Talk:Book of Genesis/Archive 4

Two versions?
How come it says "There are two distinct versions of God's creation of the world in Genesis" then proceeds to only give one version? GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Both are actually presented in that paragraph, but it is almost completely obscure:

This is:

The first is given as a single relatively short sentence; the second as a much longer set of several sentences. So, technically, it does give both versions. But to outside observers such as you and me it is most opaque, especially given the massive imbalance in size of the two accounts.

I also observe that it poorly represents the claimed supporting reference. The reference (Joel Baden) says "Two creation-stories of Genesis 1 and 2" which is far clearer than our article's "There are two distinct versions of God's creation of the world in Genesis". Baden clearly and succinctly states the "chapter 1 and chapter 2" division. He also uses the term "creation-stories", which is much more precise than the article's "there are two distinct versions of God's creation of the world".

Further, the article's "...creation of the world" is a poor representation. Gen.1 is of "the heavens and earth", working towards humankind-in-general and the rest-day. By contrast, Gen.2 is about Adam and Eve and things around them; for this, in particular, the article's current language "of the world" is poor. Neither narrative really matches what we today would call "the world", so our article's framing and implicit emphasising of "the world" is suboptimal. And the progression towards the fruit, Cain and Abel, Seth, etc., doesn't really belong in a "creation of the world" paragraph.

My suggestion is that we replace at least the opening of this paragraph with something similar to the opening paragraph of Genesis creation narrative:

That article's opening paragraph has been carefully refined over years both for accuracy and clarity. It would, to my mind, make a far better start to this paragraph than the current one.

I propose fixing the problem you identify, making a change of this nature later this week, unless there are serious objections supported by alternative proposals.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That seems much better to me. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Feline Hymnic I suggest just using Baden, as quoted above, "two creation-stories of chapters 1 and 2", without further detail. Incidentally. when Genesis 1:1 says "heavens and earth" this is a figure of speech standing for everything, the entire world, not just the heavens and the earth.Achar Sva (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see your point about keeping it quite short. So I have split the paragraph into two: the first for the creation accounts; the second for the subsequent "tree; serpent; Cain and Abel" etc., leaving the second, which was not really the topic of our discussion here, almost as it was (except for adding a "citation needed" template).  For the first of the paragraphs (two creation stories), I have reduced it somewhat, and also ensured a wikilink to "Genesis creation narrative". I hope that is OK, or at least a reasonable step in the right direction.
 * How does that seem to you?
 * Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. My only objection really was to "two distinct versions", which makes it sound like there is only one story, but two versions of it. For example if we had one story where God makes Adam and Eve first and finishes up 30 days later with the heavens and the earth, and another story where the heavens and earth are first and it only takes seven days, that would be two distinct versions. We don't have that, we have more like two chapters of the same story. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now got "two different..." rather than "two distinct...". I'm not too bothered which word (or similar word) to use.  But what this tries to do is to preserve the idea of the text in the Baden reference, which seems to reflect the majority scholarship view that there is some form of different authorship of the two accounts and some manifestation of the Documentary hypothesis.  (The details of the DH are both extensive and constantly debated, but there seems to be scholarly consensus of Gen.1&2 reflecting two different source documents/strands/traditions later being edited together.)  So I'm trying to preserve Baden's (mainstream) explanation.  It also introduces a wikilink to Genesis creation narrative for those who want to dive deeper into the Gen.1&2 details, and so that those details don't overwhelm this paragraph. If we're both reasonably OK with it, +/- details, let's pause to see what others have to say.  Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Just a note on the "two distinct sources" - they really are distinct, not just different. In Genesis 1 God creates the world in six days and then rests, he creates mankind last (both man and woman together, while in Genesis 2 creation takes just one day, the order in which living things are created is different, and man (only one of them) is created before woman (only one). This is what Baden is pointing out. Achar Sva (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Bereshit"
Isn't it "Bereshith"? From the In the beginning (phrase) article, it apparantly is "Bereshith". The leading section on the Book of Genesis article has that "Bereshit". Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some sort of a contradiction between the two articles. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a variation in the transliteration. See bereshit.Editor2020 (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Should the two articles have consistency in word variants between each other? I'm not sure if the inconsistent use of "bereshit" versus "bereshith" in respective leading sections are necessary. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You might add it parenthetically. Editor2020 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Evidence that Genesis should be taken literally
Dr. Steven Boyd specializes in Ancient Hebrew. His study of the Bible proves that one can determine if a passage is narrative (factual) or poetic by the dominance of the preterite verb form. If it is used overwhelmingly, the passage is narrative (factual). If usage is similar to other verb forms, the passage is poetic, and therefore not to be taken literally. Poetic passages are songs, prayers, blessings, proverbs, and prophets. All other passages are to be taken literally including the creation and the flood. 2601:249:C000:E7D0:0:0:0:4980 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should we care about what Boyd states about Jewish mythology? Nothing in Genesis has any factual base. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Moses as the author
Reading Genesis indicates that the author was of Hebraic heritage but had an extensive education in the tradition of Ancient Egypt. The description of the Garden of Eden pinpoints the location exactly if one follows the clues with Ancient Egypt in mind and the comment about a location where "the gold is good" shows knowledge of commerce at the far north of the world although the writer was in the south of the known world. Given that Moses is also accredited with writing Exodus, we might mention the use of the number 10 as in the 10 plagues and the 10 commandments. Egypt was the only civilization to use Base 10. All of Mesopotamia including Persia and Israel used Base 60. Another reason to consider Moses as the author of Genesis is the use of Books of Moses as authoritarian in numerous verses of various books in the library called the Holy Bible. 2601:249:C000:E7D0:0:0:0:4980 (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Given that Moses is also accredited with writing Exodus" Moses is a fictional character and the Genesis dates to the 5th century BCE at the earliest. Dimadick (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Moses is a fictional character
 * Surely you have verifiable confirmation for this claim, correct? 107.123.5.50 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Moses is dated traditionally ca.1400 BCE., we have him writing, in Hebrew, Books several centuries before that language and its distinctive script is attested. Cripes. Well, the world of magical thinking can perform miracles as well.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Most mainstream Bible scholars??
Who are these MOST Mainstream Bible Scholars please? Who and how did someone calculated this please? Do we have sources and citation please? By doing so, are we recommending people about what to believe and what not? Also, Why can't we say what's Christian's belief of the book of Genesis? - Common... it's a Christian Book and not Mainstream Scholars Book! Praveen.arokyaswamy (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * POV-pushing for your own religion (which does not seem to be mainstream Christianity, but fundamentalist Christianity) is very much not appreciated as a matter of website policy, see WP:RNPOV.
 * Yup, many Christians don't know there is such a thing as liberal Christianity, but if forced to choose camps, most Christians in the world would choose its camp.
 * You can fool yourself that I'm the Big Bad Wolf who ruins everything Christian at Wikipedia, or you can accept an explanation which is more compliant with Occam's razor, namely that the powers of WP:BESTSOURCES are opposing you. In fact, everybody should know that at Wikipedia editors who merely push their own POV are very easy to defeat. Editors who simply push a POV get contained, at a certain point they will rebel against containment measures, so they will misbehave, and they will get blocked and then banned. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Why can't we say what's Christian's belief of the book of Genesis" Because Christians are not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking. They are instead known for their belief in hoaxes. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "it's a Christian Book" Wow, your anti-semitism is evident. This is a book about Jewish mythology, likely written by Jews. Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Question
I don't think that the article needs the "Title" chapter, as the first paragraph already tells the reader to etmyology of Genesis. Feel free to tell me otherwise. Firesword9140 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)