Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 8

Myth? What was wrong with the long established consensus name, "Creation According to Genesis"
What did a flashmob just arrive, talk amongst themselves for two days and slap this remarkably unencyclopedic title on it? The "new and improved" title looks more like tagging than any attempt at scholarship. What gives?99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the clarification of "Myth" to Qur'an and miracles in keeping with evolving Wikipedia conventions. Obviously though it should clearly be titled with the neutral Myth of Qur'an and miracles. There is a single manual of style for the project, yes? _99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's what the article is about. We've already had someone here demanding we add 'myth' to the title of every single religious article, or none at  all. And I don't mean just creation myth articles.  -- King Öomie  20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that would be the fairest thing to do. · CUSH · 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any motion to move articles like Krishna to Krishna myth. -- King Öomie  20:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But Bastet (mythology) is ok?? · CUSH · 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a redirect, actually, so no. -- King Öomie  21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think myth should just be added to some religions and not others.99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia does not prefer one religion over another. · CUSH · 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see why the impeccably neutral title, "Creation According to Genesis" needed to be disturbed after years of quiet acceptance. Long term consensus was quite obviously disturbed unnecessarily here. How was the encyclopedia in any way improved with this bold action?99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Creation According to Genesis" is not neutral. It implies truth. · CUSH · 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you all dense? Quit feeding the trolls. Ben (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Cush, it doesn't. It implies that it's about the Genesis account of creation.  Which is an account of Creation, even if it doesn't happen to be one you consider to be true.  So why not say "Genesis account of creation" or "Genesis creation account"?  We know why you've been pushing for "myth", but in the context of this subject and the debate that exists, "myth" is NPOV.  "Account" is not. - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@Ben Tillman: then remove the thread already. · CUSH · 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I read it as it was written, "according to Genesis". Genesis is a book. I'm quite interested in how "truth" is implied, and I'm not vested in religion at all - quite the contrary, my interest is in neutral, and academic articles. So, how then do you see "truth" implied in the long standing title?99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This was not, as one editor states, "trolling". Indeed an argument could be made that the article name change itself - and the defense of the word "myth" based upon narrow denotation in a mass market media nearly entirely reliant upon connotation is itself a form of sophisticated "trolling".99.141.252.167 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not trolling. If you read the entire talk page (purely hypothetical of course, given its current state) you would see that bringing this article's title in line with the titles of other creation myths was the natural reaction to creationist attempts to censor the term "creation myth" altogether, or at least remove it from the lead. The same dynamics has also led to the situation that Muhammad doesn't just have a few Islamic depictions of Muhammad which prove the fact that such depictions were once considered acceptable: no, as a result of Islamic outrage on the talk page we now have almost as many merely ornamental pictures of Muhammad in his article as there are ornamental pictures of Jesus in Jesus. For further examples of reactance (psychology) at work see the pictures at Goatse.cx and autofellatio, where Wikipedia is being defended against perceived attempts to make it a "clean" site by keeping photos that most of our readers consider shocking in the most prominent position. Hans Adler 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information?
In wikipedia, there is a creationism article, an allegorical interpretation article, a tree of life article, a genesis article, etc.. If we are trying to provide a useful reference then our current article should be consistent with the other articles in Wikipedia. Someone keeps placing material on this page that not only contradicts the other articles but is factually inaccurate. Perhaps the word myth is appropiate since some of the reference material on this page is myth. It is one thing to insist on a particular title, but it is something else to place factually incorrect information in the body of the article. The incorrect information is POV driven and the wording in the title from an American idiomatic perspective shares that same POV. My conclusion is that since the body of information contains a singular POV inconsistent with the other wikipedia articles on this subject that the title is also being generated from that same POV. Wikipedia is dedicated to bringing knowledge to everyone - wouldn't it be nice if the information in this article at least attempted to do that?Deadtotruth (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that very passive-aggressive question you end with, you're going to need to be more specific about the "incorrect" information you're saying is in the article. Otherwise, this is vague hand-waving. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like he's trying to fix them.EGMichaels (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deadtotruth, I reverted all of your recent edits, but don't necessarily disagree with them all. But this article is a battleground, and it would be best to go slowly (one smallish edit at a time) if you want to see your work accepted. PiCo (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So you reverted edits that you don't disagree with. It is impossible for any edits to be accepted if you are reverting items that you agree with. That makes absolutely no sense. I have restored my edits. I will be happy to revert them myself if you have something better or if there is something factually inaccurate in my edits. My edits eliminated several factual errors on the page - some were minor but others were glaring mistakes. Even more importantly my edits served to bridge this topic to several other existing articles in Wikipedia. I noticed that you even deleted links to other wikipedia articles concerning this topic. Deadtotruth (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@PiCo: Please lets not get into the business of reverting good faith edits on this (or any article) especially considering that there is an active ANI open now. @Deadtotruth: PiCo does have a good point regarding this article. There is an active ANI, user RFCs and one hell of a lot of attention on this article. I applaud and appriciate your fine example of WP:BEBOLD but given the current quagmire and high emotions here it's probably best to discuss changes on the talk page before making them. I've been reviewing your changes and while I may not wholly agree with everything I find them to be easily in the realm of good faith edits and do see that you've fixed some outstanding issues. I'm by no means trying to stifle good faith editing of this or any article, just suggesting that your editing will probably be much more productive (e.g. less reverts, changes, potential for edit war etc...) if you are willing to tolerate at least a brief disussion regarding your proposed changes / sources first. Nefariousski (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nefaiousski, IMO your edits in the past throughout Wikipedia are excellent. As you yourself have indicated by creating your ANI page we have descended into chaos when individuals such as PICO admit to reverting edits that they don't disagree with. I would be happy to discuss any changes that I have made and as I offered earlier I will revert them myself if someone has something better to offer or finds a factual error. So far my edits which have removed two factual errors on this page have been reverted at least four times. I haven't seen anyone including yourself speaking up for eliminating factual errors on this page. This is atypical behavior for you since most of your edits deal with correcting factual errors, typos, and vandalism. Your personal page indicates that you are an atheist. My assumption is that your beliefs are based on your sense of truth. Hopefully you have enough integrity to stand up for the truth. Myths occur for several reasons 1) The writer thought that they were writing facts and were wrong 2)The writer chose to incorporate symbols representing the truth in a semi-historical framework to evoke greater thought than mere facts would elicit i.e. spenser's fairy queen, gullivers travels, orwell's animal farm 3)readers are convinced the work contains complete fiction based on a contemporary understanding that is flawed i.e. the iliad (while the iliad is a fictionalized account of troy nonetheless schliemann (sp?) was able to reproduce the geographic details and prove that the city of troy did exist in antiquity despite the consensus of scholars who believed that everything including troy was a metaphor and therefore fiction. The problem with the current article is that it is written from the POV of 1) and ignores 2) which is supported by a host of scholars both modern and ancient including Schaff, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, etc. Robert Gray's mythology provides a thorough analysis of the subject with many examples of perspective 2) which are often difficult for the layman to discern. Most of the refs on this article are written by people who are scholars concerning one subject and are layman in others. This article fails to address in any meaningful way perspective 2) which was prevalent in both Judaism and Christianity until the 3rd century and has adherents in modern times. Deadtotruth (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "The Genesis creation myth is the Jewish and Christian faiths' sacred history" is inherently illogical since it can be reduced to "myth is history" which is contradictory. Nowhere do the Jewish and Christian faiths state that "The Genesis creation myth is sacred history". Someone should reword this. I'm open to suggestions. I've made a stab at the reword. I would also note that Genesis is not limited to the Jewish and Christian faiths but that several other faiths and offshoots adhere to the account in Genesis - Mandeans, Manicheans, Moslems (partial), Ebionites, Samaritans, gnostics, etc.

This ref is antedated. It was written in 1899 and we now know that neither the babylonians nor the sumerians nor the akkadians used a seven day sabbath. See wiki article sabbath. Can someone either replace this ref or get a better one?Hogarth, David G and Samuel R Driver. Authority and Archaeology, Sacred Texts and Profane: Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical and Classical Literature. New York: Charles Scribner's & Sons. 1899 (p.18: "It is difficult not to agree with Schrader, Sayce, and other Assyriologists in regarding the week of seven days, ended by a sabbath, as an institution of Babylonian origin. The sabbath, it is true, assumed a new character among the Hebrews; it was divested of its heathen associations, and made subservient to ethical and religious ends: but it originated in Babylonia. If, however, this explanation of its origin be correct, then it is plain that in the Book of Genesis its sanctity is explained unhistorically, and ante-dated.") Deadtotruth (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss changes to article on Talk page first
PiCo: I see you just deleted a section from the article. Your edit may be a good one, but in articles - like this one - that are controversial, it is best to discuss all (non-trivial) edits on the Talk page first. I suggest that you revert your change, post a brief explanation here, wait a couple of days for responses, then make the edit. The key goal is bringing sanity to the editing process. You can set a good precedent for us to all follow. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I reverted your edits.  The section is sourced and while it may not warrant being a separate section the information adds some value, lets talk first.  Nefariousski (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander and Nef: The section itself was an edit, a major addition to the article made in the last few days. It's up to the person who wants to add it to argue the case for its inclusion. The case agaqinst it is: (a) Philo is not important enough to merit a whole subsection on his views; and (b) its an intrusion into a section which is meant to be a simple, non-interporetative summary of the the two chapters. Incidentally, I've been editing this article longer than anyone now present, and while this doesn't imply ownership, it does imply that I have an understanding of the previous editing history that lead to the current article structure (or in other words, why we should keep the Narrative section free of interpretations, even by the great Philo of Amexandria, who is probably the second most important figure in the history of Christianity after St Paul).PiCo (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Your explanation for deleting sounds reasonable.  If anyone disagrees, they will reply here soon.  Some editors only login to WP every few days, so I'd wait that long before acting on the proposal. --Noleander (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen (Pico and Nefariousski) your words lack integrity. You ask for everyone else to provide discussion prior to editing while you make wholesale edits without any prior discussion. I noticed that the lead is now completely changed and is without proper references. Fair warning, I will remove obvious POV in the lead that is unsupported with refs. I will tag the areas that need refs and unless I hear some sort of response will edit the tagged areas. Unlike yourselves I will provide prior warning.Deadtotruth (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What "wholesale edits" do you accuse me of making? The only edit I've made was reverting PiCo's deletion of the Philo section and asking that PiCo discuss the reasoning here before doing so.  Please don't be so rash in questioning my integrity.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pico completely rewrote the lead mainly with unreffed POV and removed reffed material with no explanation. Since you were aware of this and chose not to either do or say anything about this rash act then you are guilty of a double standard in editing wherein you complain strongly when the lead is changed to a neutral POV but say and do nothing when the lead is completely changed to a biased POV. Integrity is often inconvenient for your allies as much as it is for your opposition. I am pointing out your lack of integrity concerning criticizing editing the lead in this article. I expect you to hold both your allies and your opposition to the same standard concerning all portions of this article not just the minor portions. You identified yourself as someone upholding a standard of editing and made an appeal on that basis. Do you uphold a standard of editing for all or do you uphold a double standard? Deadtotruth (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pico is citing a blog as a source. I'm eliminating the material associated with the blog since it has not been peer reviewed. Secondly, the blog material doesn't support the text that he has posted. Perhaps he is confused? If he can find a better source then he can re-edit.Deadtotruth (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I eliminated another supposed source by PICO that indicates there isn't a consensus. Moreover PICO is listing blogs, emags, and not properly documented refs. For instance, his refs do not supply page numbers so that they can be verified. Refs without page numbers will be eliminated if I can't find the supposed source - since two of PICO's refs that I could find did not substantiate his text. This is becoming a real POV problem. I think something should be done if PICO continues to create erroneous refs for his POV.Deadtotruth (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The ref for the Bablonian sabbath is problematic. The ref dates to 1899 when it is erroneously thought that the babylonians practiced a seven day sabbath. The babylonians practiced a 15 day sabbath as we now know - see sabbath article in wikipedia. Also, in case you are unfamilar with the babylonian mathematic system - the babylonians could only represent the number 7 as a fraction and therefore avoided mentioning the number in almost all of their sacred texts whenever possible. In any case the ref is outdated and incorrect in modern times. perhaps pico can find something less medieval as a reference. I am eliminating the sentences stemming from this currently erroneous text.Deadtotruth (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Expanded lead
I've expanded the lead so that it now summarises all the various sections. Refs can be added from the body of the article. PiCo (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to
 * the sanctification of the seventh day as the Biblical Sabbath;
 * I thought this wasn't established until later (i.e. not in Genesis)? Ben (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I had in mind but I've since realised the definition of sanctification I had in mind wasn't so good either. Nevermind. Ben (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With regard to the sanctification of the seventh day as the Biblical Sabbath; Professor Samuel Rolles Driver (1899) states that the Sabbath's origins have been traced to Babylonia by numerous scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries A.D.: "It is difficult not to agree with Schrader, Sayce and other Assyriologists in regarding the week of seven days, ended by a sabbath, as an institution of Babylonian origin. The sabbath, it is true, assumed a new character among the Hebrews; it was divested of its heathen associations, and made subservient to ethical and religious ends: but it originated in Babylonia. If, however, this explanation of its origin be correct, then it is plain that in the Book of Genesis its sanctity is explained unhistorically, and ante-dated." (p. 18. David George Hogarth & Samuel Rolles Driver. Authority and Archaeology, Sacred Texts and Profane: Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical and Classical Literature. New York. Charles Scribner's & Sons. 1899) --Tediouspedant (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pico, I liked the following addition to the lead that you made now that it is properly referenced - "The genre of the Genesis story is difficult to classify, it has been variously described as: mythic history (i.e. a myth taking place in historical time); as ancient science (in that, for the original authors, the narrative represented the current state of knowledge about the cosmos and its origin and purpose); and as theology (as it describes the origin of the Earth and mankind in terms of God)."Deadtotruth (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough -- the reference makes sure that this isn't a pronouncement from the Wikieditors (still a problem because of the title), but a referenced range of views.EGMichaels (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
I have sent Deadtotruth a vandalism warning for repeated removal of references to numerous mainstream biblical scholars. The username seems appropriate. Please monitor and report any future suspcious editing by Deadtotruth --Tediouspedant (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nefariousski where are you? PICO has listed several refs that do not substantiate his text. He has listed blogs and misquoted articles. Now I'm being cited for vandalism for removing erroneous citations. It would appear that Tediouspedant and Pico are willing to stop at nothing to keep their POV. You and your cohorts have recently started an ANI and are trying to gag those who oppose you. I notice you are still silent. Someone needs to clean up PICO's mess and I believe it should be you. I expect a response concerning the editing by PICO. I also expect PICO to remove his ill cited text or support his refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadtotruth (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tediouspedant, let me get this straight. Pico without warning or any attempt at justification eliminates the sections of the lead that I contributed. My contributions had relieble refs. He replaced reffed material with unreffed material. Then when I requested refs he cites unreliablle refs like blogs and emags and other sources without page numbers. Then you give me a vandalism warning when I try to clean up his refs - notice that I did not replace text like pico did but I get the warning. Did you give Pico a vandalism warning for completely wiping out the lead? You, Pico,and Nefariousski all seem to enjoy the same double standard. Deadtotruth (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Deadtotruth - I have observed your game. You question every bit of common-sense statements that you don't like and demand sources for each word. When sources are cited you remove them and question their credibility. I have attempted to offer sources for everything - and to focus upon the works of biblical scholars and books published by university presses. You may not personally like the conclusions of biblical scholars such as Professor Richard Elliot Friedman (Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Georgia), as stated in his "The Bible with Sources Revealed", but you can hardly deny that his views represent a mainstream academic position. Don't remove academic sources on the basis of personal prejudice. --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tediouspedant - unlike you I don't have a double standard. My info that was deleted was reffed. I consider it a courtesy that if my reffed material is deleted that it is at least replaced with material that is also properly reffed. You seem to be a sockpuppet since both you and PICO seem to mysteriously have the same reference material at hand. I noticed that some of the refs that I complained about have now been fixed even though you issued me a vandalism warning for attempting to do the same. My problem was that the refs given didn't support the text - PICO was merely listing blog, emags, and books that didn't confirm his text. Refs that don't support the text should be removed which is exactly what I did and I see that some of the erroneous refs have now been corrected. For instance, http://biologos.org/blog/scripture-evolution-and-the-problem-of-science-pt-4 has nothing to do with the text and I notice that it has now been replaced. As far as the ref for Friedman the ref wasn't properly noted since it did not have a page number and furthermore it also doesn't support the text as written - I detest it when people misquote sources on the basis of personal prejudice. You should remove the ref or give the page number and make sure your posting conforms to the source - so far you haven't done this.Deadtotruth (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a vandalism warnig to PICO concerning his wholesale deletion of reffed material without presenting any justification for his actions.Deadtotruth (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tediouspedant, I expect an apology from you. I notice that the refs that I removed have all been changed. Therefore my removal of them was justified since they were erroneous. Furthermore I expect you to retract your vandalism warning since your own edits confirm that my edits were correct. Editing to correct errors is not vandalism. Deadtotruth (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement that The genre of the Genesis story is difficult to classify, it has been variously described as: mythic history... ancient science.. and as theology is so obviously correct that it needed no sourcing. I however gave a reference indicating the views of the biblical scholar Professor Kenton Sparks on this matter - which you removed even though this obviously indisputably indicated his academic views. When you removed my reference I put back a more authoritative refderence to his book, which unsuprisingly expresses the same common sence view given in the previous reference. --Tediouspedant (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious, although I appreciate the fact that you are trying to add nuances of meaning into the text, those specific nuances are prohibited by the current title "Genesis creation myth" because "ancient science" falls under the prohibited "informal meaning" of the word "myth" as "commonly believed but untrue." Under a different title your information would be possible if well reffed.  And that brings me to another problem -- Deadtotruth has already fixed several informal and poorly reffed problems in the article.  Rather than edit war and warn, I would encourage you to collaborate.  Best.EGMichaels (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious as I stated, I removed the erroneous ref http://biologos.org/blog/scripture-evolution-and-the-problem-of-science-pt-4 which has since been replaced with the correct reference. You are acting in bad faith by mistating my action. Both articles were written by Professor Kenton Sparks however the first erroneous reference has nothing to do with our article. Look it up yourself and see if you can find anywhere in the article reffed any connection http://biologos.org/blog/scripture-evolution-and-the-problem-of-science-pt-4. After checking that ref and finding a complete disconnect I started checking what few refs had been made in the lead and several exhibited the same problem. So I proceeded to delete the refs that I was able to find that were erroneous in that the content in the ref had nothing to do with our article. It is not enough to mention Professor Kenton Sparks if you cite an article by him that doesn't support your text.Deadtotruth (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pico's third revert of the Philo material was a 3RR violation. I would suggest that if Pico has any further interest in editing the Philo article that he discuss it prior to unilaterally deleting it. Pico requested that I post any further warnings on this discussion page. So I have. As I noted to Pico three different editors warned him about deleting the Philo ref without notifying anyone or discussing it prior. Deadtotruth (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Deadtotruth, I think you get up to 3. 4 would be a 3rr violation.  In any case, even 1 or 2 can be edit warring.  I'd like to give you my compliments and welcome your work here.  I also note Alastair Haines is new to this article and also doing good work.  Your edits are turning a propaganda vehicle into a real article.  Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you EGMichaels, I've never seen so much resistance to getting everything properly reffed. No wonder this was one of the most poorly reffed articles in wikipedia. Half of the editors delete ref material and then issue vandalism warnings and gag actions not to those who are deleting reffed articles but to those who are trying to get the refs in place. Just remember what happened to the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. Apparently it works similarly here in the land without proper refs - those who are trying to get properly reffed material in place are considered mutants. Deadtotruth (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I'm in the middle of an ANI attempt to gag me from trying to get consensus to happen.  Consensus was being faked by intimidation.  Don't let it get you down.  You're doing excellent work!EGMichaels (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tedious, I'm still waiting for a retraction both to your warning and to your misrepresentation of my actions. The ref that I removed from professor Sparks had nothing to do with our article but the new ref from Prof. Sparks does. As anyone can see, the following ref placed in our article was done so erroneously in the lead section http://biologos.org/blog/scripture-evolution-and-the-problem-of-science-pt-4. In fact you should thank me for bringing it to your attention so that the article and the ref tagged to it would read correctly.Deadtotruth (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Deadtotruth, you have no authority to warn anyone about anything. Your behaviour here is verging on bullying. Please desist and edit in a more restrained and collegial manner. PiCo (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Philo
I've moved the material on Philo down from the Narrative section to the Theology and Interpretation section. The Narrative section is meant to be a simple summary of the text of Gen.1-2 without interpretation, to help the reader understand the remainder of the article and what's being discussed in it. The Philo material is about interpretation and clearly belongs elsewhere - Theology and Interpretation seems appropriate. Beyond that, I still am not convinced that it belongs in the article at all - it's simply not normal practice to have a whole subsection devoted to the work of one obscure and very ancient source. (The idea Philo expressed can still be covered, but not like this). Pending that explanation, however, I'm willing to let it stand. PiCo (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's your POV and POV is unacceptable. Previous refs concerning this material which were deleted by you support the concept that verses 1 and 2 address an indeterminate period that preceded the physical creation of the universe. Time cannot exist without space (the universe). Philo addresses this point in Allegorical interpretation I.3 and Augustine addresses this concept in his work on metaphysics. This leads to several important concepts such as God pre-existed time and is unaffected by time which is unlike the pagan religions where the pagan gods are affected by time and do not control time (The heliand preface addresses this). In any case, both Philo and Augustine based on their understanding of time indicate that creation took an indeterminate amount of time since not only were the six days of creation involved but the indeterminate period prior to the creation of time. Thus verses one and two have nothing to do with the six days of creation but precede them. You keep changing the narrative section to erroneously concluded from your unreffed pov that verses one and two are somehow part of the six days of creation. These verses address creation prior to the six days. Now I have two refs in addition to the ref that I already supplied that support my change in the narrative. The narrative as you keep changing it is factually incorrect. This is now your 4th deletion of Philo from the narrative and each time you have made the narrative read incorrectly. It may be lost on you that the concept in physics that time does not exist without space proceeds in an unbroken line of discussions from Philo through Augustine to medieval and modern physicists and is part of the foundation of the current theories involving the relationship of space and time. This incredibly important subject only comes to light in its ancient origin in Genesis when it is realized that verses 1 and 2 address the period prior to the creation of time subsequent to the beginning of space. Not only is this possibly the most important scientific concept to stem from Genesis but it is also interesting that the connection between time and space can be traced back to at least philo. Now the narrative as you have it may be simple - but it is simply wrong and it contridicts what you know about the Genesis narrative. Please move the material back so that the narrative correctly reflects the division between verse 2 and verse 3. Who else believes this to be an important point? Now is the time to speak up since PICO is tampering with reffed material and dumbing down the article so that it will fit his pov that is unsupported by scholars.Deadtotruth (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would submit that this is not an obscure source. This source leads to augustine's extensive writings on time and space as well as Einstein's statements about the ideas that he formulated concerning time and space have their foundation in Genesis. The fact that you have expressed ignorance is still no excuse for moving the material prior to there being a discussion. I expect you to move the material back unti we hear from everyone and if we can't agree we send it to an arbitrator.Deadtotruth (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Philo isn't obscure for this subject. He was one of the foundational sources for allegorical or symbolic understanding of the Bible -- which is precisely what this article is about.  It would be like saying that Karmann was obscure car company in an article about a Karmann Ghia.EGMichaels (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Philo could not be called obscure - but nor does he have any more claim to be included in the introductory narrative than do another dozen ancient or modern theologians and philosophers. Arguments that his views are important because they are true is clearly a POV. I have no objection with a balanced presentation of his views appearing later in the text together with the views of other major thinkers on this subject. --Tediouspedant (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious -- what the heck are you doing? This is the talk page, and not the article.  The ARTICLE has been POV for months now and you haven't put those tags in.  Dead SEEMS to be explaining the source that Pico keeps deleting or moving around.  You can't DEMAND a source that you are DELETING.  That's just bizarre.EGMichaels (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is utterly ridiculous for Deadtotruth to complain that POV is unacceptable then to immediately follow it with a whole paragraph giving his own highly questionable POV on his favorite philosopher. Time cannot exist without space (the universe) is clearly not a universally held view nor self-evident even if it happened to be true - and stating that it is an incredibly important subject is certainly a personal POV. --Tediouspedant (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * POV is quite welcome on a talk page. The fact that you agree with the POV of a source is not necessarily an argument against it -- unless you are using that source to create a prohibited meaning.  The only meaning prohibited by the current title is myth as "something commonly believed but untrue."  The Philo quotation does nothing of the sort, but in fact falls under the REQUIRED meaning of myth here -- a formal one that is more akin to "symbolic" than "untrue."  You're shooting great bullets but aiming at the wrong target.EGMichaels (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deadtotruth, after 24 hours you haven't advanced any modern scholarly sources to support your edit. The idea that chaos was the original state from which Genesis begins is one of two possibilities, based on the grammar of the text - this is explained in our article. You can't favour one over the other - that's pov. Let me point out that my object here is simply to produce a well-written article - an entire subsection devoted to one thinker is simply out of the question. If you can introduce the same idea, without relying so totally on Philo, I probably would have no problem (although I'd like to see it put in the right place, not under the Narrative section).PiCo (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pico, the article already contains scholarly refs, however, I do intend on adding more. Nonetheless your object appears to be to abvance your Babylonian motif. Personally, I think many aspects of the Babylonian motif should be expanded in this article. However you are advancing a single POV and seem intent on deleting reffed material concerning Genesis 1:1-2 that contains anything other than your hypothesis. You are edit warring with several individuals concerning Genesis 1:1-2 and you have been warned several times concerning deleting other peoples contributions. This article should be NPOV but since you keep deleting any POV other than your own this page continues to stay in a state of POV. Please stop edit warring with everyone concerning Genesis 1:1-2. I only became interested in the Genesis 1:1-2 when I saw you wipe out another editors material in the lead with no stated justification. So I added refs and expanded the theme since I figured it could use some more refs. It doesn't matter how many refs are added you continue to delete material in a way that has been identified by several editors including myself vandalism. Part of the problem is when you delete material you are proof reading the result and we end up with bits of pieces everywhere like a hand grenade went off. Each time multiple editors have to clean up your mess. The mess you leave behind from your mass deletes easily moves your actions from edit war to vandalism since the page doesn't read correctly after you mass delete things.Deadtotruth (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't parse this sentence
"According to Bible scholar N.T. Wright, one of the biggest exegetical who are resistant to the idea of evolution is a literalist reading of scripture—in particular, the text of Genesis 1-3, which details the creation of the earth and its inhabitants."

Is there a word or phrase missing that I'm not seeing? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Good catch, Lisa!EGMichaels (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Content does not match an ambiguous title
The content of the article does not match an ambiguous title such as "Genesis creation story". The original article that survived an AfD was ultimately destroyed and no longer exists. THIS article is limited to mythic interpretations of Genesis.

There are good scholarly sources to explore the symbolic coding in the Book of Genesis. It's not just the creation account, but there are mathmatical correlations between the ages of the patriarchs and the ages of the Sumerian dynasties.

I have two concerns.

First, although it is legitimate to explore the creation account from a mythic perspective, it is not legitimate to use a title that says this is the only possible perspective. Wikipedia does not create truth, but rather expresses notable and reliable references to different subjects and cross references to related views. So the following are ILLEGITIMATE titles for articles:


 * Genesis creation facts
 * Genesis creation framework
 * Genesis creation history
 * Genesis creation allegory
 * Genesis creation myth
 * Genesis creation literature

In each case, the title would be saying that there are no other notable or reliable views. The following examples would be LEGITIMATE titles for articles


 * Genesis creation interpreted as fact (creationism)
 * Genesis creation framework interpretation
 * Genesis creation interpreted as history
 * Genesis creation allegorical interpretation
 * Genesis creation interpreted as myth
 * Genesis creation literary analysis

Now, these are not the only possible legitimate titles, but they are merely an example of titles that do not deny the existence of other articles and other perspectives.

In any case, "Genesis creation account" while a possible umbrella article to link to other articles, is NOT THIS article. For the same reason "Genesis chapters 1 and 2" would be a DIFFERENT article from THIS ONE.

Sorry folks -- but what could not be accomplished by the AfD in 2007 was accomplished by other means. The old article wasn't DELETED, it was just REPLACED.

NONE of the proposed titles, therefore, works. We need to brainstorm, and we need to brainstorm TOGETHER. It's that little Wikiword called collaboration.EGMichaels (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: EGMichaels — why would Genesis chapters one and two be a "different article"? I don't understand that. As I see it, "Genesis chapters one and two" would be a perfectly suitable title for this article. It is a bit unwieldy. But I can think of no other drawback. I see it as very much sticking to the subject. It merely specifies what the article is about. It does not hang any additional meanings or implications onto itself. Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At my count this is the seventh thread you've created in less than four days. Ben (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right -- I'm still trying to find one that you'll collaborate in.EGMichaels (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean, you still try to get everyone to change to what you want. · CUSH · 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels, since you do not appear to accept WP policy or guidance on mythological subjects, we are at an impasse here. You simply do not like the word "myth" because of its informal meaning.  Nonetheless, the formal meaning is clearly preferred by a number of policies, and derives from reliable sources such as academic literature.  Our acceptance of this is why we cannot "collaborate" with you.  Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick?  It seems unlikely that repetitively adding further threads here will persuade us otherwise unless you bring something new that is supported by reliable sources and in line with policy.  Your (continued) indignation about a particular word is not enough.


 * And fragmenting the article along the lines you describe above is unlikely to help. Not least because, in suggesting "Genesis creation interpreted as myth" you are wilfully (I'll use that bad word again) misreading what is meant formally by myth.  A myth, understood in this sense, can be literal, poetic, metaphorical, allegorical, a ripping good yarn, two separate stories jammed together, etc.  These are not precluded by it, although if one interprets myth informally, well ...  --P LUMBAGO  13:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Ben (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too many threads are being created, & frankly find your contributions very diffuse & wandering, though clearly well-meaning. The bulk of the article consists of a straight description of the Genesis myth/story/account text which fortunately no one seems to have much of a problem with. There are a number of compact paragraphs describing various perspectives on it - these seem fine to me (I don't follow all the changes), and they go perfectly well in the same article. It is not true that "THIS article is limited to mythic interpretations of Genesis." - it has a short para on Creationism, as it should - all there really is to say is that creationists believe it to be true, with links.  I am perfectly happy myself with the use of the "unbrella term" creation myth myself, and the para on that last time I saw it, but clearly others are still not.  All this is a wholly different matter from the article title, which was slipped in with virtually no discussion of it as an article title, and clearly fails WP:COMMONNAME badly, as well as being to my mind clearly intended and insisted on as a WP:POINT provocation to literalists.  Absolutely no convincing evidence has been offered to justify "Genesis creation myth" as the standard or most common name used for the specific subject of this article, which is bercause it clearly isn't - see the stats at "this must stop now".  It's a simple point. The last RM close specifically looked forward to another proposal in the future, and we will have one.  Supporters of the current title need to focus their arguments for its retention as a title, for which arguments as to its use as a general term are not relevant.  I hope all goes well with the birth - congratulations! Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has certainly become a battleground, but I don't see any need for conflict. This is a big encyclopedia, with lots of room for various viewpoints to be represented. Certainly there should be articles that focus on the religious/theological aspect of Genesis, but there also needs to be an article on the view of it as a creation myth, just one of dozens of creation myths from around the world. Having two such articles is not a POV fork, it is just a reasonable division of content. I suggest that the Book of Genesis article be the primary article for content involving faith and creationism, and that this article focus on the literary/historical/sociological aspect of Genesis as just another creation myth. Don't forget that this encyclopedia needs to represent a world-wide view, and just because many editors may come from Judeo-Christian societies, they represent only a fraction of the world's population so there is no reason for a Judeo-Christian slant to dominate the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander — this discussion concerns the title. There is little disagreement over material found in the body of the article. That is where the Wikipedia policy of NPOV comes into play. But that has not even become a major issue. The issue is what title best serves the entirety of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander — no one is objecting to the characterization of it as a creation myth — in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the arguments being made for the title are the exact same arguements that were made when there was the discussion about using "Creation Myth" at all, and then repeated in further discussion about using "Creation myth" in the lede. The only thing that changes is that now we can cite WP:UCN as another policy that supports the usage of the term.    Nefariousski (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — Are you saying that Genesis is not the "…most common English-language name of the subject of the article"? I find here (WP:UCN) that, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." Please explain to me why Genesis would not qualify as "the most common English-language name of the subject." Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, what I'm saying is that you are repeating the exact same thing over and over and over and over (deep breath) and over and over. Once consensus on using "Creation myth" in the artucle was clear then the exact same discussion with the exact same points was repeated for using it in the lede.  Then when consensus was reached on that point.  The exact same discussion with the exact same points was repeated for using it in the title.  Then when consensus was reached on that point and the title was changed we repeated again, then when that RM was shot down in favor of consensus we started ALL over again.  Your refusal to get the point doesn't make your repetitive arguement any more valid.  We use "Genesis" in the article and there is already another article named "Genesis" if you want to bring up a new suggestion how about you request that the two articles be merged?  I'm pretty sure it will be shot down on grounds of article length alone but at least it would be something new.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ... the hell? I don't even know what you're arguing now, Bus Stop. This article isn't "Genesis" alone, that has its own article. Seriously, you need to figure out what your objection is and state it plainly. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand That Feeds — sorry if somehow I was not clear. I did not suggest a title of Genesis. What I was trying to suggest for a title was: Genesis chapters one and two. Please tell me what objections if any you might have for "Genesis chapters one and two" as the title of this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Genesis chapters one and two" holds no information what the article is about. The article is about what Genesis chapters one and two contain. They contain the literary version of the Jewish creation myth. And because that myth is shared by Christianity we don't call it Jewish creation myth, but Genesis creation myth. The content nevertheless is a creation myth. Maybe we should call the article "Judeochristian creation myth", because it essentially doesn't matter how and where that myth is written down. It's its content that's the issue of the article. · CUSH · 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — there has been much disagreement about what additional material the title can contain. We all agree that this article is about "Genesis chapters one and two." I do not hear you disagreeing about whether that information, as far as it goes, is correct. Disagreements concern what additional information should be contained. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — my contention is that we shouldn't be characterizing it in any way. "Your side" arguably has objected to more "characterizations" than "my" side has objected to. You have objected to "story," and "account," and "according to." Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is because "my side" sees no reason to treat abrahamic religions differently and not apply the same terminology to their ideas how the world came into being through supernatural activity.
 * Why are you ok with having "Greek creation myth", "Ancient Egyptian creation myth", "Hindu creation myth", etc. but not "Christian and Jewish creation myth"? The only reason is your personal position. · CUSH · 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * x3 (FFS people, slow down!)
 * My first objection is that it's a rather vague and unwieldy title, not to mention unlikely someone will be searching by that name. Second is that the placement of the story (chapters 1 & 2) isn't the actual subject; the creation myth itself is. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — this article is what we should be focussing on. This article is not being treated "differently." Each article is its own article. Each religion is its own religion. We don't start with the container and say, "What's in it?" We should be starting with the contents. The contents need not be characterized in identical fashion as other similar articles characterize their contents. The articles you mention certainly could use overhauls of their titles. A more open and inclusive approach to naming this article has advantages, and those advantages might be applicable to some of the other articles you are making reference to. There is no need to pigeonhole a human cultural entity. Religions and other manifestations of cultural output are multifaceted. These multiple facets are covered well in the body of an article. They are handled less well in the limited space of a title. NPOV can be fully deployed in the expanse of the body of an article to create a full and a well-balanced article. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:WTA disagrees with you. All of those related creation myth articles should be using the exact same conventions to avoid violating WP:RNPOV.  Read the TLDR version on ANI to see a short list of other creation myth articles that supports the point.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — I'm not sure what you are reading, but WP:RNPOV says nothing about titles. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But it does clearly state "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 in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, 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.
 * as well as "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction"


 * In short it's perfectly acceptable and in fact encouraged WP:WTA to use the term "Creation Myth" since it is clearly a formal term with no informal secondary definition. Concerns that readers may confuse formal and informal meanings are not valid arguments and as such should be left out of the discussion.  Objections to use of the phrase in the article (including the title) on the grounds of having sympathy for one POV or claims of offensiveness are moot as well.  A section can be written in the article to document that some people of faith take offense to the term "Creation Myth" if you can find reliable sourcing but that does not extend to not using the term in the article.  Feel free to read the WP:UCN and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV sections of the ANI I posted last night if you want the cliffs notes version of those policies as well.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet again you rush to confuse use of the term in the article and in the article title. The title should be chosen on normal WP:COMMONNAME principles, which the current one badly fails, but I'm sure Sumerian creation myth passes.  Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Myth" is not a pejorative word (unlike "fantasy" or "lie" or "invention"), it is a word that mainstream theologians are often happy to use in relation to the Bible as they often see the metaphorical meaning as being of more significance than any literal meaning. The Christian apologist C.S.Lewis often referred to the Bible as "true myth" and the theologian Karl Barth refers to it in similar terms. For more info read The Word as Truth Myth: Interpreting Modern Theology by Gary Dorrien (Westminster John Knox prress 1997). --Tediouspedant (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Copy pasted from ANI post regarding WP:UCN

Usage of "Creation Myth" in the title has been furthermore contested after the first article RM, another RM was started about a week later to remove the term from the title, that RM also was declined and closed (albeit with some arguement and complaint regarding it possibly being closed too soon). UCN tells us "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article", considering the vast majority of cited sources including archaelogical, scientific, historical and other scholarly/academic writings use the term "Creation Myth" as opposed to other colloquial variants the title meets UCN. Furthermore the usage of "Creation Myth" abounds in reliable sources doing a quick google search shows that its use clearly meets the "common usage" section of UCN "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name" UCN also tells us "Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. " alternatives such as "Story" or "account" imply value judgements regarding veracity one way or the other (Story most often being defined as fiction, account commonly being used in factual / historical context). Additionally changing the name causes a loss of precision (also discussed in UCN) since "Creation Myth" is the formally defined academic term and as such doesn't allow for any ambiguity (only one definition) whereas other alternatives do. Some editors have brought up different variants of google tests that show "Creation Story" or some other suggestion to have more "hits" than usage of "Creation Myth" again we look to UCN for guidance and see "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." which tells us that we should value accuracy above hit counts when colloquial and non-arcane formal terms are in consideration for a article name. Nefariousski (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally per WP:COMMONNAME we should "observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." all of which almost universally use creation myth. (unsigned by Nefariousski)
 * And likewise: ... despite constant assertions to the contrary from Nefariousski and others, the current title performs extremely poorly in usage among academic RS, and does not come close to passing WP:COMMONNAME. Enormous amounts of effort have been expended demonstrating that creation myth is a general term often used in scholarship of many types to describe the Genesis account, but until Dbachmann came along, almost none to establish what are actually the most common specific terms for the Genesis account.  These turn out to be permutations of "story", "account" or "narrative" rather than "myth":
 * books 324, scholar 74
 * books 375, scholar 97
 * books 655, scholar 467
 * books 712, scholar 997
 * books 636, scholar 361
 * books 656, scholar 610
 * books 455, scholar 105
 * books 613, scholar 174
 * books 608, scholar 122

The two "story" searches produce 1,464 gscholar hits vs 181 for the two "myth" searches, over 8 times as many. The rfc concerned use of the term "creation myth" (nb, as opposed to myth) in the article text to describe the Genesis account; I & other editors have no objection to that at all - it should be there. The very different issue of what the title of the article should be was hardly touched on. The first requested move debate, which the second no consensus close defaulted to, had only the nom + one "support" in bold, and closed after only 4 days. A ridiculous amount of WP:OWNership has been shown by the "myth" party, who have plastered the top of the talk page with highly tendentious "FAQ" & other notices, attempting to suppress discussion. At some point a further move request to a title that can be justified under COMMONNAME - probably Genesis creation story - will be proposed, and should succeed. The last close by Vegas saw the need for further discussion before such a proposal, and that is what is happening.

Now that Nefariousski is finally engaging with the stats, he will have to do a lot better than that. The fact that the Genesis account certainly can be described as a "creation myth" does not mean that any other term is necessarily less accurate or inaccurate; that is simply baby logic. The claim that "...major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." ... almost universally use creation myth" is simply not true, as any look at the various searches above will clearly show. Or try the New York Times, London Times, BBC or any "major English-language media outlets".  But I'll save those figures for later.  I'm glad you recognise the priority of the Commonname test anyway.  Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you think is "Genesis creation myth" included in the article Creation myth? Because it is a creation myth. And as you can see in the Creation myth article tzhat there are numerous other. So why should Judaism and Christianity be an exception? · CUSH · 20:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — There isn't an equivalency between Genesis and creation myth. Creation myth is a characterization of Genesis. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like "car" is a characterization of "Mercedes Benz" ? · CUSH · 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no good thread to put this in, but this is the least bad thread to use. I've proposed a minor clarification in the guidelines of Words_to_avoid. I've added "symbolic literary structure" to the formal meaning of the term. This agrees with Frazer (of The Golden Bough), Graves (of Greek Myths), and Campbell (virtually his entire body of writing). As Graves argued, myths were encoded symbols to communicate some kind of truth. Although not literally true, they were designed to be symbolically true. Even words like "Ambrosia" could encode a recipe of mixtures designed to create a (real) semihypnotic drink, for instance. In any case, the informal meaning to avoid is "something commonly believed but untrue." As I've argued elsewhere, there are only two ways to avoid "commonly believed but untrue":


 * 1) Not commonly believed
 * 2) Not necessarily untrue

A dead religion falls under the first category. One could contrast "mythologies and religions" in a formal sense as "dead and living religions."

"Symbolic" however, can be used for both dead and living religions. Although portions may be taken literally, not all of it necessarily is. If symbolism is embedded in any part of the structure, the term "myth" can be used in a formal way.

I've welcomed Ben and King to discuss or revert/discuss (anyone else is welcome). But I'm hoping this isn't necessary. There is ample reason to clarify the formal use so that we do not continually argue here or elsewhere about myth in the informal sense.

The proper sanity check for the use of "myth" in a sentence or source, then, should be:


 * If the word "symbol" or "symbolic" could be substituted, it is being used formally.
 * If the word "false" or "falsehood" could be substituted, it is being used informally.

In a few cases this may be unclear, and more precise wording may be needed even if the term were intended in the formal sense.EGMichaels (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also -- please note that in a refusal to discuss the SUBJECT, Ben has decided to discuss MYSELF. The ANI is at Administrators%27_noticeboard/EGMichaels. Hopefully we can focus the conversation on topic at some point in time. Perhaps this ANI may help us to do so.EGMichaels (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that the current article is expanding beyond a mere study of the relationship of Genesis to ancient Near Eastern myths. We may need to explore the scope of the current article, and what needs to spill into another article on Literary Analysis and or an umbrella article linking all of the existing Genesis creation articles (there are now at least 4).  I think that we should keep adding material and sources, but eventually discuss scope and what should be left here and what should be exported to other articles.  Most of the material is excellent, and I don't want to see it disappear -- but we'll eventually have to organize it.EGMichaels (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs by N. T. Wright?
Afaprof01 added four paragraphs of text about what N. T. Wright says about the "myth" classification. Now, it seems well-sourced and all, but the text is quite long. It's currently about 450 words out of the article's approximately 4500 words total, that is: about 10% of the prose in the present article. Two questions then naturally arise: Personally, I think the four paragraphs could do with some trimming in order to keep the article focused. What do others think? Gabbe (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it too long?
 * 2) Are his views shared by the scholarly mainstream? That is, is it due?


 * Among other things, it would be much better if these points were sourced to written text rather than a <5 minute video. Not only that, but they could easily be interpreted as merely representative of one person's opinion.  Surely there's a broader seam of material that can support such a viewpoint?  --P LUMBAGO  08:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What Afaprof01 contributed is clearly in line with the spirit of the WP:RNPOV section that states "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction." However I don't think it stylistically fits the article and could use a bit of editing or a few additional sources to look a little less like like WP:OR. As it stands 4 paragraphs based on a single source that doesn't seem to be peer reviewed or have any editorial oversight does in my opinion bring up questions of WP:UNDUE.  Nefariousski (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the above comments. I hadn't noticed the sense of preponderance that it adds. That was not my intent. Thanks, Nef, for your assessment and suggestions. Please give me a day or so to work on it. Thanks for the constructive suggestions. To those who don't know, N.T. Wright is one of the most well respected contemporary Christian theologians. He also is Bishop of Durham, but that has no direct bearing on this article, nor on the overdoing by an overly enthusiastic editor :-) ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is (or should for that matter) be bringing up questions of Wright not being a good source for what you intend to show in the article. I think most of the issues were one of style or 1/10th of the article being based on only one source (see WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE).  Nefariousski (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I was responding to "Are his views shared by the scholarly mainstream? That is, is it due?" ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: I'm not saying Wright is some fringe crackpot, what I am saying is that it would be preferable to quote at least one other mainstream scholar as well if we're going to devote four paragraphs to the issue. Nevertheless, everyone seems to agree that the section is a bit wordy.
 * Now, a totally different issue: I looked at the video, and the text below it doesn't appear to be a transcript, but more of a summary. As such, anything sourced to the text below the video would have BioLogos Foundation as its source, and not Wright himself. I'm not sure we should rely on the summary being an accurate description of Wright's views. Gabbe (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Near East context
Can it really be claimed that this creation account, instead of a borrowing or a historicizing of ancient myth, it is fairer to say comes closer to a repudiation of pagan ideas about origins and mankind when the story, however radically modified from preceding Mesopotamian versions, retains substantial polytheistic elements including divine beings resembling Mesopotamian Gods (the Serpent [Genesis 3:1] and the Cherubim with flaming swords [Genesis 3:24]) as well as repeated use of the plural word Elohim in reference to God? Cherubim are cognate with the Assyrian term karabu, Akkadian term kuribu, and Babylonian term karabu -all referring to deities who guard gateways. The Serpent resembles Ningishzida "lord of the good tree" - a Mesopotamian deity of the underworld.--Tediouspedant (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was added by . While it is attributed, I don't think the source represents the consensus view among scholars. If so, then it can be removed per WP:UNDUE. Gabbe (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's quite clear that Genesis is not polytheistic. The parallels to pagan deities may be either 1) merely linguistic (which I doubt) or 2) deliberate demotions (which seems to be the case).  Demoting pagan deities is quite common even into the modern era, where pagan rites and holidays were "baptized" into holidays of saints.EGMichaels (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not use the word pagan for adherents of other religions. It is an arrogant, derogatory, and divisive term that seeks to label non-believers in the biblical deity as savages and third-class humans. · CUSH · 17:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He's using "pagan" in the neutral, scholarly, and formal sense. (not in the informal sense as a synonym for "cruel") You're clearly quite concerned about use of terms that are considered derogatory or polemic by select groups of people. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * CUSH - I guess the question is whether there is another neutral, scholarly, and formal term for 'pagan' that does the job and that has less negative connotations for the layman? I'd welcome an alternative if you can suggest a good one. --Tediouspedant (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Tedious, I've found that when talking about BC times, the term "gentile" can often be substituted if anyone finds "pagan" offensive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think any term that people use about themselves can be considered neutral. There are modern self identifying pagans -- simply meaning polytheists or animists.  As for the repudiation of Ancient Near East myths, that does not mean that this isn't a myth itself -- merely that it repudiates other myths with a different theistic view.  Part of the problem is that we are dealing with the text itself, which may have been originally written anywhere from 1400 BCE to 600 BCE. From Moses to Ezra is a huge stretch.  It, then, either reflects a henotheistic view or a monotheistic view.  Again, a bit of a stretch.  Nevertheless, it is easy to find scholarship that recognizes both the commonality and the differences between this text and ancient near east creation myths.  This has similarities to them and differences.  A repudiation would take common symbols and give them a new impact: in this case creation ex nihilo.  Again, that doesn't make this non-myth, but it does make it unique.  In the context of this article, if there were nothing unique about the Biblical creation account, there wouldn't be a point to having its own article at all.EGMichaels (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm not offended by either word. Gentile, unlike pagan, will surely offend no-one, but in the two contexts in which 'pagan' (now 'gentile') are used it seems that 'Babylonian' would be more precise. Surely the claim being made (Matthews and Jacobson are given as the sources) is that the text was rewritten specifically as a repudiation of a Babylonian creation myth - not as a rejection of Egyptian, Canaanite or Greek beliefs. --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gentile, in my opinion is far too broad to be used in this context. It applies to pretty much ANYONE who is not part of one of the israelite tribes (e.g. not a Jew in its common contemporary meaning) whereas using Pagan used in the context of the scholarly sources in question has specific focus towards polytheistic religions of Europe and the middle east which adds more clarity and specificity to the article.  The sources for the most part use Pagan and there's no reason why this article shouldn't mirror the source usage.  As for the edit warring and general grief above please knock it out.  Follow WP:BRD and keep a cool head.  There's no reason to not include Philo and Rashi and any other notable, prolific source on the subject of various interps of Genesis.  The article is nowhere near being too long and frankly the more analysis that is included the more academic the article becomes and therefore fewer NPOV accusations are likely to arrise (and hopefully the article will end up higher on the quality scale).  Nefariousski (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The final (c 450 BCE?) text of Genesis is clearly written by people who had become monotheists, or at least henotheists, and the other divine beings in the story, I agree, appear to be deliberately demoted Mesopotamian Gods. Biblical scholars could, and do, explain this in at least two ways. Either monotheism gradually evolved from polytheism as one or more gods (eg El and Yahweh) became (or merged to become) the dominant God of the Israelites, whilst other Gods (eg Asherah and Ba'al) became minor gods and then lesser divine beings OR the polytheistic elements are more consciously and deliberately demoted. Both are academically respectable poitions and both can be reconciled with your comments. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think that the best we can do is give notable and verifiable options.  I'm researching these now.  Hopefully both the options you gave will be easily sourced.EGMichaels (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'd certainly associate versions of the 'gradualist' hypothesis with Mark S. Smith [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco : Harper & Row, 1990. and The origins of biblical monotheism : Israel's polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts, New York : Oxford University Press, 2001), with William Dever [Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Israel, Eerdmans, 2005] and with Frank Moore Cross [Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel Harvard University Press; New edition edition (29 Aug 1997)]. Maybe critics of these interpretations can provide references to authors and books presenting other interpretations. Apparently a good and extensive review of current and past theories is presented in Robert Karl Gnuse, No other gods : emergent monotheism in Israel, Sheffield, Eng. : Sheffield Academic Press, c1997chapter 2 Recent Scholarship on the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel (pp. 62-128). --Tediouspedant (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to a good overview by Mark S. Smith of recent (1990-2000) thought on competing theories that have been proposed and debated since the publication of his The Early History of God. I'm not sure whose website it is but the article itself appears balanced and academically sound to me. --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have to check it out, but... I think the baby might be coming today. God may have to wait...EGMichaels (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * False alarm. I WILL have less time, but not no time... yet.EGMichaels (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted this line from the end of the Ancient Near East Context section: Thus this creation account, instead of a borrowing or a historicizing of ancient myth, may be seen as a repudiation of gentile ideas about origins and mankind.(K. A. Mathews, vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), p. 89.) The problem here is that thew source, K.A. Mathews, is putting forward a pov. There's nothing wrong with that in the original context - he was writing a book, so he was entitled to express a viewpoint. But it's not ok for Wikipedia, which has an obligation to express all major viewpoints, ideally beginning with the most important and ending with the least. And Mathews' pov isn't the majority one among scholars - it's very much an ultra-conservative Christian one. The commonest academic view of this is that Genesis 1 was written by Jews who had been in direct contact with Babylonian texts, probably during the Exile, and were writing in the post-Exilic Persian period with the explicit aim of countering Babylonian myths about the might of Marduk. Even Gordon Wenham, an Evangelical Christian, explains the babylonian background in this way. No mainstream, non-conservative scholar would use the words "gentile" or "pagan" in this context, either. All in all, it's probably better not to include this at all, but if something along these lines does go in the article, it should be in the T^heology and Interpretation section, and it should begin with the mainstream view (though it would be interesting to include Mathews as well.) PiCo (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of questions: 1) how does eliminating a POV represent all POVs. You say that "Wikipedia... has an obligation to express all major viewpoints" and then eliminate the view point of the people who actually belong to a religion based on this text.  And 2) exactly how is "repudiation" not the same as "countering."  You eliminated sourced material that represents a major POV under the stated mandate of expressing all major POVs, and you eliminated sourced material about repudiating Babylonian myths under the stated view that they were not repudiating, but countering them.EGMichaels (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, after reviewing your edits both now and in the past, it seems that you have a problem with the concept of creation ex nihilo, in spite of the fact that this is the mainstream view of the first two verses of Genesis. There is an entire article on this subject in Wikipedia.  I'm not sure why you are doing it, and I'm not sure it's important that I know why.  But you deleted three different sourced references from three different editors.  At least two of them desscribed creation ex nihilo, and at least two of them described the Genesis account as a repudiation of the Babylonian accounts.  Well -- OF COURSE they are.  Imagine if the Romans wrote a myth that heracles was really a bad guy.  Both of these would be myths, but one would repudiate the other.  Even more confusing, as I stated above, your stated reason for objecting to "repudiation" was that these were "countering."  There isn't any substantive difference between the two.


 * Apologies if I deleted something useful in reverting back, but you had run so rampant over so many editors that there was no other good way to go about it. Please slow down a bit so we can all keep track.EGMichaels (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I left the text the way the greatest number of yesterday's editors wanted it: myself, Afaprof, Gabbe, Deadtotruth. My only issue is Pico's deletion of sourced material from Til Eulingspiegal, myself, and Deadtotruth.  Can we please slow down a bit so we only run over one editor at a time?EGMichaels (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, I'd agree with your comment about the mainstream view about how the Genesis creation myth was derived from Babylonian myth. It could be indicated that this 'gradualist interpretation' (whatever it's correct name) is the mainstream view - which would then allow minority POVs (clearly indicated as such) to be mentioned later rather than being deleted altogether. --Tediouspedant (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then where exactly is the line between minority POV and fringe POV? · CUSH · 16:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, while it is well attested that the ancient Hebrews were using Phonecian letters (symbols) in a Caananitish grammar (symbols) to answer, respond to, repudiate, or adapt Babylonian mythic images (symbols) -- it is not FRINGE to see unique characteristics in this particular narrative. If there were nothing unique about the Hebrew narrative, there would be no point to it having its own article.  If you were right, we'd have to delete this article and just have one on the Babylonians.  The two, while sharing similar symbologies, are very unique from each other.EGMichaels (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ? What does the use of language have to do with content? And to what are you replying? Your comment fits to nothing that I wrote. · CUSH · 13:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was agreeing with you that they were using similar mythic symbology. I merely added the detail that all communication carries some form of symbology.  We make sounds or letters that symbolize our thoughts -- rather than relate them directly.  Myth is a larger unit of communication.  Instead of using symbols (sounds or pictures) to convey literal meanings, they used symbols to convey symbolic meanings.  Symbols are adapted from either our collective unconscious or the larger culture in which we live.  You and I did not make up the symbolic letters we use to type to each other.  The Hebrews used pre-existing letters (symbols) with pre-existing grammar (symbols) to adapt or repudiate pre-existing mythical symbols of creation.  But this adaptation or repudiation does not mean they have no unique characteristics they added on their own.  In the end, though related in some ways with Babylonian symbols, this is not itself Bablyonian mythology.  This is now a Hebrew account with its own points, agenda, and meaning.EGMichaels (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what the Hebrew "account" contains. And it draws heavily from older myths and traditions, no matter how much it twists its sources. What is your point?
 * What does that have to do with my question for a POV significance threshold for inclusion in the article?· CUSH · 13:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of ANY scholastic sources that believe the Genesis author(s) were not intending their own spin. They were forming their own religion, even if only for unique national needs.  Identifying that uniqueness does not detract from your point that they were using earlier symbols, but merely recognizes that they were creating, whether gradually or not, their own national religion.  This isn't fringe.  This is nigh on universal.  EVERY mythology did that (at least every one that I ever heard of).  You keep thinking that "unique" means "true."  It doesn't have to be.  Relax.  It's okay.EGMichaels (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't read what PiCo and Tediouspedant wrote, have you? And don't tell me what I think. And may I ask how old you are? · CUSH ·  14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, of course I read it. To make it even more clear: co-opting is a form of borrowing.EGMichaels (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But then claiming to have original truth is fraud. But that only on a side-note. And it still has nothing to do with my question about the criteria for the inclusion of other views. · CUSH ·  14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, Wikipedia does not try to prove or disprove a religion. We merely report notable and reliable views.  In any case, the mainstream view is that these symbols were co-opted.  It's a form of borrowing used to repudiate something.  The view you are trying to block contains your own view, rather than negating it.EGMichaels (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no comprehension problem. Stop assuming things I do not even hint at. Tediouspedant was referring to views other than this, and that was what my question was referring to. On the other hand I made a side-comment about the religionist postion that Genesis is the true and original word of God, which is of course, um, inaccurate. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Cush, it is not inaccurate. You disagree with the position.  That doesn't mean it isn't both accurate and true.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, if I say, 'I'm no superman', I'm using a pre-existing modern myth to say something new (though unoriginal) about myself. It remains a true statement, even if it is using pre-existing cultural symbols to express it.  I made no comment about whether or not you were Einstein.EGMichaels (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But you surely recognize how a statement like "I am superman" draws on the same pre-existing modern myth and is far away from being considered true. Recycling myths does not make the new stuff more probable or even more true, especially when you know that the tradidions you re-use are not reflecting reality in the first place. Although I appreciate Sumerian myth for its elegance I am well aware of the difference between the worldview of the ancients and actual history and cosmology. And again, that has nothing to do with my question. But I suppose you just like to fight me on all the fronts you can set up. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although it would not be true for a man to say, "I am superman," if his WIFE were to say he was superman, that would be another thing entirely. Most men would grant that there were some truth of the matter before a woman would actually say it...  As for your familiarity, I think that you do have a rote familiarity with some of the history involved.  It's your processing that rote information that becomes the issue.EGMichaels (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ... WTF? That... doesn't make sense at all. Look, let's get off the superman metaphor and back to discussing the article, please. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand, you were the one who demonstrated that the article cannot be fixed when those proposing the "myth" usage are unable to avoid an informal meaning -- in ANY context. If we are going to use so poor a choice of title, the editors using it need to have some kind of idea of how to use it.EGMichaels (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Alterations to the lead
In the last 24 hours there have been substantial alterations to the lead. I find this quite an unacceptable way to proceed. If any editor wants to introduce such major changes, please discuss them here first. PiCo (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, I notice a consistent pattern to delete sourced material from multiple editors. You have a particular interest in ex nihilo.  Even from a mythic perspective, ex nihilo is a well documented aspect that can be seen in this narrative.  You may be confusing your lack of belief in ex nihilo with the narrative account of ex nihilo.  This is myth.  You don't have to believe it literally to recognize the symbology embedded in it.EGMichaels (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand my concerns and the direction of my edits. Ex nihilo is one of two possible interpretations of the Hebrew of Gen.1.1, the other being the ordering of pre-existing chaos. Both translations are equally valid - the Hebrew simply cannot be translated into only one or the other. This is well explained in the body of the aricle (under the section Exegetical Points), and I want the lead to reflect that. PiCo (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Afaprof01, you made massive changes throughout the article including the lead. What is your overall objective? It would be helpful if I knew where you were going with your changes. I liked alot of what I saw and was curious about certain actions. Nonetheless you affected the work of over a dozen editors in a single massive edit without discussing it with anyone first. Deadtotruth (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair question, DTT. The article has been stalled, as you know. I thought it better to do the WP:Bold routine than bring everything up in advance for discussion, given the rather disastrous history of doing that in this article. I don't consider any of my edits controversial, and it's time to move on, IMHO. I've done so much fresh research that I'm concerned lest it get stale in my mind. I've wrestled with a flow and what would fit where. It seemed to come together for me and I acted.
 * As you've doubtlessly noticed, I'm staying away from the Mythic title controversy for now and trying to get productive again after so much lost time and energy. The paragraph I wrote on the Creation Myth is an attempt to explain the myth view to myth-dissenters (including myself), and at the same time explain from scholarship why it elicits such strong feelings for most everyone.
 * No intent to be arrogant with the move-ahead; I just think it's important to get the ship off the reef for article improvement, ignoring title issue for awhile. Hope this answers some of your questions. Re: "curious about certain actions," please don't hesitate to ask if not answered herein. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism?
The Brooke source is used to substantiate the statement "Scholars sometimes interpret flare-ups in that direction as defensive reactions to attacks from neo-Darwinism" at the end of the lead. Is "attacks from neo-Darwinism" really the phrase used by the source? I can't read the source since it's behind a paywall (at ). Gabbe (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds a little unlikely, although I also cannot access the source (Zygon isn't carried by our library). The idea that neo-Darwinists "attack Genesis" seems rather unlikely since science is utterly unconcerned with the content of Genesis.  It's only when science is questioned by adherents to a literal interpretation of Genesis that neo-Darwinists (or other scientists; biology does not have a monopoly on disagreeing with Genesis) are liable to "attack" (= retaliate).  Anyway, clarification would be good here.  --P LUMBAGO  10:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly does Scholars sometimes interpret flare-ups in that direction as defensive reactions to attacks from neo-Darwinism mean? Is it a direct quote from the source? What is a flare-up anyway? Is this a reference to the sporadic re-emergence of literalist Young Earth creationism in the US Bible belt? If so then why not say so? Young Earth creationism is not even mentioned in the sentence. If this is what the sentence is about then the flare-ups were in response to inclusion of mainstream science in the curriculum, not in response to promulgation of any neo-Darwinist ideology in schools. --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This doesn't sound like a scholarly source or statement - I'll remove it. PiCo (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes and References error
There's an error here that I don't know how to correct. All the 114 references are currently listed in the "Notes" section and the "References" section is empty. The only genuine note (an important one) is the first one. Every other entry is a reference. Can someone sort this without losing all the references in the process!). --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone screwed up by putting the note in "reference" tags, which messed the whole thing up. Should be taken care of now, though we may need to tweak the name "Note." It's a bit ugly as is, but it's all I had time for while at work! Will try something better when I get home. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

POV in The narratives prologue
Some of the statements in this section appear to offer one specific interpretation of the texts where it is likely that there are several. I don't think the interpretations are invalid - but if there are other interpretations they should be mentioned too (with sources). Three examples:

1. The claim that: The modern division of Genesis into chapters dates from c. AD 1200, and the division into verses somewhat later; the distinction between Genesis 1 and 2 is therefore a relatively recent development. seems to be a clear POV and attempt at apologetics. The two narratives are not distinguished on the basis of the current chapter numbers but on a change in style and terminology and plot. The break between the two texts is not claimed to be between the two chapters but between Genesis 2:3 and 2:4. Many, probably most, contemporary biblical scholars would question this claim.

2. The claim that Genesis 1:1-2 Identifies the indeterminate period that God created space and time ex nihilo (out of nothing).[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] whilst well-sources (indeed excessively so) still represents one POV to the exclusion of others.

3. The claim that The two subsequent narratives do not merely repeat or demythologize oriental creation myths, but use this to polemically repudiate them. is again a POV. Maybe a perfectly respectable POV (Mathews?), but still a POV. I'm fairly sure that a substantial majority of contemporary biblical scholars (Smith, Heidel, Cross, Dever, etc) conclude that they are more directly derived from the Babylonian texts during a gradual transition to monotheism. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)'


 * It is an established fact that Ex Nihilo is associated with genesis 1:1-2. It is not a matter of whether you belive in Ex nihilo or not. It is simply that Ex Nihilo as a topic is associated with these two verses by scientists, philosophers, theologians etc. If you want to add another POV by all means do so. I've enjoyed several of your insights concerning parallels between the babylonian myths with the creation account in Genesis on the talk page and have wondered why you haven't added them to the article. You and Pico are advocates of excluding POV's other than your own. I'm not opposed to any number of POV's in the article as long as they are well reffed. On the other hand you only want to see your pro-babylonian POV to the exclusion of any other sourced information. Your double standard is a blatant POV violation of Wikipedia policies. The action of other editors to add sourced refs of other POV's other than the one that you are advocating is not a violation of POV policies in fact they are the essence of NPOV. Wikipedia needs well balanced NPOV articles if it is going to reach its objectives. There are several editors contributing to make this an NPOV article - hopefully you, pico and nafourrski (sp?) will join in and cease your single minded POV efforts.Deadtotruth (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious --
 * I'm not sure that one is either here or there. I don't think it's a point either way.
 * Ex Nihilo is the standard take on Genesis, and well attested in both ancient and modern scholastic writing.
 * My quote is from Wenham. I can add more.  One can derive something from another source and repudiate that source at the same time.  It's called co-opting.  I think the Genesis author(s) did the same thing with Babylonian myths that Ben Tillman did with this article.  He took something that was already in existence and turned it into its near opposite.  More from Wenham (Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1), page xlviii:
 * "These similarities between biblical and non-biblical thinking, however, are overshadowed by the differences. Jacobsen points out that despite Genesis's 'probable dependency on the Mesopotamian version of origins' we must also note how decisively these materials have been transformed in the biblcal account, altering radically their original meaning and import."  Again, to make this clear, let me give an example about the present article:
 * "The similarity in Wikilinks between the Creation according to Genesis article and the present Genesis creation myth, however, are overshadowed by the differences. I'm pointing out that despite Genesis creation myth's dependency on Creation according to Genesis in the server history, we must also note how decisively these materials have been transformed in the present article, altering radically their original meaning and import."
 * As you can see, then, repudiation IS adaptation (on steroids).EGMichaels (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we're talking at cross purposes. We need to distinguish between what the stories originally meant to the people that wrote them down (i.e. the anthropological perspective) and the orthodox beliefs that have subsequently emerged from centuries of religious debate (the theological perspective). The people who first wrote them down will have inherited traditional stories from oral tradition and will have written them down as they heard them. They would not have analyzed their philosophical implications of order out of chaos v Creation ex Nihilo or adjusted the wording to reflect big bang cosmology or current theories about space and time. Creation ex Nihilo is, I'm sure, the mainstream theological position today - and it probably has been for a long time. That does not, however, deny the probability that the original story is a Mesopotamian creation story describing the defeat of the chaotic floodwaters and the first emergence of land (which is what interests the anthropologist), nor does it deny the probability that the early story was valued for it's meaning. Deadtotruth is likewise fixated with proving the 'truth' of the opening sentence with reference to the latest scientific theories, rather than trying to find out what motivated the original writers to write it as they did.--Tediouspedant (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious -- I'm not sure you're using the right starting place. You can't say that the Mesopotamian myths were the basis for the stories, and then use the anthropological perspective on a later group of redactors.  The redactors made obvious differences.  Wenham quotes Jabosen further: "The 'Eridu Genesis' thakes throughout... an affirmative and optimistic view of existence: it believes in progress.  Things were not nearly as good to begin with as they have become since... In the biblical account it is the other way around.  Things began as perfect from God's hand and grew then steadily worse through man's sinfulness until God finally had to do away with all mankind except for the pious Noah who would beget a new and better stock.  The moral judgment here introduced, and the ensuing pessimistic viewpoint, could not be more different from the tenor of the Sumerian tale; only the assurance that such a flood will not recur is common to both (JBL 100[1981] 529)." Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1, page xlviii.


 * Ancient writers, though not as scientifically based as we pride ourselves to be, nevertheless had mature cultures and intellectual sophistication. Greek mythologists intentionally encoded information into myths and even terms they used within those myths.  Perhaps Hebrew mythologists did the same.  This is not to promote modern quantum physics, but rather to merely recognize that the Hebrew writers did not simply steal Mesopotamian myths en masse like Romans did the Greeks.  They had their own agenda.  An encyclopedic article on this subject must both recognize the earlier material (much like Gilgamesh and the serpent or Utnapishtim and the flood), and show how those adaptations were used to create a world view that was unique in its own right.EGMichaels (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 2) "...God created space and time ex nihilo (out of nothing)..." the Bible does not actually say this. I very much agree with Tediouspedant that such an interpretation of the first sentence of Bereshit is dubious at best. There is no information about out of what Yhwh creates the heavens and the earth. And "space and time" hints at something that Relativity deals with, but certainly not iron-age scripture. The first sentence reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" as locations within space and time. There is no talk of how space and time came about. I wonder whether the sources are really saying what is claimed in the article. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 16:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels - I think we're inching towards agreement. We agree (and the scholars appear to agree) that the Genesis text is some form of adaptation the preceding Mesopotamian texts. It is not our task to present original research into why this might be so but, from a NPOV, to indicate the range scholarly views on the matter. There are at least two competing scholarly views on how those adaptations were used to create a world view that was unique in its own right. We need to present and explain both in a balanced manner and indicate how and why they differ. --Tediouspedant (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious, there is a third scholarly view -- and that is that the Hebrews took the language and symbolism that already existed to communicate the concept of monotheism. Part of the problem has to do with the shifting place for a beginning point for the narrative we have now. Let's assume for a moment that the Hebrews started out polytheistic and gradually moved toward monotheism.  Fine, but what about the text itself?  At what point are we to regard the redaction?  With the mesopotamians themselves?  Perhaps, but then we aren't even talking about Hebrews.  With the exodus period (however that's viewed)?  Or with the post exilic period circa Ezra?  If Ezra were the redactor of Genesis, then Genesis is a monotheistic document.  And that's taking the polytheistic idea and the late document ideas in full -- in other words, the most non-theistic view possible.  All of this is ultimately like some Jewish attempts to turn the New Testament into something non-Trinitarian.  However fuzzy it may seem, the text is a Christian one, just as the Hebrew Bible is a Jewish text.  Are there polythestic symbols being used, adapted, or repudiated?  Sure.  But the text we have now is ultimately a monotheistic one.  The argument toward something non-monotheistic is ultimately about some ur-texts that may have been Babylonian, or may have been early Hebrew polytheist, or may not have really existed as the basis for the text we have, but rather as a convenient foil to be co-opted.  And again we end up with a monotheistic document.  This article at least needs to keep that in mind.  We do not have any intermediate texts.  We can try to construct them, but the base religion of those texts will ultimately depend on the views of the modern interpreter (and we are running into that problem here as mere editors on Wikipedia).  The best we can do is to present the view that 1) The Babylonian myths grew into Hebrew monotheism, 2) The Babylonian symbols were co-opted by Hebrew monotheists, 3) The Babylonian myths grew out of an original monotheistic creation doctrine (a more creationist view, but notable... see Hislop's Two Babylons).  Again, with all three categories you end up with monotheism by the time you get to the text we have now.  Fortunately, we have an easier task: we simply list the options and who believes/believed them, and then call it a day.  And in the process we note what the Genesis account has in common with Mesopotamian accounts and what it does not.  The rest is just tightening and organizing.  Higher criticism can only take you so far.  It's interesting, but in the end you are still left with the final text.  Even lower criticism ultimately falters once a redacted text becomes Canon (as the Byzantine did for the New Testament and the Masoretic for the Old).EGMichaels (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly Judaism ends up monotheistic. I don't think anyone advocating either view (or even the third one you mention) would question that. I would view the religion of some of the older books as still being Monolatrism or Henotheism but later books are more clearly monotheistic. As long as the article explains, sources, compares and contrasts these two (or three) views -which I think is what you're now advocating - then I'd be happy. --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I should add that clearly the people of Israel have not been innately monotheist from the beginning of time. To present the Genesis Creation Myth as a rejection of Babylonian polytheism by a purely monotheistic people would be misleading. Many scholars, including Mark S. Smith, Israel Finkelstein and William G. Dever, conclude that Judaic monotheism emerged slowly from Canaanite polytheism - passing through Monolatrism or Henotheism in the process. Mark S. Smith's books, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts present this history clearly. This process is suggested by repeated reference to a 'jealous' god who forbids the worship of the other gods. Worship of the Elohim (a pantheon of Canaanite Gods that included El and Ba'al) appears to have shifted to worship of El and El appears to have been merged with a separate god YHVH. Continuing worship of YHVH's wife, Asherah, was gradually suppressed by the priestly class. Several academics studying Asherah worship of in ancient Israel (such as Israel Finkelstein, William G. Dever, Tilde Binger, Judith Hadley) conclude that monotheism became predominant amongst the priestly class and in association with the temple in Jerusalem long before it spread to rural and more distant areas where the worship, for example, of 'YHVH.. and His Asherah' continued for centuries The archaeologist William G. Dever commented "We do not know for sure what the belief in the god Yahweh meant for the average Israelite. Although the biblical text tells us that most Israelites worshipped Yahweh alone, we know that this is not true... The discoveries of the last fifteen years have given us a great deal of information about the worship of the ancient Israelites. It seems that we have to take the worship of the goddess Asherah more seriously than ever before."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tediouspedant (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious -- I really wanted the Asherah theory to pan out, because of my interest in the transition from matriarchal religions to patriarchal ones. It would have been natural for the primal goddess to have been replaced, subjugated, or married off to the new patriarchal order.  But I've been disappointed with the evidence so far.  Certainly we should mention it, but unfortunately its not compelling enough for even sympathetic audiences to regard it as fact.  There's just too little there.EGMichaels (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your problem comes in with the question of "who is Israel". Even if you start with some polytheistic ethnic group that invented or grew into monotheism, are they "Israel" before or after they finally get to monotheism?  Just as before you had the problem of the final text, you now have the problem of the final people.  For what it's worth, I got real excited when I saw the theory about YHWH's wife because of the problem of how patriarchal systems grew out of the proto matriarchal ones (yeah, my myth interests go a lot further back than the whippersnapper subject we're dealing with now).  In any case, what I've seen so far on both sides of the God's wife issue aren't really impressive.  Again, you are stuck with defining "Israel" and defining "the text."  There are too many variables to say it is settled -- which disappoints me because I love comparative mythology.EGMichaels (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that a tribe or nation can be defined as "beginning" when it's beliefs change. We couldn't say that "France" began in the Age of Enlightenment. You could say that Judaism was not Judaism until monotheism was adopted as a tenet of belief, but any such definition would be arbitrary. Could you say that Moses was not Jewish because he seems to retain an older Monolatrist belief in a 'jealous' god who is in competition with other gods of other nations? And would you define the start to be from when the first temple priests advocated monotheism or from when the last polytheist practices does out in Israel? As with any evolutionary process, when to begin giving an emerging entity a new name is an arbitrary decision. --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's okay for you not to be convinced. I'm not convinced either way.  I merely opened it as a question that people do differ on.  Judaism is a weird hybrid.  A nation?  Sure.  But a weird theocracy.  They had sojourners.  People could opt in (for the most part, though people like male Moabites weren't welcome).  As for "jealous god" -- that doesn't mean that other gods were necessarily considered real.  The argument could (and has) gone either way.  Rather than make an arbitrary decision, we should just list the range of answers and who made them and call it a day.EGMichaels (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, EGMichaels, Rather than make an arbitrary decision, we should just list the range of answers and who made them and call it a day. I entirely agree. That's the way to resolve most of the controversies around this article. --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tedious. If the edit wars and wholesale deletions could slow down for a few days, some of this will trim in a more natural manner.EGMichaels (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tediouspedant - you confuse biblical Judaism with historical Judaism. In the Bible Moses was Jew-ish, but in reality in his time period there was no Judaism as such. Jews were culturally and religiously distinct from Israelites. Jews formed out of the returners from the Babylonian Captivity who mingled with the population that had been settled in former Israel in the meantime. The transition from Israelites to Jews is more like the transition from Jews to Christians, with the same god(s) but with a completely different approach. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 05:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * CUSH - I agree with your POV on this, but we should remember that it is a POV. I don't think we can define when Judaism 'begins' because we won't get consensus on what Judaism is. As EGMichaels says, Rather than make an arbitrary decision, we should just list the range of answers and who made them and call it a day. --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few small edits to the lead, mostly to remove a reference to a writer who is not in fact a Reliable Source (a theoretical physicist is not a biblical scholar) - otherwise I'm pretty happy with what we have now. PiCo (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, the number of editors, sources, and words you had to delete in order to make you happy negates the "we" in your "what we have now." Please stop edit warring over sourced material.EGMichaels (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels, I'm not edit warring, there's simply no reason to have so many multiple refs to support a single point. PiCo (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Philo of Alexandria and edit wars
An editor insists on adding an entire section devoted to Philo of Alexandria, and I keep deleting it, and he keeps re-adding it. We need to end this silly battle. My point is quite simple, and, I think, defensible: Philo isn't important enough to merit an entire section to himself. No-one else has one, why should he? Please note that I have no objection to the basic idea Philo expresses being worked into an existing section, but a whole section just for him is just not on. Comments? PiCo (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've been re-adding it along with Deadtotruth and perhaps another editor or two. It's not just his section and sources that you are deleting.  It's ex nihilo.  I made one of those sections myself, and your wholesale deletions very specifically target the first two verses of Genesis, where God makes "the heavens and the earth" (i.e. everything).  You are trying to return ex nihilo back into the nothing from which it sprang.  But it is well attested from a number of writers both ancient and modern.  Philo's inclusion is appropriate both for his age and his foundational writing pertaining to allegory, which is functionally equivalent to myth (the subject of this article).  The only legitimate way to get rid of Philo or ex nihilo would be to delete this entire article -- which I am not in favor of.  We should have an article on this subject, with these points, and this source.EGMichaels (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ideally the introductory text should not make any dogmatic statements about the meaning of the text as this is a matter for interpretation and the introduction should be restricted to indisputably factual statements about the text itself. Creation ex nihilo (including views of Philo and any other key thinkers on this matter) deserves full coverage in the Exegetical points section [or the Theology and interpretation section (why are these two sections separate??)] - together with reference to any significant traditional theological alternatives to this interpretation. 'Traditional theology' should include theology from all the Abrahamic faiths - Christian, Jewish (inc Philo) [and possibly Islamic - though this is not their text] - and the "Exegetical points" section may need some subdivision to reflect any differences between the three faiths. I am happy to accept that Creation ex nihilo has been the standard Christian theological interpretation of the text (but not the only one) for many centuries even though it may not always have been so. There has also been some proposed dogmatic contributions about the factual truth of Creation ex nihilo, with reference to modern cosmology, quantum theory and the space-time continuum. That does not constitute exegesis in my opinion, so should not go in this section. If we have it at all it should go in another section (a "controversies" section?) that debates the truth, moral validity and consequences of traditional interpretations of the meaning of the text. There are many controversial issues directly related to this story that deserve discussion somewhere - including Original Sin, the nature of Sin, The Fall, the relationship of Humans and Nature, the relationship of Man and Woman, Creationism and Evolution, Religion and sexuality (including Augustine of Hippo's interpretation of this text), Divine command theory versus Consequentialism, the concept of the Demiurge in relation to creation (in Justin Martyr and Plotinus and Christian Platonism), the question of what is wrong with Knowledge of Good and Evil and dozens of other issues. In summary: 1. Take Creation ex nihilo out of the introduction. 2. Put traditional exegetical aspects of Creation ex nihilo (including anything on Philo, his traditional critics and traditional alternative interpretations) in the Exegetical points section. 3. Put anything about the factual truth or inaccuracy of Creation ex nihilo (as well as issues of logic, morality, politics etc) in a new section - possibly entitled "controversies". Comments please. --Tediouspedant (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two whoppers come to mind: 1) we have already made a dogmatic statement about the meaning of this text in the title, and 2) removing actual creation itself from the introduction of an article on creation seems poorly conceived. Genesis flat out begins with God making the heavens and the earth (i.e. everthing).  That IS creation.  The rest is construction.EGMichaels (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Your first comment relies on an incorrect populist use of the word Myth instead of it's correct non-judgmental academic use. 2) I have not suggested removing any reference to creation from the introduction (for the reason you give) - I only suggest removing disputed interpretations of what creation means to another location. Your view about what creation means is a POV. It is unclear what In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1.1) means. In what sense could 'heaven' exist a day BEFORE God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it (Gen 1.7) and then Let there be lights in the vault of the sky (Gen 1.14)? In what sense could 'earth' exist two days BEFORE God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." (Gen 1.9)? It sounds to me as if God 'created' Heaven and Earth by removing and separating primordial water. But that's just my POV. --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious, as long as Ben's ridiculous ANI is accusing me of being unreasonable to ask for an EXAMPLE of a "formal" use of myth that excludes an "informal" use, and as long as you don't object to Ben's ridiculous claim, you can't seriously expect me to have any regard for your ability to exclude an informal meaning. Your claim that I'm using a populist meaning is belied by your unwillingness to demonstrate how you are not.  As for the rest of your post here... exactly what is NOT encompassed by the heaven's and the earth?EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels - 1. I'm happy with the standard Wikipedia use of the words Myth and Mythology - as used in many entries in the Categories: Abrahamic mythology, Christian mythology, Comparative mythology, Jewish mythology, Mesopotamian mythology, Mythological cosmologies etc. If you can indicate more widespread dissent on this matter then I may reconsider my view. 2. What may not be encompassed by heaven and earth (depending on your interpretation of the text) are the primordial waters ABOVE Heaven and the primordial waters BENEATH Earth, which were separated to make space for Heaven & Earth. That was the Babylonian view - and it is unclear whether or not this interpretation is rejected by the authors of the Genesis text (I accept that it was rejected by most or all later Christian theologians) --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious, 1) you haven't noticed all the uproar on this talk page? As for 2) I'm fine with creation from waters being mentioned in the lede as well as creation from nothing.  But this is creation, and belongs to be mentioned in the lede of an article about creation.  I have no trouble with multiple points of view being listed and reffed.  I'm not okay with their being deleted -- by either side.EGMichaels (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels - 1). Yes, I've seen the debate on this page - but this is just one of many articles listed under all the mythology-related categories I mentioned above. Consistency throughout Wikipedia is desirable. If you're not happy with the wider policy then why not discuss it with the editors of those category pages? 2). I'm all for mentioning all significant POVs and oppose deleting sourced material. My proposal was to move all POVs to later sections (not to delete them) because the introduction of an article should really focus on non-contestable factual information. I haven't seen a reason for not doing this. I propose to retain but relocate all POVs in the introduction unless there is widespread opposition or a logical reason for not doing so - but I'd welcome further comments before I do so. --Tediouspedant (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced that Deadtotruth is right in asserting that Philo consistently advocated Creation ex nihilo. Philo wrote a work entitled De Aeternitate Mundi or On The Eternity Of the World, which, as it's title suggests, concludes that the World is eternal rather than having a beginning and that it is impossible that anything should be generated of that which has no existence anywhere. The Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus wrote another work with the same title that reached similar conclusions - as did many Platonists and Neoplatonists. What Philo says in the very opening sentences of this text is:
 * But at present the subject of our consideration is the world, taken in the first sense of the word, which being one only, consists of the heaven, and of the earth, and of all that is therein. And the term corruption is used to signify a change for the worse; it is also used to signify the utter destruction of that which exists, a destruction so complete as to have no existence at all; for as nothing is generated out of nothing, so neither can anything which exists be destroyed so as to become non-Existence. For it is impossible that anything should be generated of that which has no existence anywhere, as equally so that what does exist should be so utterly destroyed as never to be mentioned or heard of again. And indeed in this spirit the tragedian [Euripides, in his Chrysippus] says:-- "Nought that e'er has been / Completely dies, but things combined / Before another union find; / Quitting their former company, / And so again in other forms are Seen."

The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on Philo says:
 * Creation thus took place from preexistent shapeless matter (Plato's Receptacle) which is "the nurse of all becoming and change" and for this creation God used the Forms which are his powers (Spec. leg. 1.327-329). This may seem a controversial point whether the primordial matter was preexistent or was created ex nihilo. Philo's view is not clearly stated and there are seemingly contradictory statements. In some places Philo states, "for as nothing is generated out of nothing, so neither can anything which exists be destroyed as to become non-existence" (Aet. 5-6). The same is repeated in his De Specialibus legibus: "Being made of us [i.e. elements] when you were born, you will again be dissolved into us when you come to die; for it is not the nature of any thing to be destroyed so as to become nonexistent, but the end brings it back to those elements from which its beginnings come" --Tediouspedant (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels, I'm removing "creatio ex nihilo" from the lead, but not from the body of the article (the "Exegetical points" section). The reason I remove it from the lead is that the situation is too complex to be easily summarised there: the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is inherently ambiguous, and supports both readings ("In the beginning God created..." and "In the beginning of God's creation..."). This is well explained in Harry Orlinsky's Notes to the JPS Torah, one of the most thorough yet succinct treatments I'm aware of. It's highly misleading to put anything in the article saying that ex nihilo is the preferred interpretation.

I might add that direct references to Philo are inappropriate - he's a primary source for these purposes, plus he's been dead for over 2000 years. What you need is contemporary biblical scholars - try Robtert Alter's "The Five Books", for example, a very well-respected source. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think if "creatio ex nihilo" comes out of the intro (as I think it should) then it needs to be moved to another section [presumably the Exegesis section] rather than be deleted. It has become the mainstream interpretation of the text and needs to be explained. --Tediouspedant (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because Philo lived 2000 years ago does not make his interpretation irrelevant. Ideally the Exegesis section should give a chronological account of the history of interpretation of this text [from about 500BCE onwards] by Jewish & Christian theologians. There should also be another section covering controversies and criticisms of the text from other perspectives. --Tediouspedant (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pico, you are supporting a single POV for the Genesis creation myth article. You are consistently deleting properly referenced information in the Lead, Prologue, Philo, and Creationism sections that provide information on Jewish/Christian/Philosophic/Scientific research that is pertinent to this article. At times you substitute Pro-babylonian creation myth information for the information on Jewish/Christian/Philosophic/Scientific research. Furthermore various editors on the talk page and in the edit comments have requested that you cease wholesale deletion of properly referenced information. If you want to add reffed information that would be great. However, deleting properly reffed material to support a singular POV is a violation of NPOV policy. Deleting Jastrow and Schaff as non-scholarly references is indefensible.Deadtotruth (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong about deleting sources if the deleted sources are not directly relevant to the article. Specifically, sources on scientific research are not appropriate for statements in the article about how to interpret certain passages in the Bible. Also, per WP:GEVAL and WP:MNA, we do not have to appease all viewpoints in this article, merely the ones most prevalent among experts, mainly biblical scholars. Gabbe (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Deadtotruth, please understand that I'm not supporting a single POV. What I'm doing is pointing out that two interpretations of the Hebrew of Gen.1:1 exist, both possible. Creatio ex nihilo is the traditional interpretation of the Christian Church, but it wasn't so among Jewish scholars (far better acquainted with Hebrew, for obvious reasons), and nor is it by modern biblical scholars. We can't simply state that Genesis begins with Creatio Ex Nihilo. You might like to see the rather comprehensive treatment in the Mercer Bible Dictionary (on p.182);  you might also see Eerdamn's Bible Dictionary, which notes, like Mercer's, that "it is doubtful that the notion of "creation out of nothing" is meant" (page 293). This is standard in scholarly works.PiCo (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" section
With some regret, as I agree with what it's trying to say, I've deleted this section headed Myth:

In academics, the Genesis creation narrative is often described as a "creation myth" or cosmogonic myth''. From its Greek origin, myth is simply defined as a story or legend that has cultural significance in explaining the how's and why's of human existence, using metaphorical language to express ideas beyond the realm of our five senses. It refers to a culture's theory of its origins─a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe, as viewed by that culture or religious group. It does not imply made up works of the imagination.(Wright, N.T. Meaning and Myth. The BioLogos Foundation » Science & the Sacred. Web: 1 Mar 2020. Meaning and Myth.)

''In its popular definition "myth" has become synonymous with "not true". Theologian N.T. Wright, while defending the technical designation of the Genesis creation accounts as mythical, explains that the characterization of Genesis 1-3 as a “mythic” text is offensive to many Christians and Jews who consider their Bible to contain "sacred text." But to suggest that Genesis is both a mythic text as well as the "inerrant Word of God" may require a leap of faith for some, he says. The popular "not true" conceptualization of myth, even if disclaimed by an author, is seen as negatively affecting the reputation of the validity of scripture, historically considered by both Jews and Christians to be the revelation of God.

''Biblical scholars exegete incidents in Genesis and other Hebrew Bible passages as containing prefigurations (prototypes) of cardinal New Testament concepts, including the Passion of Christ and the Eucharist. Any implication that Genesis is mythical in the sense of being fictional would mean that the prefigurations seen in Genesis are similarly fabled, thus invalidating the doctrine that God uses a human or events from the Old Testament to reveal his will in the New Testament.

''A non-literal and non-historical reading of Genesis has negative implications for an evangelical understanding of the New Testament. This is largely because the New Testament, for example in, also refers to Adam and Eve as literal historical characters. A primary reason for fundamentalist opposition to the whole idea of evolution is a literalist reading of scripture—especially the text detailing the creation of the earth and its inhabitants in.

''The issue for Christians is a dual hermeneutical issue: how do we understand Genesis in a way that is in honest conversation with what we know today scientifically and in terms of ancient Near Eastern religious texts that parallel Genesis? Then, how do we handle Paul's understanding of Genesis when he was not aware of the very factors that force our own reconsideration of Genesis. Evangelicalism is not well equipped to address this issue because of its polemical history, some of which N.T. Wright alludes to. To both Jews and Christians, the creation account provides an introduction to the Sinai covenant─information that makes the author's view of the Sinai covenant understandable.

''Wright suggests that the mythological part has been misunderstood and discarded by many evangelicals in favor of a reading based entirely on questions of historicity. Wright suggests that questions concerning the historicity of Genesis and the historicity of Adam and Eve get caught up in contemporary cultural issues and miss the larger story. He argues that...

''"...to flatten that [the text of Genesis] out is to almost perversely avoid the real thrust of the narrative … we have to read Genesis for all it's worth and to say either history or myth is a way of saying 'I’m not going to read this text for all its worth, I am just going to flatten it out so that it conforms to the cultural questions that my culture today is telling me to ask'."

It was implanted in the Exegesis section, but it doesn't belong there - that section is for textual criticism, the explanation of the meanings of possibly difficult or obscure Hebrew, and draws on Genesis commentaries by major biblical scholars. This, of course, is theology. It's also very narrow theology - totally Christian, and from a particular Christian view point at that. Nor are the references at all impressive - the BioLogos Foundation, for example, seems to be someone's personal website, and certainly isn't a scholarly source. Bishop Wright is, of course, a trained theologian, but again he isn't a biblical scholar (the two are not the same). And in any case, Wright's viewpoint is just one such - there are others, and there's no reason why he should be privileged. I suggest that the editor of this piece reduce it to a single sentence and put it in a more appropriate section. PiCo (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Exegesis section should indicate if any points are specifically Christian or Jewish and which are more general points common to both. I assume there is technically no Islamic exegesis because although they share the story they don't have this text. I'm unclear what the difference is between the Exegesis section and the Theology and interpretation section. They seem to overlap. --Tediouspedant (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An entry which has to indicate whether it's Christian or Jewish isn't exegesis, it's interpretation. Exegesis is what you find in the footnotes to commentaries, such as those of Gunkel (a very famous one), Alt, Noth, Friedman, Propper etc. In these footnotes the authors are explaining why they've chosen one interpretation over another. These scholars are specifically trying not to give theology or interpretation. And no, there's no Islamic exegisi of Genesis, as Genesis isn't studied by Muslim scholars. PiCo (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification, PiCo. So should theological views about Creation ex nihilo (and alternative interpretations), including the Jewish/Platonic views of Philo, go in the Theology and interpretation section rather than the Exegesis section? Logically I think sections 3 & 4 should be swapped around - Ancient Near East context should be followed by Structure and composition (as these two concern the origin and development of the text) then Exegetical points should be followed by Theology and interpretation as these two concern the meaning of the text). We also need a section for commentaries, criticism, and views of other faiths or none on the text and its Judaeo-Christian interpretation - including (briefly) any discussion of the scientific or literal truth of the text (Creationism / Creation ex nihilo in physics etc). This should go after the Theology and interpretation section. Do you agree? --Tediouspedant (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)  UPDATE: I've now swapped sections 3 & 4 and added a framework for section 6 on Commentaries, Criticism, Controversies and non Judaeo-Christian views for the reasons given above. If Deadtotruth wants to cover the question of whether Creation ex nihilo accords with modern science then I invite him to add it here and not in the introduction or theological & exegesis sections. --Tediouspedant (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The words "using metaphorical language to express ideas beyond the realm of our five senses" were extremely well written. Part of the problem here has been an agenda to use the term "myth" as something inherently untrue, while abusing editors who complain of not understanding some poorly written formal meaning.  This particular line quoted above is a good example of a formal use of the term -- which unfortunately has not been promoted.  It should be retained in the article.  As for exegesis, ALL exegesis is interpretation -- but it is a method of interpretation that seeks to work from the natural meanings of the passage in its native context.  An exegete would investigate the grammar of Genesis 1:2 in terms of similar grammatical constructions in the book of Genesis, and also investigate this verse in the context of its immediate verses.  An exegete works from the inside out -- hence the "ex" in exegete taken from Greek meaning "from" or "out of".  An eisegete will take his own culture and writings and put them into the text.  In Greek eis means "into".  A Christian or a Jewish exegete will use similar methods, but they will expand their search into different contexts (such as midrash or the New Testament).  Although these different contexts are eisegetic starting points, when used as secondary contexts they can be used to double check the applicability of the primary exegetic analysis.  I would disagree with Pico's assertion, however, that an exegete is not being an interpreter.  He most certainly is!  But the exegete will attempt to follow an inside out grammatical, liniguistic, historical, and contextual primacy that moves from the immediate words and context to broader circles.  While more disciplined than eisegesis, it is nevetheless only a method of interpretation.  Further, while Jews and Christians will have some similarity in an exegetical analysis, they will disagree about certain scholastic assumptions regarding history, linguistics, and setting.EGMichaels (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels, as I said above, I quite like the thought being expressed here, but I don't like the huge amount of space devoted to it - after all, we devote far less to Creationism, or to Jewish interpretations, or the the theology of the original authors. Nevertheless, it's also true that we NEED to cover mainstream Christian interpretation of Genesis 1-2, which is what this is doing. So I'll try to work it into the "Theology of Genesis 1-2" section. Look for it there, but in a shortened form. PiCo (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC) A LITTLE LATER: Sorry, it can't be done. The problem is that Wright - your almost sole reference - is engaged in a polemic against literalists, which prevents him from explaining in any detail his own point of view. We don't need to attack literalism, and in fact we shouldn't - all points of view have to be described, in a non-partisan way. Can you find some other contemporary sources for mainstream Christian approaches to Genesis 1-2? (My own interests tend towards biblical scholarship rather than theology and I have no idea where to go on this - but I do recall the late Pope John-Paul II writing something exactly on this topic).PiCo (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

proposed rewrite of 'balancing act' sentence..
Does anyone know where this sentence in the lead came from?... The account of creation is described as both about order against chaos, and as a balancing act described in the structure of the text and hinted at in the significant acts of separation. I'm not sure to what creation is described as...a balancing act refers. It sounds more like Taoism than an Ancient Near Eastern worldview. The two interpretations covered so far by contributors are "order from chaos" and "order from nothing". The reference [Brooke, George J. "Creation in the Biblical Tradition." ZYGON: J. of Religion & Science, Volume 22 Issue 2], pp. 227–248] is unfortunately inaccessible. I propose changing this sentence to The account of creation is interpreted as either a creation of order out of nothingness or as a victory of order and balance over primordial chaos and darkness -either proceeding through the separation of the primordial waters, the separation of light from darkness, the separation of day from night and the separation of dry land from the seas. I hope that was what was meant. Any objections? --Tediouspedant (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None from me. Looks like you are clarifying what it was trying to say.EGMichaels (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll change it. I'll keep the inaccessible Zygon reference for now in the hope that someone will tell us what it says. --Tediouspedant (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It was poorly written and didn't represent major biblical scholarship I deleted it. PiCo (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead improving
I don't have time to wade in here atm, but it's nice to see the lead improving. In case anyone might find this helpful, there's a rather nice article from Alister McGrath in Christianity Today celebrating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin (B.Th.) 's birth by writing up Augustine's (early 5th century) Big Bang theory. The pub data and a link follow below.
 * "Augustine suggests that Psalm 33:6–9 speaks of an instantaneous creation of the world through God's creative Word,
 * while John 5:17 points to a God who is still active within creation."
 * — Alister McGrath, "Augustine's Origin of Species: How the great theologian might weigh in on the Darwin debate", Christianity Today May 2009.

Good luck all, peace/shalom out Alastair Haines (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On this matter, our lead has to reflect the fact that the Hebrew of Gen.1 is ambiguous, and inherently so - both views are possible, neither is "correct" (or both are). (The two views, incidentally, are that Gen.1 describes creation ex nihilo, and that it describes creation from pre-existing watery chaos - the balance of opinion among contemporary biblical scholars is that the latter was the intention of the original authors). PiCo (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter is clearly Sumerian, which may be due to the fact that the concept was taken from Mesopotamian sources during the "Babylonian Captivity". To speak of "original authors" is somewhat misleading. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 12:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, that is absolutely not true. You keep deleting the first two verses, which clearly establish creation itself and then watery chaos.  The consensus of scholarship leans toward ex nihilo.  Please understand that no mythological symbology is identical in expression or intent.  They differ from each other.  Ex nihilo is a notably and reliably attested feature of this particular text.  Each mythological narrative has something unique about it, or it wouldn't be classified separately from others.  The Genesis account, while similar in places to the Babylonian, is not the Babylonian system itself.  The more you keep deleting sourced material, the more editors will come and add sources.  I've seen this happen in articles in the past, and it leaves an article cluttered with a host of embedded notes stating what would have been obvious to everyone but the editor who kept deleting them.  You were better off with a small single referenced point to ex Nihilo.  Now there are three or four editors piling on ref after ref, and I suspect they will keep doing so until you stop.EGMichaels (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll just chip in here, belatedly, will be back soonish. Want to say how pleased I am that PiCo and EGM are active on this article. I know enough of both gentlemen to appreciate that they are very knowledgeable about sources on this topic. Want to be back soon, because I might be able to mediate a little if necessary. Very best regards to both PiCo and EGM, contributors of the highest caliber (and rather formidable debaters, despite their attractive civility). Alastair Haines (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Commentaries, Criticism, Controversies and non Judaeo-Christian views
Here's my own comment on this proposed new section (but first, the section):

Commentaries, Criticism, Controversies and non Judaeo-Christian views'


 * Non-Judea-Christian views? What non-Judeo-Christian views? The only people who regard Genesis as a theologically valid text are Jews and Christians. (Muslims don't regard it as a valid text - for them, it was replaced by the Koran).

''(proposed section - work in progress) [edit] Coherence and/or internal contradictions of the text See also: Internal consistency of the Bible, Forbidden fruit, and Carnal knowledge


 * See Alsos can be put in the See Also section of the article.

[To include views on whether the two creation narratives contradict or complement one another, whether concepts in the text accord with those elsewhere in the Bible, what (if anything) might be wrong with having Knowledge of Good and Evil, in what sense could be wrong for Eve to eat the fruit before she had obtained Knowledge of Good and Evil etc.]


 * Views on the contradiction/complementarity of the two chapters are already in the body of the article (the view of modern scholars is that two narratives are there, but they've been blended together in a way that produces a harmonious whole). Also, Genesis 1-2 doesn't extend as far the Knowledge of Good and Evil, as the Temptation/eating scene doesn't come till somewhat later in the story. (And also, it's generally agreed by modern scholars that the tree wasn't giving knowledge of moral good and evil, but that the phrase is merism meaning simply "everything" - just as heaven and earth is a merism for everything, although in a slightly different sense).

[edit] Moral issues and interpretations See also: Original sin, Total depravity, Euthyphro dilemma, Pelagianism, Problem of evil, Lynn Townsend White, Jr., and Human exceptionalism


 * Again, See Also links have their own section in the article.

[To include views on (or references / links to) controversial issues such as Original Sin, the nature and inheritability of Sin, The Fall of Man (and of Nature?), the relationship of Humans and Nature (inc environmentalist critiques), the relationship of Man and Woman (inc feminist critiques), Religion and sexuality (including Augustine of Hippo's interpretation of this text and his concept of Total depravity), Divine command theory versus Consequentialism, the concept of the Demiurge in relation to creation (in Justin Martyr and Plotinus and Christian Platonism), the question of what may be wrong with Knowledge of Good and Evil etc [edit] Scientific veracity of interpretations See also: Relationship between religion and science, Creation–evolution controversy, Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, Anthropic principle, and Biblical literalism

[to include controversies around factual matters relating to the text and it's interpretations, such as Creationism versus Evolution and Creation ex nihilo versus the Eternity of the World etc]


 * Wow, big paragraph. But anyway: topics such as Original Sin, etc, don't arise in Genesis 1-2, which is limited to the Creation, and the Biblical creation myth (now the topic of this article, although it didn't start out that way) doesn't include such matters.

All in all, I think the proposed new section is way off-topic - there are already articles for these subjects, and they can't be treated here. PiCo (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Eis nihilo, eh, Pico? Can you slow down a bit?  These wholesale deletions are leaving a slew of holes everywhere, and you're deleting the work of too many editors at once.  Right now the article is in a high state of editing.  It should slow down in a week or two, and then we can start moving and trimming.  We have time.  It's not like anyone's going to read an article with this title anyway.EGMichaels (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with some of PiCo's deletions. This encyclopedia needs an article on Genesis as a creation myth, and it also needs a second article on Genesis as a matter of faith.  Those are two different articles.  The title of this article indicates that it is the former.  Therefore, issues about faith and theology should be mentioned only briefly in this article, and "see also" links should be used to direct the reader to other articles that focus on faith, such as Book of Genesis.  EGMichaels:  if you believe that there is no article yet in the encyclopedia that focuses on the faith/theology aspect of Genesis, please create it.  Alternatively, we could change the title of this article to be "Genesis as a matter of faith", then faith issues could be in this article, but then we would have to create a new article called "Genesis creation myth" ... but that alternative is a bit silly since this article already has that title, no?   I'm not saying that faith cannot be mentioned in this article, only that those references need to be minor.  --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander -- right now we're a bit stuck. There are a number of different articles, and so this article should be "Genesis creation as myth" and just focus on the mythic parallels, ur texts, and perhaps some myths and folklore derived from it.  That would be a fantastic article, have only tangental comments about Philo (since allegory is related to myth) and theology -- but focus primarily on the mythic aspects of this narrative.  There are a number of other articles already in existence, so the only other thing needed to do would be to 1) MOVE the extra Philo and theology content to the articles focused on those aspects, and 2) create a summary article such as "Genesis creation narrative" in which all other angles/articles are summarized and pointed to.  My problem with Pico is that his edit warring is keeping us from seeing what should move where.  With everything in such horrific flux you can't really examine anything.  All I've asked Pico to do is to slow down for a week or two to let the dust settle, and then we can feel our way forward.  BTW, I doubt Ben would agree with my proposal, however, because he feels that creation myth IS the umbrella neutral view and that allegory and history are not legitimate.  While I agree that the Genesis narrative is a creation myth, I disagree about Wikipedia editors using presumptuous titles that impose ultimate reality.  Our job is not so mighty.  We merely report notable and reliable views, say who thought what and when, add a few refs, and call it a day.  If we all avoided megalomania in our job description, we'd avoid 95% of these tiffs.EGMichaels (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that we should move the Philo/theology stuff to other articles; and I concur that there should be an over-arching article (probably just WP:Summary style) that links to the other Genesis articles (although some would say that Book of Genesis should be that article).  Feel free to create that over-arching article, and to move the Philo/theology content.  I think once we do that, the edit-warring stuff should diminish.  --Noleander (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Noleander. I might be a little slow because my wife is getting ready to give birth and my mother in law is here.  But I'll touch base with some of the other editors and see if we can separate the myth from the non-myth and make a summary article.  Thanks for the pointer on the style.EGMichaels (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, since a number of other editors are involved, I'll have to see what some of them say -- Tedious and Deadtotruth and Alastair have some edits in the mix.EGMichaels (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PiCo - my responses:
 * 1. Non-Judeao-Christian views? Yes, there are critiques of the Judeao-Christian view of Creation based on this text (and critiques of the way in which this text has been used) from all quarters. There are skeptical critiques, scientific critiques, political critiques, moslem critiques, atheist critiques etc. I'd rather have them in a separate section than muddled in with the interpretations of those who directly believe in the texts. These critiques come from people who generally don't believe in the texts but they do constitute commentary on the text.
 * 2. The Judaeo-Christian view is generally that the text is true and therefore cannot contain contradictions even if it appears to do so. Theologians have mastered very effective ways of reconciling apparently contradictory texts - indeed this is the central art of theology and is part of what interpretation means. As you say, apparent contradictions will be seen as two perspectives 'blended into a harmonious whole'. This means that any genuine criticism of the text for being contradictory has come from outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition from skeptics whose views, by definition, will be rejected as theologically unsound by believers. That's why they need to go in a separate section.
 * 3. I agree that this section should only cover issues related to the text (Genesis 1-2) and that I have mistakenly included several items from a bit later in the text. I can amend that. --Tediouspedant (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed this section from the main article for now. It really needs to be finished before insertion.  It's not good enough to leave dangling remarks about improvements in an article.  --P LUMBAGO  12:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ex Nihilo and the section "Prologue-In the Beginning"
The is editor EGMichael's favourite hobbyhorse, the idea that Genesis 1 contains a statement of creation ex nihilo. He supports this with about a dozen citations, none of them from reliable scholarly sources. A biblical scholar, to paraphrase Friedman, is a scholar who has a sound grasp of Biblical Hebrew, who publishes in the learned journals of the field (e.g. the JBS), who has his books and articles quoted by his peers, and who is abreast of current developments. None of these qualify:

REF 1: God and the Astronomers, second edition, Robert Jastrow, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 14: “the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”)
 * Jastrow is a theoretical physicist - his thoughts on Genesis have no foundation in the text of Genesis, and the context of the times and culture in which it was written, he's not qualified to talk about the "elements" of the Biblical account (which, incidentally, doesn't mention a "flash of light and energy").

REF 2: Before the Beginning – Cosmology Explained, George F. R. Ellis, London and New York: Boyars/Bowerdean, 1993, 1994, p. 97
 * Like Jastrow, Ellis isn't a biblical scholar - he's a mathematician. He doesn't know Hebrew grammar (or there's no sign of it), he's never published a learned paper in one of the scholarly journals, he's never delivered such a paper to a biblical studies conference, and his book isn't quoted by biblical scholars.

REF 3: “Forty Minutes With Einstein,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 50 (1956), p. 100, A. Vibert Douglas;
 * I see no relevance at all here - Again, Vibert, who was an astronomer, knows no Hebrew, isn't quoted by biblical scholars, and has published no papers in relevant journals. Her argument is essentially that her understanding of Genesis, based on the traditional English translation of the Hebrew, looks like what she's familiar with as a scientist.

REF 4: Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot and Keay Davidson, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, pp. 30, 189;
 * Again, the authors have no expertise in biblical studies and as a result don't grasp that the traditional English translation ("In the the beginning God created...") is not definitive, nor even the favoured translation among modern scholars aware of the Hebrew grammar behind it.

REF 5: Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Nick Herbert, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177;
 * I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over: the author is not a biblical scholar, is unfamiliar with modern biblical scholarship, and is thereby unable to treat the subject in a scholarly fashion.

REF 6: Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, Barry Parker, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202;
 * Barry Parker is a former professor of physics and astronomy. He has never published an article in a scholarly biblical studies journal, and as he admits, his books are popular science aimed at a general readership - this particular book was not reviewed in the scholarly journals.

REF 7: Creation Ex Nihilo: Thoughts on Science, Divine Providence, Free Will, and Faith in the Perspective of My Own Experiences, Benjamin Fain 2007 pp. 30-36;
 * Fain is a "renowned physicist and Soviet refusenik" - but not a biblical scholar.

REF 8: Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God, Fred Heeren, Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 107-108, 121, 135, 157;
 * Fred Heeren is a science journalist, not a biblical scholar - in fact he isn't any kind of scholar.

REF 9: The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers First Series, Volume 1 The Confessions and Letters of Augustine with a Sketch of his Life and Work, 1896, Philip Schaff, Augustine Confessions—Book XI.11-30, XII.7-9; REF 10: The Works of Philo, Trans. C.D.Yonge, Hendrickson Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0-943575-93-1, Appendices A Treatise Concerning the World (1), On the Creation (16-19, 26-30), Special Laws IV (187), On The Unchangeableness of God (23-32);
 * I'm not sure what these references are meant to support. For sure the early Church adopted the ex nihilo reading of Philo very early, but so what? Augustine and Philo didn't have access to the texts that modern scholars have, nor did they have the benefit of modern scholarly tools - their views are important for the development of the idea of ex nihilo in the early centuries of the first millennium, but nothing more. (And they're primary sources anyway - Wiki guidelines say we should stick to secondary and, ideally, tertiary sources).

REF 11: Clontz, T.E. and J., "The Comprehensive New Testament with complete textual variant mapping and references for the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Nag Hammadi Library, Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, Plato, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Talmud, Old Testament, Patristic Writings, Dhammapada, Tacitus, Epic of Gilgamesh", Cornerstone Publications, 2008, p.476, 497, ISBN 978-0-977873-71-5)
 * What is this meant to demonstrate?

This is turning into a very long post, so I'll just conclude with this: we need reliable sources, which these are not, and the normal, in fact universal, reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 by modern biblical scholars is that it does not support an unequivocal ex nihilo reading - for which see the Creation entry in the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible: "Because chaos is the material from which God creates, it is unlikely that the ancient Hebrews held any notion of creatio ex nihilo." (p.182)


 * Pico, I didn't add ANY of those refs. Tedious and I added refs from the Word Biblical Commentary series, one in favor of ex nihilo and one not.  You are running over so many different editors that you don't even know who you're wiping out any more.  PLEASE SLOW DOWN and work WITH other editors in a collaborative manner.  The edits Tedious and I worked on together were entirely neutral and in the realm of well respected Biblical scholarship.EGMichaels (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies to you in that case, but they ramain invalid references. PiCo (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels' "Prologue"
EGMichaels keeps adding material to the effect that Genesis 1 includes a "prologue" as part of its srtucture. This idea is entirely his own - it's not found in any current Genesis commentary, all of which follow the traditional pattern and divide Genesis between Gen.1 and Gen.2 with the toledot "bridge" identified by Freedman some decades ago. If you have evidence that this idea of a "prologue" is widely accepted, then of course we should add it, but I don't think you can produce any. (The quotes in the section I deleted have nothing to do with the structure of Genesis 1-2, which is the question I'm addressing here - I quite agree with what those sources are saying, but they aren't saying that there's a prologue).PiCo (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, I'm not adding a prologue. I'm restoring a prologue originally begun by other editors that you keep deleting.  You have Genesis beginning with the 3rd verse, and leaving 2 verses missing.  Tedious and I neutralized the text with sources from two different volumes of the Word Biblical Commentary -- one supporting ex nihilo from this text and supporting a more Babylonian take from a comment in 2nd Peter.


 * A number of editors are trying to collaborate here, and you keep running them over. I don't have the time to keep recreating your wholesale deletions AND build the article.  I can only do one at a time.  Please let other editors finish their work, and then we can MOVE sourced information to the most appropriate places, either in this article or others that we are identifying as related to this subject matter.  You will most likely get something close to what you want if you work WITH other editors instead of against them.EGMichaels (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, EGMichaels. Can I suggest that ALL potential deletions of referenced entries are proposed here on the talk page first. I have done that on several occasions before making fairly minor deletions, but I'm finding whole chunks of the article are deleted each day without warning - generally by PiCo - which makes me wonder whether it is worth my time contributing at all. If people indicate what they're trying to achieve before they do it then we can all help to make any change as constructive as possible. --Tediouspedant (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify what I'm doing: You're suggesting that biblical scholars believe that the STRUCTURE of Genesis 1-2 includes a prologue. The verifiable fact is that they don't. It's universal among scholars of the subject that these two chapters consist of a P text (Genesis 1) and a J text (Genesis 2), joined by a bridge from a third source. It's a simple question of source criticism, and you'll never find a Genesis commentary that says anything different. Even the sources you reference say this - you're misunderstanding them. Please go back and read them carefully. This is quite separate from the question of whether Genesis begins with a statement of creation ex-nihilo - although again there, the universal consensus is that the Hebrew is inherently ambiguous but that other factors lead to the view that the original authors had no such concept. Again, please go back to your own sources and read them carefully. So, for Tediouspedant, please: I was deleting material that was in fact unsourced, since the "sources" were unscholarly. PiCo (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pico, you've now provided the explanations that you should have done BEFORE making the deletions. I think that both the points you make here are academically sound - but I also think that EGM is the only one here who can read Hebrew so it only seems fair to give him a chance to respond before making such deletions. If you had provided this explanation and then said that you plan to make these changes unless the existing text can be properly referenced there would have been far fewer complaints. It would also have allowed the option of ammending rather than deleting the text to have been discussed. --Tediouspedant (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, the documentary hypothesis is not universally handled. There are too many variables involved.  To give the range, was the ur text of Genesis written by Moses, Ezra, or others in between?  Were the Hebrews monotheist by Moses' time or Ezra's, or another time in between?  The conservative view is that it was written by Moses the monotheist.  The liberal view is that it was written by Ezra... also a monotheist.  Evidence for at least henotheism (and probably monotheism) in Moses' day is the cryptic "I am sent me" to Pharaoh.  Akhnaton's hymn to the sun tells of the creator sun god (a monotheistic deity) speaking himself into existence with the words "I am".  When Moses identified "I am" as HIS God to Pharaoh, he would have been giving a very specific reference that Pharaoh -- post Akhnaton with a restored polytheism -- would have understood as a challenge to his entire royal/priestly power structure.


 * And THAT's just the ur text! Later redactions and translations continued in a monotheistic environment.  The 3rd century BCE Septuagint leans toward the traditional translation we use in English.  The Masoretic pointing also leans toward a traditional reading.  The problem is that you are laboring under too many variables that were eventually superseded by later developments.  1) by the time of the final redaction this text was made by a monotheist, 2) by the time of the first translation (the LXX) the translators were monotheists, and 3) by the time of the earliest vowel pointing the editors were monotheists.


 * Whatever Mesopotamian source materials were used, then, the ur text, the first translation, the Targumim, and the vowel pointing editors have all given us a (go figure) monotheistic text.


 * Wenham doesn't support your view in the Word Biblical Commentary, but argues rather straightfoward that the text we have favors creation ex nihilo. While that doesn't rule our some proto-text with another view, it's embedded in what we have now.  The best we can do is what Tedious and I did together -- give both views with some refs and just move on.


 * Regardless, verses 1 and 2 should at least be mentioned before we get to verse 3! You've routinely wiped those out.


 * And I have too much to do to keep playing this game with you. The editors who originally added most of the material you've deleted haven't bothered to edit in the past few days and I don't blame them.  I'm tempted to join them in that happy Wikiland of thousands of other articles in which people work together.  I could have CREATED four articles in the amount of time I've spent trying to keep other people's work from being discarded here.  It's not worth my time, or Wikipedia's.  I have a baby to be born any day now, a mother in law looming overhead, and a 95 year old writing partner who doesn't have the time for me to waste here -- while his memoirs stay on hold.


 * Pico -- while I may not disappear, I can't make this a priority. The JPS translators, although beginning with "When God began to create" were certainly NOT trying to argue for a polytheistic pre-existent backdrop (source materials, yes, but NOT this text itself)!  I've not seen any commentators or translators who have, and even Tedious was stuck with a comment from 2 Peter (which I was happy to include here).  I doubt anyone has a problem with INCLUDING your view -- but not at the expense of that from numerous sources and editors.  Either work with other editors, or you'll be editing alone.  While you may find that pleasing, you'll end up with an article so POV lopsided that few people will read it.EGMichaels (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments about deletion of contributions. I'm also deciding whether to continue. EGM - if you do choose to continue I'd be fascinated to find out more about that link with Akhnaton's monotheism. --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious, I'm not sure where I found that originally. I do have my Norton Anthology of World Literature Volume A handy, though.  Page 48 has as part of the Egyptian Leiden Hymns "When Being began back in the days of the genesis" the lines "When Being began back in the days of the genesis, it was Amun appeared first of all, unknown his mode of inflowing; There was no god come before him, nor was other god with him there when he uttered himself into visible form; There was no mother to him, that she might have borne him his name, there was no father to father the one who first spoke the words, 'I Am!' Who fashioned the seed of him all on his own, sacred first cause, whose birth lay in mystery, who crafted and carved his own splendor -- He is God the Creator, self-created, the Holy; all other gods came after; with Himself be began the world." (italics mine).  The interesting thing here is that the Leiden Hymn both predates Moses and comes from the country that Moses is claimed to have grown up in.  What could be possible is a mixture of Mesopotamian mythology and Akhnaten era monotheism.  The Hebrews are claimed to have originally come from Ur (Chaldea) and then been enslaved in Egypt.  A mixture of these two elements is certainly possible.  Oh well.  I'm as worn out as you are, my friend.EGMichaels (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM - thanks for that. The parallels certainly sound like more than coincidence. Your explanation was the one that came to mind when I saw your original comment. --Tediouspedant (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome -- for what it's worth, the Leiden Hymn is in line with ex nihilo. Mix that with some Babylonian strains and you'd get water ex nihilo... formed into everything else.  Unless I found my original source for this, though, we can't really use it.  Forgotten sources and OR aren't really any different to Wikipedia.EGMichaels (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Akhnaten's God even created himself ex nihilo - which is a remarkable bit of bootstrapping! --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had thought Aten was the apotheosis of Amenhotep III... <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedious -- I had noticed that too! Cush, philosophically the worship of a single god preceeded the axial age by about 800 years.  As most folks know, the axial age (about 600 BCE) was when both east and west unambiguously conceived of infinity.  In the east there was an infinite impersonal (as in the infinite tao).  In the west there was the infinite personal (as in Judaism).  The question is when the idea actually began.  The significance of the axial age is merely the unmistakability of this concept in a vast swath of human culture.  But either the concept burst forth everywhere at once ex nihilo, or it began earlier and spread.  Campbell traces parallels from Egypt via Greece and into Hinduism and Buddhism in the second volume of his Masks of God (Oriental Mythology).  This makes sense to me: Akhnaten (Amenhotep IV) was either deifying his physical father (Amenhotep III), or he was adopting a deity as his father.  In either case we have at the very least a rather impressive monolatry, in which (as Tedious noted) God created Himself!  This is the ultimate ex nihilo.  God as the basis for his own being.  Such a seed has a documented connection with the east (per Campbell) as well as a documented connection with the Hebrews (per Torah).  In those 800 years the monalatrous seed conceived by Akhnaton could have had a centuries long gestation until bursting forth in the historical record everywhere at once.  In other words, ex nihilo did not burst forth ex nihilo, but rather grew from an Egyptian seed.  Ex Nihilo is also an essential element to monotheism.  The difference between henotheism (Greek one God) and monotheism (Greek only God) is the permisibility of pre-existence of matter.  While henotheism may allow it, monotheism does not.  God is the basis for ALL things, including himself.  All monotheistic conceptions, therefore, necessitate by definition ex nihilo.  Does Genesis 1 contain this?  Originally? -- maybe.  Eventually? -- certainly.  By the time of the LXX (3rd century BCE) and the Masoretic pointing (10th century CE), and by the time of most Rabbinic writing (4th century CE) and early Christian fathers (1-4th centuries CE) ex nihilo existed as a concept.  It is embedded in the text we have now.  While the denial of ex nihilo may seem attractive to writers focused on the Babylonian mythological connection, an allowance of it is attractive for those who see an Egyptian mythological connection -- and Wikipedia should give some allowance for both.  As I've said a number of times, we don't determine reality.  We merely report who has thought what, when they thought it, and cite the references.  We shouldn't edit war, but should instead work together to report the written warfare of earlier writers.  That's the fun of Wikipedia -- we give all perspectives and trace them to further reading in a glorified bibliography.  And I think a Babylonian/Egyption dual parentage may be very interesting to explore.  From Babylon, pre existence of matter.  From Egypt -- from Akhnaton -- ex nihilo.EGMichaels (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think you exaggerate the impact of Akhneaten's small heresy. Of course later monotheists look to Akhenaten, but theologically his "revolution" did not survive his wife's death (Nefertiti/Neferneferuaten/Smenkhkare). <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 01:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

split for editing
Maybe. But then the axial age explosion has no explanation. Why 600 BCE in both east and west? Why simultanreously in two places in both impersonal and personal forms? In any case, Akhnaten is not unknown as a monotheistic connection. Freud's "Moses and Monotheism" and Velikovsky's "Oedipus and Akhnaten" may not be great sources, but I'd like to see us use some of our research power to see if the Hebrews could have imported Egyptian ideas as well as Mesopotamian ones. It's certainly worth some checking. Might be more fun than all this ridiculous edit warring. I know, less of a head rush for everyone trying to win a victory or two, but definitely more productive.EGMichaels (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 600 BCE is around the time in which Israelites came in touch with Zoroastrianism. At 600 BCE nobody remembered Akhenaten or what he did or what his deity was. He was only re-discovered in modern times. However his Hymn to the Aten is almost certainly the origin of Palm 104.
 * Oh, and Velikovsky is a big no no. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, while I wouldn't base anything on Velikovsky, he's definitely notable! Actually, his Peoples of the Sea had a rather fascinating premise.  As for Oedipus and Akhnaton, I appreciated it more after reading Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces.  The no no books are Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval.  Now for the axial age -- you haven't explained the simultaneous eastern aspect of it.  And, as you said, there may be no explanation.  In any case, Akhnaten is worth a quick review by the editors here to see if there is anything in the academic sources.  If not, then not.  But it's worth a look.EGMichaels (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability does not constitute reliability in the subject matter. Kitchen is also certainly notable, but not reliable.
 * Your Axis Age has nothing to do with this article. The "simultaneousness" of your eastern development may be pure coincidence, and your criteria for lumping eastern and western developments together are dubious at best. It is not my part to come up with any explanations for your or Jaspers' claims. Correlation does not imply causation anyways.<span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 07:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Creation ex nihilo
This is mostly for EGMichaels, but is of general interest. I've just edited the small subsection on the first words of Genesis ("In the beginning...") to illustrate that there's no creatio ex nihilo in the text of Genesis itself. My source is the Oxford Annotated Bible of 2007, edited by Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Carol A. Newsom - three of the leading biblical scholars in the world today - and they explicitly state that Genesis does not talk about creation from nothing, but rather about creation from pre-existing chaos (the "waters"). Ok? PiCo (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I have commentaries that say otherwise (as I've reffed and you've deleted). BOTH VIEWS should be included.  But I'm sick of this.  You want to POV cripple this article, go right ahead.  I have a real book to write.EGMichaels (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies if you have commentaries that say otherwise, but I honestly can't recall seeing your refs. If you put them here I'll read them. (And yes, Wikipedia is a grand waste of time - it's not really an encyclopedia at all, you know, just a social networking site for people who have nothing better to do. What's the book about?) PiCo (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia. The fact that it is being under construction in public just goes to dispel any notion that writing an encyclopedia, after all "just" a tertiary publication without any originality, is in any way easy or straightforward.
 * Genesis is a difficult topic, and it is difficult enough to get it right even without gratuitous animosity among editors. The text may originate as early as 900 BC, and it has had a history of active re-interpretation ever since.
 * Expertise on the cultural context of its origin is a completely different field than expertise on the history of its interpretation in, say, Rabbinical Judaism. Both topics are relevant, both need to be discussed, but they need to be separated cleanly. There is no room for ex nihilo creation in a discussion of the text's original intention, but there certainly is in a discussion of its classical interpretations. These are not "two views" to be juxtaposed as somehow equally valid but mutually exclusive, these are two or more views held in different historical periods by different sets of people and there should be no difficulty in documenting them side by side, in separate sections of the article. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Theology and Judaeo-Christian interpretation: The theology of Genesis 1–2
This section currently states that:
 * Where the Babylonian myths saw man as nothing more than a "lackey of the gods to keep them supplied with food,"[56] Genesis starts out with God approving the world as "very good" and with mankind at the apex of created order.[Gen. 1:31] Things then fall away from this initial state of goodness: Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree in disobedience of the divine command. Ten generations later in the time of Noah, the Earth has become so corrupted that God resolves to return it to the waters of chaos sparing only one man who is righteous and from whom a new creation can begin.


 * I would contend that this is attempt to make an artificial distinction between the Babylonian and Genesis texts. Both traditions assume that humans were created to worship and serve God / the gods and that humans are there to manage the Earth on behalf of God/the gods. Both describe a world created in six days ending with the creation of humans and God / the gods resting. In both the world is seen as good and mankind at the apex of a created order but serving God/the gods. In both (the Babylonians continued the tale in a separate text - the Atra-Hasis) [I provided links but they've now gone] things then deteriorate from an initial state of goodness - involving rebellion, chaos and overpopulation - resulting in a divinely inspired flood in which Atrahasis or Noah and his family and the animals of the world are the only survivors.
 * The only difference between the two traditions that seems significant is that the Genesis version has been edited by henotheistic redactors in the post-exilic period to exclude or play down references to the other gods. Despite this, certain polytheistic features remain - such as the consistent use of the plural elohim to refer to God, demoted deities in the forms of the Serpent (Gen 3:1) and the Cherubim (Gen 3:24), and God's statement (apparently addressed to other deities) that "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:22). --Tediouspedant (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wenham also supports this kind of distinction. As he put it, the Babylonian view of creation was pessimistic, which the Genesis writer's view was that things were made correctly (and got bad later).  An encyclopedic article will explore both the similarities (which are many) and the differences (which are many).  This is a unique text in relation to other unique texts.  We would do the same in an article about something so equated as Roman and Greek mythology.  Although they are near mirror images, there ARE differences to explore.  Let's not be afraid of either the similarities or the differences.  And I think this one isn't invalid.EGMichaels (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We need to explore both the similarities and the differences - just as if we were comparing Greek & Roman mythology. The sentence I quoted, however, just read like an attempt to confirm the superiority of the Genesis text rather than a serious comparative analysis of the two. --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We're going to run into that problem either way. Over shabbat I compared Wenham's comments with some chapters in an older text on Babylonian mythology.  The mythologist, of course, wanted to show the similarities and Wenham wanted to show the differences.  Even scholars have a POV.  Normally in an article I like to put the POVs up head to head and just casually step back as a chronicler of other people's battles.  Wikipedia is a lot more fun when we show scholars spatting than it is when we're spatting ourselves  ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * a very wise remark. Any dispute on Wikipedia needs to be reducible to a dispute between scholars, otherwise it isn't a "dispute" to begin with. --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pico, Wenham gives four possible points of view (three of which are not ex nihilo) and documents who is the earliest proponent of each view. I'd be satisfied to list these notes with an appropriate ref or two.

As for the refs and subject matter offered by other editors, I'm not in a position to discuss these as if they are my own. They are not. Please discuss these with the appropriate editors so that the refs can find a place that is satisfactory to you and those other editors. I do not intend to do battle or support a POV here. I merely wish to have all notable POVs given as listed in a reliable scholarly source. Wenham on Genesis is certainly one. I also have a few other sources to help support the Mesopotamian aspects of this -- including the New Oxford Annotated Bible (which you also regard to be appropriate).

There are a number of involved editors here. I know you are anxious to get rid of certain sources, but various editors spent a good deal of time researching these notes, and Tedious has spent a good deal of time trying to find homes for them that are acceptable to both you and those other editors.

Everyone here wants your POV to be listed. Our only problem is one of running over other editors' work. While I appreciate your trying to communicate with me on my talk page and here, I'm not the editor who worked on most of the refs you discussed (I don't recall your discussing Wenham).

In any case, again, I DO want your POV listed and reffed. I ALSO want other notable POVs listed and reffed. Let's please agree to let the sources disagree. I believe some other involved editors who's work you keep deleting are Tedious, Deadtotruth, and Alastair Haines. And yes, you keep deleting my source too. ''The bizarre part is that you keep deleting a source Tedious supplied that agrees with your own view! You are even edit warring against your own POV!!! '' Please, just slow down a bit so we can sort this out. Trust me, no one will accidentally find Jesus from our torrid little article.EGMichaels (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)