Talk:Adam and Eve/Archive 3

In Hieroglyphics
Adam and Eve's story is represented in hieroglyphics according to some. Apparently their names are Wa and Aa during the Zep Tepi (beginning) according to the following book: http://books.google.com/books?id=9E3WhlMfV98C&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=zep+tepi+adam+and+eve&source=bl&ots=agWS22axka&sig=AAPN8I4wUgyF7B-TZ_rIjr9ECU4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v2M5U52iFIGSqwHE-IGYDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=zep%20tepi%20adam%20and%20eve&f=false

In addition, the following are claimed to represent Adam and Eve as well:


 * Temple of Karnak - Tree of Life
 * Ished-Tree

Does this qualify to be added into the article? Twillisjr (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that book is self-published nonsense. See the author's website. "zp tpj" or zep tepi is mentioned at Ancient Egyptian creation myths. You might want to see . Eve Raymond does discuss Wa and Aa as do others, eg  but not in connection with Adam and Eve. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We ask editors not to refactor their talk page edits after they've been replied to, as it is confusing and can make the reply look meaningless. I don't know if the additions are in the book in question, but we can't use the book as a source. Have any academic sources made these connections? Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for that edit, and yes, there are scholarly sources, but I am having difficulty re-locating them at the present time. Twillisjr (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier version on Ugaritic clay tablets
An earlier version of the story of Adam has been discovered by Dutch Bible scholars Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor on Ugaritic clay tablets dating from the 13th century BC. This was in the Dutch, Belgian and German news after 15 May 2014. Can this be added in this article? Wiki-uk (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for some responses - I took a look at 2 articles, interesting. But it's all based on press releases about their new book- see which is in English. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
I would like to request an edit to the term used in the article calling the story of Adam and Eve a "myth". I am asking in turn to change it to "the Christian teaching based on the biblical accounts of Moses written in the Book of Genesis from the Bible" As a Christian, I feel it is in error to call something a myth if in fact it has not been proven to be such. The theory of evolution has not been proven either, however, it is not promoted on your site as a myth. I ask for the same respect. Thanks.

I would like to ask that the term "myth" not be used when referring to the historical accounts of the Books of Moses. Speaking as a Christian, and yet, defending the core beliefs of the Jew and the Muslim as well, the term "myth" would need to be backed up by evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist or that they had parents other than God their creator. I would have to note also that the Wikipedia article on evolution  is written as though it has been proven as absolutely sound and true, however, there is no proof of that "myth" either. If we're going to remain perfectly neutral, I ask that we be neutral all the way and not call all "unproven" teaching fact, when it's not. Thank you.

HeatherBlair (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Heather Blair

Are you the same person as the IP? Myth has been discussed a number of times, read through the page and archives. You might also want to read Jewish mythology and Christian mytholology. That myths exist in religions does not mean that the religion isn't true (although obviously not everyone religion can be true). It does not mean that Adam and Eve does not exist, that's a common misunderstanding sadly perpetuated by many people. This story is a creation myth, whatever factual basis it might have. We refer to the 'narrative' (not an account) in Genesis in the 2nd paragraph. Adam and Eve are both a narrative in religious texts and a creation myth. Hopefully others will respond as well as me. Proof doesn't come into any of this. Scientific theories are not never proven (as there is always the possibility of more information showing that they need adjustment, even that is unlikely. Just out of curiousity, why didn't you use the example of the theory of gravity as a scientific theory that has never been proven? Wikipedia does not try to be 'perfectly neutral', by the way, it follows a policy of neutral point of view which is not the same thing as neutrality. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." which is accurate for this article. As to evolution, it is a scientific theory and denoted as such. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to reply to the denial of the requested edit. I'm new to this, so I apologize. Yes, I was the original IP noted edit. I didn't know if it worked or not :-). Could a different term be used for all of them? "Teaching" at least would not give the impression that has already been ruled as false. "Myth" while it is described by dictionary.com as being "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, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." It is also described as "any invented story, idea, or concept. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person."  To put the historical account of the Bible in the same category as mythology is not accurate and is misleading. I would request it to be changed to "teaching". Being defined by dictionary.com as simply and neutrally "something that is taught."  HeatherBlair (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Heather Blair

As far as using the law of gravity as an example, I was under the impression that it had already been proven. Don't things that go up come down?? On earth, that is. :) Therefore, I wouldn't have used that one as an example.

HeatherBlair (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Heather Blair
 * Again, read Creation myth which is an accurate description of the Adam and Eve narrative. The Bible is not considered an accurate historical account by accredited historians. Also, Adam and Eve are not solely Christian figures. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Gravitation article, you'll see that words like "theory" and "postulate" abound. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014
Could you please include the following information from "The Urantia Book" under the subheading - Adam and Eve in the Urantia Book

In the Urantia Book, Adam and Eve are not considered to be the first human beings, but "Material Sons" of God from another world, whose divine mission was to biologically uplift the human race and advance civilisation on earth. Arriving approximately 35,000 years ago in the already established "Garden City" of Eden, they were given human forms and set about to progress mankind, but failed when Eve, unwittingly deceived by Caligastia (known in modern day thought as "the devil) prematurely attempted to improve the human gene pool by mating with a neighbouring Nodite leader. Subsequently, and to share Eve's fate, Adam also mated with a local Nodite woman, and both became "as mortals of the realm". Adam and Eve along with their children and a number of loyal Edenic citizens, left the Garden of Eden and re-established themselves in a second settlement between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  They continued in their attempt to teach and advance humankind, and their progeny mated with certain select peoples in order to improve the world's genetic stock. Eve eventually died of a weakened heart at 511 years of age, with Adam passing of old age 19 years later.

Thanks so much.

Mattyj77 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , do you have any reliable sources to cite for this information? Right now, I'm seeing that you're interpreting a primary source, which is only permitted for the most straightforward of statements, which this is not. Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , I could perhaps provide some information on scientific research that corroborates this information from this website http://www.ubthenews.com/topics/Adam_and_Eve.htm, sorry I am very new to using Wikipedia, apologies for any confusion. Mattyj77 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , that site is questionable at best, promoting one book with promotional language with a press release style. It doesn't seem to be a reliable source in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ((ping|Tutelary}}, ok fair enough, I am pretty sure the science checks out but thanks for considering my request, I will get bak to you when I have done some more research. Mattyj77 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , No problem, I'm just another editor like you, and don't have any grudge against this information if there are indeed reliable sources on the subject. Just that site is questionable, and is not a reliable source. Per no original research, stuff in articles has to be verifiable. Tutelary (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The science is not going to check out, but in any case this is WP:UNDUE - why would we include this fringe view? Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , How do you know? Might need to give that some time...in any event the request has been denied, no need to discuss the entry anymore, no problem on this end. Thanks again for considering the request. Mattyj77 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case you didn't watchlist it Obviously, this was done in my assumption of good faith for them. To be added to the article, it would absolutely need more reliable sources, which is why I gave the benefit of the doubt for them to find more sources. Who knows? Maybe it could actually be correct. I just took a brief overview of it and gave my thoughts, was not intending to promote any possible WP:FRINGE material. Tutelary (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, no way was I suggesting that you were promoting any fringe material, apologies if you thought I was. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014
this needs to be amended from the format of being called a myth, it is not a "theory" such as evolution. It is a documented account of actual events. If not presented in such a way, what is to keep people in the future from calling falsehoods truths as well as truths falsehoods. What once was accepted as fact has in more recent times become myths, legends and fables. Science is not always proven correct. We were taught Pluto was a planet for centuries. Then one day someone decided to inform us that they suspected that was incorrect and now it is no longer a planet. We must have things presented as they are not what a certain person or person may think or "theorize" they are. our very essence depends on knowing our past to help us pave a better future.

Dealerkrj (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please present the exact text you are proposing and sources that say Adam and Eve actually existed. --Neil N  talk to me 06:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to talk about nude pictures of Adam and Eve. First of all, he is considered prophet in all Ibrahimic religions. So we should all respect him and should post their nude pictures.Secondly, as also written in the article that after committing sin he realized his nakedness. That means he never realized his nakedness before that. That he was not naked before. This is also written in Qur'an that as soon as they disobeyed God their nakedness appeared and they hid their parts with leaves of the tree. So he was not naked all the time. But article has shown only the nude pictures. If pictures are integral part of the article then I request you that all pictures should not be nude. Only 1 picture should be nude(if necessary) in front of the subject "Expulsion". Creating a gallery of nude pictures is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsiddiqui41 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting the source text. Adam was naked but did not know nakedness was something to be ashamed of. Secondly, if a significant proportion of notable art works portray him as naked then that's what we're going to show in the article. --Neil N  talk to me 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph poorly written.
Since the full story is presented below in more detail, the initial paragraphs should not be so wordy and focus less on trivial details. (e.g. "God curses only the serpent and the ground.")

I suggest modifying this paragraph as follows:

In the Book of Genesis, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, man and woman were created together in God's image and jointly given instructions to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden where he is to have dominion over the plants and animals. God prohibits Adam from eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve is later created from one of Adam's ribs to be Adam's companion. However, the serpent tricks Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree. God then punishes all parties involved, and banishes them from the Garden of Eden.

This makes it more concise and clear, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.12.56 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing
How come when I edit this page, it doesn't save? Aaron Saltzer (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you breaking a link and changing a cited direct quote? DMacks (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Myth?
What makes you so sure it's a myth? Aaron Saltzer (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the cite. If you disagree, you are free to list scholarly sources that say otherwise. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 03:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And as another editor wrote today on the Flood myth talk page, "Alan Dundes defined myth as a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society" - from our article on myth. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation indicates that a "myth" is a "symbolic story", but that begs the question. Many would argue that the story is not symbolic and should not be classified as a "myth".  Why not just say "creation narratives" or "cosmology" instead of "creation myths"? 96.227.142.233 (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Biblical text criticism
Biblical text criticism claims that this is a late addition to the "Old Testament", so I want some of this text criticism debate in this article. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification: biblical text criticism as a history genre, claims that the Adam and Eve myth of the Genesis is a late addition to the Genesis (or the Judaeo-Christian myth) so a small section treating this topic would be appropriate IMHO. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Myth
According to common vernacular, "myth" is shorthand for mythology and connotation is with untruth, yes, by citing dictionary references you can delineate it as non-fanciful, but to many people the relegation of their ethos to this connotation is hurtful. Yes, you are technically correct in your obstinance, but please be mindful and willing to compromise. This terminology is easily substituted without being inflammatory. I am speaking to you directly Ian Thompson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8480:F0F:B867:EED7:221B:968A (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But this is an encyclopedia. And even theologians who believe in Judaism or Christianity use the term. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Lets make this easy for you, google "myth" myth miTH/ noun noun: myth; plural noun: myths 2.   a widely held but false belief or idea. "he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"

Yes, I removed definition 1. to highlight definition 2. specifically the "false" portion. To many people the term myth implies falsity and this is highly insulting to them to have the first sentence of a core facet of their beliefs be attributed as a lie. There are many other ways to explain the topic without using inflammatory verbage, the fact that a minority of editors are reverting the changes of a multitude of users is insensitive and belies a purposeful agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.222.166 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When I Googled it, the first thing I got was "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, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." Also, Wikipedia sides with academia, not anti-intellectualism.  Your claim of a "purposeful agenda" is ridiculous and fails our policy on assuming good faith.  Again, we simply side with academia, not anti-intellectualism.  If we're not going to assume good faith here, you're the one who had to cherry pick a generalist source (which is intellectually dishonest) instead of assessing the sum of academic sources.  The imagined "multitude" you refer to are just occasional editors who don't know what the word means, so why should we let their changes stand?  If people changed the sky article to say that it was orange because they didn't know what the word "blue" meant, would it be right to let that change stand?  No.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So many ways to poke hole in your argument. Lets start. First and foremost, you attribute my argument as anti-intellectualism whereas your side is academic, based solely on your opinion. You attribute my argument as "cherry picking a generalist source" which is a contradictory statement. You state that my observation that dozens of editors making the same edits over months is "occasional" and then state these editors don't know what the word "myth" means when I've provided dictionary reference showing that they do, in fact, know that "myth" can mean false. In summation, this is a inflammatory term, evidenced by the history of editing, it is very simple to substitute it with a term which will not insult a demographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.222.166 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm...grr! This is not a discussion forum. We discuss the contents of the article, and as for terms, we use them in the conventional way, whether logical or not. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"hmm girl"? is this intelligent discourse? You are appealing to outgroup bias by attributing my argument to "them" and your argument as "we" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:7535:9868:5376:DF13:387F (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "hmm girl" comment shouldn't have been made. I don't know if you are the same IP above arguing that we shouldn't use 'myth' as it's inflammatory. In any case, we should not stop using correct terminology in order to avoid offending people. That argument would mean Wikipedia shouldn't make it clear that evolution takes place, and the earth if far older than a few thousand years, etc - all statements that offend some religious minorities. Doug Weller (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory discussion
Saying that Adam and Eve are part of a creation myth is sourced and neutral. C.S. Lewis referred to the story of Jesus as 'a myth that is also true,' so Christians who know what the word "myth" actually means (*raises hand*) shouldn't be offended. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a myth. If it is a myth, then so is evolution TomcatMurr1966 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, this discussion was made as part of an edit war report. A user (not blocked) was repeatedly removing the word myth from the article.
 * Academic sources use "myth" to refer to any sacred story, regardless of less educated misunderstandings of the word. Evolution is a scientific explanation based on a collection of observations and experiments (which is rather distinct from a story), which claims no religious status. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Evolution is a myth. We have no proof of it TomcatMurr1966 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that evolution is a myth, this is not relevant to the history of Adam and Eve. I would suggest we focus on the article at hand rather than deviate into mythology. The appropriate word to use in this article is "event". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.98 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, hard to take seriously anyone that says evolution is a myth. Doug Weller (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it hard to take me seriously, all I am trying to do is contribute to Wikipedia in a fair and balanced manner so as to help shake off the reputation of liberal bias. Something which is present in this article by labelling creation as a "myth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.98 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you're trying to counter mainstream science. If you think that mainstream scientists don't overwhelmingly support evolution, you've been lied to. This has nothing to do with politics, and that you think it is only shows that you've done no real research into this at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Expulsion from Eden
In my opinion, the section on the Expulsion from Eden, one of the main sections of the article, has some "structural problems". For one thing, Eden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not described here, the fruit from this tree is not mentioned, and the eating of the fruit is only obliquely described as "sin". Some of these important parts of the story are given in the lead, yes, but not with the same scholarly detail as given to other content in the main body of the article. I think it might make sense to move some of the content in the lead into the Expulsion from Eden section. What do people think? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do.Editor2020, Talk 03:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

✅ - but other editors are welcome to weigh in, augment (especially with references to scholarly commentary), fix, etc. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Dominion over the plants and animals?
At various times in the present form of the article, it is said that God gave Adam (or man) dominion over the Eden. Dominion is really just something emphasized in the first creation story of Genesis 1, where "Adam and Eve" are just anonymous "man and woman". In the second creation, Genesis 2, Adam is more of just a resident of Eden. He can name the animals and till the ground, yes, but the stronger notion of "dominion" is not mentioned (at least not that I see). I plan to relax the dominion language in this article tomorrow. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

✅ - but I've been wanting to insert specific page numbers to the reference by Levenson (2004), but I can't seem to figure out how to do this. Note that the citation info for Mathews (1996) is also not optimal (no complete bibliographic info is given for that source). Hopefully somebody can fix these problems. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015
Please change "creation myths" to "creation accounts" because many Abrahamic religions believe this is a literal truth and not a myth. To declare it a myth is offensive to us. Thank you.

76.90.132.53 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources for this. Also, see discussions above. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Union of Opposites   ‖ 13:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Adam and Eve are a Myth from Ugarit
I think that someone (not me cause Im not interested in editing anything that has to do with religion) should read this and add it to the article New book: Adam, Eve, and the Devil – A New Beginning.

This Adam and Eve thing could have been a normal myth incorporated to the bible (which is normal since Ugarit is northwest-Semitic and ancient Hebrews were also northwest-Semites).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Creation MYTH
Please replace the word "myth" in the context above, in the first sentence of the article, with something like "account" or "story". While the writer's belief may be that the story is a myth, this is not a fact and should be left up to the interpretation of the reader.

Jbytell

- I totally agree with Jbytell. It's a creation story; not yet debunked

TomcatMurr1966 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, mainstream academia disagrees with both of you as to what myth actually means. Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic sources, so unless you can demonstrate that the sources cited in this article do not represent mainstream academia, tough luck.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, i can go ahead and add 'myth' to an article about biological evolution. no harm, right? *rolls eyes* TomcatMurr1966 (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to respond like that, I'm going have to assume you're just a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest the word "event" as we are talking about an event in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.98 (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're going to do that, we need to describe the thawing of Ginnungigap, Purusha's self-sacrifice, and the division of Pangu as historical events as well. If you don't want to do that, then you need to admit that you're pushing a religious bias based on only one interpretation of the Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Difficult to assume good faith of the IP with edits like this. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Border Town   ‖ 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It would make no difference if it was changed to "story" or "narrative". I am not criticizing, but why choose a word which many other users would be offended? After all, it is not the only choice. I no longer get easily offended by anything here, but why choose a derogatory word when there are other choices? After all, if you need to balance other religions, change all references to "myth" in other religious articles as well. It would not make any difference. Also, evolution is not a myth either, but a scientific view. So, "myth" should not be used there either. Just say religious creation narratives are "stories" or "religious narratives" and evolution is a "theory" or "scientific fact".68.100.116.118 (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

BCE vs BC, a question of era
I recently changed BC to BCE in this article and was, then, reverted by, who insisted that I must first obtain consensus for this kind of change. Honestly, in this case, I fell like this should b a clear case of what is appropriate for this article. Adam and Eve is a Jewish myth. All of the places in the article that use BC (or I think should use BCE) are in reference to Jewish priestly literature or reign of King David. I propose to change BC to BCE. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue tends to appear in many discussion pages and has its section in our article on style. See: Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. The relevant section is the following: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change."

If you still consider the era change a valid edit, please start a discussion here. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I read that in the manual and decided to start this discussion .... Do you have a response? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would agree with the change in era. This is of more relevance to the Ancient Near East than Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is proposal for a modest change, but one that I think is appropriate. One step at a time, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

✅ Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Science
How does "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24- it has been shown that human chromosome 2 formed when Humans split from Chimpanzees, and the associated two chromosomes 2a and 2b remain separate in the other primates" directly relate to Adam and Eve? This comes from the Adam_and_Eve section. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it seems over-specific to me. I was Bold and simply edited that part out to make the section more to-the-point -- details of genetics are delegated to relevant linked articles. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gamall. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015
Place "citation needed" after the last line in the introductory section: "There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever actually existed, and their existence is incompatible with human genetics." In particular I'm talking about the second part - 'their existence is incompatible with human genetics.' I genuinely want to read about why!

207.179.110.34 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The intro summarizes the body. In this case, the citations are in the section "Physical evidence." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see the reply above.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   04:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is weird: some citations in the introduction are allowed and some others aren't. Please, be consistent and either add a citation to the sentence about the incompatibility or remove the other citations from the introduction. As it looks now, the introductions gives a strange impression of prejudice. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is redundancy. The lead summarizes the body.  If information is shared by the lead and the body, and a reference is given in the body, it does not need to be given in the lead.  See WP:LEADCITE.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Xtalk: You need a good reason to remove citations to reliable sources. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Adam and Eve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160121132519/http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html%20Judaism's%20Rejection%20Of%20Original%20Sin to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html%20Judaism's%20Rejection%20Of%20Original%20Sin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 09:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Piping God in Abrahamic religions to YHWH instead of God a bad idea
How is this justified? Doug Weller talk 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In the sections narrating the Genesis account of the Garden and the Fall, use YHWH instead of God.
This would make the article supremely faithful to the original Hebraic piece, and possibly more neutral.GreenessItself (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * let,s not. It is confusing and not necessarily more faithful, we'd need evidence for that. And why add JHVH as a spelling? For that matter, why not Yahweh? We don't have a policy of neutrality. WP:NPOV is not the same as neutrality.  Doug Weller  talk 18:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Study Bible uses "Lord God" in this section; notes on YHWH are only given in marginal notes. So, yes, let's stick with "God". Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

GreenessItself sockpuppetry
Sockpuppet investigations/Gonzales John - not sure if anyone wants to revert all the way back but it can be done. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed"
Helping this article with evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed is the Monarchy! All Royals came from Adam and Eve Ur of the Ziggurat of Ur who are prime examples of Royalty and their bloodline connecting all and current Royals around the world to Iraq and the Bible. So, what we have here is Royalty and proof Adam and Eve existed and so should Royalty be mentioned in the Article as such living evidence. Thank you for your cooperation. 68.111.162.254 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Elohim and Yahweh as polytheistic gods
I think the article should make it clear that Elohim and Yahweh were polthistic deities, and not be sunject to pro-Christian bias. It miht confuse readers, but appealing to reader's egos is less important than telling them the truth. Any oppositions?49.144.167.188 (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You a number of spelling errors. More importantly, your unsourced editorialising about God/Elohim/Yahweh is unacceptable in this article. This has been discussed & rejected before; see above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

All right, I see. 49.144.167.188 (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam and Eve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.annettereed.com/RS-2DD3/3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224002549/http://wesley.nnu.edu:80/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead image
The current lead image depicts Adam and Eve as having European features, and does not really do the myth's Middle Eastern origin justice. I've decided to replace it with a Middle Eastern depiction. Any negative reactions?49.144.167.188 (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead image should represent the story itself. So is the image you are proposing to use Jewish/Hebrew in some way? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It is Middle Eastern, and thus much closer to being Hebrew than any Western Christian artwork.49.144.167.188 (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rubens picture helps to illustrate the article for most readers. The proposed File:Adam and Eve from a copy of the Falnama.jpg doesn't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

49.144.167.188, I'd welcome an image that reflects ancient Jewish heritage. This might appear early on in the article. A recognizable image is best for the lead. But this image you favor doesn't cut it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead and creation myth
- Even if we accept Biologos as a source, they list three alternate views, not one. We also have other views detailed in Adam_and_Eve so any changes to the lead should be consistent with the body. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

something i added
I added some content on how some have recounciled a real Adam and Eve with evolutionIlikerabbits! (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Really not notable enough to mention. Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

But since the article says Adam and Eve is incompatible with evolutionary genetics it might be worth mentioning this there Ilikerabbits! (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Myth versus Belief
The point of providing such information to readers is to provide a unbiased view of information, to allow the readers to make up their own mind. As there are many readers, and as shown in your own statistical poll referenced in your article, a majority that have religious faiths that believe in the reality of Adam and Eve, I don't know why Wikipedia needs to fail to respect them by calling this a "myth," rather than a "religious belief." Various religions have a number of beliefs that are based on faith, not scientific factual analysis. I imagine if Wikipedia decides to go through all of the major religious faiths of the world and describe their core beliefs as "myths," a large number of its readers and users will be justifiably offended, and unnecessarily so. The term "myth" is a value-judgement on someone's else's beliefs. It is not necessary to use this judgmental term in referring to other people's religious beliefs. I believe simply changing the phrase "myth" to "religious belief" would address this matter, while still allow Wikipedia a diversity of views. Jeffreyimm (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyimm (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Creation myth is the correct, formal, terminology for such foundational stories of ancient supernatural beings and heroes, in this (Genesis is a textbook example of such) and any religion, and indeed they are and should be described as such in relevant articles (and supported by reliable sources). This is a discussion that has been had multiple times (to stay euphemistic) in this and related articles -- appeals to offence and the majority are not new, and have consistently failed to gain any traction. This is in accordance to many policies, including WP:RNPOV. Unless you have a fundamentally new angle on the question, this is unlikely to go anywhere.    — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 23:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

perhaps we should add a clarification, to avoid offense, for example "The use of the word myth in this article is not meant to imply it is untrue"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikerabbits! (talk • contribs) 06:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to change creation myth to creation narrative as it is less offensive to believers, also the word narrative is used throughout the article. I don't see the need for unnecessary provocation. WhyJesus (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Offensive to a religious believer is not a reason to change a term. It is a myth which means a story. It is not more verifiable than Greek Mythology. -- Alexf(talk) 12:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Since I was blocked from posting on my own page without valid cause, I'll post here. I did not attack anyone. As usual the truth seems to be treated like hate speech these days. Refuting false claims by God denying atheists should be recognized and accommodated. If there is evidence to the contrary then make your argument. Where is my post on Adam and Eve that should be here? You deny censoring and yet you do it. There are two kinds of liars in my estimation, liars and damned liars. The latter are unrepentant and damned to hell fire according to my copy of the book. My advice repent quickly, keep the word narrative in and keep your delusional evolutionary biases out. WhyJesus (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been warned before that Wikpedia talk pages are NOT forums, please stop your proselytising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another editor has handed him a 31 hour block for disruption. Doug Weller  talk 10:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Does the Bible actually say that God banished 'the human'?
Second paragraph, last sentence, 'the man' was changed to 'the human'. My Bible says 'the man'. Is this change according to an actual translation of scripture or is it someone's opinion? Thanks. Nameshmame (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Orthodox Jewish Bible says, "24 So He drove out HaAdam; and He placed miKedem (at the east) of the Gan Eden HaKeruvim, and a flaming cherev which was ever-turning, to be shomer over the Derech Etz HaChayyim (the Way of the Tree of Life, see Yn 14:6 on Derech)." HaAdam refers to mankind or humanity; the Hebrew word for man is Ish. YoPienso (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that cut and dried. He was 'the man' before Eve was created, but in Genesis 2: 22 it says "And God Yahweh fashioned into a woman the rib that he had removed from the man, and he brought her to the man."  Nameshmame (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Nameshmame (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes on verse 22 in the Anchor Bible: ''to the man. In Heb. the defined form ''hã' adãm is "man," the undefined 'ãdãm, "Adam," since a personal name cannot take the definite article. With Prepositions like le- (the 'e' should be raised and have an apostraphe) "to," the article is elided and only the vowel marks the difference between "to Adam" and "to the man", so that the consonantal text is bound to be ambiguous (l'dm in either case). Since the form without preposition appears invariably as hã' adam in ii-iii (the undefined form occurs first in iv 25), and is not mentioned until the naming of Adam v 2, the vocalized "to Adam" (also vs. 20, iii 17) is an anachronism. In iii, LXX favors "Adam" even in the presence of the consonantal article." (E. A. Speiser, Genesis: a new translation with introduction and commentary, 1986, Doubleday and Company Inc. New York, page 18)Nameshmame (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What's your point here? The note you're quoting says that Adam wasn't referred to as an individual until Gen. 4:25. If you're going for an entirely literal approach and insist HaAdam refers to one specific human male, i.e., Adam, then Eve wasn't driven out. Does that make sense? YoPienso (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My Bible says 'the man'. The Anchor Bible says in Genesis 3:23, "So God Yahweh banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken." It used to say 'the man' in this article but it was changed. The real question is why would you use words that aren't there? Nameshmame (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this is a moot point since the wording was changed almost a year ago. Bye. YoPienso (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I objected at that time. I'll take your answer to mean that you can't answer my objection. You're a light-weight! Bye!Nameshmame (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is a valid objection to the wording of the article that can't be refuted by anyone here, you have an obligation to change it since you have blocked everyone else from doing so
You changed 'the man' to 'Adam and Eve'. This is not supported by the verses in question. Also you state that the 'J' source is older than the 'P' source. This is refuted by the source I cited below. Please correct this and undo your changes to the wording 'the man'. Nameshmame (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I made no such change. All I've done is moved your post to the bottom where it belongs. Doug Weller  talk 16:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Dating of documentary sources
I would argue that the 'P' source is older than the 'J' source. From the introduction to the Anchor Bible notes and commentary on Genesis: The question of P's date is difficult to solve for several reasons. Numerous sections, especially in the other books of the Tetrateuch, have long been relegated by the critics to a relatively late age, after the Babylonian Exile in many instances. Of late, however, there has been a growing sentiment--backed by a substantial amount of internal evidence--in favor of dating various portions of P to pre-Exilic times, and in some cases to the pre monarchic period. This evidence embraces even certain passages in the ritualistic Book of Leviticus. A careful new look at the P material in Genesis is therefore definitely in order.

When we re-examine, for instance, the genealogies of the patriarchs before the Flood (cf. v), the style and approach are unmistakably P's, yet the material has to be derived from ancient data. The same applies to the Edomite lists in ch. xxxvi. Just so--to stray for a moment from the Book of Genesis--the census records in Num xxvi, although again set down by P, deal with names and situations (notably the distribution of land holdings by lot) that go back of necessity to the early stages of the Israelite settlement in Canaan. At the same time, there are other passages throughout the Tetrateuch that are undoubtedly much later. All this testifies to a wide coverage by P, ranging over many centuries. The conclusion that is usually drawn from these facts is that we have before us a series of separate P documents, as many as ten according to some critics. But such solutions fall to account for the prevailing uniformity in outlook and phraseology which typifies P as a whole.

The assumption that commends itself in these circumstances is that P was not an individual, or even a group of like-minded contemporaries, but a school with an unbroken history reaching back to early Israelite times, and continuing until the Exile and beyond...(E. A. Speiser, Genesis: a new translation with introduction and commentary, 1986, Doubleday and Company Inc. New York, page xxv-xxvi)Nameshmame (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speiser is a rather dated source (1986), but yes, the composition of the Torah remains disputed. To bring your comments up to date, these days there's a broad division between American scholars, who still hold to some form of the documentary hypothesis, and the Europeans, who don't. Both of them recognise P as a source, although disagreeing over whether it's a document or not (i.e., a school of thought/way of thinking that may have persisted for centuries). The argument that P is older than J obviously depends on seeing both P and J as unified documents rather than as "schools"; as a way of seeing the composition problem it's uniquely Israeli, and identified with Kaufman. Kaufman was trying to establish the argument that Israel was always monotheistic, and that the revelation to Moses at Sinai was a real historical event - this idea is now well outside the mainstream. Anyway, to summarise, everyone agrees that the Adam and Eve story belongs to the J source, but there's no agreement over the date of J.PiCo (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

First, is it your opinion that a 1986 publication date makes commentary on a book first compiled more than 2000 years ago 'dated'? Or do you have a source to that effect? Second, you say the composition problem is uniquely Israeli and identified with Kaufman. Where on earth did you come up with that? It started in 1753 with the French Physician Jean Astruc. His suggestions later became a point of departure in the literary criticism of Genesis. The documentary theory was developed on well-understood collective evidence. The history of this process begins on page xxii of Speiser's introduction. Nameshmame (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Scholarship on the sources/composition of the Pentateuch has moved on quite bit since 1986. The quasi-consensus on the documentary hypothesis has collapsed, and with it the attempt to date the documentary sources. Regarding Kaufman, what's identified with him is the idea that the P source is the earliest source. Also, please note that most of what I wrote supports your points.PiCo (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"Scholarship on the sources/composition of the Pentateuch has moved on quite a bit since 1986." Is this your opinion? "The quasi-consensus on the documentary hypothesis's collapsed." Do you have a source to that effect? Finally, as to the claim that the dating of the P source comes down to some guy with a discredited theory (according to you). There was a substantial amount of internal evidence in favor of a more ancient date. This evidence embraces even certain passages in the ritualistic Book of Leviticus. "When we re-examine, for instance, the genealogies of the patriarchs before the Flood (cf. v), the style and approach are unmistakably P's, yet the material has to be derived from ancient data. The same applies to the Edomite lists in ch. xxxvi.  Just so--to stray for a moment from the Book of Genesis--the census records in Num xxvi, although again set down by P, deal with names and situations (notably the distribution of land holdings by lot) that go back of necessity to the early stages of the Israelite settlement in Canaan.  At the same time, there are other passages throughout the Tetrateuch that are undoubtedly much later.  All this testifies to a wide coverage by P, ranging over many centuries.  The conclusion that is usually drawn from these facts is that we have before us a series of separate P documents, as many as ten according to some critics.  But such solutions fail to account for the prevailing uniformity in outlook and phraseology which typifies P as a whole." Now don't give me any more of your scholarly-sounding excuses unless you can cite sources. Nameshmame (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC) If I weren't familiar with the Wikipedia crowd I'd be surprised that you got yourself in a tizzy and deleted this last post immediately after I published it. If you had a fraction of the faith you claim to have you would not be afraid of this discussion. Nameshmame (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam and the serpent
"who was apparently party to the entire exchange between the woman and the snake" was removed from the article last night and I replaced it with an edit summary that showed I wasn't sure if it was in the source, which I couldn't read on my iPad. The editor posted to my talk page saying it wasn't in the source. But on my large screen PC I see the source states "who appears to have been present at the encounter with the serpent". But this is disputed so I changed apparently to 'may'. This is just a kludge and might need fixing. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

odd section
this section is odd, and I understand the reason for pico's removal. pls explain why this stuff should be here, gathered in one place under this strange header.


 * Physical evidence


 * Scientific incompatibility

The story of Adam and Eve contradicts the scientific consensus that humans evolved from earlier species of hominids and is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics; in particular, if all humans descended from two individuals that lived several thousand years ago, the observed variation would require an impossibly high mutation rate. This entails a lower bound on the size of the ancestral group, currently thought to be of the order of 10,000 individuals.

The names Adam and Eve are used metaphorically in a scientific context to designate the patrilineal and matrilineal most recent common ancestors, the Y-chromosomal Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve. Those are not fixed individuals, nor is there any reason to assume that they lived at the same time, let alone that they met or formed a couple. A recent study on the subject estimates that the Y-chromosomal Adam lived in prehistory 120 to 156 thousand years ago, while the Mitochondrial Eve lived 99 to 148 thousand years ago. Another recent study places the Y-chromosomal Adam 180 to 200 thousand years ago.
 * Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve

The evidence against Adam and Eve existing has caused many Christians to move away from a literal interpretation and belief in the Genesis creation narrative to an allegorical approach, while others continue to believe in what they see as fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. In particular the evidence for their non-existence casts doubt on original sin and the origin and nature of evil.
 * Impact on religion

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Because the historicity or otherwise is completely on topic, and this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text??? Reverted with extreme prejudice.GliderMaven (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The content is incoherent, and the third section is actually creationist fuckwittery. The second paragraph makes biological claims of "accepted knowledge" based on primary sources, which we don't use. The first paragraph is kind of OK but also sources scientific content based on poor sources. The three don't really hang together well under the header. You should perhaps set your "extreme prejudice" aside and think clearly. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't think that material is necessary: the lead points out it's mythological, the top links to a disambiguation page which includes Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. As for the last part, if it could go anywhere it would be under the Christianity section.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, we have a responsibility to explain that there is very strong evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist. The article simply describing Adam and Eve as it's written in the bible is incorrect and unencyclopedic.GliderMaven (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The notion is OK, the execution is just very bad. Am working on something better and will propose here. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Then we need to revert your edit until you've done that, because even a 'very bad' section that is nevertheless accurate and referenced is better than a section you haven't written yet, and may, for all I know, never finish. I have no problem at all with you replacing it with better material, at any time.GliderMaven (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever the exact timing of the various reversions and proposals, let me just toss in my opinion that, once the dust settles, there should be some mention of the historicity issue. Given that the historicity of Adam and Eve is widely discussed (in all manner of sources), I think this Wikipedia article should at least contain something on the question. Something reliable, of course. Alephb (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I kind of think we should just bring the lead of Human evolution here, under a header "Human origins" or the like. Those paragraphs need a bit of clean up but I think that would do. The other two sub-sections are not really relevant here. -- Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be off topic, the topic is Adam and Eve.GliderMaven (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would need an introductory sentence, for sure. I was trying to think of how to quickly address your desire for ~something~ there now.
 * The content that really should be here is a "history of interpretation" of this story, that would pull in both the current main section on the nachleben in literature and art, and the current main section on "Abrahamic traditions", and add a subsection section on "Anthropology".
 * All of this would show more clearly that there is a long tradition in each of the traditions of reading this story on multiple levels (the classic 4 in Christianity being literal/historical, allegorical, moral, and anagogical/mystical) and showing how especially starting in the Enlightenment the historical one became less tenable on multiple levels (and seen increasingly as one among many creation myths as the field of anthropology established itself), and even more so following Darwin, and even more so as the sciences of paleoanthropology and genetics grew. And how a counter-movement arose in the form of fundamentalism in some of the Abrahamic traditions, which is how we have the situation today. We can probably pull that together here with WLs and bits from the relevant articles elsewhere so that we remain well-knitted into the fabric of WP and this article. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is all good thinking and I want you to improve the article, but right now the article is missing the material, so I'm reverting the removal until you can do that.GliderMaven (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please discuss how to move forward. How you feel about my intentions was never relevant and is still irrelevant. Do you favor this "history of interepretation" approach, or do you look for some other structure that would make this coherent? Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I simply don't believe you, you're just deleting material you don't like. Wikipedia has a scientific slant, and your editing is going completely against that. Removing material like this when you have nothing remotely to replace it with is simply not on.GliderMaven (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I really doubt this. In any case, we should focus on the content not editors...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Glidermaven exactly because you are editing "with extreme prejudice" I am trying to go slow and build consensus. It would be helpful to get your input on the way forward Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding content by GliderMaven per WP:FRINGE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understand, that Adam and Eve actually happened is the WP:FRINGE theory. And that's the problem. What Jytdog has done has removed all of the non fringe material from the article. The stated reason he gave at the top of this section is because "this section is odd" which seems to me to be simply a euphemism. What has happened is exactly like removing all the science from the astrology article, or the homeopathy article. There is now a massive NPOV problem in this article.GliderMaven (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care that much how you do it, but if good science doesn't magically reappear in this article, stat, then I'll be looking to get the arbcom creationism-related restrictions applied to anyone and everyone who has been removing all the science bits. Clear?GliderMaven (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that we generally agree with you that mention of the scientific consensus is required and that some new material should replace the older one. — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except I don't believe you. It's now been removed for 4 days, and it was AWOL for months before that. And there's been negligible effort to write anything to replace it, and the removal significantly mischaracterised it in the first place. When people revert war out material like this, they're not trying to add material like that in, otherwise they would do that.GliderMaven (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And what you don't seem to understand is that I am not going to waste my time drafting something along the lines i suggested if you are going to "revert with prejudice" yet again. I am specifically waiting for you to respond to the "history of interpretation" proposal or make some movement toward constructing something.Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a new historicity section, please review. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So you did! Very nice, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

First sentence in lead
Unfortunately a revert with simply a "nope" edit summary is not very informative or helpful in understanding why the edit was rejected. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I felt that this edit was closer to the long standing first sentence in the intro that existed from at least four years ago to a couple of weeks ago. I believe that this was a neutral wording compromise that most parties on most of the spectrum could agree to since it linked to creation myth, which is a bit more informational than just "mythical". I don't believe that "mythical" was ever actually discussed, making the hidden note somewhat misleading (I'm still digging through the talk archive to see where that discussion actually happened). So what is wrong with the previously long-standing first sentence? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to talk. This is unfortunately a style thing.  This is going to end up at an RfC that will come down to who gets out more votes (not !votes, just "votes"). So yeah, "nope" because you have opened the gates to hell. (this version that you linked to sucks less than the one you tried and i wonder why you didn't go for it?) Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I was trying to hew a bit closer to what the Leeming citation talks about with respect to ancestry, but I don't think it's necessary since that concept is introduced later in the intro. One of my main concerns is that a wlink to "creation myth" is more informative, easier to defend than "mythical", and easier to trace to discussions on the talk page per the hidden note. Would you or anyone else object to me restoring the 24 Oct 2013 version, which is truer to the long-standing status quo? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If this means the first sentence of revision 578537442, I see no problem with it. — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Eviction from Eden
At the end of the section "Eden narrative (The Fall) " the text relates that God banishes Adam and Eve from Eden in case they eat from the Tree of Life as well. Whoever wrote this claims this is the first mention of the Tree of Life, but it isn't, it is first mentioned in Genesis 2:9 (King James version) whereas the eviction is related in Genesis 3:23. An interesting diversion is that Adam is allowed to eat from the Tree of Life along with anything else in the Garden, apart from the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 2:16-17). Presumably he does not do so, and once he has full knowledge, God can no longer run the risk of him also obtaining immortality, leading to the eviction. May I edit the text? Cathi M (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Cathi M (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Historicity section
While the historicity section was a good idea, does any of the given sources actually contain mention to Adam and Eve?

The Irving Finkel source is about the well-known connection between the Noah narrative from the Genesis and Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Kostas Kampourakis source is about evolutionary biology, and the Netherlands source is about life in the Precambrian eon (4600–541 million years ago). The N. Takahata source is about human evolution. They seem unlikely to be analyzing the Genesis.

Per Wikipedia: Synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you contesting that this article is about a story within the primeval narrative section of Genesis? Are you contesting that this is creation myth that includes human origins? Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The section was quickly written to fill a need and can probably be improved. I indeed myself selected these examples because they are obvious, notable and sourced.  I'm confident that we could find an additional source to make those connections, or which is directly about the historicity, because it's not new knowledge.  The section also doesn't cover human evolution itself much (but was intended to be general and short for weight concerns).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The previous section that was carelessly deleted for 'being odd' did actually use references that referred to Adam and Eve. Also, the section title 'historicity', is inaccurate if you're talking about LUCA and ancestral species, because LUCA and all the other species are prehistoric. History is only written material, yes?GliderMaven (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not careless. See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Carelessly, as in caring about how the text reads, rather than the references or accuracy, and while removing verifiable content. So, yes, carelessly, is entirely accurate.GliderMaven (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just as a heads up to everyone, Jytdog has been, and today, threatening me on my talk page, about him trying to get me blocked if he doesn't have his own way in this article.GliderMaven (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Among other material that has vanished is the impact that the lack of historicity has, and is having on religions.GliderMaven (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with a decision is one thing; mischaracterizing others' actions as "careless" is another.  You are generating more diffs for AE which is ...not good for you.
 * In any case this side discussion is not about improving the article, so I will not reply on this issue further. Happy to discuss content, as always. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note that this diff is clearly WP:POINTy. There is no discussion about POV issues per se here. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Genealogical Adam
The claim of scientific incompatibility is in correct. It should be changed to:

There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed. It is commonly thought, incorrectly, that their existence is in conflict with human evolutionary genetics. However, human evolutionary genetics allows for a "genealogical" Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, as long as there were others "outside the garden," with whom their offspring interbred.[5] This couple could even have been recent, less than 10,000 years ago, in the Middle East.[6] Though science does not demonstrate they existed, allowance for their existence might alleviate tension between religious communities and evolutionary science; a 2014 poll reports that 56% of Americans believe that "Adam and Eve were real people", and 44% believe so with strong or absolute certainty.[7]

Citing: http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/ http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/ http://peacefulscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GenealogicalAncestry-Swamidass.pdf (accepted preprint)

The scientific error is incorrectly equating genealogical and genetic ancestry. They are not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sswamida (talk • contribs) 06:16, December 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk page posts, and please don't insert them into previous threads. I moved it to the bottom of the page where it should have been.
 * I note that this thread had been started by an editor whose username is almost identical to the author or the material being sourced (S. Joshua Swamidass) suggesting that the  user is the author in question. This appears to someone citing his own, as yet unpublished, work. That's more than a bit questionable, and the claim of a possible common ancestor less than 10,000 years ago needs far more than this. Meters (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Haven't had to go through this before. I am the author. If you do not want to cite me that is fine. The key paper was first published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842 There are several supporting studies. This well established finding in population genetics. Sswamida (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A problem is that this has nothing to do with the mythological iron-age couple. The historicity section also mentions some science which borrowed the names (because of notability), but clarifies that it is otherwise unrelated (those two lines don't meet at a precise point and go back to many thousand years before the period of this narrative).  We would need a reliable secondary source (without conflict of interest) to summarize (these may exist if the new hypothesis is notable, becomes mainstream).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources are not hard to find. There are 49 references and a detailed review of the scientific evidence here . It is just flat out incorrect as currently stated in the article. I am happy to produce some text that quotes these other studies, but I'm not sure the rules here. Perhaps it would be "unconflicted" for someone else do this. Or I could come back with the paper hits print. It really is accepted. Sswamida (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC).


 * One valuable unconflicted secondary source is found here. It is an online journal (not a blog).Quoting, "So is belief in a historical Adam inconsistent with belief in the Common Ancestry Thesis and the Large Initial Population Thesis? Actually, it is not inconsistent; these are neither contrary nor contradictory. For so long as it is possible for both to be true, then the affirmation of one does not require the negation of the other. And–as the symposium shows–in point of fact it is possible for both to be true." This is written by a theologian who affirms a historical Adam in response to this.


 * Another uncoflicted source is here. Written by Jeff Hardin, the chair of zoology at UWisc endorsing the science on behalf of BioLogos, the organization founded by Francis Collins (current head of NIH). Both Hardin and I, btw, affirm evolutionary science. This is not pseudoscience. It is a correction from the scientific community in how the science is represented to the public Sswamida (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Finally, many theologians do not think that A&E were mythological and in the Iron Age. Perhaps they are wrong. Who knows. The key theological claim for them seems to be universal genealogical (not genetic) ancestry. Some add on to this a paleolithic agricultural context (not Iron Age). I'm happy to provide references for that, and would point to Collins, Kidner, and Stott. There are certainly conceptions of A&E in conflict with evolution, but there are also conceptions that could work. Sswamida (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We walk a very narrow line; belief in biblical literalism is one thing; claims that Adam and Eve existed in some specific time is pseudoscience and pseudohistory that we treat as such and is subject to discretionary sanctions under the pseudoscience arbcom case. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be 100% clear, I am not claiming that A&E existed. That is a claim outside of science, and not my place to make. I have no stake in that battle. However, it is not scientifically accurate to say that science is in conflict with belief in A&E; the fact is that it is essentially silent on them. One would not come to believe they exist from science, but if one did from other means, science does not uncover evidence against it (unless of course we are going to claim they never interbred with others). My issue with the current text is that it claims science disputes something that it, in fact, does not. There is no scientific evidence for A&E but there no evidence against it either. Sswamida (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, at issue for me is this sentence, which is scientifically inaccurate (the bolded part):

There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed, and their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics.

"There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed" this is essentially true (unless we consider ancient texts physical evidence, but that opens an avoidable can of worms). However, this is obviously false: "their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics" There should be zero disagreement that A&A could have existed, but not been universal ancestors. Moreover, as I have referenced several works, they could also have been universal ancestors too. To think they could not have been universal ancestors is to be making a scientific error. That comment therefore, should be deleted and updated with accurate science. Sswamida (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to emphasize again that I am not advocating that the article changed to claim that A&E actually did exist, certainly not at any specific time or place. Rather, I am just saying that the science should be accurately stated. Right now it is in error. It is not introducing pseudoscience or pseudohistory into an article to accurately explain what science does and does not say re: belief in A&E. Right? Once again, to reiterate, I affirm evolutionary science too. None of what I am raising here is outside mainstream science. Sswamida (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so your blog posting is not a reliable source in Wikipedia. I get that you want to use Wikipedia as a platform to further expound your views, but you cannot do that here.  We reflect mainstream, accepted knowledge, as expressed in the breadth of high quality, reliable sources.  Maybe in several years your perspective will be widely picked up, and we can discuss it in Wikipedia then. Not now. Please do read WP:SOAP, and please stop what you are doing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Let's give it time. Though, for the record, I've given several primary references apart from my blog post, in the scientific literature (and can produce more). I have also given secondary sources showing how theologians that care about A&E are responding. We need not reference my blog post. But as you suggest, we can wait. No rush. I'm stopping. Sswamida (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Just out of idleness, here are some of the salient points of the biblical Adam and Eve story: Just in case anyone's interested :) PiCo (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Time: They lived approximately 4000 BC (a bit hard to judge but that's close enough);
 * Ancestors: None - they were created, they did not evolve (all those hominin fossils....);
 * Place: Middle East (not Africa);
 * Adam was Neolithic (he cultivated the ground); no Paleolithic in Genesis; at 4000 BC he was a bit late for the Neolithic.
 * Indeed, and anything relating to biology is basically off-topic in this article, except of course the existing mention of the notable names which were borrowed (and otherwise unrelated)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A relevantarticle was published in peer-review journal: http://peacefulscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PSCF3-18p19-35Swamidass.pdf Sswamida (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If interaction between evolutionary science and views on Adam and Eve are not on topic for this page, where would they be on topic? Would it make sense to start a new page? Sswamida (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the phrase would be less problematic if it better qualified what "their literal existence" means? With, say, Jesus Christ, we can examine the evidence for some individual existing on whom the stories were based; I'm unclear what that would mean for Adam and Eve.
 * If the crucial part of their identity is that they were created rather than born, that undeniably conflicts with human evolutionary genetics, as the current wording claims. If it is enough that they are common ancestors of all humans alive "today", there is no conflict with evolutionary science, but they lose much of their relevance, since there will have been many such couples, and they would not be recognisable as such during their lifetime. I put "today" in quotation marks, because the location in time of both the most recent common ancestor and the identical ancestors point is not fixed, but will vary as currently distinct lineages interbreed or die out; so claiming a genealogical existence for Adam and Eve would further require us to decide whose common ancestor they are claimed to be.
 * Would some phrasing like "their existence as described in the religious texts in question" be acceptable? - IMSoP (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Christianity
All Christian religions don’t believe in original sin. I think Catholicism would be a more accurate word. Beccabodily (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Americans
How is a poll concerning the beliefs of Americans remotely relevant to the article, or the historicity subsection? It represents only a country, of minor importance to the world at large, and did not concern evaluation of evidence towards historicity. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also wondered if it was properly placed. The beginning of the section does mention traditional beliefs, perhaps that it could be merged in that paragraph, but if so, it would probably be good to not only represent US polls.  Ending the section with this data seems awkward to me, as this suddenly appears to suggest that many Americans are clueless about science, possibly unduly (just after enumerating facts)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After revisiting, I simply removed it for now. — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)