Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Disputed title

Suggestion: We could improve the present article with an overt explanation of the longstanding title name edit warring and repeated editorial discussion moratoria. What would be a better way to present the information covered under Talk subpages, especially the Archives, most recently Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 25#Requested move 22 February 2017, and Talk:Genesis creation narrative/FAQ? Perhaps something like linking Template:Disputed title to a revised Template:Round in circles? Keahapana (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not fully understanding what you are saying. Do you think that the Disputed Title tag should stay on the article page? Probably permanently, since the title will always be controversial, no matter what it is. If that's what you are saying, then I would be opposed. Readers of WP articles should read content on that topic, not be diverted to various controversies among WP editors. Even temporarily, the tag doesn't add anything, since there is a moratorium on Title renaming.

If you are putting that tag there only to bring editors to this discussion, then sure, let's leave it there for a week or so. Perhaps we could do more on this talk page to point people to the article renaming discussions in the past. More than the box that's already here that does exactly that. But do people really want a lengthy discussion on what more to say? Again, I'm not clear what you are trying to start here. First Light (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there actually an active moratorium on move-discussions, and if not, should we re-instate one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, time flies, there is no active moratorium on move attempts. I've stricken my comment above. First Light (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the tag is a bit disruptive, since it's been discussed so often in the past. Creating a new discussion would be less disruptive, but it's becoming increasingly like asking one parents until they give in. StAnselm (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess the question to ask yourself, Keahapana, is whether you have a new argument that hasn't been presented before. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I had no intention of starting another iterative argument and was trying to find a means to prevent future ones, by providing new users with a brief, neutral explanation for the anomalous "creation narrative" title. It seems like every few months, a WP user will start yet another Talk page dispute about changing the title to the standard "creation myth". I don't know much about if templates, but could the above "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated …" be revised with the FAQ to clarify the title disputes? Keahapana (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Read those name change discussions and you'll find that "creation story" is by far the most "standard" phrase that is used to describe "Genesis." The "myth" and "narrative" phrases are relatively equally less common than "story" - though neither are rare enough to be termed "anomalous." Some Google book searches will show you what I'm saying. If even you didn't take the time to read those discussions or the FAQ, then perhaps they could be linked more prominently - but on this talk page only. First Light (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's words like "anomalous" and "standard" that make these discussions non-starters. As has been demonstrated numerous times over multiple move proposals: (A) there is no clear standard for article titles in this category. Of the more than 100 pages in the category, only 12 use the formula "(name of culture) creation myth". Another 10 are buried in their respective culture's "mythology" page. That leaves the vast majority employing some other construct; and (B) there is no clear consensus that one title is preferred over the other. Depending on how you search, you may find "creation story", "creation narrative", and "creation myth" all used a lot, but they are used to varying degrees depending on which aspect of the subject you are talking about. Because the subject of this article is a canonical text that has been codified in written form for at least the last 2500 years, it makes sense to speak of it in terms of a "narrative" (it's not a loose collection of stories, and there are plenty of academics who argue it's not mythological in form either). After 8 years of failed discussions, I think it might be time to just let this one go. Ἀλήθεια 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see some kind of link to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, because that's what I see this permanent dispute as. It's a case of the usual American bias seen in Wikipedia playing out, with the Judaeo-Christian lobby (more dominant in the US than in other western countries) currently ahead. I have accepted it as part of Wikipedia, but it would be good to let the world know about our built in biases. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be a trip, to slap WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on every article that was overly dependent on WP:Reliable Sources, which are predominantly American. That would include most medicine articles, nearly all religion articles, many politics articles, a great deal of science, and more. First Light (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not required for medical and science articles. American bias has no real impact there. Nor on political matters. That's generally geographically localised activity anyway. It's just areas like religion where the US is way out of sync with the rest of the advanced western world. This is (or at least should be) a global article, with too much American bias. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not just for the "advanced western world" - it's, you know, global. StAnselm (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If only we could get input from all the world, with US opinion only counting for the 5% its population actually represents. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

While HiLo goes too far occasionally with his systemic bias complaints, ridiculous nationalistic comments like that are even more problematic. Reliable sources are not predominately American. Reliable source are reliable sources no matter which country they are from. AIRcorn (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources used in this article are predominantly American, with some UK universities thrown in. That's all I was saying. I wasn't saying that American sources are more likely to be reliable. Far from being nationalistic, I was saying that labeling an article as Systemic Bias, just because most of its sources are from America, is really boneheaded, and ... nationalistic. Indeed, reliable sources are reliable sources, no matter what country they were born in. Anyone saying otherwise is.... well, not me. First Light (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• It’s fine so long as all such pages have the same title —- Islamic Creation narrative, Mayan Creation narrative, Pandeist Creation narrative, Scientology Creation narrative, and so on. Pandeist (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• The original proposal was to add something to the article about the title. It was not about changing the article name. User:Keahapana are you proposing some kind of template, or some content? We cannot add any content to the article unless there are reliable sources about it, and they really should be independent and secondary. The tag should not have editorializing in it, either. User:Keahapana in case you are talking about content, what sources are there for this? Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously didn't make this clear. The original proposal was about Talk namespace content not necessarily Article namespace content. Is it possible to expand the above "Template:Round in circles" saying "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated …"? Transclusions of the "Template:Disputed title" are found on 32 pages, some of which seem to be permanent. Keahapana (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Would un-collapsing the "move" template be an improvement? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the intention of this section, another requested move has been suggested so I thought I would drop my 2c. I highly advise not starting another move discussion. While "Genesis creation story" might be the common name by pretty much every search metric you will be able to use there is a lot of hostility about changing this article's title at all, which is seen as a compromise: "good enough, don't f**k with it". I don't think it is possible to overcome that feeling with a move request, and I think that by this point any move request is doomed to SNOW opposition, regardless of how well researched the nomination is. I think that my RM last year proved that. Let the dead horse lie. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me second the motion for not starting another move discussion. Alephb (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thirded ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Fourthed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the four above but I thought this thread was reasonably dead already. Of course, we could always discuss a new moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Louis Ginzberg

user:MusenInvincible about

• diff 07:33, 29 October 2018
• diff 15:00, 1 November 2018
• diff 16:16, 2 November 2018

Your edit is being reverted, because the content under which you are posting is describing the historical meaning of "in the image of God" - the intentions of the authors in their context. The content from Ginzberg is a theological interpretation -- a sermon really; it is not about the historical context. It doesn't belong in this article (there are zillions of bits of sermon-like content we could add, about about what this has "meant" to various people throughout history. Picking this one to put anywhere in this page, is also WP:UNDUE, along with being WP:OFFTOPIC and not what we do here. -- Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the added content has a reference? Yes
Is the added content improve the quality of the article? Yes
Is the added content relevant with the topic of the article? Yes, then why it should be removed from the article?
So, If you think the added content sounds like 'sermon' passage, can anybody (or you) fix it into encyclopedic content? Anyway, Wikipedia is a collaborative project WP:CO which means anyone can help each other to make it better through contributive purpose (not disruptive). In brief, this is just matter of paraphrasing — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is with the 2nd point; this page is not theology around the genesis creation myth, but rather just describing it.

If we were to have a section on theological interpretation, you didn't respond as to why we should give Ginzerg's theological perspective and not that of a thousand other Jewish or Christian people.

In any case I do not believe you are going to get consensus to include it. The source is not aimed at discussing the story in its context which is the current scope of the page.

We'll see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would we need a theological perspective in a mythology article? We could probably use additional sources on comparative mythology and derivation from older texts, but theologians are far from expets on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Ginzberg as a source, he's very well-known. My problem with the edit is that it's quite long and, I suspect, that Ginzberg's point is already covered. Ginzberg seems to me to be saying that when Genesis says that God created man in his own image, this means man was given the spiritual qualities of God, in the form of the human soul (or spirit). God is pure spirit, and man has been privileged to share in this spirit. But this is already covered in the first point in the existing article: "Having the spiritual qualities of God such as intellect, will, etc." That's my feeling, anyway. (P.s user:MusenInvincible, I know it's difficult editing in English when it isn't your native language. Please don't let frustration get the better of you - continue to engage other editors, listen to them, and remain cool and cordial. In that way you will win their respect). PiCo (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is a quite long edit, I think anyone can make it shorter and brief (without deleting it by reverts actually) — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

-

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

Alternate interpretations of Genesis 1:1-3

It is very hard to glean the meaning of each Hebrew word passed first through oral tradition and then from ancient to modern script, from generation to generation over millennia. Parallel translations of this text give us room for more than one humanly point of view: The literal-Hebrew, the Scientific, the Sumerian/Babylonian and the Sociopolitical/Psychological.

Literal Hebrew: 1. From the head [he/she] created the gods and the sky (air & water) and also the land (country). 2. And the land was unformed and empty, and darkness, [was] on the face of the abyss (rift); and the wind (breeze, air, spirit, ghost) of the gods hovered over the waters. 3. And [he/she] said [to] the gods, Let there be light: and there was light.

Scientific: 1. From of his/her mind (reason) he/she formed (made) the invisible world (consciousness, spirit world) and the visible matter (the Universe). 2. And the Universe was turbulent (unstable, chaotic) with zero gravity, and darkness (blackness), was in the empty space; and the air- waves of the designer moved over (arranged, formed) the liquefied gas (condensed matter). 3. And the designer ([of] the Laws of Physics) stated (concluded), 'It's about time for atomic fusion': and hydrogen fused into helium generating atomic energy and light.

Sumerian/Babylonian: 1. From the start the gods (the planets or the extraterrestrials) delineated the firmament and the Eridu (the home in the far away, the space colony). 2. And the Eridu did not have a plan and was bare, and had unhappiness, facing division (bordering despair); and the wind (ghost) of the gods hovered (flew, conducted) over (near) the waters (marshes). 3. And the gods (the leadership, the planner/captain God) said (ordered) 'Let there be clarity': and there was clarity (information, knowledge, education, trust, calmness, contentment, belief, security, accuracy, solution).

Sociopolitical/Psychological: 1. In the beginning the gods planned the goals (ideals, principles, standards, values) and the territory (colony). 2. And the land was in confusion (disorganized, with anarchy) and deprived (neglected, lied to, alone), and darkness (gloom, obscurity, ambiguity [where words stopped meaning anything, when truth doesn't matter], distrust, secrecy, coldness, cruelty, unhappiness), bordering separation (division, divorce, discord, a schism, secession); and the spirit of the founder (creator) moved (carried, changed, lifted, conveyed, displaced, dragged, drove, elevated, flew) above the face of the waters (on/over the tears). 3. And the planner decided (scheduled, projected), 'Let there be lucidity': and there was lucidity (enlightenment, clarity, openness, transparency, truth, awareness, certainty, equanimity, confidence, friendship, rapport, integration, peace, happiness). TonyRojas007 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @TonyRojas007: Wikipedia only summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James edits

User:Oldstone James edit summary said "I don't see where in the source says that biblical literalism is a misreading of the Bible" The source says "If the reader misjudges the genre of the text in front of him , the result is a misreading." [1] quite clearly, page 142. Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't, as far as I understand, make a claim on what that genre is. Instead, it goes on to list a number of possible readings that have existed throughout history.^Ol^Ja 11:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Biblical literalism is a misreading?

The article, as it is now, repeatedly claims that "misreading the story as history rather than theology leads to Creationism and the denial of evolution". However, not only do the sources listed do not appear to support this claim – the most the sources say is that one shouldn't interpret the Bible as history, which is a whole lot different from saying that the Bible wasn't intended to be historically accurate – the article on biblical literalism itself does not have a single mention of the "fact" that it's a misreading. I am also fairly confident that, upon research, I will be able to quote a number of atheist scholars as saying that the Bible was intended to be taken literally. I don't think the fact that biblical literalism is a misreading is unequivocal at all, and so I believe the claim that it is should be retracted from the article.^Ol^Ja 10:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)