Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 17

Attribution of Sarna's statement
Jess, I saw the archives, and I agree that attributing the statement to Sarna alone if it is the opinion of most modern scholars would be inaccurate. However, the statement without any qualification implies that only that view is fact, and any other view, such as the Bible being literally true, is fiction. I think using "According to most modern scholars…" as I have done is a reasonable compromise. It gives the full weight of the modern opinion to the statement without it looking like one person's opinion yet does not automatically invalidate the religious points of view. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a leaf straight out of WP:RNPOV (the paragraph right above "Fundamentalism" in bold) would work here. "Jews and Christians have traditionally believed (cite the Talmud, Augustine, New American Commentary) that Moses was the author of the Book of Genesis, who penned this book during the 40 years' wandering described in Exodus, along with the four other books of the Pentateuch, together called the Five Books of Moses. Modern scholarship, however, in the fields of higher criticism, comparative linguistics, and philology have put forth evidence that the first two chapters of Genesis are strongly influenced by the Enuma Elis, while the flood of Noah is strongly influenced by Atrahasis; some modern believers (name a group, mainline Protestants, liberal Roman Catholics) mostly accept these findings, while others (Evangelicals, conservative Protestants, LCMS, conservative Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox) mostly reject them." Thus, the modern scientific view is presented along with the traditional and still-current in some branches religious view, according to the very letter of the RNPOV policy. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, if implemented into the article correctly, it would show the viewpoints and prominent adherents to these viewpoints, and would show who believes what. I think this would be much better than having the "scholarly" opinion listed as The Truth™ and the "traditional" opinion being mentioned as an aside, at best. - SudoGhost 03:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And then it becomes about the myth proper, and not just exegesis, if all goes according to plan, and we can move it accordingly! :-D (As is, it will have to be split in to enough articles that I'll need one of those boxes that says, "this is a part of a series of articles on the Book of Genesis"... I'll have to learn how to write one of those). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 03:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Avi Well, policy tells us to use wikipedia's voice when the view is uncontested. In this case, uncontested refers to modern scholarship on the topic. I'm not personally aware of any modern academic scholarship which doesn't hold that opinion. Maybe there are some, but we'd first have to show that they were at least a minority view (not fringe). If we can do that, then we should attribute it, but not to one person alone; we need to convey the proper weight, so if that is "everyone but Dr. John Smith", then attributing it to just Sarna wouldn't be enough. By the way, saying that it borrows themes from other myths doesn't mean that it isn't literal. The two are commonly reconciled by saying that "both are interpretations of the same ultimate reality", or similar. I think something like John's proposal might be good somewhere in the body, so long as it matches up with the sources, and with a few minor wording tweaks. (As one example, we couldn't say "modern scholarship...put forth" if it is the prevailing academic view, since that implies a novel hypothesis). As long as we're presenting the weight properly, this sort of construction could be helpful to presenting all views on the topic, historic and current. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was thinking of doing a list of slashes with "put forth", but I thought "demonstrated" is too strong, "proved" is blatantly false (proof is for maths and philosophy), and couldn't think of anything else off of the top of my head. Maybe something like "Modern scholarly consensus, as presented here by Dr. Prof. X, states that...", or "Modern scholarship has presented evidence that...": of course I'll mix it up, I don't want to use it as a set phrase, and you'll get to see the sections as I think they're up to alpha grade in my userspace. I'm waiting to change the lead until absolute last, because of all the problems with it on talk, and will want a direct collaboration with several editors for it because of the contention. (No one seems to be responding to me since I changed my sig... maybe people finally got the clue and stopped listening to my rants? Or, is a signature used to differentiate people that much? As in, I easily recognize Mann_jess because of the unique special/contrib and user_talk links in the sig... after I changed mine [a week and a half too late] for Lent my attention-seekers' sixth-sense kicked in...) St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 03:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, demonstrated and proved are no good. "The majority of scholars..." might be acceptable, depending on the weight of the sources; if it's "everyone vs Dr John Smith" again, then "majority" is too weak. Something like "scholarly consensus" would be ok. Other options might include "Modern scholarship indicates" or "By the [1900s], scholars established...". I'm not sure about the sig thing... I think a lot of people are worn out after the RM debacle, and maybe interest has just died down. One editor, at least, has decided to retire as a result, so there may just be less participation generally.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that Noformation who quit entirely? I checked his page today after his facetious "support" above and saw it blanked... I've not interacted with him much, but I've seen him around AN/I and various RfCs, in which I was involved along with him on Fae. If he decided to quit over such a...words fail to describe it...debacle and caustic atmosphere on this page, Wikipedia has suffered a loss - and for what? I don't know if PiCo quit entirely, but he was the most prolific contributor to this page, and has left this topic at least due to the WP:BATTLEGROUND, another loss to Wikipedia. Those alone should suffice to demonstrate that this page has become toxic. I wonder how long I'll last. If only there was a way to enforce a de-escalation here. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd prefer not to speak for Noformation, but you can check his contribs to see what he's said about this elsewhere on WP. To be honest, I share some of that frustration. This topic (religion) is gamed frequently, and becomes heated easily, and independent of my opinion on the matter, I also read consensus differently than it was closed and was surprised at the lack of subsequent review. But, that's a discussion for another time. I can see how editors could have left the page due to the 35+ pages of frustrating content above, but if they have, then hopefully they'll be back soon. Anyway, feel free to draw up a solid proposal (like above) for this piece, and insert it into the article if you're feeling bold. I can make changes/discuss if I think anything's off. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interjection: "they'll" be back soon? Who's the other one? (Grammar Nazi on Patrol) St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 07:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm always feeling bold - I think it was my entry into the fray here (in removing myth, ironically, a position that I've since disowned come to champion its opposite) that sparked off all of these Rf*s, unless one a week is standard operating procedure for this article. I might get to work writing something up for the article as-is, and try to keep it at the current scope in the rewrite and do a bunch of forks, as I was keeping the lead for last for two reasons, 1) contentious nature, 2) it needs to summarize the rest of the article, which I'm far from even knowing what will be in it - one thing leads to another and piles and piles of new information and prose, forking of its own free will. However, as things are shaping up, to summarize the article (which I am beginning to think has exceeded its SCOPE in my redaction), the lead will have to have its own Table of Contents. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 07:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for first sentence.
Either a piped link to the definition of creation myth (taken directly out of the first sentence of the article "creation myth", and a dictionary definition of creation myth - it's not like it's an easteregg): I don't see how that can be taken in the wrong way; the definition of creation myth, and a link to it.

Otherwise, a link directly in the bold Genesis creation myth and breaking MOS (which is only a guideline), or some other way of wording is needed, such as The Genesis creation narrative, the literary container/form/Hebrew/whatever contains/is a/is the creation myth/Genesis creation myth, a symbolic narrative of the world's creation written in....". As is, repeating the words "creation myth" twice in five words, isn't just bad flow or amateurish... it strikes me as so bad that I wouldn't trust this article as a source of information ("don't judge a book by it's cover", but I'm still not sure that would be a bad result... God works in mysterious ways, eh?). Any other suggestions that I've not thought of are welcome. Note, that I view these as stylistic concerns, not otherwise (and the stylistic/prose/formattting issues on this article were so bad, I started editing it - almost all the rest of my edits are WP:WikiGnome). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 21:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason why the repetition is a bad thing? The first sentence of the lede should be concise, and replacing a wikilinked description with part of the definition seems to go against that goal.  There are many articles that repeat something that is part of a title when it qualifies as both part of a title and part of the concise description of the article's subject.  For example, Amador Valley High School and Battle of Cannae, both featured articles (which are supposed to be Wikipedia's "very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing"), have this same repetition of High School and Battle, respectively, except they have qualifiers explaining what kind of High School / battle / whatever.  Perhaps it would be better to add a qualifier to it to specifiy what kind of creation myth it is?  For example:


 * The Genesis creation narrative (or Genesis creation myth) is the Judeo-Christian creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis...


 * Whether that specific qualifier is the most accurate or not, I don't know, I'm sure if it isn't someone could describe it more accurately than I could. - SudoGhost 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and done something similar to that. Separating out the repetition by just a few words improves the reading of the article much, although not as greatly as the pipe. I believe "Judaeo-Christian" is an accurate qualifier, because Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Mohammedans, and Daoists generally don't take it as part of their religion or culture/heritage, Jews and Christians do, and it is the primary Judaeo-Christian myth (with a few others that aren't even known outside of academic circles, in Psalms and Job). If it is possible to break the MOSBOLDTITLE guideline, I think, "The Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth is the symbolic story of the..." is superior (see my comments above as to why I think "Genesis creation myth" is a poor descriptor for the article in its current state: essentially, as it doesn't deal with the myth, but only with a few narrow exegetical questions that depend on the textual form of the narrative). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Although, when I have this rewritten, hopefully the material that's not forked out will give more time to the myth in comparison to the narrative, and we can have, "The Genesis creation myth [contained in the narrative of the first two chapter of Gen.?] is the symbolic narrative of the world's creation", much as was proposed in the RfM (at the title of "Genesis creation myth"). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm unsure if Judeo-Christian is the most accurate description is because I don't know if Abrahamic would be better. I honestly have no idea if Islam would qualify as well, because I do see similarities. I'm inclined to believe that they are similar, but not enough to call them the same story/narrative/myth/account.  However, I'd rely on someone more knowledgeable about this, I'm no expert on similarities between Islamic and Judeo/Christian texts by any means.  - SudoGhost 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As in an earlier discussion (maybe archived), Islam does not view the Genesis account in any high regard, as Islam has its own creation myths (sort of) in the Koran. I was going to include a section on Muslim views, but in my search for sources (in both Arabic and English) found that the only ones (and those not independent, reliable, or scholarly, mainly SPS) that deal with Genesis are to use it to support the 6-day creation view among Muslims (the Koran gives two contradictory accounts of creation, one taking six days and another taking eight) - it is not treated as a text or creation myth in its own right, and has no bearing on Muhammad's religion. The general rule with Islam and the tahrif of the Scriptures is that "what is said in the Bible is true if the Koran or sahih hadith confirm it, it may be true or false if the Koran or sahih hadith say nothing on it (kind of like an Islamic adiaphora), and is useless if the Koran does not agree with it", as Caliph Umar said about the library of Alexandria (sic) and redistributing the books taken as booty when asked by his general: "If what it contains agrees with the Koran, then Allah has given us better guidance; if it disagrees with the Koran, it is of Satan; in either case, it is of no use to us, burn it." (paraphrase).


 * (I was a Muslim and did undergrad studies in comparative religions, if that counts for anything, but trying to source this assertion is much like trying to prove a negative; the Islamic account is drawn from the Koran and ahadith, not from Genesis [although Genesis undoubtedly influenced it or was the main inspiration for those accounts], and there are many distinctions in the order of creation, the naming of animals, the fall of the angels [plays a much larger role in Koran], Adam and Eve being created in paradise [heaven, not Eden] and then being cast down to earth, the circumstances [or lack thereof] of Eve's creation, etc. up to the point where the Islamic accounts diverge completely at the Fall [Gen 3]; also, in the Koran and ahadith, these incidents and some details about them are spread randomly throughout the entire book and corpus of ahadith, an ayah here, a few ayat there, a hadith there, not gathered in one section or passage where it's easily identified.) St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, I'm sure the differences are extremely striking, but to a Buddhist looking at it from the outside with no knowledge of comparing the two, they appear to have very similar themes, names, events, etc. Between the two, the what appears to be the same, but details about the how and why seem to differ.  That's why I wasn't sure about Judeo-Christian being the best wording, but if Islam's creation narrative isn't comparable for the purposes of the lede, then Judeo-Christian would be better than Abrahamic, no arguments here. - SudoGhost 01:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no need to add "(Genesis Creation Myth)" in the first sentence, unless it is simply for the sake of POV pushing, as it is redundant and unnecessary.....It therefore should be removed. Willietell (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant material, now there remains the issue of the POV spin later in the sentence that needs to be discussed. Willietell (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Removed the redundant material"? Am I missing something or is this tendentious editing? Because if it is, this goes to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is tendentious editing, IMO, but I would refrain for a bit before taking it to ANI, as very few people have had spotless behavior on this page in the past weeks, and I think WP:BOOMERANG is more than likely. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support both examples in lead - and think "Judeo-Christian" is also very nice touch.Moxy (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Er... not to be only a gadfly, but the term "judeo-christian" is problematic in a lot of ways. Specifically, it is a Christian term used to suggest a common religious ethic/experience/etc between Judaism and christianity, which Christians are much more likely to support than Jews...  "Abrahamic" is not much better, as Christianity is really Mithraic (Zoroastrian) in origin, but I'm willing to let go of that point.  So, "Abrahamic" is fine, but oppose "Judeo-Christian" on ground that it is not really as neutral as it sounds to many American and Christian ears. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, for a suggestion "... the primary creation myth in Jewish and Christian [literature/scripture]" would be more accurate than the current phrasing in the lede, I think... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. I suggested "Judeo-Christian creation myth" because I thought it would help with concerns of redundancy to add some sort of qualifier specifying what kind of creation myth it was, but if there are concerns that Judeo-Christian isn't the best term to use, I'm not attached to it in any way. - SudoGhost 20:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * meh, I changed it; it may stay or may not. I think the current line conveys the same information, is not redundant, and sidesteps the Christocentrism (w00t for rampant neologisms) of "judeo-christian."  I don't really care about the term's use later in the text, as I expect the language of the article at large will reflect the common terminology of Christian scholars/theologians (as is proper for a specialized article like this). DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose Abrahamic, as it is inaccurate, and covers at least one other religion - Islam - if not Baha'ism as well, which this article has no bearing on. I will compromise at "Jewish and Christian" (as, to my mind, that's exactly what "Judaeo-Christian" means). As for Christianity being of Zoroastrian or Mithraic origin, I suggest you take that to a different article that deals with such hypotheses (as I have never seen a reliable source that says that orthodox [or, for the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis, "proto-orthodox"] Christianity derives from anything but Judaism or is considered anything other than Abrahamic, maybe with a touch of pagan celebrations and use of incense here and there, as all religions are influenced to a point by the environments in which they exist) but I know not where it is. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 01:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumes that the narrative is a symbolic one
I have to tag this article as "POV", i.e., biased toward a particular POV. By labeling the narrative as a creation myth, we are asserting that the creation narrative is "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." Not everyone accepts this. It is in fact controversial.

The viewpoint of most modern scholars may be that it's a symbolic narrative, but a non-trivial number of people take it literally.

I would suggest that we mention the clash between (1) those who regard the account as "symbolic" and (2) those who take it literally. -Uncle Ed (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We've been over the 'creation myth' bit so many times it's crazy. We had an RfC about it last December, and many discussions since then. Consensus has firmly concluded that the label is appropriate. Having a discussion about it again is fine, per WP:CCC and all, but tagging the article before you've established that consensus has shifted is probably not helpful. I'm going to remove the tag for now. If consensus has changed over the last month, then we can remove the label, but the tag isn't necessary.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Jess, I reverted your tag removal, as it conceals the utter lack of consensus over the 'creation myth' bit. Sweeping the problem under the rug won't make it go away. And I do believe there is a way to apply NPOV to this issue in a way that will satisfy all supporters of NPOV policy.


 * I'm not going to edit war with you over this. I'll simply refer you to the NPOV dispute how-to guide, which says:
 * Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.
 * It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
 * Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.


 * The NPOV dispute will end when each side agrees that the article is neutral, i.e., that it does not favor any particular view over another. Assuming good faith, i.e., that everyone here wants nothing but a fair description of all significant points of view, I'm firmly convinced that we can come up with a mutually satisfactory wording. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a God-damned (take that as you will) conservative traditional Papist, and I put it there in the first place. (Although I did spark this series of interminable RfXs by removing it at first.) If you dare, read the 50+ pages of discussion above. If this was "Johnopedia", it would declare the world to be no older than 6,016 years (maybe 7,242 if I follow the Septuagint) and rail against the liberalism of intelligent design advocates, but it isn't, and mythology is mythology - some is true, some isn't, which doesn't change that it's myth (CS Lewis writes extensively about this) - but, unlike on Johnopedia, we must use every weapon at our disposal to be certain that we pass no more judgment on the truth-value of the Eddas than we do on the words of Creation in Genesis. I do agree that some editors here want to put "myth" in solely to push "Scientific Point of View" (failed policy) and to assert falsity, but, as has been established, the use of a word by a man or group does not change its definition for our purposes, until the dictionary definition of that word changes. The greater issue is that a WP:BATTLE is being fought over the lead alone, and the imbalance and poor writing of the article itself is ignored (which I am currently bogged down in writing a doorstopper in attempting to rectify it); the focus on the lead - especially the first sentence alone - in this article has become myopic to the point of absurdity. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 02:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Ed. Consensus has already been reached. Without demonstrating that consensus has shifted, placing the tag is not constructive. and consensus does not mean that "each side agrees that the article is neutral, i.e., that it does not favor any particular view over another." That kind of "consensus" is absolutely unattainable. Consensus is among editors, not "sides". You're confusing proponents with WP editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is we don't have "an ongoing dispute" about using creation myth in the article. We have an ongoing dispute over the naming of the article. Using the label creation myth within the article has been discussed again and again, and there has never been anything but consensus for its inclusion. You're attempting to discuss an issue which has already been discussed within the past month, and already has firm consensus. That's fine, but tagging the article regarding an issue which was very recently settled isn't helpful. I'm going to remove it again. If someone else thinks there is an "ongoing dispute" regarding this issue, I won't revert their addition of the tag. But, right now, all I see is one editor disputing consensus, not "an ongoing dispute" in which a tag would be appropriate.


 * I don't mean to come of as impersonal, I'm just following convention here. BTW, I'm fine with including mention in the body of the "symbolic vs literal" issue. That content would, of course, be independent of the creation myth label, but it would be good to include if we have strong sources for it. If you can draft up a proposal, that might be helpful. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ed, there is no conflict between "(1) those who regard the account as "symbolic" and (2) those who take it literally." This has been discussed above, with reliable sources backing up the fact that a creation myth can be both symbolic and literal.  Symbolic does not mean "not-literal" and something being literal does not mean that it is "non-symbolic".  They aren't mutually exclusive terms.  These are descriptions given in reliable sources, and no reliable sources have been presented that demonstrates your claim that "symbolic" is controversial. - SudoGhost 21:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, while the creation myth is usaully interpretted symbolic this does not stop others taking it literally. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wolfie, you miss the point - that is the same individual doing symbolic interpretation can also believe it's literal history. That it can be both literal history and contain deeper symbolic meaning in accord with the four senses of scripture and the sensius plenor ("fuller sense", although that is generally applied to show prescience for our time on the part of ancient authors). If I could write one, I'd design a rubric with these, but there can be several positions: 1. Purely symbolic with no literal core; 2. Fully literal with deeper symbolic meaning; 3. Literal with no more symbolic meaning than A History of the Crusades (I am not aware of a single person who has ever held this view); 4. Symbolic with a literal core; 5. Complete nonsense. It should be pretty obvious which ones of those are mutually exclusive. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 04:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Damn, I didn't see all this motion so I made a dummy edit stating: "this was resolved earlier, in the direction that "symbolic" does not conflict with nor preclude "literal", as historical events may literally have happened, and still be drenched in symbolic meaning (even though this is my personal POV - full disclosure)" - this is the very basis of the "four senses of scripture" and the "sensius plenor" - "so, that even if the narrative is literally true, it is still symbolic in all cases, as no group who reads the narrative as true, reads it without ascribing any, at least some, deeper meaning to the words and events, not even historical-grammatical exegetes" - such as "Faith, Form, and Time" (YEC; Kurt Wise), or "Genesis 1-4: a Linguistic, Literary and Theological Evaluation" [sic - I think that's the name] by C John Collins (not quite historical-grammatical but still very conservative). St Augustine himself was a young-earth creationist who interpreted Genesis symbolically, and wrote "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" - even though he believed the world was 4,400 years old and would last for only 6,000, he was the first that I know of to point out that the first days of Genesis couldn't have been solar days, as the greater light wasn't created until the fourth. He read it literally and symbolically. One can pull up more examples of this than can even be enumerated on a Wiki page, almost as St John said: "If all of the wondrous deeds were written down, I doubt that there would be enough paper in the world to contain them" (paraphrase). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 04:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ed Poor: read the second paragraph in this section above Talk:Genesis creation narrative, and see if that is satisfactory - that is the direction my rewrite is heading for those parts that can be referenced, but, as far as "symbolic" goes, everyone, from Augustine and Chrysostom to Maimonides and Rashi to Brueggemann and Wenham and Sarna, have taken it to be symbolic even if at the same time they took it to be literal - there is no contradiction, even though one poster here has attempted to maintain that it is a contradiction, the vast majority agree with the sources that it is not), so I will not set up a SYNTH/OR POV false dichotomy between "literal" and "symbolic": at most will be asserted, "Group X takes this literally, but still believes it has a deeper, symbolic meaning [look at all of the commentary on Gen 1:26 and say that a single exegete hasn't], whereas Group Y asserts that it is only symbolic, with no core of literal historical truth. Of course, Group Z believes that it is plain nonsense." St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 04:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed. My comments that it closed as no consensus are related to the title of the page. Please don't misrepresent what I said last week to justify your own edit warring here:. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie- sorry, I misunderstood your "no consensus" remarks; also, that 1 revert will be my only one. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?
The lead says that the Genesis creation narrative is "the textual form of the Genesis creation myth". What does that mean - there's some other form as well? PiCo (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is the only textual form of the myth - see discussions above. It seems to satisfy editors, and it is factually accurate from my intense reading of the sources: the "narrative" is the textual form or words of the story (which this article deals with almost exclusively - such as beresith, bara, yatsar, nepesh, etc. - exegesis), whereas the "myth" is the story told by the words (which this article hardly deals with at all). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 07:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what it's trying to say - it seems to imply that there's another form that isn't textual. PiCo (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The current wording (the parenthesised bit with "textual form") is very very poor. The intent seems to be to 'soften the blow' of the word 'myth', which is neither necessary, nor consistent with policy. It would be much better to simply have, "The Genesis creation narrative or Genesis creation myth", without parentheses. (Strictly speaking, myth should be primary per policy, but that horse has bolted.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you;re trying to do, but I don't think it works. Possibly nothing will ever work. But I think Lisa's suggestion was about the best we've seen - she wanted to have two sentences. PiCo (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeffro - I actually added it with the intent of strengthening myth, to say the narrative was merely the container of the myth. (To me, that strengthened myth, as what is contained is of import, the container of less). The non-parenthesized versions runs in to two major issues: "creation myth" being repeated twice in five words (including the two words of "creation myth"), and an equivocation of the narrative and the myth, which are separate (that is, the myth is the actual story or account, the narrative is only the words of the account as we've been handed them, and which this article currently focuses on). My preferred revision is thus: "The Genesis creation narrative [contains or is] the Genesis creation myth, the primary symbolic narrative of the world's creation for both Jews and Christians" (I never got the objections to that, since the pipe is the definition of creation myth from the article creation myth). I'll go ahead and make a bold edit if the current version is that bad and take the heat for it, but, we really should try to focus on improving the article, instead of myopically viewing the first sentence alone in isolation. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 09:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I think will work, if I may blow my own horn, is, once I have finished my massive expansion of this article and removed its narrowly exegetical focus, to move it to "Genesis creation myth" and have the consensus lead from the RfM: "The Genesis creation myth is the symbolic narrative...." (But there likely will be backlash from the more stubborn editors on the move, if we can even get it. Note that my objection to the title wasn't inherent, but is due to the current narrow scope of the article.) St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the creation myth is distinct from the narrative in any practical sense. I really don't think it's necessary to say that one contains the other. I have no objection to the piped link (apart from prevous comments about 'symbolic', but I can live with that).
 * When I suggested renaming the article per policy, I was labelled (all by a single editor) 'a POV pusher', 'confused', 'acting in bad faith', and it was claimed that policy supporting the move rename was merely "a claim by Jeffro and his friends" (making friends has never been easier, apparently). Good luck.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A single-word female name who edited policy and made many WP:EASTEREGGs? I know - bad reflection on the "keep" side of that debate. (And the more I reflect on that, the more I realize that but for my myopic focus on my own logic-chopping the difference between "narrative" and "myth" and some UCN quibbling, on the whole, the result wasn't actually "no consensus", and I doubt the Decider took in to consideration such a minute distinction in [some of the] literature [as much of it does use the terms interchangeably].) I wonder what kind of flack I'll catch when I re-propose when I'm done with the rewrites (probably a few months off, but I'm trying to make sure it's done in time for the WikiGrail), whether "they" will even remember my original opposition, whether I'll become an atheistic, anti-religious POV-pushing traitor (that will make me the only atheist alive more Catholic than the Pope), or what - I suppose I can pull out a diff to my oppose, and my favorite line when I decide to waffle: "fuck you, Plato, for telling me to follow the argument wherever it leads!" Maybe I can convince one of you to puppet for me and re-propose when I'm ready so I ain't lose ma' creds? St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Since John mentioned it, I'm sure everyone is wondering, "what is the WikiGrail?" Well, thanks for asking: Btw John, Toa from WP:Christian Music is kicking ass. As an impartial judge I can't show favoritism, but just so you know, WP:Catholic is counting on you. – Lionel (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was figuring to get everything polished and then submit it in the end of June or beginning of July to get a run of points? Christian music! Do you realize how much easier it is to get something like that up to points-worthy status than something like this or English Standard Version or Holy Spirit or Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or Second Council of Constantinople or any of the ten ecumenical councils between III Nicaea and Trent? Or even the any council after Chalcedon, for that matter, as the quality really drops off at that point. :-) St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
I made the following edit to the lead in an attempt to balance the statement so that Wikipedia does not appear to take sides in the argument as to whether creationism is a historical fact or a mythological story. Editor Mann jess reverted it requesting that I open a discussion about it in talk, therefore I am seeking input, once again, on the lead section of this article. Here is my edit:


 * The Genesis creation narrative is the primary creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. It is presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the bible. This article primarily deals with the narrative elements or form of the myth, that is, exegesis of the text of the narrative containing what is viewed as a historical account by many adherents to Christianity and Judaism and is presented in the bible at Genesis 1:1-2:24. Willietell (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll allow other users to comment, but for accessibility, here's Willietell's diff. I have two basic issues with this proposal. "Many adherents" seems weasely to me, and if we're going to clarify biblical literalism in the lead, I think we can find a better way to do it. Secondly, this doesn't seem to be the right place to be adding this content. The sentence being changed is clarifying the scope of the article, not discussing whether the bible is to be taken literally. If this is to be clarified, it should be done in a separate sentence (or paragraph), the description should be specific, it should reflect the body if present in the lead, and it over all else it should be sourced. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding content on the literalist issue, but I just don't think this proposal cuts it. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mann-Jess - this sentence is not the right place for this comment.
 * Willietell asks to open a discussion on "whether creationism is a historical fact or a mythological story". The fact is that the overwhelming majority of those who study the bible agree that it's not historical fact. Not only those who study the bible, either: scientists have their theories on how the world and the universe began, and these theories have no connection with the story in Genesis. The opinions of "believers" can't change this. Willie, I' genuinely sorry that this causes you pain, but it's the facts. PiCo (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed addition of "viewed as a historical account by many adherents..." is ill-advised, since it burdens the lead with tangential text. Since there is no mention of Biblical literalism (nor its close cousin, Biblical inerrancy) in this article, perhaps "See also" could use another link or two. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

External link in body of article
I reverted myself after seeing this all over the article - Not sure why we have external links in the lead and as sub-headers? WP:ELPOINTS "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." Is someone advertising for biblegateway.com or are theses the references? Is this normal on religious articles to link to books sellers/blogs? Moxy (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There's been discussion of this before on the respective templates. I agree we shouldn't be putting external links inline like that. I've changed the inline links to biblegateway to instead be named refs (with links to biblegateway). This should be more in line with the MOS. (BTW, the regex I ran was "%s//\2 \3\1<\/ref>/g" . It turns out there were only 7, so my time would have been better spent doing them by hand, but feel free to apply this to bibleref2c and others if need be.) All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job .. but should we not remove the ones that are sub-headers - realy looks like spam to me...all this info is at "Sources for the biblical text" without the blatant advertising on the site.Moxy (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hang on, I'm a little confused. Which sub-headers? I don't think my edit changed any subheaders. Regarding the advertising, I agree that's not really ideal. I'd support removing the biblegateway links (why do we need them, anyway? They're primary sources at best) Is that what you're suggesting?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - I do believe removal is best. As seen below they are linked in the article below headers.Moxy (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we need some kind of link to the text of Genesis 1-2, since that's the subject of the article (not a primary source, or any kind of source at all). PiCo (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A link somewhere is good (in the EL would be great, for instance), but I think the question is whether they should be external links inline within the body of the article. To be clear, are you saying the links should be inline as they were, or just that we should have a link somewhere on the page? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's try it your way and see what it's like. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of narrative it is
Proposed first sentence:
 * The Genesis creation narrative is, for both Judaism and Christianity, the primary symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it (see Creation myth).

I formed this sentence by incorporating the definition of "creation myth" (which you might want to look at). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the attempt to compromise, but I think it's time to move on from the creation myth bit. We've talked about it so much, and consensus has always been that using the term is non-negotiable, as it properly reflects the reliable sources in a way no other solution can. Using the same terms as the reliable sources use is important, I think, but this proposal suffers from the same problem previous ones have, in that it avoids a common term used in the literature in favor of a religious (or non-academic) POV. This is an issue WP:RNPOV explicitly warns against, and I haven't yet seen justification to IAR away such a fundamental tenet of policy. Ultimately, we need to call this a creation myth directly, because the sources call this a creation myth directly. Shuffling creation myth off to an indirect (and parenthetical) "see also" would be a disservice to the definition. Anyway, there's a lot in this article to clean up, could we maybe focus on some of the other issues instead of rehashing this whole thing again?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you also agree with RNPOV where it says writers should avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Agreed, we should use the term, but what's at issue is how we should use it.


 * It doesn't do any harm to alert the casual user to the fact that "creation myth" is an academic term. And it doesn't ignore any rule to be kind to readers who may be unfamiliar with the academic or non-religious POV.


 * We do not need to call this "a creation myth" - rather, we can inform our readers that academics call it a creation myth. That's how they classify it.


 * On the other hand, I welcome your invitation to move the focus from the articles first few sentences to the body. When there's enough material on religious (or non-academic) viewpoints, we can mention these more prominently in the introduction. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify one point... RNPOV does not say we should "avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". RNPOV says we should use the term in its formal sense in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. We're using it in its formal sense, so we are doing everything that RNPOV prescribes. This point was discussed pretty heavily in the previous RFCs/RM. Anyway, I'll drop out for now and allow others to comment, or allow the discussion to move on to the body. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I partially support the attempted proposal, but oppose it weakly because of the stylistic issues: it introduces the same problem as repeating "creation myth" twice within a few words, just changing "myth" to "narrative". As I have pointed out here (to little reception, might I add), there is some difference between "narrative" and "myth" - one is literary, one is an overarching label. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 22:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer "explanation" to either of those words. But is there anything in the article about current Judeo-Christian belief in the Genesis creation narrative? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Only some academic conjecture. I added a massive amount in my stalled rewrite (265k) of this page, but burned out and have given up for a bit. Actually enough that it, if and when it goes live, will probably be spun off in to two other articles, "Historical interpretations of GCM" (~25k) and "Modern interpretations of GCM" (~35k), with some overlap between those two articles (as Augustine pioneered day-age creationism, which is still commonly held today, making an overlap between the historical and the modern). The fact that this article deals solely with exegetical questions of the Hebrew narrative form of the account is why I originally opposed moving to "myth". St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just repeating/endorsing John's "nope", and adding that this article is about modern scholarly views of what the GCM meant to those who first wrote it - all hypothetical of course, but everything in history is hypothetical. The question of belief is quite separate, and the best place for that would seem to be one or more of the Creationism articles - I haven't looked at those articles so can't suggest anything mpore concrete. I understand that the word "myth" used in the first sentence could make some readers uneasy, but I think the article is actually quite respectful of belief - it doesn't say the GCM is nonsense or "untrue", rather it tries to explain meanings withing this familiar story that will be unfamiliar to modern readers but which they really need to understand if they are to have a firm basis to their own modern faith. PiCo (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of narrative is it? Perhaps it's NINO – narrative in name only. The current "exegesis" reads more like Bible commentary than narrative criticism. There isn't a single word about the Genesis narrator, narrative mode, narrative structure, narratology, or Biblical narrative criticism. Keahapana (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You make some interesting links. If you'd like to develop this, please go ahead. PiCo (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My edits to the lead
I just took about 25% off the lead. Not that I disagreed with any of it, but I felt it was too detailed for this section of the article - here we need to introduce the reader to the most important themes/facts, as weel as give a complete, stand-alone little essay. The material I deleted was largtely about the meaning of the verb bara - I think the average reader's eyes will glaze over. Not that ther meaning of bara isn't important, but there's a whole article on it elsewhere (it's the article on creatio ex nihilo]] and we just need the hotlink, not a whole re-hash. Anyway, if you feel I've cut too deeply, please discuss here rather than simply revert. (Revert by all means, but discuss as well). PiCo (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

nephesh = soul = being
The word nephesh is translated 475 times (out of 750 times the word appears in the OT) as soul in the KJV (see ) And it is translated as soul 105 times (but only once as being) in the NIV. (See NIV concordance) It is also translated as life 117 times in the KJV and 165 times in the NIV. The problem here is not that the word does not mean soul, but that soul in the modern sense does not mean the same is it is used in the Bible. In the Bible soul = being = person = life. The recipe for making a soul according to Gen 2:7 is -- body + 'breath of life' = soul. So a Biblical soul has a body and is breathing. Psalms 104:29 is the reverse of making a soul -- "take away their breath, they die and return to the dust." I.e. Take the "breath of life" away from a soul and the body dies and turns to dust (which is what everybody knows). In other words, every person who is alive and breathing IS a soul (including animals). The idea that the soul is some disembodied entity is foreign to the Bible. The word nephesh is never used in that way in the Bible. So, I think the text should be amended here to say "he becomes a living soul/being." Mthoodhood (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I follow your line of reasoning, but am unsure of what part of the article you are referring. Please expound on this so that I can form an opinion on just what it is that you are trying to modify Willietell (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * second paragraph: "Chapter one describes the six days of creation by God (Hebrew אֱלֹהִ֔ים Elohim). God creates by means of divine command, culminating with the creation of mankind, then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh day. God creates by spoken command ("Let there be..."), suggesting a comparison with a king, who has only to speak for things to happen; each command is followed by name-giving ("And he called...").[3] The characteristic Hebrew verb used to describe God's creative act in this chapter is ברא, bara, which throughout the bible is used only with God as its subject - that is, onlt God can bara.[4] Chapter two describes Yahweh, the personal name of God, forming the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and removing a rib from his side to make the first woman, Eve. In Genesis 2 the word used when God forms the first man is יצר, yatsar, meaning "fashioned", a verb used in contexts such as a potter forming a pot from clay.[5] God breathes his own breath into the man he has formed and he becomes a living soul/being, נֶפֶש nephesh. Man shares nephesh with all creatures, but only of man is this life-giving act of God described.[6] Robert Alter described the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends".[7]"
 * PiCo did some editing on this just awhile ago. Mthoodhood (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's the Genre?
What happened to last month's consensus for restoring the deleted Genre section? See Why was genre removed? Keahapana (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was consensus on restoring, but nobody volunteered to do it. PiCo (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Creation mythos
After lurking at this page, I suggest changing the lead's "creation myth" to "creation mythos" (which I've made a redirect to the other). The reason for the contention over "myth" is described by the core policy WP:RNPOV: ''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. Further, WP:MOSINTRO explains about leads, It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article. In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction.''

The fact is that "myth" has two diverse meanings, one pejorative and one technical; and that in the first sentence of the lead, where the technical is naturally assumed by the editorship, the word should interest readers rather than have a risk of being misinterpreted by those who do not grok the formal context cold turkey. "Mythos" is a synonym of the technical "myth" (only) and has no pejorative sidetracks. As examples, we also have redirects for deluge mythos, Arthurian mythos, Wiccan mythos, and Norse mythos, and "mythos" is used rightly in Marcab Confederacy, Alkonost (disambiguation), The Mystery of the Grail, and Santa Claus: The Movie. Archives suggest this has not been proposed before here.

I propose that "creation mythos" would better serve the lead, based on RNPOV and MOSINTRO above, leaving the link intact of course. JJB 17:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Webster:
 *  myth .. 1 a : a usu. traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon .. 2 .. b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
 *  mythos .. 1 a : MYTH 1a b : MYTHOLOGY 2a 2 : a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture 3 : THEME, PLOT
 *  mythology .. 2 : a body of myths {obviously myths 1a}: as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people JJB 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The term is being used in its formal sense. WP:RNPOV specifically says not to do what you're suggesting, which is changing it because of a possible confusion over the meaning: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."  More importantly, it is the descriptor given by reliable sources.  Reliable sources don't refer to the article's subject as a "creation mythos".  Adherance to reliable sources is a core pillar of Wikipedia, as is WP:NPOV.  These cannot be discarded because of a "risk of being misinterpreted", especially when WP:RNPOV says not to avoid terminology to avoid a "risk of being misinterpreted", and the term is wikilinked so that readers can see exactly what is meant by its use, alleviating any confusion over whether it is used in its formal sense or not. - SudoGhost 18:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your gloss of RNPOV mentions a generic case, but MOSINTRO refers to the specific case, the lead, where specialized terminology should be avoided; the specific overrules the general. Your statement that RS don't call it mythos would be better if it said they don't generally call it mythos; Google shows many RS that do. Further, "adherence" to RS is not a pillar of WP, as your link WP:5 shows; NPOV (including R) is the pillar, and it means "representation" of all significant published RS POVs, not literally "adherence"; and my proposal does honor (and does not discard) the "myth" POV later in the article: it just avoids it in the first sentence. The question is whether a link with the rubric "creation myth" is sufficient to orient the disoriented reader who does not have the technical experience. I submit that, in the lead, it is insufficient because it is an ambiguous word where an unambiguous one exists. (Further, the "creation myth" lead currently does its own orientation with the word "narrative", the word that seems to be highly objected-to when used in this lead!) I am hopeful that commenters will recognize that the objection to "myth", viz., that it is easily misconstrued as being informal and that this particular misunderstanding is more easily taken as pejorative than most, is significant enough that a compromise to "mythos" would be acceptable to all (and in fact could be used for the article title also). JJB 19:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Creation myth is not specialized terminology, is not an uncommon term, and is not unclear as to its meaning in any way. Especially with the linking of creation myth, the lede satisfies WP:MOSINTRO. The current wording is much less specialized than your proposed change which is not the term used by reliable sources and is in fact an attempt to create a specialized wording.  You've not demonstrated that creation myth is specialized terminology, but regardless WP:MOSINTRO is a guideline, and does not preclude adherance to the core policy WP:RNPOV, which specifically says not to do what you're suggesting. - SudoGhost 00:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But you see we're talking at cross purposes. I showed from dictionary and RNPOV that "myth" is unclear and ambiguous when "formal context" has not been established, and "myth" 1a is specialized ("very specific"); I showed that I am not avoiding use of "creation myth" later once that context has been established, so am not precluding "adherance" or "adherence" to RNPOV; I showed by citation that "creation mythos" is not a specialized wording (it does not require "very specific" contextualization as "myth" does); and, by asserting baldly and then arguing in the alternative ("regardless"), you seem to be implicitly recognizing the weakness of the argument against "mythos".
 * The question is how to address the concerns of those who recognize that "myth" is both ambiguous and, to some, pejoratively so, even though you appear to think that it is neither. If I began any other article by using a defining word that had multiple meanings and a less common one was intended, I would be asked to rewrite automatically, because ambiguity in the lead is such a significant problem. If I said the link itself makes it clear I would usually be opposed because WP is not limited to people who can click the link and read the specialized context there (which, of course, says creation myth is "narrative"). So I decided to enter this breach again because it seems that with the word "myth" there is some insistence that the readership get with the POV of those who think "myth" 2b should be less used than it is.
 * SudoGhost, I appreciate you sharing your opposing views, but WP is about addressing the concerns of people you disagree with. I have offered a compromise proposal that addresses the legitimate concerns of those who think linking "creation myth" from the first sentence is necessary: I said, link it with two letters added. (I have also offered the compromise for those who object to "narrative" in the title.) How do you propose to compromise to address the legitimate concerns of those you disagree with? JJB 13:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also note the link "myth" appears in the third sentence, which offers a great opportunity to spin in the phrase "creation myth" as opposed to "mythos", while retaining the link to "mythology", both of which would aptly address the concerns that that academically used phrase is so heavily leadworthy: JJB 13:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ''The Genesis creation narrative is the primary creation mythos of both Judaism and Christianity. It is presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. This article primarily deals with the narrative elements or form of the creation myth, that is, exegesis of the text of Genesis 1-2:24.


 * Regarding the "unclear formal meaning", the wikilink is very clear on the meaning, and WP:RNPOV does not support what you're saying, but in fact says quite the opposite. The  reasoning for changing the wording is clearly, directly, and unambiguously contradicted by WP:RNPOV, besides the fact that mythos is not used by reliable sources.  You're presenting an issue that is handled by a Wikipedia policy, so this isn't the place to address issues with that policy.  If you want to address these concerns, address them at the appropriate location, Wikipedia talk:NPOV. - SudoGhost 14:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am content that you have been led to do nothing more than restate invalidated arguments. JJB 15:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * John, I have to agree with SudoGhost here. This issue has been argued to death, and while you've presented a novel proposal, you aren't presenting any novel arguments to support a change from what we have now. WP:RNPOV is unambiguous; its intent is to stop us from avoiding terminology established in the literature. Your proposal, mythos, is not terminology used in the literature, but myth is. I appreciate the efforts to clean up the article, but discussing it further is unlikely to get anywhere productive, so I think focusing energy on other areas of the article may be prudent. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jess, thanks, I'll repeat. "Mythos" is used in the literature (though less so than "myth", obviously, because the literature establishes its own context and a first sentence doesn't). Easing a person into technical terminology used later does not avoid that terminology, and is indicated by guidance. (I add, reindicated by a very apropos example (ambiguous use of a rare meaning of "dead") and by explicit WMF affirmation of the principle of least astonishment.) So the prior arguments don't, for me, logically support the current phrasing. At any rate, I think WP works best by arguing issues beyond death until new life arises. Shalom. JJB 16:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the fact that WP:RNPOV specifically says not to do what you're suggesting, this is not something that can circumvented with interpretations of MoS guidelines. The manual of style does not trump WP:NPOV, ever.  I've seen no reliable sources that give a concise definition of the article's subject as a "creation mythos"; certainly not enough to warrant changing the lede as if this descriptor is reflected by the majority of reliable source, where not even sizable minority of reliable sources do.  WP:RNPOV is very clear:  Editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.  This is not an "argument" for the current wording, it's a core policy. - SudoGhost 16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did address it: I'm not breaking NPOV or avoiding "myth" if I only move it down the paragraph after context has been established. But you are reading NPOV as "editors should not avoid using majoritarian but specialized terminology in the first sentence", which is adding to NPOV and appears mistaken. Of course we affirm NPOV, and there is no attempt to trump it when we use MOS and WMF to supplement it. (I'm sorry I didn't refer you also to WP:SURPRISE and its WMF link, which is also quite explicit.) Now, based on your hint, I'll be happy to go off and come back with collected RS that affirm "mythos" or any other term, but this is not to be decided on majoritarian usage in specialized (formal) texts, but rather by what would least astonish the reader as in any good lead. JJB 17:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am reading NPOV exactly as written, what I wrote is exactly what it says, nothing more. Your interpretation of a guideline that creation myth is "specialized terminology" does not change the fact that even if this were the case, a guideline does not trump a policy.  The term is wikilinked, leaving no room for confusion as to the meaning.  The lede is the concise definition of the article's subject, by avoiding this terminology at its current location, you are proposing something WP:RNPOV says not to do.  A Wikipedia essay does not negate a core policy, even less than the MoS would; at any rate WP:SURPRISE does not apply here in any way, changing "creation myth" to "creation mythos" would not ensure that "information is understood by the reader without struggle" but would in fact make have the opposite effect, by using uncommon terminology not used by reliable sources.  This is also true of your "specialized terminology" argument, this change would only serve to introduce a specialized terminology, not remove one.  The first sentence of the article requires a concise definition as given by the majority of reliable sources; avoiding this definition would go against the Manual of Style/Lead section in this regard as well. - SudoGhost 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BEGINNING is great! So we can also use it to add "In mythology," or "In religion," to the beginning of this sentence instead, and solve everything? JJB 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of concise, and still violates WP:RNPOV. - SudoGhost 18:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so I'm hearing that "creation myth" is irreplaceable because WP requires the most concise, most majoritarian, most scholarly term, right there in the first sentence not the second or third; and even if that term WP:ASTONISHes many it's not policy. Well, I guess that constrained position would lead to only one result. But don't worry; I know what it means when I think I'm speaking logically and am not heard. It means come back another day with better sources. No prob. JJB 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical context: This part is not context in any form.
If you say that many scholars believe... then it is an opinion and we all know that what is the context should not be written first of all as a conspiracy theory !! It is biased already by insulting the validity of the Bible by showing someone else's opinion! Where do I see theory anywhere? No where, why? It is quite obvious you held a hand in front of the reader. TL:DR
 * Historical Context Must be changed to provide non-conspiracy.
 * Theory must be shown obvious to reader.
 * Content is irrelevant and an opinion.
 * Incorrectly used.
 * Keep the context to what can truly be proven and not guessed. ( originally Moses ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.89.51 (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 74.15.89.51, and welcome to Wikipedia. It would be greatly appreciated if you would back up your argument with Reliable sources. In a nutshell, reliable sources are sources that back up our point of view. The more credible they appear, the better! Wikipedia espouses a Neutral Point of View, no matter how much of an oxymoron that is. We do not, however, give Undue weight to non-scientific points of view, such as yours, of course. Since we have decided it is a Fringe theory. Because of the scientific consensus, which ultimately reflects the current majority consensus of the editors, your point of view will never even be considered, anyway, so you might as well stay out of anything relating to religion, science, or mythology. Goodbye. Have a nice day!  Wekn   reven 
 * Hello Wekn ... did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? :) PiCo (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose I shouldn't have. Sorry. Then again, someone was going to say pretty much the same thing -- only using many, many, many more words. Why waste space?  Wekn  TAKN

Blocked sockpuppets
Mthoodhood and SmittysmithIII have been blocked as sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Their opinions have no weight here and as block evaders their edits can be reverted. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Change to lead
Raeky, for sake of form and supposedly established norms, reverted a change from "myth" to "story" in the lead sentence. No change was made to the link itself. Let's take a look at this article. You begin with the word "narrative" for the title, move to "myth", but don't explain what you mean by "myth" until the next sentence. Now I could easily have used the word "narrative", after all, it is used in the title, but "story" (in this placement) is a non-pejorative and neutral word that conveys EXACTLY the same meaning as myth, considering that you haven't bothered at that point to give people any idea you're about to throw a specialized word at them. If you changed the order of the two lead sentences, there would be no problem.

JJB tried to be helpful in the section above, and while I think he was completely thoughtful, you didn't object on the one ground that really made the most sense. "Mythos" is just a more unusual word. It is a great word choice, it conveys exactly what he said and how he said it. The fact that it is slightly more obscure makes it less loaded than "myth", which is great when you're dealing with a lead.

So, to sum up, either you like my change and we'll be pals, or I take you off the Christmas list and no Teddy Ruxpin for you this year. Not a threat, but a promise. I await the right decision by my peers, or I expect to see you in a corner in tears over the whole Teddy Ruxpin thing. Have a great day, try to be congenial here; let's hear decent replies, not "Well we already decided to never change it". -- Avanu (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you like me or not, please review the archives of this talk page about that change, the overwhelming consensus is that word myth is apporprate for that link, also the reason the article is titled myth (review that articles talk page too for that consensus). Per WP:BRD the reversion was made, even though it's clearly against established consensus. — raeky  t  14:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Overwhelming consensus"??? I don't think so.  The word "consensus" alone suggests there is virtually no disagreement.  "Overwhelming consensus" would be basically no disagreement at all, but only general agreement from everyone. I think there is plenty of significant disagreement, this is a controversy, and "overwhelming consensus" is just a flat out falsehood. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming consensus is just about right. Further discussion is a total waste of time. Read the talk page and archives. The horese is deader than dead could get. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that you'd rather hold to a loaded word than a more NPOV word "just because"? Obviously the word "narrative" is more consensus-ey than even "myth" because it is the title. But who can say...? -- Avanu (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We have different consensus for the title than for the prose, and for different reasons. The two do not need to match. Regardless of what the title is, it would be completely out of line to avoid using "myth" within the article, since the literature uses that word extensively. This is all covered in great detail in the archives. Please read them, as has been advised multiple times now.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not arguing for the removal of the word "myth" from the entire article, that point isn't relevant. I was talking about the very first instance of the word only. Maybe that is why we're not in agreement yet?-- Avanu (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, I'm going to have to retire from the discussion until you've read the archives. It's been recommended so many times now, it's tough to continue. This is the single most commonly discussed and attempted change on this article, by a substantial margin. The arguments you're presenting are not new; they've been argued to death already. If you read through the archives and still have questions or concerns, I'm sure an editor would be happy to address them then. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

CFORK merge candidate
FYI, there is an article, which appears to be a CFORK of this one (and others), at Noach (parsha) which is being considered for deletion. I don't know if there is any content in that article which is worthy of being merged with this one, but if there is, please migrate it over. In particular, see the section titled "Influences on the Genesis creation narrative". Thanks! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Primary" creation myth
The article begins, "The Genesis creation narrative is the primary creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity". Isn't it the only one? Which Jews and Christians subscribe to a creation myth other than the one in Genesis? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * good point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are others. Please read the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which others? Joefromrandb (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I should have been more specific when I wrote to please read the article. The section you should see is the Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis section. I trust that clarifies the situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, but I'm sure I'm not as smart as you. I see talk about creation outside of Genesis in ancient Israel, but nothing specific to the Jewish and Christian faiths, which is what the lede implies. So I'll ask again, which Jews and Christians subscribe to a creation myth other than the one in Genesis? Joefromrandb (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In Isaiah 51:9–10 (and allusions in what Christians call Wisdom literature including Job. See http://www.usbible.com/Creation/creation_myths.htm for a fuller list of locations where it is revealed.) is the main competing narrative, the Leviathan creation myth. It is the primary alternative account. It has parallels in mythology of the ancient near east. The account as is presently recorded in that section of this article has been trimmed substantially since the last time I read it.
 * Also, if you take into account JEPD theory, and not everyone does, Gen 1 and the start of 2 is the Elohist creation account followed in remainder of 2 (and spilling into 3) by the Yahweist creation account. The former describes the seven days of creation and the associated parallelism of things and creatures. The latter focuses on creatures only and primarily man and recounts the fall of man. They are different accounts in many schools of theology. So the lede sentence would be even more correct to say "The Genesis creation narratives are the primary creation myths of both Judaism and Christianity." However, just getting it to this point to much debate and deliberation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Walter, that's simply not the way it is. Walk into any church or synagogue on planet earth. How many people will refer to Isaiah when you ask them about the biblical creation story? Not even one. So what you're doing is elevating a fringe-view and in turn call the other one "primary"; it's like saying the primary view is that earth is spherical because I met one nutcase who thinks it's flat. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seb az is right. The idea that the mention of "Leviathan" is supposedly some kind of a vestige of another creation story is a fringe minority theory among a few critical scholars, and it has never found acceptance among any church or group of Jewish believers, because neither Christianity nor Judaism has ever included this theory among their teachings. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Walk into any biblical studies or religious studies department in the world and you will have many people refer to it. Sorry your perspective is so limited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning removed since it's clearly a lack of experience with theological topics. Church is not theology. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the archives as this has been discussed and consensus has been reached. Search for "primary" and you'll see the discussions. Also, tagging my talk page with warnings is not appropriate when others are breaking consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. Consensus can change. So you're wrong, have no further reasons, and thus resort to personal attacks and edit-warring. Interesting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't understand what you are fighting about - after all, relation of the Old Testament to various Middle Eastern religions and mythologies is quite well supported by various scholars and neither new or "modern" (as it was present at the very beginning of Biblical scholarship in 19th century), nor fringe (it's generally accepted by scholars from all schools, including scholars who are in the clergy, maybe with the exception of literalists) - I see completely no point in reiterating the same arguments again and again. If something has been told before and is stored in the archives, it's far better to put the link to it instead of discussing it all over again. And that somebody doesn't want to reiterate his/her previous arguments doesn't mean he/she "has no further reasons"; if everything has been told, there's simply no need for further reasons or arguments and failure to provide some doesn't mean one has "lost the argument" or so. Critto (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change. But it has to start with a discussion. And rather than reiterating the previous discussions, perhaps those involved should become acquainted with the previous discussion. I have notified several long-time editors of this article that this new discussion has started and will recuse myself from it since they are capable of handling this and have a more gentle disposition than I do.
 * Also, I have made no personal attacks. I simply pointed out that theologians are people too and this is a scholarly article, not one written from the pews, and that exposure to theological information would be appropriate for anyone editing this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. This must be about what people do believe not what they should believe according to some obscure seminary; sounds like the question about the angels on the head of a pin. And yes, saying "look I know what millions believe and think, but they're just a buncha idiots; I know better than those morons, and you're one of them" is a personal attack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me please what this discussion is about? Is it about the claims about contemporary Christianity and Judaism or about the origins of Old Testament myths/narratives? Critto (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I'm still trying to digest all of this to see where I stand, but no personal attacks have taken place here. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's totally misrepresenting both Judaism and Christianity to suggest that either of them has ever taught any such thing. This has never been a teaching, it only comes from some fringe theorists among critical scholars who are purposefully trying to tear the Bible narrative apart by grasping at whatever straws they possibly can. Thus a mention of 'Leviathan' in Isaiah and Job suddenly becomes proof positive of a whole other 'creation story' (which 'proof' has never been terribly convincing to most outside their small circle of critical scholarship) You can find fringe theories about all the world's major religions books like the Vedas, Quran, etc. but it is gross misrepresentation to say the respective religions themselves teach, or ever did teach, any such thing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with that. It's one thing to point out that a minority of scholars have these views, but to state in the opening sentence that some Jews and Christians believe something other than Genesis seems misleading. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Til is misrepresenting things - not intentionally I'm sure - but the existence of the "Leviathan" creation story in Isaiah, Psalms etc is universally recognised among scholars. (Not that I've ever heard it called the Leviathan creation before - the usual name chaoskampf). Nevertheless Til is correct to say that in terms of modern religious belief, Genesis 1-2 is the one and only creation story held by Christians and Jews. I'd be quite happy to have the word "primary" removed from the lead, but we still need to refer to the chaoskampf/Leviathan mythology because Genesis 1-2 is a conscious rejection of it (you can't really understand how revolutionary Genesis 1 was unless you know what it was a revolution against).
 * I am NOT misrepresenting things, and the "Leviathan" cration thing is NOT universally accepted among scholars - unless you redefine "scholars" in an Orwellian manner to exclude all Orthodox, Christian, Jewish, Muslim scholars, and to include only those scholars of a certain school of thought that pushes this weak, lame theory, for which there really is no evidence whatsoever other than the authoritative-sounding say-so of these same scholars. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point being made is not that scholars accept it as true, or even that it's practiced, just that it exists. Is anyone here contending that the Leviathan creation myth (for lack of a better phrase) doesn't exist?  If we can accept that it exists then we have to do something to qualify "creation myth" - be it "primary" or something else - otherwise we're misleading readers to believe that Genesis is the only creation myth in the bible.  Walter makes a point that may have been lost here, and that is that church =/= theology.  It doesn't matter whether anyone believes it, only that it exists and thus renders Genesis the primary but not the only.  Sædon talk  23:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as the first sentence is concerned, it certainly matters whether anyone believes it. It's one thing to say, "Genesis is the primary creation myth of the Torrah". Calling it "the primary creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity" is quite different. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Saedon, in answer to your question, no the "Leviathan creation" doesn't exist - at least in any attested copy. It exists only as a theoretical. When I first saw the debate about "primary" versus other accounts, I assumed the other creation account was the one in Jubilees.  Now that is one that actually IS attested, but is not even being considered.  See the difference? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, can you clarify what you are saying? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what "attested" means nor how a creation myth can only be "theoretical;" can you clarify that? But you touched on something else here which renders my argument conclusive: Jubilees.  Replace Leviathan in my original post with Jubilees and the argument is the same: there is not just one creation myth.  If we remove "primary" we have also put ourselves in the precarious position of saying that there is only one creation myth but then having a section on creation myths outside of Genesis.  Doesn't make sense.  Sædon talk  00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not attested means no extant copies of any "Leviathan creation" have turned up so far to verify it once existed in antiquity; its contents, supposing it did, can at best be a matter of conjecture. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for clarifying and correcting a misconception I held. Consider the Leviathan argument moot from me, can you comment about the latter half of my last post regarding Jubilees?  Sædon talk  01:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling Genesis a primary account might make sense if there were a mention of the Jubilees account in the body. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a small number of people consider Jubilees canon, that may make sense. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't call it "of Christianity" though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are we arguing about? I have no problem with calling Genesis 1-2 the creation myth/narrative/belief of Judaism and Christianity. It is, no-one doubts it, not even the scholars Til loves to loathe. It's just that before Genesis 1-2 was written, ancient Israelites had another creation story, namely the one where God battled the forces of chaos to bring order to the world. There are traces of this still in the older books of the bible - in Isaiah, some of the Psalms, etc. That's worth mentioning, but only as background. PiCo (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is certainly not proven or even likely, it is a controversial theory espoused by a minority of scholars - and if we pretended otherwise, we would be intellectually dishonest and POV-pushing. Once again, no copy or manuscript of this "earlier Israelite creation story" has ever been attested archaeologically, it exists 100% in the realm of conjecture and theorizing, and the documents that we actually do have aren't even close to it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Til, it's an uncontroversial theory espoused by an overwhelming majority of scholars. But let's be clear just what we're talking about: the idea is that the Old Testament, taken as a whole, contains traces, only traces, of a creation myth that has Yahweh battling the monsters of Chaos, described as water (because water has no shape or form - get it?), to establish order in the cosmos (or, as the ancient Hebrews called it, "heaven and earth" - they lacked a word for "cosmos", which is Greek, not Hebrew). But it's all irrelevant - Genesis 1-2 is the only and sole creation story known to Jews and Christians, so what's this discussion all about? PiCo (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pico, I dispute your assertion that "it's an uncontroversial theory espoused by an overwhelming majority of scholars" as POV pushing. In fact, this incredible assertion seems the very epitome of POV pushing. There is almost nothing that is "uncontroversial" about this highly controversial topic. No one has truly discovered all the mysteries behind the formation of the text with compelling proof (at least compelling enough for ALL of scholarship) but in truth there are an abundance of theories, and then there are those "scholars" who champion their pet theory so much as to pretend it has a monopoly, and nobody else's theory even deserves a mention.  I don't know about wikipedia, but fortunately most of those scholars who write for BAR (for example) are far more cautious than this. But in places like the Soviet Union by contrast, we routinely saw scholars who were reckless enough to insist that their "truth" is the only "truth", without anything like real PROOF.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Til, given that neither of us object to taking the word "primary" out of the first sentence, just what are we arguing about here? PiCo (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If there were some kind of treatment of the Jubilees creation narrative, which text actually is extant unlike the hypothetical one, then "primary" might make some sense - but as Seb az pointed out, Genesis is still the only creation narrative for most Christian and Jewish groups, that dropped Jubilees long ago. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so you need to take your argument with PiCo to a new section. What this section is about has been resolved: "primary" remains removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Chapter breaks
This article seems to have created its own chapter breaks. As our article Chapters and verses of the Bible explains, there are no chapter divisions in the original text. Chapters were introduced in the 13th century and are widely used, but they do not match the chapter divisions used in this article. Perhaps the division used in this article comes from some scholar's concept of how divisions ought be made, in which case that should be attributed and sourced ("Prof Zorch divides the beginning of Genesis into two chapter, differing from the traditional chapters, as follows..."). Otherwise it is original research and does not belong here at all. --agr (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand - so far as I know the article does use the normal chapter and verse divisions. Could you give an example or two? 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article says in the intro: "In chapter one God … creates the world in six days, then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh day." That's not correct according to the standard chapter numbering, which has the seventh day at the beginning of chapter 2. Similarly we describe chapter 2 incorrectly as starting with the creation of Adam. Later our article, under the Chapter 1 subhead, redefines Chapter 1 as "Genesis 1:1–2:3." The terms chapter 1 and chapter 2 are used thoughout the article in this non-standard way.--agr (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your point seems a bit pedantic to me, but I'll let others comment. PiCo (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made an edit pass that avoids renaming the traditional chapters and added a link to our article on chapter divisions. I don't think the changes materially diminish the flow of the article. It's important to get things exactly right in an article like this. If you want to see pedantic on Wikipedia I can send you some truly mind-numbing talk archives. --agr (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored FAQ
The FAQ was evidently blanked a while back and since the whole "myth" topic seems to still be raging I restored it for handy dandy reference. If anyone has issue with the FAQ I'd recommend editing the FAQ as opposed to wholesale deletion and just leaving a blank page linked to this talk. Nefariousski (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New section: later interpretations
I've started a new section on "later interpretations", meaning the way Jewish and Christian writers interpreted the Genesis story in later centuries. At the moment it's exactly one sentence long - it will grow slowly I think. Anyway, at this point, I'm curious to know whether others feel such a section is useful. It could at least be interesting to our readers. PiCo (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The words bara and create
I corrected (Hebrew) bara to (English) create, to agree with page 183 of Walton, the citation's reference text. The article here misunderstood the statement "First, it takes only God as its subject" to refer to the Hebrew word bara, when it actually refers to the English word create.

This is borne out by a simple Concordance search for instances of bara, by which we find out that bara IS in fact used in reference to humans and not only to "God" (elohim) or YHWH. EXAMPLES: Joshua 17:15, 18; 1 Samuel 2:29; Ezekiel 21:19; and Ezekiel 23:47.

The word bara (Strong's number H1254), by the way, can mean "to cut out" or "to cut down", either in the sense of making something or of cutting something down.

Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Misty, but you're mistaken. Joshua 17:15 says this:


 * וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אִם-עַם-רַב אַתָּה עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה, וּבֵרֵאתָ לְךָ שָׁם, בְּאֶרֶץ הַפְּרִזִּי וְהָרְפָאִים: כִּי-אָץ לְךָ, הַר-אֶפְרָיִם.


 * That's the verb B-R-' in the piel form. You can't infer from a piel form of a verb to the qal form.  So it's an invalid example.  I Samuel 2:29 says this:


 * לָמָּה תִבְעֲטוּ, בְּזִבְחִי וּבְמִנְחָתִי, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי, מָעוֹן; וַתְּכַבֵּד אֶת-בָּנֶיךָ, מִמֶּנִּי, לְהַבְרִיאֲכֶם מֵרֵאשִׁית כָּל-מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְעַמִּי.


 * The root is in hif'il form, and is a verbed form of the adjective bari'/mari', which means fat/healthy. Also irrelevant to the verb bara'.  Ezekiel 21:19 says this:


 * וְאַתָּה בֶן-אָדָם--הִנָּבֵא, וְהַךְ כַּף אֶל-כָּף; וְתִכָּפֵל חֶרֶב שְׁלִישִׁתָה, חֶרֶב חֲלָלִים--הִיא חֶרֶב חָלָל הַגָּדוֹל, הַחֹדֶרֶת לָהֶם.


 * There doesn't seem to be anything that looks like the root in question. And Ezekiel 23:47 says this:


 * וְרָגְמוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶבֶן קָהָל, וּבָרֵא אוֹתְהֶן בְּחַרְבוֹתָם; בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם יַהֲרֹגוּ, וּבָתֵּיהֶן בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרֹפוּ.


 * That's another case of pi'el, just like in Joshua. Not a single one of the examples you gave is relevant to the verb livro'.  So I'm reverting your good faith edit.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post, research, and comments.
 * You are correct that bara has several forms. On the other hand, the article did not state this. It simply said that bara is used only in reference to God/elohim/YHWH, which is not the case; it may only be true of certain forms of the word. (Sorry if the rest seems long.) So in THAT regard, my change was not in error – my interpretation of the author may have been in error (more below) – and was simply a shortening of the passage to keep it from being verbose or over-detailed. If you wish to add a section on the different types of bara, I wouldn't mind. (Others might.) But to state that bara – in all its forms (which the article seemed to imply) – is used only in reference to God is an overstatement, and misleading; and the article should not say this. Most readers are not going to be aware of the various forms. Instead, the article must be changed to reflect the relevant facts. While my interpretation of the citation may have been incorrect (more below), I changed the article to be simply but technically correct by simply removing the claim that bara was used in the Bible in reference to God only. (It is possible that certain forms are used only in reference to elohim or YHWH, but I didn't check that, as it wasn't why I changed the article. More about this later.) A link I gave in Talk above under "Concordance search..." mentions several forms for bara, listing them under the ROOT form. That can be found here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV (the same link as above). While I suggest not bogging down the article with unnecessary details, it must be made accurate related to this important word, which it again is not. If you paste in more Hebrew here in Talk, perhaps paste in its transliteration, so that all can see what it says (using English lettering)? Thanks! See my next entries below.


 * By re-skimming the citation again and again, and rereading portions already mentioned above, I admit that I may have been mistaken as to what "it" refers to when it says "First, it takes only God as its subject". It's not totally clear (stupid pronouns!), but I can see either interpretation. (However, see my post just above this.) The author didn't seem to want to discuss all the forms for comparison. (I only mostly-skimmed Page 183.) The author states that "The verb occurs about fifty times" (about 50). I checked. Here's what I found: The Hebrew word "bara" "translation count" in the KJV is 54x (times). In the KJV/AV, the BlueLetterBible link says it is translated as: "create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1, done 1, make fat 1" = 54 times (54x). (And the Hebrew word "bara" "translation count" in the KJV, according to the link, is 54x in 46 vss.) I also did my own manual count for some forms of the word "create" in the Old Testament/Tanakh (did I get them all?), and found "create", in various forms, occurs in the KJV as: created 33x, createth 1x, create 8x, creator 3x, creating 0x, creates 0x = 45x (45 times). Neither of these counts exactly matches the number the author said. So I am not certain, by the phrase "about fifty times", of what the author meant. Now I am more likely to think that "it" and the author's count are both in reference to bara! The 5 passages I listed above that are NOT used in reference to "God"/elohim/YHWH, if subtracted from the count of 54, would make the bara count = 49, instead of the mentioned 54 just above. Both of these numbers are reasonably close to the author's "about 50 times" statement. I am wondering WHY the author didn't mention other forms – I've heard others say that bara is used only in reference to "God"! – but am thinking that maybe he looked up the word "create" (in various forms) in an English–Greek concordance instead of looking up bara in a Greek–English concordance. And if he looked up the Hebrew/Aramaic work, then I don't know WHY he didn't have an EXACT number. Very strange. Btw, at the link, it mentions various forms for bara in the section called "Outline of Biblical Usage". Continues.


 * Regardless of my probable mistake in interpreting the author's intent (I used Strikeout formatting above to indicate this), the article cannot keep saying that bara is used only in reference to "God", as that would be misleading. Probably another citation is needed for the clarification. Just referring to the BlueLetterBible link could be challenged as Original Research (OR). And that would leave us back at it being misleading. :-D See next, and above.


 * So-o, Dear Lisa, What would you like to do? I'll probably be too busy for the next week or two (or month) to do much or anything regarding this. And I don't have access to many sources for this sort of thing (other than via the Internet). Cheers! :-) Misty MH (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Misty MH, we have to respect our sources when we write articles. If the source says something, we can't decide, on the basis of our own research, that he's wrong. We can question a source on the basis of reliability - but Walton is a highly respected professor of biblical studies. We can question the source on the basis that later research has led to different conclusions - but I think all the books used here are quite recent, and Walton certainly is. We can qurestion it on the basis that it represents only one point of view in a range of views - but you'll have to do the research. (And research means looking up further reliable sources, not interpreting things for yourself). Lisa's explanation of Hebrew verb-types shows why we do this: most of us, me included, simply don't have that soret of knowledge. We need the experts. (Of course I should add that it's very possible our wiki-editor has misinterpreted his source - we always need to check for that).PiCo (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency
In the "Structure and summary" section, the "Genesis 1" closely follows the source given, however in "Genesis 2" it's written very differently. Instead of using "God", it uses "Yahweh", which is not found in the source. On a side note, the sub-headings should say Chapter 1 (& 2). The article has "Genesis" "Genesis" "Genesis" way too much in the headings. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew word YHWH (which is what the Hebrew bible has) has no meaning at all, but is simply God's name. The usual English translation "The Lord" is based on a tradition which tries to follow modern (2nd Temple and later) usage, which in speech replaces YHWH with the word "Adonai", meaning Lord - but note that this is not a translation of the original YHWH. PiCo (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, what needs to be determined is which passages are from the Jahwist (YHWH) source and which are from the Priestly/Elohist source. Once that is determined, then proper commentary will reference YHWH where appropriate to that source. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  08:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing a quick look, the answer to your question is here at Genesis creation narrative#General notes (now Genesis creation narrative). Genesis 1 was written from a Priestly (Elohim) source and Genesis 2 was written from the Jahwist (YHWH) source. Thus, that section uses YHWH (pro. "Yahweh") to refer to God. So... it is what it is.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

New page layout
The reason why User:Musdan77 had a good question about YHWH in the preceding section, under Talk:Genesis creation narrative is because this article is all over the place and is not easy to read. There is way too much repetitive content and it is not clear what is going on. I guess... I will have to don on my wp:bold hat. :/  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope things are a little more clearer now. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * After a quick glance, it looks quite a bit better to me. Thanks, Jason --Musdan77 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I spent time trying to clear up things. Your question is actually better explained under Genesis creation narrative because it goes into greater detail about the different sources. I know it is a little confusing at first, but the more you study the better you get a hang of it I guess. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  04:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed material on the documentary hypothesis, as this is no longer a widely held theory - check in the various books in the bibliography. PiCo (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The references I provided were from the bibliography section, User:PiCo:
 * ((sfn|Wylen|2005|p=108, 109))
 * ((sfn|Davies|2001|p=37))
 * These are modern day references 2001, 2005.
 * User:PiCo, I'm going to have to undo your omitting content. Unless you can provide a reference that supports your statement among secular scholars: "this is no longer a widely held theory"... then I will agree to remove the documentary hypothesis from this article. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, read Documentary hypothesis:
 * "The documentary hypothesis still has many supporters, especially in the United States, where William H. Propp has completed a two-volume translation and commentary on Exodus for the Anchor Bible Series from within a DH framework,"(ref>William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, volume 2, New York: Doubleday, 1999 ISBN 0-385-14804-6, and Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, volume 2A, New York: Doubleday, 2006 ISBN 0-385-24693-5.</ref)
 * So the way I see it... there is no "danger" User:PiCo. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason for crossing out my above statements is because it wasn't worth debating... The only thing I will say about Wellhausen's DH is that it is the foundation for many modern source theories. Anyway, I reverted back to User:PiCo's omitted material on Wellhausen. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute concerning intro
Somebody, without first discussing it here, reverted my NPOV changes to the intro. Worse, they labelled them as "POV", implying that they were the particular (albeit unsourced) viewpoint of someone, in effect accusing me of an NPOV violation.
 * I third the notion that your POV edits to the intro, are rather poor. Since you bring it up, let's discuss what you are promoting here...
 * "The Genesis creation narrative, a central motif in Judeo-Christianity"
 * I mean, come on... this first line you promote is just ignorant. A narrative is not a motif. A motif is a theme within the narrative. So whatever you were trying to do there was literary mumbo-jumbo.
 * "tells how God created the cosmos, the planet Earth, and everyone and everything on it.
 * So redundant when you already have a Creation myth link to go to view all that run-on material.
 * "Modern Western scholars classify it as a "creation myth".
 * It is already understood what this is all about without controversially pushing what Modern Western scholars think. Besides, western thinking is already presented by KuglerHartin, 2009 in the last sentence.
 * "is variously attributed to Moses"
 * Well if you want to include this concept, you ought to at least use a wp:reliable source for this sentence, which by the way, isn't even academically accurate by the use of "variously". Not to mention that it was inserted before the KuglerHartin, 2009,p.14-16 reference, which doesn't even support what you arbitrarily shoved in there.
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish that instead of doing this, they had mentioned what POV they felt my edits were advancing. Or, perhaps they would like to do that now. I thought, rather, that my edits were on the contrary removing bias from the article by indicating that there have been (and are) multiple viewpoints on the topic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's okay, we know your edits were upon WP:AGF. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some WP:OWN here. -- 202.124.72.84 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been observing this page for some time. There is no WP:OWN here. We collaborate together, even if we do not agree all the time. Don't make allegations unless you have evidence to present. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We've talked about the "mythology" bit so much on this article that most editors are tired of it. Consensus has always been that "mythology" is an important word to use in the lead, as it sums up the topic briefly, accurately reflects the literature, and the objections to it are counter to WP:RNPOV. If such a change is to be implemented, then at the very least it needs to be discussed again for a new consensus to form.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You jumped the gun on that one Mann_jess. No one is disputing "mythology" at least in the intro. That edit was referring to a title change at Genesis creation narrative: Difference between revisions. Let's not unnecessarily open up a can of worms if we don't have to. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought we were talking about this revert (and this one previous to it). Both of those include removing the word "mythology", and pushing it back/deemphasizing it in the first sentence. Are we talking about just one edit in particular, and not the whole thing?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those edits are being discussed in this section, but the use of "Creation myth" is not in question. The use of "Mythology" was in question on a title change as indicated by my link above. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to be in question for Ed. It's not in question for anyone else that I see, perhaps. Consensus hasn't been simply to include "creation myth" generally. Consensus has always been to include it prominently in the first sentence as a primary descriptor. What I'm saying is that, if we move it from that placement (attributing it only to "Western scholars"), it should be discussed first. I have a few other issues with Ed's edit, but that's a really big one for me because it's contrary to consensus which has formed again and again on this page. I hope that helps clarify.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm, if that's true, and quite possibly it could be... that is some fresh insight that I wasn't aware of nor is the moving of "Creation myth" from the first sentence a violation since the intro note reads: "Please do not remove the phrase and link to "creation myth" from the first paragraph" not specifying any detail as to where in the paragraph it should be. Should that have to go to consensus... God help us. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  00:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the P/J theory is just that: a theory. Widely accepted by scholars perhaps, but with no independent historical support. IMO, that justifies wording like "is believed to be based on two sources." After all, some future scholar may well argue that, for example, "P" is a combination of two sources. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if you are agreed, why does the intro say "is based on two sources," as if that's a historical fact? I agree with Ed Poor that the intro needs editing to become NPOV. And not just the intro, so I think the whole article should be tagged for POV issues. -- 202.124.73.87 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there's no rival theory. PiCo (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with it? It may be a theory accepted by many scholars, but it's not in the same factual category as "Julius Caesar conquered Gail." Big Bang is an example of appropriate wording for such a situation: "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe." -- 202.124.73.177 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what "theory" means? — raeky  t  12:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't come across any scholar who doesn't think there are two "sources" in Genesis 1-2. Do you know of any? PiCo (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The documentary hypothesis article lists several alternate theories, and recent scholarship is in fact backing away from the documentary hypothesis. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those "theories" aren't theories, they're models, and they agree that there are "sources" behind the Pentateuch, and they call them Y (or J) and P - the disagreement is over just what these sources originally were (documents, fragments, expansions, a mixture) and how they were used to create the Torah. But to repeat, there's no disagreement that there are 2 sources behind Genesis 1-2, and that they can be called P and Y. PiCo (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No they don't agree. The classic 2006 study by Römer, widely reprinted, notes that "a growing number of authors, especially in Europe, have given up the classical Documentary Hypothesis as a relevant model for explaining the composition of the Pentateuch, including the theory of a distinct Yahwistic source or author (J)" even though "recent textbooks or publications for a larger audience still present the Documentary Hypothesis as a firmly established result of source criticism and historical exegesis, and the so-called “J” source, in particular, continues to play a preeminent role in the presentation and discussion of the theory." Perhaps it's time for Wikipedia to catch up with modern scholarship, and toss the out-of-date "J" concept. -- 202.124.73.196 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "A Farewell to the Yahwist" is certainly an important book, but it doesn't say quite what you seem to think it says. (For other readers: "A Farewell to the Yahwist" is a collection of essays published in 2006 as a result of a conference on this question; the editors of the book were Thomas Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. "The Elusive Yahwist", by Thomas Romer, was one of the papers presented there and published in the book). First, the conference was about the DH - which holds that the Pentateuch was composed by a series of editors joining together, quite mechanically, a set of four complete documents, each treating the same basic story, each with a beginning, middle and end. (I make that comment so that others reading this can follow, in case they don't know the background - I'm sure you already know it and I'm not trying to belittle you). SO when Romer talks about J being one of the most "unstable" of the DH sources, he's using the word "source" in the sense in which it's used by the DH - a document. But Romer would never deny that the Pentateuch is made up of sources in quite another sense, i.e., that it's a composite text, not the work of a single individual. Perhaps the pieces that make up the Pentateuch consist of a basic document which was later expanded (the "supplementary" model), or perhaps they were collections of originally independent writings and traditions that were gradually brought together by authors who filled in the gaps between them (the "fragmentary" model), but neither Romer nor any other scholar today would suggest that the Pentateuch is anything other than the end product of a long process of writing and editing, and that the authors used sources. Van Seters, for example, talks about a source he calls the Yahwist, but his Yahwist is nothing like the Yahwist of the DH (Van Seters has a contribution in "Farewell"). In short, please don't confuse the DH with the idea of sources - the DH had a certain idea of what the sources behind the Pentateuch were like, and that idea has now been questioned and probably overturned for the majority of scholars, but nobody at all suggests that the idea of sources, in a non-DH sense, is not a valid one. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was suggesting that the idea of sources is not a valid one. However, the questions over the DH put any dogmatism about "P" and "J" on very shaky ground. -- 202.124.73.143 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think our subsection "sources" is worded in a dogmatic, DH-centric way - I've edited it a bit. PiCo (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Regarding edit:
 * 01:25, 29 August 2012‎ 95.168.159.173 (talk)‎ . . (68,542 bytes) (+2,063)‎ . . (m.e. - more neutral (yes "creation myth" is still in place) w/o pinnpointing pre-interpretations in header (only sources P and E is an outdated concept - but finds its place in main body of article, still))


 * WP:SCOPE says: "The lead, ideally the introductory sentence or at least introductory paragraph, of an article, should make clear what the scope of the article is."


 * WP:LEAD says: 1. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
 * 2. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Comment 1: It is arguable that the P/E concept is outdated, especially since the sources for the subject are modern references from: Comment 2: Your removal of such content from the lead is inappropriate, because such topic (even if controversial) must support the WP:BODY as indicated per WP:LEAD.
 * 1) Janzen, David (2004). The social meanings of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible: a study of four writings. Walter de Gruyter Publisher. ISBN 978-3-11-018158-6, p. 118
 * Ska, Jean-Louis (2006). Introduction to reading the Pentateuch. Eisenbrauns, p. 169, 217-218.
 * 1) Kugler, Robert; Hartin, Patrick (2009). An Introduction to the Bible. Eerdmans, p.14-16

Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  16:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what happens when you refuse to address POV problems. -- 202.124.73.93 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm dense, but I have no idea what this argument is about. And P/E? Maybe you mean P/J? PiCo (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even I got the letters cornfused... P and J would be correct. P&E could be the same thing... I was just using the terms he used. Thanks for clearing up the right sources though PiCo.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  05:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Judeo-Christianity
Regarding this edit, saying "Judiasm and Christianity" seems to be quite a bit better than "Judeo-Christianity". I'm not sure why we would want to keep the latter. I take Theroad's point that the term "Judeo-Christianity" does, indeed, exist, but that doesn't make it the appropriate choice here. Are there any objections to restoring the other version, which seems to be more specific, more standard, and less jargony? &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Judeo-Christianity" does not exist. As an adjective, Judeo-Christian is acceptable, but as a noun phrase "Judaism and Christianity" is better. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a look at wiki's article (called Judeo-Christian, by the way, not Judeo-Christianity). It says: "Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamism) is a term used in a historical sense to refer to the connections between the precursors of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism in the Second Temple period, especially in the United States." How odd - I never knew that Christianity and Judaism had precursors in the United States. PiCo (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Reinterpretations?
I have tagged the "Judeo-Christian reinterpretations" section as POV. It seems very thinly referenced, largely based on one source (which I don't think is accurately represented anyway, and which certainly does not support some of the paragraphs to which it is attached). The section appears, for example, to state that creation ex nihilo is a Christian invention, although the article on that subject suggests that it is also a Jewish belief (indeed, this article suggests that 2nd century CE Christians invented ideas that in fact go back as least as far as Philo). Some work is clearly needed here; particularly references to Talmudic interpretations. -- 202.124.72.187 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't rely on one wiki article to interpret another - wiki isn't a reliable source.
 * Did you read May's book in toto? It's a major recent contribution to the understanding of the develoipment of ex nihilo, and you need to read the entire thing. In essence, Mays is arguing that the idea of ex nihilo originated as an attempt with 2nd century Christian theologians to counter certain arguments being put forward by gnostics. Our article isn't taking up May's argument (we don't mention the gnostics). What May is useful for, from our point of view, is that he summarises the common scholarly understanding - you'll find this on page 179 of his book. There's no argument among scholars that the idea of ex nihilo is a Christian invention, later adopted by Jews - it's just that Christian lay-people (and Jewish ones) aren't aware of this.
 * For example, in the Eerdmans' Dictionary of the Bible you'll find the note that "creation out of nothing was a much later tradition in Scripture" (i.e., later than the Genesis creation narrative), and an invitation to compare Genesis with 2 Maccabees 7:28 and other late passages. Maccabees is a 2nd century BCE work, and is often mentioned as the very earliest sign of ex nihilo, but it isn't clearly so. Not that this matters for our article on Genesis 1-2 - the point here is that this passage in Genesis is not talking about the creation of matter. PiCo (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * May's book is just one POV in a field with many. How many books did you read? Many scholars believe that Philo held to ex nihilo creation, contrary to May's claim and to this article, although this is a debated point (and the article should mention the debate without taking sides). You yourself seem to allow for the possibility that it's a 2nd century BCE Jewish idea, in direct contradiction to what the article currently says, so obviously there's a problem.


 * The fundamental cause of the problem is relying heavily on just two sources (May and Bouteneff). May, in particular, is explicitly challenging several widely accepted ideas, and we can't just blindly take his POV. Furthermore, this article should not be taking sides on what "this passage in Genesis is talking about," because there simply is no consensus on that. This article should be summarising the various points of view.


 * I see the POV issues with this article as serious and unresolved, and the tag should stay. -- 202.124.74.146 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Philo did hold to ex nihilo creation - the Greeks invented it, and Philo was trying to show how the Jewish scriptures were compatible with Greek science. Philo had no influence in his own time, but he was taken up by the Christian theologians who were were trying to combat gnostic ideas (because the gnostics had also taken up the Greek idea). So the point of our article is that the opening lines of Genesis 1 were reinterpreted by Christian theologians in the 2nd century CE - it's not about who invented ex nihilo, but how Genesis was reinterpreted. By the way, May's book isn't just one pov, it's the most influential on this subject to have been published in the last decade. PiCo (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Evangelical POV
 * Published by Baker Publishing Group


 * Academic publishing programme POV
 * Published by Continuum International Publishing Group:


 * Comment: Based on the above listed references, there is no violation of WP:NPOV. These references are wp:reliable and do not violate wp:weight. Rather than wasting your time disputing these references, 202.124.74.146, use your energy better to find a third POV to add to this section in order to ensure its neutrality. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  02:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to expand a little a little on what Jasonasosa  is saying there: Bouteneff says:"Thes [2nd century CE Christian] writers came to see the importance of declaring that creation was not an emantion from God or a shaping by God of preexisting matter." What he doesn't make explicit in that passage (it's on page 86) is that these ideas - the cosmos as an emanation from God, matter as preexisting God - were the ideas put forwards by the gnostics. This, of course, is the point May is making on page 179 (which is in fact the summation of the entire book): the earliest Christian fathers were up against the gnostics, who had a very well-developed and very seductive explanation of how the universe came into being, one that wasn't compatible at all with Genesis 1.

Begin with Walton in the IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament - he's more reader-friendly than Bouteneff and May. (He's also, incidentally, an Evangelical Christian - not that it matters). The article is called Cosmology, and you need the section Cosmology in the Pentateuch (page 135). He notes that the idea of "'creation out of nothing' entered Jewish thought at a late period as a result of interaction with Greek thought" - as I noted in a prior post, the Greeks were the ones who actually invented "creatio ex nihilo", Philo married it to Jewish scripture, some 200 years later the early Christian fathers developed Philo's arguments in their own battle with the gnostics, and finally it was taken into mainstream Judaism by the Talmudic scholars. Walton's entire entry is well worth reading.

There's also Professor Francis Anderson's piece On Reading Genesis 1-3 in Michael Patrick O'Connor and David Noel Freedman's "Backgrounds for the Bible". Like Boutendorff, May, Walton etc etc, Anderson notes that "the idea of creation out of nothing cannot be documented before the Hellenistic age". He goes on with an interesting analysis of the grammar of the Hebrew that everyone should read. (See page 140-141 of On Reading Genesis 1-3)

There are many more books that could be read - as Anderson says, the literature is substantive. But these are a good introduction.

I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of what this section of our article is about. It's NOT about the origins and history of the ex nihilo idea - there's a separate article on that. What it IS about is the way Genesis 1:1 was reintpreted in the 2nd century CE to support the developing Christian theology of ex nihilo. PiCo (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored the POV tag since this issue remains unresolved. You seem to admit that Philo (a Jewish writer) held to ex nihilo, but yet the article says "The next major development occurred in early Christianity, with the formation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo." There's clearly a WP:UNDUE weight being placed here on May's POV, and personal attacks on me are not the way to resolve it. -- 202.124.72.28 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What Philo developed wasn't a doctrine - he was a philosopher, and his aim was to harmonise Greek philosophy and Jewish revealed religion. Please read the first chapter of May's book, especially the section on Philo - you'll find there a good explanation both of the metaphysical debates and beliefs of Philo's time, and of what Philo mwas doing. But the essential point is that the idea that God created matter, as well as forming it, was not developed as a doctrine until the 2nd century Christian fathers. (By the way, I don't think I've made any personal attacks - where do you see this?) PiCo (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure precisely what you mean by a "doctrine." Philo did indeed "harmonise Greek philosophy and Jewish revealed religion." In doing so, he provided a quite detailed interpretation of Genesis, which in turn influenced later Christian and Jewish writers. Whether Philo's interpretation was accepted as doctrine by the Jews of his time is irrelevant. And, regarding May, I've read quite extensively in this area, and I'm fully aware that May's opinion is just one of many. That's why I've added the POV tag. Saying "please read May" isn't going to make me magically forget the dozens of other books I've read. -- 202.124.72.65 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you've read extensively in this subject then you'll be aware that May's book is a standard text and that he's merely describing the accepted consensus. Anyway, our article isn't about the history of ex nihilo, it's about Genesis 1-2 and in this section) it's reinterpretation in later Christian and Jewish thought. Your understanding of Philo is essentially the same as mine, and now I'm puzzled just what the argument is about. Perhaps you could explain in more detail just what your concern is? PiCo (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a rather naive statement, surely? May is a respected scholar, but there is no "accepted consensus" in this area. May himself acknowledges the variety of opinions on Philo. My concern is (1) lack of balance in taking only Boutaneff's and May's POV, and presenting their opinions in Wikipedia's voice; and (2) blatant inaccuracy in claiming ex nihilo is a 3rd century Christian idea when it goes back at least to Philo, and probably to earlier Hellenistic Jews. I have reworded the section slightly, but in my view it's still problematic -- it still needs more balance and more sources. -- 202.124.72.84 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all sure just what it is you object to in this section, but I do get the impression that yoiu misunderstand its purpose. It's not trying to trace the development of the idea of ex nihilo - that's the job of the article Creation ex nihilo. WEhat it's trying to do it demonstrate how Genesis 1 and 2 were reinterpreted in later centuries. While it's true that Philo probably (but not definitely) argued that Elohim had created matter, he didn't have any influence until the Christian theologians took him up inj the 2nd century and later. They were the ones who made sure that Genesis 1:1 became established as the doctrine that God had created matter out of nothingness. Later still, this was taken up by the rabbis of the Talmud. It's rather hard to get all this across in a single paragraph, and personally I don't think we should try - it's just going to cause readers' eyes to glaze over. (This comes down to what your view is of Wikipedia's purpose. My own is that, although it's based on scholarly sources, it's not aimed at scholars, but at a general readership).


 * Your comments about "purpose of the article" are no reason to make false statements about when the idea of "ex nihilo' arose, nor to misrepresent the scholarly consensus (there are mixed opinions on whether Philo taught "ex nihilo"), nor to take May's opinion (one of several) as definitive, nor to undo my balancing edits. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The second para of the last section makes no statement at all about when the idea of creation ex nihilo arose; what it says is that it became a Christian doctrine in the 2nd century CE. PiCo (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's what you wanted to say, but that's not what the article does say. The article suggests that the idea of "creatio ex nihilo" was formed in early Christianity, when many scholars believe it was formed before then, by Philo. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase it uses is "the formation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo" - not the origins of the idea (which in any case belongs to the Greeks, not Philo), but its adoption into Christianity as doctrine. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case you need rewording for clarity. Perhaps "official doctrine" is what you meant. And yes, "creatio ex nihilo" goes back before Philo. How far, that's the question. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't become an "official doctrine" until the Church councils put in the creeds. The word May uses is "tenet". I've reworked the para to reflect page 179 of his book more closely. Bear in mind that in that part of the book May is rehearsing the accepted scholarly view, not advancing his own - his own thesis conserns the role of Gnosticism (or rather the opposition to it) in the develoipment of the Christian idea of ex nihilo - he wants to give it much more importance than is usual. PiCo (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a significant improvement. I'm still not entirely happy, though, because I doubt that there's an "accepted scholarly view." I even doubt that May thinks so, given his comment that there are a range of opinions on Philo. -- 202.124.73.196 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're overly obsessed with Philo. We're not trying hjere to give a history of the development of the idea of ex nihilo, but rather to point out how the original meanings of Genesis 1-2 have been changed in later Judaism and Christianity. "In the beginning..." is a big one, but there's also smaller things like the meaning of Eden, the question of what the "firmament" was, etc. (The firmament is probably worth mentioning - as soon as the original idea of a solid dome keeping water out had been lost, it became a very mysterious passage).PiCo (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I started with Philo because there was more evidence about when ex nihilo turned up in interpretations of Genesis 1. However, I'm also doubtful about this idea of "original meanings." All we can be certain of is how people at various times interpreted the passage. -- 202.124.73.143 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to get at in that entire section is to demonstrate that Genesis 1-2 is an ancient text, no matter whether written in the 5th century BCE or the age of Solomon or even by Moses (which it wasn't); what we take for granted today - Adam as the name of the first man (pretty trivial really), the idea of God creating matter out of nothingness, even the shape of the cosmos, are all ideas that have grown on top of the original text over the millennia. People today come to the bible thinking they already know what's inj it, but they don't - it's richer and more rewarding than we can imagine. PiCo (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to get at is that, given the range of opinions, we can't put any specific "meaning" in Wikipedia's voice; we can really only say how people have interpreted the passage over the centuries. In particular, we have to be very careful about arguing for negatives of the form "the original author did not mean xxxx." -- 202.124.72.177 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing missing in that section is a mention of how modern Creationism has reinterpreted Genesis 1-2. If you'd like to take that aspect up I think you can make a valuable contribution to the article. PiCo (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Those who are removing the POV tag for this section are violating site policy. Furthermore, they ought to know better.

The presence of a tag does not mean the complaining contributor is right. It merely calls attention to the existence of a complaint. Removing it conceals this, which doesn't help it get resolved.

This is not the only dispute which contributors have tried to conceal this way, and it shows bad faith. Stop it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * POV tags are fine when there's an established problem. This issue has been discussed by multiple editors now, and no one but the original ip sees any issue. The tag has been removed by 3 separate and tenured editors now, and it is unfortunate that you (Ed) have stepped in just in time to save the ip from 3rr to add it back again... and without contributing anything to the discussion in the process. There's no problem with leaving it in if there's an established problem, but so far there is not an established problem. Edit warring is not helpful, so we can leave it in for the day and wait, but if a discussion outside the realm of IDHT doesn't start in short order, then it simply doesn't have a place in the article. No one is concealing anything; the discussion is perfectly visible on the talk page.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's clear there is indeed a problem. Since my balancing edits were reverted, I'm adding the tag back in. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Genesis 1:3?
The article has been rewritten to exclude Genesis 1:3 from the first day. However, the book by Hamilton, for example, groups it with Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5. Why the change? -- 202.124.73.196 (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Genesis 1:1-3 isn't usually included in the first day because no actual creation takes place in those verses - the literary structure is that there's a sort of prologue describing how things are before God makes his first creative act (creation of light), he goes on to create various things over six days, and then there's a "postlogue" (sorry for the neologism) on Day Seven describing how things are at the end. That's the basic idea of the "framework" structure that most scholars (all perhaps) see underlying Genesis 1. It should be in the source referenced for the subsection - please check for me. As for Hamilton, can you give an exact page reference? PiCo (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have a point. I've moved some material around to make clear that the first 3 verses are part of the whole. The idea is, though, that they aren't part of the "first day", because the first day can't begin until Light is created and separated from Dark. This is really just the "framework interpretation", which I believe is the standard understanding of how Genesis n1 is structured. PiCo (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hamilton p 118 and following has verses 3-5 as the "first day." That is, the first day is the day light is created. This is certainly the traditional viewpoint, and I can't find any sources that take a different view. I would have thought it was obvious from the literary structure, anyway: each day begins "let there be" and ends with the numbering of the day. So much so that I'm restoring the numbering to what it was. It seems the change was part of a massive rollback by Editor2020, going back several weeks. One might ask if that rollback was a good idea. -- 202.124.75.153 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's what our article has anyway - "day 1" begins at verse 3 with the creation of light, what comes before that is prologue. If you mean that what comes before verse 3 is included in day 1, Hamilton doesn't say that. PiCo (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just clarify that: At the top of page 118 of Hamilton's commentary on Genesis (your link above), Hamilton has a section heading that says: 2: The First Day (1:3-5). In other words, he's saying that the first day begins at verse 3 and continues to verse 5. If you go back slightly, to page 117, he says: ""[T]he position taken here is that v.1 is an opening statement ... Verse 2 then describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv.3ff." Hamilton's understanding, in other words, is that verses 1 and 2 are an introduction and description of the situation immediately before creation, and that day 1 begins at verse 3.PiCo (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying - stupid me. Yes, of course v.3 is included in day 1. PiCo (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree. I'm not sure why this was changed. -- 202.124.73.28 (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I got so confused :) PiCo (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably reacted on gut instinct; IPs can never be right, after all. :) -- 202.124.72.177 (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially when the same User's IP changes constantly on at least 10 wiki pages within the same day, or at least spanning over two days... its really suspicious. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's called dynamic IP address allocation (plus the fact that thousands of other people use the same IP address pool). It's not suspicious. Why not get over it, and help build an encyclopedia? -- 202.124.74.222 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not join the wiki-community and get a Username?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  03:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mesopotamian influence: table from Speiser
This addition was recently made to the section Mythology, subsection Mesopotamian influence:

ADDITION Ephraim Avigdor Speiser made the following comparison of the Babylonian and Biblical creation myths, based upon Alexander Heidel.

ENDS

My problem with this is that it dates from 1964 - a long time ago. Things have moved on since then, and I doubt, specifically, that you'd find a lot of support today form the idea that Genesis 1:1 is about God creating matter. Anyway, what does everyone think? (Not your own ideas, please - quote and refer to contemporary scholars). PiCo (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the present article already cites both Heidel and Speiser, I didn't imagine anyone would question using them. If you prefer, we could also cite a newer source, and of course, we should add some criticisms. I'll get back to help when I have more time. Keahapana (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)