Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 13

'Christian creation myth' redirects here
Recommend deletion of this whole article. Creating a redirect page with intention of calling Genesis Creation a "Myth" is inflammatory and unnecessary. -silvrstridr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvrstridr (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since the narrative includes the supernatural as the agent of creation, it is by definition a myth. There is nothing inflammatory about that whatsoever. And it is also a myth in the street usage of the word. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * POV redirects are allowed on wikipedia, necessary if perhaps unfortunate situation! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

However, Christianity features numerous interpretations that deviate from and amend the Jewish teaching. Namely, in Christianity Jesus is often viewed as the executing agent of Yahweh's creation, based on certain interpretations of Revelation. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont follow Cush, what do you want to do here? You want a separate article for it? We focus one the Book of Genesis' creation myth than cover both Christian and Jewish interpretations of the same book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, there should be a section mentioning differences in interpretations. When someone types in 'Christian creation myth' in the search box, they should end up at an article that in fact deals with 'Christian creation myth'. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 18:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, i would support such a move. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indulge me, only one cup of coffee so far... On the one hand we have "creation", on the other we have what followed creation including Jesus as an agent of the (per Christian) Holy Trinity. I don't see that there is any difference between Judaism and Christianity in the actual story of the Creation. Can you explain in more detail? (Or simpler terms for the caffeine challenged?) Thanks. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know there are deep theological meanings involving prologue of Gospel of John which is retteling of Genesis but in essence they are indeed the same. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The details can be taken from Milton's Paradise Lost, which sums up pretty well how Genesis is (re)interpreted in light of Apocalypse (Revelation), including the rebellion and subsequent downfall of Satan. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Modern-day Jewish and Christian interpretations of creation are very similar, except of course that Christianity has the concept that God is a trinity. Apart from that I don't think there's any difference. The big difference is between what the original authors meant (God was ordering pre-existing material) and the interpretation that came in the Classical period when Philo reinterpreted Genesis in terms of Platonism (God created the universe out of nothingness). In the 20th century there's also been a tendency, especially among Christians, to see Genesis 1 reaching a climax with the creation of man - this is contrary to the original intention, which has the sanctification of the Sabbath as the climax - and this was the understanding right up to the end of the 19th century. PiCo (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, in Christianity the story of divine activity doesn't start with the Genesis narrative. It is preceded by the creation of heaven, Satan's rebellion and downfall, the prediction of Man's creation and the Fall of Man, and the sacrifice promised by Jesus to unmake said Fall. After that Jesus (!) executes the creation as described in Genesis. I doubt that this is what Judaism teaches or close to it. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New round
Why isn't this page titled "Genesis Creation Myth"? It is at odds with almost every other creation myth on Wikipedia. See: List_of_creation_myths Egeste (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Because half a year ago certain Jewish and Christian editors forced their beliefs on everybody else and succeeded in having their myth not called myth on Wikipedia. They succeeded it gaining special treatment for their religious ideology. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 09:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing honest about this answer at all. I'm neither Jewish, Christian or religious at all and I was one of those editors.  The issue came down to WP:UCN.  This creation story is not usually discussed as a "myth" or called a "myth" in most of the relevant literature.  It doesn't mean that it isn't also a myth, because it is and the entry makes that clear.  There was an extensive and very contentious discussion.  Let's not revisit it.Griswaldo (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This was no UCN issue at all and you know it. The "relevant" literature may not call it a myth because it is literature that would of course use Jewish or Christian language due to cultural convenience. The first paragraphs of Genesis are an arbitrary recycling of other (older) myths of the ANE and it is clearly a myth because it includes the supernatural and it does not represent actual events. The only reason why it is not called a myth on Wikipedia any more is the greater audacity and persistence of editors with a faith background who manage more rational editors to just give up in the end. To claim that the story of some god speaking the world into being is something else than a myth (just like other myths of the region) is simply ridiculous and constitutes proselytization. If we were to apply WP:UCN then Wikipedia would indeed call this myth a myth. &#9798; CUSH &#9798;  13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeating a misrepresentation of the situation does not magically make it true. I have no desire to rehash this with you.  Anyone who wants to know what the issues were can go to the archives and look at them.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo - This is obviously not a UCN issue. The Genesis creation myth is clearly at odds with almost every other creation story that is colloquially referred to as a myth because it meets certain criteria to earn that title. If you do not believe that the Genesis creation myth fits the defintion of a myth, please see Myth - Egeste (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said that it doesn't fit the definition of myth. It clearly does.  We clearly also identify it as a myth in the entry.  Please read the archives before you launch into this.  The current title was reached by consensus.  I'm not responding again.Griswaldo (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because We dont specify specific sacred texts as "myth" in the title. The only time we use the term is when there is no formal name and we have to descriptive title.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the article on Sacred - the definition of sacred is as follows: "Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas)." Therefor claiming that the Genesis creation myth should be called something else because it is "sacred" is a matter your personal opinion, and not an objectively valid claim. My point stands. - Egeste (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Because We dont specify specific sacred texts as "myth" in the title." Really? Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Mesoamerican creation myths, Mandé creation myth, Ainu creation myth and Cherokee creation myth articles might disagree with you. I predict you'll point out your use of the word 'specific'. Fair point. But let's not pretend that we are simply adopting the 'accepted name' of this myth as many authors and scholars seem to disagree. Just throwin' that out there.  Dubious Irony  yell  02:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to be careful when comparing this article to other articles on creation myths, because this refers directly to a specific sacred text and what it says about creation whereas the others you mentioned refer to a vague set of beliefs, often passed down orally. It's really apples and oranges.  As to the "accepted" name, I feel like the past discussion has already settled that.... --Cerebellum (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: other articles refer to a set of beliefs. This one refers to a narrative that conveys a set of beliefs.  --Cerebellum (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. My question is: where does the idea that "Genesis creation narrative" is the preferred name come from? I see both terms used by scholars. I have some more concerns with this article, namely in "questions of genre" we write "In academic circles the Genesis creation narrative is often described as a creation or cosmogonic myth ... In academic use, the term myth generally does not pass judgment on the truth or falsity of the story." Correct me if I'm wrong, but this must be the only article that features such a disclaimer! The same section states "The text has also been variously described as historical narrative (i.e., a literal account)". It's little stuff like that which bothers me (placing 'literal account' first in a list of opinions about the text). Creationism features a prominent 'criticism' section, this article can at least mention that not everyone agrees with this 'narrative'. The argument can be made that this article should simply document the narrative itself and that its acceptance or rejection is outside of the article's scope. I think that's valid and I would accept that if we didn't have that "Genesis has been described as a myth, now keep in mind myth is a science term so it does't necessarily mean it's not true!" disclaimer in it. Speaking of creationism, in that article (in the criticism section, no less) we also have the term narrative used in favour of myth: "creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts". Let's remember that narrative is defined as "the systematic recitation of an event or series of events", and myth as "A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc." Which definition is a more fitting description for a tale of God's creation of man? Shouldn't we strive to use the word that fits the meaning most accurately? (P.S. I could not find the renaming discussion, if anyone can link me to it so I can educate myself I'd appreciate it greatly) found a lot of discussion in the archives, looks like I have reading to do.  Dubious Irony  yell  06:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that whole thing was mess and repsrents about a third of the archives for this page. I agree use myth/mythic all the time in my role as a scholar but this is Wikipedia which abides by the policy WP:NOTACADEMIA, We all agree it is a myth

""Wikipedia is not Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.""

- Wikipedia
 * combined with this from WP:NDESC when using a non descriptive

""The title chosen should be worded so as to not insert, implicitly or explicitly, an editor's viewpoint about the topic.""

- wikipedia


 * Thus we dont name a Sacred text as myth in the title Thus Genesis creation narrative is used. Sometime there are no tittle to myth thus we are drecrptive and use "X-Culture - creation myth" model.
 * also From NPOV policy on Religion

""Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."

- Wikipedia
 * We use it in the text because it explains how e mean myth where as in the title it can be consfused as passing judgement and causing unnesicary offense. Those are the policy based argument from the most recent dicussion. Policy based agument are what we use here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Egeste is correct about the current title being inconsistent and prejudiced. This article was titled Genesis creation myth from 2004 to 2010. After reading through the 2010 Archives, you can judge whether the "creation narrative" arguments were convincing or consensus was achieved. (Full disclosure: I call a myth a myth). Eventualism suggests the title will ultimately be changed back, and based on some of the imaginative rationalizations above, it may be time to start the next round of discussions. Keahapana (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow that's a very large untruth you're telling Keahapana. I'm willing to AGF here and assume ignorance as opposed to deceit, but if you're going to declare something like that next time do your homework.  I'm not sure what the original title was in 2004, but shortly thereafter in the same year it had the name Creation accounts in Genesis.  Still in 2004 it was changed to Creation according to Genesis. In 2005 it was still called Creation according to Genesis.  In 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and even January of 2010.  So from 2004-2010 the title was "Creation according to Genesis." Only in February of 2010 did a minority group of editors decide to change it to Genesis creation myth.  The change was immediately opposed.  The discussions you refer to came about because of this unilateral non-consensus move.  The result of those discussions was the current title.  You have to wonder how blind your faith is when you have convinced yourself that something that is 100% false is actually true.Griswaldo (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting my memory. I was wrong and should have checked the history. The original article derived from "The Creation stories of Genesis" section of Creationism on 29 October 2004. Keahapana (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't the Greek creation myths considered a narrative too as well then? Aren't there specific texts dealing with what they believed too? I'm thinking mostly about the gods being born out of the head of another god, or whatever it was they believed. Why do we make a special case with Christians or Jews or Muslims and their unverified beliefs about how the Earth or universe came to be and don't afford the same "courtesy" to Greek or Roman myths? Seriously, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the creation beliefs of Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc are no different in any sense of the word than the other made up versions of the origins of the earth/universe, so to treat them differently is decidedly POV. I understand that calling them "myths" may offend people who believe these myths as actually true, but that doesn't seem to stop us elsewhere like calling Apollo landing hox claims as "conspiracy theories" does it? SuperAtheist (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Pico's deletions
I have restored some of the text that was slashed by Pico's recent edits. Here is one passage that I did not restore, but wanted to preserve in the talk page for further discussion. I think it represents a significant minority viewpoint and should not be lost: Nonetheless, there are conservative Christian Bible scholars and theologians who have articulated a faith-based view that, according to their understanding of what constitutes "myth" or "mythology", the Genesis creation narrative is not mythological. HokieRNB 12:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Hokie for the very civil way you put this - people do tend to get rather emotional on this topic. First, I'm sure you're not aware, but the passage I deleted was actually written by me in the first place. I added it (and created the section titled Genre) because I felt that we need to alert readers to the fact that there are many ways or reading the creation narrative. Then after I wrote that, someone else came and added the sentence(s) at the beginning. I now feel that the combined text, mine plus some else's is a bit rambling and disconnected, and needs editing back so that it says just one thing. I deleted my own work and left the second editor's.


 * As for the second passage, the one you pasted in just above, you raise the important point of whether or not this is a viewpoint significant enough to warrant inclusion. I feel the literalist (Creationist if you prefer) approach is important enough to mention - but we have an entire subsection on it, so how do we justify this particular passage? The issue is not whether Creationism should be mentioned, but how much material on it is justified. PiCo (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that Waltke, Feinberg, and Geisler are well-respected scholars and representative of an evangelical viewpoint. I think their views could be summarized in one sentence, using the "for example" method of citing all three in one combined note. I also think that it is worth mentioning in the section on "genre", since each of them speak specifically to the genre of this text. HokieRNB 02:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Waltke is a famous name, but I've never heard of the other two. As for the section called Genre, I'd rather drop it altogether, since it seems to do nothing but generate conflict - nobody can agree what should be in there. We could note at the top of the Creationism section that biblical literalists/Creationists regard the narrative as history (Waltke could be mentioned in that context). Discussions of the meaning of "myth" seem to lead us nowhere but into conflict and I'd like to avoid them.PiCo (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when is "conflict" a relevant criterion for inclusion or exclusion of a section? Wikipedia exists to provide accurate information, and the story of the beginning of the world by supernatural agents is a myth. Period. Editors with a personal religionist background must not be allowed to discourage the reasonable editors to put forward said accurate information. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 12:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cush, your religious vendetta (which includes faith in the notion that there is no personal God and no supernatural creation) must not be allowed to discourage reasonable editors from continuing to discuss and include the variety of scholarly opinions about the nature of the text found in Genesis. HokieRNB 12:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hold no faith whatsoever. Your claim is stereotypical creationist rhetoric. Of course this article should reflect the variety of scholarly opinions about the nature of the text found in Genesis, but it cannot postulate that the world actually came into existence as described in Genesis. That would be impermissible religious bias in this encyclopedia. This is not an evangelical platform, after all. Genesis conveys a creation myth just as the other creation myths (and which WP names as such) of the ANE do. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I salute you for "holding no faith whatsoever". Sadly, you also do not seem to hold any sort of clue about the topics you edit, which is rather more of a requirement here. All you seem to be doing here is pushing confused fringe theories and misguided anti-religinism. Sorry Cush, but in order to recognize religionist bias, you would first have to develop some basic notion of what religion is in the first place.
 * the purpose of this page is not to discuss the existence of God or the validity of creationism. It is exclusively the discussion of an ancient narrative written around 500 BC in Hebrew. Any sort of "truth value" is entirely beside the point, just as we do not indulge in endless bickering about the "truth" behind the Labours of Hercules or the "existence" of Pegasus. Just beacause a text was written 500 BC obviously doesn't make it "true". But it makes it interesting, as our sources regarding the beliefs and stories of people 2,500 years ago are rather limited.
 * If HokieRNB really insist on mentioning Christian biblical literalism, he can certainly do this, just as long as he doesn't call it "faith-based". The reality is that some people in the United States for some reason chose this Hebrew text to obsess over. We can mention this and be done. --dab (𒁳) 13:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what the requirement is. The article has to accurately sum up the creation narrative without making the claims made therein those of Wikipedia. In other words, we do not present the content of the narrative as being in-universe. But that is precisely what you are trying to do. We are supposed to present it neutrally as a work of ancient literature that does of course have religious consequences. The language in this article, however, is not neutral whatsoever. I suggest we write it in a style comparable to that of articles about other creation myths. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 10:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Allenroyboy
Allenroyboy made 66 edits between 2010-11-18 and 2011-01-23, which resulted in the complete reworking of the lead paragraph, without making a single comment on the talk page. It appears the majority of his sweeping deletions are accepted as having improved the article, but but editors should take care to review these changes a little more thoroughly. I have restored only the first sentence. Ἀλήθεια 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look more carefully you will notice that Allenroyboy has tackled the daunting task of reworking the notes and references to the harv format. He may have made a few minor changes to the text, but hardly worth mentioning next to the clean up work.  AshforkAZ (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead - describes?
212.144.96.70 reverted the language "The Genesis creation narrative....describes the creation of the world" in the lead with the edit summary "You just cannot say that Genesis describes the creation of the world. Because that would presuppose that there was a creation." I have changed it back, because description does not imply truth. If I say "The Wizard of Oz describes the land of Oz," I am not making a judgement one way or the other on the truth of that description. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because Oz is not real, but the world is. If you claim "The Genesis creation narrative....describes the creation of the world", I will ask you "Does it accurately describe the creation of the world?" A description of something fictional is inherently different from a description of something real. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I disagree, stating that a story describes something doesn't necessarily imply that this description is accurate. For instance, "Steve describes horses as having twenty legs, a xylophone, and being primarily composed of tungsten" says nothing about whether we believe a horse is actually primarily composed of tungsten.  Surely one can describe the substance of a narrative without inherently stating that it must be true?Aindriahhn (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To describe (from Latin describere, descripsi, descriptum) means to write down from a real source. The source can be another work, in which case it means to create a copy or derivation, or an observation of something that exists or happens, in which case it means to give an account. The Genesis text neither tells about what another source has stated nor does it record what anybody has observed. Genesis is a myth of the beginning of the world by divine incantation. But that is not a description. At best it is a hypothesis that yet lacks confirmation and at worst it is just made up. Given the known history of the ANE and the history of Judaism we all know which is more likely. Stating that the Genesis is a description of the creation of the world is plain wrong. Genesis does not describe the expansion of the early universe, colloquially and derogatorily called "big bang", does it? &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cush, the etymological argument you are making is WP:OR. In current English, the language we use here at Wikipedia, describe usually means something like - to represent or give an account of in words (Merriam Webster).  Any account, given in words, is by definition subjective.  It is by definition representative only of the POV of the creator of the description.  You're simply wrong here.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to the lead
In December of 2010, a change has been made to the lead that replaced "As a creation myth it is markedly similar to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths" with "It shares features with several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths". I do believe this change was made against consensus, as individual editors have been trying to introduce it for some time.
 * In August 2010, an IP made the change and was promptly reverted and asked to take it to the talk page (1).
 * In November 2010 the exact change was made again by a registered user—surrounded by minor style and reference edits—this time with the edit summary 'harv ref format' (2). Griswaldo reverted it, writing "please discuss this change on the talk page first ... this language came out of some rather intense arguments I'd rather not have again".
 * In December, 2010 it finally stuck on December 1st, as a 'style edit' (3).

After reading the talk archives, I can see that there is very tenuous consensus about anything in this article. In the discussion about the "myth" to "narrative" name change, Griswaldo wrote "Please note that the discussion is not about removing the term "myth" from the main article. No one is suggesting that we stop calling it a creation myth in the entry, even in the open lines of the introductory paragraph. It is a discussion about the title only." However, that's exactly what happened. The lead no longer specifies that this is a creation myth; at best it tangentially implies it.
 * I propose, per Griswaldo's rationale, that we reinstate the mention of this narrative being a creation myth into the lead:
 * ex. "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth that describes the creation of the world, as written in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible".

This change clearly defines the topic and gives the reader a jumping point for further research. Any reader concerned about the definition of 'myth' can click the link and read a succinct, accurate and unbiased explanation. If anyone feels there's a better place to include the reference to a creation myth, feel free to suggest a better way. Let's discuss.  Dubious Irony  yell  08:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to boldly change it to something like the prior version. Let's see if it sticks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! You've obviously put in a lot of hard work into what is clearly a difficult article.  Dubious Irony   yell  21:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So far so good.Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * looks good I have no issue with it The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Overview of the creation narrative
If I may present some thoughts I have on this section, I believe this is depicting what I notice to be a common misinterpretation to the text of the 2nd chapter of Genesis. The overview describes two separate stories to the creation narrative, showing a differing order of events. While at a brief glance this may seem to be the case, I believe further observation would prove otherwise. The first book would give a chronological description of the creation narrative. This list of events actually ends at the beginning of the second book in verse 4-6 saying: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." I believe it to be important that verse 4-6 be described together as the punctuation states it as one sentence. Therefore summarizing the order of events within that one sentence. From that point, it goes on to describe in more detail the creation of man, and then the planting of the garden of Eden stating: "And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." This is obviously not descriptive of the vegetation of earth as a whole, but most likely of the garden of Eden exclusively. Now bearing in mind the horrendous execution of narrative by the author, it would only make sense that what is described after Genesis 2:6 is a recap and not a restructuring of the previous order of events. With that said, I respectively believe the 'overview' section of this article to be inaccurate based on the punctuation seemingly overlooked. I would move to edit it unless someone may enlighten me to something I may have missed.

P.S. I'm using the standard New King James version of text as my reference.

Brutalrepublic (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting argument. Do you have a reliable secondary source to back it up? If not, I'm afraid it would be original research to include it in the article. Gabbe (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one. It s quite a common argument IIRC. www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html rossnixon 03:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a secondary source alright, but is it reliable? Gabbe (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say. There are many versions of this same scripture that have the same punctuation. HNV, DBY, and WYC versions of the bible to name a few. However, many newer prints of the book punctuate this section as several different sentences. Since the debate of which versions would hold legitimate truth would be too dizzying to bother with, (although it would logically seem the more this scripture is re-translated, the less legitimate it becomes) I believe the 'overview' of the topic to be merely incomplete. I would not think it to qualify as 'original research', as in accordance to the logical interpretation of the versions I have named, this is no attempt to advance a position that the source does not, but merely understood by literary law. On the other hand, the English Standard Version would verify the current 'overview', but the King James Version is cited on the article as well. Would it be inappropriate to recognize the differing versions of the same passages in the overview? I believe this to be a significant blemish in the article because it states in a decisive matter that there are indeed two back to back, and contradicting accounts of the creation narrative. This conclusion is indeed based off of the grammar characteristics of the ESV version of the scripture. What I have are four sources of the same scripture that because of differing punctuation, come to a different conclusion not based on opinion, (I do not regard the book of Genesis as truth) but based on common literary interpretation.

Brutalrepublic (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to ignore the source you cited. It is indeed a similar argument, but not quite the point I'm getting at. However, it's obvious this site is based off of a preconceived religious bias, but their points are valid. Although, I would hesitate to use this as my source, as it is not specifically my point. Thanks for that link though.

Brutalrepublic (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Iron age
I am puzzled. The 'composition' section clearly states that these stories date from 1000-450BC (iron-age in the middle east) yet when I try to put this into the lead to give some form of context, I am reverted. Why? Abtract (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I have marked those statements as needing a source as well.  There is no "general consensus", and there is an enormously wide gap between secular or liberal scholars and evangelical scholars. The date of the writing is not notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're reverted because the date of composition isn't all that important - not important enough for the first sentence or even the first para. If you have an interest in who wrote it, and when, and why, go to the Bibliography section at the bottom of the article and look around. I could tell you my understand (and Maher etc could tell you his), but it's best that you read the experts. PiCo (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Where, when and by whom sets the context and assist understanding ... it should be in the lead imho. I must confess I assumed the body of the article was 'correct'; when it is, the lead should include a summary of this useful context. Abtract (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We should put it in only when we have a source (or ideally multiple sources) which explicitly state that it was authored in the Iron Age. If we have no source which deigns it important enough to state, then it isn't our job to increase its importance. Further, it could be seen as a violation of WP:SYN if there's not general agreement on when it was authored, or what periods it would fall under.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I know that the article itself is in doubt over dates etc, I am in no rush. All I am saying is that 'who when and where' is important context and should be in the lead when it is known. Abtract (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Elohim is plural
While the Hebrew word elohim has the form of a plural, the verb bara is singular. It can be argued that the old reference of the word elohim was to plural gods, it can also be argued that this is some sort of honorific plural. Do we really want to get into a discussion of the various possibilities? Perhaps, but if so, shouldn't there be citations? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Other editors can explain the intricacies of Hebrew grammar far better than I can, but the basic point is that the word elohim, despite ending with that plural -im, is treated as singular. Compare, for example, English words such as "economics" and "mathematics", which are similar in that they has an -s on the end but always take singular verbs ("economics is the dismal science", not "economics are"). In short, it's not worth a mention. PiCo (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It could also be said (though not all would agree, particularly outside of Christianity) that the grammatical construct hints at trinitarianism. Agreed that it doesn't warrant mention in this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The plural form of the word is in my opinion the correct one. Taking the Book of Watchers into consideration, (claimed to be written by Enoch, Great-Grandfather of Noah, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) the scripture gives a fairly detailed layout of a divine hierarchy. Although it can be interpreted into plural gods, the scripture would more describe plural deities. As it still claims there to be one God. This seems to hold much more credibility than the trinitarianism theory, and I may presumptuous in saying so, but I've long assumed the reason of the Book of Watchers being removed from biblical scripture was because it contradicted the trinitarianism agenda. Brutalrepublic (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It was not "removed from biblical scripture" - no major group has ever considered it to be canonical. Since Judaism also rejects trinitarianism and has also never included the Book of Enoch in their canon, I think your theory has some holes. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That I may correct myself. Both biblical and Torah scripture alike omit this book. However, it should be considered scripture nonetheless. Major Jewish scriptures omit it for the reasoning of the second book obviously being post Christian era, and there is a strong consensus that the second book of Enoch was either added to or completely authored by Daniel. It does indeed play a roll especially in Christian theology, that elements of angel lore not fully backed by current day scripture are implied as common knowledge throughout many "major groups" in Christianity. Especially the Catholic church, which is indeed known to have stripped books from their scripture. Digressions aside, the analogy of the term economics is indeed an interesting one, but substituting the words "my" and "me" with "our" and "us" and still considering it singular is a stretch. I can't think of one good reason that this should be considered singular. Brutalrepublic (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "One good reason" - it governs a singular verb. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm out of my element with the lexographical meaning here. But doesn't the word "bara" simply mean create? If not, correct me. If so, how does that create a conclusive singularism that cancels out the plural tense of that/those that perform the verb? Couple examples come to mind: "Carpenters create homes." "Bees create honey." Brutalrepublic (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * bara is the 3rd person masculine singular perfect active form of the verb. Hebrew lexicographers have decided to use that form of a verb to cite a verb in a Hebrew dictionary. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Preparation" vs. "Creation"
User:Louisstar made some bold edits, reversing a long history of referring to God's acts in Genesis 1 and 2 as "creation", replacing that notion with "preparing". If there is sufficient evidence that the most reliable sources use this type of language, then I'm willing to accept that kind of change, but I think it should be discussed first. HokieRNB 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with HokieRNB. Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me, but the problem arises when you ask for "reliable sources" to back this up. The topic being discussed here is what the words of Genesis actually say. The purpose of this article should be to express in an unbiased manner what the account is actually expressing. If we rely on external sources, then we're invariably going to get biased opinions (i.e. atheistic views vs. theistic ones). The best way to explain the Genesis creation account is to describe exactly what it says. Two of the key words that should be focused on when describing the Genesis account are the words "create" and "make". In the Genesis account, the word "create" is only used in certain instances (like 1:1). It is not used when describing the events of the 4th "day" (which is misunderstood by many). In that case (1:16), the word used is "make", not "create". In Hebrew, there is a very clear distinction between "creating" something and "making" it. When it says that God "makes" the sun/moon/stars, it's referring to God causing those celestial bodies to give light to the earth. Those bodies already existed when they were created in 1:1 (part of "the heavens"). This is backed up by the fact that Genesis 2:4 refers to the collective "heavens" as including sun, moon, and stars. So again, my purpose in making those edits was to help express exactly what is being described in Genesis, not what biased religions and atheists think it says. --Louisstar (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've explained further my problems with this article in the new section below called "Problems With This Article". --Louisstar (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Louisstar, while I'm sympathetic to what you say, there's a problem with the concept of "what the words of Genesis actually say." The problem is that it's not at all clear what they say. There are reams of scholarly discussion about the exact meaning of the word bara, for example, and it's far from clear whether God is creating being out of non-being or merely arranging order from elemental but pre-existing chaos. For this reason we have to use scholarly sources, and not rely on Genesis as our source. PiCo (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems With This Article
This article has a ton of issues that need to be addressed. The purpose of this article should be to explain what the Genesis account says, without bias and without the assumptions often expressed by atheists and religionists. Here are the problems:


 * Using the word "world" to describe what is being created is linguistically and contextually incorrect. The primary dictionary definitions of "world" refer to the earth and the people on it. Although some dictionaries offer "universe" as a secondary meaning, this is not something that casual readers will understand, so it's misleading to say that the Genesis account describes the creation of the "world". In Biblical Hebrew, |the word for "world" first appears in 1 Samuel 2:8, and does not occur in Genesis chapters 1-2. Thus, it's more accurate to say "creation of the universe" or "creation of the physical heavens and earth and the things on the earth", or something similar. The word "world" does not communicate correctly what the Genesis account is saying.


 * When describing what is "created", there needs to be a clear distinction made between what God "creates" and what he "makes". The words |"create" and |"make" are not used interchangeably in the Genesis account. The Hebrew word "create" is referring to raw creation, whereas "make" is referring to an action that prepares something for a specific purpose. This can be seen by just doing a simple word study of the two Hebrew words being used. So when 1:16 says that "God made the two lights", in Hebrew it's the same as saying "God caused the two lights to have a purpose", or similar.


 * One major feature of this article is the idea that there are two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The primary differences pointed out with respects to the second account are the fact that the animals (2:19) and vegetation and trees (Genesis 2:5-9) are created after man. The Genesis account uses two verb tenses: Perfect and imperfect. The verb "created" in 1:1 is in the perfect tense, meaning that the act of creation was definitely started and finished. By contrast, the verb phrase "Let there be light" in 1:3 is in the imperfect state, implying that the appearance of light was already in progress, and was not yet complete. With that basic understanding of the two verb tenses used in Genesis, then a proper understanding of Genesis 2:19 can be seen. In Genesis 2:19, when the Hebrew says that God "formed", the verb "formed" is in the imperfect tense. This means that the action being described does not necessarily have a definite beginning or ending. That is, it's expressing something that is in progress, but is not necessarily completed. Thus, the statement in 2:19 that seems to say that God made the animals after man already existed is now better understood. Since the verb is expressing progressive action with no specified beginning (i.e. the imperfect tense), then the action of creating the animals could very well have taken place prior to the creation of man, as expressed in chapter 1. On the other hand, the perceived problem of the vegetation and trees appearing after man is resolved by the fact that Genesis 2:5-9 does not refer to "creating" or even "making" vegetation and trees. These verses simply say that the vegetation/trees are in the process of growing. Is it not logical to conclude that although Genesis 1 refers to the creation of vegetation and trees, Genesis 2 is now discussing their growth, which would obviously be something continuous? Again, since the Hebrew word "create" is not used in 2:5-9, and since the word "grew" is in the imperfect tense, it is inaccurate to refer to this as a separate "creation" narrative.


 * One final point (which may not belong in this article) is the fact that the seventh "day" is not followed by the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning", as is the case with the first six days. Further, when the Hebrew says that God "rested" on the seventh day, the verb "rested" is in the imperfect tense, once again denoting continuous action, with no specified ending. Due to these two linguistic and contextual facts, it cannot be stated for certain that the seventh day had ended, since the account never actually says that it does (contrary to what is stated of the other six days). --Louisstar (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I am largely sympathetic with what you have to say, most editors here will consider what you are doing as Original Research. You need to know that WP is NOT about TRUTH.  It is only about what can be proved from reliable sources.  And, for most editors here, most any source that is Christian or published by a Christian organization is automatically an unreliable source.  Given that, you can figure out for yourself how NPOV WP is.  Allenroyboy (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We cannot have a NPOV for a narrative found in the Bible. The Bible itself is viewed, by WP authors, as a biased religious source. So, if we're going to explain what Genesis says, then we are inevitably going to explain the Bible's one-sided view of how things came to be. My point here is that any discussion of what Genesis says should be based on two things: The immediate context of Genesis, and the historical understanding of the language it was written in. Bringing in so-called "reliable sources" is idiotic, really. Who cares what historians have to say about Genesis? The account itself (whether it's fictional or not) is straightforward enough to tell us what it says. I just think it's extremely biased of atheist fanboys to put misleading words into this description. Even if the most reliable historical source refers to this as "the creation of the world", then it makes no difference. Because Genesis makes no mention of "world", but is discussing the creation of the heavens and earth (i.e. the physical universe).--Louisstar (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. I'm not a Christian and I've added a number of sources by Christians to articles. Being Christian does not make a source unreliable. Louisstar may well be able to find sources for at least some of the above. And of course Genesis is not a Christian text in any case. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Louisstar should be able to find sources for all of the above - it's mainstream stuff. Louistar, please feel free to go ahead and edit. I'd just make two points:
 * One, your edits need to have what wikipedia calls "reliable sources" - major commentaries on Genesis would fit that bill, as would more general works by major scholars such as Wenham and Van Seters (to give a broad gambit). I don't know how familiar you are with wikipedia's mechanics, but In like to use the citebook format - for that, you put the book you're using in the Bibliography section, with all its details, and in the body of your edit you just put the book's author and the page number - this reduces clutter to a minimum.
 * Two, I notice a slight tendency to pedantry in what you write. No-one ever defined who wikipedia's target audience is, but personally I think of someone about high school level, or else a curious but uninformed layperson - not, in other words, a university student, who would deserve to get failed if he didn't go do his own research in the library.
 * Good luck PiCo (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"The purpose of this article should be to explain what the Genesis account says, without bias"

Yet, you call it an account, biased in the direction that it actually occured. The burden of proof is on you and using the Bible to argue for it's factual occurance is a circular argument, thus a logical fallacy, hence cannot be reasonably argued for. Without straying from this rhetoric and attempting to offer justifications from the endless wellspring of religious justifications, the word "account" cannot logically and thus should not objectively be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.25.111.60 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Show me a dictionary that says that the word "account" refers only to non-fiction.--Louisstar (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the way it's popularly understood. We could use 'myth' instead I guess - dictionaries don't say myth always means fictional. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * True, but the word myth has a stronger connotation towards "fake" than the word "account" has towards "true", so the word "myth" would be extremely biased in my opinion. Nonetheless, I think "narrative" works just fine to satisfy a neutral wording. --Louisstar (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article should be written in accord with how Genesis creation is described in the field, ie descriptions that are representative of reputable, knowledgeable, notable, scholarly, multi-disciplinary academic thinking. So that's the rubric that leads here to the "two creation narratives". And unless there's been some new development igniting a radical revolution in the academic community I'm unaware of, there isn't really any seriously considered debate over this. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, Louisstar, we should address all of the articles listed in the list of creation myths, rewording their titles and contents to be ‘narratives’. --Saerain (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Reliable Sources"
This is a bit of a continuation of the previous section that I created called "Problems With This Article".

I completely understand that Wikipedia articles need to have reliable, accurate, and verifiable sources to back up any edits. I have no problem with that, and I'm in complete agreement with ensuring accuracy and the use of authoritative sources. However, in this case, using "reliable sources" is extremely problematic.

This is not an article entitled "Interpretations of the Genesis Creation Narrative", this is an article called "Genesis Creation Narrative". If this is supposed to mean that the article is explaining what Genesis says, than it needs to do that without external sources, and especially not with external sources that assume the account is fictional, nor with sources that assume it is 100% fact. In either case, the source presents a non-neutral POV. I think linguistic sources should be the only ones permitted, since that will help determine what the Hebrew words are actually saying, which is the whole point of this article.

The best way to approach this article is to treat it like a film or movie page on Wikipedia. Look up any film on Wikipedia, and what do you find? When the "plot" is explained, are there any "reliable sources" used to explain the plot? No, because that's not necessary. All that's needed is for contributors to agree as to what the film itself portrays. If there is something in the film that is ambiguous or difficult to explain, then naturally that would not be addressed as deeply (if at all) in the plot section. In a sub-heading, the film's interpretation can be discussed, and in that case it would be best to use reliable sources to expound on this.

Likewise, with the Genesis narrative, we as editors need to realize that an article with this title needs to communicate accurately (according to the language and context of its own "plot") to readers what is being stated. If interpretations are needed in a subsequent heading, then by all means, use the "reliable sources" to explain those. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is when words like "world", "create", and "incantation" are used to describe the narrative, even though those words do not appear in the parts of the narrative being described. And it's doubly concerning when the ancient Hebrew language has its own words for "world", "create", and "incantation" that occur elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet not in those verses.

If a "reliable source" refers to Genesis one as describing the "creation of the world", does that supercede the very words of Genesis 1:1 which say that it is describing the creation of the heavens and earth?

To further cement this point, let's go back to the film analogy. If Film A has a scene in which two people visit Australia, and 5 different "reliable sources" state that the two people visited "Austria" (notice this is a different country), would we edit the article to say that "Austria" was visited? Obviously not. No matter how many "reliable sources" we can find that claim that the persons in the film visited "Austria", simply viewing the film would tell us otherwise. So the correct version of the narrative would say "Australia", not "Austria".

And since many WP editors view the Bible as fictional, then treating it like a film plot should pose no problem for them. We don't need "reliable sources" to tell us that Luke Skywalker fought with a lightsaber; we can see that in the plot itself. If Roger Ebert said "It was a powerful scene when Luke Skywalker used a banana to fight Darth Vader", would we edit the word "lightsaber" and replace it with "banana" in all Star Wars Wikipedia articles, because a "reliable source" said so?

Likewise, no matter how many "reliable sources" claim that Genesis is discussing the creation of the "world", they're not accurate. Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the entire physical universe (heavens and earth). As shown by Genesis 2:4, the phrase "heavens and earth" includes stars, sun, moon, and all living things on the earth. Similarly, the fourth "day" of Genesis 1 does not say that God "created" the sun and moon, it says he "made" them ("create" and "made" are two very distinct Hebrew words with completely different meanings). Thus, again, instead of trusting the so-called "reliable sources", we simply stick to the plot, and leave interpretations for a different article, or for a different heading under "Interpretations".

Again, I have no problem sticking to reliable sources for articles that need that sort of support, however in this case, since the words of the Bible are fairly straightforward, then it is much more accurate for this article to simply state what occurs, and not imply anything that the external sources imply (which are almost invariably biased either religiously or atheistically).

And yes, I understand that some words and/or phrases in the account may have questionable or debatable meanings. That's fine. Just as a film may have ambiguous plot twists, we can simply explain what occurs, and leave the debates on the meanings for another article or section. If it's necessary to point out during the "plot" section that a particular verse is ambiguous, then do so. But it's not right to use "reliable sources" to steer that ambiguity towards atheistic or religious points of view.

Thus, in light of all this, I think it would be fair to rewrite much of this article to be more like a film page, and leave "interpretations" from external sources in a lower heading or else a separate article altogether. --Louisstar (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the Genesis creation narrative. It was never meant to be just some sort of paraphrase with a gloss on interesting linguistic points. It needs to explore all the relevant contexts which of course include how it has been interpreted. I'm not to keen on comparing it with a film, but if you insist I'd say you'd have to compare it to a film made 3000 years ago which had become an important part of three great religions and popular culture. We'd treat it the same way we are treating this subject. It's interesting as you seem to be implying that the narrative is complete fiction - but even if we agree on that, other ancient fictions or myths are treated the same way this one is, certainly in the academic world and hopefully here. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what the Summary section is already doing? (And the Overview section too - two sections doing the same thing. I deleted the Overview as redundant). PiCo (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious assertion in intro, not compliant with Lede guidelines

 * "It is markedly similar to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook."


 * This wording has got to go from the Lede per our guidelines, because there is no explanation in the body whatsoever of HOW exactly GCN is so "markedly" similar to any ancient Mesopotamian creation myth. SERIOUS scholars are well aware of the similarities (there really aren't that many, aside from the fact that the world was created) and the differences.  Most reliable sources we can find, will back up what I'm saying.  But first, I would like to see a good explanation of what exactly makes the similarities so "marked", for this pure POV-pushing assertion to stay in some form. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point. The details used to be here, so it's worthwhile to investigate how it came to be removed.  But I know you were editing heavily when the content describing the similarities was contentiously opposed by editors offended that it somehow diminished the story's significance that most biblical scholars now accept the story is a variation on an earlier Mesopotamian account.  It's in the archives so we don't need to repeat it here.    Professor marginalia (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking which specific Mesopotamian account is it supposed to resemble? As a few scholars have pointed out, there's not much in the way of literary parallels nor even general concepts to go on to be able to push the notion of any direct textual borrowing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Enuma Elish. But remember -  this isn't the stop to post cites objecting about the lack of similarity to the older Mesopotamian flood myth. Those talking point objections are to go to Noah's Ark.  Professor marginalia (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, it was part of a now deleted section that ultimately decided to be a tangent and was removed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Myth, narrative, and intellectual honesty
For those editors unfamiliar with the hotly-debated Wikipedia controversy over Genesis having a "creation narrative" while every other religious tradition has a "creation myth", please check the searchable Archives. The current version of the lead paragraph with the "As a creation myth … As a sacred narrative …" parallelism was a consensus compromise over the use of "Genesis creation myth."

For those unfamiliar with the comparative Mesopotamian/Hebrew similarities in creation mythology, the following list is from E. A. Speiser (1964, Genesis, p. 10), based upon Alexander Heidel (1963, The Babylonian Genesis, pp. 128-129). Keahapana (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty good, but I'd prefer something more recent to be sure we're reflecting current thinking.PiCo (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A good way to approach this might be to identify Gen.1-2 as part of the Primeval History, discuss theories of the relationship of the PH to Gen.12-50, and then briefly note the J and P sources as 6th century redactions. The place of Mesopotamian and Greek sources in Gen.1-2 and the PH can be worked into that. PiCo (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a translation of Enûma Eliš . The parallels in the table above don't exactly leap out for the reader.--agr (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If E.A. Speiser says the parallels are there, they're there; if you say they're not there, that's OR. PiCo (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed but suggesting that the existence of this parallelism makes the current title, or current split between two different contexts (sacred narrative and myth) somehow "intellectually dishonest" is also OR. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the thing. Plenty of published scholars have said they're not there, and the so-called parallels are really mostly a cooked-up fraud. You don't normally see scholars striving so hard and so willing to make so many stretches and intellectual leaps to propose there was literary borrowing between two documents where there was more probably none whatsoever. Scholars are normally way, way more careful than that. But this subject matter sadly attracts a different breed of scholar, and then a different breed of wikipedia editors with a vested interest or POV to push, will unite and proclaim those select scholars to have a monopoly, and all other scholars' viewpoints to be inadmissible heresy. Intellectual honesty is precisely what this is about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Published scholars such as who? You need sources.PiCo (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert cite?
Til Eulenspiegel reverted my changes to the references to Dalley's book. Why? No reason was given. I thought that the changes were appropriate: (1) merging duplicate footnotes (2) using the cite parameter url= instead of an exterior link (3) moving the series name into the cite parameter series=. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at the cite again, it was being misused to support some vandalistic nonsense by the editor just before you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD
I fully anticipate having my recent edit reverted, but I thought it might start to form a compromise. Here is the text I submitted for the opening lines: "The first two chapters of the Book of Genesis comprise a sacred narrative of the creation of the world. It has similarities to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook,[1][2][3] and is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity.[4]" I thought it might be helpful to employ the construct that doesn't repeat the title of the article verbatim. This puts the term "narrative" in the lead position, but quickly follows with the alternative "creation myth". I believe this version is much less wordy and convoluted than prior attempts. FWIW. HokieRNB 12:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The title should begin our article. WP:LEAD discusses the requirements for the first paragraph in more depth. As for the rest, there were a couple of other edits I reverted which appear to be against consensus which your version adopts (namely the wording of the "creation myth" sentence), so those would have to be reflected as well. Is there a problem you're trying to address with this edit?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Description"
The term "description" has connotations of empiricism, which the Genesis creation narrative certainly is not. Indeed, many people think that the account has a face-value of being plainly false. However, everyone can agree that this bible story is a "biblical account" of the creation of the world. I changed the first categorical descriptor to this more neutral umbrella term.

140.252.83.41 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)description

What about these edits?
I made these edits but they were reverted. Does anyone like them or not and why? I thought they made the beginning of the article much more efficient. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the first couple sentences are subtle NPOV violations that do not follow MOSLEAD. The first two sentences link the following terms: biblical account, Book of Genesis, Hebrew Bible, sacred narrative, biblical canon, Judaism and Christianity. It isn't until the third sentence that the characteristic of it being a creation myth is introduced. However, the manual of style asks for a concise definition in the first sentence. Jesanj (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit. Jesanj (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Change "myth" to "narrative"
In the first paragraph, it says "creation myth." It should be changed to "creation narrative." They both mean the exact same thing and both link to the exact same article. The change would remove the obvious weasel wording and bias. It would also make it more consistent with the title of the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Narrative" is a weasel word. All it does is give the impression of plausibility when under our policies and in scientific consensus, creationism is WP:FRINGE. Since when did obfuscation fix anything? Should we start rewording all other creation stories from other religions and folklore as "narratives" just because some people actually believe them as literal fact?--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Narrative" is NOT a weasel word; "myth" is, however. Just because you are an atheist, it doesn't mean you have the right to call something that 90% of the population believes, a myth. There is absolutly NO REASON whatsoever for me not to change it.Zenkai251 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That one earned you your first npa-warning, starting at level 2. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Do you care to explain that one, please?Zenkai251 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Just because you are an atheist'..." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Was I mistaken? By the way he was talking, I assumed he was indeed an atheist. I meant no disrespect and it was most certainly NOT an attack. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Commenting on somebody's beliefs, race, ethnicity, etc. is considered an attack around here. Don't do it again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that was npa, no offense certainly taken. I'd appreciate it if the warning given is redacted as it only hinders discussion. Anyway, 90% of what population exactly? Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia, mind you. And your wording actually admits your primary intent - to differentiate it from other myths as with traditional western usage of the term "myth". Myth used to refer to any other religion's beliefs other than Christianity, to imply that it was not grounded on facts. This was a very arbitrary and a very biased position to take. To comply with NPOV and our adherence to the scientific consensus, all such stories are myths. No buts or ifs.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am only looking to neutralize the article. By changing it to "narrative", which means the same thing as "myth", would definitely make the article less biased. I see no negative outcome of the change. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, please see WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:VALID. In some cases, a bias is necessary, especially for religion and pseudoscience. Otherwise every other religious article here in Wikipedia would be claiming to be the truth. We can not and must not proselytize on Wikipedia. Even a change as seemingly innocuous as this has the intent of giving a false impression of reliability. In this case, that is giving it undue weight. So, I'm sorry, the answer is no.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The change would not make the article "claim to be the truth", because the two words mean the same thing. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why change it at all? All of us are well aware that the two words have very different connotations.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We need the change because one of the words makes 90% of Americans angry and the other word doesn't. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not a reasonable point to make. See the policies raised by User:Obsidian Soul. Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a reasonable point. How else would we determine what is neutral and what isn't? Zenkai251 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not here to not offend anybody; the people who could be offended have already been accommodated by the article's title. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure on your figure? I doubt 90% of americans are creationists. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say 90% were creationists. I meant that 90% believe in the book of Genesis (this includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc). Zenkai251 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And that matters because...? Again please read the linked policies before commenting any further.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It matters because "myth" is not neutral. Something that angers 90% of the population cannot possibly be considered "neutral". Zenkai251 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia observes for such topics scholarly consensus as reflected in verifiable and reliably sourced material. The current wording is unproblematic in that it reflects the overwhelming consensus of the scholarly community. You are arguing an irrelevant point. Eusebeus (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you consider "scholarly"? It is very subjective. My point is valid. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if 90% of Americans believe in the book of Genesis, a highly doubtful claim, this is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian's argument basically seems to be that all belief in the Bible has been officially been determined by neutral arbiter wikipedia to be a FRINGE theory, no matter what proportion of the populace are thus branded as heretics suscribing to a proscribed belief system. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the number of adherents determines the validity of a belief? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I am describing your view of "neutral point of view". We don't need numbers of believers or even religious bodies to determine validity of belief, we already have YOU to determine the validity of belief. And it seems you have already made a rather concrete determination - even if it would evidently exclude the beliefs of many millions of readers, editors, and other inhabitants of this world. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Me? I'm flattered, but no. I suppose you need to read Fringe theories as well. There are a billion Hindus in the world, yet we do not open our article on Cattle as: "Cattle (colloquially cows) are the most common type of large sacred domesticated ungulates.", do we? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   01:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't go putting ideas into people's heads :) PiCo (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The topic of this article is the Hebrew Bible. You seem to be taking the position that all the millions of people, theologians and religious bodies that are  adherents of the Hebrew Bible do not constitute a significant point of view on this topic because you view all major world religions based on the Hebrew Bible are in fact to be classified as fringe theories.  This apparently also means only those sources who view it in the context of mythography can have any significant view on the Hebrew Bible, not any of the "FRINGE" groups that actually use it as their own scripture. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Till, you misunderstood. No-one's saying that Christians are a fringe-group. Those who believe in Genesis and the Bible literally are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the Council of Nicea, the Book of Genesis is a canonical book for Christians and is authorized for them to believe in. I am not aware of any updates to this but it seems now neutral Wikipedia has replaced the authority of the Council of Nicea and has declared that all groups and individuals who do believe in Genesis are adhereing to a proscribed or FRINGE belief.  And that would include people from many other religions beside Christians, Seb. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How many times must I keep saying read the policy page? Creationism is mentioned there prominently, this isn't my personal judgement, as much as you'd want it to be, and I'm not the only one replying to the OP here, in case you didn't notice. It doesn't matter if it's talking about the subject, under no circumstances does that give license to the article to treat something that lacks reliable scientific and scholarly support to portray it as unvarnished truth. Nor does "neutrality" mean we present articles evenly, as explained in that page and WP:DUE and WP:VALID, both are subpolicies of WP:NPOV. Context and due weight. I would have expected an experienced editor to be aware of this already.


 * We are not a Christian encyclopedia, nor do we answer to the Council of Nicaea. We rely on objective science. If y'all can't stand not being able to proselytize, there's always the more Christian-friendly Conservapedia.


 * It is a myth. What's so wrong with that word? Is it because it's the same word used by Christianity to discount all the other religions in the past? See mythology, "A myth is defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form, within the field of folkloristics." The Abrahamic creation myth doesn't deserve a special treatment just because millions of Americans believe in it and get mad when other people disagree. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am only helping to explain to the original poster for his benefit the fact that Wikipedia officially considers belief in the Judaeo-Christian canon to be a "FRINGE theory" while hypocritically pretending itself to be "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Council of Niea assumed for itself the authority to declare certain belief systems proscribed. No, that wasn't terribly neutral.  All I am saying is that wp has done exactly the same thing.  It has assumed for itself the authority to declare certain belief systems proscribed.  It has become the New Council of Nicea. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're going off into a completely different discussion. What the council of Nicea declared is quite irrelevant nowadyas; they'd probably say that most people who these days say they're Christian actually aren't. Those who are Christians by the definition of Nicea are indeed a minority, and they are therefore fringe. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are probably billions of people who would declare themselves to be Christian who don't believe literally in the creation story in Genesis. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Now, to get back to the actual crux here: In order to be neutral, we must treat every tradition with equal labels, and it doesn't matter how many or how few believe in it. It cannot be that Hopis or Polynesians are told that their stories are "myths" while (Nicean) Christians get to avoid the word just because they'd throw a fit or be offended. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you're well aware of the fact that every religion, every single last one of them, claims to be the absolute truth and everything else are lies and all who believe in them deluded and/or going to their version of their hell(s). In such a situation, where would you look for the most reliable sources then? Or do we declare all such beliefs to be equally true and open the way for promotional recruitment articles by various religions in our articles with each religion vying to declare itself as the best belief of all?


 * Like it or not, we operate on scientific consensus, it's not perfect but it's the closest to the an objective, self-regulating fact-gathering method we have as a species. That's what Wikipedia is about, for which I'm thankful for. No repeatable peer-reviewed scientific investigation has ever had results that even hinted that the Abrahamic creation myth might have happened, much less all the other creation myths out there. Given that fact, it is undue weight to claim or imply otherwise.


 * As for "neutrality", again it doesn't mean an equal treatment of all the different views as already mentioned. We always side with the most reliable sources, regardless of how many people disagree with it. Anyway, the discussion is fast derailing so I think I'm out.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How about instead of trying to tell readers what beliefs they may have and which ones are FRINGE, we simply and neutrally describe what everyone's beliefs actually happen to be without any bias or partiality for any one belief system? Is that a revolutionary concept or what? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All myths are treated the same way in Wikipedia - as myths. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Good, Till. And what would be the appropriate response then to the edit-request which started this thread? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So in other words, neutral doesn't really mean neutral when it comes to wikipedia. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't read any of the above, did you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did. Did you? Zenkai251 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I did. I can only conclude that you're being deliberately dense. To repeat: How can you argue for calling Adam and Eve a "narrative" while Rangi and Papa remains labeled as a "myth"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do any significant numbers of people believe Rangi and Papa actully existed? Is there any significant level of objection to calling it a myth?  In either answer is yes, I'd argue that it should not be labeled as a myth either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying majority rules and since white people managed to either decimate or kill off indigenous peoples that determines what we should call it? Interesting view, but far from neutrality as it supports colonialism and genocide. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that's a strawman fallacy if ever I saw one! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Maori are not extinct, nor is the Maori language, they have as much right as any UN residents to freely choose their own belief system. So their opinions on Rangi and Papa would qualify "significant" to that topic, as in what proportion of Maori today, if any, believes they were historical figures or if is the case, specifically object to their characterization as "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's been alleged there was something "contentious" with this edit of mine. I thought it was a copy-edit. Do tell. Jesanj (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not your edit that's contentious, it's the high emotional charge that surrounds these words "myth" and "narrative". I'm quite happy with this, and I'd like like other people's opinions: The Genesis creation narrative (the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis) is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. As a creation myth it bears close similarities to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook. PiCo (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, since I reverted it, I don't think it is an improvement. I don't understand your "high emotional charge" comment. Are you implying there is "low emotional charge" in putting the term creation myth in the second sentence, but "high emotional charge" results when it's in first? (Whatever that means?) Jesanj (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug accuses me of being a believer of various sorts? Til will be pleased but astounded - usually the sight of my signature is enough to make him choke on his cornflakes.
 * People do seem to use the word "myth" as weapon, a stake through the hearts of Til and his evil ilk, rather than as an intellectual category. Looked at neutrally, the first two chapters of Genesis are undeniably a narrative - they tell a story with a plot and characters and even dialogue. That's narrative. They're also a creation myth, in that they explain how the world began in supernatural terms. Do you have a problem with that distinction? (I know Til does, but it's rarely productive talking to Til). PiCo (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is just part of on ongoing but sporadic attempt by believers of various types to get rid of the word myth. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This is definitely not an attempt to get rid of the word myth, since it's still in there. PiCo (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a vote gentlemen (although I vote oppose). The point here is what term is most commonly used in the wider literature. If you GScholar "creation narrative" and "creation myth", which seems to reflect more accurately the way in which scholarship discusses the concept? Which is more widely used? This is what needs to be addressed specifically and in detail, not the personal caprice of believers/non-believers. As for the distinction, it is subtle, but in academic terms narrative typically entails construction, built up from underlying cultural tropes, symbols and references. There is no doubt that Genesis is narrative in construct and design; but it is also more generically a creation myth, studied and considered alongside the creation myth constructions of many other civilizations. I have to say, Til's invocation of the Council of Nicaea made me laugh.... That's hardcore! Eusebeus (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Pico, I really appreciate that you've demonstrated in spades that this is an issue driven entirely by personal emotional mileage and polemic rather than any actual logic, neutrality or sensibility, while making a number of facetious and silly assumptions about me in the process.  You have out-Eulenspiegeled me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote. A myth is a specific kind of narrative. The real issue here is that the proposal attempts to change the wording to make it sound as if the article has more factual basis than reality by giving it undue weight. After all, a "narrative" might or might not be based on actual events, while a "myth" is unambiguously a religious interpretation of the origin of humans and the world. PiCo's revision does the same thing even if it keeps the word 'myth'. Do you really think such a motivation is appropriate for Wikipedia? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But we've been told by authoritative sounding wikipedians for years thata "myth" is acceptable because it might or might not be based on actual events. Now the argument subtly changes again and that becomes the reason why "narrative" is not acceptable.  The truth is various authorities have debated for centuries exactly which parts of the Bible are or aren't myth, with some estimates ranging anywhere from 0% to 100%, and eveywhere in between rarely do two scholar seem to hold the same point of view of exactly which books or which parts of which books qualify as "myth" because it is entirely a question of point of view and polemical usage.  Now wikipedia instead of describing this situation honestly and thoroughly, enters the game as a sort of Council of Nicea, arbitrating for itself which verses are officially parts of "myth" and whose widespread belief  systems are or aren't to be officially rejected as being called anything else but "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you dislike Wikipedia's stances on the scientific consensus and neutrality that much, leave. The Abrahamic story of creation is not factual, as are other religious creation stories, and should be presented as such. That is the point of view authoritative secular science ascribes to and thus Wikipedia follows. No amount of appealing to millions of adherents who believe otherwise can change that stance nor the findings of different scientific disciplines. Vague claims of "authorities" debating this for "centuries", and even the baffling insistent inclusion of the Council of Nicaea as if these are reliable sources (yeah right, because everyone knows priests will reliably tell you if parts of their religions/sects are false) only make it abundantly clear that this is creationist POV-pushing. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, just as I thought. It's beyond deciding which sections of whose scriptures are "myth" with the pretense that "myth" is a neutral and non-judgemental word.  It's now back to appropriating the authority to determining which sections of whose scriptures are rejected by "reliable" sources as FALSE - with no longer any need for pretense that "myth" doesn't imply false. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pray, do tell which sections of Genesis are factual? The fact that plants were apparently created before the Sun? That the sky is apparently just another ocean? That the moon gives off its own light? That menstruation is caused by Eve being disobedient? That snakes talk? What? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   12:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't for me or you to respond to those arguments, several of which are strawmen. We have kilobytes of debate on all these arguments of interpretation that we could be using as sources for purposes of explaining and impartially describing what all the significant stances are in all of those controversies. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Links please. To a policy page, if possible.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   12:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. When discussion fails, you resort to forcing the revision. I have reported it to WP:3RRNB as warned. I will refrain from continuing this discussion or reverting the changes by the above three editors. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Links please... Well, there's the very first ref in the article, to someone called Alter: Alter 2008, p. xii - "Genesis opens with a narrative of origins—Creation and the Garden Story—that is compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends ..." Who is this silly Alter person, who calls it both a narrative and a myth? If only he'd had the benefit of looking up Wikipedia!PiCo (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Hey, Til actually seems to approve of something I've done! He still doesn't approve of me personally of course, but we're making real progress!)PiCo (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Er... I didn't notice anyone here denying that a myth is a narrative. I mean policy pages, dear sir. Discussions in Wikipedia that resulted in consensus wherein we might infer that religious creation stories should avoid being labeled as "myths", despite it being the most succinct description of the type of narrative it is.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support This is definitely not an attempt to get rid of the word myth, since it's still in there. (I haven't been here for a week, but PiCo's version of the 7th was neutral, so I've put it back to almost the same text.)rossnixon 09:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here we go again, unilateral changes to the article by a creationist that conveniently ignores the current discussion.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   12:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make if you perceive an editor to be a "creationist", a label you are using to demonize various people according to their firm beliefs, just because you do not share them? I've seen plenty of editors of ALL stripes exercising their right to "be bold" with the intro recently, I didn't know there were any categories of second class citizens on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. Being a POV warrior, however, does matter. User:rossnixon has been intimately connected to the edit wars on this article in the past and have been involved in other blatantly creationist POV-pushing in Wikipedia articles. I'm supposed to just ignore that? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't exaggerate. I have restored a probable consensus version that includes your precious "This is a myth" statement. rossnixon 01:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't pushing my POV, I was pushing NPOV. If I was using my POV, the article would be named "Creation of the universe" and there wouldn't be any mention of or link to the word "myth"; I would say that the Genesis creation narrative was completely factual.Zenkai251 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @rossnixon: That's rich. A "probable consensus"? Look at the sections below. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note It seems we've reached a consensus. Four people support my proposal and only two oppose it. Zenkai251 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note Consensus was reached at the end of the rfc bellow. The result was keep the link without piping.--Adam in MO Talk 04:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to remove the link. My proposal wasn't mentioned in the RfC. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Genesis creation narrative: link to creation myth, yes or no?
Should the article lead-section contain a link to creation myth? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - except to certain Christian believers, Genesis is understood to be a creation myth. Joja  lozzo  14:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that there was already a stable multi-editor consensus here on the article lead for months after the last RFC, lasting until a few days ago in late October, when at least three competing alternative proposals suddenly started being bandied about and edit-warred over, beginning with that by User:Jesanj which tipped the previous balance. I doubt if all of the distinctions being argued over by various editors for various versions are summed up by the question above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes After much arguing about the title of the entry a while back, there was a consensus to have this title but also to link to creation myth in the lead. Is that the consensus Til mentions? This article attracts literalist Christians every few months who want to remove links to "creation myth" based on their personal religious views. Tough. Scholars, and indeed most other English speakers, including non-literalist Christians agree that among the ways to describe this narrative, "creation myth" factors prominently. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus I'm talking about is the longstanding status quo ante wording before Jesanj first changed it in late October a week ago, and was reverted by several others including you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK well I reverted to that version just now. I will fix the non Jesanj material that others had improved in the interm that has been lost. Don't worry about that. Give me a second.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have no problems with the version Griswaldo reverted to.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong question. From reading your discussion above, it seems that the question you should be asking is, "should creation myth in the Lead be termed creation narrative?" If the question is, "should the Lead link to creation myth," the answer is yes. However if the question is whether it should be termed "myth" or "narrative," that is where you could get some interesting responses. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No to that as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the wrong question. When I posted this RfC, any link had been removed entirely. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Yes, there should be a link, and I don't care how the link is worded. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Per Griswaldo, I was involved in that mess two years ago here is the simplified version. We had an idiot (I don't remember who nor does it matter) make a bold move to Genesis creation myth.(Which is now a redirect). The problem  was the vernacular use of myth is radically different than the academic usage that Wikipedia favors and was a violation of WP:NPOV as it seemed to imply Genesis was False.  Wikipedia does not denigrate religion but neither should we treat it uncritically. That is a big balancing act, that some have trouble with for many reasons. Creation myth must be in the lead, preferably in the first sentence. Leaving that characterization would be detrimental to Wikipedia as a scholarly encyclopedia and give undue weight to religious viewpoint without proper critical treatment.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article Lead could contain a link to creation myth but here the language used matters. I would formulate a sentence such as:


 * "It could be considered a Creation myth in that it is a symbolic story that presents an account of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. We do not require special wording just because this happens to belong to major world religions. Whether it is symbolic or literal is a subjective analysis that should not be pointed out as fact in the lead. The only thing we have a responsibility for is to define it as to how it should be defined in an objective context, taking into consideration the most reliable academic viewpoint (which is that young earth creationism does not agree with scientific findings in a wide variety of fields). It is a creation myth, and as with other creation myths (see List of creation myths) it's not any more or less mythological or religious. When you examine the list it becomes very obvious that the Abrahamic creation myth is the only one which seeks to distance itself from being a myth by changing the wording. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and in fact the article should be renamed BACK to Genesis creation myth, the same group of people trying to change/oppose this wording fought long and hard to get the article renamed a while ago... — raeky  t  18:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to Raeky's post above, I think the article presently has the preferable title, but I don't think that is the question under present consideration. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not but why isn't it? Strong feeling is that it belongs in the first sentence, then why not the name of the article? The reason the article is called Narrative is same reasoning here, and thus the objections for it's use in the article title is same objections here. Academically, it's a myth, and being an encyclopedia we should describe things academically. — raeky  t  18:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is where WP:COMMONNAME comes into play. (Also encyclopaedias in general are not necessarily very academic, and while Wikipedia attempts to be more academic on academic subjects than on popular subjects, and makes an attempt at academic level of referencing, a mistaken belief that we are, or should be, like a learned journal in many other respects is a common misconception.) Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Yes, of course. It is a creation myth, after all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Though, when I asked this, I wanted to change "creation myth" to "creation narrative". Zenkai251 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply yes Regardless of belief, this article should link to the article that is called "Creation myth". If, for internal consistency, we wan to pipe the link, creation narrative, than that is fine. If the article called "Creation myth" was at "Pan-troglodyte epiphenomena" we would still have to link to it.  Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Yes, since it is a creation myth to most of the world.--Miniapolis (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - This RfC should be resolved now, since we already had a longstanding consensus compromise intro sentence that took a lot of hammering out, and we have now reverted to the previous agreed consensus version we had before all the new changes and disputes broke out. The specific question proposed by this RfC is not even central to the edit disputes in this case, so I propose closing the RfC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - The RfC should have been my original question that started this whole discussion. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion there is no weasel wording or bias by using the word myth. On the other hand, Rich Farmbrough makes an argument above that you may sympathize with. Jesanj (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Beware pointless repetition ("...the biblical account of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible" - biblical account in the Hebrew bible in the book of Genesis?) PiCo (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Can a neutral encyclopedia consistently use "creation myth" for all cultures and religions except "creation narrative" for one? We should reexamine the current consensus, which is based on dubious claims, such as the semantics of a colloquialism ("urban myth") justifying not using a common name ("myth"). Keahapana (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The more you research the history of theological objections to employing the term myth to the current scriptures of world religions (and not just the Bible, but also the Quran, Mahabharata, Book of Mormon or what have you) the more you will hopefully discover that confusion with thing like "urban myth" is a woefully inadequate summary of the all objections that have been sourced. But once again this Rfc question is actually a moot point, because it doesn't really relate to anything in the current consensus wording from the last compromise, which already links creation myth in the intro. The whole flare-up that precipitated this RFC started a couple weeks ago, when various partisan editors with a range of opinions started mucking about with the previous compromise, but hopefully that's all sorted now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and wrong question. I want to talk about the first sentence or two:
 * Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, I made this edit. Jesanj (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, and I like the suggested revision above. Eusebeus (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * '''Yes, absolutely'. I still think the title is POV. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are plenty of pages named with creation myth at this lovely article we have named List of creation myths. However, there is only one named narrative. I'll tag the article as such. Jesanj (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody here in this RFC is voting on Jesanj's proposal, and it is terrible and should not be implemented, it describes "the creation myth of Abrahamic religions" which is completely uninformative. It is canonical scripture for most, of not all, Christian and Jewish denominations. I don't believe that is the case for many other "Abrahamic religions" such as Islam or Mandaeism, etc. several of which may use different scriptures regarding creation. "creation myth of Abrahamic religions" is the most utterly oversimplistic and purposefully offensive mischaracterization of many people's firm beliefs that would be possible, and I am wondering if some of you have even read the rest of the article or have anything better to do with your lives and your encyclopedia editing time than try to re-open old cans of worms by inserting the most simple-minded POV labels that you KNOW are polemical to readers, editors and believers as near to the top of the article as possible with the most contorted arguments, just so you can be 'in the face' of others? How great can the reward for all this effort possibly be?  Does anyone really think people are going to let WIKIPEDIA tell them "YOUR BELIEFS ARE ALL FALSE MYTHS BECAUSE WE AT WIKIPEDIA HAVE FIGURED OUT ALL THE ANSWERS"...?  This RFC is becoming misleading as it doesn't propose any actual change to the current compromise.   But some here are just bound and determined to revisit the acrimonious, extremely time consuming and at times tedious and endless debates with hundreds of editors firmly weighing in. It's like they didn't get enough last go-round and are now ready for some more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you support the idea of this article should be named Genesis creation narrative, while all other articles here are named as creation myths? I also started the article political myth. As you see, a political myth can be true or false. Doesn't that make you feel better? The current version of the article states: "The creation narrative from the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis—biblical canon to some in Judaism and Christianity—is, in comparative mythology, a narrative with similarities to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while it differs in its monotheistic outlook", for what it's worth. Jesanj (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If that question is aimed at Til, it might be somewhat superfluous. I might entertain a change to "Hebrew creation mythology" or even "Biblical creation myths", since there's more than just Genesis 1-2 that mention Creation, and some of them are quite different. (For that matter, Genesis 1 and 2 are quite different from each other anyway - in Ge.1 Creation is "wet", with the waters of the Ocean of Chaos all around; in Gen.2 there's no waters, and Creation is dry. And Jesanj needs to do some serious reading :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 07:49, 9 November 2011


 * Yes, of course, and using the precise words "creation myth" as well because that's what it is according to overwhelming consensus of relevant experts including Christian theologians. The traditional use of "myth" in the sense "any myth that isn't Christian" is POV and does not appear to be current in academia any more. In fact, I support moving this article back to its old title Genesis creation myth if there is a real desire to discard the old compromise. It is very enlightening to compare the situation here with that at Muhammad, an article that has numerous depictions of Muhammad in spite of questionable relevance and strongly negative reactions by numerous Muslim readers. There, we are going out of our way to insult fundamentalist Muslims for barely a discernible (legitimate) reason. Here, we have made a concession to the sensibilities of fundamentalist Christians by renaming the article, and now it almost looks as if we are about to bend over backwards and remove well established key relevant facts in order to keep a certain type of people isolated from reality. Absolutely ridiculous. Hans Adler 08:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat here what I said above: I'd like to see the article retitled as Bible creation myths, because although nGen1-2 is the best-known it's by no means the only creation myth in the bible, and in fact comes from a rather late date (the 5th century BC according to current thinking). PiCo (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, because it is a creation myth. Colon el  Tom 13:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Myth neutrally describes what Genesis is — at least according to all dictionaries. Christianity having its creation narrative but other religions having their creation myths? Sounds very biased. For the same reason this article should also be renamed to Genesis creation myth. - DVdm (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should certainly follow standard naming conventions and if this is the only article of this genre to be labelled narrative, that certainly smacks of POV. It may be worth noting that from the scholarly perspective, there is indeed a Genesis 'narrative' which can be separated from the Genesis myth, insofar as it refers to the specifically Hebraic scriptural adaptation (Gen 1-2) of the Judaic variant on the larger creation myth form that has links to earlier versions. So the term has academic value. PiCo, I thought the dating of Genesis was from the 8th - 9th centuries. Has there been an authoritative re-evaluation? Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to Eusebeus above, as well as others: each article stands on its own and apart from any other article that you may feel has a similar name, or a similar theme. There is little distinction between "myth" and "narrative" in this usage except that "myth" carries an additional implication of falseness while "narrative" does not. We should be cautious about the unintended point that gets made in titling the article "Genesis creation myth". That is a pointed statement in and of itself and should be avoided. Within the schools of thought that are more respectful of this subject matter you would not likely hear "Genesis" referred to as a "myth"—not even by those who might not believe a word of it. In the title the more neutral word "narrative" should be employed. In my opinion, to title the article "Genesis creation myth" is a contrivance designed to poke fun at that which has absolutely no support in the rational sciences. We already know that the story in Genesis is fanciful. To repeat that notion with the term "myth" in the title would be redundant. Taking perverse pleasure in poking fun at modes of thinking and using Wikipedia as a vehicle for that should be avoided. I think that is in the spirit of WP:NPOV. There is no big deal in pointing out in the Lead that "myth" is a term that has applicability to this sort of subject matter in certain schools of thought. Even if those schools of thought are the more rational and academic schools of thought, we should still exhibit the maturity to use language that doesn't have the drawback of potentially offending. This has nothing to do with censorship. We are here to convey information; our intention should not be to take "sides" on any issue. That is truly what "neutrality" is. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and title of article should be reverted to Genesis creation myth. The word "myth" itself does not necessarily cast judgement on the accuracy of the subject, and the word "myth" is more clearly meaningful in this context. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No it shouldn't and no it's not. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, without the silly "creation narrative" pipe to disguise it. It doesn't need to be linked in the very first sentence-or even the first para.  More important,  we just need to describe the story.  The intro now chokes-beginning with the very awkwardly worded opening sentence which needs rewriting. The kinship to other Mesopotamian creation myths is of secondary importance-it doesn't belong in the first sentence. If "Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of Abrahamic religions, described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis" was bothersome, Pico's alternative was fine, though I'd eliminate the parenthetical with something like, "The Genesis creation narrative is a biblical story describing the divine creation of the world and the first man and woman."  Either one is fine-it's not so urgent that we say it's a "creation myth" in the first sentence, though it does belong in the lead. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I added divine. Jesanj (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Zenkai, when he's not calling other editors names, has taken the attempt to remove 'creation myth' from articles to Talk:Adam. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Given the basic definitions and usage....
 * narrative, n. (2. a) An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account. - OED, Third ed. 2011.
 * myth, n. (1. a) A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon. Myth is strictly distinguished from allegory and legend by some scholars, but in general use it is often used interchangeably with these terms.  - OED, Third ed. 2011.
 * "The myth was a sacred narrative, whether true or fictional, which gave an account of, or ‘explained’, the origins of human life or of the community." - J. D. Crichton in C. Jones et al. Study of Liturgy. 1978.
 * ...myth is more accurate. A title change would also be supported. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Narrative sounds about right. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note That's because calling any religion a "myth" is CLEARLY atheistic bias. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * oh just shuddup. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. But you should. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm telling, if you keep throwing insults and accusations around, you're gonna find yourself at ANI or elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What? You're the one who told me to shut-up. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, widely described as such in scholarly literature. -- J N  466  11:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. Heck, the whole article should probably be named Genesis creation myth, but titles aren't that important. Jesanj's version is fine, and the current text (as I write this), which is "The Genesis creation narrative (the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis) describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It is a creation myth with similarities to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in having a monotheistic outlook" is OK too. (Regarding the difference between the various meanings of myth, maybe this example will help: when I was coming up, I learned the myth of Babe Ruth: the man who invented the (modern concept of the) home run and saved baseball. Well, it's more or less true. Just because it's a myth doesn't mean it's not true. So don't worry about it so much, people. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, because it is a creation myth. The current name of the article, Genesis creation narrative is apt and appropriate. It is a cosmogony which transmits theological content.Whiteguru (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar issues at Adam
There are some editor who think that creation myth should be removed from the lead. I think it would some more contributions to the discussion would be good. I think the issue is apropos to the debate here.--Adam in MO Talk 02:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, on this page I didn't want to remove it, I simply wanted to change "creation myth" to "creation narrative". Zenkai251 (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in the RfC above, and elsewhere on this page, consensus has been clear that linking creation myth is appropriate. Right now you're edit warring against that consensus, which is disruptive. Please stop.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We didn't quite reach a consensus on whether or not to change "creation myth" to "creation narrative". Zenkai251 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The RfC was fairly clear, but even if it were not, then consensus hasn't formed to change the article to narrative. As such, editing (and reverting others) to reflect that change is disruptive. If you believe consensus will decide to change the lead to "narrative", then it can wait until the discussion is settled. Please don't edit war in the meantime.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Adam" article is not the "Genesis" article, so I think the treatment of material, if sourced, should be handled differently at the two articles. There can be justification for addressing the characterization of Genesis as a "creation myth" earlier in this article than at the "Adam" article. A problem at the "Adam" article is that there are editors insisting on baldly stating in the first one or two sentences that "Genesis" is a "creation myth" when this view is not universally held nor is the article even on "Genesis". Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Bus Stop that the content of the Adam article differs rather substantially from that of tis article. While I disagree about his point that the use of the phrase "creation myth" should be universally held, the scope of the article includes material other than Genesis. The essence of my disagreement with him is that, even in some areas of rather clear-cut science, like say astronomy, there will be at least a few "fringe theories" like those of Emmanuel Velikovsky, The DaVinci Code, and some others who might be described as "religious fundamentalists," which are held by at least one or two sources of some sort. WP:FT and other policies and guidelines to not demand that we cover every theory held by every religious community. Factually, for faiths like Christianity and Hinduism, where there are a variety of sometimes directly contradictory beliefs of one or more groups which are sometimes all rejected by academia, that would be clearly impossible. I believe that this may well be another example of that type. The fact that some individuals express religious belief in an idea is not necessarily grounds for wikipedia, which is supposed to be based on the best reliable sources, to emphasize such. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography section
The bibliography section was full of books that aren't used in the article. I've gone through and deleted quite a number, as the purpose of these sections is to help readers verify the information in the article by checking its sources. PiCo (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PiCO can you explain this edit summary,"Unfortunately, Leeming is not reliable?" Not reliable for what? The Oxford series of reference works are of course reliable sources, and Leeming is of course a prodigious scholar in the area of world mythology, particularly for tertiary sources. So what do you mean there and why did you remove him?Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean he's not correct in what he says. He's accepting outdated scholarship as if it were still current. For example, he says that the documentary hypothesis is the accepted explanation of the way in which the Pentateuch was written, and that it's generally accepted that J dates from about 950 BC. Both statements are untrue - not untrue, perhaps, since who knows what truth is, but certainly outdated. I could go into details for you if you wish, on your personal talk page. PiCo (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) I'll explain why I feel uneasy with Leeming. First, he is, without question, an eminent scholar. And yet, I find him making statements which I know to be not so much untrue as outdated, in terms of current thinking. In his 'Creation Myths of the World" (the link should open at page 124) we find him saying that the Hebrews entered Canaan from Egypt in the late 2nd millennium. This is not the current scholarly consensus, which is that the Israelites were originally Canaanites and never were in Egypt. It's based, of course, on Exodus/Joshua, and the current scholarly consensus on these books is that Joshua dates from the 7th century BC and Exodus from the early 6th, and that they are in no way a reliable guide to history.

Any competent scholar should be aware of these developments in scholarship, even if he doesn't agree with them. But Leeman isn't disagreeing - he's simply ignorant of them.

It continues. "We know that at the end of the 11th century BCE the Hebrew clans united behind a monarchy." (Page 125). In fact we know no such thing. This is an uncritical reading of the Book of Samuel. If Leeming had bothered to check with Bill Dever or anyone at all (except perhaps Kitchen or Hoffmeier) he would have found that the current understanding is that there was no kingdom in the highlands until the 9th century, and that it was centered in Israel/Samaria, not Jerusalem.

This ignorance of history extends also to his understanding of the formation of the Pentateuch (i.e., the question of how Genesis came to be written). On pages 125-126 he clearly believes that the documentary hypothesis is still the explanation accepted by his peers in biblical studies - in fact it's been old-fashioned since the 1970s, and voices like RE Friedman are definitely defensive rather than mainstream. His characterisation of the sources is also old-fashioned. In fact old-fashioned is the dominant impression.

Leeming is, without doubt, a prestigious scholar. That leaves me puzzled as to why he's writing in this way, as if he hasn't read anything written by biblical scholars since about 1970. I can't begin to answer that.

However, there's a way out. Leeming is only quoted once in our article, and in fact what he says is perfectly mainstream: "To the extent that this myth (Genesis 1) was influenced by Mesopotamian concepts, it can be said that it purposely establishes a monotheistic creation as opposed to the Babylonian polytheistic one." That's in a footnote to the main text - in fact it's the very first footnote. It's followed by two more quotations saying exactly the same thing, in different words. That's not surprising - this is mainline opinion among biblical scholars (even Wenham says it, and he's an Evangelical Christian). So what this means is that we don't actually need Leeming - we don't need three quotes saying the same thing. For that matter we don't need two quotes, one will do. I'd go for Alter, he's authoritative and he says it best: "Genesis opens with a narrative of origins—Creation and the Garden Story—that is compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends ..." PiCo (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "We know that at the end of the 11th century BCE the Hebrew clans united behind a monarchy." - That idea is (or will be) making a comeback. Sorry PiCo, no ref off the top of my head yet. rossnixon 03:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go off on a tangent here Ross, but I think you're thinking of the recent (fairly recent) brou-ha-ha over the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon. That's the inscribed pottery sherd from a fortified settlement in the Elah valley that has a Hebrew inscription from about the time of Solomon - the idea being put forward by more nationalistic Israelis is that it proves the existence of a kingdom of Judah/Israel dating from the 10th century. The jury seems still to be out. PiCo (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Great Job
Pico; You are doing a great job of presenting a one sided viewpoint. Now all you need to do is add in the traditional view to balance out the article to make it NPOV. SmittysmithIII (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm trying now to find sources for interpretations of Genesis 1-2 - I've got some on early Christianity, but Jewish thought is a bit harder to find and summarise, especially as I'm not Jewish and so don't know what's important and what's not. Any help from people who do know would be appreciated. PiCo (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis
There should be a note within the section stating that the agon method suggested by some interpreters may be mistranslation. Isaiah 51:9-10 used is a perfect example.

"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?"

The Israeli's were pleading for God to help them as he did in Egypt.

Isaiah 51:9, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible.

Rahab = Poetical name for Egypt, Dragon = The Pharaoh

Isaiah 51:9, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.

See Ezekiel 29:3 for similar passage showing Dragon as Pharaoh

No where in the canonical scripture does creation involve a battle. Those that claim it does usually never have read the Bible, or takes verses out of context (purposely for an agenda, or unintentional due to lack of knowledge).

Kgrayjr (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We need modernsources, that reflect majority thinking among current scholars. Matthew Henry is very old, and the second source is a 1920 commentary. PiCo (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it so important to "reflect majority thinking" on any topic of scriptural interpretation, where "majority thinking" is seldom easy to identify, with so many competing denominational standpoints. We should always try to present all significant POVs and stay clear of endorsing any of them, for a controversial topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 3rd try at a reply to you Til.
 * It's always important to reflect majority thinking - that's what Wikipedia does.
 * But yes, majority thinking isn't easy to identify, I agree.
 * That's why we have to use reliable sources.
 * When we're talking about matters of scholarship, those have to be scholarly sources. I try to find such sources. Matthew Henry, whom our friend above mentions, is not a reliable scholarly source because he's around 200 years old. Scholarship advances, so we have to use recent sources. (Definitions of recent can vary, but 200 years isn't recent; nor is 90, which the age of his second source).
 * "Competing denominational standpoints"? What competing denominations? In biblical scholarship you'll find Baptists, Catholics, Jews, and quite possibly atheists (though probably not), and though they'll disagree it won't be along denominational lines.
 * "We should present significant povs and stay clear of endorsing any." Yep.
 * Let me get back to what the first poster said about Rahab and Dragon (I'm not talking to you here, Til). He says they're symbols for Egypt and Pharaoh. His source is Matthew Henry. Personally I have no idea who Rahab and Dragon were. But I do know where to find out: go to the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. That's our reliable source. We know it's our best reliable source because it's on the syllabuses (yes Til, I do know that's bad English) of the major seminaries, universities and so on - it's got endorsement. Matthew Henry doesn't. That's how we decide what to write in out article. PiCo (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought everyone knew Rahab meant Egypt. Did someone suggest it meant something else? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems so - you can look up Walton's entry on Creation in DOT (linked in the article). Bear in mind though that our article makes just a single mention of Rahab, so this is in danger of turning into a big discussion of something that's not of major importance.PiCo (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really want to paraphrase the "majority view", Rahab (Egypt) seems to cover it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't see a need for it. Rahab isn't mentioned in Genesis 1 - which is precisely the point being made in DOT, which is what we're actually quoting (or semi-quoting): Rahab and Leviathan and other mythological monsters are not in the Genesis creation narrative, which has been de-mythologised (which, incidentally, is a good reason for not calling it a myth - but I'm not going down that road if I can avoid it). PiCo (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The original poster's point seems perfectly valid, but only you "don't see a need for it". It seems as if some one is suggesting here, using this article as a vehicle or platform, that "Rahab the Dragon" was once mentioned as having a role in the Genesis Creation Narrative, but that her name was later expunged, in order to "demythologize" it.  That cannot possibly be a "majority view" among theologians.  That conjecture cannot be anything more than just another wild, unprovable hypothesis / flavor of the week. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems it's not so simple. I looked up some Isaiah commentaries: in the footnote to page 404 here you'll find a discussion of recent (fairly recent) scholarly discussion of the Rahab/Leviathan figures - Westermann and others. The point isn't the conclusions the various scholars come to as the fact that Fishbane isn't alone. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The latest scholarly sources are not always the best. There has been a lot of historic revisionism-- rewriting history according to current beliefs-- lately.  Scholars are in the minority and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the majority of Christian believers.  If you want to know what the Baptists believe on a specific topic you need to go to Baptist theologians.  If you want to know what the Catholics believe you need to go to Catholic sources.  These are considered reliable sources when they are talking on topics about themselves and what they believe.  It may be different from what scholars believe or what scholars say the Baptists or Catholics (or whoever) believe.  Such source may not be reliable on topics like politics, philosophy, engineering, etc., but they are reliable when talking about their own beliefs.  After all, who would know better?  Don't you know better what you believe than anybody else?  Mthoodhood (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, as far a Matthew Henry, I have visited churches that read from Matthew Henry as the greatest authority on Bible theology. Just because someone wrote 100 or 200 or 500 years ago that does not mean that believers think it is worthless.  Bible theology in general has not changed much in millinia....  Sure there are differences between denominations but typically these are over fairly minor points.  There are a few important major differences, but even these are hundreds of years in the making.  This makes "the latest scholarly thinking" not such an important thing.  Mthoodhood (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And another point. For believers the Bible is not just another manuscript.  They believe that it was written by men who were inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  This severely complicates who is or is not thought to be a reliable source.  This is best explained in 1 Cor 2:11-14, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit himself? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the unbelieving world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human unbelieving wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual terms. The man without the Spirit [the non-believer] does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."  For believers, any scholar who is not a believer is considered to be an unreliable source.  And for non-believers, any scholar who is a believer is considered to be an unreliable source.  So when it comes to WP, there will inevitably be constant disagreement over who is or is not a reliable source because there are both believing and non-believing editors.  And saying that only "the latest scholarship is the most reliable" does not solve the problem of who is or who is not able to discern what the Bible teaches.  Thus it is important to present interpretation of the Bible by unbelieving and believing Biblical scholars and theologians.  Mthoodhood (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mthoodhood, I appreciate your sincerity and your religious faith, but this is a secular encyclopedia. That means that we are not trying "to discern what the Bible teaches". We're at one remove, trying to discern what the the people who wrote the bible were teaching - not the bible itself, but the authors. That's a historical study, and that's why we rely on professional biblical studies experts. Most of them, by the way, are believers - non-believers simply don't have the motivation to get involved.


 * I hope I'm meeting your concerns though in the section "Later interpretations". So far I've done a few paras on the influence of Genesis 1-2 on the NT writers and on the very early stages of Christian theology - those earliest stages are important, though, because there were some major themes introduced then that marked Christianity off from Judaism, and which also formed the basis of what we nowdays take for granted. The Judaism section is proving more difficult - I don't know what's important and what's not, because I'm not Jewish, plus I'm finding it hard finding sources. The Creationism section might be ok the way it is, as it's had a lot of work in the past.PiCo (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

later interpretations?
I'm confused. Then entire first sections are Genesis as interpreted within modern naturalistic scholarship. And then comes a section called Later interpretations which include Judaism, Christainity, etc. That seems completely backwards. It seems to me that you should start with Jewish interpretation, then the early, middle and late Christian interpretation and only then modern naturalistic scholarship interpretation. Mthoodhood (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That last section is still under construction, because I'm finding it hard to find sources and to judge what's important. I'm fairly satisfied with the Christianity part - a couple of commentaries agree that the early Christian Fathers gave a lot of attention to the "image of God" and to creation "ex nihilo" - but the rest is difficult. So I can't start with Jewish interpretations if I don't even know what they are. PiCo (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Title
See the bajillion discussions & consensus re creation myth 67.253.8.103 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Update
For anyone who's following what I've been doing: I think I've written all I reasonably can - anything extra would be fiddling at the edges. I've removed the entire section that tried to deal with later developments of the Genesis story. That's because it just proved too difficult to write. But the bibliography has plenty of books if anyone else wants to try their hand. I'm now going through and checking the article against the sources - I could easily have gotten things wrong. I guess I'm writing this because I don't want anyone to think I'm taking over the article as my personal property - everyone is welcome to contribute, and it's better if they do. PiCo (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. Random thought, why not move creation myth to the first sentence instead of the second, and just shorten the second, as the MOS says "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition". Jesanj (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some adjustments aimed at making the first para of the lead more concise. The problem, of course, is that the word "myth" is such a hot-button issue in its own right - people just see it (or want to see it) and the emotions kick in. PiCo (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pico, your solution seems very sensible, sometimes the simplest solution is right under our nose but it looks like you have found it. Simply giving 'or creation myth' as an alternatively used title is about as matter of fact and neutral as we can get.  I wouldn;t recommend Jesan's proposal just below as any sort of compromise though... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth" instead of "The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth)"? Yes, it appears to be illogically emotionally fraught. I created political myth but we don't yet have a page for a false political myth or a false political rumor. They have completely different meanings... O well. Jesanj (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or how about "The Genesis creation narrative as a creation myth" There are going to be those who object to the seeming finality of "is a creation myth."  There are those who see it as a myth and those who do not.  Perhaps there could be another article titled "The Genesis creation narrative as history".  What Genesis really is, is usually in the eye of the beholder.  SmittysmithIII (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But we don't give equal validity to beholders. Jesanj (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to stay with the version currently on the page - narrative and myth get equal billing, as alternatives.PiCo (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Jesanj (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This article already largely gives the view of one set of "beholders." The 'truth' of Genesis and the Bible is not like the truth of gravity.  One either believes that Genesis and the Bible is true as the word of God or one does not.  These are the two 'beholders' and both sides have the right to exist and be talked about.  SmittysmithIII (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but on Wikipedia, we don't care about what people think, we only care about what one set of beholders say: reliable sources. Only when reliable sources disagree on something with equal weight, do we represent something with equal validity. Jesanj (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You deserve a medal. This is the best revision I've seen stay put for long in this article; it's been virtually unreadable for the most part.  Well done. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). We'll see how long it lasts. PiCo (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God"
This statement is impossible to prove. It sould not be stateted as a fact, especially in the first paragraph. Also, one outdated, unreliable source is not good enough for such a ridiculous statement to remain in the article. I added "it is possible that" directly in front of the statement, but a certain someone reverted it. The statement definitely needs to be removed or at least neutralized. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim is fine. There's nothing wrong with the source, and the premise could easily be found in probably hundreds of perfectly valid references besides this one.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I explained this on my talk page, but to repeat, here's a quote from the source: "In order to develop their beliefs, the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God." The authors have an impressive scholarly resume, and the book was published by NYU Press in 1996. What is "outdated" and "unreliable" about it?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And how the HECK does this source (or any other) know this? Were they there when Genesis was written. Does Genesis say that it borrowed ideas from the Mesopotamians? The ridiculous statement is completely IMPOSSIBLE to prove, and therefore, does not belong in the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Archaeology, literary analysis, and other methods are useful for these sorts of claims. Luckily, the authors of this source are recognized scholars in these fields. With all that said, their methods aren't really all that important for our purposes. Per WP:V, we report what the reliable sources say, and we have a reliable scholarly source reporting the Hebrews adapted some Mesopotamian themes. That is what we have to report, short of a preponderance of other sources to the contrary.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said: This is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. Zenkai251 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Proof" doesn't apply, Zenkai251. Historians and other such scholars never "prove" claims. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there are equally many (or more) historians and scholars that would say that Genesis is NOT borrowed from the Mesopotamians. Do you just want to ignore historical consensus? Zenkai251 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above, we have a reliable scholarly source saying the Hebrews adapted some Mesopotamian themes. To change that, we need a preponderance of other sources to the contrary. You're welcome to present contrary sources to be considered if you feel the source we're using is misrepresenting the academic consensus.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is stated in the article as if it were a fact. We can't say something is a fact unless we have PROOF. That is why the edit I made should remain in the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, "proof" doesn't come into it. I've  begun a rough survey of sorts to see where the scholarly consensus seems to be.  The term "borrowed" in the quote might be the prickly bit here.  But I'll try to scope this out in sources and see where we're at. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's correct to say that history doesn't aim at proof - it's not like theoretical physics. What historians aim at is establishing probability based on available evidence. Zenkai251 is correct that we should avoid outdated sources. I don't think Sarna is outdated on this subject, but it could be useful to see what more recent works say. PiCo (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai251 has a point. The only ones who know for sure if the Hebrews did or did not borrow from Mesopotamian themes are the Hebrews themselves and they are long dead. The way the sentence reads, someone else, who did not live at the time, knows for sure what the Hebrews did. This is certainly Sarna's well educated conclusion and opinion and he has the right to it. It really needs to be noted that way. Sarna may or may not be correct. We are not talking about gravity, but what people believed and why. One must always leave room for uncertainty on such topics. Mthoodhood (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the problem with all things in history - the only people who know are dead. We have accept that and move on. PiCo (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note- Are there any objections to adding "it is possible that" in front of the disputed quote? I don't see anything wrong with doing that; it is a perfectly reasonable edit.Zenkai251 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried something else. "It is possible" may just emphasize the wrong connotation there.  The themes are clearly there; not just "possibly there".  But whether they were "borrowed" from a different culture or both myth traditions derived from common roots--I don't think the source was necessarily arguing a distinction like this there, but may have just used it as a turn of phrase.  Professor marginalia (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would point out that those agitating against this passage are ignoring the core of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That it is verifiable that expert scholars hold that "the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God" is sufficient. It is not necessary to 'prove' this viewpoint to the satisfaction of individual editors. I would also recommend against watering down this conclusion to a mere 'possibility' when the experts do not. This would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the contrary viewpoint without any published support. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor change: Sarna does say Genesis borrows "themes", but other sources make it clear that more is involved - see e.g. Dalley, Fishbane, or any of the commentaries listed, esp. Kissling. PiCo (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'd suggest a consensus summary of these views, noting any dissent (either not going as far as the consensus, or going further) in the footnote, which should cite each of the sources summarised (probably as a bullet-pointed list). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no dissent - none that I've found, anyway. It's just that Sarna talks about "themes" being borrowed, while others talk more specifically about motifs (such as the Tree of Life, the Cosmic Temple, etc). Maybe just a matter of definition. PiCo (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the problem. The claim is simply unverifiable, and thus should be removed or toned down. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim is made by a reliable source (Sarna) and is repeated by several other reliable sources (see the bibliography) and there are no dissenting claims (that I cann find); it therefore meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
 * If you'd like to do something that would be useful, you could go through the section on Composition and check out the references - see if what the article says is an accurate reflection of what each source says. Do it one subsection at a time, to make it manageable. Report any problems here, and we can look at them. Not only problems, also suggestions for improving the article. That would be a really useful quality-checking thing. PiCo (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a reliable source. It's someones opinion. There are no facts to back it up. It doesn't matter how many people parrot someone elses opinion, it still doesn't make it true. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Published) expert opinion is a reliable source, especially where it is the majority expert consensus. Whether or not you think it is "true" is irrelevant -- "verifiability, not truth" . These expert opinions have been "published by a reliable source", so they are verifiable . HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't know what verifiable means. Let me help you out: varifiable(adj)-capable of being tested(varified or falsefied) by experiment or observation. As you can see, the disputed claim can not be varified, therefore does not belong here. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Complete bollocks! WP:V clearly states that in this context verifiability means "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Your arguments on this topic are WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:Tendentious editing. Kindly stop. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You kindly stop, please. It's a fact that someone's opinion CANNOT be a reliable source. You can deny it all you want, but I am correct and you know it. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your position has no basis in either policy nor practice. If you really think your ludicrous position has any legs, then you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN and get it laughed at there as well. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to wikipedia policy you are wrong; on Wikipedia, expert opinions are reliable sources. If you disagree with policy that's fine but we're not going to violate it because you don't like it.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  04:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My ludicrous position will be laughed at? I'm deeply sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry that you cannot grasp reality. My position is 100% correct and everyone knows it, they just don't want to admit that they are wrong. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then take it to RSN and get outside opinions. Despite your claim that people simply don't want to admit to being wrong, you may want to consider that you don't understand wikipedia policy, and further, that you're simply not convincing. Consensus seems to have formed and unless you have sources there is really nothing else to discuss.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  04:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If "[your] position is 100% correct and everyone knows it", then you should have no problem getting it upheld on WP:RSN. The fact that you do nothing but continue to baldly assert your righteousness here, rather than doing so, would seem to indicate that you know that nobody gives a rat's arse for your quixotic crusade. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@Zenkai251 - you are wrong on this. You're misunderstanding how to apply policy when it comes to judging the claims, sources, and weight of published expert opinion here. If you're unwilling to accept this in this case, (and many editors here have tried to help you understand), it might help you understand if you were to gain more experience editing topics you don't have strong opinions about yet. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is all that needed?
In this sentence:

It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different - Nahum Sarna, Chair of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, comments: "The Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God."[1]

Is the first part; It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different based on:  "The Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God."[snarna]??

If so, we don't need such a large sentence. there are two options. 1. the first part with a ref including the quote. or 2. The last part-- a quote from Sarna. Mthoodhood (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. (The first part is a paraphrase of the second, the Sarna quote: I thik it's needed as an introduction. If you think it doesn't work we could delete the whole sentence and the Sarna quote might possibly fit in somewhere else).PiCo (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rename article to Genesis creation myth
Disagree. Tacking on the word "myth" is not neutral and is out of place. Even things that are undisputed myths do not have the word "myth" in their title: Icarus, Cyclops, Leprechauns. The only motive for including the word "myth" is persuade the reader that the information is false. Even if it is false, we cannot be trying to persuade people of that notion, because it violates Wiki's policy of neutrality and turns an encyclopedia into a medium for propaganda. Thinktank33 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of support for removing "narrative" from the actual article title, a move which I agree in, so should we shift the conversation to doing this move? — raeky  t  00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The current title seems inconsistent and religiously biased. When it was changed back and forth to "Genesis creation myth" in 2010, there were lengthy "myth" vs. "narrative" arguments. We could avoid repetition if some neutral editors would summarize the archived discussions. Keahapana (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree! It has already been discussed multiple times in the past and "Genesis creation narrative" was decided on as the name for the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a compromise in the end, which involved renaming the article but keeping the words "creation myth" prominently in the lead. Do you support that compromise, or do you just want to cherry-pick? Hans Adler 12:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Very Strongly Disagree. If you Google the word "myth" in major English language newspapers and news magazines anywhere in the world, you will find that nearly 100% of the time, it is used to refer to intentionally misleading statements. That is its normal connotation. It's nearly impossible to find the special use of "myth" outside of acadėme, and even there it is scarce. The only argument I can conceive of for using it in this article's title is to deliberately demean the narrative and clearly offend the enormous percentage of followers of the two largest religions in the world for whom this is considered sacred. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't start this crapstorm again? Unless I'm mistaken you two (Raeky and Keahapana) were part of the most recent prolonged and unpleasant bickering over this so please try to remember what happened. It was settled, and it was settled based on scholarship and not as some people like to claim, as based on a religious POV. I disagree with opening this can of worms back up. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Very Strongly Disagree. Honestly, this shouldn't even be suggested. It's done. Narrative is a neutral term, and despite the scholarly use of "myth", it is not. Pushing to rename the article -- again -- is highly POV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Why shouldn't it be suggested? So your position is that we should rename the creation myth and all the pages at List of creation myths that use the phrase creation myth in the title too? Jesanj (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most entries that are fully about creation myths, primal myths and cosmogonic myths are not titled "creation myth" in fact. The list you are referring to is deceptive in that regard because what appears often to be entries with those titles are in fact redirects to sections of other entries that do not share those titles. So using that list as evidence is a bad idea. Please see my further related comment below.Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the list isn't a bad idea, as long as one is aware of the article titles, which one can see here. Jesanj (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson. Most of those creation myths are not held to be historically true by large numbers of people.  So calling them myths may not be considered offensive.  There is a difference.  You may not like the fact that there are many, many people who consider the biblical creation story to be historical, but it is a fact.  You can't use Wikipedia as a weapon with which to "smite the believers", so to speak.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So you think this is a campaign to "smite the believers"? Interesting. Jesanj (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)There are many, many people who believe a lot of weird things. But we still call astrology a pseudo-science, describe Power Balance bracelets to be found completely ineffective, and dare tell people that professional wrestling matches are predetermined. The number of people who hold the Biblical account to be historical (as opposed to either nonsense or allegorical) is fairly small. And the number of people who do not like some information should not and never be a reason not to include it. I don't like hearing about Camp X-Ray, or global warming, or the relationship between being overweight and health risks... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * comment: there are many equally legitimate alternatives for naming of this article, and waywaywaywayway too much volunteer time has already been wasted at this project on this merry-go-round of changing the title, debating changing it, edit warring over it, and revising and re-revising the nearly 500 wikilinks found throughout the 'pedia pointing to it - round and round, over and over and over again. The amount of time wasted already revisiting this question again and again has been gargantuan.  Professor marginalia (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. If you're right, I think we should put a FAQ question/answer at the top. Jesanj (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'd go with: "Q. Shouldn't this article be renamed [ blank ]? A. Are you crazy? To 'have it your way' will force you waste dozens of hours thrashing with editors who viscerally hate the change. And should you succeed, someone else will come along right behind you, start the nightmare all over again and change to something else." ;) Or we could just collect past attempts together and document what a neverending circus the issue has been in a single archive page. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a first step, I've listed the various renames that I could identify as actually ever used, even if for a short while. There may be more that I missed. But the fun part comes next: gathering together the zillion megabytes of high intensity "debate" arguing over the issue.  I've posted the list here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Professor. Your list provides a helpful chronological overview. Do you think it might be more useful if placed on this talk page? We agree about the absurd time already wasted arguing over mythiness. Reading some comments above ("one of the words makes 90% of Americans angry", "'narrative' … means the same thing as 'myth'") gave me an idea for possible timesaving. We could start by building a consensus to provide reliable lexical sources in all discussions about word semantics and usages. If someone claims "myth means X" but cannot provide support from a dictionary or other language reference, for present WP purposes, it doesn't mean that. Keahapana (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I already found another one two. Here's a list of the alternatives I confirmed served here as the title for this one topic at some point in time:
 * Creationism
 * Creation
 * Traditional creation myths of various cultures (subsection)   Creation myths  (main)
 * The two creation stories in Genesis (subsection)   Creationism  (main)
 * Creationism (theology)
 * Creation (theology)
 * Doctrine of creation
 * Creationist (theology)
 * Abrahamic creationism
 * Bible-based beliefs (subsection)  Creation myths  (main)
 * Bible-based beliefs (subsection)   Creation beliefs  (main)
 * The stories of Genesis (subsection)   Creation beliefs  (main)
 * The stories of Genesis (subsection)   Origin beliefs  (main)
 * The stories of Genesis (subsection)   Origins beliefs  (main)
 * Christian (subsection)  and Judaism  (subsection)  Creation within belief systems  (main)
 * Judaism and Christian (subsection)   Cosmogonic beliefs from Middle East  (main)
 * Creation accounts in Genesis
 * Creation account(s) in Genesis
 * Creation according to Genesis
 * Genesis creation myth
 * Genesis creation narrative


 * Some of these alternatives originated with content related forks and mergers rather than rename disputes. But NPOV disputes raged over the name in nearly every case (including over Creation accounts in Genesis for the plural).  Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the titles listed above, like "Creation within belief systems", really don't still apply to the content of this article as it is currently constructed. Also, the various "creationism" titles are a bit vague for use in this particular context. I would submit that "narrative" is not in fact equivalent to myth, as narrative can also be used for any other narrative forms. And, honestly, as I believe we already have other articles for beliefs other extant religious groups which use the "myth" word, I have difficulty understanding why this particular article seems to deserve "special treatment" in that regard. However, maybe using something like "Genesis creation account," might be best, as "account" is, to my eyes, more neutral. I would still personally think "Genesis creation myth" would probably be the best, most neutral and informative title, though. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * {Long, deep breath} - I think I've done it, most of it anyway: I've pulled together from the archives the debates over the title of the article. Far and away most of it pertains to the term "myth", so I've included most threads I could find debating over the term, whether in the title or not.    Huge file.   3 megabytes. Had to spill the last of it to a second page.
 * To those who have LOTS of time and are eager to fight about it some more: you deserve to know going into it that there's nothing else say hasn't already been said, probably hundreds of times, already, and you don't have to take my word for it. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:John Carter, I also think that "account" is a more neutral term. But it was argued here by others last time we went through this that "account" implies that it's an account of something that happened, and therefore isn't neutral enough. "Story" implies to some people that it's fiction (I happen to not think that and would be fine with "story"). But "myth" is obviously an incendiary term that has a connotation of being an invented story. Those who argue that it is also used as a scholarly term which does not rule out historicity miss the point that (a) connotations are relevant and (b) since there are non-incendiary terms, one of them should be used. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How is "myth" incendiary? I'm in a theological faculty, studying religious science, and we call all creation narratives "creation myths". A myth is a narrative, but a narrative isn't necessarily a myth (same with "account", which is even more general). Before being theorized scientifically, the Big Bang was just a narrative too (or an "account"). But it was not a myth.
 * Let's take for example the definition of "myth" in Mircea Eliade's "Myth and Reality": "Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took place in primordial Time [...] it relates how something was produced, began to be." Kind of fits Genesis, huh?
 * So let's say "creation myth" is the scientific consensus, which is why all other pages on Wikipedia that deal with them have a title with "creation myth" in it. Then look at WP:POVTITLE. Then realize that this article should be titled "Genesis creation myth". IMO, sticking to the scientific consensus is much more NPOV than trying to accommodate an uncultivated/bad faith crowd.
 * Finally, a myth IS an invented story. That's why the term was first used by the Christians to characterize other religions' creation accounts, and that's why scientists have adopted the term. So it doesn't matter if some morons somewhere take Genesis literally. It also doesn't matter if some are offended by the term because they don't understand what a myth is. The consensus is the consensus, and the article title should reflect that. Bidouleroux (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Using the word "myth" to characterize the Genesis creation narrative violates WP:NPOV. The suggestion to move the article or add the word "myth" in the lede is equivalent to renaming the article to the Genesis creation fact or something of the like. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

But everyone else is doing it, so why not us?
Because it is not common in scholarship. How many times does that have to be repeated before people will hear it. A lot of confusion comes about because of the fact that different scholarly contexts will utilize different terminology for the same subjects. So if a creation story is almost entirely dealt with by scholars of mythology, ancient history and comparative literature, what you end up with is a "creation myth," so named. If, on the other hand, the story is not usually dealt with in those contexts you wont see that term used very often. That is the case with the Genesis story. Another factor, whether people like it or not, which is related to the scholarly context issue, has to do with what the cultural context of the story is. If it is ancient, and part of a dead tradition (whether or not it has been revitalized through a contemporary pagan movement) you'll see "myth" used often. This is also true for living and dead traditions described by anthropologists working in the field, and especially in earlier periods. Does that last fact reflect a bias, especially in the early days of anthropology (e.i. colonialism, etc.)? I'm sure it does, but if you consider that true, understand that it's the "myth" label, applied to "primitive" groups that is problematic in that context and not the "narrative" label applied to a Western tradition. So to make a long story short, there are reasons why the literature isn't the same for the labeling of all creation myths, but that's a reality we need to live with. I'll be happy to explain the situation surrounding this particular myth in more detail if anyone asks (because its pretty justifiable IMO), but for now I don't want to make this post to long.Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because we generally do X doesn't mean we can't use Y to retitle. If in scholarship the Genesis creation narrative is more commonly (what, 55%, 65%, 75% of the time?) called a narrative, rather than a myth, then I understand this argument. Even if this is true, however, we can still rename the article. WP:POVTITLE states "the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" (my emphasis). The existence of the creation myth and the List of creation myths articles mean that that naming is the neutral WP:COMMONNAME (unless we have those page names wrong). We can rename this article. Jesanj (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We should not rename this article both because narrative is more commonly used, and because using myth would be pushing a POV. Look, you think using narrative is POV.  I think using myth is POV.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind changing the article's title to "Genesis creation account".  The problem is that there were people who considered that to be POV on the site of it being historical.  "Narrative" was chosen as a compromise.  If you're going to push for it to be renamed to Genesis creation myth, I'm going to go back to pushing for Genesis creation account, and we'll just wind up compromising with Genesis creation narrative again.  Why don't you spare us the drama and drop this.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Narrative" is not most common in usage, "story" is by far most common. "Narrative" was the compromise decision. I actually pushed for "story" myself, and there were others who agreed with me, but "narrative" is what we settled on.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I think Genesis creation narrative and Genesis creation myth are both neutral titles. I just think it's silly that some think we have to keep this title when creation myth is the common name for the phenomenon, as it is used exclusively in other article titles here. If you don't think "account" has a chance, please don't pursue it. Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether user Jesanj has ever tried to push something here (—I don't see any evidence for that—), but, Lisa, this sounds like an extremely wp:POINTY and highly disruptive thing to do: "If you're going to push for it to be renamed to Genesis creation myth, I'm going to go back to pushing for Genesis creation account." - DVdm (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's certainly not my intent. My point is that the only reason I was willing to back down on account was the compromise.  If the compromise no longer holds, I'm going to push for the title that I think is most correct, which is Genesis creation account.  I have never stopped thinking that account would be a better title.  But for exactly the opposite motives that WP:POINTY refers to, I've chosen to go along with a title that I don't think is good.  For the sake of consensus.


 * It seems abundantly clear to me that some editors want the word "myth" in the title precisely because it carries a dismissive connotation. I have no evidence that Jesanj is one of these, but my objections to the renaming stand either way.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if it was not your intent, it is one of the pointiest things I have seen here since a while. What seems abundantly clear to you, could be wrong, and inspired by lack of assumption of good faith. - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Creation myth is commonly used in wikipedia (scholarly as it is); just because this is religious myth changes nothing ... get real it's a creation myth (whichever definition you use). Abtract (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't whether or not it is a creation myth and please remember that we are clear about the identification as a creation myth in the lead. The problem is whether or not it isn't also something else and whether or not because of that, and because of how that has effected relaible sources, we ought to title the entry to reflect those facts. People who argue for myth seem to consistently argue from the false position that if we aren't titling this with the word "creation myth" we are kowtowing to the religious belief. Well I have news for you. If we were kowtowing to the religious POV this entry would be titled Creation, not "Genesis creation narrative." The current title says specifically that this is a story about creation found in Genesis. In some contexts, especially the ancient context and the comparative mythological context "myth" makes sense, but in other contexts it doesn't. I'm a social scientist, and if I were to conduct empirical research on a religious group that found this story meaningful in some way, starting from the premise that it is a myth (in the scholarly sense) would be extremely counterproductive and may indeed be completely misleading. What this story is above all, is a story. Period. And I'll repeat myself, scholarship is on my side here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy note: Consensus can change. Some articles go through extensive editing and discussion to achieve a neutral and a readable product. Similarly, other articles are periodically challenged and/or revised. This is a normal function of the ongoing process of consensus. It is useful to examine the article's talk page archives and read through past discussions before re-raising an issue in talk – there is no sense in forcing everyone to rehash old discussions without need.

However, consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Genesis creation narrative," in my opinion, would be more appropriate than "Genesis creation myth" - without the 'sting' of the word myth. Myth carries the connotation of fiction or falseness that is offensive to some, while a narrative by definition is more neutral and can be metaphor, analogy, symbolism, fiction, or truth. I think it is a blending of all POVs and could also be useful for other religions as well (in sidestepping disputes among denominations, sects, etc.). I am referring to the use of the word "narrative" versus "myth" in telling of stories from different religions. In this way Wikipedia can impart clear information in a balanced way without pushing a particular religious leaning (myth or truth). Dikonped (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You should not worry about offending people by a title: Offensive_material. As far as this discussion is concerned, the word "myth" carries no 'sting'. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the basic question that must be asked: How does this particular story about creation differ from all of the stories in this list. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That particular "basic question" has been answered so many times, it's starting to look like a case of "I didn't hear that". There is a substantial amount of theological sources that specifically demonstrates that there is widespread objection to classifying Genesis in the genre of myth, and there are whole volumes of scholarly debate over what "myth" means.  Thus there is an established point of view that can be demonstrated with sources to exist, be widespread and significant that objects to calling it a "myth", and some would have this point of view  brushed under the carpet as if it were a heresy to be stomped out without mention  like some kind of damnatio memoriae.  The objection to scriptures being termed myths is actually true for the religious narratives of all the widespread religions, including the Mahabharata, Quran, Lotus Sutra, and Book of Mormon, among others:  none of these should be termed with the agenda driven label of "myth" or "mythology", because it clearly stems from an external point-of-view, not a truly neutral point of view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Talking about religions from a theological viewpoint can never be neutral, since theology requires that you hold the particular postulates of a religion (the existence of God, etc.) as true, even if temporarily, i.e. theology may be a rational exercise, but it is not and cannot be scientific. The only neutral point of view on religion comes from the science called "religious science". No recognized scientist that studies religion will say that the Genesis account of creation is not a myth on the same level as other creation myths of other religions. Heck, even most catholic theologians nowadays view the Genesis account of creation as a myth when they are not talking from a theological viewpoint. In fact, the only people who say religious creation accounts aren't myths are those that take a literal approach to their own religion's scripture, i.e. those who are biased and thus do not express a neutral point of view.
 * Put another way, theology takes religion as being true, science takes religion simply as a fact. Therefore theologians are not, by definition, neutral about religion and the contents of religions. If the decision was made elsewhere in Wikipedia to put "myth" in the title of articles about religious accounts of creation, then this article should follow the standard and include "myth" also. Bidouleroux (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a brilliant argument.<b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Part of wikiproject mythology?
This heading is not necessary, and it is quite incorrect and misleading. Genesis creation narrative is NOT mythology; it is Religion. There is a distinct difference between the two. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The template is neither "incorrect" nor "misleading". The 'Genesis creation narrative' is one of many creation myths, and so is legitimately part of that wikiproject. "Religion' and 'mythology' are not mutually exclusive and many (and probably most) mythologies are or were attached to some religion. Zenkai251 appears to be simply pushing a Christian exceptionalism that has no basis in Wikipedia policy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken yet again. I'm not pushing "Christian exceptionalism"; I'm pushing neutrality. The template needs to be removed because it is false. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're imaginary? Zenkai251 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] Zenkai, you just avoided a topic ban on this. Step away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What did I do? Zenkai251 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop it. Talk to your mentor who bailed you out last time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All creation narratives/myths should be part of wikiproject:mythology. Just as (for example) all flood myths, including the Noah myth, should. Wikiproject:religion is also appropriate. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. I'm surprised that this is contentious.Colon el Tom 3:10 am, Today (UTC−6)


 * And just for the record, Hrafn's contribution here has not been helpful: his tone has been confrontational, and instead of lowering the emotional temperature he's made every attempt, though no doubt not intentionally, to shift Zenkai251 from engagement with other editors to hostility. I think it would be a very good idea if Hrafn also stepped away. PiCo (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PiCo: Zenkai251 was not seeking "engagement with other editors" but rather a renewed WP:BATTLEGROUND to continue his crusade from Talk:Adam (where he made similar demands and showed more interest in other editors' religious viewpoints than in sources or policy). Whilst I (eventually) took "confrontational" exception to his repeated, strident and unfounded demands in above, my use of the Tilting at windmills above was an attempt to lower the heat through an oblique criticism. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfounded demands you say? That's nonsense, of course. My "demands" were to simply add a few words to make the article more accurate. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias
I was a bit shocked to see such a slant on this article. I am particularly referring to this section:


 * Despite the thorough-going monotheism of Genesis 1-11, and especially Genesis 1, there remain traces of this underlying, older, polytheistic inheritance: thus, when God says "Let us make man in our own image," the most probable reading is that he is speaking to the members of the bene elohim council, and it can be inferred from Genesis 3 ("See," says God, "the man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil...") that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which give benefits with which the bene elohim gods were associated (knowledge, immortality), were placed in Eden for the benefit of the gods.[25]

Two other explanations should be mentioned, no matter if one thinks they are true or not. Some people regard this expression, "Let us make man in our own image," to be a use of majestic plural, thus the referent is actually singular. Additionally, there is the reading that this "us" and "our" supports the concept of a trinity. While it may not fit under the same heading in the article, the current wording is too strong and suggests that there is an overwhelming consensus on this expression. If you knew nothing about the Bible and came to read this, you would walk away with the wrong impression of popular views. Additionally, I have seen conflicting scholarly reports on this expression. Please change. Thanks. 76.19.132.141 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll find the range of views that you mention (royal plural/council of gods) are all noted further on, under Day 6. The paragraph you're noting here is about polytheistic survivals in Genesis, so it's appropriate to focus on the "council of gods" idea here. So far as I'm aware, Penchansky is representing the scholarly consensus here (compare him with McKenzie, Smith, and with the various commentaries on Genesis listed in the bibliography), but you can read him in detail and get back to us. PiCo (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Internal structure of Genesis 1
I've reverted a recent edit by an anon ISP regarding the internal structure of Genesis 1. As the edit was no doubt made in good faith and as the issue is somewhat complex I thought I should explain it here.

The proposed edit was to the effect that the narrative of Genesis 1 is in the form of a chiasm. A chiasm is a rhetorical figure in which the the first series of elements is repeated in the second series, but in reverse order, with a central, non-repeated, element forming a "hinge" and containing the most important statement of the whole. The proposal sees the acts on the "days" of creation from 1 to 3 forming the first part, day 4 forming the hinge, and acts on days 5 and 6 forming the last section and inverting the order of the first group. To put this as a diagram, it goes ABCD-E-DCBA, with the creation of sun and moon and so on at the centre. (It's not the days themselves that are repeated, but the creative acts within them).

This stands in opposition to the so-called "framework" model, which sees the days themselves as the essential elements. In the framework model, the diagram comes out quite different: ABC,ABC (in other words, the first group of days is repeated in the same order in the second, and there's no central hinge). Contrary to the way the anonymous ISP edited the article, you can't have both explanations: either it's a chiasm, or it's a framework, but not both.

The anonymous ISP references two books. I won't go into it, but neither are mainstream academic works. I did a search to see how widespread the chiasm idea is, and got no hits at all; a search for framework, on the other hand, got plenty. It's not for Wikipedia to decide what's the right interpretation, but at this point, I don't think the chiasm idea is well enough established for us to mention it. PiCo (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Chiasms are a common feature of ANE literature from both a micro perspective (especially in poetry) and a macro one involving large blocks of material or whole books. A good example of the latter is the book of Revelation which contains both a clear progressive structure (sequences of churches, seals, bowls) as well as a chiastic one that has been identified by several, highly regarded, mainstream scholars (the churches of the seven cities become the new Jerusalem, the throne room vision in 4-5 is complemented by the vision of the harlot sitting on the beast in 17, the seals are balanced by the bowls, the two witnesses by the two beasts, with the vision of the woman, the dragon and the man-child as the crux). An example of the former is found in Genesis 1:27 (NIV)

God created mankind

in his own image

In the image of God

He created them

Recognizing such patterns can be a useful aid to interpretation, especially in books as difficult as Revelation. However, some years back a number of scholars became infatuated with "identifying" chiasms anywhere and everywhere in the Bible (a good Wikipedia example is the preposterous chiasm proposed by Shea in the Book of Daniel article) with the result that present day scholarship is both very wary of such claims and ruthlessly methodical and objective when they are proposed for anything more than small blocks of material. I agree that there doesn't seem to be any good evidence for a whole chapter chiasm in Genesis 1 and would be very surprised if any reputable commentator proposed one. --Sineaste (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Common understanding"

 * Both "The common understanding" and "The most common understanding" are grammatically correct. The main difference between the two is that the latter weakens the claim (by implying the existence of other common understandings). This should not be done without evidence that this is closer to the intent of the cited source. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. One is definitely more grammatically correct than the other. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your disagreement is noted -- but does not appear to be shared. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

NoteThe third paragraph starts with "The common understanding". It should start with "The most common understanding" or "A common understanding" to be the most grammatically correct in this context. I truly don't know why people are reverting this edit! Zenkai251 (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No. The original is the grammatically correct way of stating that there is a single-and-only common understanding. Your alternatives suggest that there may be multiple. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, just so you know, there are other common understandings. However, that is beside the point. My edit made it more correct. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first statement needs to be substantiated by a WP:RS. Your second appears to be yet further invocation of WP:The Truth. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When I made the simple edit, I was NOT pushing my POV! I noticed a grammar mistake and tried to fix it. Sheesh. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Zenkai251: it would be a lot easier to WP:AGF that claim if (nearly?) all your recent edits hadn't had the effect of weakening the scholarly consensus where it conflicts with the Fundamentalist viewpoint on the Bible. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn's explanation makes good sense here: "most" is a comparison word--something more than something else. So "most common" would mean there are several common, one of which is more common than the others. You would need positive evidence from WP:RS that there are other common understandings in order for this one to warrant a modifier. If there is only strong support for this one as common, then it is not correct to use a wording that says or implies it is one among many common. What you call a "grammar mistake" may or may not be a good wording, but your proposed alternative is definitely worse according to many other editors. DMacks (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed from "The common understanding..." to "A common understanding..." This is more in keeping with what the source says - Davies is talking about how the old documentary hypothesis came under increasing criticism in the last part of the 20th century and how a new understanding arose by the start of the 21st - it's that new understanding that he's talking about and that our article summarises. However, Davies doesn't say this is "the" common understanding, just an alternative which is supported by a lot of scholars. As Davies points out, respectable scholars like R.E. Friedman (and I might add William Propp) still write in terms of the DH. So it's "a" common understanding. PiCo (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please give a more precise citation for this -- the current one is to Davies' whole chapter (which makes it more than a little vague). Also it might be useful to discuss how this new understanding differs in its view of the narrative from the older one. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternately, could we give a composite 'common viewpoint' of where the documentary hypothesis and post-DH hypotheses agree (e.g. by leaving out mention of Yahwist and not attempting to nail down too much on the exact roles of later editors)? They seem to be disagreeing on the exact form of the editing process, rather than whether or not there was extensive editing. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's page 37. The cite at the end of the sentence in the article does say this, but the click-through link opens to the start of his article instead. This should open at the exact page.


 * I agree that we shouldn't be drawn into trying to explain the details of current scholarly thinking. I think Davies does a good job on that page (page 37). I'm happy to stick with that, but if I find a better summary I'll use it. PiCo (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)