 13:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

End preservation container of cut text

May I point out that there is no rational reason :) for commenting out the above text. What are your objections? :( ---Rednblu | Talk 16:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

he seems to be concerned that we're introducing a PRO-single account argument without a corresponding two-account counter-argument. it seems to me, tho, that the author would probably object to being stuffed into EITHER category, as (as i understand it) she thinks it could legitimately be read EITHER way without making the text less valuable. may i suggest we list THREE perspective -- "one account," "two accounts," or "could be read either way?" Ungtss 16:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I can see that--now that I think about it. :) That makes sense. I will put the cut text back in--with the three headings that you suggest--that makes sense. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
well, I wrote a comment about it a few seconds ago but its dissappeared, so,
The text is nebulous. VERY nebulous. Completely lacking in clarity or succinctness. It is also in the wrong place. It is about style. It should go in the style section. Please note, I did not delete it but tagged it out. There is no need to have a container wasting space on this page. CheeseDreams 21:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recovering from Wikipedia system bug

--- the system bug caused the following comment to be incorrectly buried in a portion of duplicated text

--- begin buried commment

The text is very nebulous, and devoid of content. However, what she does say, or rather, what she is paraphrased as, seems on balance to be PRO. In addition, it seems to be simply about the issue of Style. It should be re-written and moved there. I have re-tagged it out and moved it. This is not a place to write novels. CheeseDreams

--- end buried comment

Reminder! We are supposed to be writing NPOV articles

I find from the history file that someone took out a paragraph with the following comment

"this is pov personal research. find me one reputable scholar who . . ."

And then I find that someone else put the disputed paragraph back in, making the following comment

"Restore text removed for horrifically POV reasons"

Let me remind all of us that according to Wikipedia policy, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." And according to the Wikipedia NPOV explanations, the way NPOV is achieved is by citing to the proponents of the different POVs. So it is very correct, according to Wikipedia NPOV policy to remove disputed comments for which the proponents are not identified. "Some say . . ." does not work without a citation if it is not obvious that "Some say . . . ." I quote you from the Wikipedia NPOV policy page

  • "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." [4]

So whoever said "find me one reputable scholar who . . ." said the right thing. This is Wikipedia after all! ---Rednblu | Talk 00:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Explain

Please explain

  • Why you have a very nebulous textual essay by one reference shoved at the end of the article. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A paraphrase of what a cited scholar said is not "nebulous." That is the very essence of how to achieve Wikipedia NPOV--namely cite to what scholars actually said. Surely, a scholar's opinion of the interpretation of the "text" is not "nebulous." ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the cited scholar shows a "third way" in the debate. it's legit and it belongs there. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nebulous=cloudy, i.e. vague. The Nebulosity exists because the text is badly written. It should be rewritten. I will do it if no-one else does.
Since there is such a great disparity of opinion of editors on whether the current text is clear English, the appropriate thing would be to put your eventual version and the current version up for wide Wikipedia vote on whether it is "clear." Likely many sections of this page will be submitted for Wikipedia vote on what kind of English provides clarity. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Assuming it hasn't been reverted again, I have already edited most of the nebulosity out of it, and moved it to the appropriate section. CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why you do not want it admitted that Kitchen is an Evangelical Christian. After ruminating on this, I consider it an NPOV issue.

For my part It is important that it be pointed out that his starting point is "the bible is fundamentally inerrant", which does not really make his search for evidence likely to be very NPOV, it is important that it is stated that he is NOT an impartial witness to the matter. All or nothing is fine by me. I prefer All. I have never used a quote which implies it is from a neutral bystander but supports a particular side of the argument. I do not expect you to do that either. Either remove the quote or point out he is very much not neutral. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is NOT about neutrality. NPOV is about stating what the proponents actually said. I refer you to the Wikipedia NPOV policy documents. That Mr. Kitchen said what he said is a fact. And therefore quoting what Mr. Kitchen said, together with opposing quotes of scholars, is how Wikipedia NPOV is achieved! ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
May I insert here also that NPOV is about non-bias. It is our non-bias policy. Not a neutral POV, but an avoidance of bias toward any POV over another whenever there is a dispute. Tom - Talk 21:14, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
if you wanna say that kitchen's got an evangelical bias, you gotta list the biases of the biblical critics -- including the many atheists -- who come to the bible believing there is no God and the text is a crock, and use their "biblical criticism" to prove it. bias cuts both ways, and i want everybody's bias listed, or nobody's bias. the notion that atheists are objective and evangelicals alone are biased is pov. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where did I state that atheists are unbiased? The point is that you use Kitchens quote to suggest a fact which supports the argument on one side. The point is that Kitchen is extremely biased, and so the factual accuracy of what he states is in doubt. Therefore it is important to point this out. Please note: I have not myself used quotes stating things as if they were fact.
i understand that. all i'm saying is, if you want to call Kitchens an evangelical, then you need to call the biblical critics either Liberal Christians, non-christians, or atheists -- because many biblical critics are ALSO extremely biased. it is pov to identify the bias of one academic, leaving the implication that all the others have no bias. all i want is fair treatment -- everyone or noone. Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That would be the Wikipedia NPOV approach. Yes.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. Treat all POVs fairly, with a consistently sympathetic, positive tone. Tom - Talk 21:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to pointing out that person X is liberal christian, etc. ON CONDITION THAT kitchen is identified as an evangelical. Alternatively (as per my recent edit (if it hasn't been reverted)), I will accept not mentioning he is an evangelical ON CONDITION THAT it is also not mentioned that he is a professor or archaeologist. All or nothing. CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Having the biblical references is simply messy

There is a perfectly adequate section at the base of the article. The other Jesus and Bible articles don't have massive sets of links to a series of biblical sources. Nor should this. The point of an encyclopedia is to sum things up not to have loads of references and go:well, go on, look for yourself. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to 1) identify proponents of various views and 2) cite your sources when it is not obvious where to go to check whether what you just wrote is correct. To get Featured Article status, it is important to provide citations and references. I refer you to the criticisms that this page got when being considered for Featured Article status. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
this article is foremost about the text. a reader NEEDS to have access to the text right up in front, so he can read it, and THEN consider all our theories about it. it takes up virtually no space, and is not bulky.
The text is foremost in Genesis, Ezra, Daniel, Authorship of John, Mark 16, Isaiah, Proverbs, etc. But it isn't linked to there. It looks SLOPPY. CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
given the choice between sheer aesthetics and function, i gotta go with function. given the systemic bias, i'm not gonna use other pages for my model. you can put it in with the intro, if you like, but it is NOT sloppy to say that the original hebrew has been translated in many versions (true!), and make each of those versions a link. it simply makes for a better page.
This page is unique in that several very different interpretations of the same text are intimately entangled with the way the original is translated. So in my opinion, we should provide a link to the many different translations up front. Providing a link is much, much better than providing the text up front inside the article, in my opinion. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Urm, no, Mark 16 is very important w.r.t. the nature of the text. As is John 21, and Authorship of John. It is sloppy to have a whole section the contents of which are "There are some translations - series of links". It would be better to have a sentence in the introduction "sources for the text can be found at this link". CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why have you removed the first part of the interpretation section that Rednblu wrote and inserted it in the textual criticism 1vs2 accounts section?

It is not relevant there. It is relevant back at the beginning of the article. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You may be right. Good suggestion. Can we think about it.? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
maybe i got a little crazy:). Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When I look at it again, the summary works in my opinion in that it summarizes the conclusions at the top. Let's wait until we have a complete page, then we can decide whether any of the summaries at the top should be there. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why have you expanded the Elohim suggests strength bit, when the extra content adds nothing and just makes it less readable?CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whether it adds something depends on the point-of-view, does it not? And any good Wikipedia artile should report the various points-of-view on the article. That is how we achieve good enough NPOV to get Featured Article status.  ;)) The question is: Does the "Elohim suggests . . ." add something useful for the readers. Let's think about it. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
it just seems like clarity to me. feel free to "bulk up" the other side, but i think that the words need to be explained in order for the point to be made. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Im not objecting to the words being explained, just the way you explained them. I had changed the paragraph to a succincter version which still contained the explanation. I want to know why you removed my succinct version and replaced it with one that was verbose. CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because i felt as tho your "succincter" version was so succinct that it made the argument incomprehensible -- that it needed to be broken apart for clarity. Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I did not think that the "succincter" version was clear at all. Again, we should have several versions put up for wide Wikipedia vote to decide which version is clear. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What was unclear about it? CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why have you tagged out the text from 700BC and orthodoxy sections?

This is not personal research, orthodoxy & church latin were complaints since the Reformation, wheras the date of origin of the text is part of Biblical criticism. I have put this bit back in. There is no justification in removing it whatsoever. Orthodoxy - see Council of Nicea, Arius, Iranaeus, Eusebius, Mediaeval inquisition, Spanish inquisition, Council of Trent, Albigensian Crusade, Great Schism, and Orthodoxy. Church Latin - see Church Latin, Old Church Slavonic. Origin of the text - see Biblical criticism,Higher criticism, Documentary Hypothesis, Ezra CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we need a citation to a scholar so that we can see what was really said. In my opinion, it is not good enough to just quote other Wikipedia pages. We have to summarize what the scholars actually said--not just what the Wikipedia pages said. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
feel free to add a scholar who put in writing their factually-based belief that there was a grand church conspiracy to burn people at the stake over the genesis story. in the mean time, i think there's absolutely no factual basis for it, and i think it's church-bashing. nobody will deny that the church has done some horrible things. but this article isn't about the inquisition. and if you wanna say the church threatened to kill people over genesis, which i can't fathom, then you gotta back it up. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The church DID kill people over genesis, read the articles I listed. But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy, which later became under pain of death. I don't see what the justification is in denying that the church insisted on orthodoxy. Citations please. CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i just want one scholar who notes a case of the church killing a person for pointing out the "contradiction" between genesis 1 and 2. i know they killed people over orthodoxy. that's irrelevent to this page. i want a single case of them killing over genesis 1 vs. genesis 2. Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I don't see any logical connection between the 1) inquisitions and the 2) "contradictions" in the two accounts in Genesis. The "contradictions" appear to me to reside in the original Hebrew.  :) Hence, the "contradictions" have nothing to do with the "inquisitions." Now, if there is some scholar that related the "inquisitions" and the "contradictions," then it would be our duty to quote and cite that scholar's writing--if you can find it. And I doubt that you can find a scholar that says that the "inquisitions" caused the "contradictions"--because it does not make sense. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now Im going to have to look at the vatican records (which are very very good - they took very detailed notes of all heresy trials, rather oddly), which will take time (mainly because they aren't very willing to let people look, and insist you know what you are looking for before you can get it (you can't look at the (partial) catalogue)). CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
N.b. the inquisitition etc. frightened people into not disputing whatever the orthodoxy was on fear of death.
I think I should re-state something I wrote above, as you haven't noticed it "But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy". CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, ive just discovered that it is possible to read part of Genesis 2 to state that god wanted adam to commit Bestiality. Maybe that should go in too?CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Duel perspective theory. After ruminating on this, I consider it an NPOV issue.

This is NOT a seperate theory, but a different way to explain the single account theory. Having it as a seperate item implies 2 accounts is only 1/3 of the opinion, but 1 account is 2/3 which is very POV. CheeseDreams 23:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a personal interest in what that perspective means about whether or not Genesis is genuine, do you? :) However, I do know that interpretations like that are important in scholarly circles generally, whether they are interpreting William Faulkner, the Rosetta Stone, or the Qur'an. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
look -- all i care about here is that a description of her work is in the text. you complained about there being no counterargument, so i added a counterargument. you erased the counterargument, so i made it a "third way." i've tried to be accomodating, but i'm out of ideas. it's good text, and it belongs in there.Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Its an appallingly vague text. If you want to put an essay in here put it in wikisource, and link to it. Cut it, trim it, edit it, rewrite it, make it more succinct, explain what her point was rather than quote her. The film reference is unimportant. I could write an essay on Fight Club and explain how it relates to Genesis, but it isn't really relevant, and it would be just nebulous. Her text is NOT a 3rd way. If you look at the last paragraph it is saying that genesis should be read as focus on god=part 1, focus on man=part 2. This is identical to the PRO-1 account theory. To claim it is a neutral view is EXTREMELY distorting. CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
that's why i initially put it in with the single view, with the best counterargument i could come up with -- which you promptly deleted. i'd rather it was in with the "single account" view -- because i think you're right. but i also know that biblical critics DON'T have a counterargument because ultimately they don't CARE what the text says -- just how they can chop it up. but the text is good. it's a valid point of view, and it's cited. we can put it back with the single account view, and clean it up if you'd like ... but let's not cut it out. Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't have a preference at all among the "one account," the "two account," or any "other account." :) To me the Bible is just the best-selling piece of fiction ever in history. And the "dual perspective" interpretation at least provides an explanation why the Bible is the best-selling piece of fiction in history--namely it includes so many elements of what makes a good "story" in this world where there is no God to give us the accurate story. :) Apparently, part of making a good story is inviting the hearer of the story to engage with the story. And the high sales volume in Bibles results from the demand-side of the market buying the engaging story--with no regard for accuracy of the story. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
agreed -- i think that's the beauty of her "could be read either way" approach -- while kitchens goes for factual and historical inerrancy (which is pretty tough to argue), and the critics hypothesize about authors based on artificial criteria and a million and one assumptions (also very difficult), she takes a broader approach to the text -- as "literature" -- which could be fictional, factual, or a little bit of both -- and should be read for what it IS, right there, in front of us, today. that's why i think she's distinct from both the evangelicals and the critics, and should be laid out separately. good stuff:). Ungtss 17:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have edited it anyway. Its next to the kitchen. CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ps. please avoid colloquialisms like "leaves off" but use "finishes" and more formal language instead. Some people will not know what colloquialisms mean, and many dictionaries do not explain them.CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Good idea. Feel free to fix that also. We all can edit each other's text. :)) But yes, I will fix that. Thanks for pointing that out. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would rather it was avoided in the first place, I don't want to clock up a huge number of small style edits.
I hereby take your advice to heart. I will read through the page right this second and take out all of the "leaves off" colloquialisms that I unconsciously put in there. And I will try my best to keep from making that mistake in the future. I promise. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind, its just that I would rather not have to do it. CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am thinking of reverting, but will wait until these are answered. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

let's hash it out all here before we return the edit war, eh:)? Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
hash? like this - ######################################### ? CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
sometimes it feels that way, yes:). Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have no fear. Edit wars will not deter us.  :))) We will use "containers" on the TalkPage and subpages wherever needed to preserve the good and clear texts of whatever we do here. Then we will put all of our versions up for wide Wikipedia vote when we think we are ready. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for continuing good work despite the edit war on the MainPage

Definitions
That would be me then. OOh its nice to be in a majority of 1 compared to the piddling little minority of 2. CheeseDreams 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Statement of the problem
No, the majority editors have simply pointed out that there is one. CheeseDreams 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The "minority" editors would like to develop a good page rather than fight an edit war.
Are you claiming that the majority editors are not with that intent?CheeseDreams 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rules for continuing good work despite the edit war on Creation according to Genesis

No, that is silly. It is having a rival page. This is a forbidden practice. CheeseDreams 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • I have asked several Sysadmins at this link to look in occasionally to make sure that both "majority" and "minority" opinion treat the other fairly for this time. :) As one member of the "minority" opinion on the Creation according to Genesis page, I ask of you please to give those of us in the "minority" and any other Wikipedia editor interested in developing a collaborative page a chance to develop our collaborative writing on the /tempMinorityOpinionPage so that we can see if our ideas are workable. We will strive to make those ideas good enough that you will like them as well. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The Wikipedia community vote will decide the baseline version of the Creation according to Genesis page
  • At a time that the "minority" editors choose, the Wikipedia community shall be invited to vote on which version, the majority's or the minority's, shall be adopted for the baseline version of Creation according to Genesis. This voting mechanism is demonstrated on the Talk:Clitoris page where the total Wikipedia community is currently voting on what shall be the baseline version of the Clitoris page.
  • The vote of the total Wikipedia community shall decide the baseline content of the Creation according to Genesis page. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, no. In addition, the "wikipedia community" who actually vote is simply dependent on those who are aware of the vote. This is very easy to gerrymander one way or the other, simply by making more of one's side aware. Since there are 2 of you and 1 of me, that automatically gives you a better chance of bringing a greater number of people to voting. THIS IS CHEATING. CheeseDreams 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Discussion follows here

I'd say, just create a temp page and start editing. You don't have to make a big deal about it -- just do it. Then you can work it up to scratch, and hopefully, it will be so good that all sides agree and we can take it live. (If there's a big fuss, then we take it to the Village Pump...) We did a similar thing with Shroud of Turin and managed to achieve FA status. I am interested in getting this page up to scratch and would be willing to help. Mpolo 18:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I invite you and any other editor interested in working in a collaborative style to come to Creation according to Genesis/tempMinorityOpinionPage. I am trying out some placement of images ideas. Any ideas? Does anybody have some idea for a stunning graphic of what the most ancient scroll of Genesis looks like? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I have started a Creation according to Genesis/tempMinorityOpinionPage and am thinking about what version to put there initially. Any ideas? As you suggest, the formality is not necessary, but I would want to make clear that something formal could be established, no?  ;)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think, having read Mpolo's comment, that we should take the issue up on the Shroud of Turin page. That way, since there are obviously a lot of people involved in that, there is going to be a wider collection of people, which is more likely to be overall neutral. THIS IS A SERIOUS SUGGESTION. CheeseDreams 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
sorry i jumped the gun and put in the page from last night ... lemme know if you want a different one:). Ungtss 19:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good. Let's go. Is the name of the page all right? We could Move it--if that is a good idea. No links would be broken because there would be a Redirect. :)) In any case, we could move it later. ---Rednblu | Talk 19:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why the {} sign/s?

The sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page by User:CheeseDreams are similar to the ones he placed on about 50 other similar pages without any discussion, explanation or reasoning, so he needs to explain what his "Grand strategy" is...would he like to re-write the entire way Christianity and Judaisn look at the Bible on Wikipedia? Anyone concerned with these articles neeeds to know. (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you actually read the above, you would note that this page is the subject of an edit war. CheeseDreams 21:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is a LIE, RednBlu. You are creating a rival page there. Do you dispute this? If you no longer require the rival, I will add a speedy delete tag to the rival. CheeseDreams 22:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terminology

It seems that this artucle uses "textual criticism" and "textual critic" throughout, when it is actually referring to "source criticism" and "source critic." I'm particularly troubled by the sentence:

"The small minority[citation needed] of academics rejecting the methodology of textual criticism, as well as non-academic Creationists, argue that when a biblical text is measured against the scholar's own concept of unity and found wanting, this probably says more about the biblical scholar's sense of unity than about the text's prehistory. (Carr 24)."

which seems to imply that conservatives who reject the two-source theory are rejecting textual criticism (when in fact many of them are very active textual critics). I propose that in this section (and elsewhere in the article) the term textual criticism be replaced with source criticism, the term "textual critic" be replaced by "source critic" and this particular sentence be altered to read "Some question the methodology of source criticism in passages like this and argue that[...]" This would both help in avoiding arguments over loaded terms like "small minority" and "academic", and improve the accuracy of the statement. I know many conservative biblicists who would agree with the above argument with respect to source criticism in the Pentatech, but fully accept the methods of source criticism elsewhere (e.g. in identifying Q-quotations in the Gospels), and use the same text-critical methodology as any more liberal scholar would.

Demmeis 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Fair warning announcement

Please see the text of the announcement at this link ---Rednblu | Talk 10:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please also see the section marked "Explain". Dysfunctional behaviour includes not adressing concerns raised on a talk page, and instead just going off to write a rival version ignoring them. CheeseDreams 17:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • To what, pray tell, do you refer? I see not one of Mr. Dreams's comments that has not been thoroughly and exhaustively considered and applied where found of value. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The section above marked "explain", to which no responses have occured for many weeks. DESPITE my repeated requests to you to do so. CheeseDreams 19:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will withhold judgment and attribute my not seeing an unanswered concern to my certainty that there is not one.  :)) Perhaps you could copy that unanswered concern below? I would sincerely thank you. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems that the following list of thorougly and exhaustively considered concerns is no different from the above list of thoroughly and exhaustively considered concerns. However, I iterate that the following list of actions should assist with all of those already thoroughly and exhaustively considered concerns:
    1. Correct spelling in the Creation according to Genesis page. A spell-checker would be good.
    2. Correct "grammer". See above.
    3. Turn the bullet-points into prose. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are no replies on the following list, therefore it is not thouroughly or exhaustively addressed. CheeseDreams 19:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copy of unanswered concerns

Please explain

  • Why you have a very nebulous textual essay by one reference shoved at the end of the article. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A paraphrase of what a cited scholar said is not "nebulous." That is the very essence of how to achieve Wikipedia NPOV--namely cite to what scholars actually said. Surely, a scholar's opinion of the interpretation of the "text" is not "nebulous." ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the cited scholar shows a "third way" in the debate. it's legit and it belongs there. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nebulous=cloudy, i.e. vague. The Nebulosity exists because the text is badly written. It should be rewritten. I will do it if no-one else does.
Since there is such a great disparity of opinion of editors on whether the current text is clear English, the appropriate thing would be to put your eventual version and the current version up for wide Wikipedia vote on whether it is "clear." Likely many sections of this page will be submitted for Wikipedia vote on what kind of English provides clarity. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Assuming it hasn't been reverted again, I have already edited most of the nebulosity out of it, and moved it to the appropriate section. CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why you do not want it admitted that Kitchen is an Evangelical Christian. After ruminating on this, I consider it an NPOV issue.

For my part It is important that it be pointed out that his starting point is "the bible is fundamentally inerrant", which does not really make his search for evidence likely to be very NPOV, it is important that it is stated that he is NOT an impartial witness to the matter. All or nothing is fine by me. I prefer All. I have never used a quote which implies it is from a neutral bystander but supports a particular side of the argument. I do not expect you to do that either. Either remove the quote or point out he is very much not neutral. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is NOT about neutrality. NPOV is about stating what the proponents actually said. I refer you to the Wikipedia NPOV policy documents. That Mr. Kitchen said what he said is a fact. And therefore quoting what Mr. Kitchen said, together with opposing quotes of scholars, is how Wikipedia NPOV is achieved! ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
May I insert here also that NPOV is about non-bias. It is our non-bias policy. Not a neutral POV, but an avoidance of bias toward any POV over another whenever there is a dispute. Tom - Talk 21:14, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
if you wanna say that kitchen's got an evangelical bias, you gotta list the biases of the biblical critics -- including the many atheists -- who come to the bible believing there is no God and the text is a crock, and use their "biblical criticism" to prove it. bias cuts both ways, and i want everybody's bias listed, or nobody's bias. the notion that atheists are objective and evangelicals alone are biased is pov. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where did I state that atheists are unbiased? The point is that you use Kitchens quote to suggest a fact which supports the argument on one side. The point is that Kitchen is extremely biased, and so the factual accuracy of what he states is in doubt. Therefore it is important to point this out. Please note: I have not myself used quotes stating things as if they were fact.
i understand that. all i'm saying is, if you want to call Kitchens an evangelical, then you need to call the biblical critics either Liberal Christians, non-christians, or atheists -- because many biblical critics are ALSO extremely biased. it is pov to identify the bias of one academic, leaving the implication that all the others have no bias. all i want is fair treatment -- everyone or noone. Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That would be the Wikipedia NPOV approach. Yes.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. Treat all POVs fairly, with a consistently sympathetic, positive tone. Tom - Talk 21:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to pointing out that person X is liberal christian, etc. ON CONDITION THAT kitchen is identified as an evangelical. Alternatively (as per my recent edit (if it hasn't been reverted)), I will accept not mentioning he is an evangelical ON CONDITION THAT it is also not mentioned that he is a professor or archaeologist. All or nothing. CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Having the biblical references is simply messy

There is a perfectly adequate section at the base of the article. The other Jesus and Bible articles don't have massive sets of links to a series of biblical sources. Nor should this. The point of an encyclopedia is to sum things up not to have loads of references and go:well, go on, look for yourself. CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to 1) identify proponents of various views and 2) cite your sources when it is not obvious where to go to check whether what you just wrote is correct. To get Featured Article status, it is important to provide citations and references. I refer you to the criticisms that this page got when being considered for Featured Article status. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
this article is foremost about the text. a reader NEEDS to have access to the text right up in front, so he can read it, and THEN consider all our theories about it. it takes up virtually no space, and is not bulky.
The text is foremost in Genesis, Ezra, Daniel, Authorship of John, Mark 16, Isaiah, Proverbs, etc. But it isn't linked to there. It looks SLOPPY. CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
given the choice between sheer aesthetics and function, i gotta go with function. given the systemic bias, i'm not gonna use other pages for my model. you can put it in with the intro, if you like, but it is NOT sloppy to say that the original hebrew has been translated in many versions (true!), and make each of those versions a link. it simply makes for a better page.
This page is unique in that several very different interpretations of the same text are intimately entangled with the way the original is translated. So in my opinion, we should provide a link to the many different translations up front. Providing a link is much, much better than providing the text up front inside the article, in my opinion. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Urm, no, Mark 16 is very important w.r.t. the nature of the text. As is John 21, and Authorship of John. It is sloppy to have a whole section the contents of which are "There are some translations - series of links". It would be better to have a sentence in the introduction "sources for the text can be found at this link". CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why have you expanded the Elohim suggests strength bit, when the extra content adds nothing and just makes it less readable?CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whether it adds something depends on the point-of-view, does it not? And any good Wikipedia artile should report the various points-of-view on the article. That is how we achieve good enough NPOV to get Featured Article status.  ;)) The question is: Does the "Elohim suggests . . ." add something useful for the readers. Let's think about it. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
it just seems like clarity to me. feel free to "bulk up" the other side, but i think that the words need to be explained in order for the point to be made. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Im not objecting to the words being explained, just the way you explained them. I had changed the paragraph to a succincter version which still contained the explanation. I want to know why you removed my succinct version and replaced it with one that was verbose. CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because i felt as tho your "succincter" version was so succinct that it made the argument incomprehensible -- that it needed to be broken apart for clarity. Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I did not think that the "succincter" version was clear at all. Again, we should have several versions put up for wide Wikipedia vote to decide which version is clear. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What was unclear about it? CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why have you tagged out the text from 700BC and orthodoxy sections?

This is not personal research, orthodoxy & church latin were complaints since the Reformation, wheras the date of origin of the text is part of Biblical criticism. I have put this bit back in. There is no justification in removing it whatsoever. Orthodoxy - see Council of Nicea, Arius, Iranaeus, Eusebius, Mediaeval inquisition, Spanish inquisition, Council of Trent, Albigensian Crusade, Great Schism, and Orthodoxy. Church Latin - see Church Latin, Old Church Slavonic. Origin of the text - see Biblical criticism,Higher criticism, Documentary Hypothesis, Ezra CheeseDreams 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we need a citation to a scholar so that we can see what was really said. In my opinion, it is not good enough to just quote other Wikipedia pages. We have to summarize what the scholars actually said--not just what the Wikipedia pages said. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
feel free to add a scholar who put in writing their factually-based belief that there was a grand church conspiracy to burn people at the stake over the genesis story. in the mean time, i think there's absolutely no factual basis for it, and i think it's church-bashing. nobody will deny that the church has done some horrible things. but this article isn't about the inquisition. and if you wanna say the church threatened to kill people over genesis, which i can't fathom, then you gotta back it up. Ungtss 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The church DID kill people over genesis, read the articles I listed. But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy, which later became under pain of death. I don't see what the justification is in denying that the church insisted on orthodoxy. Citations please. CheeseDreams 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i just want one scholar who notes a case of the church killing a person for pointing out the "contradiction" between genesis 1 and 2. i know they killed people over orthodoxy. that's irrelevent to this page. i want a single case of them killing over genesis 1 vs. genesis 2. Ungtss 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I don't see any logical connection between the 1) inquisitions and the 2) "contradictions" in the two accounts in Genesis. The "contradictions" appear to me to reside in the original Hebrew.  :) Hence, the "contradictions" have nothing to do with the "inquisitions." Now, if there is some scholar that related the "inquisitions" and the "contradictions," then it would be our duty to quote and cite that scholar's writing--if you can find it. And I doubt that you can find a scholar that says that the "inquisitions" caused the "contradictions"--because it does not make sense. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now Im going to have to look at the vatican records (which are very very good - they took very detailed notes of all heresy trials, rather oddly), which will take time (mainly because they aren't very willing to let people look, and insist you know what you are looking for before you can get it (you can't look at the (partial) catalogue)). CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
N.b. the inquisitition etc. frightened people into not disputing whatever the orthodoxy was on fear of death.
I think I should re-state something I wrote above, as you haven't noticed it "But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy". CheeseDreams 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page has a category of creation stories which is a non existant orphan category. Realizing it is a controversial topic, I didn't want to just parent the category .. I would like to get a consensus as to where creation stories belong in the hierarchy of categories. As many creation stories are viewed as mythology, for example Greek and Roman creation stories, I thought possibly there. But I'm sure that might cause some controversy. So folks where should it go? Thanks -- Sortior 04:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Most people do not view it as strictly literal (even amongst those who view most of the bible as such - although the u.s. contains a large group of those who do). However, as SOME think it is a myth, it should go in the myths catagory, and because SOME do not, it should ALSO go in another category.CheeseDreams 08:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous edit re JEPD

And anonymous editor inserted the following statement into the article, regarding the use of "Jehovah" in Genesis 2:4&ndashGenesis 2:24

(However, anyone who knows Hebrew can check the text and see that this statement is wrong - the title "God" (elohim) is used in the first chapter, consistantly "Jehova God" is used in chapters 2 and 3, only in chapter 4 do we find Jehova used alone.)

I reverted simply because inserting an editorial comment into the article is not appropriate. Either the article should have been corrected, or the matter discussed on this talk page. Not being a Hebrew reader, I don't know whether either the claim or counter claim is correct, so I hope that someone will clarify that. (If the anonymous editor's counter claim is correct, how do we correct the article?) Perhaps Ungtss, who appears to have inserted the original claim, can add his two cents' worth? Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am the anonymous editor, and I read Biblical Hebrew fluently. The statement as it stands is like calling the sky red - I don't know any scholar who could make that claim with a straight face. Since this is not a question of opinion - anyone who knows Hebrew can check those facts - it certainly calls into question the validity of the JEPD theory if this is one of their claims, though it may be a misstatement concerning the JEPD theory.

i really appreciate your knowledge on the subject -- silly me, i just took those idiots who support the JEDP idea at their word -- but i looked it up -- and you're right -- it's Jehovah Elohim -- so i fixed it:). what to do now with all the BibKrit material that falsely says that genesis 2 uses Jehovah exclusively:)? it sounds as tho you have a great knowledge of hebrew -- do you have any other insight into these issues which could further benefit the page? Ungtss 12:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Creationism?

Does this really belong in the Creationism category, and template (which latter isn't actually on the page, but refers to it)? Surely the focus is on textual analysis of scripture, not the cosmological and evolutionary debate. Alai

This article is barely about creation at all! The top paragraph somewhat talks about the creation according to Genesis, but then the rest of the article talks about the Documentary Hypothesis, for which there is already an article. I think the title is rather misleading and this page needs a severe reworking to cover what the title actually describes. SF2K1

The bias of this article is a little too anti-documentary-hypothesis

The bias of this article is a little too anti-documentary-hypothesis. In order to counteract this, I have added a link with a more critical view of the "Moses wrote the first five books" viewpoint. Samboy 22:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merged From: Talk:Creation account in Genesis

The Existance of this page This page was recently created by someone for POV reasons. It entirely duplicates the Creation accounts in Genesis page. It is now a candidate for deletion, for NPOV reasons. User:CheeseDreams

I don't see why this should have been merged (I can't see much relevance), but it was tagged for merging -- I guess it might be of use to someone, so here you have it. Robinoke 21:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

de nihilio [or nihilo?] nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti--The Doctrine of the Eternity of Matter

I believe there is no legitimate form of the word 'nothing' in Latin that is spelled 'nihilio,' though I could find no satisfactory confirmation; however, 'nihilo' seems to be the accurate word used in the Doctrine of the Eternity of Matter.

Anyone versed in Latin?

The headword is 'nihilum' (also 'nihilominus' and 'nilum'). 'Nihilio' is not a word.66.156.79.45 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)JMW

Delete?

The article is just badly written - it's sophomoric. Delete, and save us all the embarrassment of its existence. PiCo 12:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Endomion 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Literary intent

The last point appears to be unsubstantiated. IMHO to state that numbers in the Bible rarely have significance requires a reference. "It is appointed unto man once to die ..." has numerical significance. Dan Watts 15:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Exclusion of Agnostic or Atheist positions

The article reads "The level to which the story is taken at its literal meaning is in part related to how theologically conservative or theologically liberal the interpreter is."

Why do you here exclude non-Christians, agnostics or atheists? Surely they have opinions too about the nature of Creation according to Genesis!

Regards John D. Croft 04:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

JEDP Hypothesis

"[M]odern documentary hypothesis is currently supported by over 90% of academics in the field." — Show some reference for this statement or remove it. Dan Watts 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

References


Proposing split

I propose to split this page in to Creation according to Judaism, Creation according Christianity, etc. As both understand Genesis totally differently and have very different ideas.

Judaism holds the Hebrew grammatically correct translation the first verse is: "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth." Rashi refutes the reading of the verse as "In the beginning [of everything] God created the heavens and the earth", as it is illogical, due to the fact that, in the next verse, water is mentioned before having been created. Indeed, water is never said to be created in the Genesis account of creation. The Jewish understanding of Genesis has no similarities and is incompatible with the Christian understanding.

I propose this split because the viewpoints have no similarities. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

3/6/0 (for/against/neutral)

Comments

Read an excellent and recent book, philosophical and theological, in French : Jean-Marc Rouvière "Breves meditations sur la creation du monde" Ed. L'Harmattan Paris 2006

I would just like to add, being a Christian, that the initial information is all wrong. God created the light on day one,the oceans and sky on day two, The land and plants on day three, the sun and moon and stars on day four, the fish and birds on day five, land animals and people (in His image) on day six, NOT all these other things claimed to be made. (Caves, Magic staffs, (which was God, not "Magic") the rainbow, (Noah was thousands of years after creation, He was the only righteous man left)and other absurd things this article talks about.)On the seventh day He rested. I just wanted to clarify.

    • If you need to talk to someone, call toll-free 1-800-633-3446 Please don't hesitate.**
It's a legitimate complaint. The article is a mish-mash of differing traditions. I tried to edit the stories so they stick more closely to the text and clearly identify the dusk of the sixth day material as part of the Jewish tradition.--agr 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of phrase "in some way" with "inspired by God"

This is not a "weasel word" usage, but is a direct reference to the very real fact that people who believe the Bible is inspired by God have a variety of views regarding what "inspired by God" means. The relevant Wikipedia article is Biblical inspiration. (Greeneto 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

My mistake. I mistook "in some way" as some kind of ambiguity. Of course, I thought to my self, that's ridiculous as people either think that the Bible is inspired by God or it is not. If did not even occur to me that there are different ideas of inspiration. El Cubano 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 2

The section on chapter 2 begins "Chapter 2 continues with what some consider to be a different account of creation." Not everybody views it that way, so I added Others consider it to be an account of the details of Day 6. Wdanwatts reverted the change, saying in his edit summary I don't see how a comment on day 6 covers chapter 2. I propose to reinstate the sentence with the following citations: [6] [7] Any other opinions? PrometheusX303 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Your references show a clear and reasonable exegesis. (I believe that including the references will make the statement quite unassailable.) Dan Watts 04:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I should have included them to begin with. PrometheusX303 12:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacking criticisms again

Hi. I mentioned some common criticism of Genesis on the Genesis talk page to maybe bring some balance to the article, but nobody really took up the idea. I see this article is also rather one-sided, lacking any other viewpoints but POV creationist ones. Here are some of the criticisms and contradictions most raised about the text itself, as opposed to arguments based on science and evolution theory...

  • In Genesis 1, humans are created after the other animals; in Genesis 2, they're created before them.
  • Genesis 1:27 says that the first man and woman were created at the same time; yet Genesis 2:18-22 says man was created first, then the animals, then woman, from Adam's rib.
  • In Genesis, God creates light on the first day, but doesn't make the sun until the forth day.
  • Plants are created on the third day, before there is any sun to provide photo-synthesis.
  • Birds are created before reptiles and insects (their food), and flowering plants before any other animals (needed to pollenate them).

Hopefully, somebody can use these as part of a Criticism section to bring some balance to the article (although I'm pessimistic).... -Neural 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to answer those for you? Would it do any good? PrometheusX303 13:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to answer anything here, unless you especially want to. The issue is not whether you or various theologians have found ways to get around apparent contradictions. The issue is the POV bias of Wikipedia articles like this one. This article, and the other I mentioned, create a false impression that Genesis is virtually beyond question, that nobody thinks it is rubbish. Since both articles skim over the fact that creationism is not taken seriously at all by mainstream science, I thought we could at least talk more about the textual inconsistencies. The only "controversy" ever really mentioned is whether we should take the text as a loose allegory or a literal creation story. - Neural 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that Neural has something of a point here. On the Genesis page there's a tiny section where its literal truth is queried. At this point, all that's noted is that historians and archaeologists dispute it. What's omitted is that it's entirely unsupported by scientific evidence from fields as diverse as biology, cosmology and geology. Admittedly, this near-total lack of evidence is mentioned on other pages, but it'd be helpful to be clear on the page that people who're interested in, say, Genesis, are most likely to be reading. I'd add that, aside from the above, the suggestion that Genesis is a historic document is also at odds with most of the world's other religions (who're also unsupported by historians, archaeologists, scientists, etc.). Just my two cents. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. How about something like this: (Open for discussion)
Bible critics will point out that Genesis (and the Bible in general) contains what they believe are passages that contradict other passages , logic, and scientific findings. (examples?) The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a website that attempts to compile a comprehensive list of these and other problems with the Bible.
Biblical inerrantists endeavor to counter these arguments by claiming misunderstanding on the reader's part, mistranslation, or diliberate misdirection on the skeptics part [8].
PrometheusX303 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so fast. Regarding changes, I was only thinking of adding a sentence to clarify that it's not just historians and archaeologists who have a problem with a literal reading of religious works (i.e. that the weight of scientific evidence just can't support it). I'd certainly avoid expressions like "Bible critics" since its really critics of Biblical literalism not simply critics of the Bible in general (the Holy See, for instance, doesn't have much time for literal readings). And I don't think we'd need any specific examples of where scientific findings contradict a literal reading - there's just no natural end to that long list (take your pick from age of the Earth/universe, geological record, ongoing evolution, etc.). Anyway, if I think of a short adjustment, I'll make it. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Overview - historical description, literal days?

There is a clear inaccuracy in the statement "Those who treat Genesis as an historical description take the Genesis 1 creation account to be teaching that the creation events took place over six successive days of 24 hours each." Later, under the heading Timescale this is contradicted: (a)nother theory, propounded by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, holds that the word "day" may also be understood to mean "separate period of time," and thus the time-scale for God having organized the earth from existing matter could extend over thousands or even millions of years of "earth time," In addition to the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and some other groups also take the Day-Age view that the Biblical "day" represents a time period of more than 24 literal hours, yes all these groups consider Genesis an historical account insofar as it outlines the activities of God and the order of creation "in the beginning".

I'm inclined to rewrite that initial statement along these lines: "Among those who consider Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 an historical account, some believe creation took place over six literal 24 hour periods (Young Earth creation view), while others contend that each creative "day" represents a period or age of indeterminate length (Day-Age creation view)"

Will wait a few days to see what people think, then edit as above if no pertinent objections are raised - HTUK 13:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd take out "Chapters 1 & 2" from the text you propose.--agr 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, have amended accordingly. Took out "Chapters 1 & 2" from the above as suggested, as I don't think it changes the essential meaning although it was in there originally to refer more specifically to the creation account itself, not other aspects of Genesis. - HTUK 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bible by Chapter

Has anyone ever proposed having an article for Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Genesis 3, and on and on throughout the entire bible? It might seem extreme, but such an important document should be looked at as closely as possible. Someone please direct me to the page on wikipedia where this matter is being discussed. - ShadowyCabal 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to start. If others see them as unnessisary they might put them up for deletion. But there is nothing to stop you starting. There is no page to discuss new article proposals - you just start writing. --Michael Johnson 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I support your idea. Let me call to your attention two parallel projects, although neither may be responsive to your interests: There is an article on Genesis 1:1, and see the discussion page there at Talk:Genesis 1:1. But see the discussion of the related discussion of including the text as such at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. And there are articles on each of the 54 portions of the first five books in the Bible that are read in Synagogues on a weekly basis. These tend to be three or four chapters each. For example, see Bereishit (parsha), Noach (parsha), and the rest cited at the bottom of each of those pages.--Dauster 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Story 1 - Story 2

What is the reason for the two versions here? I think this format is inappropriate.--agr 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the second story as duplicative. --agr 10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare and Genesis

The article says that "...many copies of Shakespeare mention his death." I don't think so. This statement needs to be verified or removed. PiCo 07:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare's been cloned?  :) Probably means many of Shakespeare's works. But it's a new one to me either way. Prometheus-X303- 07:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative/Archive_1&oldid=1136276289"