Talk:Book of Genesis/Archive 2

Biblical literalism
Deleted this section as (a) it's covered in depth in the article Allegorical interpretations of Genesis, and (b) it'sa bout only the first 11 chapters of Genesis, not the whole 50. PiCo 11:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
Because genesis is still by many regarded as an historical fact, I think it should be stated here that science has totally rejected the bible. With all respect, the genesis story is a bit hard to believe nowadays. It's a pitty USA kids learn a bible version of the beginning. I think wikipedia is the perfect place for objective material. Thomas271104 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Science hasn't done anything of the sort. That sort of thing isn't what science "does." You really shouldn't type nonsense in discussion pages. Not sure what "nowadays" has to do with Genesis being "a bit hard to believe." Does the passing of seconds somehow invalidate anything? Take your chronological snobbery elsewhere, thank you. (And they're not "USA kids"--they're American.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a new look at the article, and can't see that it needs any statement like that. It has sections setting out quite objectively the views of biblical scholars on how and when Genesis was composed, and of theologians on the theological concerns it contains - the main source for that section is Gordon Wenham, who's an Evangelical scholar but well respected within the scholarly community for his ability to be objective and inclusive. If your concern is the science behind matters such as the 6-day Creation, then the specific articles for those incidents is where you should go. PiCo 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Genesis is a list of "beginnings", the cosmos, the animals, the first family, the start of nations, the start of covenants, the start of life and death, etc. To sum up Genesis just as a 'history of creation' is to misread the pastiche of stories in בְּרֵאשִׁית. Christians call it salvation history, because it is a combination of event and story-telling. User:bwildasi Tue Apr 15 18:30:48 UTC 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

summarizing article in lead
See wp:lead. A lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. So I'm summarizing the article in the lead. Leadwind 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we name some names to make the lead more interesting. Currently, the section on the best-known Bible stories doesn't name any stories or any min figures.

"It contains some of the best-known stories of the Old Testament, notably those of the Primal History (the first 12 chapters) and the biblical Patriarchs." How about naming Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Noah and the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, and Abraham and his descendents, including the miraculous Joseph? Those seem to be high points, and they make the lead a better summary of the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadwind (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC) yea dude radicle


 * Done.PiCo 05:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no author citied, leading to the scientific and cultural need for emphasis on the fact of the story aspect of such topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.92.2 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Source Re: Biblical Scholars and Moses
Footnote 83 says nothing about any academic consensus on non-Mosaic editorial. Sure, he probably didn't formulate every story himself, that much seems obvious from textual criticis. But I'd like to see a source that shows, as has been asserted, that "belief that Genesis was written by Moses and inspired by God is no longer accepted by modern biblical scholars". If I don't see that in the next few days I will *"citation needed"* this sentence. A.J.Chesswas 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Footnote 83 talks about the toledot - the "generations" formulae. You're referring to an earlier fn that related to a deleted sentence about scholars rejecting the MA tradition.


 * Mosaic authorship is such a non-issue among biblical scholars that it's like asking for a source that shows that geologists no longer believe in a flat earth. Personally I'd like to have no reference to MA in the article at all, but many evangelical cChristians and ultra-Orthodox Jews do still believe it so I'll put it back if you want.


 * Here: Don Closson at Probe Ministries is an evangelical writer whom I respect, who says in his second paragraph (lead sentence) that "[r]eligious studies courses at most universities teach that the Pentateuch is a composite work consisting of four literary strands" - in other words, the documentary hypothesis. In effect, Closson is stating that the dominant paradigm as accepted by these universities is the DH - he then goes on to argue for MA, but from the position that it represents a minority view.


 * Also there's Gordon Wenham's "Pentateuchal Studies Today", written in 1996 - Wenham is a highly respected mainstream scholar, but he dismisses the MA tradition as anything more than the precursor to the DH. His introductory section describes the view you imply above - that Moses may not have written all of the Torah, but did have something to do with it: this was the view developed during the first half of the 20th century by post-Wellhausian critics such as Gunkel and Noth, who said that the Torah was made up of valid oral traditions dating from the time of Moses and possibly Moses himslef, and Albright, who said that archaeology had found physical evidence to back up Gunkel and Noth. This was the consensus up to about the late 60s, when it fell apart due to a series of books and articles by figures such as John Van Seters and William G. Dever, who pointed out that oral traditions can't be dated accurately, and that the archaeological evidence could apply to the 1st millenium as much as to the 2nd. Wenham then goes on to discuss post-70s theories about Torah origins without once mentioning Moses. (Wenham, like Closson, is an evangelical). PiCo 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Harris, in the most popular college-level nonsectarian Bible textbook, in print for 20 years, offers alternatives to the standard DH, but still says it's "virtually certain" that the Torah is the product of not of one man but of generations of Iraelites. Leadwind 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

documentary hypothesis
''This sees Genesis as a composite work assembled from various sources: the J text, named for its use of the term YHWH (JHWH in German) as the name of God; the E text, named for its characteristic usage of the term "Elohim" for God; and the P, or Priestly source. These texts were composed independently between 950 BC and 500 BC and underwent numerous processes of redaction, emerging in their current form in around 450 BC.''

The article could use a lot more detail on this topic. This is the standard scholarly understanding of the composition of the book. What does it mean for Genesis to comprise three sources instead of being a monograph? What does each source contribute? Which part comes from which source? What's the history of the separate sources? This information should be the Composition section's key information: who wrote the sources that compose Genesis, where, and when? How did they get redacted together, when, where, by whom? The other information, such as the identity of actual manuscripts, is of secondary importance to the authors and redactors, their times, and their places. Leadwind 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd prefer to let readers interested in having more info on the DH seek it in that article - especially as the DH isn't actually the standard understanding at all these days. It sounds as if you've been influenced by Friedman, who goes into great detail about authors and settings and datesm, but his revised DH hasn't been very widely accepted. What we get these days is more talk about supplementary and fragmentary origins - although there's still general agreement on a final Pentateuch emerging in the 5th century. Anyway, feel free to edit the section as you wish. PiCo 04:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to summarize the DH. I do want to tell the reader what scholars think about who wrote the sources for Genesis, when, etc. The Composition section should be about the Composition of Genesis. If the DH isn't the most common understanding for the origin of Genesis, then this section should answer these questions according to whatever is the most common understanding. If it's not DH, what is it? I'd be happy to see details from whatever story is the default these days. Leadwind 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added subheads within the section, plus an intro and a mention of the traditional composition theory (Moses). I'll add some DH details if no one else will, but I'm no DH expert. I just want contemporary scholarship, and my source (Harris, Understanding the Bible) takes the DH pretty seriously. Leadwind 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation revisited
Guidelines on disambiguation state "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?". With that in mind, delivering readers directly to this article rather assumes that readers are most likely to be expecting that. This arrangement is really only appropriate for terms where the vast majority of readers are expected to be looking for a single article and other uses of the term are minor articles. With such a large and varied list of other uses, this doesn't make much sense and in a sense displays unnecessary bias towards this article.

I'd like to propose this article be moved to one of the following and would appreciate opinions on what is most appropriate:


 * Genesis (first book of Moses)
 * Genesis (book of the Bible)
 * Book of Genesis
 * Genesis (religion)

Along with this, I'd like to propose that Genesis (disambiguation) be moved to Genesis.

--Rtphokie (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds ok to me. Of your 4 choices above, I'd prefer "Book of Genesis" but have no strong feelings about it. PiCo (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with PiCo. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The switch has been made, all existing Genesis links will go to Genesis (disambiguation) with Book of Genesis as the top entry. Existing links to Genesis are being reviewed (all 1000+ of them) and updated where appropriate, mostly here but some references to the band and some to the game system as well as I come across them.  Any help whittling down this list would be appreciated of course.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The switch is madness.  (1) The switch does not meet the test laid out in Rtphokie's inititial argument (above).  Note that "When a reader enters [Genesis] in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", . . . [he or she] most likely [is] expecting to view as a result" an article about the book of Genesis.  As evidence for this proposition, note simply what Rtphokie notes in the post immediately above:  There are more than 1,000 links to the article that assume it concerns the book of Genesis.  (2) Other uses of the term "Genesis" derive from that of the book.  The book is a 2,500+ year old classic that has dominated Western literature.  Other uses of the term are subordinate.  (3) Compare the treatment of Homer's Odyssey.  Why is the Bible's Genesis being treated differently?  In sum, those who are making the switch are doing a disservice to the vast majority of those who search for this term, and disrupting and forcing repair of hundreds of links.  This is maddness. -- Dauster (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * agree Globally speaking, Genesis is most commonly referred to the Book of Genesis. I was surprised to see the redirect.


 * I also fully disagree with the decision to link to disambiguation. This should have gotten more than a week's discussion with no Request for Comment tag. The most common and earliest usage is of course the ancient book, and agreeing with other editors, others usages are derivative and belong on the secondary, disambig page. See, for example, this part of disambig policy, Brando130 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Genesis is now linking back to this article. Let the discussion continue.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From RfC. Genesis should definitely redirect to this article.  It's the original usage, and by far the most likely thing someone is going to be looking for if they simply type in "Genesis". Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Independent RfC comment: I agree with Sxeptomaniac, Brando130, and Dauster. We should use primary topic disambiguation in this case. Genesis should redirect here, and the disambiguation page should be listed on a hat. Cool Hand Luke 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From RfC. I agree with the comments to keep this article as the primary topic, with a link to the disambiguation page. Additionally, Book of Genesis should redirect to Genesis, rather than the other way around. The book in the Bible is named Genesis (according to the first line of the article). — BradV 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From RfC. I agree that "Genesis" should come to this article. I suspect virtually all the DAB items are derivative of the Biblical book, which still remains the most common referent. (Like BradV, I also would have this article renamed Genesis, but I suppose that's not the question here.) thanks. HG | Talk 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My two cents I think Genesis should be this article, with Book of Genesis redirecting to it and Genesis (disambiguation) linked at thet top of th article. While it is the case that "genesis" has entered the English language, it is also the case that "exodus" has as well. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore That should definitely be the case since "Genesis" apparently redirects here; why? That's nonsense. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought but did not pursue it. I checked Exodus, and backed off from what I suspected would be a timewasting argument over nothing important. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to a factbook released by the CIA non-christians make up 66.68 percent of the world's population. If you Google "Genesis bible" you'll get around 600,000 results. If you Google "genesis -bible" which theoretically excludes biblical references to the word you get almost 11,000,000. My point? Most of the world are non-christians searching for non-biblical references to the word "Genesis." .--59.8.236.192 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. No one wishes to further the discourse vis a vis the validity of your claim that "genesis" should redirect to "The Book of Genesis". Too bad really. I think it's obvious that the majority of people in the world are searching for non-bibilical references to the word "genesis" yet the ignorati here continue to ignore the facts that contradict their razor thin paradigm of the world. So much for neutral point of view.--98.26.119.133 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. So apparently, a band among the top 30 best-selling music artists of all time, a major player in the video game console wars, and a slew of other possible non-Judeo-Christian usages of the term are all too "uncommon" and "derivative" of a religious text at a time when fewer and fewer people are attending church? This decision should be revisited, but knowing how things go around here I'm not holding out much hope. 72.38.190.248 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirecting "Genesis" to "The Book of Genesis" is not only illogical and irrational but a blatant violation of neutrality guidelines. There are dozens of other uses of the word under the disambiguation page and that should be reflected here. I've changed it and if you wish to dispute it I recommend we seek arbitration.--Papa sausage (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If arbitration is the next step, so be it, though I'm not sure how you'd decide what parties to involve. We opened an RFC for this and six independent editor comments (Sxeptomaniac, Cool Hand Luke, Bradv15, HG, Koavf, Wtmitchell) agreed with linking to Book of Genesis before the RFC expired, in addition to Dauster and my original objection to linking to disambiguation. Some anonymous editors have weighed in since then supporting linking to disambiguation, however I definitely don't believe your change here reflects consensus. Brando130 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The original proposal, as set out at the top of this section, was that this article be renamed Book of Genesis, with Genesis as a disambiguation page. Feelings were as follows: Support
 * Rtphokie (made the proposal)
 * PiCo
 * Carl.bunderson
 * Papa sausage

Oppose
 * Dauster
 * Brando130
 * Sχeptomaniac
 * Cool Hand
 * BradV
 * HG
 * Justin (koavf)
 * Boracay Bill

Please correct this list if I've misrepresented your position or left anyone out - it can be hard keeping track. PiCo (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think Papa sausage would have to be placed under 'Support', though he's just registered and may or may not be an SPA; I guess we'll see. My point was that six of the Oppose views were added independently in response to an RFC on this issue. Not that their views have more weight but it is significant and important to get input from editors who may not otherwise frequent this specific topic. You have to keep primary usage in mind. Editors contributing to articles about Sega Genesis games, or the film Genesis, are going be far more conscious of the fact that simply linking to Genesis might not take the reader directly to the article about the console, or movie, or comic, etc. However all over Wikipedia I can guarantee that when editors continue to contribute to articles on every imaginable topic, if they feel it is helpful to link to the book Genesis, they are just going to type Genesis in brackets and expect that this link will inform the user about the book. As Rtphokie pointed out when proposing the change, there would be over 1200 links that instantly stare at a disambiguation page. The primary usage of the book of Genesis far outweighs any other usage. Calling those that disagree with the change the 'ignorati' and adding a few meaningless fun-with-Google search stats doesn't change that. Brando130 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that no matter how legitimate a change may be, we should allow it to remain wrong on the basis that it might inconvenience too many people? Damn the accuracy? The term "Genesis" is ambiguous. Your statement that people will "type Genesis in brackets and expect that this link will inform the user about the book" is speculative and it assumes that the person creating the link is too lazy to research the actual link. If linking ambiguous terms to articles willy nilly - on the basis of Joe Blow's personal/religious beliefs - is what Wiki is all about then you've nailed it. --Papa sausage (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if you added up all the references to other uses of the word genesis that number would be much greater than that of the biblical references. Your case for primary usage is specious.--Papa sausage (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh what total crap. Special:WhatLinksHere/Genesis Start adding. The amount of links looking for the book says it all. It doesn't "assume that the person creating the link is too lazy to research the actual link", it assumes primary usage. That's the whole reason the primary usage guideline exists. Get a grip. Brando130 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Total crap - is that a technical term? Ok, look, there are approximately the same number of links to the word genesis from the band Genesis Special:WhatLinksHere/Genesis (band) as there are links to the biblical genesis. That by itself disputes primary use. Now add up the links from the 54 Genesis (disambiguation) other uses of the word and watch as the "Book of Genesis" links shrink further and further into obscurity. Enjoy the grip.--Papa sausage (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A recent sermon I heard
Discussed Noah and the flood and that God would again destroy the Earth but this time with fire.

I have just started doing a read the Bible in a year thing and Genesis 21 states that God makes a covenant with Noah and his sons and all living things among them that he will never again destroy the Earth and all living things. It even states that the rainbow is a reminder of this covenant.

Where does fire come in? Does God go back on a promise? Confused. Thanks to anyone that can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgheith (talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That verse doesn't exactly say that God promises never to destroy the earth again - it says that he'll never destroy it with a flood. You should also read the covenant carefully - it's essentially about the taking of life: man is permitted, for the first time, to eat meat. At the end of Chapter 1 of Genesis man and the animals are told that they're being given the plants of the earth to eat: this is a big help on the Ark, as otherwise Noah would have had to break the one-pair-of-each rule in order to have enough mice to fed the cats and so on. The covenant sets out the rules by which man may kill animals for food: the meat must be drained of its blood, "that is, its life" - blood, along with air (breath) was regarded as the element which contained the life force, and therefore was holy; mankind was therefore not allowed to consume it.


 * As for the fire, I imagine it might come from somewhere in Revelations, although I really can't say I can recall any bible verse that makes a threat that God might ever destroy the world again, by any means.


 * If it makes you feel any better, the story of Noah and the Flood is really all about God's love for mankind, not his savagery. In Genesis 1 God creates the world from water (the "Deep" over which his spirit hovers, and which exists before the dry earth is created); God's creation is perfect, a world in which all that man needs is provided for him, and in which the lamb can literally lie down with the lion (because they're both vegetarian, and there's no need for violence and bloodshed, not even by the animals). But Adam and Eve sin, and are expelled from the perfect garden, and from that point on mankind becomes increasingly violent (Cain kills Abel, shedding blood without divine sanction), until at last God decides to return his creation to its original state, i.e., water. And that's what the Flood is, a return to the Deep which existed before the creation of man's world. Then at the height of the Flood "God remembered Noah", and the Flood abates, and God returns the world to man and man to the world. It's about love, not vengeance. If you think that God might destroy the world again, you're doubting his love for us. (And anyway, like I said, I'm not aware of any bible verse that threatens destruction again).PiCo (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the verse over again. You are correct. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgheith (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cosmology
This section doesn't talk about cosmology but compares genesis to Mesopotamian myths. It is valuable to mention that those stories exist, but whether one generated the other is not unanimous. My rewrite was to make it more informative, but if the NPOV is debated, then we can reword it.

vote to rename Mespotamian Myths


 * AGREE -- see discussion above


 * See below - the section does discuss cosmology, and the idea that the Biblical creation stories are based on Mesopotamian and other ANE models is prety well universal outside the most conservative evangelical circles. (And as a side-note - please sign in befoare raising important issues like this, as there's no other way of teling who is saying what). PiCo (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Intoduction changes
I think its valuable to include the table of nations, and a discussion of why it its called genesis, which all came from other wikipages like Torah and is valuble. Rewording may be needed, but not reversion. God didn't write genesis, it was verbally spoken to moses, and then either moses wrote it, or one of the priestly scribes dictated it. Some of the content may contain historical records that were passed down long before the exodus for records too.


 * I have no objection to including a mention of the TofN in the intro, but the list of potential inclusions is huge, and we have to exclude the vast majority for practical reason. As for how Genesis came to be written (by Moses, via divine dictation, or via earlier records available to him), the theories you advance are variants on the Mosaic authorship tradition - the second, ironically, a precursor of the Documentary hypothesis. Mosaic authorship has ben abandoned by biblical scholars since the 19th century and not a single scholar at a major university or seminary would advance it today, but it's still held in Orthodox Jewish and ultra-conservative evangelical Christian circles. PiCo (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the intro needs to be kept brief. Questions of authorship shouldn't be there, especially since there is an entire section for it later on. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to the article
On January an unnamed editor made some major changes to the article, deleting referenced material attibuted to major reputable academic sources. For example, the first sentence in the Cosmology section is based on an on-line paper by Ralph Klein, professor of Old Testament at the Lutheran Seminary in Chicago. Yet this editor feels justified in replacing Klein with his/her own personal opinions on this subject. Another example: the unknown editor had added a sentence about the supposed Christological significance of the Nehushistan, with a reference - yet when you folow the reference, you find it links to an online bible which makes no mention whatsoever of the meaning of the Nehushistan.

Everyone is welcome to edit on Wikipedia, but there are some basic rules: First, sign in, and if you don't already have an account, get one. Second, before making major edits to an existing article, especially a potentially controversial one in which many people take an interest, discuss your proposals on the Talk page first, don't simply dive in and make major alterations.

But apart from that, welcome. PiCo (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are actually no such rules but it is generally courteous and helpful if editors behave that way. Jɪmp 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish tradition
I'm curious -- there are sections for Christian and Islamic traditions with Genesis. How come there isn't a Jewish section? I didn't see anything in the See Also. HG | Talk 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the article states that the Jews regard it as a whole lot of Bereshit. Jason404 (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Arrrrgh!
This page by happenstance ended up on my watchlist, and I've looked at recent changes here for a short while. This change drew my attention to the nearby assertion that "no part of the book has yet been found incompatible with science." My immediate reaction was, "Give me a break!!!!" Please, people. It's late at night for me as I write this and too late in a long day for me to do it just now, but I'm tempted to quote Richard Dawkins at length.

Whatever happened to WP:NPOV? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well given that many don't take it literally (eg believing the Bible but also believing the earth is more than 6000 yrs old, and seeing the Big Bang as God's act of creation) I don't really see what the problem is. Do you have specifics in mind, beyond that? Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time, I just had that specific assertion in mind. With that gone, and with the article describing its subject as providing "a" vs. "the" history I can accept tales of talking snakes, worldwide inundations at variance with real-world archaeological findings, rebuilding of the world's living things from a single pair of each sort gathered by a six hundred year old drunkard into a boat to ride out the deluge, incarnate heavenly messengers, people being transformed into pillars of salt, etc., etc. After my watchlist again triggered on your comment, I looked at the article again intending to remove that remark but I see that someone else has already done that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok then. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mythological
Adding "mythological" is an unnecessary term, because the sentence does not imply that Genesis gives the exact factual history of the world. By saying "a history" instead of "the history" it does not lead the reader to the conclusion that Genesis is, or means to be, an accurate historical and scientific account of creation, etc. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it not? No, that's not my conclusion but I'd not be surprised if others so conclude.  If mythological is POV, is history not?  Can we not find some other word without such strong connotations, story for example?  Jɪmp 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with "story"; "the Judeo-Christian history" is another possibility. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what's wrong with "mythological". A myth is simply a story concerning the origin of the world. It may have the popular connotation that it is false, but that's not what the word means. --clpo13(talk) 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is history :) More so then most Greek and Roman histories. But I would be fine with "Judeo-Christian history".--Alfredie (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well from a quick look at the ever-handy OED, it would appear that the first/original definition/(probably proper) definition is as you say, Clpo. But "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief..." is the second definition. And it notes in the first that among non-scholars it is used interchangeably with allegory and legend. Ah, the saga of living languages... Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the article to "the Judeo-Christian history", since it seems everyone is content with that phrasing. --clpo13(talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Genesis and subsequent tradition: Christianity
Aside from the comment about Trinity in John being extraneous, it is inaccurate. First, what does the author mean by Trinity? If, as I assume, the author intends the Chalcedonian expression, John 1 is far cry from "the first definitive emergence of the distinctive Christian concept of the Trinity." In addition, this statement regards the divinity of the Son, not the Trinity (of any sort). There is no mention of the Spirit. Furthermore, it should be noted that this "orthodox" interpretation (that this is a reference to the Son being God) is not shared with all designated Christian faiths, viz., Jehovah Witnesses. While I personally consider their (Jehovah Witnesses') handling of the Greek in that section abysmal, in the spirit of an diction/encyclopedia, some caveat may be appropriate.

Also, in the following sections, there is a candid absence of references. Jesus as "new adam" (Rom 5)--on this, the interpretation given, "who would redeem mankind from the sin of Eden," reads with undertones of original sin, again interpretive and not universally accepted--"Ark of Noah being symbolic . . . ." this is an odd and highly sacramental take on 1 Pet. 3. Perhaps one could simply make note of the connection and move on without unnecessary interpretation.

"The Abrahamic covenant was reinterpreted . . . ." The author appears to have Paul in mind here (Gal. 3), since Paul assumes a more patently Christological interpretation of the covenant, which would ostensibly amplify the divide between Judaism and the church. This is not the only position given in the NT (Acts 3). Also, the language suggest that the reinterpretation was given in order underlines the division from Judaism. Even in Gal. 3, this seems like a stretch, since the church is therein considered the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). Of coarse, this somewhat depends on how Judaism is being used here.

The reference to the "Holy Family." Certainly they were Holy, I'm not sure that the nomenclature is necessary, however. The parallel between the Magi and the three visitors is vague. I'm not sure the connection here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.150.131 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting secion on Cosmology
I deleted this subsection as the same subject matter is dealt with in far more detail in the article Creation according to Genesis. A link to that article appears in the See Also section. I wouldn't normally delete material for this reason, but the article is quite long, the subsection is only a paragraph, and the link exists. 10:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Documentary hypothesis
I deleted a recent addition about the documentary hypothesis. I did this because it assumed that the DH was the scholarly theory concerning the origin of Genesis. This hasn't been true for more more than a quarter of a century. The situation today is very complex, but it's certainly no longer possible to speak of the DH in this way. For a readable recent description of the whole matter, see John Van Seters, "The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary" (2002) in googlebooks. PiCo (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

cited verse links
These don't work any more--Meieimatai 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Book of Genesis?
Why do we need this? We don't say Book of Exodus or Book of Leviticus, and Genesis is not being used as a disambiguation so we are free to use the simpler name. Richard001 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, he's right.--Uriah is Boss (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a move. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah
I changed the original sentence of "The men of Sodom surround the house and demand to have sexual relations with the strangers;" to "The men of Sodom surround the house and demand Lot to give the strangers up to them;"

As is mentioned on the Sodom and Gomorrah page, some scholars have interpreted "to know" as a Biblical term for sexual behavior in this context, though others disagree, noting that while the word appears nearly 1,000 in the Hebrew Scriptures, approximately 1% of those references have sexual connotation.  --Brandon (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but you might have a problem explaining why Lot suggests they might like to "know" his daughters instead. PiCo (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people have suggested that there is a linkage to Lot being the man in charge of a house in Sodom. The people of Canaan are merchants and what they sell is sometimes more of the nature of Quadeshu than Kodesh. Its sort of the same reason that Abraham's wife is sometimes introduced to the strangers she visits with in her tent and elsewhere as his sister.