Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Genesis creation narrative. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Formless, empty, and dark

Hey sorry I am not really sure about how to edit articles, so maybe someone can consider this if they think the article would be improved from it: In Genesis 1:2 it states that the earth is formless, empty, and dark. If you follow the 6 days of creation following that verse, each of them deals directly with one of those 3 problems: Days 1 and 4 add light, days 2 and 3 add form, and days 3, 5, and 6 "fill" the earth (for example, 1:28: "fill the earth"). Just seems like something that should be mentioned.

While I'm at it, it's also interesting to note the parallel structure of days 1-3 and days 4-6. Days 1 and 4 are focused on light, days 2 and 5 are the creation of water/sky and the filling of water/sky with life, days 3 and 6 are creation of land and filling of land with animal life, and days 3 and 6 are also the creation of plants and the "giving of every green plant for food" (verse 29).

There's a similar structure with the flood account- creation of land mirrors 8:5, creation of plants mirrored in 8:11, creation of sun, moon, and stars for seasons mirrored in 8:22, creation of birds mirrored in 8:7-8, creation of animals mirrored in 8:19, and creation of man mirrored in 8:18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.143.89 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course - the things you point out are mainstream biblical criticism. I thought they were already in the article? PiCo (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

alleged "dispute"

Re this, I would recommend avoiding trying to act out disputes by edit summary, and instead advocate the presentation of an actual case on talk first. This is WP:POINT behaviour in my book, i.e. futile insistence of introducing disclaimers of "and there are also Biblical literalists, who should be respected and whose sensitivities Wikipedia does not wish to interfere with" at every turn. This won't do. We have no such qualms when dealing with Muslim topics, and rightly so. Wikipedia isn't censored for anyone's benefit. --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

[1]user is now reduced to stubborn revert-warring and close to 3RRvio. Absence of anything resembling presentation of a case confirms the my impression given above. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling Genesis a "myth" is a point of view

This point of view can appear in the article, but per WP:NPOV policy, it must be attributed, and sources establishing that other points of view exist must also be mentioned. We are talking about taking such cases to arbcom. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

that's nonsense. please read creation myth, and look up "myth" in a dictionary. Plus, nobody is "calling Genesis a myth". Genesis is a lengthy Hebrew text containing various material. This article is concerned with the first two chapters of Genesis only, which happen to contain the narrative of the Hebrew creation myth(s). If there are any npov problems here, it would be the WP:UNDUE length of the "Biblical literalism" section. I do accept that Christian fundamentaism and Biblical literalism could get a mention in this article, but seeing that this topic is an Iron Age text, not recent events in Christian sectarianism, such a mention should be kept brief indeed. --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read dictionaries, and "myth" is not a "neutral" term to describe a contemporary and widespread belief.. It's not even a well defined term by scholars, and all of the nine potential definitions are subjective. There are not only many editors and readers, but millions of people, and plenty of reliable sources who definitely do not consider Genesis a "myth". It's an opinion of some, being falsely presented as if nobody disagreed. You may call it nonsense, but this issue won't go away until it gets to arbcom. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Til, did you miss the reference to Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible? Ben (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Til, you are wrong, and just repeating your claim does not make it any truer. this issue won't go away until it gets to arbcom isn't a healthy approach, but good look taking a trivial matter such as this to arbitration after all of two talkpage posts on your part. Purely assertive posts without any presentation of references at that. But sure, feel free to drop this now and leave the article in peace until you get an arbcom injunction. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue is longstanding and not unique to this article, and I have got a whole collection of reliable sources establishing that alterative povs really do exist. It's far from trivial, there are many books entirely discussing the tactic of defining "myth" to include the Bible, and these views are significant. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, taken over from Talk:Creation#Creation myth vs. Creation account and form recent archive:

Summary of principal meanings of "Myth" as found on dictionary.reference.com, with emphasis illustrating the neutrality of the word in the context of the first book of the Bible, Genesis:

from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):

"A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

from American Heritage Dictionary:

"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth."

from Online Etymology Dictionary:

"Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." (J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254)"

from Wordnet:

"A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"

from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

"A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical."

Looks like the word was specially created for this. - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because you're only giving half of the definition, and using only those sources that agree with your POV. Neutrality means telling both sides. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

These definitions cover every possible POV, so the word is perfect for the job. DVdm (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Til hasn't backed up anything he said, so I've removed the tag. Until he can present a case backed by reliable sources, and get some sort of consensus here, it should stay that way. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have backed up everything I have said with copious references, you're just pretending you haven't seen any references. I have said before and I will say again: If you don't believe there really is a "significant point of view" in numerous published sources, actively disputing the opinion that Genesis is in any way a "myth", or that the definition of "myth" should include Genesis, than we can get clarification from WP:RS/N, because you seem to be havig trouble understanding WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If there are conflicting, sourced, significant points of view, WP:NPOV requires that we don't present only one view as correct, factual and undisputed, and pretend we haven't seen any dispute or other POVs as if they didn't exist. Rather, we are required to give ALL points of view and attribute them in our wording. Policy is being consistently ignored on multiple articles, so I predict arbcom action will eventually be required. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

According to what we find in 5 top-dictionaries, Genesis being a "myth" is clearly not in any way a point a view. It is a fact - by definition. It seems to me that the only point of view here is yours, namely that there is something wrong with a particular word because you attach a special meaning to it. I get the impression that you hold the opinion that your religion is the only "correct" one. Perhaps that is the reason why you have some difficulty keeping a neutral stance regarding this subject. A friendly piece of advice: take some time to closely look at those definitions, and try to appreciate the sense of neutrality of those who listed these definitions. DVdm (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again: You are only giving part of the definition. The various and contradictory definitions of myth have been greatly argued over for decades for precisely this reason, and this debate exists in literature to the tune of many megabytes. There is nothing I as a mere editor can argue, that one of the published reliable and scholarly sources hasn't already said, directly in opposition to the supposed appropriateness of the label "myth". It comes down to a question of, are you blindly going to ignore those significant sources and pretend they don't count. For which, if WP:RS/N is not sufficient, there is arb com. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Words are used one definition at a time. And "myth" is a neutral term and used properly here. I'm sorry that the common meaning is more prominent in your mind than the standard scholarly one, but that's not the fault of the first definition. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this isn't really about what's "prominent in my mind". This is about a ton of published sources, a significant viewpoint you are turning a blind eye to, all saying for various reasons, "we disagree that Genesis is a myth", or "this definition is disputed". Policy very clearly dictates that we take these into account and attribute the notion that it is a myth, as well as the notion that it is not. What you or I or any editor thinks personally about this is quite irrelevant, once you have all possible spectrums of the debate well represented in print (and I assure you this is a massive and significant debate) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to your phrases "...only giving part of the definition" and "... the notion that it is a myth, as well as the notion that it is not" => According to the full definitions in 5 top-dictionaries it is de-facto a myth and, apart from the authors of the dictionaries, there is nothing anyone can do about that. See also the article on mythology. You confuse your personal and obviously biased notion with a notable notion (no pun intended). Perhaps you are a bit too much emotionally involved. Emotions might provide good and valuable guidance for essay writing, but they are bad news for encyclopedia writing. Some time off from this hobby might do you good - cheer up, DVdm (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything; you are. Once again: this has nothing to do with what I may or may not think, feel, or believe; I'm just an editor, and those thing don't matter and are perfectly irrelevant to the published debate. There are numerous reliable sources establishing that "Genesis = myth" is a hugely contested POV, and not an indisputed, uncontested "fact" as you pretend. Now you can either acknowledge that other significant POVs (beside your own) really do exist, and are easily attested, on this very question, or this can go to mediation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Til, there is nothing wrong with thinking you're right. There is a big problem with thinking you can't be wrong. Think about it for a second, either there is a wiki-conspiracy to work against you over this matter, or you're simply wrong. It's good to see you finally read that the arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes, and that your threats of action are now about mediation. Unfortunately, I don't think mediation is going to help you out either - it requires all parties to agree to it. I don't know how others here will react if you ever go through with your threat, but I'm inclined to refuse. I've already spent countless hours going through mediation with you at Noah's Ark and discussions on policy pages, and now it looks like you're intent on taking every page using the term through the same process. It seems little more than disruptive behaviour to me, and frankly, I've got better things to do than entertain it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again: This has to do with the views of a huge number of authors who disagree with your POV. This is a huge debate, and it does no good for wikipedia to hide its head in the sand and ignore it. The reliable sources will not go away. This is not about my personal views, as desperate as you seem to be at this point to make this about me personally, it just isn't. Nice try though. Unless perhaps you think all of those scholars from Gunkel up to the present day, who are on the record as saying things like "Genesis does not meet any definition of myth, and myth should not be purposefully redefined so as to include scriptures" are all really my various pen names. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going in circles. Til has been doing this for years, and is probably not going to see the point anytime soon. Fortunately, WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "absolutely unanimous", or Wikipedia would be doomed, because there will always be someone with listening difficulties. Our own mythology gives a perfectly satisfactory definition from OED, the foremost dictionary of the English language.

"A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon"

This is meaning 1a, i.e. the primary meaning. In the compound creation myth, we intend meaning 1a. Yes, there is a secondary meaning, "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief", which is why Til is making all this noise. This is not the meaning intended here. How difficult can it be to understand and accept that we are using a term in its primary dictionary meaning? Genesis 1-2 is A traditional story (traditional indeed for most of Europe and Western Asia for two millennia!), involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures (you bet the Elohim are supernatural!) which provides an aetiology for a natural phenomenon (in this case, the Universe itself, which I daresay is a natural phenomenon). This isn't any sort of "redefinition" of the term "myth", it is its core meaning. So if we can please leave it at that and stop the sophistry and hand-waving. Calling a story a "myth" is actually admitting it is important. A "story" is something you read for entertainment. A myth is something that holds significance to people's lives. --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also a lie to pretend that "scholars are unanimous in describing Genesis as a myth". Scholars are NOT unanimous on that, there is wide disagreement among the sources, and policy requires us to reflect that they disagree on that point. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So you have reliable sources that say that Genesis is NOT a "traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon"? Because that is the definition we are talking about. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Others have suggested that the Genesis narratives are "myths". But "myth" is a slippery term, witness the fact that scholars use at least nine different definitions of "myth". According to McCartney and Clayton, "the common meaning of the term myth in popular parlance is 'a fabulous and untrue story'." This denotation, they say, makes the term "myth" totally inadequate for Genesis, for "biblical history is not myth, but a true story, told with theological purpose and vantage-point. It may use the images and linguistic forms of its environment, but slipping in the term myth by redefinition really results in a reduction of the uniqueness of biblical history. Moreover, the Genesis narratives demythologize pagan mythologies. Surely the label of "myth" is inappropriate for narratives that demythologize pagan mythologies. -- Sydney Greidanus

Those are not my words, but just one example of the massive amount of evidence from numerous scholars that other significant viewpoints exist. Specifically, the viewpoint that Christian scholars and various religious bodies hold of their own canon, is quite significant to an article on that topic, and it is a violation of neutrality to rely solely on, or give precedence to, one-sided sources and definitions that would dictate to Christians how they must interpret their own scripture. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A non-notable (so it seems after a little research, feel free to correct me) faculty member of Calvin Theological Seminary who wrote a non-notable (I found two reviews - one an authorless word document - but again, feel free to correct me) book about preaching. We should consider this opinion because .. ? Ben (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am truly amazed that Greidanus' words "...biblical history is not myth, but a true story..." are taken seriously here by someone to make a point. People, this is an encyclopedia, not Speaker's Corner. DVdm (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am already aware of your POV that Christians are not entitled to have their POV on their own Scriptures represented. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That Christians are not entitled to have their POV on their own Scriptures represented, is not a point of view of mine. That is a serious strawman you are pulling there. It is however a point of view of mine, and much more importantly, of the founders of this encyclopedia, that no-one here is entitled to impose their POV about the veracity of their own Scriptures upon the community, in order to represent them as factual. DVdm (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you are arguing against representing Chrstian & Jewish viewpoints on their own scriptures fairly. By presenting only the view of some scholars that Genesis is a myth, without acknowledging that there is an opposing viewpoint. WP:NPOV is very clear that when you have two opposing and significant viewpoints, both sould be presented and attributed in neutral language, not just one. And no, I have never suggested representing anyone's scriptures as "factual". That right there is a strawman. I just want the article to reflect the reality that not everyone agrees this is a "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to misrepresent other people's comments. It seem this is another recurring problem of yours. Ben (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If I am mistaken or have misunderstood, then on what grounds precisely do you presume to disqualify Greidanus' scholarship? Guess what: You aren't the arbiter of what is or isn't a scholarly, widespread or significant POV to the topic, for purposes of being represented fairly in accordance with WP:NPOV. We also have a procedure to help determine that very thing, if there is any question about it. See WP:RS/N. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The view that the bible contains mythical elements (like this article's topic) is near universal among recognised experts on the topic. This is easily backed up, for instance, Marcus Borg notes here that

David Strauss's claim that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship.

This is a recognised expert describing scholarship on the topic Til. Scrounging around the web and finding a few quotes that seem to support your misconception of scholarship on this topic will not do - anyone can find quotes supporting any argument they like. The classic example is evolution. Expert opinion in near universal, but there is a lot of background noise coming from people who really don't know what they're talking about or have some agenda to push. As someone said earlier, you probably need to take a break from this. You're in real danger of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are only accepting one side of the scholarly debate, that is the classic violation of NPOV, and I have found many scholars who came after Strauss who contest his defining the Gospels as myth. You are claiming a monopoly on scholarly thought that doesn't exist, and you are pretending you didn't hear all of the scholars who disagree with your POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite the "official definition" hinting the word 'myth' may be acceptable, the general interpretation of the word is that is a made up, fake story. This interpretation is what most to all people use when they first see the word 'myth' typed here in the article. Perhaps whe word legend would be better suited. I am not signing my IP address on Wikipedia, I respect my privacy.

"The point", and a clearer proposal

Let's get back to the point, which is the first two chapters of Genesis. Til, if you don't think they can be called myth, what would you call them? PiCo (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many interpretations of Genesis. For this article to start by defining the subject as "myth" sets the tone for the entire article and does not present a neutral point of view. The creation accounts in Genesis might be called "story" which some take literally while other take figuratively, allegorically, or even as myth. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the point, PiCo. It doesn't matter at all what I would call them. I might even call them "myths" for all it matters to the real point, which is what do Reliable Sources say. Some scholars call them "myth". Others specifically do not, and in researching this I have seen many other attempts to categorize the genre epistemologically. The term that seems to be most commonly used by those scholars who dissent that it is a "myth" is "scripture" as a distinct genre. But actually, what I am proposing is not to replace "myth" with another term, but rather, instead of saying "it is a myth", we should say something like "it is a myth according to most Bible scholars (including x, y, and z), while a few modern theologians such as Robert Jenson, and contemporary sources such as International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1994 ed), the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the New Living Translation specifically disagree with this categorisation." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh here we go. Til, can you please explain to me Jenson's views on this? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He is only one of several scholars who are drawing distinctions between Genesis and the polytheistic myths of Israel's neighbours, by noting what characteristics would obviously separate them into a distinct category (other than just polytheism itself, which was sufficient for Gunkel and those who follow his school of thought to the present). He makes the same point that several scholars have made: while stories traditionally called "myths" (polytheistic accounts) have their setting in a timeless frame, the monotheistic account in Genesis is connected with a definite view of history, as Israel saw it; one that begins with creation, not before it, and is part of a continuous narrative of time that continues to the days of Persia and later. This, he and the others argue, is more than sufficient to qualify it as a totally different genre that distinctly presents itself in contrast to the other stories believed in ancient times that are agreed to be "myths". Several scholars also argue that the Israelites actually took pagan myths and "demythologized" them, turning them into something else, monotheistic accounts that ought to go by a different name because they are so vastly different, not part of any nature-religion. By the way, some scholars of Hinduism have made a very similar argument that Hindu texts are not "myths" for a very similar reason: Because they clearly present themselves within the framework of history, quite unlike the primeval accounts of the Greeks, Egyptians or Babylonians. Thus they are versions of history - possibly inaccurate ones, but versions of history nonetheless. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

While I recognise that some scholars associate myth with polytheism (an association few maintain today, as I showed you earlier - if anyone else is curious I'm happy to discuss this historical association), it is news to me that Jenson shared this view. Can you point us to a passage or something where we can verify this? Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I misread your paragraph, but upon rereading it I think you're saying Jenson is looking for other (i.e., not polytheism) distinguishing attributes of biblical narratives, in this case an historical perspective. Fair enough. This naturally leads to a new set of questions. Is this distinction so notable that we should avoid, or perhaps use with qualifiers, the term myth in this article. If not, and I feel this is the case, does a discussion of this distinction merit a note in every article that uses the term myth, or should we restrict the discussion to a broader article, say Genesis, Christian mythology or mythology? Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This particular school of thought (which is far wider than just Jenson, but I mentioned him as a representative example because he has a big wp article, and because he specifically mentions Creation according to Genesis as his example) is only the tip of the iceberg; actually a vast number of RSS and theologians have cried foul at the newer, broadened use of "myth" by other academics, for a variety of reasons. But please note that I am not suggesting that we "avoid the term myth in this article", I am suggesting that we attribute it, and the opposing view, in our wording per NPOV policy; since it is by no means a unanimous or uncontested view among theologians. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter though. You simply assert a vast number this or significant debate that again and again. You must establish, not assert. Pulling quotes of people dismissing the term myth simply will not do. We don't sit here and run up a tally of how many people use x or y. Instead, if there really is significant debate, or whatever you want to assert, then the reliable sources must say so, right? I claim there is not significant debate and I think I have established this by citing discussions like Borg's above. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong, so prove it, don't assert it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, by doing this, you're answering the first of the natural questions I mentioned above about notability. I'm not asking you to run in circles or anything. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Raising the bar yet again, I see. A few months ago, you were telling me there was nothing in print anywhere disputing that Genesis is a myth, and therefore it was my OR and I made the whole objection up myself[2]. Then as soon as I came up with sources, who'd have guessed, they weren't good enough for you. No number of verified theologians explicitly saying "we don't agree with those who say it's a myth" will ever be enough for you, Ben. Luckly it's not up to you, it's up to policy. I'm sorry, but you have no right to hold me to a standard that is unreasonably higher than that set by WP:RS. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And by telling you there was nothing in print, you mean I was asking you to present some reliable sources. And by that OR quote you just gave I was talking about the proposal to use the wording Regarded as myth by all but some fundamentalist Christians who believe it to be true which is not just OR, but utter junk. Your continued misrepresentation of peoples comments is fucked up Til, and if I knew of something I could do about it I would. You're free to ignore my request to establish your claims, but you'll just to have to deal with sitting on the talk pages for the rest of your days. Have fun with that. Ben (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Til's point is a rather subtle one, and I'll begin by restating it: scholars of mythology characterise "myth" as stories concerning the gods, set in a timeless frame; Genesis 1-2 differs from the myths of surrounding peoples in being set within a timeframe, a very definite and unmistakable one, which means it merges with history, a separate genre of which the ancients were quite aware (Herodotus quotes Persian historians - he wasn't, in fact, the inventor of history). For this reason mythologists DON't call Genesis 1-2 "myth": they call it "mythic history". Ben, this is a fact of scholarship - Til's right. PiCo (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just sat down to read through Til's sources, unconvinced of his claim that there is significant debate on whether we can apply the term myth to Genesis 1-2. The third, Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth, seemed to make the strongest claim - all biblical scholars. Shit, the passage he quotes is on defining 'myth vs. myths'. It has nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, the book discusses extensively the role of myth in the bible, went to great lengths to offer varying definitions of the term and gives views from a range of different academic disciplines. Til isn't right and doesn't have a subtle point, he doesn't even read the stuff he pastes here - it just looks like it supports his cause so he just pastes it. That doesn't mean he is wrong, I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong, but I'm sick of doing his homework to establish that. Your comment above is so utterly non-constructive, as is and in light of all the previous discussion we have had (that included you), that I'm not even going to bother discussing it. I give up. I wash my hands of this mess. Do what you want. Ben (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What a display of bad faith, Ben... Of course I have read all of these sources thoroughly; I'm not just pasting them. The third quote (Rogerson) as you say, discusses all the varying definitions and views, and how they contradict one another. That is what true scholarship does. Shoddy scholarship pretends there is only one view, and that the others don't exist. It doesn't matter so much which side of the debate Rogerson himself comes on. You asked for evidence that there exists more than just one unanimous, monolithic view agreeing with you on this question, and I provided it. Take Rogerson away, and the other sources are still more than sufficient to establish that this is a matter of intense and continuing debate among theologians, not a matter of agreement.

Those who argue that we should cite scientists on theological articles instead of theologians, are kind of like those who think we ought to cite theologians on science articles, instead of scientists. But then, I don't wade into science articles and demand that theologians be cited there instead of scientists. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources stating it is a significant debate

"Many scholars would be content to interpret the Creation story or the Fall as neither history nor myth. It is not history, according to them, in the sense that Gen. 1-2 or Gen. 3 describes past events that actually happened. But neither are they myths, at least in the historical-philosophical definition of myth. The truth is that scholars disagree about the definition of the word. One recent writer (G. B. Caird) has isolated nine definitions of myth and another [J. W. Rogerson] documents twelve aspects of myth. This proliferation of definitions of myth is the reason why one scholar would look at Gen. 1-11 and say it is free of myth, while another scholar would look at Gen 1-11 and pronounce it entirely mythical." -- The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (part of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament) by Victor P. Hamilton, 1990, p. 56-58.

Also please read God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations by theologian Carl F. H. Henry, 1999, Chapter 3 in its entirety. He peer-reviews at least eight other theologians (including G. Ernest Wright and J. I. Packer) who assert that no part of the Bible fits the definition of myth. "Many scholars deplore the ascription of mythical language to Scripture as entirely unjustifiable and arbitrary."

"How to define "myth" is another matter altogether. While most, if not all biblical scholars would agree that the word myth may denote what produces myths, or may mean the understanding of the world that is contained in them, agreement would end as soon as these generalizations were made more specific." -- J.W. Rogerson, "Slippery Words:Myth" in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth

"In using the terms myth and mythical in relation to Genesis, we encounter greater misgivings. Not only do the terms have unsavory connotations in popular usage, but an impressive array of biblical scholars have argued that both myth and mythical modes of thought are absent from the Bible. - another good chapter to read, in The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, 1984, p. 99. By the way, he does not totally share this view, but at least he is scholarly enough to acknowledge it exists, citing the Gunkel - Wright school of thought in opposition to the notorious Strauss-Bultmann school of thought.

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. You could have just given these three months ago you know. Time for bed for me, but I'll be sure to read over them when I wake up. Ben (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I couldn't have given these three months ago; but over the course of our discussions, and the many requests for sources, I have educated myself by reading up on all sides of the great modern mythology debate among scholars and theologians. Three months ago, I probably couldn't even have told you who Levi-Strauss was. But I certainly would have given these refs to you, if I had known then everything I do now. Anyway, this doesn't really matter. Happy reading. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A compelling bottom line on the "myth" issue

Concerning Til Eulenspiegel's phrase "By presenting only the view of some scholars that Genesis is a myth..." and 76 variations thereof:

The bottom line is that only some Christians might disagree that Genesis is myth. Understandable as it may be, we call that "bias" around here. Look at the principal dictionary entries listed above: THEY COVER ALL VIEWPOINTS and that is what we need in an encyplodedia. This really is not open for debate. Is this so hard to swallow? DVdm (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have established, with reliable sources, that there is a significant debate. If you are going to continue to insist that only one side of this debate needs to be presented, we shall proceed toward arbitration. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to debate. You are just banging your head against a wall. DVdm (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I will be pursuing due process of mediation in the near future. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. There is nothing to mediate. You are figthing a concrete wall of dictionaries. DVdm (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that I have no right to pursue due process according to WP:DISPUTE? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, , 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not in any way, let alone seriously, suggesting that you have no right to pursue whatever it is that you feel compelled to pursue. Another strawman. I am at most suggesting that you might be in the process of hurting yourself. DVdm (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurting myself? Please explain. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the issue were really as clear-cut as you seem to think, you'd have nothing to fear in appealing this to the mediation process. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not actually trying to stifle the process out of fear of the result. Editors just can't make up rules as they go along; these things are governed by policies which, IMO, have not been followed here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a benefit, but I'm afraid there is nothing to mediate to begin with. Dictionaries are quite rigid - THEY COVER ALL VIEWPOINTS. I can't help that. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will be preparing my case in the near future. NPOV policy is quite rigid: when the existence of a widespread and significant viewpoint about a topic can be verified, we are required to cover it in the article. Not cover it up. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Define "myth" in article

Since "creation myth" is apparently being relentlessly forced into this article by its proponents, it needs to be done with some modicum of integrity to include explanation of this particular definition for the uninitiated, like this PhD, who grew up associating myths with Aesop's Fables, Greek Mythology, mythical beasts like the gryphon, dragon, unicorn, pegasus, phoenix, gargoyle and so on. It has no integrity to drop a proverbial bomb into the first sentence with the surface appearance of attempting to bias the reader to the most common connotation of "myth." If it is so important to so identify this article, then it is deserving of a clear explanation of intent.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The creation myth article is the place to discuss definitions. Ben (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has vehemently opposed the insertion of "myth" into articles, some editors may be surprised that I am happy with "Creation myth". To clarify: the word "myth" is tied to the phrase "Creation myth", which is wikilinked. In this context, the term "myth" is qualified by the phrase that it is found in and so the question of neutrality is bound to the term "Creation myth", rather than just "myth". Given this, the correct place to argue about the neutrality of the term is at Talk:Creation myth--FimusTauri (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "creation myth" belongs in the lead of this article. There are other articles where it's unnecessary; I think Noah's ark is one, for instance. In this one, though, that's the entire topic of the article, and it really makes no sense not to include the term -- and of course the academic meaning that is intended should be clearly defined in the wikilinked article. Agathman (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Genesis is the topic

I am new to this group and would like to clarify that this page is intended to describe creation according to Genesis, and not whether the source (bible) or information is mythical. Please remove the word "myth" so that the students using Wikipedia can trust this resource. Fighting about creation and use of the word myth does not promote education. Students seeking information regarding creation according to Genesis deserve only the facts and should not have to read the entire book of Genesis for a summary of creation according to Genesis. Honestly777 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Honestly

Have a look at a few dictionaries and at the articles Myth, Mythology and their talk pages. DVdm (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Myth has no place here. It is seen to be derogatory and only a dozen or so people on wikipedia are fighting for it. Over the last year, many more people have asked against it, but these POV pushers keep reverting. then then warm you on your talk page for doing the very thing that they are doing. myth is ambiguous. narrative is recognized by all. let's switch. in fact, it was switch, but they've reverted again. revert, revert, revert. look at their contributions, the revert key is the only one they use! 76.249.22.141 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hate the dictionary? Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "the" dictionary. There are myriad dictionaries and therefore variant definitions. It is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose to leave a particular POV.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not intellectually dishonest to use the very first listed definition of the word in a matter perfectly suited for it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a continuum from 'fact' to 'fake'?

Answer: Yes. This is a major issure in these first 2 chapters. It is an issue between Christians & Christians (and Jew & Jews), and it is an issue between Christians/Jews and non-Christians/non-Jews. Without any mention of this in the opening, there is something seriously lacking in this article. I.e. this is Major. This needs to be put in. There is an unexplained aversion to this thought the logic of which escapes me. That there are many more facets to something in no way disqualifies this, or there would be no opening paragraph to any wikipedia article. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See my note above, but yes, there are varying interpretations. Literalism is a distinctly minority view, so I don't think the introduction could be considered incomplete without a mention of it. See the theology and interpretation section (which needs work) for some more details. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So, User:Swift as an Eagle, what you want to see is a statement like "Biblical Literalists take these passages to be historically and scientifically accurate, while others interpret them symbolically."? That would be better, although it omits those who take them as literally AND symbolically true, as well as those who don't buy them in any way. At least it doesn't claim to include all possible views, as the "continuum" statements implicitly did. Agathman (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

agathman, something like that, but no, not like that. then you are eliminating the "continuum" perspective and presenting only two points -- biblical literism and symbolicalism (i think there's even further -- those who believe it's just a plain old story, like Cinderella). first of all, I didn't make the statement. someone else did and sourced it -- it was just deleted without good evidence, which on wikipedia should not happen. however, i do think we need a statement like it in the lead, to corrolate with point #5 in the body, which states that there is wide interpretation of these chapters. got to go, or i'd put more. and this is not to create a dichotomy between fact and myth. i don't want that here at all. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a continuum from 'fact' to 'myth'?

Sure, in about the same way that there is a continuum from "dog" to "toaster". We are using "myth" in this article, as elsewhere in wikipedia dealing with religion, in its religious sense -- see my quote from Hyers above. To use Hyers' quote of EHW Meyerstein, "Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear." Myth and fact aren't points on a line; they fall on entirely different axes. One may understand the Genesis 1 and 2 myths as absolutely historically accurate, and miss their symbolic import; one might see them as historical truth and also see the symbolic import; one might see them as historically inaccurate and devoid of symbolic import; or one might see them as historically inaccurate and symbolically important. The range of interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, as for any myth, is huge, and not to be captured in a sentence. Agathman (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

oh, but it can be captured in a sentence. in fact, that's the point of an encyclopedia. besides, who really cares about this myth-fact continuum. (Which by the way is very, very common in scholarly journals, news media, and everyday speech, and you would have to live on a different planet not to know this): But I don't care and that's not the point here -- the point is, is that some people take creation in genesis to be REAL, FACT. and Some take it to be MADE UP, FICTITIOUS. And there is this grand continuum in between. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But my point is, many people take it to be things that are not either of those two alternatives, nor any point in between, but something else entirely. And the fact that the popular press fosters a binary "us vs. them" view of this issue is not a reason that it should be endorsed in what is attempting to be a scholarly article. I'm happy with a statement that interpretations vary, just not with one that represents all of them as falling on the line you describe. Agathman (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

you do realize that I do not support a fact vs. myth mentality in the opening right? as far as i am concerned, there needs to be no discussion about fact vs. myth here Swift as an Eagle (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

and yes, I'm happy too with a statement that interpretations vary -- but a literal interpretation and a "this is complete made-up" interpretation seem to me to be the two extremes, with the majority falling somewhere in between. No? Swift as an Eagle (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No. There are many facets to it. And the reference you attached to the statement in the article does not support the statement. I have the reference in front of me. Can someone else please remove the statement. Ben (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

NO. I disagree completely. This is a very good summary statement. if there are "many facets" (as you say) to it, then add a section underneath and describe them. but this fits really well in the intro. just deal with it. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Swift as an Eagle, I think you're now in violation of WP:3RR on this issue. Ben and I have tried repeatedly to explain our objection to the sentence, and you don't seem to get it. I'm not going to revert your latest attempt -- I'll leave it up to other editors. Agathman (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for seeing that. i have replaced your version. i personally don't think this was breaking 3RR because the first clause had "myth" (which was your problem), and this second one did not. but in good faith to this i reverted. but i have not conceded :) Swift as an Eagle (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to be careful since WP:3RR doesn't distinguish between partial and 'letter for letter' reverts. The point is, don't edit war. WP:BRD is worth reading too. The problem with your edit is that you're trying to build a relationship between a classification and varying levels of interpretation that doesn't exist in the literature. Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth, people interpret it differently, but the concepts are not related. If you're using a definition of the word 'myth' that isn't appropriate for an article on a religious topic then you may argue the point, but this is an article on a religious topic so we'll stick to the relevant definition. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in a definition that every person can understand. the story is either interpreted as real or fake. yes, the lead paragraph can almost spell it out as black and white as that. it is especially appropriate (indeed, required!) in the lead considering that the details are fleshed out later in the article under "5" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swift as an Eagle (talk • contribs)

Then we can work on, and gain consensus for, a sentence that explains there are varying interpretations. We don't need to invent a continuum concept to do that. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To some huge majority of people, there IS a continuum from 'fact' to 'myth.' I suggest that those who don't see it as a continuum are in a growing but relatively small minority of Wiki readers. Being a professor, I appreciate Swift as an Eagle's respect for teaching/learning. In our very first sentence, it is absurd to force "myth" on everyone. How many are going to click on the WikiLink? Why would they even suspect that "myth" might have a scholarly meaning far beyond the common vernacular? Be honest...how many of us click on a wikiLink when we think we already know what it means? I am not opposed to Creation Myth being used so long as this article gives some hint that it is not the common connotation of myth. The dictionaries being referenced DO make that point, and DO acknowledge that Creation Myth is a relatively new use of the word "myth" in this specific context. The theologians already know that; the everyday Wiki reader (including school kids) don't have a clue. They walk away with their understanding from bedtime stories that "It's just a myth, like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Why must we disrespect a time-honored Judeo-Christian concept by forcing this in the very first sentence? How can that NOT be an NPOV issue?

Even the dictionaries cited by some proponents of myth are intellectually honest and start out by saying it's the "story" or "account" or "record," etc. There are numerous examples of that, even online. These scholars apparently don't have an axe to grind like some of our editors seem to have. This is not good teaching at all. And it lack integrity. It's killing a gnat with sledge hammer.

If we use another commonly accepted term in Sentence #1 and then somewhere say it is a.k.a. called a "Creation Myth" in scholarly circles, that would have integrity and serve as education to millions who don't know about this "high" definition of myth--rather than the understanding that all of us grew up with. As has been pointed out before, there are likely thousands who read Sentence #1 and go "Click."

Why are we so afraid of getting them further down our article and teach them something? If we show some ordinary courtesy and even sensitivity about not deliberately offending so many readers, while still informing them without assuming a universal understanding of this higher definition, aren't we showing greater maturity and judgment and care and respect for everyone, not just the intellectually-informed on this particular word? Thank you.Afaprof01 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is deliberately offending anyone, and can you stop inventing unrealistic 'readers' to try and make a point? Over a thousand people view the page daily, so if such readers existed we would see reams of complaints on this talk page about the article calling their belief imaginary. A quick peruse of the talk page and its archives show that the most complaint comes from people defending this imaginary reader, and even then it's a tiny proportion of the archives. The fact you consider the term a mark of disrespect to "a time-honored Judeo-Christian concept" suggests to me you're not here to improve the article, you're here to distinguish your own beliefs from all the others - a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Can I suggest you focus your time here on articles you're a little less passionate about? Ben (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (1999), "Genesis Through History", Reason Science and Faith (Ivy Cottage : E-Books ed.), Chester, England: Monarch Books, ISBN 1-85424-441-8, retrieved 2009-03-24. For a large part of the tradition, Genesis as myth was much more important than as fact, which was taken for granted but not necessarily in a literal way. See also Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: the history of an idea. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 27–31. ISBN 0-520-23693-9.. Genesis as fact is a product of the Protestant reformation, and many Protestants dispute literalistic interpretations of the bible.[3][4] . . . dave souza, talk 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a useful book you've given us dave souza. I think we can use it to help re-write and expand the "theology and interpretation" section. I note that Philo (a very important figure in the development of Christian ideas about the Trinity) believed that Genesis 1-3 was both literally true (i.e., this was really how the world came into being, and Adam and Eve were real people) and more than literal, in that the story was filled with hidden meanings for the initiated (it took God 6 days to create the world, for example, not because he couldn't do it in 5, but because the number 6 signifies completion). I don't think a simple dichotomy between myth (fiction)/fact (history) can capture this adequately. PiCo (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

The existing lead doesn't nearly reflect the body of the article, which is what leads are supposed to do. I've had a try at fixing this, but haven't included all the sections. All interested editors are invited to contribute. PiCo (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

poor explanation

This paragraph is weak.

There are notable biblical scholars today who reject this divided view and argue that the Genesis account is a single report of creation: the first part, from {{bibleref2|Genesis|1:1–2:3}}, describes the general creation of the Earth; the second part, from {{bibleref2|Genesis|2:4-24}}, describes a more detailed creation of the Garden of Eden and humankind.<ref>Some notable Christian scholars include [[R.C. Sproul]], [[John_F._MacArthur|John MacArthur]], [[John Piper (theologian)|John Piper]], [[R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Albert Mohler]] and [[Mark Driscoll]]</ref> One source writes, "[The "second" creation account] does not contradict anything in ch. 1, but as a literary flashback it supplies more detail about what was recorded in 1:27."<ref> [[Lane T. Dennis]] and [[Wayne Grudem]], eds., ESV Study Bible, Crossway, 2008, 35-52</ref>

Who says that these scholars are notable? Who says that these scholars argue for a single author? Do these Christian writers have any idea who this single author may be? Is it Moses? Or is it just a vague "single author"? Do they follow the documentary hypothesis except on the particular point of the creation accounts? Why do they disagree with the majority opinion? What's their evidence? If these writers believe that Moses wrote the whole Torah, let's spell that out specifically. Let's explain what these writers say, not just that they disagree about there being two creation stories. We also have a direct quote referred to as "one source" instead of simply naming the person who said the quote. Leadwind (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote within that paragraph doesn't actually argue for a single author, either - it simply says that G2 expands on, rather than contradicting, G1. (This isn't quite true, as the order of creation is G2 is definitely different, and the theology is also different). I'd favour taking it out. PiCo (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit to lead re Gn.2

I've replaced SWA's edit with this:

"Chapter 2 recounts God's planting garden in which he places the first man, and from whose rib (or side) he fashions the first woman; the two are enjoined to be fruitful and multiply."

As I said in the edit summary, this is because this version preserves the main narrative and theological points of the text. Genesis 2 begins with the planting of the garden, then deals with the creation of man and woman, and finally ends with the divine injunction. (I've left out the Tree, which is also very important, but it's dealt with in the main paragraph and we need to be brief in the lead). This preserves one of the main theological points of the chapter. It doesn't centre around the creation of man, which occurs only after the Garden is described, but in the injunction to be fruitful. This "fruitful" command then continues throughout Genesis and into Exodus: Noah, Abraham and Jacob are all promised numerous progeny, until in Exodus the children of Israel are so "fruitful" that the Egyptians fear they'll be outnumbered in their own country and expel them. (This, incidentally, is not my own idea, it's standard among biblical scholars). PiCo (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

i think "sanctification" is too difficult a world, especially if you don't know theology. high-school kids using this for research will be confused. better to say "set apart" which is what it means anyway. just my opinion. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I an see your point, but "set apart" seems a bit open-ended to me - set apart in what way, for what? Can you think of a better term? Or maybe just say he "blesses" the 7th day?PiCo (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

dictionary.com says "set apart as sacred" -- but then you need to change the sentence order around to fit it in. your choice. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to split the paragraph. One paragraph should deal with a very brief summary of the narrative - G1, God creates world, G2, god creates Garden. Another paragraph should deal with the theological meanings - G1, man as regent, Sabbath as culmination of creation, G2, man and woman as pair, created in the divine Garden but with the prohibition on the Tree (which they later break). PiCo (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure and composition

Am i the only one who find the "Structure" under "Structure and composition" confusing? Particularly 2nd and 3rd paragraphs... i can't even follow the third logically. i think they need some work. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Structure" should deal with the way Gen1-2 is/are structured - Gen.1 is very highly structured as a box-like arrangement, Gen.2 has no real structure apart from the linear (i.e., it moves straight through from the beginning to the end, unlike the elaborate balancing of parts in Gen.1). "Composition" should talk about the findings of source criticism. Maybe they should be separated.PiCo (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was not necessarily saying that they should be separated. Just the content underneath "Structure" I find confusing. I really don't understand it. Can I change it? Work on it? I agree it should deal with the way Genesis 1 and 2 are structured. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'll have a look myself. PiCo (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(Later) I shortened the 3rd para drastically - is it needed at all? I think the 2nd para is saying that Gen.2 tells a simple story that starts at the beginning (the beginning of chapter 2, that is) and goes to the end, which contrasts with Gen.1, which builds up an elaborate set of "boxes", one day per box, with before-creation on day 0, sabbath on day 7, and the six days arranged in between them in two "rows", things being created on odd-numbered days and those things getting populated on even-numbered days )if I've got it right - this is from memory). Maybe it could be better expressed. It should be in the refs. PiCo (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm for removing the 3rd paragraph completely. I understand the first one, it could be touched up to flow better. You really have to read it a couple times to fully understand. The second paragraph overall is good, but it too could use a little clarity -- the phrase "based on" could be changed to "referring to" might just do it.

There, done to my satisfaction. Cheers, Swift as an Eagle (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of Gen.1 today

This article demonstrates what happens when man imagines he's the ruler of the world. PiCo (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the article highlights there is a finite number of resources available to us. This fact is irrespective of what we think. Well, unless you think there is a god that will come and top up our trough at some point I guess. Anyway, did you intend to add something about overfishing to the article? Ben (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevance to Gen.1 is that it appoints man as God's regent on earth - "dominion" can mean absolute ownership, and is often interpreted that way, but Gen. also makes clear that God is the "owner," which puts man in the position of steward. This isn't just an academic point, it's actively debated in Christian circles today - the older view is that we have the right to do as we wish with resources, the newer is that the resources are limited and we have to look after them. As for your last point, no, I wouldn't add anything on the basis of this article. PiCo (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always found it interesting that a lot of people still adhere to the 'older' view. Both views are interesting though, but maybe they would be better off in a more general article discussing Christianity etc. with respect to modern political, environmental, etc. thought? Justifications can be discussed with reference to specific articles like this one. Does such an article already exist? Ben (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any article on this in Wiki. When we expand the "theology" section of this article we could make a passing mention of the relevance of this bit of Gen.1 to the environmentalism debate, but only a very brief reference, and only if we can reference it. PiCo (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I came up with the following Wikipedia articles: Christianity and environmentalism, Evangelical environmentalism. Both are basically stubs and could use some work from people who know more about the issue.

In terms of evangelicalism, the two opposing sides are repesented by the following organisations.

Evangelical Climate Initiative - believe the science of climate change is clear
Corwall Alliance - believe the science of climate change is not resolved

Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New section - questions of genre

The new subsection I've added is intended as a draft for general discussion. Other editors are invited to edit and discuss it. PiCo (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a ref for the idea of Gen1-2 as mythic-history - refs for the other defs to follow, if I can find them again...PiCo (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at correlation of literalistic reading of Genesis with science

I have entered a broad correlation of Genesis to current thoughts on evolution. I would greatly appreciate editing that will enhance this entry. References and appropriate formatting would be very helpful. 24.155.183.229 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia: No Original Research to understand why it was removed. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It would have to be cited from reliable secondary sources, and even then, it wouldn't belong in the lead of the article where it was inserted. Agathman (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, 24.155.183.229, it's not that you need to cite sources for the science, like the size of the universe; it's that you need to cite sources that say that the statements in Genesis correlate with the science. If you take scientific ideas and correlate them with Genesis yourself, it's original research, and therefore doesn't go in Wikipedia. Agathman (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

opening line

I like how Pico changed it. Just like on Noah's Ark this is a loaded term in the intro. let's just leave it out so that it's neutral. if you want to add a section about your beliefs that it is mythology/literal, then do it later in the article. let's leave the introduction NPOV. SAE (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It now reads: "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman found in the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis."

Note the end of the sentence: "found in the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis" That says enough. This means this is a NPOV sentence. It's not according to your beliefs, but according to the first two chapter in Genesis beliefs. We need to start thinking logically here. SAE (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Great guys. I like how the opening is now. The word "Hebrew" in there was the missing link I think. It looks good and definitely does now not add our 21st century western bias to it, but rather states it as plain fact, allowing the readers to interpret as they see fit. SAE (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The 'deep'

I removed the following sentences from the section on "the 'deep'": "The word is cognate with the Babylonian Tiamat,[8] and its occurrence here without the definite article ha (i.e., the literal translation of the Hebrew is that "darkness lay on the face of tehôm) indicates its mythical origins." First, an assertion about the literary origins must require more evidence than a reference to the dated work of Hermann Gunkel (see Richard S. Hess, “One Hundred Fifty Years of Comparative Studies on Genesis 1-11: An Overview,” in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994], 4-6). There is considerable question about the legitimacy of Gunkel's view (Richard S. Hess, “Genesis 1-2 and Recent Studies of Ancient Texts,” Science & Christian Belief 7 [October 1995]: 143-44; W. G. Lambert, “A New Look at the Babylonian Background,” in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 96-113; Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” Evangelical Quarterly 46 [April-June 1974]: 81-102), that Genesis was has babylonian antecedents (Hermann Gunkel, “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story,” trans. Charles A. Muenchow, in Creation in the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 47; see also idem., The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga & History [New York: Schocken Books, 1964], N.B. 74, 145ff; for other advocates of this view see O. Eissfeldt, “Genesis,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, ed. George Arthur Buttrick [New York: Abingdon Press, 1962], 2:375). In addition, the language "the word is cognate with the Babylonian Tiamat," is misleading. Phonologically, Tsumura notes, it is unlikely that תְהוֹם‬ would lose the feminine morpheme and convert R2 from a glottal stop to a ‫ ,ה‬if it derived from Tiamat (noted earlier by Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2d ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1951], 100). The etymological relationship between the words is indirect, through a common cognate, not that ‫ תְהוֹם‬‬derives from Tiamat (Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters of Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series [Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989], 45-65; cf. Gunkel, “Babylonian Mythology,” 42, 45). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.247.159 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful edit. (By "thoughtful" I mean that you have given thought to it, and we should do you the courtesy of returning that thoughtfulness). Can I just make two minor points to begin: first, I suggest you sign up with an account; and second, on discussion pages new threads begin at the bottom of the page.

Now to your actual points. You suggest that Gunkel's work needs to be considered in the light of more recent scholarship - and it must be getting on for a century old now. I agree. But the actual source being quoted is Nicholson, who is accepting Gunkel's work on this as valid. Nicholson published in 2002, and is thus as recent as we need ask. Second, the authors you quote as disagreeing with Gunkel/Nicholson - Tsumura, etc - are conservative to ultra-conservative. That's not to say they may not be right, but we need to place them on the scholarly spectrum and reflect, in our own article, the prevailing scholarly view. It's my impression that that view is more inline with Nicholson. Not as regards his support for Wellhausen on the composition of the Pentateuch, but just on this matter of the Babylonian origins of much of the imagery and themes of the Creation story in Genesis.

Incidentaly, when the article quotes Nicholson as saying the word tehom is cognate with tiamat, that doesn't mean "derived from" - it just means they come from a common root. This is precisely what Tsumura is saying. (Note also that the article draws attention to the absence of the definite article ha - in other words, while English translations say "darkness was on the face of the Deep", the Hebrew actually says "darkness was on the face of Deep."

PiCo (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it foundational?

I'd say that the statement that Gen 1-2 is foundation to Christian churches is too narrow rather than too broad; it's foundational for Judaism as well. Not as a literal account of the early history of the universe, but as establishing the relationship between God and humans. It's one of the foundational myths of all the Abrahamic religions, along with the Exodus story and maybe a couple of others. I'll see what I can get from Hyers when I'm at work this week, and see if I can put up a documented statement to that effect. Agathman (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it wasn't me who put that statement there, and I've been deleting it whenever it's been reinserted. Second, despite this, I can defend it's inclusion. Welker (the cited source) is a major theologian, and not to be dismissed out of hand. I simply think that in this case he's wrong. For Christianity, the Resurrection is foundational, but not the Creation. You can interpret the Creation story as allegory and still call yourself a Christian, but I don't think you can get away with saying you're a Christian but don't believe the Resurrection ever happened. What's going on, I think, is that Welker writes widely on the relationship between the world, science, and Christian theology - in other words, just as you say, his focus is the relationship between God and humans. But I think in this case his enthusiasm for his own area of interest has run away from him - creation is foundational for Welker, but not, I think, for Christianity (nor for Judaism). PiCo (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "foundational". You can interpret the Creation story as ... well, I wouldn't say allegorical, but certainly as non-historical ... and still be a Christian, but that doesn't mean it isn't foundational for Christianity. Gen. 1 is the foundation of monotheism. It doesn't matter if you think it's a "scientific" account of the origin of the universe, earth, etc., but its point is that all physical reality rests on a single God. Gen. 2 establishes the relationship between God and humans, in which humans have a special status, are dependent on God, but are free. These theological concepts are at the core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Most mainstream Christian denominations deny the historicity of the myths in these chapters, but retain their foundational importance -- like this:

"Unfortunately, myth today has come to have negative connotations which are the complete opposite of its meaning in a religious context... In a religious context, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth, the most basic and important truths of all... They are seen not only as being the opposite of error but also as being clearly distinguishable from stories told for entertainment and from the workaday, domestic, practical language of a people. ... Myths deal not only with truth but with ultimate truth." -- Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation, p. 107.

Agathman (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it should not be offensive to substitute "storied vehicle of supreme truth, among the most basic and important truths of all" in place of "myth". If this is the accepted definition, it should both help disambiguate the statement and lighten the conflict. Perhaps this phrase is applicable to other articles of heated dispute as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.13.107 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem is with the word "foundational". I can only repeat what I've said elsewhere: I can imagine Christianity without Genesis or the entire Torah - it would still be able to centre on Christ as the risen Messiah, and there's still be room for confirming monotheism - but I can't imagine it without the Gospels, which to my mind are far more deserving of that word "foundational". On the other hand, I agree with everything you say about the theological import of Genesis as developed in Christianity - not just monotheism, but the relationship of man to both God and the world, the role of the family and of women in society, even the structure of society itself, all have been grounded at one time or another in Genesis 1-2. That sentence, "foundational to Christianity," just doesn't do justice to this complexity. I'd be very happy if you worked up a new section on the theological interpretations of the chapters in both Christianity and Judaism (Genesis is, after all, a Jewish book, the Christians "hijacked" it and markedly altered its meaning) and add something rather valuable to our article. PiCo (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A little later: The Theology section of the article deals exclusively with the meaning of Genesis 1-2 for the original audience - it doesn't even get onto later/modern Judaism, let alone Christianity. There's a section or subsection on Christian Literalism, but it totally distorts the Christian response to these chapters - Literalism is a fringe view, even in America, and mainstream Christianity needs to be given the major weight. It would be great if you could take this on, if you're willing. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pico, i think that you are misrepresenting something here. Genesis 1-2 is "foundational" to mainstream Christianity, and certainly to the vatican. they allow it to be interpret it differently -- but it's interpretation IS foundational, whicever way you go. you're personal opinion on whether a credible source is wrong has no place here, and you know that Swift as an Eagle (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pico -- you don't take out what you don't like, especially if it's sourced -- and then talk about it. you do the opposite: if you don't like it, talk about it, and then take it out if consensus doesn't like it. you should put it back in at this time. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The practice is that editors add whatever they feel is useful to an article; then, if other editors disagree, they remove it, giving reasons in the edit summary; and if the editor who wishes to make the addition still wishes to do so, he argues his case on the talk page - this is what Agathman and I are now doing. Of course, you're very welcome to join in. PiCo (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts: firstly literalism is a mainstream christian theology, and hardly "fringe". Much if not most of the enormous pentecostal movement including preachers such as David Yonggi Cho, are literalist for example, as are many mainstream protestant churches. The Roman Catholic Church is the most notable that teaches a symbolic interpretation of Genesis, espousing instead evolution, but this hardly marginalises literalism.

Secondly I take issue with the combative nature of PiCo's above posts describing christianity as "highjacking" Genesis and the Bible. It's needlessly antagonistic, aside from ignoring the reality that Christianity (which could also be called a "messianic Judaism") accepts the very same Torah non-messianic Judaism accepts. All the initial christians were Jews, and so the Genesis story was as much their creation story as any other Jew's, just as their Psalms and prophecies were the same. Compare this to say Islam which declares the Bible to be in error.

Therefore, the Genesis is, in one sense foundational to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but in another sense, is not. If it did not exist, there would be neither of the three faiths, but if it were proven to be symbolic each faith would also keep existing. The foundation of christianity is Jesus. The foundation of Islam is the Qu'ran. But had Genesis not been written....? Perhaps there is another word we can use which keeps this duality in mind.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Translating "YHWH elohim"

I'm just making this post because it's an interesting topic, not because I attach a lot of importance to it. But we have to make a choice over what to do with this phrase, since it's the way Gen.1-2 refers to God.

"Elohim" in Hebrew has a range of meanings, from "god" (any god, not just God) to "judge" and "spokesman" (in Exodus the word is used to describe Aaron's function as spokesman for Moses, and also to describe the "judges" who are appointed to assist Moses immediately prior to Sinai). The word combines plural and singular - the form is plural (the -in ending), but it takes singular verbs - a very odd word indeed. But it definitely means just one God most of the time, in a generic sense, just like the English word.

YHWH (the vowelling as Yahweh is conventional but not certain) is the actual name of the "elohim" of Israel. Other nations have their own elohim - Chemosh, Marduk and others - and Yahweh is the name of this particular elohim. There's nothing similar in English, where God has no name. It can't be translated Lord, as the Hebrew word for this is "baal". Yahweh himself is sometimes called a "baal" in the Hebrew bible, but it's baal Yahweh ("lord Yahweh"), not baal elohim.

Translating YHWH elohim as Lord God is therefore misleading, even though it's been conventional in English for a long time, and I'd rather not use it. Better, in my opinion, to leave it untranslated. PiCo (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I took no objection to your changing LORD to Yahweh on me. I only changed it because the phrase was "Yahweh Elohim" (Yahweh God)", sp I changed the 2nd Yahweh. I see the argument, however most of the world's leading scholars (I assume those whom the publishing companies get to translate their Bibles are leading scholars in the world) obviously translate YHWH as "LORD." Therefore, adding the vowels to YHWH must be even more controversial (less accurate?) than LORD. Plus this being a common English encyclopedia, I would use the common English usage of the word. However, I have no qualms, neither any plans to change it. This is only my opinion. Of course, YHWH means, "I am." Cheers, SAE (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. I think you've done a lot of great work on this article, and if you prefer one over the other, out of respect to you I will accept it.

I think it's better to use YHWH where written, and ELOHIM where written (and 'Adonai' or 'El Shadai' where written elsewhere), though I understand the sensitivities Jews have to printing the 'name' of God, preferring "HaShem" (the name) . "I AM" is not really a name though, as it is a description. He is (the present tense describing the eternal nature). As is "Elohim" or 'most high'. God remains nameless and limitless with either word. As we therefore know the original words, I'd suggest leaving them untranslated.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Lisa and Agathman

I've reverted a number of edits by these two editors and would like to explain my actions here.

(I'm re-writing my first post to make it more detailed:

Lisa's first edit was to put ^[who?]^{[citation needed]} against ancient Near East. I don't understand the point - ancient Near East is a commonly used phrase and I think every reader will understand what's meant.
Lisa then removed this passage: "The story contains distinct mythic elements, but is not entirely mythical, in the sense that it bears the marks of a carefully contrived literary creation, written with a distinct theological agenda—the elevation of Yahweh, the God of Israel, over all other gods, and notably over Marduk, the god of Babylon." This is well-established and I've added a ref.
Lisa changed the word "the" to "some" in the following: "The Earth according to the civilizations of the Ancient Near East was a flat disk, with infinite water both above and below it." Again, this is a well-established point in the literature - it's referenced.
Lisa changed "virtually all scholars accept that the Pentateuch "was in reality a composite work...," by inserting "secular" in front of "scholars". I fail to see what point is being made here - scholars are scholars, surely?
Lisa added a neutrality tag to the Creationism section. This needs to be explained on the Talk page - just what is seen as being non-neutral?
Agathman deleted this passage as being pov: "It is evolution that is the particular object of dread of biblical literalism. All literalists read Genesis 2 as history, holding that God breathed into the nostrils of a being formed out of dust, and from whose side (or rib) the first woman was formed." (There's a ref to Answers in Genesis for the second sentence; I'm deleting it here as it won't lead to the work in question). The passage is factually accurate - Creationists (some of them) are able to live with modern geology and even with the Big Bang, but not with evolution. It's expressing the pov of the Creationists, not of the author.

Ok, hope that's better and can lead to some discussion. PiCo (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry not to have gotten back on this -- I missed this edit in my watchlist. Yes, I think that the way you've rephrased it is okay. My main objection was to "object of dread", which isn't directly substantiated in the source, and is a loaded phrase. Making them "creationists" rather than "literalists" tightened up the meaning as well. Agathman (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed a bunch of those edits back, but modified some to reflect your concerns.

Not all ancient near eastern cultures viewed the world as a flat disk surrounded by water. You can bring a source that notes that view, but all it takes is one counter-example to establish that it's only "some". The Bible is one such example.
The idea that the biblical account had an agenda of elevating God over Marduk is nothing more than one man's hypothesis. There are plenty of views to the contrary. You can't decide that only one source constitutes encyclopedic fact. But you did add a reference, so I kept it in, only changing it to attribute it to Wenham himself.
And yes, of course scholars are scholars. Do you need me to post the work of scholars who disagree with the idea of the Pentateuch being a composite work, or are you simply going to label anyone holding that view as a "non-scholar"?
As far as the POV tag on the Creationism section is concerned, you're addressing only Christian Creationism. I don't know for sure that what you wrote is true of all Christian Creationism, but I do know that there are plenty of Jewish Creationists out there who do not say (as you put it) that "should one ele ment of the biblical narrative be shown to be untrue, then all others will follow". As such, the entire section comes across like a polemic against the idea. -Lisa (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the Bible is a counter-example to the "disk surrounded by water" cosmology; that's pretty clearly what it depicts, at least in Genesis. And it's not just one person's view that the Genesis 1 account has the goal of establishing the hegemony of the Hebrews' god over Marduk (and the gods of their other neighbors). Just grabbing what's handy off my shelves at home, I have an introductory Old Testament textbook, "The Old Testament Story", by John Tullock, for instance, who says of Genesis 1, "There seems to be a conscious effort to counter the Near Eastern creation myths. In contrast to the struggle waged by Marduk and Tiamat, God is in complete control over creation. The heavenly bodies ... worshiped as gods by Israel's neighbors, are created." (Tullock p. 39). A very similar analysis is given by Hyers in "The Meaning of Creation". Tullock and Hyers both also mention that Genesis shares a cosmology (watery chaos, Earth as a bubble surrounded by water, etc.) with the Babylonians. I think that if we survey some more sources, we'll see that this is the consensus of scholars. Agathman (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly a counter-example. Where do you see a disk in Genesis? And when you add "(and the gods of their other neighbors)", you're basically changing the argument.

The view of Orthodox Jewish scholars is that the account in Genesis is true, either literally or otherwise. That's a notable view, and you can't present other views as encyclopedic fact even if most secular views differ. Tullock says "There seems to be". Seems-- to whom? To him? If Tullock tried posting that himself here, it'd be redacted as weasel words. There's no basis for it other than his subjective sense. Nor is there any "bubble" in Genesis. -Lisa (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, the usual, courteous approach to editing on Wikipedia is to make your proposed edit ("edit boldly"), and, if it's not accepted (is reverted), to argue your case on the talk page. What you're beginning to do now is edit-warring.

Anyway, to the point(s) at issue. All the points you object to are well referenced, using major scholars. You obviously object, but you haven't provided a single citation to support your own views. If you do that, we can begin to have a discussion. PiCo (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How does one bring a source for the fact that Genesis doesn't mention bubbles or disks? How could such a source exist?

In any case, your sources don't support your claims. They support the fact that some ancient near east cultures viewed it that way, but they simply don't support the claim that all of them did. -Lisa (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Haven't read all replies, but firstly "Near East" is a Eurocentric term and should be avoided. "Mesopotamia" when describing Sumer, Akkad, Babylon etc is better, "Middle East" is better than Near East, while "South-West Asia" is better again.

As for flat/round earth, the existence of the book of JOB, with it's description of the earth, and the high esteem it was held, shows that round earth perception existed in Ancient South West Asian cultures. "Some" is again, more accurate, as we know "some" we do not comprehensively know "all".

Re. secular vs non, it helps a reader place the writer's opinions in context. Secular writers traditionally ignore or attack much which theological writers defend or regard.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should use commonly used terms, and if it's a choice between 'Ancient Near East' and 'Ancient South-West Asia', ANE should be used. As for the Book of Job, some people interpret circle as sphere, others as disc. Some people even think that ""take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13) with its mention of edges doesn't sound like a sphere is being described. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the word used in Job there is kanfot, which means corners, and not edges. Which would contradict a disk in any case. But chug, which is sometimes translated as circle and sometimes as sphere, doesn't mean either. It means round. Circle is maagal.

Look, the fact is, there's no evidence that the ancient Hebrews viewed the earth the same way as the Mesopotamians. You can say that some (or even most) ancient near east cultures saw the world that way, but you can't say all of them did. There's no evidence for that. Nor is it necessary to bring a source for that. That would be like asking for a source to prove that the Hebrews didn't view the earth as a pyramid. They didn't, but how can you find a source for it? -Lisa (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As Dougweller points out, the use of the word "circle" in Job to describe the Earth supports a flat, circular Earth, not a round one - a circle is not a ball. This is supported by the "take the Earth by the edges" reference he cites - one cannot find edges on a ball. I recommend that you read the referenced source in the article, and also the references given by that source itself. Also, it's quite clear that Lisa's proposals have not gained a consensus among existing editors, in fact they've gained no support at all. Nor has Lisa produced any RS for her views. What is happening now is pov pushing. PiCo (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have actually stated that I support her views... As for circle/ball that's splitting hairs considering it's also described as hanging in space, and illustrates other scientific realities such as condensation etc. The earth IS a globe, hangs in space and has condensation. Benefit of doubt re. interpretation, goes with facts not fiction. And the earth has an edge. The surface area is "edge" of the earth. Regardless enough people interpret Job consistently with science to validate what I'm saying. "Some" is an inclusive term, while leaving out the word is exclusive. "Some" covers bases and is more neutral. It can't be argued with. Obviously leaving out, can be argued with. Go for consensus where all parties are happy, not POV override. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, that the Hebrew word used: chuwg is used for both circle, sphere etc.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Beson, this is OR - original research, your own interpretation. You need to get some RS (Reliable Sources). PiCo (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? There's no "original research" when you're talking about an article about words printed in a book. They're either there or they're not.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ANE cosmology

I've reverted a recent edit which placed the word "some" in relation to statements about ANE cosmology - the overall impact was to give the impression that not all AE cultures regarded the world as a flat disk surrounded by infinite water. I gather that the editor wishes to make an exception for the ancient Hebrews, whom he believes saw the Earth as a ball in space, presumably orbiting the Sun - the modern cosmology, in fact. This is inaccurate. The existing article cites a book by Gordon Wenham as its source. The editor wants to edit in such a way as to make Wenham's views peculiar to himself. On fact the book was written as an entry-level college text for Evangelical bible students at tertiary level. As such, it represents the scholarly mainstream, not Wenham's personal views. I invite our editor to read it. PiCo (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This changes not the preference to use "some", as our knowledge - regardless of whether or not you are correct - is incomplete. It allows room for error.

Secondly the fact that there are obviously people who read the bible as describing a round earth http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml means that there is at the very least, enough room for doubt. If in doubt, give ancients the benefit of factual understanding with limited language to express, rather than automatically presuming them to be in error, for it is more likely that the descriptive language was imprecise, given the contexts.

Consensus is about finding statements everyone can agree on. That is consensus. "Some" has less room for disagreement, as it's inarguable that at least some ancient cultures regarded the earth as flat. Hence, "some" is what should be written in the description if Wikipedia is under any illusions about being a neutral, consensus-loving website.

Or are you here just to fight and push your POV over any other's concerns PiCo? --Benson Verazzano (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Benson, thank you for giving a reference, but it appears to be a popular-level Creationist website, not a scholarly source. This is an article about scholarly investigations of the text, not about popular perceptions. And no, I'm not here trying to push my own point of view, but I am trying to represent current scholarly thinking. PiCo (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the information in the website PiCo.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "some", consensus is achieved through use of "some" as it cannot be argued against, and reflects known facts, while leaving room for unknown facts and contrary positions. Leaving it out pushes a POV. That is not consensus. Consensus is where everyone agrees, not where one side bullies or browbeats another into silence. To find consensus construct a sentence that we call all agree on. Adding "some" goes a long way towards that end.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The website is a popular-level Creationist page, without any scholarly standing. Consensus is important, but accuracy is even more so. That all (not some) ANE cultures conceived of a flat Earth is a fact for which I can give multiple references, but the one in the article should be enough to start. If you can find a counter-example please produce it, but your website isn't a reliable source on matters of this nature. PiCo (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just read the article PiCo or are you prejudice against Christian Scholars who happen to understand ancient Hebrew?

http://creation.com/is-the-erets-earth-flat Here's a refutation of Seely. Oh that's right, the writer is a Christian... so he's automatically excluded by his faith, no matter how valid his methodology is. Am I pissed? yeah, prejudice makes me angry. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Benson, I'm sorry that this conversation has made you upset - I honestly get no satisfaction from this. But please try to see that we have to base our articles on reliable sources. Reliable means informed, and it also means mainstream. On questions of ancient cosmologies it's essential that our ssource/s have studied ANE texts in the original and in depth, and also that they are professional. How to establish what "professional" might mean is, of course, difficult, but in such as situation as this I'd say we look to scholars who have published in peer-reviewed journals, or whose books are reviewed in such journals, and who are cited by other such professionals. The source you quote, Holding, is none of these things. He edits a Creationist website, is apparently self-taught, and apparently has never published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, nor published a book that has been reviewed in such a journal, nor does he hold a professional position (a teaching position in a major seminary, for example), nor is he known to such professionals. Being a Christian is no obstacle to being a scholar and a reliable source, but nor is it any guarantee of reliability. I repeat, a reliable source is one that is securely based within the professional literature of the subject in question, and this applies to everything from ancient cosmologies to, I would think, fly-fishing. But anyway, all that apart, please don't think I'm trying to exclude you from editing - if you can find a reliable source to say that ancient Hebrews believed the Earth to be round, by all means produce it. PiCo (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem that you're missing is for example, that to be ordained as an Anglican church minister, a person needs to be proficient in ancient Hebrew and koine Greek and in the relevant culture and context the Bible and related works were created in. It is indisputable that these tertiary level educated men/women are learned, trained, well read, well versed in the language and the subject matter. They are reliable. Yet you would discount their opinions because they are UNPUBLISHED, by a media that has no incentive to publish the works of people who are more interested in helping people get their lives together, and every financial incentive to publish marginal non-mainstream opinions that most of the said educated Anglican ministers would shoot holes through in moments.

It's a bizzarre parralel universe on Wikipedia where marginal opinions, because they are 'published', are deemed the ONLY ones of any validity, while the prevailing majority educated opinions in a field are to the contrary.

I mean reading the arguments here that "literalism" is fringe position makes me feel like I'm in a parallel universe.

And whether you get no joy or not PiCo, you exhibit an intent in your edits and your comments, to override the opinions of others, ignoring any attempts at creating a consensus work that keeps all sides happy 9as per the definition of consensus) that to me reeks of double standards and an underlying prejudicial agenda. You're not the only one I've seen on Wikipedia do this. it seems to be a culture of censorship, browbeating and POV pushing, with self-delusions of nonPOV and neutrality.

Despite me saying I agreed with Lisa, you kept telling her no-one agreed and kept reverting her edits. Of course this creates antagonism, and edit wars and blocks, which obviously has left you as the last one standing on occasion.

I may not be as versed as you are in Wiki protocol, but I am well aware that we know Ancient Greeks regarded the earth as round. Consequently, anytime after Alexander, those Greek ideas would have been spread throughout South West Asia. Possibly of course before because of Greek trade. We are not in possession of all the musings from all the known cultures of the area, let alone cultures we're yet to discover or properly understand (who was Oannes for example? What about Mohenjo Dar and Harrappa?)

Additionally with an understanding of Hebrew and the lack of technical specificity in the language, Job can, and is, predominantly read as describing the earth, as a globe, hanging in space.

But of course, I'm presenting my own understanding, which is invalid. Unless I copy and paste some "scholar" the whole position is moot.

And yet all I'm asking is for one word, that LEAVES ROOM FOR A CONTRARY POSITION. That is all. Leaving room. Not validating the position. Not saying "Hebrews considered the earth round", just leaving room for the possibility that the website writer, as uneducated as you may think he is, just may be right in his refutation of Seely's arguments. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to correct the picture about Anglican training - the three year undergraduate degree offered at Ridley College Cambridge [the relevant culture and context the Bible and related works were created in.], requires introductory courses in OT Hebrew and NT Greek and 'Old Testament' studies. I don't see how this implies proficiency for which I'd say you would need more than a Freshman introductory course. I see no backing for the claim for proficiency in "the relevant culture and context the Bible and related works were created in" -- just OT studies, which is not the same. So no, there is no reason to think that someone with this sort of basic undergraduate education is going to be a reliable source for anything. Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking about just Ridley, but about specifically about the 4 year course at Moore: http://undergrad.moore.edu.au/fileadmin/user_upload/study/BS_Unit_Descriptions_09.pdf

The point being they will be a more reliable source that Seely when speaking about JOB and understanding the Hebrew it is written in.

The statement "Not going to be a reliable source for anything" is the same anti-christian prejudice I am speaking about. Considering this is an article on Genesis, it's highly insulting to suggest that taking 4 years of intensive study isn't enough to speak with some authority on what the Hebrew Bible actually says.

Having read arguments here where people are suggesting "Chuwg" means flat earth... knowing Hebrew is pertinent.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and furthermore, name another work which possesses more information about ancient Jewish culture please?--Benson Verazzano (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Moore College may be ok as an educational intitution - very conservative but not literalist I gather - but that is still just an undergraduate course where students will get only the rudiments of the languages & OT cultures, and are obviously not being taught to be specialists in those subjects or to have more than a very basic knowledge. I'd take someone with that training as seriously for these purposes as seriously as I'd take someone who'd had done a university degree which included a year's basic introduction to physics as an expert on physics. As to your second question, is there a point to it? Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Moore is in Sydney diocese and is quite literalist. Conservative christian mainstream theology is literalism. What they are trained to be is specialists in understanding the Bible, which is the main source of ancient Hebrew history, poetry and law in human possession. And if one is to be any sort of expert on ancient Jewish culture, understanding the Bible is necessary. Seely, by contrast has some gross errors of understanding. I don't understand why you're comparing a 4 year degree on understanding the Bible with a year of intro to physics? And is all of this really necessary to get the word "some" put in front of a statement to allow for the possibility of an assertions error? What a waste of time. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange, other sources say Moore is not literalist (using that word) and that it doesn't teach Genesis literally. But that's a red herring. I was comparing a year's basic training in Hebrew with a year's basic training in physics (both at Freshman level). And the degree is about understanding the Bible from a particular point of view. All really a red herring as a theology undergraduate degree doesn't make someone a reliable source for Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Benson, if you're a student at Moore Park, I suggest you talk to George Athas about these matters (I mean about ancient Hebrew cosmology as reflected in the bible). He's what I'd recognise as a trained, professional biblical scholar. The course for Anglican ministers is, not unnaturally, aimed at turning out men and women whose primary profession is pastoral care - some Anglican ministers do indeed go on to become scholars, but most are destined to become carers. It's an honourable and highly skilled life, but quite separate from that of the life-long scholar of biblical matters. (If you're interested in who I am, I took a higher degree in history, then joined the Australian diplomatic service - I was deputy head of embassy in Burma and Iraq in the late 1980s-early 1990s. I then worked for the UN before becoming a freelance journalist, which I've now given up again to become a writer of books. I regard myself as a professional writer, but in a whole life-time of fields in which the ability to gather facts and present them accurately is of the essence - and I was given an award for my services in Iraq in 1990, by the way, so I wasn't exactly a failure in my career).

I'll just add that no-one, certainly not me, is trying to force you off this article. But please consider whether your position is really as mainstream as you believe it to be. PiCo (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pico, I'm not a student at Moore, and I disagree with your assertions about Pastoral care being the emphasis. It's an important one, surely, but being a skilled Bible teacher is paramount. I've known great preacher/pastors who were denied ordination because they weren't up to par in their original languages. I honestly don't think you understand how much time is spent reading, studying and researching original texts, commentaries, etc to prepare messages and bible studies every week, year after year after year. These men, are scholars by every definition of the word, but because they are unpublished, you belittle them? What of my positions are you claiming to NOT be mainstream? Literalism? That the bible supports a round earth view? I would challenge your abilities as a fact finder if you're walking around believe literalism to be a fringe belief of christianity. Certainly being head of a diplomatic mission hardly qualifies you as an expert in Ancient Jewish culture and beliefs, I would regard the opinions of a humble undecorated Anglican minister over a diplomat cum writer.

But this is all beside the point. None of this gives any reason why a qualitative "some" shouldn't be included in the sentence, let alone a qualifying statement exempting the Hebrews from the disparaging generalisation of middle eastern perceptions.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned above Seeley's credentials - why accept him but not the person you point out to us? Good question. Seeley is an evangelical, and as conservative as conservative can be - no rabid minimalist, not an atheist, but a genuine Christian by anyone's definition. But the real question isn't Seeley himself but his article - why accept it as a reliable source? I mentioned above some of the hallmarks of a reliable source in this context - articles in peer-reviewed journals being one. The Westminster Review claims to be peer reviewed, and I must admit I took this at face value. But perhaps we should look for something more mainstream. I'll see what I can find. PiCo (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Benson Verazzano is blocked as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem Talmud

Besides the fact that the 'spherical' interpretation is debatable [5], I can't see how the Jerusalem Talmud can be used as evidence for ANE cultures, as the period coverd by the ANE ends in the 4th century BCE, and the Jerusalem Talmud is centuries later. Lisa, do you want to explain this temporal problem or revert your edit? Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted, but apparently for the wrong reasons. The verse I found had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth at all. Maybe I got the wrong verse, but the fact that this post-CE text is used as a source for support of ancient beliefs is at issue. Auntie E (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

sequence of creation

first six	second six
sheol	stars and moon
yom	sun
shammim	birds
yammim	fish and sharks
earth	mammals and reptiles
eden	humans

Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting sources

PiCo, you have to stop deleting sources just because you disagree with them. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute between PiCo and Lisa

This is getting ridiculous. Can this be resolved through a proper Wikipedia channel of dispute resolution? Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be resolved here, on the talk page. Lisa is a sincere editor and not out simply to be mischievous. She is, however, a believeing Orthodox Jew, which leads her to advance the idea that the bible, as the word of God in a literal sense, is in accordance with modern science. I, on the other hand, am a humanist with no real religious interest but a great interest in the bible as literature. So Lisa and I come from very different mental backgrounds. Nevertheless, we should eb able to work things out with the right spirit.

Lisa's problem is with the idea that the ancient Hebrews, say c.1500-500 BC, shared the general ANE conception of the universe - a single flat Earth floating in an infinite sea like a bubble, separated from that bubble by a solid "firmament." She's asked me to provide evidence that our quoted sources include the Israelites in that cosmography. (Note that I'm using "Israelites" and "Hebrews" interchangeably, which isn't actually correct usage, but it helps me to avoid too much repetition). So, here we are:

Seeley's "Firmament" (see footnote 1 of our article) begins by setting out the problem he plans to address, namely the dispute over the meaning of the Hebrew "raqia" - is it solid or not? Note the implications: a solid raqia is needed if, and only if, there's a cosmic ocean from which the Earth must be protected. Seeley's conclusion: "[A]ll peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid" (top of page 228). 'All' includes the Israelites.
So we have Seeley saying the ancient Israelites believed the Earth to be surrounded by water. They could, of course, have believed in a spherical Earth surrounded by water. But Seeley thinks not. We'll move now to his paper "Earth and Seas" (you can find the link at footnote 1 again). In his first paragraph Seeley warns that "the meaning of "earth" and "seas" in Gen 1:10 is found to be quite different from the modern western notions." After a few paragrpahs describing Far Eastern and other views of the shape of the Earth (probably intended simply to demonstrate that modern Western concepts are not universal), he discusses ANE views, demonstrating, by quoting other leading scholars (meaning that these are not his personal views, but the views of the profession), that Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians shared a single view: the Earth was "a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc, never as a planetary globe." (p.235).
Lisa, of course, believes that the Israelites, despite being contemporaries of all these peoples, did not share this view. Seeley doesn't agree. Here is his conclusion: "Within its historical context, therefore, the conception of the "earth" in Gen 1 is most probably that of a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc." (p.236). Seeley, of course, is qualifying this with a "most probably," but the conclusion is based on a reasonably thorough review of scholarly sources and can be accepted, for our purposes, as meaning that the Israelites did indeed share the common ANE world-view.

Now, there are today conservative Christians and Jews who interpret the Hebrew of the bible to support their idea of an "exceptionist" Israel, an Israel that didn't share the common ANE scientific culture (and cosmology is science, in the 1st millennium BC as much as it is today). But they don't have the support of the scholarly mainstream. Lisa's view, this exceptionalist view, exists: but it isn't the scholarly mainstream, and it's that mainstream that we have to reflect.

PiCo (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect all views, except 'fringe' ones. And the space apportioned to each should roughly correspond to their impact. ^ross ^nixon 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No argument with that ross. PiCo (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My assessment of this is that, on the one hand, the weight of evidence would seem to support the fact that the Bible describes cosmology in a manner consistent with ANE understanding. On the other hand, this is not something that can ever be absolutely proven from the limited bilical data available and even scholars such as Seely are drawing inferences. In addition, how can one ever assert beyond reasonable doubt that every single culture thought the same way about cosmology? We can't know what absolutely everyone thought. I remember reading somewhere that there are minor differences between the Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies, for example.

So it would seem reasonable, in my opinion, if this article said something like: "The cultures of the Ancient Near East conceived of the universe as [such and such] and scholars believe that the ancient Hebrews shared this general conception... Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Ross, thanks for your proposed edit to that para, which is fine by me - but I've just noticed that the para mixes two ideas which are really separate, the first being the suggestion that the "Creation week" narrative (i.e. Genesis 1) is "a monotheistic polemic on creation-theology directed against pagan creation myths," and the second being the idea that the same narrative culminates in (meaning not ends in so much as gives prime importance to) the establishment of the Biblical Sabbath. They don't belong together - either one could be true and the other false. Somehow these need to be separated, not kept in one sentence. If you agree you might like to give it a try.

2. TBrown, your suggestion is fine by me, but I'd suggest reversing the order of ideas and lead with the Israelites, the subject of our article: "Scholars believe (or generally believe if you prefer) that the ancient Hebrews shared the general Ancient Near Eastern cosmology of a flat, circular Earth surrounded on all sides by the infinite ocean." PiCo (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PiCo, That wording is fine, except for "circular" and "infinite". Are these specific details properly supported in the scholarship?

The Bible talks about the four corners of the earth -- does this suggest they thought of a square rather than a circle???? Also, "infinite" clearly goes against the Hebrew conception of Creation as finite and God alone as infinite. The ocean above the Earth must have a limit because God sits in heaven above the Earth. Also, the ocean below must have a limit too because the Earth has "pillars" and "foundations" and sheol lies beneath. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "infinite" is right - I think the concentration was on the simple existence of the outer ocean, as the chaotic material from which the ordered world was formed. I gather from Seeley (and also other sources) that the Babylonian world was circular, but the Egyptian one was sometimes conceived as a long, narrow rectangle with four corners. It's interesting that Mesopotamian temples were square, but Egyptian and Levantine ones were rectangular - both were apparently designed as simultaneously the house of the gods and as models of the universe, the two being identical (the universe was made by the gods as their dwelling-place). I think we can drop that too. PiCo (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

prophetess.lstc.edu citation

This source is weak at best. It has no author attribution. Therefore, not a reliable source WP:RS Afaprof01 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is that a reason to add back material that's inappropriate? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It was to give an opportunity for a reliable source to be provided. That hasn't happened, so I'm removing it again. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fill me in folks - what is this material? PiCo (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

More changes

I just made two fairly substantial changes. The first was to remove the material about domes and disks and such from the lede. It appears in the article, and I have no problem with that. But putting it in the lede gives it undue weight, particularly since the article isn't called Critiques of the creation story in Genesis; it's called Creation according to Genesis.

The other change was to take out the discussion of the origins of monotheism in the article. It's completely off-topic. Perhaps it could find a good home in the Monotheism article, but it doesn't belong here.

On a more minor level, I specified that the connection between the Genesis account and things like Enuma Elish are according to the school of thought which sees the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian myths. This way we don't have to have an argument about whether it's some scholars or many scholars or all scholars. I think PiCo will agree that the scholars he's referring to do, in fact, see the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian myths, so the paragraph is now descriptive without introducing a POV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good edits, thank you. I don't suppose there is a shorter name for "the school of thought which sees the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian myths", is there? ^ross ^nixon 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can think of one, I'd appreciate it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "Intolerant of any other school of thought even being acknowledged"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is Wikipedia. Every school of thought should be acknowledged (except WP:FRINGE ones). The problem here is that there are editors who are insisting on pushing an agenda. "Only scholarship which says the biblical narrative is artificial counts as scholarship". This article is called Creation according to Genesis, but some people are treating it as a place to polemicize against that account. Obviously, critiques of the account are pertinent, but they aren't the core of the article.

PiCo reverted the changes, and in his comment, he said not to make such changes without discussion. The irony of that was that I not only gave my reasons for the changes in the edit summaries, I created this section and reiterated them here. He just ignored that. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Lisa - are you sure that an agenda is being pushed? Might it instead be the case that reliable sources support the version that PiCo and Ben Tillman have reverted to? Your changes appear to be "watering down" the statements but you are not providing any sources to support this position. Is it possible that the "school of thought which views the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian creation myths" is actually the mainstream? If so it should be described (or implied) as such rather than relegated (as in your modification) to one "school of thought". Similarly, changing "Modern scholars" to some weaker phrasing may give the wrong impression to readers. If most "modern scholars" who are writing reliable sources subscribe to this interpretation then this should be clear from the text. Your edits are tending to imply there is a large body of scholarly work out there which has some alternative (and as yet unspecified) view. Can you direct us to that? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. But I'm not sure how a reliable source that's retained in the article is a problem. I simply moved it out of the lede, because the article isn't about near eastern creation myths and their relationship to the Genesis narrative. It's about the Genesis narrative itself. It's entirely appropriate to mention those parallels and the fact that a substantial school of scholarship feels there is a connection between them. But to make the whole article about that is definitely pushing an agenda.

As far as the monotheism piece that I removed, like I said, I don't have a problem with that material in an appropriate article. But its only connection here is that some scholars feel the Genesis account of creation is a monotheistic polemic. Which could be mentioned in a single sentence, with a link to the article on Monotheism.

I've mentioned before that there is substantial scholarship that holds the Genesis creation story to be either (a) metaphor/allegory ([6], [7], [8]), (b) schematic ([9], [10]), (c) literary ([11], [12]), or in the case of religious scholarship, (d) literal. PiCo feels that only sources which claim the narrative in Genesis to be polemic in nature are valid. I'm not sure why. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. I'm not sure that I follow your argument here. I interpret interpretations (a) to (c) as being largely the same (i.e. non-literal; is there more subtlety here?), and distinct from (d) which is literal (and not by any means the only religious viewpoint). Furthermore, although different viewpoints should appear in articles, they should be weighted appropriately. WP:NPOV is not meant to mean "equal representation for all", it's more subtle than that. For instance, if most scholars go along with, say, interpretation (a), then the wording should reflect this. Your edits, though perhaps restoring some degree of balance, may be going too far the other way by giving the impression that mainstream interpretations are "just one viewpoint". --PLUMBAGO 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the person who has reverted 3 times today does not take part in the discussion, although his edit summary advises you to take part in the discussion. Reminds me of the old "Declare victory and leave" strategy. You aren't even convincing fellow editors of the correctness of your POV, let alone anyone else - what do you mean to accomplish? Stating or implying that there is any unanimity whatsoever among scholars as to the origins of things like monotheism or scripture just isn't going to wash, and should be exposed for the blatant pov pushing that it is. There are few things that are less agreed upon than these questions, and there are many points of view. The only way you get unanimity is to say "only those who agree with me are reliable and scholars, and all other povs are unreliable and not scholars. This pov pushing should not be taking place on wikipedia, it belongs in Soviet Russia. I dispute this article as one of the grossest POV violations and will carry it all the way up the due process until it is rectified. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Lisa: First, if you want to introduce major changes to this article, or any article, you should raise your suggestions in the Talk page BEFOREHAND - don't just jump in. Now to the actual proposals: 1. Supposed need to shorten the lead: An article of this length would be expected to have a lead of two or three paragraphs summarising the body. For this reason it should stay at its present length. 2. Need to remove material about the origins of monotheism: It is relevant - the Jewish idea of monotheism is certainly expressed in Genesis 1-2, and it's certainly opposed to Babylonian polytheism. The sentence stating this is supported by reference to two scholarly sources, and there are more in the bibliograp[hy. In fact this is standard stuff, you'll be taught it in any seminary or university. 3. Need to specify that the idea of the connection between Genesis 1-2 and Babylonian myths belongs to "a school of thought": It does of course, but as rossnixon said in a post in another thread, we need to reflect various schools of thought in order and according to their importance. In this case, there's no other school of thought with any following worth mentioning. (The fundamentalist viewpoint gets a mention at the end of the article, but it has no following among scholars). (Ross, the "school of thought which sees the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian myths" is fundamentalism, but there's no name for it as such). PiCo (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I jumped in per WP:BOLD. Regarding your reply about the lede, I didn't say that the lede needs to be shortened. I said that the material you had in the lede simply doesn't belong there. You haven't replied to that at all. The material in question appears later on in the article, and since the article is about the account in Genesis, that's what should appear in the lede. Critiques of that account may be pertinent in the article, but certainly not in the lede.

Regarding the monotheism issue, of course monotheism is expressed in Genesis 1-2. It's expressed in the whole Torah. There are sources (such as the one you prize so highly) which say that Genesis 1-2 exists as a polemic against polytheism. But there are equally reliable scholarly sources (which I noted on this page) that say Genesis 1-2 is literary in nature, and not polemic. Or that it's allegorical, and not polemic. The fact that you can produce a source saying that it's polemic doesn't mean that's the only reliably sourced view. How about if we make a section on interpretations of Genesis 1-2 and include polemic, allegorical, literary/schematic and literal views, all with sources.

Lastly, you can't continue to say that only the sources you like are reliable sources. Maybe you need to go and reread WP:RS. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"In this case, there's no other school of thought with any following worth mentioning. (The fundamentalist viewpoint gets a mention at the end of the article, but it has no following among scholars)." This sentence by Pico exactly expresses the POV attitude I am objecting to. It should have no place in wikipedia whatsoever. It's the old "Only our scholars are the true scholars; your scholars aren't even worth mentioning" game. This is also anti-religious persecution, plain and simple. Anti-religious bigots for centuries have sought to imply that religious people are not a following worth mentioning, out of their prejudice. It is completely insignificant to them how large a percentage that following may be, because their prejudice tells them they are just so right to persecute people of faith, that all of those people must therefore be wrong and insignificant. This latest comment clearly shows we are dealing with no less. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, you know what to do: find us some reliable sources that support your assertions. And if you don't like how reliable sources are defined (cf. your remark about scholars), take that up elsewhere. This is not the place for that particular discussion. Labelling mainstream scholarship as anti-religious persecution is not helpful, and is essentially implying that we're all knaves that are suppressing "The Truth". Please try another more productive tack. --PLUMBAGO 13:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated, I am going to pursue this POV travesty with due process every step of the way until it is resolved. This article is little more than a vehicle for attempting to shove your prejudiced opinion down the throats of others; it is one of the worst violations of WP:NPOV policy on the entire project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How foolish do you think readers would have to be to believe that all of "scholarship" is unanimous and unified on such mysterious topics as the Origin of monotheism, and pretend that the whole question has now been "resolved" to everyone's satisfaction without any controversy?? Notice that this is only achieved by brushing all controversy under the carpet, denying its validity, and not tolerating it to be mentioned if there is any dissent. Whenever you see that happening on wikipedia, its a major red flag that some serious POV twisting is going on. Only one half the story is acknowledged as "correct", while the other POV is deemed (by a few biased editors) inadmissible and is not tolerated by them. Those doing this are the ones violating NPOV policy. State the sources for the other points of view, and let readers assess which ones they want to believe or don't want to - don't be afraid to let the reader see POVs other than yours. That is the fundamental lesson of wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the obvious fallacy of your definition of "scholar" is that it is a circular argument: 100% of scholars agree with me - but then, I only define them as "scholars" if they agree with me. The real truth is there have been schools and scholars for thousands of years, and no POV has a monopoly on 'em. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, I see that the memo about WP:AGF never made it to you. Anyway, it sounds like your specific problems with this article are really about much deeper issues on how we handle competing viewpoints. Perhaps going to the heart of the problem at WP:RS would be more profitable? Let us know how you get on. --PLUMBAGO 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your snideness isn't going to deter me, nor make me go away. I have identified a huge POV problem with this particular article, and I am determined to see it through, by whatever steps become necessary, until it is resolved. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, I suspect nothing that any of us do or say is going to make you go away, nor is it actually what I want. I was just saying that the problems that you articulate about this article are problems that apply to any number of articles. And not ones that can be solved here, since you're essentially disputing WP:RS. I'm sorry that you're reading politeness and reasoning as snideness and anti-religious persecution, that's really not my intention. All I'm trying to say is that, if you'd like to resolve what you see as POV issues in this article, the solution really lies elsewhere since, at least as they are currently construed, the reliable sources do not appear to be on your side (or, rather, we can't tell if they are). --PLUMBAGO 09:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

insert arbitrary break to make editing easier

I've reverted to the existing version. Lisa, if you want to change the text which many editors have agreed on over many months, please give reasons here first, don't just jump in with all guns blazing. PiCo (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave my reasons here. Maybe you should consider reading the discussion page before concluding that no reasons were given. I gave my reasons both in the edit summaries as well as here on the talk page, and you ignored them and reverted the changes twice. For you to say I should discuss things here before making a change is blatant hypocrisy, considering that I did and you didn't. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Lisa. I've replied further up the page after your longer comment (it makes more sense there). --PLUMBAGO 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. I know you gave reasons, but I don't find them convincing. Neither does Plumbago. So until we have a consensus, please leave the original article, which is the result of a long process of consensus-building.

It isn't enough for you to "not find them convincing". They need to be addressed. So far, you've addressed an issue I hadn't raised (the length of the lede), which was less than helpful. The bulk of the original article is the same as it was. You don't own this article, and what you declare to be "the result of a long process of consensus-building" is nothing of the sort. You don't like not being able to push your agenda.

To reiterate: the lede should not be comprised of 1/3 Creation according to Genesis and 2/3 Critiques of Creation according to Genesis. That's POV pushing in a big way. I left you your incorrect claim that all ancient near east cultures viewed things the same way. I left your claim that the Genesis account is based on near eastern myths. I simply removed it from the lede. And the monotheism polemic is one view -- not even a majority one. And it belongs in the article on Monotheism. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, in the interests of good community relations, I'm letting your deletion from the lead stand. Nevertheless, it really does need to have more material summarising the body of the article. I invite you to do this.

Second, I've made some alterations to the text,but no reversions. I believe our positions are not in fact all that far apart - we can both agree that Genesis promotes monotheism, for example. Please look at my edits and, if you disagree, discuss your disagreement here. I promise to be open-minded. PiCo (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. Further to PiCo's comments, I had a look at the sources you provided for the four different interpretations (allegory, schematic, literary and literal), but I think that they need a bit of work. This one appears to be a PhD thesis — it would be better to track down the published work that followed it. This one seems fine to me — it's from a long-standing journal and is freely available. I couldn't find "schematic" in this one, so I'm still none the wiser what is meant by this. This one actually seems to be implicitly arguing for a literal interpretation through the use of literary analysis (essentially, that hitherto literary analysis is incorrect and that all of Genesis was written by the same writer). This one appears to be a course schedule so isn't a good source, though the course will probably be based on good sources. This one again seems a reasonable source, though it seems as much focused on non-literal reading of Genesis as its literary interpretation. All that said, they're a bit scattergun, and don't paint (to me anyway) a coherent picture of alternative scholarly approaches. Some appear more as opinion pieces that formal scholarly work. And I'm still unclear that treating Genesis as allegorical in any way precludes literary or schematic analysis (i.e. that the distinction you've drawn above represent distinct scholarly movements). If anything, viewing Genesis as allegorical is one start point for then dissecting it with the other approaches you mention. Anyway, I hope the above helps. I realise that I'm mostly offering negatives, but I think we can thrash something out that suits. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, I agree that the lede was overburdened with "disk and domes". But it appears to be you who is pushing a fringe agenda. With restraint, I hasten to add, so that it will be possible to have a reasonable debate, but it is of course not a question whether Genesis is "based on near eastern myths", Genesis is a source of near eastern myth, and it is only straightforward to put it in proper context of related and predecessor mythologies. This isn't "critique", it's just encyclopedic coverage. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Genesis is a source of near eastern myth? Because that's the opposite of what PiCo is saying. He's saying that near eastern myth is the source of Genesis. Which is one view, but it isn't a fact, and shouldn't be presented as one.

Look, if PiCo was right and I was trying to push an Orthodox Jewish agenda, I'd say that the Genesis account was dictated by God to Moses at Sinai and be done with it. Have I tried putting anything like that into the article? This article or any other one, for that matter?

PiCo insists that the only thing that counts as biblical scholarship is scholarship which starts from the POV that the Bible is not what it purports to be. And fine, that's one view. But there's nothing in WP:RS to support it, and it's highly POV to use that as an excuse to exclude a vast literature that holds differently. It is, as has been pointed out before, a case of circular arguing. "All mainstream scholarship says X. What about scholars who say Y? They aren't mainstream, so they don't count. Why aren't they mainstream? Because all mainstream scholarship says X." Lather, rinse, repeat. Just give him his ban and be done with it. He'd clearly like to stop editing here, and just doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to cancel his own account. Why not help him? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, Wikipedia doesn't deal in facts, only in views. The dominant view among Biblical scholars is indeed that Genesis 1-11 (and therefore the Genesis creation account) derives from Mesopotamian myths (four of them, as described in the article). This is referenced in our article. If you have sources for another view, and can show that it's widely held, please please free to produce your references. PiCo (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We deal in views and facts. But it is still possible for some editor or editors to engage in POV "pushing" their personal POVs, by falsely pretending that theirs is the only acceptable or admissible POV. I predict Pico's actions are hurtling this fast toward some kind of an RFC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Til, the views I'm putting in the article aren't my views, they're the views of respected theologians and biblical scholars, as the references show. If you have other scholars with other views, by all means tell us, but so far you haven't. PiCo (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ATTRIB, we should err on the side of a more neutral wording, not err on the side of a more POV wording, in the latest reverts. A disputed claim should be directly attributed to the sources that made the claim, not worded as if undisputed and incontrovertible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nachmanides, Maimonides and the Sages of the Talmud are highly respected scholars in the Jewish community. I suspect there are Christian scholars who have something to say about the theology of the Genesis creation story as well. It's ludicrous to claim that the only scholars on the subject are those who claim the whole thing is a fairy tale. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Text (german language)

http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/leseraum/bibel/

http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/leseraum/bibel/gen3.html

can anybody tell me the meaning given to that curse by judaism, for example?

-- 88.75.203.177 (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish views

I like what Lisa is expressing here: Traditional Jewish scholarship has viewed it as expressing spiritual concepts (see Nachmanides, commentary on Genesis). The Mishnah in Tractate Chagigah states that the actual meaning of the creation account, mystical in nature and hinted at in the text of Genesis, was to be taught only to advanced students, and only one-on-one. Tractate Sanhedrin states that Genesis describes all mankind as being descended from a single individual in order to teach certain lessons. Among these are:

Taking one life is tantamount to destroying the entire world, and saving one life is tantamount to saving the entire world.
A person should not say to another that he comes from better stock, since we all come from the same ancestor.
To teach the greatness of God, since when human beings create a mold, every thing that comes out of that mold is identical, while mankind, which comes out of a single mold is different, in that every person is unique.[27]

I'd just comment that in general the references should be in footnotes, not contained in the main text - e.g., the piece about Nachmanides should be a referenced footnote, not brackets within the article. Also I'm not sure that the mention of the sanctity of life is derived from Genesis 1-2 - it's not until Genesis 9 and the Noahide covenant that there's a direct injunction against killing, and it's not till the story of Abraham and the destruction of Sodom that we have the idea of saving one life being tantamount to saving many. But in general this is a valuable addition to the article. PiCo (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

More changes

I just made two fairly substantial changes. The first was to remove the material about domes and disks and such from the lede. It appears in the article, and I have no problem with that. But putting it in the lede gives it undue weight, particularly since the article isn't called Critiques of the creation story in Genesis; it's called Creation according to Genesis.

The other change was to take out the discussion of the origins of monotheism in the article. It's completely off-topic. Perhaps it could find a good home in the Monotheism article, but it doesn't belong here.

On a more minor level, I specified that the connection between the Genesis account and things like Enuma Elish are according to the school of thought which sees the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian myths. This way we don't have to have an argument about whether it's some scholars or many scholars or all scholars. I think PiCo will agree that the scholars he's referring to do, in fact, see the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian myths, so the paragraph is now descriptive without introducing a POV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good edits, thank you. I don't suppose there is a shorter name for "the school of thought which sees the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian myths", is there? ^ross ^nixon 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can think of one, I'd appreciate it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "Intolerant of any other school of thought even being acknowledged"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is Wikipedia. Every school of thought should be acknowledged (except WP:FRINGE ones). The problem here is that there are editors who are insisting on pushing an agenda. "Only scholarship which says the biblical narrative is artificial counts as scholarship". This article is called Creation according to Genesis, but some people are treating it as a place to polemicize against that account. Obviously, critiques of the account are pertinent, but they aren't the core of the article.

PiCo reverted the changes, and in his comment, he said not to make such changes without discussion. The irony of that was that I not only gave my reasons for the changes in the edit summaries, I created this section and reiterated them here. He just ignored that. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Lisa - are you sure that an agenda is being pushed? Might it instead be the case that reliable sources support the version that PiCo and Ben Tillman have reverted to? Your changes appear to be "watering down" the statements but you are not providing any sources to support this position. Is it possible that the "school of thought which views the Genesis account as derivative of Mesopotamian creation myths" is actually the mainstream? If so it should be described (or implied) as such rather than relegated (as in your modification) to one "school of thought". Similarly, changing "Modern scholars" to some weaker phrasing may give the wrong impression to readers. If most "modern scholars" who are writing reliable sources subscribe to this interpretation then this should be clear from the text. Your edits are tending to imply there is a large body of scholarly work out there which has some alternative (and as yet unspecified) view. Can you direct us to that? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. But I'm not sure how a reliable source that's retained in the article is a problem. I simply moved it out of the lede, because the article isn't about near eastern creation myths and their relationship to the Genesis narrative. It's about the Genesis narrative itself. It's entirely appropriate to mention those parallels and the fact that a substantial school of scholarship feels there is a connection between them. But to make the whole article about that is definitely pushing an agenda.

As far as the monotheism piece that I removed, like I said, I don't have a problem with that material in an appropriate article. But its only connection here is that some scholars feel the Genesis account of creation is a monotheistic polemic. Which could be mentioned in a single sentence, with a link to the article on Monotheism.

I've mentioned before that there is substantial scholarship that holds the Genesis creation story to be either (a) metaphor/allegory ([13], [14], [15]), (b) schematic ([16], [17]), (c) literary ([18], [19]), or in the case of religious scholarship, (d) literal. PiCo feels that only sources which claim the narrative in Genesis to be polemic in nature are valid. I'm not sure why. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)