Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 26

Neutrality
If this wiki is supposed to be neutral, why does this article along with some others have an atheistic bias? It literally acts like atheists are never wrong. They have been wrong before, like in Nebraska Man and Piltdown man. This article contrasts the NPOV.Primal Groudon (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is going to understandably wish to avoid overly sectarian sources, to avoid promoting any specific religion as true, so lean toward the consensus of non-sectarian academics. Hence The CHOPSY Test is an acronym made up entirely of non-sectarian Universities. That non-sectarian academics might largely be sectarian against any religious interpretations of events is maybe not an issue they can actually handle. Still knowing this can help reading Wikipedia. So when Wikipedia says "Borrowing themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to the Israelite people's belief in one God" this should be read as "CHOPSY academics generally agree that the story borrows themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to the Israelite people's belief in one God." Indeed most "is" type statements at Wikipedia should be read with that implied "CHOPSY academics generally agree" in them. (Well except I'd say they would include all well-ranked secular universities.)


 * All that said Wikipedia is also by Wikipedians. So this means they will cite the academics Wikipedians actually read or look up and take their claims of consensus at face value if they respect them. The obvious is a tendency for English Wikipedia to lean a bit toward writers who write in English or have at least been translated to English. But it will also mean, seeing as Wikipedia was founded by an atheist and to this day the demographics are disproportionately atheist, that atheistic and agnostic humanistic or naturalistic scholars will be disproportionately represented. (The response below does well into getting how Wikipedia must be influenced by modernistic forms of religion a mostly atheist, in this case atheist is the right word, notion of hermeneutics of suspicion.) On the plus side I would say Wikipedia generally avoids endorsing fringe antitheistic sources, like "Christ Mythers", but "mainstream writers who are atheist humanists" is different. I'd say they have a tendency to be, if not precisely the default, a POV very very overrepresented on all areas of Wikipedia. Particularly those relating to religion, sexuality, or politics.


 * Anyway wanting Wikipedia to be "neutral" on the matter of religion vs atheist humanist or naturalistic views of things is, as I came to realize, a fool's errand. It is NOT going to happen. One person even went to the trouble to go to my page and say it essentially CAN'T happen. The religious demographics of both Wikipedia, and of certain fields in the prestigious secular Universities of the English-speaking world, combines to make atheistic humanistic or naturalistic views disproportionately important. This is likely most true in articles that relate to anthropology, psychology, and sociology due to the demographics of those fields in secular universities.T. Anthony (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It isn't a matter of atheism vs. fundamentalist theism. It is a matter of objective knowledge vs. subjective beliefs. Liberal theology agrees with Wikipedia's POV. Bible scholars who are neither Christian nor Jew are exceedingly rare.

"Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Or, to put it in simpler terms, historical method + Bible = blasphemy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a more specific way of putting it. Although I think you are meaning to be flippant in your response to objections it does get at why modernist Protestantism, if Christian views are to be considered at all, is going to be the go-to of theist scholars listened to as they are maybe the most compatible to the assumptions of CHOPSY academics. (Well some Reform Judaism and I gather Conservative Judaism too, considering Cohen, also works.) So in retrospect it is more that articles on religious subjects will favor what humanistic or skepticist academics, of any culture, assume is better rather than saying it's a preference to "atheism" as such. After I wrote the above I realized I was being too sweeping as deist, pantheist, Cultural Christian, etc forms of non-theism could also fit. I will edit that part accordingly. But anyway yes, in a way I actually agree they should "get over it" and realize Wikipedia is a creation mostly by Humanists or Skeptics that favors the consensus of humanist/non-theist academics in most areas. I accepted this long before I quit really working here. (I intend to do some work on next year's Paralympics) Eventually I admit I found the strain of working in Modernist/Humanist environment I reject too much, as I'm sure you'd find it a strain to work at a Catholic Encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is what it is. I don't like what it is, I even would be pleased if it ended, but it doesn't need my approval or favor.T. Anthony (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is a brief quote: Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I doubt Catholicism has fallen into heresy, I'm certainly not going to take your Ehrman's word it has, though he does give part of why Liberal Protestantism is mostly dying. Looking this up on my own Pope Emeritus Benedict does say as a method it is useful, but recommended "a synthesis between an exegesis that operates with historical reason and an exegesis that is guided by faith." Certain things in the Catechism would make no sense if the Church was purely historical-critical in its reading of the Bible as that would lead to the kind of heretical views Wikipedia advances as just true. Still some of are seminaries clearly went very astray so Ehrman might be right about some Catholic seminaries becoming little more than mainline Protestant schools. Anyway what I've gathered in looking into it for Catholics the historical-critical method is a tool, but not the sole method or tool Catholics use. That we're maybe to use a mix of it and a theological hermeneutic as we tend to see the Bible as having both human and divine authorship. (Mainline Protestantism is increasingly irrelevant to global or even American Christianity.)T. Anthony (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You conflate between the piousness of ordinary believers and academic-level theology, and you conflate between theology and history. Catholic historians of the Bible (Catholic Bible scholars) overwhelmingly use the historical-critical method. Of course historians do not state what should be believed by true believers as official theology, but state historical facts which do not rely upon their readers having a certain religious faith (i.e. they state facts that could be accepted regardless of whether one is Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist and so on). As long as they wear the hat of historian, they do not preach to the choir of a pious Catholic audience, but they speak mostly to their peers, who have a diversity of religious beliefs. So, it does not matter if such facts sound heretical, since they do not aim at writing theology, they write mainstream history. History isn't ancilla theologiae: it is an autonomous academic field, with its own rules, its own method and its own sorts of evidence, which radically differ from that of theology, so necessarily lead to different conclusions. So, you see, kowtowing to official church dogma cannot be a sensible choice for Catholic historians, else they would be booed off the stage inside the mainstream academia. I.e. they would get regarded precisely like the archaeology of Lamanites is regarded by mainstream scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My degree is history and I nearly have a Master's. In reality you can say all kinds of things as a historian without being booed off the stage, I've been to a history conference, as the field isn't quite as narrowly wedded to one form of historiography or method as all that. Plus I doubt you have the pulse of what Catholic historians are and Ehrman less so. I have granted that you and CHOPSY academics are normative for Wikipedia. That this will not change. That is all you are getting from me. Your desire to believe your interpretations are inarguable facts is simply yours. I am under no obligation to agree to you or that your interpretations or understandings are empirical facts. Because in many cases they clearly are not. They are simply current hypothesis that are seen as most likely from a naturalistic methodology. So I'm not going to agree with you because you are wrong and because I don't have to.T. Anthony (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you make such fuss about them being "naturalistic" scholars. Since the Enlightenment history has been purged of supernatural. So historians work with methodological naturalism, correct me if I am wrong. As Ehrman told to Michael R. Licona, "we just agreed that every historian and every research university in North America would refuse to invoke miracle or reviews to talk about divine causality". I know that there are people like, but as we say around here, consensus isn't unanimity. I wonder how Twelftree could tell that Jesus is the Son of Yawheh, instead of being the son of a leprechaun. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Methodological naturalism is about the natural sciences, not necessarily the humanities. We can not repeat historical events and test them in a lab. Anyway my professors did not go in with the assumption that miracle stories didn't happen. Many historians look to simply state that an event was claimed to be miraculous and move on without stating whether it was or was not. The professor who taught French history at my University was an Episcopalian who took an agnostic view of whether Joan of Arc actually had a miraculous vision. That looks to be fairly common from what I am finding. So history is not looking for supernatural explanations, but so far as I know it does not require rejecting them either. (Although there are many historians who do preference the sciences so lean toward naturalistic explanations.) I think history more can state when a miraculous explanation was given for an event, and may theorize or prefer a naturalistic alternative, but without a time viewer or something we can not actually prove the naturalistic explanation. To pick a religion I'm not of I do not think Muhammad was visited by an angel. I think his ideas make more sense as a hodge-podge of Christian and Jewish writings he put together, possibly while having some kind of psychiatric episode. However this is not an inarguable fact, and I am not claiming it is, as I have no empirical way of observing what happened to Muhammad. It partly is that I don't think God would use spurious sources as I think the Qur'an does. And I find the Angel story for him or Joseph Smith not credible. However my incredulity is not, per se, proof. I think you are importing scientism onto history and though some, perhaps many, historians also do this I do not think it is a requirement or inevitability. It is almost more a fashion. Lastly you are relying too much on Ehrman IMO.T. Anthony (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Except that I am relying on Ehrman and Licona (Licona could simply tell "That's not true!"). Me and Ehrman wholly agree that historians could neither prove nor disprove miracles. And this is precisely the rub: the ocurence of a miracle cannot be known, therefore it ain't a historical fact. E.g. there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles which have disproved the existence of elves and fairies. So historians do not talk of real elves and real fairies, since these aren't amenable to historical investigation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Except that I am relying on Ehrman and Licona" Well then I'll be clearer and say I feel you are wrong to do so. I am sure you can find many historians who also preference scientism in the way you do, but I don't feel history requires this. (And for the record there are many things unknowable that are basically historical facts. Like the lost plays of Aeschylus.) As I said though for the purposes of editing Wikipedia this does NOT matter. Your perspective on what history is is normative for Wikipedia due to the demographics of CHOPSY academics and of Wikipedia. So this argument is ultimately not about this article or Wikipedia so I think I need to end it.T. Anthony (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.


 * What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine. We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards climate science, and biased against climate change denialism. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism. We are biased towards Holocaust history, and biased against Holocaust denial.

And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses third party sources and scholarship, and focuses on what we can prove. Or more specifically, what reliable sources have said about the topic. For an example, it discusses what the theology of Martin Luther is, or Buddhists beliefs, but doesn't comment on whether any of that is actually true. This page is not treated any differently than any other religious topic on Wikipedia. That's not what Wikipedia is about. When it comes to religious topics, we're going to cite secular scholarship and analysis. That scholarship discusses the structure, format, and genre of mythology, and comparisons to other mythologies, the history of the modern creationist movement. And that is what is reflected on this page.

I don't know why you bring up atheism, since that's not mentioned once on the page. This page is not about atheism. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an implicit false dichotomy - any research beyond goddidit is atheistic. In reality, many of the researchers who contributed to our current theories about the creation of the Tanakh were believing Christians. The view that the Bible was dictated directly by JehovaElAdonai to King James (in English) and is an absolute, infallible und unchanging description of reality is not generally held by educated Christians of any denomination. As an example, the Pope is fine with the Big Bang and evolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely clear that's what the person means as their response was short. They may simply mean that they believe the Bible is inspired by God, but Wikipedia generally prefers to negate that as a possibility preferring the idea that everything in the Bible (including Yahweh or Moses) is borrowed from another culture or simply a human invention. I think there are some good reasons Wikipedia does that, although also some systemic bias reasons too, but that it does it is pretty obvious. Pointing that out doesn't mean you are a Young Earth creationism or a King James Only movement (Also this idea, that the Bible is purely man-made, I don't think is really held by most educated Christians. I think the Pope presumably believes Moses existed and that Yahweh is not a "divine warrior linked to precipitation" who was later elevated. The Catholic catechism officially states Adam & Eve, or something like it, did happen after some fashion. The Transfiguration, where Jesus sees Moses, is still a part of the faith. Also that the Bible has human and divine authorship.) That said calling this perspective "atheistic" might be going too far. Deism, pantheism, Theosophy, Philosophical theism, and certain other perspectives could also fit the idea that all extant gods are human inventions and the Bible purely written by men. Martin Gardner is a good example of such a person.T. Anthony (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "For the fanatic, the Devil is the intellectual, because the intellectual has doubts." Paul Zarifopol. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Genealogical Adam and Eve
Would this line of work be worth including?

- https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/04/upcoming-book-leaves-scientific-possibility-existence-adam-eve-column/3826195002/

- https://ivpress.com/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve

- https://asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF3-18Swamidass.pdf

Sswamida (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad information
How about how badly written this page is! Taken myths from Mesopotamia but Meso was a hogpog of multiple stories from various cultures that were word of mouth. Its laughable to think the genesis story is taken from that culture and adapted. Its more than likely the meso ppl heard their stories from the hebrews word of mouth as the meso page states. Truthbetold717 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Bring some good WP:Reliable sources that propose this, and maybe it can be included. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Shat? Where does it say anything about Hebrew word of mouth? Doug Weller  talk 22:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Another thing, I think the phrase "Still, Genesis 1 bears similarities to the Baal Cycle of Israel's neighbor, Ugarit.[25]" should be removed. I checked the referenced source (first edition) and Genesis 1 isn't even mentioned in the referenced chapter and so the phrase is not backed up by the source. If someone claims otherwise it would be good with a quote that shows how the source actually speaks of a connection to Genesis 1 at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikael at wiki (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have obliged with a proper citation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Evolution Denial in the Lead
At the bottom of the lead in this article lies a sentence stating that some believers use the Genesis Creation Narrative as a way to deny evolution. I believe this line should be removed, reason being the lead is intended to serve as a summary of an article's contents, and evolution denial appears nowhere in this article. Also, this article is about the Narrative itself, not evolution denials as a result of it's interpretation.

I want to know what you think? Remove it? or expand upon it later in the article?

Thanks, JazzClam (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Evolution denial appears in the "Creationism and the genre of the creation narrative' section. Theroadislong (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Myth/not myth
I take major offense to the statement that the Genesis creation story is a myth. It is a historical narrative and there is tons of evidence to prove it really happened. Now I know the arguments otherwise but my point is why doesn't Wikipedia create a minority report section on these issues? Until then my once avid support for Wikipedia is gone and no more donations will come from me. Kauaidan (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Young Earth creationism? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, the I will no longer donate trope. We are not in charge of donations, so donations are not leverage for content. About atheist Bible scholars, I know of just three: Bart Ehrman, Francesca Stavrakopoulou and maybe John Shelby Spong (of which I don't know if he is an atheist or just a Christian materialist). tgeorgescu (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hard to find article
Whenever I research a topic I generally start with a Google search that in most cases leads me to a Wikipedia article then I follow the references to gain more information. However when seaching creation myths this article is on page 4 of the search. Is this because of the title of the article? Is there a reason why this article is oddly titled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.0.91 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you look under "This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below." above on this talkpage, you'll see that the title of this article has been the subject of some discussion. You are welcome to start a new such discussion, but should really look at the previous ones before you do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * See Category:Creation myths. At the bottom of most WP articles there is a list of the categories to which they belong, helpful for finding other articles on similar topics. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Narrative" is a process of selecting and connecting events to form a cohesive linear account; history, for example, is told through narrative, as are fictional works. Narrative is a way of presenting information, in other words. "Myth" is a genre, rather than a form, and needs to be distinguished from fiction told for purposes of entertainment. "Legend" is yet another form of narrative. The first two chapters of Genesis are both myth and narrative, but they are not history, fiction, or legend. Achar Sva (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

What's a hypothesis
No Bible scholar in the sane mind denies that the authors of the Torah used sources. The Documentary Hypothesis claims the Torah was based upon four large documents, this is still disputed, while the former isn't (that's not a hypothesis). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this comment uses unnecessarily inflammatory (and frankly, quite derogatory) language. It's true that biblical literalism and strict Mosaic authorship is a minority view, but it's not true that one would have to be "insane" to hold it. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Mosaic authorship does not deny that:
 * a disciple wrote about the death of Moses;
 * there was a redactor who inserted stuff like "visible till our own days";
 * So, no, even the Mosaic authorship does not deny there were sources. I was not saying fundamentalist&#61;crazy.
 * Even in the most fundamentalist views of the Torah there still are sources: Moses + disciple + redactor. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Biblical literalism is a misreading?
The article, as it is now, repeatedly claims that "misreading the story as history rather than theology leads to Creationism and the denial of evolution". However, not only do the sources listed do not appear to support this claim – the most the sources say is that one shouldn't interpret the Bible as history, which is a whole lot different from saying that the Bible wasn't intended to be historically accurate – the article on biblical literalism itself does not have a single mention of the "fact" that it's a misreading. I am also fairly confident that, upon research, I will be able to quote a number of atheist scholars as saying that the Bible was intended to be taken literally. I don't think the fact that biblical literalism is a misreading is unequivocal at all, and so I believe the claim that it is should be retracted from the article. O l J a 10:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't open a new thread on the same subject as the immediately preceding one.PiCo (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The preceding thread you are referring to was not yet opened at the time I started writing this section. I may merge the two sections in a minute, though, if you give me the permission to. O l J a  12:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What if we remove the prefix "mis-"? Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That would misrepresent the cited sources showing mainstream expert opinion. . dave souza, talk 06:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then a contrasting source needs to be included, since the "expert opinion" is a severly biased one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.202.1 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What we don't do is giving equal validity to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP and apologetics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Either literally or not, neither claims evolution isnt possible. Some stories are ment to be literal, some imagery or prophetic. As of today most honest athiest will tell you the bible is thee most accurate book of history in existence, with cultures, events, kings and their reigns, wars, lands and borders, etc etc. Truthbetold717 (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The converse is actually more likely: an honest theist is far more likely to admit that the Bible isn't historically or, nay, scientifically accurate (both views are supported by the scholarly consensus, as you will find in the link provided by Grabergs) than an honest atheist is to "admit" the opposite. That said, none of that means that the Bible wasn't intended to be read literally, and numerous sources actually suggest that it was. The editors around here don't agree with this, though, so we're just gonna have to leave this falsehood in the article. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲  J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  18:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually the idea that the Bible should be read and interpreted literally is the spiritual child of the Protestant Reformation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. That might be the reason that (some) Protestants in the present day are more stubborn wrt rejection of science than the Catholic Church, the fact remains that the creation myth was unequivocally accepted without question until the Modern Period. The notion that ancient and medieval peoples had any kind of notion of a natural origin of the cosmos and the world and of species as opposed to a devine/supernatural origin (whichever religion's that happened to be) is absurd. (They did not, however, believe the earth was flat, as is also falsely claimed). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:8973:283F:5A03:85F (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You won't care for the article Historicity of the Bible, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Truthbetold717 - Do you have a source for your claim that "...most honest athiest will tell you the bible is thee most accurate book of history in existence"? HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Belated answer, but liberal Christianity gives the lie to the bible is thee most accurate book of history in existence. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are many books by pseudohistorians that are more accurate than the Bible. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Did God actually make the Earth???
Did God actually make the Earth some people say he did and some people say he didn't but I will look it up in the Bible 50.40.239.53 (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, here is the correct creation myth - https://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_13.html HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Note A
lol, did note A have to be added to prevent people from going "this is part of my religious beliefs so it's not a MYTH >:(" and vandalising the page?

(clarifying so I don't look like One Of Those Internet Atheists: I don't think being religious makes someone inherently less smart, religion serves a legit social and psychological function. But pages about Greek myths don't have notes clarifying the definition of myth to prevent modern hellenistic pagans from vandalising them. So I just find the existence of note A on this page funny) Voidify (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "I don't think being religious makes someone inherently less smart" It is not a matter of intelligence. Religious beliefs tend to be the source of a person's biases. Particularly, since religions tend to self describe as the only path to truth. Which typically translates into believing than anyone who disagrees with your POV should be vilified. Dimadick (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per the article's lead sentence, "The narrative is made up of two stories", hence Genesis creation stories, but just one narrative. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation narratives – Given that the section titles reflect the fact that there are two ("First narrative: Genesis 1:1–2:3" and "Second narrative: Genesis 2:4–2:25"), the title should be plural to be grammatically correct. -- Beland (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SINGULAR. Article titles are generally rendered in the singular form. I'm also guessing this move would be controversial to a lot of Christians who perceive this as a singular narrative in 2 parts. This article's title has always been somewhat of a controversy, so it's better to just leave it as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One hopes that Wikipedia content is never based on who might be offended. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hmm, well narrative lists it as both countable and uncountable. That makes sense to me, in that "narrative" can mean either "story" (countable) or "storytelling" (uncountable). If we assume that's correct, then I think Word Hippo is slightly wrong, in that uncountable nouns don't really have plurals at all, but right in the sense that you just use "narrative" no matter how much storytelling is happening. These definitions imply that the title of this article is using "narrative" in the uncountable sense of "storytelling" but the section headers are using it in the countable sense of "story". Which is inconsistent but arguably grammatical. -- Beland (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per this understanding that the plural of narrative is often narrative. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, I learned something today! Like fish and fish and fishes! -- Beland (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it. It just goes to show the unreliability of wordhippo.com. Just plain Bill (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is the Genesis Creation account true?
Is the Genesis Creation account true? 2603:8080:5F00:2031:8845:8324:FB13:B55D (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article accurately describes it as a Creation myth. Follow that link to see what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe use the word "narrative" instead of myth. Even though myth here means an ostenibly true unverified story believed by many people, in common discourse, it means something false. How about narrative instead of myth? FortUser (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @FortUserNo, it doesn't mean an ostensibly true unverifiable story. I've never heard that definition. What did you learn from Creation myth? Or Myth itself? Many religious scholars use the term. It's correct. Doug Weller  talk 13:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Oxford Languages, a myth is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. A verified story, by definition, is not traditional. FortUser (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed it in the article because most people use myth to describe a false event. It's like scientific theory (most people use the word theory to describe a guess). FortUser (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what is he problem? a myth is indeed a story that is not true. So perfectly correct for this article. It is also properly sourced. And last I invite you to read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"Demythologize" entry in the lead?
"'Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, for while the author of Genesis 1–11 'demythologised' his narrative by removing the Babylonian myths and those elements which did not fit with his own faith, it remains a myth in the sense of being a story of origins.'"

This entire entry is unsupportable. Not only is there no support for knowing who "the author" is, we can't know their intention, and they did not do what the statement claims (remove the Babylonian myths). And if that was the intention they failed in that it doesn't actually fail the criteria of myth.

The editor in me wants to remove it, but I know it will start an edit war and it's been a while since I've been active and I'm not sure I should start my "return to active duty" that way. So, I am opening up discussion on the talk page for any that can show me either the author of Genesis or indication of their intent. (or, at the very least, admit they spelled "demythologized" wrong). And why would they demythologize 1/5th of the book? Why not the whole thing? Padillah (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Teasing out the strands of scriptural authorship is far outside my wheelhouse. That said, retaining British spellings such as "demythologised" or "authorisation" would be a distraction in this discussion. I will wait for other, more knowledgeable editors to chime in regarding issues of authorship and intent. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Source is Victor P. Hamilton, pages 58 and 142. But he's discussing Brevard Childs on 58, someone else on 142. Doug Weller  talk 12:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hamilton is simply describing the many attempts to redefine the word "myth" so it can not be used to delegitimize the story. This is simply hiding behind an expert. The question of the use of the word "myth" has been debated and it's position should be solidly fixed. This kind of argument borders on intellectual dishonesty.
 * There's also the misunderstanding of the works of Hamilton. He is not speaking directly of the OT authors. He is presenting Childs assertion of a possible definition of "demythologized" in an effort to redefine the word so it could be removed from the conversation. But even Hamilton is not secure enough in his stance to bolster the assertion. He merely mentions that someone else has made the assertion. If this is the case why don't we cite Childs works directly?
 * Padillah (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What language and spelling does this article use?
@Just plain Bill rightly called me out for claiming there were misspellings in the article when, in point of fact, they are simply British spellings of those words. He was kind enough to mention this, but not use it to side track the discussion. So, in an effort to acknowledge this and give space to a proper discussion: Do we have a consensus on what language and spelling we are using for this article? (and, thanks @Just plain Bill) Padillah (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any specifically American spellings? Do you have any reason to believe it is not British English? Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Quick skim, prompted by Padillah's earlier post, didn't find things like "favour" or "colour". IMO, "authorisation" and "demythologisation" are enough to establish BrEng, but this is low on my list of things to worry about. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are also 3 "centre"s, & no "center"s. Always a useful word to test. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Between this and @Johnbod (thank you for your effort) I think we can pretty well establish this article should conform to British spellings. I'm going to add a header to the top of this page and be done with it.
 * Thanks a ton for the help, guys.
 * Padillah (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Should it be considered a myth?
I could easily say many things that could be a reason why it isn't a myth. Evolution allows for things to take thousands or years, but if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? after 5000 years or so of known history, humans haven't changed. If you look at the wonder and design of nature and space, it is sort of mind blowing that there couldn't be a God of some sort. Do you think evolution could get the several trillion DNA put together perfectly by chance? There had to be an artist or a Creator. A watch can't just put itself together after millions of years can it? I bet the parts would have rusted away and dissolved by that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Capitalist forever (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's elementary dear Watson: the theory of evolution never denied there is a God. It simply does not operate with the concept "God". tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Capitalist forever No monkeys involved, you’ve been lied to about that. I am pretty sure you’ve never read anything scientific about evolution yet you think you know the science. Doug Weller  talk 19:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "but if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" Please, do not edit pages while drunk. The argument is incoherent. Dimadick (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not drunk, Dimadick. I would never consume alcohol. The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dimadick and others, please be nice. This is a child. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC).
 * Does not sound like a child, rather someone in his late teens. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I want to try to answer your concern directly, because these are misconceptions a few people have. If you read the note (the [a] next to that word in the article) it says The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false". Genesis is a creation myth, that is not a judgement on its validity in any way. As for evolution, even amongst Christians, some people see Genesis as a literal and most profound truth, some see it more of a metaphor that holds value in the lessons it teaches rather than believing that it is a literal historical account, while more still sit somewhere between those two interpretations. At the extreme end of the "literal reading" are people who often read Genesis so literally and have certain opinions about evolution such that Genesis and the theory of evolution cannot reconcile in their minds. Reading it this way it's logical to conclude that if evolution is true that Genesis must be false, therefore evolution must be false. That is not an issue with Genesis itself, and evolution does not invalidate Genesis for most people who believe the account in Genesis. This article only briefly touches on evolution in the Creationism and the genre of the creation narrative section because it has little to no role in this topic.
 * That is why the article says what it does, because creation myth does not mean "false", it is a type of narrative that people believe in and it shapes how they see and understand the world, so calling it a creation myth emphasizes that this isn't just a random story that may or may not be real, it has profound meaning for a lot of people and it shapes them and their world at their core. That is what a creation myth is, and Genesis absolutely meets that definition. As for if humans evolved from monkeys the answer is quite simply that we did not. - Aoidh (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work you put into typing your answer Aoidh. I get what you are saying. It's just alittle off that it says myth instead of just narrative. It throws so many people off. I purely believe every word of the Bible. Oh and to tgeorgescu, yes I am in my teens (14) The Capitalist forever (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry to spoil your fun, but Wikipedia has a lot of stuff which throws children off (and believers in biblical literalism). We deal in stuff that you can't hear in Sunday school, but your pastor probably learned it in the divinity school. Also, I had little against Trump till he tried to overturn the elections. Also, there's a possibility that you have unbelieving parents, but they're hiding it from you so you don't get bullied at school. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My parents are strong believers actually and I am homeschooled through a Christian School in Illinois. I am a supporter of Trump, and honestly, I think Biden can't even run a country. I was raised by my mother as a Christian. I definitely agree that wikipedia doesn't go very far into the legitamacy of ancient beginnings. They are very reluctant to say anything because they don't want to contradict others. Anyway, I just started an account yesterday, so I am learning all the basics still. The Capitalist forever (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about information from WP:BESTSOURCES. My own interpretation is that BESTSOURCES means WP:CHOPSY, though some editors disagree. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yah BESTSOURCES is that for sure. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that evolution takes as much faith to believe as creationism. You are either placing your faith in the Bible and God, or Science and Man. Atheists still believe in something even if they don't acknowledge there is a God. Evolutionary scientists believe everything is just matter in motion, but don't you think is something different between man and animals,something that sets us higher than them? I believe we are created in God's image.
 * @tgeorgescul, On your personal article, it says you love to cream Christian fundamentalists, I will tell you, I am one of them. Biblical inerrancy is my key belief. Also I have read the entire Bible many times so ask me anything you want. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you the easy way: this is not a WP:FORUM for your rants. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I keep forgetting about that. I don't think much more can be edited on the Creation Narrative because if you are supposed to be neutral, how can you really add/edit without controversy?
 * The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We follow the WP:SOURCES. That is, the mainstream academic WP:SOURCES, not written by Bible thumpers. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how an event in the Bible should be interpreted and limited by secular scholars instead of people who actually think the Bible is true.The myth part of this article should be changed to limit arguments in the talk section. Everyone knows that a myth is a false fairy tale. The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As in that often quoted speech: "Life is unfair, get used to it." tgeorgescu (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "I am a supporter of Trump, and honestly, I think Biden can't even run a country." You will probably get a chance to vote in a few years. But I do not see what political orientation has to do with this article. Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * And to stop beating around the bush: the title of this article and every word of the WP:LEDE are the results of long and protracted wiki-feuds. So, it would be unwise to change those, even if you have sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of "should it be considered" a myth. The proper question is "is it a myth?" The answer is "Yes", according to: Unless you are presenting evidence that the Genesis narrative is not:
 * Dictionary.com - "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
 * Merriam-Webster - "a usually 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"
 * Cambridge Dictionary - "an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"
 * note: two of the three citations have "creation myth" as an example of it's use.

A. A traditional, legendary, or old story.

B. Historical or explaining early history.

C. Part of a worldview.

D. About natural phenomenon.

... the question of it being a myth does not apply. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Padillah, I think of creation as something that actually happened. Not an ancient story, I think it is historical. It is everything on your ABCD list but A.It is historically acurate and I am a fundamentalist. It's quite obvious wikipedia doesn't believe in the Biblical creation, otherwise they would have used 'account' or 'narrative'. When Charles Darwin formulated his idea of evolution, the fossil record was not explored well, and he had to place assumptions and faith into his belief that "missing links" would be found. Today the fossil record has been explored: "The evidence indicates that all fossils are either varieties of organisms alive in the present or unique types of organisms that are now extinct." [Science:Order and Design| copyright - Pensacola Christian College] The Capitalist forever (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @The Capitalist forever which of course is wrong and misrepresents the science. But then the college has to do that, it’s a Young Earth Creationist and for them belief beats science and makes it impossible for them to tell the truth about the scientific viewpoint. But please drop this, we are a mainstream encyclopaedia and you can’t change that. Doug Weller  talk 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The internet is vast, perhaps you'll like Biblical creation account better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually that was only a small part of the book. I am serious when I say in that textbook, they give alot of scientific evidence, go buy the book yourself if you want. I'm not trying to change the encyclopaedia, don't worry. The Capitalist forever (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This talk page has 26 archive pages (see links at the top). Most of them are concerned with this issue, or renaming the article in related ways. I suggest you look at them. Btw "The evidence indicates that all fossils are either varieties of organisms alive in the present or unique types of organisms that are now extinct" allows an awful lot of wriggle-room! Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, @johnbod, I saw that, but what do you mean by allowing alot of wiggle-room? The Capitalist forever (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is simply put an improper venue to argue that the theory of evolution is false. The proper venues for doing that are PNAS and Nature (journal). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * None of those venues have had a talk in 2-4 years.The Capitalist forever (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you recognize the Pope's encyclicals as binding for your faith? No. Similarly, we don't recognize that your schoolbook is expressing science. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Obviously nothing will change our viewpoints. I recognize that my book is expressing science.The Capitalist forever (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This book? I believe it "is expressing science" from a creationist point of view. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, the question has already been litigated as Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2023


 * Yes @justplainBill, that is the book. If you don't think the Bible is scientifically accurate, visit this:
 * For example: George Washington might have lived longer if his physicians had read the Bible instead of bleeding him to death because in Leviticus 17:11 it says that "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." (date circa 1400 B.C.). Bloodletting was discarded around the late 1800's and blood transfusions became vital. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For example: George Washington might have lived longer if his physicians had read the Bible instead of bleeding him to death because in Leviticus 17:11 it says that "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." (date circa 1400 B.C.). Bloodletting was discarded around the late 1800's and blood transfusions became vital. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not the proper venue for re-litigating mainstream scientific consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Capitalist forever that verse doesn't say don't do bloodletting. I think that's just a Creationist interpretation to suggest the Bible is scientifically accurate. Jews did bloodletting..  Doug Weller  talk 07:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @DougWeller, if you went and read the other 9 verses about science and the bible coexisting, I don't think you could dispute some of them. Read the link if you want. In the book of Job it says the earth is a sphere. This was long before Christopher Columbus because God knows everything.The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @The Capitalist forever replying on your talk page, this doesn't belong here really. Doug Weller  talk 08:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So where are the acceptable venues? not the ones that haven't talked in 4 years.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Capitalist forever (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Editors' talk pages. Doug Weller  talk 08:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This page has been moved or suggested to move 14 times in the past 13 years and that includes two year-long moratoriums on move requests... I think the question has been asked and answered. The "feeling you get" (about WP's attitude towards the subject) is not notable in this environment. If you wish, there are several places that are much more productive to have a discussion on the falsifiability of this subject and it's implications, but this talk page is not one of them.
 * We have provided answers for the use of the term. We cannot change the content to represent a stronger case (or, indeed any case at all) based on your desire to get the word out. Wikipedia is not a pulpit, we cannot allow it to be used to preach or promote a worldview. How would you feel if we allowed users to remove the word "theory" from the Evolution page? It is simply improper for us to change the description away from the dictionary supported one.
 * Padillah (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It is our task to report mainstream science for what it is and mainstream scholarship for what it is. It is not our task to change these. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To me this discussion feels kinda counterintuitive, like this is not a discussion forum but a page to suggest improvements to the article but we're just wasting time trying to prove our points. I support closing this discussion. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 15:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion was finished with the statement I'm not trying to change the encyclopaedia. This page is only for discussing changes to the encyclopaedia, especially the page Genesis creation narrative. If you want to do something else, go somewhere else. End of discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

First sentence and what this article subject is
The editor in me wants to unrevert this revert, but the Wikipedian in me says that I need to pay attention the WP:BRD essay about the Consensus and Be bold pages and discuss it here first.

The initial sentence article, with my edit reverted and superscripted links removed, currently reads: "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. The bolded phrase, the term Genesis creation narrative there, according to MOS:FIRST, should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is. The article then goes on to describe in some detail two stories, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.

This article is not the Genesis creation myth.

This article can reasonably be said to be a description of the Genesis creation myth.

Unless there is objection, I intend to unrevert the revert tomorrow. If there is objection, please discuss that here.

Also, please see the related ongoing discussion at Talk:Creation myth, which I mentioned in the edit summary of my reverted edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. The scope of the article and the lead sentence have been discussed many times before. Considering that the article has been defined as such for years and due to its controversial nature, this definitely needs to be discussed. You'll need to elaborate why you think this article isn't in fact the Genesis creation myth. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the Genesis creation myth is a myth (the term myth there intended in its current common usage as described in the Myth article), and the Genesis creation narrative is a narrative about the myth. A narrative, according to that wikilinked article,is "any account of a series of related events or experiences,$[cites]$ whether nonfictional (memoir, biography, news report, documentary, travelogue, etc.) or fictional (fairy tale, fable, legend, thriller, novel, etc.)". If you don't like the term narrative there, please suggest a more fitting term. However, this article is not the creation myth itself. It is an account of a series of related events that, in the aggregate, make up what might be called the Genesis creation myth. Some believe those events to be fictional, some believe them to be fact, some believe the account to be allegorical, some believe it to be a literal description of past events. Regardless of whether or not one or more of those differing beliefs is correct, this article is a an account of that series of related events. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We add extra words to make believers happy....but it does not change the meaning....just gives more room for interpretation they need. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple answer: see Ngrams; long answer: scholars naturally err on the side of caution when it comes to respecting religions in their academic analyses, and here the balance of sources firmly favours 'narrative', so that's NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And more ngrams, but "The Genesis creation narrative [or story, or account] is the creation myth" is still not at all true. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)