Talk:Book of Genesis

Revert
I have reverted an edit which is thoroughly WP:FRINGE, i.e. pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's totally fine. Thanks for keeping up with these edits and reverting when necessary. Hist9600 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Another IP, possibly the same person, had added the same information yesterday, and I had to correct it. It seems someone may be actively watching the page to insert these dates. Ltwin (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, both geolocate to Adelaide, Australia. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Dead Sea study and date of composition
I just noticed and removed the following from the Composition section:

After checking the article out, I believe this is a misreading of the article. The study authors were attempting to use biblical evidence to determine historical fluctuations in the Dead Sea levels. I don't think they are making definitive statements about when biblical books were actually composed. I could be wrong, however, so I'm leaving this here for other editors to evaluate. Ltwin (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis
— Assignment last updated by Keegancroteau12 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Does the "myth" description need more subtlety?
In saying "most mainstream Bible scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical" does this require more subtlety? Sure, Gen.1-11 is mythological, as discussed well in its "primeval history" article. That's basically fine. But Gen.12-50 has very different genre characteristics; indeed the word "myth" never appears in the main body of its "ancestral history" article.

So isn't the statement about the whole book "...consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical" too blunt in not distinguishing the different genres across the primeval/ancestral divide?

Note: I'm basing this on the summary in the article lead. But the myth-description in the main body (section "Genre") has the same over-generalisation problem, so it's probably better to start from there, then to reflect an appropriate summary back onto the lead.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Subtlety is nice, but I believe the passage in question adequately characterizes the whole text, as the purpose throughout both the primeval and ancestral history halves is to explain and interconnect the origins of the world and the Jewish people within it. Remsense  诉  16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)