Talk:Book of Genesis/Archive 3

Genesis is important to Muslims Christians and Jews
Its opening needs to be a little less ethnocentric. Rktect (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit seems to suggest that Genesis is part of the Koran, though. It was better, if not perfect, in its prior state. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that Genesis is important to Muslims

Genesis search should lead to disambiguation page
searching wiki for the term 'genesis' leads us to a page about the bible. the word genesis has many more meanings than the first chapter of a christian book. searching the term should lead either to the Quantum Leap episode or the rock band. 173.49.48.72 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A change of this nature needs to be discussed and consensus reached before the page is redirected, not after. About 1,100 other articles contain links to Genesis, and based on the history, it is likely that most of the editors who inserted them expected them to link to the Book of Genesis article.  If this is to be changed, someone will need to review and re-target all of those other links (are you volunteering, 173.49.48.72?).  Because of the potential disruption to other articles, I have reverted the redirect until after consensus is reached.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The guideline on this is that if there's a primary topic, the article name should be a redirect to the article on that topic. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  I'm decidedly not religious in any way, but my take is that the primary meaning of "Genesis" in the English-speaking world is to the book of Genesis, and so the present redirect is the correct one.  If there's a consensus otherwise, I would not object to renaming Genesis (disambiguation) to "Genesis", and using that page to redirect to Book of Genesis as with all other Genesis-named pages.  I do, however, find the assertion that either the rock band or an episode of a science fiction TV show that was canceled more than 15 years ago is the primary meaning to be patently ludicrous. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet there are > 50 other things on the redirect page. Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like this issue was resolved successfully. The term "genesis" now redirects to the disambiguation page, as it should have since the beginning.--131.53.128.23 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing section
Though this article documents scholarly theories on the authorship of Genesis, it doesn't explain its history as a text after it was written&mdash;what is the oldest surviving copy of Genesis? Do any early texts show variations or alterations? When was it translated into other languages? When did the Christian Church formally adopt it as canon and why? This all needs to be laid out here. Postdlf (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel that wpould be useful, you're welcome to add it. (The oldest surviving mss are among the Dead Sea Scrolls, next come the Septuagint translations, finally the Masoretic, although you could also mention the Syriac and Samaritan mss. The various mss show considerable differences between them, notably in the chronology, but also in other details such as the number of persons who went down into Egypt with Jacob. The process of canonisation is complex, but could be mentioned briefly.) PiCo (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Postdlf. If you would like to see some possible differences in wording, two widely available translations of the Bible that list variant readings are the Revised Standard Version and the later New Revised Standard Version. I don't have others on hand at this moment. Neither of these translations always goes into detail about how old a reading is (in fact, they generally don't say that at all) but I find them good enough for a non-specialist like myself. Loves  Macs  (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Trinity
''"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." This passage is interpreted by a majority of Christians to mark the first emergence of the distinctive Catholic and later Protestant Christian concept of the Trinity''

I'm by no means a specialist here but I'd formed the impression that the dogma of the Trinity was a somewhat later development, not becoming fully formed until the fourth century. Is this not right? BTLizard (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, this is John-Christopher (Xgenei). The trinity is firstly a theological doctrine (also a dogma) that resolves cosmological origins and existential sources for the Christian world. These same origins and sources are represented anciently as "First Cause" - which we can interpret today as "Teleology"; "LOGOS" - which we can interpret today as the quantum pattern and its literal evolution (essentially redefining the idea of evolution) and creation-form (Platonic-Aristotelian); and of course the spirit and spirits, with the primary spirit being dominant. Of these the last is hardest to explain rationally because it is fundamentally (technically) irrational. But that's okay because the world is fundamentally irrational. The idea is that everything active in the world occurs because of spirit action. Spirit is the subtype of energy that is directed toward intelligent purposes, in a hierarchy of origins that may actually be explained & documented right here in this book (Genesis/Origins). That is what I am pursuing as far as the history of the book - the origin of the book of origin. Spirit  is a bit hard to explain, it is irrefragable as far as its existence, and the present philosophical basis of Western society does not allow its official existence, but only tolerates private beliefs in it. It is not allowed in physics, for example, or in any form of authoritative influence. To insist on other than private beliefs in it is a career-ender.Xgenei (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC).


 * The wording is a bit funny - "a majority of Christians" because some, it seems, are not Trinitarian. "The first emergence" meaning...what? I think perhaps our editor meant that this is the first text in the bible that can support Trinitarianism. "Catholic and Protestant" - what about the Orthodox, who I think are as Trinitarian as anyone else? Maybe some editing is needed. PiCo (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the section wholesale. A section along those lines would certainly be good, but it would be easier to start from scratch than to fix that one. Not a reference in sight, it reads as OR of questionable accuracy, as BT has pointed out. The problem BT points out, as well as others, were recognized over a year ago in a comment here. No one has jumped to its defence since then in that thread, so I think I am justified in having deleted the section. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Race
Comment moved from Talk:Book of Genesis/Comments. It is very hard to find and is unlikely to get an answer there. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to know, Was Noah and Ham of the Black Race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.135.166 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the issue that there isn't, in my opinion at least, such a thing as 'race', there's also the question of whether there was was a real Noah and Ham. So, your question can't be answered. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're inquiring about the Curse of Ham, aren't you? See Hamitic for why the idea doesn't hold up. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Abimelech, king of Gerar
Under summary, I read:
 * Abraham represents Sarah as his sister before Abimelech, king of Gerar.

Further on, it is said that:
 * Isaac represents Rebekah as his sister before Abimelech, king of Gerar.

I am sure that just one of the two stories is in the Bible. I think - but am not 100% sure - it was Abraham. I don't have a Bible at hand here to check it. Can someone remove one of the two please? Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you do have a Bible to hand, and in several versions too, namely at Wikisource: Genesis is here. Chapter 20 concerns Abraham and a king Abimelech of Gerar; chapter 26 concerns Isaac (Abraham's son) and a king Abimelech of Gerar.  The Matthew Henry commentary suggests that the two kings may be different people who happen to have the same name (by analogy English history has a lot of 'King Someone N" and King Someone N+1.  I suspect that Robert Alter might take a view point of type scene (but I don't have his 'Five Books of Moses' commentary to hand!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I didn't know that. Thanks for the explanation! Woodwalker (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
"Christians have reinterpreted Genesis as the prefiguration of Christian beliefs, specifically the Christian view of Christ as the fulfilment of the covenantal promises."

I'm wondering what that means, seeing as Christianity is only seperate from Judaism because the Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. Seems like something someone who neither believes in Judaism or Christianity would write. Rather than explaining how it applies to both beliefs, it sounds more like, "This religion takes that religion's beliefs and claims it as their own". Thats not exactly how it should be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwarriorjsj7 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Constructive and helpful criticism
Gabbe, thanks for your very constructive (and helpful) critique of my final proposal on the Creation fiasco. I would like to follow up on your suggestion of finding a way to incorporate the Pinnock quote. Am giving that much thought.

I was assiduously editing the lede in Book of Genesis when I checked history and you had just add "myth." I had already written "myth" into para. 2, so would you please see if this explanation meets your approval? IMO, the lede was fairly skimpy, so I added some of the kinds of material that often introduce a Book of the Bible. Thanks! ─AFAprof01 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've got a bulleted list of my "at first glance" opinions about this edit:
 * WP:LEAD recommends leads of about three to four paragraphs in length. The previous paragraph lead was three paragraphs, your new one is six paragraphs.
 * Does the "Primitive/Patriarchal" section really need the Bible chapters? I mean that level of detail is OK for the article, but in the lead?
 * "Patriarchal history records the lives of four great men". Calling them "great" seems like an unneccessary (and unattributed) value judgement. It immediately raises the question: Who says they're great?
 * "Traditionally, the author has always assumed to have been Moses." Mosaic authorship has been doubted among serious scholars since at least the time of Maimonides, and that was over eight hundred years ago. The following sentence "While there is no conclusive reason to deny the Mosaic authorship of Genesis", seems out of place. Biblical scholarship is not an exact science, few things are "conclusively" proven one way or the other. The way the paragraph is written seems to imply that Mosaic authorship is a legitimate mainstream theory these days. Mosaic authorship as a theory hasn't been mainstream since the 19th century.
 * Here's my tip: I know that you care much about this topic, and that it means a whole lot to you. Ain't nothing wrong with that! :) But when you write about it, your passion sort of "shines" through your writing, so to speak. It makes the articles look more like they reflect your opinion rather than scholarly opinion. When you insert phrases like "Scholars frequently refer to [...]" it seems to imply that there's something wrong with their assessment. WP:SOURCES tells us to dispassionately describe what reliable sources think about the topic. What experts believe is paramount, what we editors think about them or what they have to say is not only secondary, it's completely irrelevant. Gabbe (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Harassing criticism
Edits such as this one, that attempt to polarise an opinion (in this case scholars) have failed to gain consensus on other articles. The same discussion does not need to happen on every article that uses the term creation myth, and continued pushing of the edit across Wikipedia will only result in you being reported for failing to adhere to WP:CONSENSUS. Please note that just because you do not agree with the consensus does not mean there does not exist a consensus. For further information, refer to your dictionary and compare the entries on 'unanimity' and 'consensus'. Ben (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I resent your calling this a WARNING and referring me to a dictionary. You seem to enjoy reporting people so do what you like to do. Your approach with me and others has been to be obnoxious and bully and insult the editors into complying with your every wish. I will not bow to your stubbornness that says there is only one way to handle creation myth. The debacle on Talk:Creation according to Genesis, where I found no evidence that you worked for consensus but your way was the only way, shows that your self descriptions, though despicable, are correct, though nothing anyone should brag about.


 * You are really good being legalistic when it serves your "militant atheistic" and "bullying" purpose. Why not use your obvious intellect and talents to be a decent human being on Wikipedia instead of a biting "dog" and instead be legalistic about the higher Wiki purposes of helping create consensus, encouraging other editors rather than demean them? You might be surprised to find that you have some nice, decent traits that you've been hiding. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you're not happy Afaprof01, but I spent a lot of time participating in an RFC that you requested at Talk:Creation according to Genesis to establish a consensus. Simply moving your edits to another page and calling me a biting dog for asking you not to do that contradicts your call to realise "higher Wiki purposes". I've mentioned honesty before right? Allow to me broaden that to personal integrity. Ben (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben is right here. Going out of our way to qualify and minimize well-defined terms accomplishes nothing NPOV or constructive here.  It would be different if the term were specific to this topic, but it isn't.  postdlf (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth
The following quote agr's comments at Creation according to Genesis 8:21 am, 2 February 2010 (UTC−6) Formatting not original:

"* RNPOV says: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."
 * Words to avoid, which RNPOV links to, goes on to say "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally ...."
 * All I am saying is that we should word the introduction to make it clear that creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense. If others can agree to that perhaps we can move on and end this drama."

- agr

The original concern expressed was that "Creation myth" was used at all in the article. A compromise was to move it further down the article and qualify it, explaining that it was a formal term (literary genre) and was not being used in the ordinary sense of something being mythical. My paragraph does these things. That's not good enough for User:Ben Tillman who now wants an unqualifed "Creation myth" appear not once, but twice in the first two paragraphs of the lead. That agenda is not even a hidden one. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BeforeTheFoundation' action
Hy there. Let's not beat around the bush and go straight to the problem. User:BeforeTheFoundation unilaterally changed the dating system from the original BC/AD to BCE/CE his changes can be seen here (please note that the diff contains the summary of four/five changes).

AFAIK BeforeTheFoundation didn't make any proposal or request, and he didn't ask for any consensus in this matter. At least he was honest: he did it because of political correctness.

IMHO WP:ERA is quite clear in this matter: Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors. Political correctness is NOT a substantial reason and I defend that BeforeTheFoundation's action went against the letter of the Manual of Style and the spirit of the "ceasefire agreement".

His action was unilateral and the original form should/can be restored asap. I do not believe that there is any substantial reason or consensus for such change. Like or not, BC/AD is the most common form in the English language and a substantial part of English-speakers do not even recognize BCE/CE. I also wish to point out that BC/AD was used by this article for more or less 6 years without any problem whatsoever (since [27 January 2003] until 20 November 2009). Flamarande (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deluge Myth
Deluge Myth is a formal academic term much in the same arena as Creation Myth. Changing deluge myth to deluge in the article only redirects people to a disambig page instead of the deluge myth article which doesn't add any value. The same arguements that support the formal use of the term creation myth apply to the term deluge myth. You can't seperate "Deluge" and "myth" and define them seperately and get the same meaning any more than you can seperate "Electoral" and "college" and define them seperately for the meaning of Electoral College. This isn't about the informal usage of the word "myth" as a stand alone. I strongly disagree with the informal usage of myth and will immediately revert on sight informal usage of said word. When used as part of a formal academic term that is widely used in reliable sources (both secular and religious) the term adds value for practical usage (wikilinks to proper article), academic usage (guides users to proper terminology to search non wiki sources for further info), and is more precise since "Deluge Myth" has only one meaning / definition and no improper or colloquial definitions or usages. Nefariousski (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is further concern I would be in favor of similar proposals by user AfaProf01 to put a footnote explaining the formal definition and that the colloquial usage of the word "myth" does not apply nor should it be read into the term as such. Nefariousski (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Deluge Myth?
"Creation Myth" is a scholarly term, and although I'm sure it was inserted into this article with the intention of being offensive rather than scholarly, it is techinally correct. But now, nine years after this article was created;forgive me; nine years after the creation myth that began this article, we're now going to change the story of Noah's Ark to "deluge myth"? I don't think so.Mk5384 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good display of AGF there.
 * Anyway, without getting into specifics (and I'm really not involved in that particular phrase change), take a look at Deluge myth, specifically the References, before simply deciding "I don't think so". You'll notice that it is similarly 'technically correct'. -- King Öomie 19:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What is incorrect is changing something that has stood for 9 years without consensus. I am not a religous man and I largely observed the "creation myth" debate from the sidelines. But this has gotten out of hand.Mk5384 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no change, the story of Noah's ark is already at the Deluge Myth article, that's the title of the article. I'm not redirecting the term "Deluge Myth" to Noah's ark.  That's what we've been using.  I'm not trying to change anything, just trying to keep it academic and encyclopedic.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's a change.The term "deluge myth" was not a part of this article for its first nine years. Just as fundamentalists of all religions can't be content without pushing their views on others, many atheists seem to be the same way. They can't just be content with their athesim. They need to explain to people of faiths what BS the stories of their religions are. Again; deluge myth was not part of this article for nine years. It should not be included here without consensus.Mk5384 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD. Fix it. -- King Öomie  20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the same reasoning that brought creation myth about as a consensus viewpoint applies to deluge myth we can just cut and paste all the same policy, accuracy, definitions etc... here. Please at least make an attempt to AGF.  You're hunting monsters where none exist.  I'm not trying to push a point of view one way or another, i'm just trying to use accurate terminology, we don't substitute "Special Place" for "Genitalia" in the encyclopedic world we don't use flowery language or imprecice language either.  It's raining pretty damn hard where I'm at right now, enough that it could be reasonably said that there is a colloquial deluge going on.  Nobody is confusing my current weather with the formal deluge myth.  Precision is important to building encyclopedic content opinions based on preference are not.   Nefariousski (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Genetalia" was not referred to for nine years as "special place" in this encyclopedia. You have unilaterally decided that it's the same reasoning, and that "we can just cut and paste", and that is not acceptable. I strongly agree that precision is important. I disagree with you or anyone changing something that has stood for nine years because you yourself feel that it is more precise. I feel that it is less precise. I feel that it causes confusion. It has nothing to do with, "I don't like it". Again; a change like this should be opened for discussion before being made.Mk5384 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noah's Ark is def. the recognized title of the story. By far.  The phrase that is there -> "Genesis contains some of the best-known biblical stories," -> begs to have "Noah's Ark," not deluge myth.  SAE (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SAE, censorship is prohibited. Please stop. Ben (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben ,pls grow up and stop leaving childish comments on my talk page. SAE (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you want a personal attack one too? Quit the attempts at censorship. Ben (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * stop it. grow up.  no more condescending remarks out of you.  you do the very thing you accuse me of. SAE (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Censorship?
What is this new nonsense?Mk5384 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The nonsense that any censorship has taken place. Any editor is free to make edits to the page as he or she sees fit. And any editor is free to go on the talk page and make ridiculous claims of censorship. Claiming censorship (on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit) because someone has edited your work is, while admitedly not as harmful, is just about as childish as vandalizing a page, and indeed, nonsense.Mk5384 (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC) PiCo, please do not edit a talk page, except to remove vandalism or patent nonsense. (Please note; I'm not censoring you- I'm just asking.)Mk5384 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What new nonsense do you have in mind, exactly?PiCo (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Who Decides What Is Mainstream?
Looking at the section under the heading "Composition," I'm wondering who decides what is "mainstream." I have degrees in theology and if I learned nothing else, I learned that there is a wide spectrum of biblical scholarship. All of it is valid and contributes something to the discussion. I don't think I'd be so bold as to call any of it "mainstream," because that's a loaded term which by definition marginalizes other schools of thought. Unfortunately, this subjective view of what is mainstream seems to crop up again and again in theological articles on Wiki. I think we should avoid using the term altogether, and just speak objectively about different schools of thought. --gdm (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to give the general reader an indication of which views are the widely held. (Most widely held by biblical scholars, that is). The best way of doing this is to go to major tertiary sources - bible dictionaries and commentaries by important scholars, e.g. the Anchor series or Altman, as these will not be arguing a case, which is the problem with secondary sources. Do you have any suggestions? PiCo (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Frequently, however, there's more than one widely-held view, but many Wiki editors are unaware of the fact because they've had limited exposure to different authors and publishers. (Or in some cases, they're just biased.) Surprisingly, even theological dictionaries and encyclopedias often have a slant. For example, my Zondervan tends to favor more "conservative" views, whereas my Harper's favors more "progressive" views, and they disagree on many important points. Yet they're both mainstream, both put together by respected scholars, and both maintain high academic standards. We just need to make sure that all of the "mainstream" views are represented (and perhaps even some of the less mainstream ones), and most of all that they're represented objectively. I believe that if we could accomplish this, we'd get rid of a lot of the bickering that goes on within theological pages on Wiki. --gdm (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's the right approach - just note which views are widely held, without trying to say who's right or wrong. You're welcome to go ahead and rewrite as extensively as you wish. PiCo (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hoping that the unbiased presentation of multiple viewpoints, rather than squabbling over who's right or wrong, will become a sort of prevailing culture in Wiki theology -- a culture that more experienced writers and editors can pass on to newcomers. --gdm (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "A critic has no right to the narrowness which is the frequent prerogative of the creative artist. He has to have a wide outlook or he has not anything at all." (E.M. Forster) --gdm (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of 21st Century Genesis
Hello there, what would you chaps say if I went on ahead and plugged a link to my website www.GenesisProof.com Look forward to your remarks as I know it will just get removed otherwise! ADAM
 * External links shouldn't be used to promote a site, and that fact that it's YOUR website doesn't help. -- King Öomie  01:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Would the fact a "KING" commented here on ADAM's request to post a link to 21st Century Genesis Proof qualify as an exhibit that I really am Genesis Adam? The video proof has been compiled to a single YouTube video at tinyurl/ProofOfGenesis

Here is an example from the video.

Proof Of 21st Century Genesis

ADAM ~ "Are Genesis Adam and Eve alive today?"

OPENS A RANDOM PAGE OF A BOOK AND POINTS (ON VIDEO)

GOD ~ "After creating both of those"

If Wikipedia won't publish proof of Genesis then I'll make all my work copyright against publication here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.124.172 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew name
When I grew up in synagogue and hebrew school they always pronounced the first letter as vet rather than bet rendering vereishit I think someone should render the name without the vowels and other marks and both transliterations so both pronounciations are recognised as both are used, if bereishit is even used at all as I have never heard that. --69.146.108.94 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference between vet and bet is usually based upon which Hebrew tradition. Ashkenazim and Sephardiim have differences in pronunciation. They are both valid. When I studied Hebrew, I learned both. Anpetu-We (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Length of Summary
The summary section is far too long. The first three paragraphs (>500 words) can be condensed to 63 words in four lines: God created the universe, the world, the animals and mankind in six days. He then rested on the seventh. God created the first man, Adam, and told him not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. God created the first woman, Eve, and she ate from the Tree of Knowledgeon instruction from the Serpent. God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden.

These four lines tell the important points of the story, summarising it neatly. Remember this is supposed to be a summary or synopsis and not an annotated version (as it appears to be). If this method is continued, then the article will be much easier to read and give a better idea of what it's about. For people wishing further reading links can be given (such as above). In my opinion this should be done by someone from a literary (non-religious) background. User:Kendroche 2010/06/11/20:08 (UTC)


 * The summary may be too long but it is actually only a summary, and not "analysis" as you tried to rename the section. If you think it is too detailed then please lets start a discussion but it clearly is not remotely "analysis".Griswaldo (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Having done some more checking, I'll admit that it is, indeed, a summary but I still believe that it is far too lengthy. For instance, when I first came to the page I was looking for some bit of info or other (I can't remember now) but was faced with this lengthy tome. My point is that, by your method, if you summarised the whole bible you would end up with somewhere in the region of 100,000 words - a book in itself (<80k is considered a short book). By mine, cuts that to 25,000 (I only wrote about 18,000 for my mate's thesis).

Perhaps a new section should be created, Overview, which, as above, just lists the important plot points so people can just scan through to give them an idea of what happens and then, when they find a bit they want to investigate, they can. Where is WikiOpinions? (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe synopsis.
 * What about a section, something along the lines of:
 * Genesis(a synopsis): God creates everything and kicks Adam & Eve out of Eden for being naughty. Cain kills Abel in a fit a jealousy. God Floods the earth to punish man for being bad but tells Noah to save some animals. God gets annoyed at man again for building a tower at Babel so makes them all speak different languages, then goes on to destroy Sodom & Gomorrah for being naughty again. Joseph is sold by his brothers, saves Egypt from famine, tricks his brothers and is reunited with his family. Oh Abraham's a really good guy and lots of people have lots of sons and live for a very long time.
 * Obviously it'd need rewording a little (I wrote that in about 3 minutes so didn't really pay attention to ettiquette, just ran with it) and expanded (like the bit at the end about Abraham - I know of Abraham and that he was a good guy and helped Lot out at Sodom, but that's about it). But, it's got in a lot of the major points of the book and condensed it to 0.3% (38k to 110 words(ish)). You could even put it in bullet points.Where is WikiOpinions? (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:PiCo did a nice looking synopsis, but there's a few bits missing. Anyone want to fill it in (Sodom, Babel, Joseph are missing) Where is WikiOpinions? (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The current synopsis is far too short. Can we Goldilocks it? Warthomp (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Flammarion Woodcut
"The Flammarion woodcut portrays the cosmos as described in Genesis chapter 1". I can't agree with that statement. There are a variety of interpretations of Genesis 1, many of which are highly dependendent on one's religious viewpoint. Linking Genesis to this viewpoint - which is generally regarded as 19th century in origin - is unhelpful, I think. Does anyone else think it should go? Rob Burbidge (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've gone ahead and removed it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of one word change

 * These changes are too minor to fight over.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek translation date
I think the claim that Genesis was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC needs a citation. It jars with the information that the oldest extant texts are 400+ years younger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.146.23 (talk • contribs)
 * Google "the Septuagint", the Greek translation in question. rossnixon 02:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Composition
I re-wrote the Composition section - the old section spent more than half its time talking about Moses as author, a theory which has no followers in academic circles today, and wasn't very clear about modern theories. I've tried to remedy this with a couple of reliable sources. PiCo (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Historical Document"
Re: Til, most of the pages in the category ARE historical documents. The ones that aren't should be removed. Genesis included. "Historical document - noun - Writing having historical value (as opposed to fiction or myth etc.)" -1 -- King Öomie  15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And of course, from your POV, Genesis has zero historical value. I realize this is controversial, as there are multiple competing views of history being put forth. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't twist my words. Genesis has historical value, but it's not an historical document. Neither is Shakespeare, neither is the Qu'ran. I'm not going to argue with you about what's "true". -- King Öomie  18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is good enough for other documents of dubious provenance; then we can include Genesis. I just look at other documents under this category and the first one that I checked on was "Popol Vuh", a corpus of mythistorical narratives of the Post Classic Quiché kingdom in Guatemala's western highlands. rossnixon 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most of the pages in the category ARE historical documents. The ones that aren't should be removed." Or, you know, left in, if it furthers the goal of boosting the factual credibility of the most famous book on the planet. Quite the underdog. -- King Öomie 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We should set all such emotional appeals / machiavellian "underdog" arguments completely aside without consideration, and simply apply common sense across the board rather than try to redefine the English language - unless as an encyclopedia, we are officially subscribing to a machiavellian agenda. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I'm not trying to redefine anything. Religious texts and creation myths shouldn't be categorized under the 'Historical Documents' header. At all. Not just yours, none. So two or three have snuck through- I reject the notion that that justifies tossing Genesis in there. Why not Exodus, then? Numbers? Any of the other biblical texts? -- King Öomie  15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the purpose of the category being to collect historical documents having historical value, not just those ajudged "historically accurate". I can also see that this would include religious documents (not just Judaeo-Christian ones; example: Seventeen-article constitution), so to avoid overpopulating the cat, it would make sense if some other category including the religious documents were made into a subcat of "Historical documents". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your prerogative. Linguists disagree. ""Historical document - noun - Writing having historical value (as opposed to fiction or myth etc.)" -1" -- King Öomie  15:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be of the POV that Genesis is "fiction", but please desist from pretending that linguistics somehow supports your POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to explain the meaning of "myth" to you again. A dozen times is enough. -- King Öomie 17:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Added categories and related
I've added this to the category of creation myths, added the links to that in related. I recommend to review direct links to chapters of the bible in biblegateway and put them if necesary in references. --190.84.186.84 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that these inline links are inappropriate.

If there is no disagreement I will remove the links where not used as a reference and make the rest of them into inline citations. Tdimhcs (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mythology and Bias
Shouldn't this article, just as well as other religious articles (e.g. the article on the Vedas (and the Rigveda in specific)), state that this book gives the Mythological account of the creation of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.115.121 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My reading of the Book of Genesis is that it's divided into three parts: mythological, legendary, and quasi-historical. Mythological is everything up to the Tower of Babel. Legendary is the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Quasi-historical is the last third of the book dealing with Joseph.


 * In the subsequent Book of Exodus, Moses spends forty years in the wilderness carrying the most sacred object of the Jewish people: the bones of Joseph. In the sixth book of the Bible, the bones of Joseph are finally buried in the Holy Land.


 * Every hero needs a lineage of illustrious legendary ancestors, typically three in a row. Alexander the Great had Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle as spiritual ancestors, all three of whom would have been long forgotten if Aristotle hadn't been tutor to Alexander. Similarly, someone needed to establish Joseph's credentials, so they gave him Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Later, when the tribe of Joseph formed alliance with other tribes, they gave Joseph eleven brothers.


 * At least that's one perspective from contemporary (non-Orthodox) Jewish theology. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over "In a beginning" or "In the beginning"
User Sbeystrom has been repeatedly reverting to his version without regard to the three revert rule which limits edit warring. That isn't the way decisions can be made on wikipedia in the event of disagreement. Instead, they can be made on the discussion page here. You could be blocked from editing for the number of times you have restored your edit in one day after it was reverted by various users.

You say there are major theological impacts if BERESHYT is translated into English as you say, "In a beginning". This is a matter of differing Bible interpretations, so you need more sources to make the case for your favorite interpretation, and the reasons for having more than one interpretation of that verse need to be detailed in the actual article, with information about who has favored one interpretation or the other, and why it is a major "theological impact" if that is indeed what sources say. My position is that it is irrelevant to the original Hebrew language how one chooses to translate it into modern English since there is no difference in the Hebrew concept between In "the" beginning or In "a" beginning, either one would be expressed the same way in Hebrew without any need to question which one it is. There is no other way to say "In THE beginning" than BERESHYT so that is why the vast majority of common usage opts for that smoother English rendering. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Til E. is correct. I'd just add that we have perhaps half a dozen good Genesis commentaries in the bibliography, about half of which discuss the name of the book, and every one of those plumps for "in the beginning". PiCo (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

CFORK merge candidate
FYI, there is an article, which appears to be a CFORK of this one, at Noach (parsha) which is being considered for deletion. I don't know if there is any content in that article which is worthy of being merged with this one, but if there is, please migrate it over. Thanks! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"In fact"
I'm a bit concerned over the phrase "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past." It comes across as "end of story" with no room for debate. "Tradition" credits Moses as the author because it's believed to be true. In light of this, unless there's substantial evidence to the contrary, there really shouldn't be any "but...in fact..." As it is a contrary (and valid) belief, its assertion that the books are anonymously written should indeed be included, but not in a manner that invalidates another set of firmly held beliefs. Just my two cents. user:Kisaoda 12:07, 29 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.73.4 (talk)


 * Agreed seems to read like an Atheistic viewpoint. No comment on the fact that Christ referenced Genesis etc as the works of Moses? Assuming Genesis were a more recent product than if it were the product of Moses then how exactly would the history myth have assumed such significance in a mere few centuries? Seems to be a rehash of Troy -the experts agree it's a myth, there is no city ... Actually that's probably unfair - a lot of experts still adhere to the "traditional" view and argue that's the most rational given all the internal and external evidence. 114.35.25.165 (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article says: "...the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past." It's a fact that the books are anonymous - they don't name their author. It's also a fact that they look back on Moses from some point in the future of the events described - they keep saying things like "In that day..." and they make mistakes about history (like talking about Philistines at a time when there were none). Please read the sources given in the article.PiCo (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the section on "origins" is completely inadequate as it is and needs to be greatly expanded. There is abundant evidence showing that many of the stories in Genesis derive from much older Sumerian legends composed within the polytheistic belief system of 3rd Millennium BCE Southern Mesopotamia, not least the flood story and a number of aspects of the story of Adam & Eve and the garden of Eden. Although this is referred to rather vaguely when it is stated that the author(s) drew on "Greek and Mesopotamian sources", a lot of readers will want to see a lot more information here, given that the Book of Genesis is the starting point most people in the western world have for these legends. Perhaps the paucity of the article is not surprising if the first two comments above in any way mirror the attitudes of the authors! I find it pretty disturbing to see people seriously suggesting that the fact that a set of beliefs are "firmly held" (by a religious group..) is reason to state them as fact in a Wikipedia entry. Of course the article should read "like an atheistic viewpoint" - it certainly shouldn't represent any theistic viewpoint! Spiridens (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Only the first 11 chapters of Genesis (out of a total 50 chapters) use Mesopotamian myths. Nor do they directly use Sumerian versions of those myths - they use Babylonian editions from the 1st millennium. Anyone wanting a little more info on this can see the article Genesis creation narrative, which covers chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. There's no article on Genesis 1-11 as a whole, but if there were it would be called Primeval history of something like that.PiCo (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Could the article cite the Genesis creation narrative in the text (in the section on Origins), as well as in "see also"? I think that would make it easier to find for people coming to this article wanting to know about the creation narrative. I take the point about the Sumerian myths only being used indirectly through later Babylonian versions, but those myths are still very likely Sumerian in origin.Spiridens (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WRONG! NPOV is non negotiable.  The wikipedia you want is one that insults readers' intelligence by telling them what POV is "correct" and who is incorrect, by telling them what to think - instead of laying out the facts impartially, telling ALL the main sides to the story, and letting them think for themselves.  Those authoritarian days of lecturing kindergartners belong to a past century. Web 2.0 is here.  People are going to stand up and be counted. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume that was aimed at the second comment above rather than mine, but just to be clear, I largely agree, and of course when saying that the article should read "like an atheistic viewpoint" I was being quite literal, i.e. a viewpoint without a theistic or any other perspective/bias.Spiridens (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to edit the section on origins I suggest you read the sources currently used and then see if you can find further ones. Look for recent works - since about 2000.This is because scholarly consensus and even theories change fast - the idea of Persian imperial prescription or whatever it's called has been pretty heavily criticised since it came out and I'm not sure what the position is right now. But it does seem, to me, on my own reading, that most scholars would see Genesis as a product of the 5th century BC and aimed at an audience from that time.PiCo (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Death sandwich
Just found this article. " researchers at Keele University in the U.K. and Amridge University in the U.S. have reportedly discovered an ancient literary trick in the Judeo-Christian Bible’s famous foundational book. That trick, known as inclusio or “bracketing,” involves placing similar material at the beginning and end of something; in Genesis’ cases, the writers appear to have enclosed a midsection thematically dominated by “death” with intro and outro passages devoted to “life.”" Which has a link to a Science Daily article which is where the phrase 'death sandwich' comes from. It's all about a rhetorical structure. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I remain unconvinced. Genesis 1 never once uses the word "life." If we take derivatives of that word ("living" and so on), the case becomes stronger, but not much: no derivatives in the first 19 verses, after which we hear of the creation of "living" creatures - though oddly enough the humans aren't said to be "living." And of course, all this "living" is quite quickly followed by the first murder. At the other end of the book, Genesis 50 is concerned exclusively with the deaths of Jacob and Joseph. PiCo (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with grammar of this sentence
There's a problem with the grammar of this sentence: "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see it as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC."

The problem is that the sentence says "it" in the last section ("scholars increasingly see it..."), which is singular, but the subject is "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy," which is plural. They don't agree in number, but they need to.

I suggested a solution by inserting a reference to the fact that the five books are collectively called the Torah, which is a singular noun. That's one way of solving it. Another would be to turn "it" into "them". I don't much much care which of these is used (or some other solution), but the problem is real enough (minor, but real). PiCo (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, I see your point. Mine was equally minor which was that there is no definition of Torah that equates to "the material attributed to Moses" since at least the very end of Deuteronomy cannot (everyone agrees) have been written by him because it relates his death, yet all definitions of Torah include that, admittedly, very small portion of Deuteronomy, hence on a strict interpretation using the collective term Torah does not in this situation exactly work. How about "(many/most) modern scholars see them as...". Clearly there are entirely respectable people (Ken Kitchen for one) who would doubt that they were all products of those centuries and of course there is some difference of opinion about parts but using "them" with some qualification fixes that and I would be fine with it. Francis Davey (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with "them". PiCo (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

New external link
Illustrated Summary and Analysis of Genesis This link was just added to the article. Can anyone verify who is associated with the website? It looks Jewish, but gives no identifying information on who produced the analysis it contains, or what (if any) organization is behind it or supports it (if any). If some identifying info cannot be found, I intend to remove it shortly as simply the equivalent of a blog. Evensteven (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Van Seter paragraph

 * Basically, every serious scholar is a minimalist in respect to Genesis, see the quotes at Talk:Omri. There is some room for centrism and maximalism, but in respect to other books of the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that some people think that "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." But it would be abnormal if they were allowed a place at the table establishing the consensus view in Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I have misunderstood the OP, I was thinking that minimalism is about historicity, not about composition. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So, yes, I wanted to state that only fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are maximalists about the historicity of Genesis, but if the word "maximalists" is used in another meaning, it is no longer true that maximalists are fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BC or BCE?
Should we change the five uses of BC to BCE as on other pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.11.138 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Section "first phrase" should be deleted
The section headed "first phrase" should be deleted. Not because it's not correct, but because it's singling out three words from the entire book. There's already a pretty good article on the Genesis creation narrative, and there's even one on that phrase, not to mention one on creatio ex nihilo, so how can you justify this?

Besides which it's wrong in one important respect: it says that "some modern [translators] believe that a more accurate translation is 'When God began to create'". Some? That's about 99%. And who's this John Moore author of "From Genesis to Genetics"? Why not use a decent biblical scholar like John Walton? Or dozens of others.

Delete it, it's sophomoric. PiCo (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it, and update the RS and text, those three words are important in understanding one of the central discussion about Genesis an creation ex nihilo. It is justfied as that claim is one of the things that anyone know about the book, and can except to find discussed.  What you call the 99 per cent is not what 99 per cent of general readers understand.  They would be surprised when they read important information.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This phrase and its meaning is still important to many today. See this Haaretz article.  http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.678408  This is the most well known phrase from all of the books in the HB.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The illustration is of Joshua! Need Genesis illustration
Not sure why the main illustration is a piece from the Book of Joshua. Can anyone supply an illustration that begins "B'reishit..."?

I found this lovely photo of Genesis from the Leningrad Codex, and it seems not to be copyrighted. It is offered on this page: http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/philological%20resources%20toc.htm Link on the page says "Genesis 1:10-26" but the actual text (in Hebrew on the photo of the page) begins with "B'reishit bara Elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz" (In the beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth) so, clearly it starts with 1:1, not 1:10.

On my computer I was able to edit the picture, to just show Genesis 1:1, but don't know how to put it up on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, here is the full page of Torah starting with 1:1

http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/leningrad_genesis1.jpg

The full graphic would look muddy if used as is, so I'm not doing that.

If someone can put up an appropriate illustration, or, if someone can tell me how to get the picture from my computer to Wikipedia, that would be great.Shoe (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding from "When these texts were created"
A point of divergence from the dates of the Primitive History and evidently the scholarship given.

The argument is that the "PRIMITIVE HISTORY" chapters 1-11 of Genesis - at the very least the Edenic part - had to have been written before 850BCE. This is because that date marks the highly destructive theocratic confrontation of the (PURIST or UNITY subtypes of the) ELOHIST DOCTRINE of COSMOPOLITAN / Phoenician-Israeli origin (i.e. of queen Jezebel) versus the INTOLERANT / REACTIONARY PURIST YAHWIST DOCTRINE of the prophet Elijah of the still intact Judah Kingdom. The argument being, that had that "Primitive History" been written after 850 - it would not have presented any of the developing theories of a CHIEF ELOHIM GOD whether named or UNNAMED (which it is.) In Genesis that God is clearly one of the Creation's Gods or a chief among them - heretical to later dogma. it presents a midpoint theology of the first Mosaic Jews - hence must have dated (based on the later sub-type theology) between whatever date for Moses and the ELIJAH REVOLUTION of 850BCE. Thus I can find no reason why this part of the writing should not be sourced at the latest about 1000BCE.

It would seem an unthinkable act of creative history falsification to assume that a strictly Yahwist later kingdom would incorporate rejected theology into its core founding texts. (And if so - that would be a major revolution in scholarship itself.) And at the very minimum this needs to be mentioned here, on whatever basis (other than "original research") because it forms a definite reason to challenge the 600BCE DATE.

But I am not done. I find it remarkable as well that there is a story of Jerome (the father-in-law) visiting Moses and going with Moses to make sacrifices on the mountain to "the Elohim and to Yahweh" - which is an unthinkable thing to do in the days of the Temple (Solomon) - or at any period after that 850 date. And this particular theology represents a clearly somewhat later development (dare I say evolution?) of that found in the Edenic text. And this would then tend to push the "latest date" to centuries BEFORE MOSES - assuming the story recounts accurately.

Giving the Jerome/Moses story the benefit of the doubt, I am using 1500BCE because of the generations involved, and the dichotomy would indicate that the Edenic text actually PREDATES Moses. However that date is "very soft."

This possibility is given, by the mechanism of incorporation of earlier (undated and unspecified) texts. But also is most emphatic that its use in Jewish doctrinal material could not have occurred after 850BCE.

Sources are general knowledge based on Bible history.

Xgenei (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:VERIFY and no original research. Neither general knowledge nor the Bible can be used for such an argument. Doug Weller  talk 19:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * DW:

I assume you didn't edit my sources statement? Because that's not what it says. It says Bible History, not "the Bible" as a source - two different things. And COMMON CONSENSUS is in fact an accepted source. And this is not ORIGINAL RESEARCH but an argument for considering an update. AS THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE - IT IS THE TALK PAGE. I am borderline with the idea of going off to search for an academic source because of time constraints, in order to do that.

Xgenei (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean by "Bible history" but we need "reliably published sources", not your knowledge of "common consensus". Sources need to be specific. You want an update, bring your sources and your text here for discussion. Doug Weller  talk 09:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias in themes
I've actually just read Genesis (NRSV). Your section on themes has a clear bias in favor of the authors and intended audience of the text.

However, two themes that are missing, but are throughout Genesis are:

1. Sex and marriage are free-for-alls, for God's favored people. You can marry your sibling. You can marry your cousin. Heck, marry two or three. Have sex with your wife's servants! You can rape your parents. You can offer your virgin daughters for sex with a mob of horny men.

2. God doesn't care about other people. You can have their land. You can have their stuff. You can kill them all. Or God will do it, maybe even twice! Doesn't matter. It's OK.

Wikipedia is supposed to have NPOV, but this page clearly adopts the perspective of the authors and intended audience.

I was expecting at least mention of some serious critique of the document here. 24.57.206.239 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that sort of critique is a better fit for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Besides, those aren't so much "themes" as they are perceived shortcomings in the rulemaking/morality of the Old Testament. Genesis is meant to be taken as part of a whole, and the rules are primarily set down in other books of the Pentateuch. I'm not sure why it should be mentioned that Genesis lacks any proscription on certain forms of marriage. Ultimately, this comes down to attempting to apply modern-day morality (or New Testament morality, even) to ancient times. Why wouldn't it be okay, for instance, to kill neighboring tribes of a different god, especially when they'd jump at the chance to kill you and take your stuff first? clpo13(talk) 06:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOT. Find reliable sources (written by reputable Bible scholars) which make these points, since that's the way to edit this article. If you have no sources, you have nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war
Verifiable statements should not be changed to the figments of one's own imagination and still be (falsely) attributed to the WP:SOURCES which present the mainstream view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Text and textual witnesses
"in the Greek Septuagint it was called Genesis, from the phrase "the generations of heaven and earth," and translated as genesis in Latin and Greek." seems to me to need rephrasing. Maybe something like "The phrase ... was rendered using the Greek word γενεσις genesis in the Septuagint, which provides the Greek and then the Latin title "Genesis"?  TomS TDotO (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like that :). The word being translated is "toledot", which means something like histories or generations (it's a plural). The phrase is "These are the toledot of the heavens and the earth", meaning the world - the generations of the world. Maybe just forget the explanation and say that it was called (not translated) Genesis in Greek, meaning "origin". Better still, what does the source say? PiCo (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In defence of the serpent
Reading this generally well-written Wikipedia article, I was surprised by the neologism "trickster" to describe the serpent. I have now deleted "trickster", for two reasons.

1. In everyday British usage at least, the word "trickster" is not used in formal speech and is therefore not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Any other British or non-British readers out there who agree (or disagree) with me?

2. I have looked up trickster on Wikipedia, and apart from its informal use, it appears to have a specific literary definition: trickster is a character in a story which exhibits a great degree of intellect or secret knowledge, and uses it to play tricks or otherwise disobey normal rules and conventional behaviour. This literary definition is clearly not applicable to the serpent in Genesis. The serpent itself does not play tricks or disobey rules. Rather, the serpent is a tempter who promises Eve that the forbidden fruit will impart knowledge. And that turns out to be the case, so the serpent is not even lying here.

Interested in your comments. 86.154.102.53 (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get into this discussion, but I think that to be fair about what I did by making a link to Serpent (Bible), that article uses the term "trickster" about the serpent. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're correct about the literary meaning of the term "trickster", but it is in fact applied to the serpent in quite a number of academic works - see, for example, this.PiCo (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Article fails to note the historical views of the book of Genesis
The vast majority of people thought Genesis was factual before modern science. Is this really controversial?

184.57.174.32 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly, yes. First, why do you want to see such an assertion put into this article? Second, I'm not sure ancient people, such as the Jewish culture from which Genesis emerged, necessarily viewed the world in terms of "facts". They certainly didn't practice modern science and didn't have notions of "science" like we have today. Furthermore, we can understand from the Bible (Galatians 4:21-24) that people from about the year 100 or 200 CE saw (at times) Genesis as allegorical. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

First, why do you want to see such an assertion put into this article

It is of direct historical interest that it was long considered to be history.

They certainly didn't practice modern science

Exactly, that's what I said in the edit.

people from about the year 100 or 200 CE saw (at times) Genesis as allegoric

Even if that was true what does it have to do with my edit? That still leaves over a thousand years Genesis was considered literal.

2600:1009:B168:81CB:542A:56DA:D9A1:E740 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We might be on the verge of going around in circles, but let me respond anyway. I don't know that Genesis was, actually, "long considered to be history" in the sense of "facts" and modern perceptions of "science". If it wasn't, then your suggested sentence doesn't seem especially relevant. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that, back in an era of extreme religiosity, when Bible quotations were accepted in courts of law and there was no separation of Church and State, Genesis was not seen as the literal truth?

2600:1009:B168:81CB:542A:56DA:D9A1:E740 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

2600:1009:B168:81CB:542A:56DA:D9A1:E740 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable source saying such, then I'm fine with it, but, for now, I'm suggesting that people, back then, didn't worry about such things. The notion of "scientific fact" and "historical accuracy", is, I believe, a modern one (or a lot more recent than BCE). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The keyword is "literal": Biblical literalism is a much later invention. In Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy a literal reading of the Bible is suspect of Protestant propaganda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a massive religious theocracy but "people, back then didn't worry about such things"?

Catholics generally interpreted Genesis literally too. 

184.57.174.32 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are going in circles. Literal truth, scientific fact, historical accuracy --- these are relatively modern and probably western too (I believe) compared to the ancient middle-eastern notions of faith, allegory, myth, personal feeling, etc. Contradictions in the Bible used to not be a problem for most readers, not until we started to want it to be "historically accurate". Anyway, this subject is not just germane to this article, but much more general, and it not about Catholics either. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, no, "literal truth" is not a modern concept. You do not have to conduct a scientific investigation to conclude something is true. Biblical contradictions were very carefully explained away before the modern era.

184.57.174.32 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you brought up "science", not me. I'm going to remove the POV tag now. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I said? Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean, I genuinely don't understand the point you are trying to make.

184.57.174.32 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The only sources you've brought up to support the claim that "everyone" believed it was a historical, literal, scientific fact (here and at Genesis flood narrative) were an outdated polemic with an agenda and an encyclopedia that discusses only Catholicism's views. You completely ignored Judaism, except for an attempt to cite the Catholic encyclopedia's statement regarding Catholicism as if that was Jewish doctrine.  It has been demonstrated that one of the most influential Church fathers as well as the most prolific author of the New Testament viewed Genesis in a way that we would now call allegorical.  This doesn't mean that they thought it was false, just that its truth was spiritual or philosophical, not scientific or historical.
 * The idea of Biblical literalism, as has been explained, is a Protestant notion. Seriously, William Tyndale is the oldest source for the idea.  Before Protestantism, it was very rare that you'd see anyone literate look at the Bible and say "the first interpretation I have as a result of my specific cultural background, upbringing, and education must be the 'face-value' one, the face-value one must be the universally most obvious interpretation, and the universally most obvious one would somehow be the only way to interpret texts written millenia ago in a completely different culture by people with completely different upbringings and educations."  The Rabbis said that there were at least seventy ways to read every verse in the Tanakh (or "Old" Testament).
 * The idea of science, as has been explained, is a relatively modern notion. I've read a fair amount of "proto-scientific" works, and before Paracelsus ("The dose makes the poison") a lot of it (even the ahead-of-its-time Muslim stuff) was more dependent on mysticism and symbolism than any sort of exact measurement.
 * Something like our idea of history is about 2500 years old, but it was clearly distinguished from mythos (which was not regarded as false but a different kind of truth) in that history explicitly focused on purely mundane and human affairs without any divine attribution to any sort of action. Therefore, if a modern literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation stories were a scientific fact, then it is not a historical one.
 * But, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the only thing that matters is that you have not provided adequate sources to demonstrate that ancient peoples viewed Genesis as either literal, historical, or scientific (which are three different things). While it's not unreasonable to assume that they viewed it as "true," that does not establish in what sense they thought it true.  St.s Paul and Augustine clearly thought the truth of Genesis was philosophical, symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, or whatever you want to call it -- true but not in a literal, scientific, or historic sense. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply are wrong. While its true St. Augustine thought the descriptions might be allegorical he did not doubt the literal truth of creation and Adam and Eve. There is absolutely no evidence that medieval churchman or scholastics understood the Old Testament accounts as legendary. You say Catholicism did not support literalism but that's demonstrably untrue, as shown by their long opposition to heliocentric theory.

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on "history" explicitly shows how the Old Testament records were regarded as historical during the Middle Ages. It is simply inconceivable that anyone before modern times, when there is a strong interest in pretending that religion and science are in harmony, would have had the "enlightened" view of the Bible which you express. Nobody before the 17th century doubted the Bible, along with witchcraft and miracles, was completely factual. If you want to understand the state of thought prior to the 17th century I suggest you read Lecky's History of the Rise of Rationalism in Europe. 

184.57.174.32 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You really do like citing outdated sources, don't you? Also, their opposition to heliocentrism was a combination of politics (Galileo insulted the pope) and interpretation of books besides Genesis -- therefore it is irrelevant to their interpretation of Genesis.  Plus, by that point Catholicism was certainly not the only church around, and it never was the only religion that read Genesis.  You seem to be blinded into thinking that Catholicism is the only religion there is. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia rule against using old sources. I don't see the relevance of your other points. The heliocentrism thing was in your response to your false statement that Protestants invented Biblical literalism.

Of course people are extremely uncomfortable acknowledging the reality of how ancestors thought--think about race, for example--but that doesn't mean we should hide it.

184.57.174.32 (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC) 184.57.174.32 (talk)


 * In fact, the conflict thesis is outdated in many ways, scholarship has moved beyond mere conflict between science and religion. And that is not because scholars would want to hide reality, on the contrary, scholars fully embrace it. History cannot be reduced to simplistic cliches. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm merely noting that, during the time period that the Church was dominant and modern science did not exist, Genesis was viewed as real history. Why is this such a big deal?

184.57.174.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you have not provided adequate sourcing to demonstrate that this is indeed true or even relevant. You've provided outdated sources and easily contradicted original research.  Why is that such a problem for you? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? What is the minimum year for you not to consider it "outdated" and where do you find this in Wikipedia policy?

184.57.174.32 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The article Historicity of the Bible already contains the following ''The birth of geology was marked by the publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788. This marked the intellectual revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory.''

2600:1009:B116:E317:24E8:9586:1D79:C7E8 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

One more point for the record: tradition ascribed Genesis to Moses, who received the information from God at Mt. Sinai (see Mosaic authorship). So they thought God was lying, or telling an allegory? Really?

Furthermore in the Gospels Jesus refers to events in Genesis as factual.

184.57.174.32 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Book of Genesis. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://http
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929022703/http://www.easyrashi.com/1bereshis/bereshith/Bereshit.htm to http://www.easyrashi.com/1bereshis/bereshith/Bereshit.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I set it to "failed" because the webpage works, but the PDF from it doesn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

image
Is it okay to put an image at the top?Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on the image. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OkaySetabepiw3547747 (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Composition: Origins
The matter of 'Origins' (subheading of 'Compositions') continues to contradict related articles (Jahwist, et al.). This issue was mentioned here over a year ago but doesn't seem to have been addressed since. I'm only pointing this out as a reminder to more experienced editors as the difference between articles is so obvious. RobotBoy66 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it could be true what you say but the consensus seems to be that there was more than one Yahwist, etc., etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Article fails to note specific points
The article fails to explain specific points given from chapters due to the fact that the parts this is split into are way to large. If the parts are made smaller it would be greatly appreciated. Logawinner (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Majority view
By "majority view" Wikipedia means WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not popular opinion. Speaking of popular opinion, the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalists, nor biblical inerrantists. The accusation of non-biblical scholarship is addressed at WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

, I suggest that you read the above, it concerns your tendentious editing by claiming that you restore neutrality to the article. You are not restoring neutrality, you're ruining it. And no, WP:NPOV does not mean giving equal validity to WP:CHOPSY and true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutrality by definition means not taking a side, according to the Oxford dictionary Neutrality is "the state of not supporting either side in a disagreement, competition or war," and providing the opinion of both sides doesn't give validity, but rather leaves it to the reader to chose validity. You cannot make up your own definitions for Neutrality to fit your opinion, if you claim that secularism is given precedence over those that participate in the religion on religious articles, you are showing a lack of neutrality. Secular scholars are not all that should be represented, regardless of your personal "highbrowdness" or opinion. Showing only one side, and accurate information being removed due to it bringing neutrality is one of the reasons no reputable Universities permit Wikipedia for citations. Also for the fact that biased people on both ends of the spectrum (Biased toward religion via only showing the religious side, and biased towards secularism via only showing the secular side) can freely edit and remove accurate information from those truly bringing neutrality to an article by bringing a representation of both opinions from the scholars, and clarifying the difference between the two. Vaxorian (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * We do take a side, the aggregate POV of WP:Reliable sources, see WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:FIXBIAS. You arguments seem nothing new. We are used to POV-pushers who claim they are restoring neutrality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)




 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Here it is not done to change your posts after those have been replied to. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I attempted to reply to your comment, but upon publishing my reply, it did not show up, all I was stating is that Neutrality is by definition, NOT taking a side. I provided evidence, and my comment was not added. So rather than dealing with settings, I changed my original comment by adding the oxford dictionary definition of Neutrality. I was not changing the topic or any information, but rather providing a source, which I assumed you appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I say just take time to read WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:FIXBIAS, WP:ABIAS and WP:NOBIGOTS. Your conception of neutrality isn't ours (meaning: it does not belong to the Wikipedia community). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edit here pretty much says that only scholars who favor Mosaic authorship are Jews and Christians, suggesting that anyone who doesn't hold to that are not Jews or Christians. That is taking a side.  As for whether or not Christians must believe in Mosaic authorship, as a Christian I have to tell you that I wasn't baptized in the name of Moses nor Mosaic authorship, and the majority of pastors and Sunday school teachers I've met (in the fundamentalist-filled Bible belt, no less) either figured the Documentary hypothesis was either proven or at least as plausible as the Mosaic authorship (if not more so).  Pull the plank out of your own eye before you go accusing others of not being neutral.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup, his/her understanding of encyclopedic neutrality is not shared by the Wikipedia community and actively pushing it through editing Wikipedia articles is not done. is entitled to his/her own view, and may try to state it at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view (even though such attempt would be futile per WP:SNOW), but editing articles according to his/her own take on neutrality is not appreciated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing
3.1 Title and textual witnesses. Next, I would like to insert the following items.

About the formation and editing of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible ・・・・I omitted it.

Tokinokawa (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - Tokinokawa - whether you agree with it or not, this textual "genesis" of the book is already covered at length in the Origins section. If you feel that your sources trump the existing material, I would suggest that you instead refer your edits to the specific, existing text and state what you would like to see changed. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * reply　　I thought that there wasn't enough duplication in this section to show changes.

Because the "Origin" part comes from the description of the entire five books. From the point of view of Genesis, I think the following is true: ``Yahwist is from either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after." I thought the text of the editorial suggestion might have led to this article. Tokinokawa (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved to the text.Tokinokawa (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - Tokinokawa - I'm not sure you understood the request. You replied to my comment and then pasted in a whole bunch of text without first including it here for comment. It was reverted as essentially "original research" because your sole reference is the Bible - which implies that all the ideas are yours - this isn't how Wikipedia works. So rather than go off on your own again, I would suggest you try and garner consensus on your proposed insertion - AND - supply actual references for your insertion. Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Thank you for your suggestions.Tokinokawa (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Pages Don't Jive
Know that Wiki isn't a scholarly site and we merely recount the views of others, but this page and the page of [[Josiah|Biblical King Josiah] do not match as to the origins of the Pentateuch and specifically the book of Genesis. On this page in the Origins section it states: "but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist is from either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after." However, on the Josiah page it states in the Religeous reforms section: "While Hilkiah was clearing the treasure room of the Temple he discovered a scroll described as "the book of the Law" or as "the book of the law of Yahweh by the hand of Moses".

Regardless of what portion of the Bible was found, with the reference to the "Book of the Law", this period was around 623/622 (18th year of Josiah's reign). So "late in the Exilic period" (circa 520 BC) as this page states for the Yahwist writing and a recounting the reign during circa 622 BC as the Josiah page states are off by app 100 yrs. It might be a simple matter of subjugating the test that I copy to show this as a fringe viewpoint, but either way Wikipedia should probably agree with itself. Ckruschke (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Ckruschke - the commonest theory of the document found in the Temple is that it was a version of the law-code in Deuteronomy - the central spine of the modern Book of Deuteronomy, to which a few additions were later made to fit it into the Torah. I think the article Book of Deuteronomy explains, in its section on the composition-history of that book. There's also a pretty widely held suspicion that he law code wasn't found at that time, but was actually written then and passed off as an old code from the hand of Moses in order to justify Josiah's reform program - but at this point in time, who could possibly know. Have a look at Documentary hypothesis. though I'm not sure what's in that. Better maybe to look up Ska's book on the Pentateuch - it should be in the bibliography of that article.
 * Hi - I'm not saying I'm disagree with either sections so although I may be "interested" in your theories, they are irrelevant to the question. I'm saying that the Josiah page and this page don't agree and they should since the stated sections deal with the same subject matter. Ckruschke (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * , I know that response was a bit long winded, but here's the crux of it: the part of the Josiah page you're referring to is not about the book of Genesis . It is about the law code section of Deuteronomy. Genesis and Deuteronomy are two different books, and there's no reason to draw the conclusion that just because the law code that ended up being part of Deuteromy existed at such-and-such date, that that means Genesis also did. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D43F:9051:2D0:8EC1 (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)