Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{Old AfD multi|date= 15 February 2007 |result= '''keep''' |votepage= Creation according to Genesis}}
{{British English}}
{{dyktalk|22 February|2007|entry=...that according to the ''']''' of ] Chapter One, the first three days of ] are ] reflected in the last three days of creation?}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
A more accurate title of this article would be "Modern philosophers' opinions concerning Creation account(s) in Genesis". There is precious little about the creation account in this article, what it says, how it fits within the ancient Hebrew Weltanschauung, his concept of history, how to know God (if there is such). It lacks even a linguistic analysis and historical literary comparisons. If I didn't have some ideas about these question from other sources, I would be ignorant of them from this article.
From another perspective, why does this article exist at all? Most of it just rehashes what was covered in greater detail in other articles, in particular, that concerning Form Criticism. If it were up to me, I would flag this article for deletion, not because of NPOV problems, but because it has almost nothing original (not part of other wikipekia articles) to say. In short, it appears to be a waste of wikipedia bandwidth.
|target=Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{TOC limit|1}}
] 18 Jan 2005
== This article contains bias towards critical scholarship ==
:what would you place on this page? ] 14:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
===Arbitrary header #1===
First I would remove all the discussion about the JEPD theory and Formkritik, referring people to the articles in Misplaced Pages that discuss these themes in greater detail. Further, I'd remove the question of Mosaic authorship as that is irrelevant to the story of creation, better handled under the Misplaced Pages article on Genesis. I would also edit out repetitious elements in the article, which make up a large portion of what remains. That leaves us with an article about one third the size or less. And it still does not address how the Genesis account of creation fits within the larger picture of ancient Hebrew beliefs nor its literary style.
This article fails at ], because it presents contested assertions as facts, namely the conclusions of ] regarding Genesis. As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally. In addition, many biblical scholars (generally those who are not critical scholars) would reject those statements anyway.
The leading critical scholar Bart Ehrman has written on this issue (https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/),
If I were to write this article, I'd first have a description of the ideas included in the text itself, showing the literary style that indicates that chapter 1 - 2:4 are one document, then 2:5 - 5:2 the second document, according to an ancient literary style that went out of use 1500 - 1800 BC.
{{talkquote|'Then what does it mean to say that “most” scholars hold one view or another? It always depends. If you mean “most scholars total” then you would have to include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. And I frankly don’t know the proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country. That’s why I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about.'}}
My proposed additions below (in bold), reflect Ehrman's practice. They would not only meet the expectation of ], but they would be informative to readers in demonstrating that the qualified statements originated in critical scholarship, rather than scholarship in general.
Objection courtesy of ]: These additions should not be made because the opposing (traditional/conservative/evangelical) views are fringe, that is, they are marginalised in reliable sources (]). ] states that 'Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.'
Further, I’d show how the Genesis account of creation resonated in later Jewish writings, such as Exodus 20 where it serves as the reason for the seven day week and the Sabbath.
Response: In Ehrman's blog post, he states,
Only then would I mention modern interpretations of the Genesis creation, how modern people view the text and the message it conveys. This can afford to be fairly short, with extensive hyperlinks to the other articles which cover those issues in greater detail.
{{talkquote|'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats of NT writings) or not.'}}
Thus, it appears that an authority does regard evangelical views as worthy of legitimation through comparison to accepted scholarship. Therefore, my proposed additions would not violate ].
''Lead (Line 6)'' '''According to most ] scholars,''' The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from ] and ], but adapted them to their unique ]. '''Critical models of the composition of the ] (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with ]) view the first major comprehensive draft as having''' been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the ] source)''',''' '''then''' later expanded by other authors (the ]) into a work very like Genesis as known today. The two sources '''are''' identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is '''considered''' a critique of the ] of creation:
] 28 Jan 2005
''Composition: Sources (Line 20)'' Although tradition attributes ] to ], most critical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the ] and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods." '''The creation narrative is analysed as consisting of''' two separate accounts drawn from different sources. The first account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 is from what scholars call the ] (P). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the ] source (J).
:I think I like what you are proposing, but for such a wholesale change, it's probably best to wait for some more people agreeing.
:Also, I am wary of your comments about "an ancient literary style", as I subscribe to the view that the Genesis actually ''is'' composed of separate original documents (i.e. as per, or similar to, Wiseman), not just having a style that makes it look that way, which is how I read your comments above.
:] 09:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::all these sound like good ideas to me -- feel free to take a stab at your ideas, melamed -- we'll follow things where they go:). ] 14:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
''Composition: Structure (Line 27)'' <strike>Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature.</strike> The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are '''often regarded as''' contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire ] while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an ] God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like''', although not all scholars share these interpretations.''' Even the order and method of creation differs. "Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined." '''These differences motivate critical scholars to conclude that consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. (Note ''b'': Levenson 2004)''' ] (]) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
==old proposals==
:I agree with you. The current article does violate WP:NPOV by presenting contested scholarly interpretations as facts. Your proposed edits would better align with NPOV by clarifying that these views are held by "most critical scholars" rather than presenting their conclusions as undisputed facts. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with inline attribution."
i would like to change the name of this article to "Creation account(s) in Genesis," because there is a dispute as to whether there is one more more accounts in the text. I would also like to replace the text in this article with the text in ], which describes both POVs with regard to the text in a more evenhanded, NPOV fashion. Any thoughts? ] 23:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:WP:DUE is also relevant here. While we shouldn't give undue weight to "minority" views, we also shouldn't present "majority" views as universal facts. Your proposal strikes a better balance. The WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline encourages presenting multiple scholarly viewpoints when they exist as well. ]] 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::I'm unlikely to respond in any detail today due to some horrible chemotherapy. But, and I don't mean to be rude, both of you are very new editors and I'm not convinced you understand our policy. More tomorrow if I feel well enough. ] ] 06:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Yup, ], ], ], ], ]. And please read ]. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for ventilating pseudohistory. What is fine and dandy as ] could be utter crap as ]. ] (]) 08:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It is well to recognize that the dominant viewpoint among scientists is not the only one. There are various minority viewpoints, represented by qualified scientists, but these viewpoints are largely suppressed by majority voices, by active persecution, and by selective reporting in the media.
::::Poythress, Vern S.. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (p. 21). Crossway. Kindle Edition. ]] 10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::We aren't going to be using something published by Crossway as a guiding light. This is an encyclopedia, not a campus bible study. ] (]) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Amen! ;-) ] (]) 03:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the links. My proposal does not include any additions of content, so I believe the charge of 'ventilating pseudohistory' is irrelevant. I merely proposed attribution to certain claims which are both controversial and contested in biblical scholarship, and do not represent a consensus of experts, even within critical scholarship (cf. Ehrman). ] (]) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm no theologian, but an experienced Wikipedian, and to me the most important point here is that Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia. ], "the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural" is the mainstream academic approach to the Bible. That's the reason I reverted ], where they added phrasing like "'''According to mainstream biblical scholars''', the authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc" to the previous "The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc", added "'''most''' biblical scholars" to "biblical scholars" and turned the phrasing "The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts" into "Scholars analyse the creation narrative as consisting of two separate accounts". All of these changes tend to create a false balance between mainstream scholars (again, ]) and the ] and similar theories. It unduly legitimizes the documentary hypothesis. {{u|Violoncello10104}} and {{u|ViolanteMD}}, I'm not saying your use of the word "neutral", as in "As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally", is wrong (and it's very, very common amongst new users). But its implication that Misplaced Pages should not take sides between non-religious and religious criticism goes completely against Misplaced Pages's policy ], which may be designated a ]. I quote the policy: "'''Avoid stating facts as opinions.''' Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example {{xt|the sky is blue}} not {{!xt| believes ]}}." We ''should'' actually present the mainstream consensus as undisputed facts. ] | ] 08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC).
::::It is called "neutral point of view", but a proper name would be "normative point of view". Like a civics teacher does not teach his/her own opinions, nor a mixed bag of all opinions, but the normative views of the society. ] (]) 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you both for your input on this matter. I appreciate the references to various Misplaced Pages policies, but I believe there's still a crucial point being overlooked.
:::::I'm not advocating for the promotion of pseudohistory or fringe theories. I fully agree that Misplaced Pages should rely on mainstream academic sources and not be a platform for marginal or discredited ideas.
:::::However, there's a critical distinction we need to make when dealing with religious topics. The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a religious concept or belief is primarily to explain what that belief entails, not to debate its historical accuracy or scientific validity.
:::::When we describe what Christians believe about the Trinity or what Muslims believe about the Night Journey, we're not making historical claims. We're representing the content of a belief system. This is not pseudohistory.
:::::I agree that "What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history." But that's precisely why we need to clearly delineate between theological claims and historical ones. A statement like "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim; it's an accurate representation of a Christian belief.
:::::While I understand the importance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MAINSTREAM, we must apply these carefully in religious contexts. Presenting mainstream academic criticism of religious beliefs as the primary content, rather than the beliefs themselves, could be seen as violating NPOV by unduly favoring one perspective (academic) over another (believer's).
:::::I'm not suggesting we ignore academic or critical perspectives. But they should not overshadow or replace the primary explanation of what the belief actually entails.
:::::Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. It originated in its religious context.
:::::I'm advocating for a nuanced approach that accurately represents religious beliefs as they are understood by adherents, clearly distinguishes between claims of faith and historical/scientific claims and includes relevant academic perspectives and criticisms where appropriate, without letting these dominate the main explanation of the belief.
:::::This approach, I believe, better serves our readers and more accurately fulfills the role of an encyclopedia in explaining religious concepts. I hope this clarifies my position and opens up a constructive dialogue on how we can best handle these sensitive topics. Or you could just call me "too new to know better" again and not address my actual points. ]] 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{Tqq|Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques.}} I don't agree that this is likely, and think that most readers consult Misplaced Pages for mainstream academic consensus on their topics of interest. Misplaced Pages is built upon mainstream scholarship.{{pb}}I might be biased here because I have a lot of experience with textual history, and early Biblical narratives are super interesting in critical literature studies.{{pb}}As an aside, I do identify as a person of faith, and I never edit in the topic area of my own faith. It's upsetting, unwinnable, and contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages, whether I like it or not. That's good, in that it makes the project stronger with respect to the terms on which it is constituted. We should all avoid editing in areas where we feel a strong emotional response, or possess experiential knowledge that is not grounded in published sources informed by Western / scientific ways of knowing.{{pb}}Content policies do in fact stipulate that academic and critical perspectives form the bulk of our prose, and overshadow religious teachings. Placing published mainstream scholarship on the same level as religious beliefs is ]. NPOV does not mean "median point of view", nor "attributing to named individuals everything disagreed with by anyone". We don't really have special carveouts for religious topics. We still treat them as encyclopaedia topics.{{pb}}I'm sorry if you're feeling stung for being called out for rookie misunderstandings. I hope you stick around and continue learning how our community operates. Blessings, ] (]) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::'I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice'
::::It seems to me that our disagreement lies in whether the non-critical claims in question are uncontested and uncontroversial, and not in whether fringe views should be given validity. If they are not uncontested and uncontroversial, then they ought to be attributed to a school of thought or scholar. In my original post, I gave Ehrman (a leading critical scholar) as an authority to determine this. He states, 'I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think'. It appears that Ehrman regards matters in which critical and traditional scholars disagree to be controversial, and thus will ''attribute'' a view to a school of thought, not presenting it as if it were an uncontested fact. Given this authoritative judgment, we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial.
::::I also agree with @]'s reply to you which has some great arguments, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. ] (]) 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqred|we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial}}—this talk page isn't meant for changing ]s.
:::::About the Documentary Hypothesis: it is no longer the only game in town, but not because mainstream scholars are now more inclined with biblicist scholars.
:::::] says that the Bible is historically accurate, despite the actual historical and archaeological record. Therefore, when biblicist scholars write the history of the Bible, they are writing pseudohistory. ] (]) 11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate your point that the Documentary Hypothesis is "no longer the only game in town." This actually reinforces the argument for a more nuanced presentation. If there are multiple scholarly perspectives within mainstream Biblical criticism, shouldn't we aim to represent that diversity of thought? Maybe we could:
::::::# Present the traditional religious understanding of the text held by those who are of the faith
::::::# Introduce mainstream critical scholarship, noting that the Documentary Hypothesis was once dominant and that there are now multiple scholarly approaches within Biblical criticism
::::::# Briefly outline areas of agreement/disagreement
::::::This approach would adhere to existing policies and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of both the religious significance and the current state of academic discourse around this topic. ]] 11:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I was not at all proposing a change of policy. I was saying that the current application of the policy is incorrect given what an authority in biblical scholarship says about what is controversial and uncontroversial in his field. ] (]) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::To your second point, there's a difference between saying:
::::::# "The Bible is historically accurate in all details." (a Biblicist claim)
::::::# "Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." (a statement about religious belief)
::::::# "Archaeological and historical evidence supports some Biblical accounts while contradicting others." (a summary of scholarly historical research)
::::::My concern is that by presenting only critical scholarly views without clear attribution, we might inadvertently misrepresent the beliefs held by many religious adherents. I think I've stated this on other pages related to Christianity that we've run into one another on. ]] 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." —true, but misleading: ] does not claim that the Bible is historically accurate. ] (]) 12:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That's why I used the word "many". ]] 12:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I hope you feel better. ]] 10:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@]@] Ok. Two ] disagree with you, me and Bishonen, and together we have made over 300,000 edits. A main reason we were elected was that our knowledge of policy and guidelines was good enough that when editors consistently broke them we could block them with confidence. tgeorgescu had over 50,000 edits, many of them in this field. What are the odds that the two of you know more than we do? ] ] 10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I respect your position and I'm sure you do know than me. I'm interested in your assessment of my argument. Quoting ], 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' Please know that I am not quoting that to disrespect you or the others. I have an argument which is logical, in line with the current policies, with support from an expert. This was the basis for making this discussion topic. ] (]) 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I got an eerie feeling that ChatGPT wrote your answers. ] (]) 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I get the feeling you don't know very well what a non-native English speaker sounds like. ]] 10:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Oh, I see they actually are a native speaker. My bad. I guess ChatGPT is cranking out material with obvious grammatical errors in it like this nowadays. Those pesky generative AI chat bots... ]] 11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have never used AI to generate text. I guess you'll just have to trust me on that point. ] (]) 12:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::You are straying into personal attacks. ]. Please refrain from unconstructive "chatGPT" comments. You've been warned. ] (]) 14:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hi, {{u|Just10A}}, I don't know it where to report it, but the phrasing and the arguments remembered me of ]. I admit that I could be mistaken, so they should not take offence. ] (]) 14:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"I could be mistaken" following a direct personal attack is not a defense. Please just move on. These epic threads do little good. ] (]) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I admit that I have conflated the two Viol-something. But in respect to one of them, it is not ], since it is highly likely at least one of their replies is AI-generated. I mean: if they did use ChatGPT (or something like that), and I accused them of using ChatGPT, it isn't a personal attack. It's just a fact pertaining to their edits. I cannot be blamed for noticing they did, nor for spilling the beans about it. ] (]) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Agreed. Tests range from 0 to 99% AI. ] ] 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The results I got from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written (I did not scan their username as included in the post). I'm not saying this is bulletproof, but it seems to confirm my intuition. I mean: people do not write like that. Especially when they're not writing official reports for the government. ] (]) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thank you for your post, it was most informative. Some people do in fact write like that. I've spent most of my life being told that I "talk funny". Thanks for that! ]] 08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Why do you have to appeal to being more experienced and not a Misplaced Pages policy? ]] 08:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::}}
And the answer is that, despite your protestations, reliable historical research is done by critical scholars ''only.'' Other views may by ], but only critical scholars speak in the name of the mainstream academia and in the name of mainstream history. ] (]) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::"due to some horrible chemotherapy" Don't take this as an insult Doug, but you are not as energetic as you were in your prime. Do you really want to spend your remaining time and energy in the never-ending dramas of Misplaced Pages's talk pages? They are probaby not beneficial to your state of mind. Personally, I often find myself contemplating the futility of reaching for a compromise through them. ] (]) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:Your claim is overly restrictive and misrepresents academic diversity. "Critical scholars" aren't the sole arbiters of reliable historical research. Mainstream academia includes various methodologies and perspectives in Biblical studies. This stance contradicts Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and could lead to biased articles. A more balanced approach would accurately represent the spectrum of scholarly opinion while maintaining standards for reliable sources. ]] 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
alright. any opinions, cheesedreams? ] 00:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) the new article, incidentally, is a thorough edit of the old one, and not a new article. i copied, pasted, and edited.
::{{talk quote|From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may ''"often train as historians"'', but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that '''not all''' of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. ] (]) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)}}
:You should either (a) edit the original article, or (b) copy paste and edit in your sandbox and append the page to your user page for discussion, linking from the talk page of the original article.
:This is the article, not your page, and the neutrality of this article is all I am willing to discuss. If you dispute the neutrality of this article, then either change it, or complain in this talk page.
:I am probably not the only person with any kind of interest in this proposed title change, and you should wait 48 hours at least to see if anyone who lives in another timezone, or is out tonight, or something, makes comment. ] 00:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::We're all here at this talk page to obey the ], not to change them. ] (]) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
---
:::Dismissing all NT scholarship as unreliable is an overreach. Many NT scholars employ rigorous historical methods. The existence of some theologically-biased work doesn't invalidate the entire field.
:::Your argument seems to be an attempt to systematically exclude NT scholarship from Misplaced Pages under the guise of maintaining academic rigor. This approach would itself introduce significant bias. Misplaced Pages's goal should be to accurately capture the range of scholarly views, including mainstream historical perspectives and the diversity within NT scholarship. This would align with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies.
:::Any article discussing religious beliefs must also accurately describe what the believers actually believe. Failure to do so renders the article fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative, and potentially useless. Accurate representation of religious beliefs is crucial. Dismissing it as unimportant undermines the validity of the entire discussion, regardless of one's personal stance on religion. It's not our role to judge these beliefs, but to present them accurately.
:::Instead of blanket exclusion, we should critically evaluate sources, clearly attribute claims, and provide context for different scholarly approaches and beliefs. This maintains neutrality while acknowledging the field's complexities.
:::WP:RULES are meant to ensure comprehensive, balanced articles, not to exclude entire academic disciplines or misrepresent belief systems based on personal biases. ]] 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Are you using ChatGPT?
::::"Critical scholarship" means ], which is part and parcel of the ]. ] (]) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm not using ChatGPT but I noticed you also accused the other user commenting of the same thing. Interesting take from someone whose main refutations besides one-liners are just kopipe.
:::::Your definition of "critical scholarship" is overly narrow; it's not the only valid approach to Biblical studies. Misplaced Pages should represent the full spectrum of scholarly approaches, not just those focused on source criticism. This aligns with WP:NPOV and ensures comprehensive coverage of the field. ]] 10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::If it sounds like the prose of a full professor, writing a paper for the government, who employed several proofreaders, then it is perhaps computer-generated.
::::::Also, some scholars may be ], but we don't cite them as they were mainstream historians.
::::::Purely theological exegesis is okay, but it does not count as ].
::::::An obvious point: if they don't abide by the historical method, they are not writing history. They may be writing theology or apologetics, but not history.
::::::If one wants to write history, there are shared rules and shared assumptions for doing so. There is certain stuff which historical research cannot deliver. It cannot say whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus got resurrected, since that is not a matter of historical record.
::::::There can be no evidence that Jesus is God and there can be no evidence that Jesus isn't God. That's not a matter predicated upon objective historical evidence.
::::::In mainstream history, the sentence "Jesus is God" does not have a truth value. It is neither true, nor false.
::::::If one is writing a historical paper, they cannot claim that Jesus is God, nor that Jesus isn't God. That would be utterly puerile.
::::::There are some very important questions, which nevertheless cannot be answered objectively. Pretending otherwise just makes the matter worse. Some stuff is just faith, not history. ] (]) 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am an MD/PhD with a job in technical writing, but the real answer must be that I'm several teenagers inside of a trench coat using ChatGPT to generate my responses, and not that this article violates WP:NPOV. ]] 08:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::More to the point: despite its sophisticated prose, your argument is essentially a red herring. Since it does not use ]-based definitions of the terms, but English language dictionaries definitions.] (]) 13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::ChatGPT can produce inhumanely slick and professional answers, but it does not mean that ChatGPT understands the ] of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The irony of this post is too much. ]] 08:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Great, more lack of good faith. You should just drop this, you aren't going to get your way. ] ] 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We should refocus on the content and policies rather than making assumptions about intentions. Our focus should be on the quality and accuracy of contributions and evaluating edits. If there are specific policies you believe I've misinterpreted, I'm open to discussing them. Ideally something beyond just criticizing the way that I write.
:::::::Instead of telling me to "drop this," I think I'll reach out for help. In the mean time, I insist that we attribute information to the originating sources in order to make it plain where the information is coming from. ]] 09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Reach out where exactly? Not to bring in more editors, that's ] ] ] 09:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@] @]. I have made a post on the dispute resolution noticeboard with the agreement of ViolanteMD. I would just like an evaluation of my argument and the debate in general; https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genesis_creation_narrative ] (]) 19:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::}}
You can see more ChatGPT at Misplaced Pages at ]. ] (]) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
===Arbitrary header #2===
Let's see. :) The problem seems to be that the page title "Creation accounts in Genesis" implies the POV that there are two different accounts in Genesis. And some people say that there is only ONE account in Genesis. Is that right? ---] | ] 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
] says:
{{talkquote|All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}}
If you want to present scholarship as "critical scholarship" or "mainstream scholarship," you'll also have to present an overview of the views of non-critical ('traditional', conservative Evangelical) scholarship on these matters. That's possible, akin to the overview at ], or (preferably) as a separate subsection, which is already there (but not very well written): ]. The question is: are those views significant? More precise: are they relevant as ''scholarly'' views, or as ''religious'' views? As religious views, a short explanation, in a section on religious views, would be: 'Conservative Evangelicals view the creation story as...'.
Without such an addition I also see no point in the attribution, except for the implication that it is 'just an opinion', or as a signal-word akin to "leftish" at India-related pages. ] - ] 04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Contested points, copied from ], referring to and VC's comments:
: that about sums it up, i think:). any thoughts about how to resolve the issue? ] 04:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Authorship and dating:
:: I suggest that we open the discussion on the ] page where the master ToDo list is discussed and maintained. ] is the highest level page in this series. I'll open the question--if you did not already open it there. ;) ---] | ] 05:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:* the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
:* separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
:* the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
* Mesopotamian influence:
:* borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
:* the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
* Sixth day:
:* the interpretation of "God says "Let ''us'' make man."
According to Violincello10104, {{tq|the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.}} Maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, ] - ] 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:I believe and can be subsumed into one point. Point was never in dispute as this was always attributed to the various scholarly perspectives. ] (]) 22:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
== Bible versions (Birds) ==
I've gone through the objections, but see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of ], ], and ]. Regards, ] - ] 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I have changed the biblical quote to the KJV version.
It is an important point to note that different translations differ quite substantially. Some (particularly the modern ones) gloss over ambiguities and conflicts which are distinctly present in the Hebrew text.
:I appreciate this very much, as a detailed examination of my original argument is what I was looking for. I feel once we have discussed this there will be no need for the DRN so I will write that I would like to put that on hold at least for the moment. ] (]) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The KJV is derived from an almost word-for-word (with small POV bias against organised religion - e.g. translating "elder" rather than "priest" (which was corrected at the KJV)) translation, which is itself derived from the celebrated ''Textus Receptus'', the most reliable version of the bible around at the time, which ] painstakingly compiled from all the available versions known, comparing and judging (with NPOV) which edits were the original (by being in the majority of the versions).
::And I'm very interested in getting to know more about these 'alternate' (conservative, Evangelical) views. ] - ] 03:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Consequently, the KJV does tend to follow the Hebrew fairly accurately, keeping the ambiguities, even when they would have been controversial, even down to the ambiguity over Daniel and Ashpenaz' homosexual-or-not relationship.
=== the existence of two separate creation-narratives===
However, more modern translations, particularly the New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible, translate with heavy bias, e.g. "homosexuality is absolutely forbidden" rather than "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman" (the hebrew literally says "a man shall not with another man lay layings of a woman", where the is missing, and usually assumed to be "with the" though it can equally be the not-condemning-homosexuality-at-all "in the")
Bart Ehrman (May 11, 2021], (emphasis mine):
{{talkquote|scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different times. '''The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming''' The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways.}}
So, not controversial (unless you reject Bart Ehrman, of course). Wayne Jackson , Apologetics Press, gives an apologetic view, but still refers to the documenatary hypothesis, which seems to have been superseeded. ] - ] 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:As explained in its main article, the ] has been partially replaced by a fragmentary hypothesis: "the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases." So instead of four main sources, there may have been numerous texts edited into the Pentateuch. ] (]) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::Preceding Ehrman's quote, this statement from VC from the DNR:
There are many many other places where they edit the text to their POV. In this case, editing is done to obscure the problem, wheras the KJV, in its fairly NPOV style preserves the potential discrepency. This is why I have replaced the quotation, as the others seek to POV the issue. ] 01:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::{{talkquote|According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree. }}
::Ehrman here does not say "most scholars," but he also doesn't say critical scholars"; he just says "scholars," and seems to be quite outspoken that this is broadly accepted. So, VC's 'Ehrman-criterium' seems to be met here.
::And he writes (emphasis Ehrman, not mine):
::{{talkquote|The book of Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are known. This includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition says that Moses wrote these five books but '''the scholarly consensus is that Moses didn’t write any of them'''.}}
] - ] 03:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:That is evidence of inconsistency on the part of Ehrman, according to his own principle in the blog post I gave, he ought to have said 'the consensus of critical scholarship' or something like that, as he says 'What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about. I might make a mistake about that on occasion.' ] (]) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::The discussion has moved on now, so I won't comment further than to say that much of this (and further comments below) is utter hogwash. ] 02:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
=== separate authorship ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")===
:::For example, "soft adulterers" (which is a rather bizarre phrase) is translated in some modern bibles as "practising homosexuals" which is extremely POV. The KJV was under strict instructions to be accurate, and was created at a time of extreme religious tumoult, and thus HAD to be as accurate as possible with respect to the two sides at the time to avoid dangerous anti-monarchial (due to the king's commissioning of the text) religious riots. Many many modern versions are created by groups who consist 100% of evangelicals - the likelyhood that this will produce an NPOV and accurate translation of the text is significantly small, compared to a group of more mixed religion. ] 20:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Solved:
{{talkquote|Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the Genesis to Moses "as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th century. Scholars of Biblical criticism conclude that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."}}
Ergo: not controversial. ] and ] don't give any additional info on conservative views on the authorship of Genesis; no reason to do otherwise here. ] - ] 16:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:Support this. Great job. ] (]) 16:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: Perhaps "soft adulterers" meant something clearer when the AV (KJV) was translated; that's one of the main problems with the AV--English has changed since then. Perhaps it even meant "practicing homosexuals"? So what if "practicing homosexuals" is POV? The Bible is God's POV, not Misplaced Pages. The question is not whether or not the different translation is POV, but whether or not it is accurate. Modern translations have been produced for various reasons, and some are designed to be easier to read more than to be accurate. But others are designed to be accurate. Some are done by a single individual, most are done by a group, and in some cases that is a wide and varied group. The Preface of the NIV lists representatives of the "Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches" to "safeguard the translation from sectarian bias". I expect that's a wider range than was involved in producing the AV. Whilst humans are fallible, your bigoted assertion that the likelihood that a group of evangelicals could produce an accurate translation is significantly small is unwarranted. ] 22:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not proposing for any additional info to be given, but for attribution of critical scholarship to critical views to be given (]]). I do not know what the source of this quote is, but that is precisely what I am requesting for this article. At the very least, an acknowledgment that scholars 'of biblical criticism' conclude separate authorship. I would actually endorse the insertion of this quotation in the article somehow, and would consider my concerns allayed on that point. ] (]) 22:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::Although this goes beyond my proposal, I think it would be beneficial to include the first sentence about the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The quote is an excellent and brief summary of the authorship question. ] (]) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::What kind of ] do you think we should give to the (often contradictory) opinions of religious extremists about this particular mythology? ] (]) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Is this a serious comment, aiming to improve the page? The sentence is quite clear, isn't it, with regard to weight. ] - ] 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is serious. Unless there is a coherent argument to the contrary, I think that the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as believers in thing mythology are not relevant to the subject of this article and certainly don't belong in the lede. ] (]) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Discarding scholars because of their religious views, especially when some of them are respected among critical scholars, is never a good idea. If you label this as 'fundamentalist religious POV pushing,' then what you are doing—discarding scholarship based on religion and your own understanding of the world—can be labeled as communist POV pushing, or perhaps as POV pushing from someone who doesn’t like Christians and Jews. As far as I can see, it’s not the Christians and Jews who have an issue with NPOV here, but the editors who call them extremists. Yes, proper attribution must always be provided, such as according to conservative views and according to more mainstream or critical views. However, I don’t think omitting it would be appropriate or NPOV, as they are still scholars with their own reasoning. I mean, it’s up to the readers to discard their theories as nonsense based on the reasoning of science and other considerations, or they may take away other lessons. We should not be the ones to decide which views to censor based on religion if there is sufficient scholarship about it. Thanks. ] (]) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If people argue for demonstrably incorrect things as do those who believe in what they call the literal interpretation of the bible, we are under no obligation to spread their opinions. ] (]) 17:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Traditional views do not necessarily mean literal interpretation. They have philosophical inquiry at their core, especially if the religion itself is not extremely rigid. In this case, I don’t see how traditional views can act exclusively as a support for literal translation. If it’s not already clear enough in the article, maybe someone can work on that (that literal translations without nuance are highly unlikely). More distinction might be required between literal translations and movements that believe in them, and the traditional views of many other denominations, which I agree often come across as apologetics for the religion itself. That’s why I believe attribution is necessary. Still, I don’t see any reason to remove them if they have enough relevant scholarship. Let the readers decide about critical views and apologetic views. There’s no need to censor 'scholars' of one side. ] (]) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think we should include them if third parties have commented on them. But as singular statements of opinion, they don't belong in Misplaced Pages. There are certain ideas (e.g. "Moses authored the Pentateuch") which deserve inclusion because there are third-party scholars that comment on such claims. But detailed analyses trying to shoe-horn some orthodox religious interpretation as worthy "on the other hand" points do not deserve inclusion ''unless others have commented on them''. ] (]) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::''Unless '''others''' might have commented on them'' might not be very reflective of the point I was making. In any case, even for that, you need to engage constructively, section by section, with the editors involved, and put forward your objections before deciding on some adjustments. Questions like "How fringe is the view? Is it part of the tradition or a single fringe scholar trying to come up with something new?" etc. should be discussed and analyzed there with the editors involved. But if you act in bad faith and behave as though you are here just to discredit something and resort to name-calling like "extremists," then I don’t think many here would be willing to engage with you, and you will be dismissed on the grounds of bigotry, not because your points were or will not be good enough. I don’t know what your points will be but it was not good enough earlier; I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Also, Traditional views may often claim divinity in them, but then we have a section of critical views to debunk or challenge them. And as I said, leave that to the readers; if someone is more inclined toward science, they will lean more toward critical views, in any case. My job is done here. I’ve given my opinion. Now I rest (hopefully not in peace). Have a good day! ] (]) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::He is not against Jews and Christians, since nobody would accept that. He is against fundamentalists trying to pass for historians.
:::::::::::You see, theology means knowledge of God, not knowledge of historical fact. ] (]) 21:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And that’s what I said: fringe claims or sources, such as those trying to prove that the literal meaning of the verses is exactly as written word for word, should be singled out. That is not philosophy. Still, I’m not entirely in favor of completely removing them. I mean, don’t you think the more ridiculous the claim, the easier it is to debunk? On the other hand, you cannot debunk a philosophy, like, for example, the concept of the Trinity and nuances such as the ] and singular ] which are traditional views held by an extremely large group. These are not fringe claims, nor are they based on literal written meanings, but might be more rooted in belief. They are forms of philosophy that emerged from those scriptures through some form of reasoning. As I said, if someone has a problem with the concept of belief in divinity, they should discuss it in the next section under critical or mainstream analysis using science, logic, facts, reality, or whatever they have in their arsenal. My point is there’s no problem including how Christians and Jews view their scriptures unless it’s extremely ridiculous, like a literal word-for-word interpretation. I would even argue that labeling these people as extremists is not justified unless they are imposing that belief on you forcefully. Everyone deserves to live their life their way peacefully until they disturb others, so it’s better to refrain from labels. Soooo, now I’m going to sleep for real... Have a good day! ] (]) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you can find independent sources who discuss how Christians or Jews view this scripture as it relates to the scripture itself, that's fine. What is not okay is passing off the musings of the faithful that no one has bothered to address in the scholarly literature. ] (]) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::So... the views of those who continue the Biblical traditions are not relevant, only those of whom questioned these beliefs and rejected them? It means you remove the context and background of critical Bible-studies; that's a pityfull impoverishment. ] - ] 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What basis do you have for thinking that believers in demonstrably incorrect things deserve space in Misplaced Pages articles? I mean, things like "this story happened as written". ] (]) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm afraid you're severely strawmanning the views of religous critical scholars. I think that your classification of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as {{tq|"religious extremists"}} and Christianity as {{tq|"mythology"}}, despite that not being the mainstream terms to describe them, speaks for itself. I think its evident that you're not going to get consensus here. ] (]) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::What are you talking about? How is a literal interpretation of the bible not religious extremism? How is this not mythology? Who in the mainstream disputes either point? ] (]) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::This isn't a "literal interpretation" issue. Nowhere in Genesis does it say Moses wrote it. Moses isn't even ''mentioned'' in Genesis. . The idea that Moses wrote it comes from tradition and/or extrapolation from statements that he wrote ''totally different books''. Not literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what editors are talking about. You're clearly inserting your own bias into this by using fringe theory, negative connotation terms and then shifting the talk to literal interpretation debates, despite it not even being the issue here. @] Already outlined it nicely. You're clearly contrary to editor consensus and no one wants to engage with you because of your name-calling tactics. Probably best to move on. ] (]) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is a literal interpretation issue. The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. They are being put back into the article for false balance. That's not okay. No reliable sources should be referencing ] for anything but the recognition that they are the butt of jokes on the internet. ] (]) 23:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well that's great, but {{tq| "The sources that are being quoted''' seem''' to believe in a literal interpretation.}} is ]. We don't go off of what editors think the sources ''seem'' like to them. So on top of you being over-ridden by consensus. It's contrary to policy. ] (]) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::] is a recommendation for article writing. It is not a charge that we must act the fool on a talkpage when a source is presented as scholarship which is actually just creationist claptrap. ] (]) 16:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It is not merely a recommendation. ] is wikipedia '''policy'''. The only exception is via an "ignore all rules" scenario, and that is clearly not met here. Particularly since you're contrary to consensus. ] (]) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Lol! ] applies to articlespace only. I have no intention of changing course. Feel free to file a case with a drahmaboard if you think it's a problem. ] (]) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Correct. You are trying to change article space, based upon OR, are you not? ] (]) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I have made an evaluation of a source. ] is garbage as far as a source for anything goes. They deserve to be excised. Go ahead and complain to the admins that I hurt the feelings of acolytes of that website. I don't care. ] (]) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Why can't you wait for other editors who might share your position? Instead, you are being rude for no reason and acting like a child when you don’t get what you want. I don’t care about the source or what's taken from it, as long as it’s attributed; that’s fine. It’s not like people have written a golden article on AIG , so why even care? Readers can easily check the details about the organization from which the content is sourced right here on Misplaced Pages if they don’t already know. Attribution is key. You are asking for complete censorship. After this attitude, you are also throwing tantrums. Because of this behavior, other proper editors who might have shared your stance will run away. You are crossing the line between criticism and pure hatred. I have nothing more to say to you. ] (]) 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Echoing thoughts above. I think this issue is sufficiently resolved. ] (]) 19:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::No. It's not good enough to say, "Readers can check where the information is from". Misplaced Pages should not link to incorrect information. That's all that ] provides. This is a hill I am willing to die on. Try to take me out if you would like.
:::::::::::::::::::There is nothing rude about this. It's just a terrible source and it needs to be removed. I cannot conscience the idea of students coming to this page looking for accurate information and being told, "hey, check out these charlatans". No, that's not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about.
:::::::::::::::::::] (]) 19:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::] is not banned ''from talk pages'' and crying OR does not prevent the editors from recognizing ] stuff. We have to call a spade a spade in the talk pages, regardless of whether a full professor already did that for us. ] (]) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Think you need to re-read my comment at 18:41. Regardless, editors have already patiently explained to you two why your positions are contrary to policy, and you have cited ''nothing'' to support your statements. And now, since you guys resorted to name-calling and overall ], people aren’t interested in walking you through it again or engaging with you anymore. You were contrary to consensus, you tried to explained your position, and the consensus was not swayed. Move on. ] (]) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::This article cites Ken Ham? (yes, at the moment) Answers in Genesis? (yes, it does). For shame. Neither is a reliable source for ''any'' information, including about themselves, and they have no place in this article. ] (]) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::I transferred the sentence with the Ham citation verbatim from the old 'Framework interpretation' article (due to the merge), where it was added over ten years ago. The sentence in question is describing the views of biblical literalist young-earth creationists. I actually would prefer another source because he is considered fringe even among evangelicals. I also think there could be a better replacement for AiG. I will do some research and find something in the next few days then propose it here.
:::::::::::::::::::::::Note: my position about evangelical scholars in general remains unchanged. Collins is mainstream, Ham is not. ] (]) 22:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|contrary to policy}}? Seriously? Collins 2006 was cited 14 times, while Collins 2018 and Friedman got one citation each.
::::::::::::::::::::::::Even if Collins 2006 remains in the article, it is preposterous that he gets the lion's share.
::::::::::::::::::::::::I'm a moderate: I can agree that completely removing Collins 2006 is perhaps too radical, but this article should not become ] for Collins 2006. ] (]) 15:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::My mistake, this is actually a part of the article already hahaha. Since this is already the practice of the article, what is wrong with applying it consistently? In other words, what is your disagreement with my proposed edits to Lines 6, 20 and 27 (not with respect to Mesopotamian influence on this point)? ] (]) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
=== the existence of contradictions between these two narratives===
:::::No, not really, the KJV tried to keep as much ambiguity in the phrasing as possible (though the english words they used have since become more loaded with POV meaning, so it is not so obvious). No one really has much idea what "soft adulterers" is referring to. "Practicing homosexuals" is POV translation - i.e. unreliable due to bias. The bible is NOT in english. If you look at the list of groups you have just given for the NIV, they are ALL protestant. The NIV also obscures texts which are more notably inconsistent/discontinuous in the hebrew/greek, by fitting the translation into the POV "the bible is consistent and continuous", the KJV tried to keep the ambiguity (resulting in some rather nice language as a bye-product). A group of evangelicals produced a translation with a sidenote saying "Practicing homosexuals means adult men who sexually abuse young boys" - how is that accurate? ] 22:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See . ] - ] 17:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:Do you support my proposed edit to Line 27 which is now the first comment under ]? ] (]) 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::To decide if it's accurate, perhaps we should look at the actual passage. But I can't find "soft adulterers" in the AV. Where is it?
::::::Are you suggesting that the AV committee were not all protestants? If so, please supply evidence.
::::::And while you are at it, perhaps you could supply evidence that the AV committee:
::::::* Did not have the opinion that "the bible is consistent and continuous"
::::::* Tried to "keep the ambiguity" of the original rather than translated ambiguously because they didn't know the language as well as the original authors.
::::::What translation has the sidenote you refer to, and for what passage if it's not the same one as already referred to?
::::::] 01:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::* {{tq|The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 '''are often regarded''' as contradictory but also complementary}} - "often" is imprecise; I'd say "usually," and have added this. I've already added a note there, with the Ehrman-quote, and the line {{tq|For an apologetic view, see Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press.}} We could precede that line with something like "Conservative/Evangelical Christians view the two stories as mutually dependend stories which form one narrative." One source (random, Google "evangelicals genesis one narrative"): J. Daryl Charles (ed.)(2013), ''Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation'', Hendrickson Publishers, p.2-3, mentions literary versus literal reading, and historical versus literary. I've added this to the Ehrman-Jackson note.
] 01:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::* {{tq|although not all scholars share these interpretations.}} - imprecise; state "X (kind of) scholars are of the opinion that ... ," which could be added to a note. It's not clear now at all which scholars you'r ereferring to, what they object to, and what alternative they propose.
:::::::"Soft adulterers" is the literal translation of the greek text.
::* Levenson: already moved to a note.
:::::::The church of england (who supplied many of the comittee (though not all)) is not protestant (check it's official status if you like - it claims to be catholic).
::] - ] 03:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The translators had excellent Greek, however, interpretation of the meaning of the text by different (highly politically active) factions varied extensively, therefore, to avoid taking sides and causing a political crisis, the translators deliberately avoided choosing one translation as better, preferring to retain ambiguity allowing both sides to claim their own idea of the meaning.
:::::::The KJV comittee based their version on a text known to be discontinuous.
:::::::The version with the sidenote is something like the "New American Bible" but there are so many similarly named versions that I am not sure what the exact title is, unfortunately.
:::::::] 20:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see much point in continuing this argument, as it has all the hallmarks of clutching at straws, and trolling, and is irrelevant to the article. ] 20:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I've made a series of edits; it looks like {{tq|although not all scholars share these interpretations}} is the only issue left. Regards, ] - ] 06:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The definition of "protestant" seems to vary according to who one is talking to. ;-|. The Church of England isn't protestant? Then you were wrong in claiming that all the churches involved in the NIV translation were protestant, because the first one listed--Anglican--''is'' the Church of England!
::::I'm not sure what your opinion is on my 'Ehrman-criterium' (especially given my response to you in ), but if we accept it, then the second sentence in the lead paragraph 'The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:4, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P)', should be preceded by some statement like, 'According to traditional interpretation, the Pentateuch in its entirety was written by Moses as an inspired and infallible work , while critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy), the first account...' This also applies to the first paragraph of Note ''b''. Also cut out the sentence 'drawn from different sources' and move the note to the second sentence. ] (]) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::So what ''is'' the reference for "soft adulterers"?
:::::I've added a line on this to the lead. ] - ] 10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Restating that the text was known to be discontinuous is not providing evidence.
::::::That's perfect except for the word 'mainstream'. My argument (and the Ehrman-criterium) necessitate that this word should be replaced by 'critical'. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning the traditional view since composite authorship is an 'uncontroversial and uncontested fact'. This is in reference to ] which has this 'fringe/mainstream' dichotomy that's been extensively debated on this talk page. Unrelated note: you can remove the first appearance of Note ''b'' since it now comes twice in one sentence. ] (]) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If this discussion is irrelevant, why did you start it?
:::::::No. You can't ad hoc interpret your 'Ehrman-criterium' to make it fit your preferences. Ehrman, in two differnt writings, clearly states "scholarly concensus" and "scholars," not "critical scholars" or "Biblical criticism," nor "mainstream. I've changed it to plain "scholars," per Ehrman. ] - ] 07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] 01:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::::I have never said that Ehrman possesses supernatural infallibility in his writings. In determining what views 'mainstream scholarship' includes, I consulted the opinion of an expert in the field, who states that he does not discount evangelical scholars and will not attribute a conclusion to 'most scholars' unless evangelicals agree. His practice in other writings is totally irrelevant. I am interested in his opinion on this matter specifically. ] (]) 08:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, you started it (with the comment "much of this (and further comments below) is utter hogwash"). ] 01:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::::To be honest, with respect to NPOV I think this article is fine now and I have no further qualms. But my original argument aside, I think 'critical' should be added before 'scholars' for the sake of clarity. Jewish and Christian tradition maintain textual unity, now 'scholars' dispute this. Why? The reason for this is biblical criticism, therefore this should be specified. ] (]) 13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::'The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like.' This sentence would be denied by any traditional scholar (including any traditional/orthodox Christian or Jew). As per the Ehrman-criterium (really ]), it must not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice but qualified to critical and/or liberal scholars. ] (]) 08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
: i understand your concern about translations ... however, i think it's strongly pov to say that one translation is "right" and the others are wrong, just because the kjv is contradictory. from my understanding of the hebrew, 'owph (foul) could equally refer to mayim sharats (let the waters bring forth) as to 'amar (said). i.e. i think the kjv interpretation is no more valid than the others in the original language ... and ultimately the kjv makes no sense. may i suggest that if you want to do it in an npov way, you apply the hebrew grammar and do a full analysis ... or note that the vast majority of english versions, translated by competent hebrew scholars, interpret it differently than you do? ] 05:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Why would it be denied, according to which source? ] - ] 10:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I've attributed this piece to it's author, Carr. ] - ] 10:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{talkquote|Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.}} (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy 1978, ''The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy''. Oakland, California. https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.) This statement was signed by a number of prominent evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, and represents traditional Protestant interpretation. ] (]) 11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::I am not saying that one tranlation is right, I am saying that one translation is closer to the Hebrew original from the others. Any ambiguity in the Hebrew tended to be left in the translation, thus the KJV doesnt have as much bias.
::The majority of versions are modern evangelical translations. Most other denominations see no point in changing their version, so there is little proliferation of the others.
::I have looked at the Hebrew (via ), though Im absolutely rubbish at translating it. It is generally recognised that translators have a POV and apply it to their translation (look at the ''New American Bible'' or ''New Jerusalem Bible'' for extreme examples of this (these can be viewed via the previously mentioned website)). Since most modern translations are by evangelical groups, this POV will be towards theirs.
::The KJV was produced by a large collection of scholars, with various POV, from what is recognised as one of the most neutral and accurate attempts to obtain an original version in greek / hebrew (from the various differing manuscripts) (this attempt is known as the ]). This large differing collection of people makes them more likely to produce a neutral version. The same is true for the few other versions which use a wide range of people of different opinions.
::The translation, for example, of "They wept one another, until david had exceeded" retains the ambiguity of whether it is about gay sex (The hebrew technically translates "enlarged" rather than "exceeded", which would imply an erection) or just two friends crying (even though Jonathon has stripped naked before David) wheras the translation "They shook hands and cried together" is clearly a POV spin on this.
::In the first part of Genesis, the ambiguity of whether there are two versions of the story or one, present in the Hebrew, is retained in the KJV; it isn't in the NIV. The KJV therefore is more NPOV on such things.
::Since this is about ambiguity, then using the NIV version would clearly make people wonder why there was an issue at all. Using the KJV makes it more clear, whilst at the same time not taking sides on the issue.
::The fact that the KJV is vague is the whole advantage to using it. It preserves the ambiguity of the original and avoids making a POV decision on how to translate it. The issue about "birds" is indeed that it could refer equally to the waters or to said. That is the whole reason for the ambiguity. The KJV maintains this ambiguity, which is why, in this case, it is a better translation. The one account theory takes it that it refers to said, wheras the two account theory takes it that it refers to waters.
::Note that the words in <nowiki></nowiki> are italicised in the KJV to show that they are inserted into the text by the translators in order for it to make sense. These words are absent from the original completely. The KJV is one of the only versions to admit where it inserts text that is not in the original. This is an important NPOV advantage.
::] 12:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::::That's a primary source, and does not directly address Carr's statement, or the perceived differences in narrative structure/content. ] - ] 06:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::If you insist on having both versions in the text then I would like a word for word translation from hebrew to be included as well (i.e. one which translates each word independantly and does not re-arrange the sentance or insert text). Since you seem to comprehend hebrew better than me, could you do this? ] 12:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::::{{talkquote|We have also seen that the assertion that the P account lacks anthropomorphisms is mistaken: the first pericope actually depends on an anthropomorphic presentation, where God is a craftsman going through his workweek, taking his rest each evening, and then enjoying his Sabbath. This merges with the anthropomorphic presentation of the second pericope, in which God "forms" the man like a potter and "builds" the woman. Further, we have already seen that, while the first pericope certainly does emphasize God's transcendence, it is far from presenting him as distant or aloof. In fact it invites us to enter into aspects of God's own experience, and to imitate his model. Where does this leave us? Do these pericopes come from separate sources or not? There is no way to answer this question, since the putative sources no longer exist. But for each feature that is put forward to support the source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow of the narrative. In other words, if someone produced this text by stitching sources together, he left the seams smooth indeed.}} (''Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary'', C. John Collins, 2006, P&R Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, pp. 230-231) Composite authorship is contested and controversial. ] (]) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I approve of this now since you added 'According to Carr,' however you might like to add this argumentation from Collins in response to Carr to round out the POV of this article. ] (]) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Done . ] - ] 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
=== borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology===
:::Thanks. I don't think we need the KJV or RSV quotes on this passage any more. As the versions don't differ on the second passage, can they be replaced with either a paraphrase, or just one of the versions (I would prefer the paraphrase, as otherwise people will keep changing the text to their preferred version, or adding their version). ] 14:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), , Oxford Bibliographies:
:::: No prob -- i'd like to leave the full text of the second in, tho, since it illustrates the single account claim that the second account is more focused on Man's role ... eh?
{{talkquote|The imprint of Mesopotamia’s mythic thought and literature on Genesis’ Primeval History (Genesis 1–11) is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole. But these factors cannot take away from the place of Mesopotamia’s stories of origins in the Bible’s opening chapters; and the latter, remarkably, do not fully conceal these antecedents. To the contrary, in its layout the biblical text appears frank about the locale of what preceded its eventual epic-making call to Abraham to “go forth” (Gen. 12:1) from his homeland and begin anew in a faraway place.}}
:::::Ok, that seems fine. I have edited the text a bit - we don't need the original hebrew (people can look that up if they are really that bothered). I have taken out the discussion on bible versions, as that belongs in another article (about difference between bible translations, I don't know what the article is called, or whether it exists yet). It looks a bit neater now. I changed your description of the ambiguity, as I thought of a shorter more explanitary one (pointing out how miniscule, but significant, the difference is) Oh, and I put in a link to a detail on the RSV. ] 15:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Good work:). ] 15:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some alternate takes:
=== Clarity please, with these "birds" ===
* James M. Rochford, ]], Evidence Unseen
* Liz Abrams (2022), ], Answers in Genesis
This is also far beyond "too controversial and contested." ] - ] 17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
--- Begin save container for a word for word translation
:The 'imprint of Mesopotamia's mythic thought and literature on Genesis' is different from 'borrowing of themes'. Notice that Klamm and Winitzer qualify their statement, saying '... is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole.' I believe the current wording of 'borrowing' is too broad and does not give the nuance which Klamm and Winitzer express. Again, I would endorse the addition of the wording of this quote into the article. ] (]) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
In the first section, birds are described as being created as follows:
::Both sources are talking about ], not the creation narrative. The ] has its own article, and it is not part of a ]. ] (]) 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*Literally, "God said waters bring forth creature having life birds fly above earth open firmament heaven"
:::@Violoncello10104: Sarna (1997) says "borrowed some themes"; that's in line with the nuance you're looking for. I've added "some" to the text, and changed the sentence in the lead into
It is unclear to biblical translators whether the passage should be divided as:
:::{{talkquote|The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative were influenced by ] and ], and borrowed some themes from them, adapting and integrating them with their unique ].}}
*"God said waters bring forth creature and God said birds fly above earth", or
:::@Dimadick: those two internet-articles are linked in a note, as examples of the conservative/Evangelical view; I wouldn't use them as sources, just as 'illustrations'. ] - ] 05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*"God said waters bring forth creature having life and waters bring forth birds fly above earth."
:::The Evidence Unseen absolutely goes into the creation bits of Genesis. ] (]) 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::You're right, but is it consequential? The idea is to get an idea of the way of thinking. ] - ] 06:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::''We'' should not be deciding which sources provide an adequate "idea of the way of thinking". Use a secondary source, not a primary one. ] (]) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you, I approve of that edit as it places 'borrowing' within the context of 'influence'. ] (]) 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
=== the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation===
Due to this ambiguity in the text, English translations differ.
The body of the article says:
{{talkquote|establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ] neighbors. (Leeming 2004, Smith 2001)}}
Leeming (2004) Oxford University Press; Smith 2001 Oxford university Press.
Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), , Oxford Bibliographies:
--- End save container for a word for word translationg
{{talkquote|If, then, the Bible was to offer something meaningful about such topics, Mesopotamia’s version of events would necessarily have to be addressed. The challenge presented by Mesopotamia, therefore, would amount to a delicate balancing act: How was the Bible to incorporate this ancient tradition while at the same time not losing its own claim for a theological revolution?}}
I also don't see how this could be "too controversial and contested." ] - ] 17:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
What was wrong with the above word for word translation? I thought it explained the issue of this page rather clearly--and rather efficiently. :)) After all, the point of this page is to explain why some people think the two recitations of events differ, is it not? Without something like the above--or an alternative word for word explanation--people like me will not know what on earth this page is talking about! :(( What do you think? ---] | ] 16:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I can concede this point if my suggestion in is accepted. The term 'borrowing' in my mind connotes a kind of plagiarism on the part of the biblical authors, whereas what you have quoted speaks of 'imprint'. 'Influence' is another good word, and not even orthodox/fundamentalist scholars would disagree that there was Mesopotamian imprint or influence upon Genesis. ] (]) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
: i like it ... any dissent? ] 16:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::The word-for-word translation is VERY IMPORTANT. It explains why people actually bother discussing this point. ] 19:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Good; see . Regards, ] - ] 06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
== Preserving the BlueLetterBible links for discussion ==
=== the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."===
--- Begin container preserving the BlueLetterBible links
Ehm... I don't recall where that came from ... The article now says:
{{talkquote|n Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural, or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings. A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".}}
:Already resolved (). ] (]) 23:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
--- End container preserving the BlueLetterBible links
== Expanding the 'Hexameral literature' section ==
: <<''Blueletterbible does not have ALL versions of the text, I can name many not available there. Selecting the KJV is POV. Readers should be free to choose their own''>>
I propose that the following expansion be made to this section which at the moment only has one paragraph, and could do with further primary and secondary sources to give a fuller picture of hexameral literature on the Genesis creation narrative. Bouteneff 2008 has been cited as a reliable source since 2010, and no one has produced scholarly judgments to show that Bouteneff is unreliable, so I think it is unreasonable to say this source is so unreliable that all information from it should be immediately removed. In addition, nothing he is saying is controversial; he is just reporting the views of significant commentators in hexameral literature.
Hold on. :(( Having the links to the BlueLetterBible versions makes a better page. :)) What is your objection to having these links? ---] | ]
I'm not opposed to adding more sources to this, and I would appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions to improve this proposed expansion. However I do think it's highly unreasonable to simply delete this information, as has occurred twice now, rather than using the 'one source section' maintenance template which exists for precisely this kind of situation.
:i think his concern is that not ALL the versions are represented -- he seems to think it's pov to pick one. although i think it would be nice to have links to all versions, i don't think it's pov to have links to all the major ones. may i suggest that we put the links back in since it represents ALMOST all the versions ... and if Mr. Cheesedreams wants to add links to other versions, he puts them in too, instead of leaving the page without any link to the actual story it's talking about? ] 01:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
{{talkquote|
::How difficult is it for a user to find a copy of the bible themselves and find the first chapter of the first book?
====Theophilus of Antioch====
::I fail to see why it is necessary to point them to a website, when Google is amazingly good at finding bible links (Just type in "Genesis 1" and "KJV" for example (genesis 1 being in speech marks)).
The second-century ], wrote a treatise attempting to convince his pagan acquaintance of the Christian faith by discrediting pagan classical literature and prophecy for its alleged contradictions and immorality, while upholding Scripture as possessing "antiquity", predating pagan philosophy. This treatise is known as the ''Letter to Autolycus'' and was cited as an authority by ], ], ], ] and ].{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=68}}
::There are SO many other versions. For example, The New American Bible. There are also the New English Bible (which is NOT on blueletterbible). If you want to point to blueletterbible, add it as an external link at the base of the page, and point it to a neutral page on blueletterbible, such as the introductory page.
Theophilus attacks the ] and lack of ] of pagan myths, especially the account of ], lauding the Genesis creation account for its teaching of ]. His interpretation of the creation narrative is at times allegorical, for example, "through the resurrection is signified, for a proof of the future resurrection of all ". The waters are like the Law and the Prophets; the perfect sun is a type for God while the waxing and waning moon is a type for the human person.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=69}} Despite his propensity for allegory, Theophilus does not mention Adam-Christ ] which is present in the works of his contemporaries such as ] and ], as well as in the New Testament, such that his interpretation resembles the Jewish exegesis of ] and the ] on Genesis.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=70}}
::The blueletterbible only represents about 10 versions. There are significantly more than this in existance, at least twice as many.
Theophilus establishes an antithesis between pagan myths, which are regarded as deceitful and novel, and trustworthy ancient history as represented by the Genesis creation narrative. From his conviction of the reliability and antiquity of the prophetic writings, he meticulously calculates a chronology: from the Creation to the Flood was 2,242 years, from the Flood to Abraham, 1,036 years, from Isaac to Moses, 660 years and so on until the death of Roman Emperor ] in AD 180.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=72}} He then evaluates the historicity of the Old Testament.<blockquote>This message is not recent in origin, nor are our writings, as some suppose, mythical and false. They are actually more ancient and trustworthy. lived long after and introduced a multitude of gods. For this reason it is plain that all the rest were in error and that only the Christians have held the truth—we who are instructed by the Holy Spirit who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold everything.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=71–72}}</blockquote>
::To pick the RSV, or the KJV is POV as to which is better, to list 20 or 30 different links IN THE BODY of an article is messy. ] 07:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
] (c. 1420s) of Basil of Caesarea by ] and ].]]
====Basil's ''Hexaemeron''====
Basil's homilies on the six days of creation (''Hexaemeron'') were appreciated widely; by ], ], ] and ]. Basil strongly separates the Genesis creation account from scientific accounts of creation, seeing instead a theological aim in Genesis to teach that "the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings, if it is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God".{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=133}} Basil's homilies contain both a literalistic element seen in Theophilus, along with a fondness for practical working-class wisdom, as well as an ] element in the Neoplatonic and allegorical concepts such as the notion of the pre-existence of Creation in the mind of God.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=138}}
Basil conceives of Creation as existing conceptually in the mind of God before coming into physical existence by his will, comparing God to "the artist , even before the combination of the parts, knows the beauty of each and approves them individually, directing his judgment to the final aim", claiming this to be the meaning of {{bibleverse|Colossians|1:16|KJV}} ("For by him were all things created").{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=133}} However, Basil criticises the excessive allegorisation of the ], ] and ], taking the terms "light", "darkness" and "deep" as literal appellations, and emphasising that evil has no origin of itself, but rather that it is attributable to the voluntary fall of man.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=134}} He also interprets the days of creation as twenty-four-hour periods.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=134}} Yet, he regards God's sayings "Let there be..." not as a literal spoken word, but as an allegorical "seed" of theology; "the divine will, joined with the first impulse of intelligence, is the Word of God." Basil, like Origen, says that "Theological teachings are scattered as mystical seeds throughout the historical account"; this explains his cautious embrace of allegory alongside the confession of the historicity of the account. On the allegorical interpretations of the "firmament", he says the following.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=134–135}}<blockquote>And if they tell you that the heavens mean contemplative powers, and the firmament active powers which produce good, we admire the theory as ingenious but we will not concede that it is altogether true. For in that case dew, the frost, cold and heat, which in Daniel are ordered to praise the Creator of all things, will be intelligent and invisible natures. But this is only a figure, accepted as such by enlightened minds , to complete the glory of the Creator.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=135}}</blockquote>Basil regards Creation as primarily doxological in glorifying the Creator, and secondarily as ethically instructive, for example in the perceived virtue of animals such as bees and turtles.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=135–136}}<blockquote>I have heard it said that the sea urchin, a little contemptible creature, often foretells calm and tempest to sailors. No astrologer, no Chaldaean, has ever communicated his secret to the urchin: it is the Lord of the sea and of the winds who has impressed on this little animal a manifest proof of his great wisdom. God has foreseen all, he has neglected nothing. His eye, which never sleeps, watches over all. He is present everywhere and gives to each being the means of preservation. If God has not left the sea urchin outside his providence, is he without care for you?{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=135}}</blockquote>Basil's series of homilies on the Hexaemeron were unfinished. There are two homilies on the origin of humanity which present themselves as a continuation of Basil's work, although they differ significantly in style, leading some scholars to doubt their authenticity.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|pp=136–137}} In these homilies, the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 is interpreted as referring to the Trinity, unlike Theophilus. The term "image" is associated with the ], and "likeness" with the human vocation to become like God. These homilies also regard men and women as equal in that they both possess the image and likeness of God, "Nobody may ignorantly ascribe the name of human only to the man. The natures are alike of equal honor, the virtues are equal, the struggles equal, the judgment alike". The "making" of Adam in Genesis 1:27 is seen as referring to the soul while the "fashioning" in Genesis 2:7 refers to the deliberate and meticulous forming of Adam's body.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=137}}}}
{{reflist-talk}}
* {{cite book |last=Bouteneff |first=Peter C. |title=Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narrative |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher=Baker Academic |date=2008 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aANpcJF5jDUC&q=Beginnings:+Ancient+Christian+Readings+of+the+Biblical+Creation+Narrative |isbn=978-0-8010-3233-2 |access-date=11 November 2020 |archive-date=8 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230308130405/https://books.google.com/books?id=aANpcJF5jDUC&q=Beginnings:+Ancient+Christian+Readings+of+the+Biblical+Creation+Narrative |url-status=live}}
] (]) 04:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
**This is the sort of thing that should have its own article, with a hyperlink in the see also section.] (]) 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What if you put links to BlueLetterBible and to BibleGateway (which has even more translations available -- we'd have to see if any are particularly worthwhile) and to US Catholic Bishops (New American) , but in the "External Links" section. You can indicate in the text that there are resources in "External Links" to provide various translations of the two chapters. By linking to one text in the actual article, we are favoring that translation, but it would be unwieldy to provide lots of links there. It might be worth individually linking some 5-6 major translations, plus the Hebrew text, indicating that there are more available at those sites. ] 08:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
::And I find it highly unreasonable that you have such a hidebound determination to add undue ] content to this article with so little respect for establishing an actual consensus to do so when your additions are challenged, you having preferred to bludgeon the page. Looking over your comments on this page one detects a determined (glaring) creationist subtext. This content is more about Hexameral literature than it is about the Genesis creation narrative, so it has no place here. It ''might'' have a place in its own dedicated article. ] (]) 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::External links is fine for a collection of bible websites. (The hebrew is available on blueletter bible)] 09:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: In my opinion, it would be much better to have the external links right up there in the lead section--like in a table. Give the link and the number of translations available there. It would be impressive! The number of translations says more to me than the words in the texts. :)) ---] | ] 09:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Composition of the narrative ==
:::::: Table added. ] 15:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article accepts and promotes a very old-fashioned version of the Documentary Hypothesis, ignoring other theories: the current thinking would be that the Torah was composed between 450-250 BC in a series of expansions, with the creation narrative dating from the end of that period. ] (]) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think it counts as content. I think it counts as links. ] 19:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
How about a table something like the following? What are the other sites? :((
What do you think? ---] | ] 16:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Let us quote actual proponents here; this is not personal research! ==
: <<''They claim that there is no reason to assume that understanding of Ancient Hebrew grammer is sufficiently lacking for the sentence to be unambiguous, given the significant knowledge of early languages that is built up by ].''>>
May I point out that the above sentence does not make sense. And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for now that you can explain it. Now maybe I don't understand which BC century ] began. ;) Or maybe I am wrong in having the impression that 1500 BC writing technology was fragile; miscopies were easy; no Xeroxes. :( Or maybe I have a wrong impression that ancient scribes tried to preserve even ambiguous phrases from the sacred past in hope that someone would finally figure them out. In any case, you will score ten points--not just one--in my book if you can quote an actual scholar who said anything similar to the above assertion. In the meantime, I suggest that we cut that sentence here to the TalkPage for preservation while you begin that long search to find some reputable scholar who said anything even close to "They claim that there is no reason to assume that understanding of Ancient Hebrew grammer is sufficiently lacking for the sentence to be unambiguous, given the significant knowledge of early languages that is built up by ]." Who is ''They''? What do you say? ---] | ] 20:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I suggest that the text is restored to the article until you can provide a reputable scholar who suggests the counterclaim in the article. ] 23:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I changed that link to work. It is now ]. Does that make any sense to you? The basis of the argument is that language A is related to language B, therefore we interpolate to work out what language AB(the ancestor) was like. Further we can work out what B was like in missing detail B.45b by the corresponding detail in A.45b and lots of academic discussion. I.e. by knowing Modern Hebrew, bits of Aramaic, bits of Demotic, bits of .... and obviously bits of Ancient Hebrew, we can fill in the blanks, particularly as there are not so many. This is the basic principle of Historical linguistics (also called Comparative Philology). The bible was not written in 1500BC. Please check the articles on the origin of writing. From ] ''This script was borrowed by the Hebrews during the 12th or 11th century BC, and around the 9th century BC, a distinct Hebrew variant, the original "Hebrew script", emerged''. I.e. no Hebrew writing before 12th century. ] 23:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
No the sentences
* "In addition, they point out that having written the Hebrew text, the author would surely have noted the ambiguity and corrected it, unless there was a reason to keep the implication of birds being created from the waters. They claim that there is no reason to assume that understanding of Ancient Hebrew grammer is sufficiently lacking for the sentence to be unambiguous, given the significant knowledge of early languages that is built up by Historical linguistics"
do not make sense in this paragraph. I have a couple of citations to support the preceding sentences in that paragraph. I am looking for a better citation. ---] | ] 03:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:citations should be referenced at the bottom of the page. Don't add too much bulk to just one side of the argument, it is POV. I have tagged certain parts out until the documentary hypothesis is pointed out in similar detail (also note that variations on the documentary hypothesis are the majority academic view, so suggesting it isn't by a whole section is rather distoring).
::since you seem to have a particular interest in the documentary hypothesis, would you be so kind as to flesh out the other side? ] 14:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have reworded the birds section for readability. ] 21:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, the they is ]
== Begin preservation container of cut text ==
---
=== Conclusions if there is one account ===
=== Conclusions if there are two accounts ===
=== Scholarly alternative: The texts can be read either way ===
Biblical scholar Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2001) proposes that Genesis 1 and 2 can be seen as either one painting with two panels or as two separate paintings. Both are appropriate. She draws the parallel with the ancient story-telling technique that ] employed in the movie ]. In that movie, the same series of events are told through the eyes of four different people, and of course realistically there are contradictions in the different narratives. And you could make sense out that movie either as four different stories or as four people having four different realistic narratives of the same story.
Accordingly, Ms. Reis analyzes Genesis 1 as God's narrative and Genesis 2 as man's narrative. In Genesis 1, the style of narration is very orderly and logical, proceeding from basics like heaven and earth, through plants and animals to man and woman. And everything is "good" or "very good." Ms. Reis suggests that the story-teller has a bit of whimsy in noting how perfect everything is from God's view.
In contrast, in Genesis 2, man tells the story from his own self-centeredness. Man is created first, of course. And there are a few flaws. Man is alone, without a woman. Whereas, in Genesis 1, the phrase is "heaven and earth" repeated several times, in Genesis 2, God makes "earth and heaven." And another thing, in Genesis 2, there is that troubling notice that "there was no one to till the ground." That sounds like a lot of work, an unending task--very unlike the completeness of Genesis 1.
Even the words used in Genesis 1 suggest serenity, the godly plane of existence. For example, in Genesis 1, the word for God is Elohim, the generic and distant God, while God's name in Genesis 2 is the personal and very sacred YHWH Elohim, the Lord of God. Even the verb of making is different in the two narratives, in the first narrative the verb is the Hebrew "arb" which means "create from nothing," something that only God can do. In contrast, the verb in the second narrative means "make"; God "made earth and heaven." Maybe man cannot make earth and heaven, but at least man can ''make'' many things from what is already at hand. And then there is that interesting inventory of gold and ] and where they can be found--only in the second narrative, of course. From God's view in the first narrative, gold is not even mentioned; gold is something of interest only in man's narrative.
From all of these clues, Ms. Reis suggests that Genesis 1 and 2 make sense either way, just as for Kurosawa's Rashomon. They make sense as two different stories. Or they make sense as two narratives of the same story from different personal perspectives: that of God and that of man.
== End preservation container of cut text ==
May I point out that there is no rational reason :) for commenting out the above text. What are your objections? :( ---] | ] 16:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: he seems to be concerned that we're introducing a PRO-single account argument without a corresponding two-account counter-argument. it seems to me, tho, that the author would probably object to being stuffed into EITHER category, as (as i understand it) she thinks it could legitimately be read EITHER way without making the text less valuable. may i suggest we list THREE perspective -- "one account," "two accounts," or "could be read either way?" ] 16:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: Yes. I can see that--now that I think about it. :) That makes sense. I will put the cut text back in--with the three headings that you suggest--that makes sense. ---] | ] 17:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::well, I wrote a comment about it a few seconds ago but its dissappeared, so,
:::The text is nebulous. VERY nebulous. Completely lacking in clarity or succinctness. It is also in the wrong place. It is about style. It should go in the style section. Please note, I did not delete it but tagged it out. There is no need to have a container wasting space on this page. ] 21:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Recovering from Misplaced Pages system bug ==
--- the system bug caused the following comment to be incorrectly buried in a portion of duplicated text
--- begin buried commment
::The text is very nebulous, and devoid of content. However, what she does say, or rather, what she is paraphrased as, seems on balance to be PRO. In addition, it seems to be simply about the issue of Style. It should be re-written and moved there. I have re-tagged it out and moved it. This is not a place to write novels. ]
--- end buried comment
== Reminder! We are supposed to be writing ] articles ==
I find from the history file that someone took out a paragraph with the following comment
: "<nowiki><!-- this is pov personal research. find me one reputable scholar who . . .</nowiki>"
And then I find that someone else put the disputed paragraph back in, making the following comment
: "Restore text removed for horrifically POV reasons"
Let me remind all of us that according to Misplaced Pages policy, "]." And according to the Misplaced Pages NPOV explanations, the way NPOV is achieved is by citing to the proponents of the different POVs. So it is very correct, according to Misplaced Pages NPOV policy to remove disputed comments for which the proponents are not identified. "Some say . . ." does not work without a citation if it is not obvious that "Some say . . . ." I quote you from the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy page
* "Misplaced Pages is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone."
So whoever said "find me one reputable scholar who . . ." said the right thing. This is Misplaced Pages after all! ---] | ] 00:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Explain ==
Please explain
*Why you have a very nebulous textual essay by one reference shoved at the end of the article. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: A paraphrase of what a cited scholar said is not "nebulous." That is the very essence of how to achieve Misplaced Pages ]--namely cite to what scholars actually said. Surely, a scholar's opinion of the interpretation of the "text" is not "nebulous." ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::the cited scholar shows a "third way" in the debate. it's legit and it belongs there. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Nebulous=cloudy, i.e. vague. The Nebulosity exists because the text is badly written. It should be rewritten. I will do it if no-one else does.
::::: Since there is such a great disparity of opinion of editors on whether the current text is clear English, the appropriate thing would be to put your eventual version and the current version up for wide Misplaced Pages vote on whether it is "clear." Likely many sections of this page will be submitted for Misplaced Pages vote on what kind of English provides clarity. :) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Assuming it hasn't been reverted again, I have already edited most of the nebulosity out of it, and moved it to the appropriate section. ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why you do not want it admitted that Kitchen is an Evangelical Christian. After ruminating on this, I consider it an '''NPOV''' issue.
For my part It is important that it be pointed out that his starting point is "the bible is fundamentally inerrant", which does not really make his search for evidence likely to be very NPOV, it is important that it is stated that he is NOT an impartial witness to the matter. All or nothing is fine by me. I prefer All. I have never used a quote which implies it is from a neutral bystander but supports a particular side of the argument. I do not expect you to do that either. Either remove the quote or point out he is very much not neutral. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: ] is NOT about neutrality. ] is about stating what the proponents actually said. I refer you to the Misplaced Pages ] policy documents. That Mr. Kitchen said what he said is a fact. And therefore quoting what Mr. Kitchen said, together with opposing quotes of scholars, is how Misplaced Pages ] is achieved! ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: May I insert here also that NPOV is about non-bias. It is our non-bias policy. Not a neutral POV, but an avoidance of bias toward any POV over another whenever there is a dispute. ] - ] 21:14, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
:: if you wanna say that kitchen's got an evangelical bias, you gotta list the biases of the biblical critics -- including the many atheists -- who come to the bible believing there is no God and the text is a crock, and use their "biblical criticism" to prove it. bias cuts both ways, and i want everybody's bias listed, or nobody's bias. the notion that atheists are objective and evangelicals alone are biased is pov. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Where did I state that atheists are unbiased? The point is that you use Kitchens quote to suggest a fact which supports the argument on one side. The point is that Kitchen is extremely biased, and so the factual accuracy of what he states is in doubt. Therefore it is important to point this out. Please note: I have not myself used quotes stating things as if they were fact.
::::i understand that. all i'm saying is, if you want to call Kitchens an evangelical, then you need to call the biblical critics either Liberal Christians, non-christians, or atheists -- because many biblical critics are ALSO extremely biased. it is pov to identify the bias of one academic, leaving the implication that all the others have no bias. all i want is fair treatment -- everyone or noone. ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: That would be the Misplaced Pages ] approach. Yes. :) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: Seconded. Treat all POVs fairly, with a consistently sympathetic, positive tone. ] - ] 21:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
::::::I have no objection to pointing out that person X is liberal christian, etc. ON CONDITION THAT kitchen is identified as an evangelical. Alternatively (as per my recent edit (if it hasn't been reverted)), I will accept not mentioning he is an evangelical ON CONDITION THAT it is also not mentioned that he is a professor or archaeologist. All or nothing. ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Having the biblical references is simply messy
There is a perfectly adequate section at the base of the article. The other Jesus and Bible articles don't have massive sets of links to a series of biblical sources. Nor should this. The point of an encyclopedia is to sum things up not to have loads of references and go:well, go on, look for yourself. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: It is Misplaced Pages policy to 1) identify proponents of various views and 2) ] when it is not obvious where to go to check whether what you just wrote is correct. To get Featured Article status, it is important to provide citations and references. I refer you to the criticisms that this page got when being considered for Featured Article status. ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: this article is foremost about the text. a reader NEEDS to have access to the text right up in front, so he can read it, and THEN consider all our theories about it. it takes up virtually no space, and is not bulky.
::: The text is foremost in ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. But it isn't linked to there. It looks SLOPPY. ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: given the choice between sheer aesthetics and function, i gotta go with function. given the systemic bias, i'm not gonna use other pages for my model. you can put it in with the intro, if you like, but it is NOT sloppy to say that the original hebrew has been translated in many versions (true!), and make each of those versions a link. it simply makes for a better page.
::::: This page is unique in that several very different interpretations of the same text are intimately entangled with the way the original is translated. So in my opinion, we should provide a link to the many different translations up front. Providing a link is much, much better than providing the text up front inside the article, in my opinion. :)) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Urm, no, ] is very important w.r.t. the nature of the text. As is ], and ]. It is sloppy to have a whole section the contents of which are "There are some translations - ]". It would be better to have a sentence in the introduction "sources for the text can be found at this ]". ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why have you removed the first part of the interpretation section that Rednblu wrote and inserted it in the textual criticism 1vs2 accounts section?
It is not relevant there. It is relevant back at the beginning of the article. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: You may be right. Good suggestion. Can we think about it.? ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: maybe i got a little crazy:). ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: When I look at it again, the summary works in my opinion in that it summarizes the conclusions at the top. Let's wait until we have a complete page, ''then'' we can decide whether any of the summaries at the top should be there. :)) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why have you expanded the Elohim suggests strength bit, when the extra content adds nothing and just makes it less readable?] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: Whether it adds something depends on the point-of-view, does it not? And any good Misplaced Pages artile should report the various points-of-view on the article. That is how we achieve good enough NPOV to get Featured Article status. ;)) The question is: Does the "Elohim suggests . . ." add something useful for the readers. Let's think about it. ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: it just seems like clarity to me. feel free to "bulk up" the other side, but i think that the words need to be explained in order for the point to be made. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Im not objecting to the words being explained, just the way you explained them. I had changed the paragraph to a succincter version which still contained the explanation. I want to know why you removed my succinct version and replaced it with one that was verbose. ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::Because i felt as tho your "succincter" version was so succinct that it made the argument incomprehensible -- that it needed to be broken apart for clarity. ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::: I did not think that the "succincter" version was clear at all. Again, we should have several versions put up for wide Misplaced Pages vote to decide which version is clear. ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::: What was unclear about it? ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why have you tagged out the text from 700BC and orthodoxy sections?
This is not personal research, orthodoxy & church latin were complaints since the Reformation, wheras the date of origin of the text is part of Biblical criticism. I have put this bit back in. There is no justification in removing it whatsoever.
Orthodoxy - see ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].
Church Latin - see ], ].
Origin of the text - see ],], ], ] ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: I agree that we need a citation to a scholar so that we can see what was really said. In my opinion, it is not good enough to just quote other Misplaced Pages pages. We have to summarize what the scholars actually said--not just what the Misplaced Pages pages said. :)) ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: feel free to add a scholar who put in writing their factually-based belief that there was a grand church conspiracy to burn people at the stake over the genesis story. in the mean time, i think there's absolutely no factual basis for it, and i think it's church-bashing. nobody will deny that the church has done some horrible things. but this article isn't about the inquisition. and if you wanna say the church threatened to kill people over genesis, which i can't fathom, then you gotta back it up. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: The church DID kill people over genesis, read the articles I listed. But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy, which later became under pain of death. I don't see what the justification is in denying that the church insisted on orthodoxy. Citations please. ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: i just want one scholar who notes a case of the church killing a person for pointing out the "contradiction" between genesis 1 and 2. i know they killed people over orthodoxy. that's irrelevent to this page. i want a single case of them killing over genesis 1 vs. genesis 2. ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: Yes. I don't see any logical connection between the 1) inquisitions and the 2) "contradictions" in the two accounts in Genesis. The "contradictions" appear to me to reside in the original Hebrew. :) Hence, the "contradictions" have nothing to do with the "inquisitions." Now, if there is some scholar that related the "inquisitions" and the "contradictions," then it would be our duty to quote and cite that scholar's writing--if you can find it. And I doubt that you can find a scholar that says that the "inquisitions" caused the "contradictions"--because it does not make sense. ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Now Im going to have to look at the vatican records (which are very very good - they took very detailed notes of all heresy trials, rather oddly), which will take time (mainly because they aren't very willing to let people look, and insist you know what you are looking for before you can get it (you can't look at the (partial) catalogue)). ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::N.b. the inquisitition etc. frightened people into not disputing whatever the orthodoxy was on fear of death.
::::::I think I should re-state something I wrote above, as you haven't noticed it "But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy". ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, ive just discovered that it is possible to read part of Genesis 2 to state that god wanted adam to commit ]. Maybe that should go in too?] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Duel perspective theory. After ruminating on this, I consider it an '''NPOV''' issue.
This is NOT a seperate theory, but a different way to explain the single account theory. Having it as a seperate item implies 2 accounts is only 1/3 of the opinion, but 1 account is 2/3 which is very POV. ] 23:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: I don't have a personal interest in what that perspective means about whether or not Genesis is genuine, do you? :) However, I do know that interpretations like that are important in scholarly circles generally, whether they are interpreting ], the ], or the ]. :)) ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: look -- all i care about here is that a description of her work is in the text. you complained about there being no counterargument, so i added a counterargument. you erased the counterargument, so i made it a "third way." i've tried to be accomodating, but i'm out of ideas. it's good text, and it belongs in there.] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Its an appallingly vague text. If you want to put an essay in here put it in wikisource, and link to it. Cut it, trim it, edit it, rewrite it, make it more succinct, explain what her point was rather than quote her. The film reference is unimportant. I could write an essay on Fight Club and explain how it relates to Genesis, but it isn't really relevant, and it would be just nebulous. Her text is NOT a 3rd way. If you look at the last paragraph it is saying that genesis should be read as focus on god=part 1, focus on man=part 2. This is identical to the PRO-1 account theory. To claim it is a neutral view is EXTREMELY distorting. ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::that's why i initially put it in with the single view, with the best counterargument i could come up with -- which you promptly deleted. i'd rather it was in with the "single account" view -- because i think you're right. but i also know that biblical critics DON'T have a counterargument because ultimately they don't CARE what the text says -- just how they can chop it up. but the text is good. it's a valid point of view, and it's cited. we can put it back with the single account view, and clean it up if you'd like ... but let's not cut it out. ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: I don't have a preference at all among the "one account," the "two account," or any "other account." :) To me the Bible is just the best-selling piece of fiction ever in history. And the "dual perspective" interpretation at least provides an explanation why the Bible ''is'' the best-selling piece of fiction in history--namely it includes so many elements of what makes a good "story" in this world where there is no God to give us the accurate story. :) Apparently, part of making a good story is inviting the hearer of the story to engage with the story. And the high sales volume in Bibles results from the demand-side of the market buying the engaging story--with no regard for accuracy of the story. :)) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::: agreed -- i think that's the beauty of her "could be read either way" approach -- while kitchens goes for factual and historical inerrancy (which is pretty tough to argue), and the critics hypothesize about authors based on artificial criteria and a million and one assumptions (also very difficult), she takes a broader approach to the text -- as "literature" -- which could be fictional, factual, or a little bit of both -- and should be read for what it IS, right there, in front of us, today. that's why i think she's distinct from both the evangelicals and the critics, and should be laid out separately. good stuff:). ] 17:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::::I have edited it anyway. Its next to the kitchen. ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ps. please avoid colloquialisms like "leaves off" but use "finishes" and more formal language instead. Some people will not know what colloquialisms mean, and many dictionaries do not explain them.] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: Ok. Good idea. Feel free to fix that also. We all can edit each other's text. :)) But yes, I will fix that. Thanks for pointing that out. :) ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I would rather it was avoided in the first place, I don't want to clock up a huge number of small style edits.
::: I hereby take your advice to heart. I will read through the page right this second and take out all of the "leaves off" colloquialisms that I unconsciously put in there. And I will try my best to keep from making that mistake in the future. I promise. ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::I don't mind, its just that I would rather not have to do it. ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am thinking of reverting, but will wait until these are answered. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:let's hash it out all here before we return the edit war, eh:)? ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::hash? like this - ######################################### ? ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: sometimes it feels that way, yes:). ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: Have no fear. Edit wars will not deter us. :))) We will use "containers" on the TalkPage and subpages wherever needed to preserve the good and clear texts of whatever we do here. Then we will put all of our versions up for wide Misplaced Pages vote when we think we are ready. ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Proposal for continuing good work despite the edit war on the MainPage ==
; Definitions
* Let ] be called the MajorityOpinionPage
* Let ] be called the MinorityOpinionPage
* Let the readers decide which editors constitute the "majority" and which editors constitute the "minority." The "majority" editors are the ones who put the "This article is the subject of an edit war" tag on the ].
::That would be me then. OOh its nice to be in a majority of 1 compared to the piddling little minority of 2. ] 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
; Statement of the problem
* The "majority" editors have declared an edit war on ].
::No, the majority editors have simply pointed out that there is one. ] 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* The "minority" editors would like to develop a good page rather than fight an edit war.
::Are you claiming that the majority editors are not with that intent?] 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
; Rules for continuing good work despite the edit war on ]
* The "minority" editors can make suggestions about the ] page, but they must make those suggestions on the ] page. Only the "majority" editors have the power of moving suggestions from the ] page to the ] page.
* Conversely, the "majority" editors, those who put the "This article is the subject of an edit war" tag on the ] page can make suggestions about the ], but they must make those suggestions on the ] page. Only the "minority" editors have the power of making changes to the
* An appropriate Sysadmin will be selected by the "minority" editors to keep the "majority" editors from making changes to .
No, that is silly. '''It is having a rival page. This is a forbidden practice.''' ] 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
** I have asked several Sysadmins at this ] to look in occasionally to make sure that both "majority" and "minority" opinion treat the other fairly for this time. :) As one member of the "minority" opinion on the ] page, I ask of you please to give those of us in the "minority" and any other Misplaced Pages editor interested in developing a collaborative page a chance to develop our collaborative writing on the /tempMinorityOpinionPage so that we can see if our ideas are workable. We will strive to make those ideas good enough that you will like them as well. :)) ---] | ] 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
; The Misplaced Pages community vote will decide the baseline version of the ] page
* At a time that the "minority" editors choose, the Misplaced Pages community shall be invited to vote on which version, the majority's or the minority's, shall be adopted for the baseline version of ]. This voting mechanism is demonstrated on the ] page where the total Misplaced Pages community is currently voting on what shall be the baseline version of the ] page.
* The vote of the total Misplaced Pages community shall decide the baseline content of the ] page. ---] | ] 18:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Again, no. In addition, the "wikipedia community" who actually vote is simply dependent on those who are aware of the vote. This is very easy to gerrymander one way or the other, simply by making more of one's side aware. Since there are 2 of you and 1 of me, that automatically gives you a better chance of bringing a greater number of people to voting. '''THIS IS CHEATING'''. ] 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Discussion follows here
:I'd say, just create a temp page and start editing. You don't have to make a big deal about it -- just do it. Then you can work it up to scratch, and hopefully, it will be so good that all sides agree and we can take it live. (If there's a big fuss, then we take it to the Village Pump...) We did a similar thing with ] and managed to achieve FA status. I am interested in getting this page up to scratch and would be willing to help. ] 18:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
::: I invite you and any other editor interested in working in a collaborative style to come to ]. I am trying out some placement of images ideas. Any ideas? Does anybody have some idea for a stunning graphic of what the most ancient scroll of Genesis looks like? ---] | ] 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: Thanks. I have started a ] and am thinking about what version to put there initially. Any ideas? As you suggest, the formality is not necessary, but I would want to make clear that something formal could be established, no? ;)) ---] | ] 19:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I think, having read Mpolo's comment, that we should take the issue up on the Shroud of Turin page. That way, since there are obviously a lot of people involved in that, there is going to be a wider collection of people, which is more likely to be overall neutral. THIS IS A SERIOUS SUGGESTION. ] 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::sorry i jumped the gun and put in the page from last night ... lemme know if you want a different one:). ] 19:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: Good. Let's go. Is the name of the page all right? We could Move it--if that is a good idea. No links would be broken because there would be a Redirect. :)) In any case, we could move it later. ---] | ] 19:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Why the {} sign/s?==
The sign/s: <nowiki>{{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}}</nowiki> placed on this page by ] are similar to the ones he placed on about 50 other similar pages without any discussion, explanation or reasoning, so he needs to explain what his "Grand strategy" is...would he like to re-write the entire way Christianity and Judaisn look at the Bible on Misplaced Pages? Anyone concerned with these articles neeeds to know. (And why create a redundant category ] that is now up for a vote for deletion at ]?) ] 07:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:If you actually read the above, you would note that this page is the subject of an edit war. ] 21:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:* Not so. The content of this ] page is controlled entirely by Mr. Dreams--as you will see from the History of ].
::That is a LIE, RednBlu. You are creating a rival page there. Do you dispute this? If you no longer require the rival, I will add a speedy delete tag to the rival. ] 22:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Fair warning announcement ==
Please see the text of the announcement at this ] ---] | ] 10:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please also see the section marked "Explain".
Dysfunctional behaviour includes not adressing concerns raised on a talk page, and instead just going off to write a rival version ignoring them. ] 17:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* To what, pray tell, do you refer? I see not one of Mr. Dreams's comments that has not been thoroughly and exhaustively considered and applied where found of value. ---] | ] 17:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::The section above marked "explain", to which no responses have occured for many weeks. DESPITE my repeated requests to you to do so. ] 19:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::* Ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will withhold judgment and attribute my not seeing an unanswered concern to my certainty that there is ''not'' one. :)) Perhaps you could copy that unanswered concern below? I would sincerely thank you. :)) ---] | ] 21:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::* It seems that the following list of thorougly and exhaustively considered concerns is no different from the above list of thoroughly and exhaustively considered concerns. However, I iterate that the following list of actions should assist with all of those already thoroughly and exhaustively considered concerns:
::*# Correct spelling in the ] page. A spell-checker would be good.
::*# Correct "grammer". See .
::*# Turn the bullet-points into prose. ---] | ] 17:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::There are no replies on the following list, therefore it is not thouroughly or exhaustively addressed. ] 19:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Copy of unanswered concerns ==
Please explain
*Why you have a very nebulous textual essay by one reference shoved at the end of the article. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: A paraphrase of what a cited scholar said is not "nebulous." That is the very essence of how to achieve Misplaced Pages ]--namely cite to what scholars actually said. Surely, a scholar's opinion of the interpretation of the "text" is not "nebulous." ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::the cited scholar shows a "third way" in the debate. it's legit and it belongs there. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Nebulous=cloudy, i.e. vague. The Nebulosity exists because the text is badly written. It should be rewritten. I will do it if no-one else does.
::::: Since there is such a great disparity of opinion of editors on whether the current text is clear English, the appropriate thing would be to put your eventual version and the current version up for wide Misplaced Pages vote on whether it is "clear." Likely many sections of this page will be submitted for Misplaced Pages vote on what kind of English provides clarity. :) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Assuming it hasn't been reverted again, I have already edited most of the nebulosity out of it, and moved it to the appropriate section. ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why you do not want it admitted that Kitchen is an Evangelical Christian. After ruminating on this, I consider it an '''NPOV''' issue.
For my part It is important that it be pointed out that his starting point is "the bible is fundamentally inerrant", which does not really make his search for evidence likely to be very NPOV, it is important that it is stated that he is NOT an impartial witness to the matter. All or nothing is fine by me. I prefer All. I have never used a quote which implies it is from a neutral bystander but supports a particular side of the argument. I do not expect you to do that either. Either remove the quote or point out he is very much not neutral. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: ] is NOT about neutrality. ] is about stating what the proponents actually said. I refer you to the Misplaced Pages ] policy documents. That Mr. Kitchen said what he said is a fact. And therefore quoting what Mr. Kitchen said, together with opposing quotes of scholars, is how Misplaced Pages ] is achieved! ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: May I insert here also that NPOV is about non-bias. It is our non-bias policy. Not a neutral POV, but an avoidance of bias toward any POV over another whenever there is a dispute. ] - ] 21:14, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
:: if you wanna say that kitchen's got an evangelical bias, you gotta list the biases of the biblical critics -- including the many atheists -- who come to the bible believing there is no God and the text is a crock, and use their "biblical criticism" to prove it. bias cuts both ways, and i want everybody's bias listed, or nobody's bias. the notion that atheists are objective and evangelicals alone are biased is pov. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Where did I state that atheists are unbiased? The point is that you use Kitchens quote to suggest a fact which supports the argument on one side. The point is that Kitchen is extremely biased, and so the factual accuracy of what he states is in doubt. Therefore it is important to point this out. Please note: I have not myself used quotes stating things as if they were fact.
::::i understand that. all i'm saying is, if you want to call Kitchens an evangelical, then you need to call the biblical critics either Liberal Christians, non-christians, or atheists -- because many biblical critics are ALSO extremely biased. it is pov to identify the bias of one academic, leaving the implication that all the others have no bias. all i want is fair treatment -- everyone or noone. ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: That would be the Misplaced Pages ] approach. Yes. :) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: Seconded. Treat all POVs fairly, with a consistently sympathetic, positive tone. ] - ] 21:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
::::::I have no objection to pointing out that person X is liberal christian, etc. ON CONDITION THAT kitchen is identified as an evangelical. Alternatively (as per my recent edit (if it hasn't been reverted)), I will accept not mentioning he is an evangelical ON CONDITION THAT it is also not mentioned that he is a professor or archaeologist. All or nothing. ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Having the biblical references is simply messy
There is a perfectly adequate section at the base of the article. The other Jesus and Bible articles don't have massive sets of links to a series of biblical sources. Nor should this. The point of an encyclopedia is to sum things up not to have loads of references and go:well, go on, look for yourself. ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: It is Misplaced Pages policy to 1) identify proponents of various views and 2) ] when it is not obvious where to go to check whether what you just wrote is correct. To get Featured Article status, it is important to provide citations and references. I refer you to the criticisms that this page got when being considered for Featured Article status. ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: this article is foremost about the text. a reader NEEDS to have access to the text right up in front, so he can read it, and THEN consider all our theories about it. it takes up virtually no space, and is not bulky.
::: The text is foremost in ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. But it isn't linked to there. It looks SLOPPY. ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: given the choice between sheer aesthetics and function, i gotta go with function. given the systemic bias, i'm not gonna use other pages for my model. you can put it in with the intro, if you like, but it is NOT sloppy to say that the original hebrew has been translated in many versions (true!), and make each of those versions a link. it simply makes for a better page.
::::: This page is unique in that several very different interpretations of the same text are intimately entangled with the way the original is translated. So in my opinion, we should provide a link to the many different translations up front. Providing a link is much, much better than providing the text up front inside the article, in my opinion. :)) ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Urm, no, ] is very important w.r.t. the nature of the text. As is ], and ]. It is sloppy to have a whole section the contents of which are "There are some translations - ]". It would be better to have a sentence in the introduction "sources for the text can be found at this ]". ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why have you expanded the Elohim suggests strength bit, when the extra content adds nothing and just makes it less readable?] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: Whether it adds something depends on the point-of-view, does it not? And any good Misplaced Pages artile should report the various points-of-view on the article. That is how we achieve good enough NPOV to get Featured Article status. ;)) The question is: Does the "Elohim suggests . . ." add something useful for the readers. Let's think about it. ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: it just seems like clarity to me. feel free to "bulk up" the other side, but i think that the words need to be explained in order for the point to be made. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Im not objecting to the words being explained, just the way you explained them. I had changed the paragraph to a succincter version which still contained the explanation. I want to know why you removed my succinct version and replaced it with one that was verbose. ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::Because i felt as tho your "succincter" version was so succinct that it made the argument incomprehensible -- that it needed to be broken apart for clarity. ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::: I did not think that the "succincter" version was clear at all. Again, we should have several versions put up for wide Misplaced Pages vote to decide which version is clear. ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::: What was unclear about it? ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why have you tagged out the text from 700BC and orthodoxy sections?
This is not personal research, orthodoxy & church latin were complaints since the Reformation, wheras the date of origin of the text is part of Biblical criticism. I have put this bit back in. There is no justification in removing it whatsoever.
Orthodoxy - see ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].
Church Latin - see ], ].
Origin of the text - see ],], ], ] ] 23:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: I agree that we need a citation to a scholar so that we can see what was really said. In my opinion, it is not good enough to just quote other Misplaced Pages pages. We have to summarize what the scholars actually said--not just what the Misplaced Pages pages said. :)) ---] | ] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: feel free to add a scholar who put in writing their factually-based belief that there was a grand church conspiracy to burn people at the stake over the genesis story. in the mean time, i think there's absolutely no factual basis for it, and i think it's church-bashing. nobody will deny that the church has done some horrible things. but this article isn't about the inquisition. and if you wanna say the church threatened to kill people over genesis, which i can't fathom, then you gotta back it up. ] 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: The church DID kill people over genesis, read the articles I listed. But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy, which later became under pain of death. I don't see what the justification is in denying that the church insisted on orthodoxy. Citations please. ] 08:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: i just want one scholar who notes a case of the church killing a person for pointing out the "contradiction" between genesis 1 and 2. i know they killed people over orthodoxy. that's irrelevent to this page. i want a single case of them killing over genesis 1 vs. genesis 2. ] 13:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::: Yes. I don't see any logical connection between the 1) inquisitions and the 2) "contradictions" in the two accounts in Genesis. The "contradictions" appear to me to reside in the original Hebrew. :) Hence, the "contradictions" have nothing to do with the "inquisitions." Now, if there is some scholar that related the "inquisitions" and the "contradictions," then it would be our duty to quote and cite that scholar's writing--if you can find it. And I doubt that you can find a scholar that says that the "inquisitions" caused the "contradictions"--because it does not make sense. ---] | ] 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::Now Im going to have to look at the vatican records (which are very very good - they took very detailed notes of all heresy trials, rather oddly), which will take time (mainly because they aren't very willing to let people look, and insist you know what you are looking for before you can get it (you can't look at the (partial) catalogue)). ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::N.b. the inquisitition etc. frightened people into not disputing whatever the orthodoxy was on fear of death.
::::::I think I should re-state something I wrote above, as you haven't noticed it "But the point of the statement is not that they killed people over genesis, but that there was a strong lean to insistence on orthodoxy". ] 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
----
This page has a category of creation stories which is a non existant orphan category. Realizing it is a controversial topic, I didn't want to just parent the category .. I would like to get a consensus as to where creation stories belong in the hierarchy of categories. As many creation stories are viewed as mythology, for example Greek and Roman creation stories, I thought possibly there. But I'm sure that might cause some controversy. So folks where should it go? Thanks -- ] 04:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
:Most people do not view it as strictly literal (even amongst those who view most of the bible as such - although the u.s. contains a large group of those who do). However, as SOME think it is a myth, it should go in the myths catagory, and because SOME do not, it should ALSO go in another category.] 08:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Anonymous edit re JEPD ==
And anonymous editor inserted the following statement into the article, regarding the use of "Jehovah" in Genesis 2:4&ndashGenesis 2:24
:(However, anyone who knows Hebrew can check the text and see that this statement is wrong - the title "God" (elohim) is used in the first chapter, consistantly "Jehova God" is used in chapters 2 and 3, only in chapter 4 do we find Jehova used alone.)
I reverted simply because inserting an editorial comment into the article is not appropriate. Either the article should have been corrected, or the matter discussed on this talk page. Not being a Hebrew reader, I don't know whether either the claim or counter claim is correct, so I hope that someone will clarify that. (If the anonymous editor's counter claim is correct, how do we correct the article?) Perhaps Ungtss, who appears to have inserted the original claim, can add his two cents' worth? ] 09:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am the anonymous editor, and I read Biblical Hebrew fluently. The statement as it stands is like calling the sky red - I don't know any scholar who could make that claim with a straight face. Since this is not a question of opinion - anyone who knows Hebrew can check those facts - it certainly calls into question the validity of the JEPD theory if this is one of their claims, though it may be a misstatement concerning the JEPD theory.
: i really appreciate your knowledge on the subject -- silly me, i just took those idiots who support the JEDP idea at their word -- but i looked it up -- and you're right -- it's Jehovah Elohim -- so i fixed it:). what to do now with all the BibKrit material that falsely says that genesis 2 uses Jehovah exclusively:)? it sounds as tho you have a great knowledge of hebrew -- do you have any other insight into these issues which could further benefit the page? ] 12:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Creationism? ==
Does this really belong in the Creationism category, and template (which latter isn't actually on the page, but refers to it)? Surely the focus is on textual analysis of scripture, not the cosmological and evolutionary debate. ]
:This article is barely about creation at all! The top paragraph somewhat talks about the creation according to Genesis, but then the rest of the article talks about the Documentary Hypothesis, for which there is already an article. I think the title is rather misleading and this page needs a severe reworking to cover what the title actually describes. ]
== The bias of this article is a little too anti-documentary-hypothesis ==
The bias of this article is a little too anti-documentary-hypothesis. In order to counteract this, I have added a link with a more critical view of the "Moses wrote the first five books" viewpoint. ] 22:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Merged From: Talk:Creation account in Genesis==
'''The Existance of this page'''
This page was recently created by someone for POV reasons. It entirely duplicates the Creation accounts in Genesis page. It is now a candidate for deletion, for NPOV reasons. ]
I don't see why this should have been merged (I can't see much relevance), but it was tagged for merging -- I guess it might be of use to someone, so here you have it. ] 21:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
== de nihilio nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti--The Doctrine of the Eternity of Matter ==
I believe there is no legitimate form of the word 'nothing' in Latin that is spelled 'nihilio,' though I could find no satisfactory confirmation; however, 'nihilo' seems to be the accurate word used in the Doctrine of the Eternity of Matter.
Anyone versed in Latin?
== Delete? ==
The article is just badly written - it's sophomoric. Delete, and save us all the embarrassment of its existence.
] 12:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
== Delete? ==
I'm trying to delete this unwanted/unintended multiple post but can't make it go away...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.
Summary of this FAQ
A large number of these questions are relating to the term creation myth, its meaning and its proper usage in this article.
Creation myth is a formal and proper term used by a wide range of academics and scholars (religious and secular) to define a supernatural account of how life, Earth and everything in general came into existence. This term does not imply falsehood unlike the way that the informal use of the word myth can.
Misplaced Pages:WTA#Myth and Legend clearly states that myth in its informal sense should not be used but also clearly states that we should treat all faiths and beliefs the same (e.g. Not referring to a Christian belief on the one hand and a Hindu myth on the other). Thus all faiths' creation myths are referred to as such in their respective articles as well.
Misplaced Pages:RNPOV states "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." This is also the main thrust of WP:NOT#CENSORED.
Q1: What is the definition of creation myth?
A1: Creation myth is a widely accepted term that has a precise definition that is "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities."
Since there is a consensus among reliable sources on this definition, it is used here for the purpose of accuracy and proper word use.
Q2: Why do we use creation myth to describe the subject, even if it might offend readers or conflict with their beliefs?
A2: The term creation myth is used for reasons related to scholarship and research, not out of a desire to offend the feelings or beliefs of Misplaced Pages's readers. While some readers, especially those not familiar with the scholarly terminology referenced when using the term creation myth, might take offense at seeing this subject called a creation myth, Misplaced Pages should not be rewritten just so that certain readers will be more comfortable. The goal in writing the article is to be as neutral and dispassionate in describing this subject, but, as with any contentious topic, it is sometimes not possible to accommodate everyone's feelings while writing a neutral, accurate, verifiable, and sourced-based reference work.
Further information: WP:RNPOV
Q3: Isn't calling this a creation myth the same thing as calling it a fairy tale, since that is one of the informal definitions for the word myth?
A3: No. The term creation myth is a coherent term in its own right that should not be parsed into separate words. The term has a unique meaning different from the informal definitions of the word myth. Just as an electoral college is not an institute of higher learning even though it contains the word college, a creation myth is not necessarily a fairy tale even though it contains the word myth. Formally defined terms provide unambiguous meaning that aid in the presentation of a more accurate and scholarly encyclopedic article.
Further information: WP:WTA § Myth and Legend
Q4: Does this article say or imply that Genesis is not literally true? And if so, is that neutral?
A4: The viewpoint that Genesis is literally true is held by only a tiny minority of sources. Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy does not say that articles must "give equal validity" to such views (see WP:GEVAL). In writing this article it also becomes necessary to proceed with some implicit assumptions that many readers are bound to find controversial (see WP:MNA).
Q5: Why does the article name have "narrative" rather than "myth"?
A5: This has been discussed several times, and there has not been sufficient consensus to change the name of the article.
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Genesis creation narrative appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
RM, Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation narratives, Not moved, 16 December 2022, discussion
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation story, Not moved, 7 June 2023, discussion
This article contains bias towards critical scholarship
Arbitrary header #1
This article fails at WP:NPOV, because it presents contested assertions as facts, namely the conclusions of biblical criticism regarding Genesis. As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally. In addition, many biblical scholars (generally those who are not critical scholars) would reject those statements anyway.
'Then what does it mean to say that “most” scholars hold one view or another? It always depends. If you mean “most scholars total” then you would have to include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. And I frankly don’t know the proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country. That’s why I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about.'
My proposed additions below (in bold), reflect Ehrman's practice. They would not only meet the expectation of WP:NPOV, but they would be informative to readers in demonstrating that the qualified statements originated in critical scholarship, rather than scholarship in general.
Objection courtesy of tgeorgescu: These additions should not be made because the opposing (traditional/conservative/evangelical) views are fringe, that is, they are marginalised in reliable sources (WP:NOTNEUTRAL). WP:GEVAL states that 'Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.'
Response: In Ehrman's blog post, he states,
'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats of NT writings) or not.'
Thus, it appears that an authority does regard evangelical views as worthy of legitimation through comparison to accepted scholarship. Therefore, my proposed additions would not violate WP:NOTNEUTRAL.
Lead (Line 6)According to most critical scholars, The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology, but adapted them to their unique belief in one God. Critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) view the first major comprehensive draft as having been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source),then later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like Genesis as known today. The two sources are identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is considered a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation:
Composition: Sources (Line 20) Although tradition attributes Genesis to Moses, most critical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods." The creation narrative is analysed as consisting of two separate accounts drawn from different sources. The first account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the Jahwist source (J).
Composition: Structure (Line 27)Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like, although not all scholars share these interpretations. Even the order and method of creation differs. "Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined." These differences motivate critical scholars to conclude that consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. (Note b: Levenson 2004)Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you. The current article does violate WP:NPOV by presenting contested scholarly interpretations as facts. Your proposed edits would better align with NPOV by clarifying that these views are held by "most critical scholars" rather than presenting their conclusions as undisputed facts. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with inline attribution."
WP:DUE is also relevant here. While we shouldn't give undue weight to "minority" views, we also shouldn't present "majority" views as universal facts. Your proposal strikes a better balance. The WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline encourages presenting multiple scholarly viewpoints when they exist as well. ViolanteMD21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm unlikely to respond in any detail today due to some horrible chemotherapy. But, and I don't mean to be rude, both of you are very new editors and I'm not convinced you understand our policy. More tomorrow if I feel well enough. Doug Wellertalk06:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
It is well to recognize that the dominant viewpoint among scientists is not the only one. There are various minority viewpoints, represented by qualified scientists, but these viewpoints are largely suppressed by majority voices, by active persecution, and by selective reporting in the media.
Poythress, Vern S.. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (p. 21). Crossway. Kindle Edition. ViolanteMD10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
We aren't going to be using something published by Crossway as a guiding light. This is an encyclopedia, not a campus bible study. jps (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. My proposal does not include any additions of content, so I believe the charge of 'ventilating pseudohistory' is irrelevant. I merely proposed attribution to certain claims which are both controversial and contested in biblical scholarship, and do not represent a consensus of experts, even within critical scholarship (cf. Ehrman). Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm no theologian, but an experienced Wikipedian, and to me the most important point here is that Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia. Biblical criticism, "the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural" is the mainstream academic approach to the Bible. That's the reason I reverted Violoncello's edit here, where they added phrasing like "According to mainstream biblical scholars, the authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc" to the previous "The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc", added "most biblical scholars" to "biblical scholars" and turned the phrasing "The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts" into "Scholars analyse the creation narrative as consisting of two separate accounts". All of these changes tend to create a false balance between mainstream scholars (again, Biblical criticism) and the Documentary hypothesis and similar theories. It unduly legitimizes the documentary hypothesis. Violoncello10104 and ViolanteMD, I'm not saying your use of the word "neutral", as in "As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally", is wrong (and it's very, very common amongst new users). But its implication that Misplaced Pages should not take sides between non-religious and religious criticism goes completely against Misplaced Pages's policy Neutral point of view, which may be designated a term of art. I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example the sky is blue not believes the sky is blue." We should actually present the mainstream consensus as undisputed facts. Bishonen | tålk08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC).
It is called "neutral point of view", but a proper name would be "normative point of view". Like a civics teacher does not teach his/her own opinions, nor a mixed bag of all opinions, but the normative views of the society. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input on this matter. I appreciate the references to various Misplaced Pages policies, but I believe there's still a crucial point being overlooked.
I'm not advocating for the promotion of pseudohistory or fringe theories. I fully agree that Misplaced Pages should rely on mainstream academic sources and not be a platform for marginal or discredited ideas.
However, there's a critical distinction we need to make when dealing with religious topics. The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a religious concept or belief is primarily to explain what that belief entails, not to debate its historical accuracy or scientific validity.
When we describe what Christians believe about the Trinity or what Muslims believe about the Night Journey, we're not making historical claims. We're representing the content of a belief system. This is not pseudohistory.
I agree that "What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history." But that's precisely why we need to clearly delineate between theological claims and historical ones. A statement like "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim; it's an accurate representation of a Christian belief.
While I understand the importance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MAINSTREAM, we must apply these carefully in religious contexts. Presenting mainstream academic criticism of religious beliefs as the primary content, rather than the beliefs themselves, could be seen as violating NPOV by unduly favoring one perspective (academic) over another (believer's).
I'm not suggesting we ignore academic or critical perspectives. But they should not overshadow or replace the primary explanation of what the belief actually entails.
Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. It originated in its religious context.
I'm advocating for a nuanced approach that accurately represents religious beliefs as they are understood by adherents, clearly distinguishes between claims of faith and historical/scientific claims and includes relevant academic perspectives and criticisms where appropriate, without letting these dominate the main explanation of the belief.
This approach, I believe, better serves our readers and more accurately fulfills the role of an encyclopedia in explaining religious concepts. I hope this clarifies my position and opens up a constructive dialogue on how we can best handle these sensitive topics. Or you could just call me "too new to know better" again and not address my actual points. ViolanteMD10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. I don't agree that this is likely, and think that most readers consult Misplaced Pages for mainstream academic consensus on their topics of interest. Misplaced Pages is built upon mainstream scholarship.I might be biased here because I have a lot of experience with textual history, and early Biblical narratives are super interesting in critical literature studies.As an aside, I do identify as a person of faith, and I never edit in the topic area of my own faith. It's upsetting, unwinnable, and contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages, whether I like it or not. That's good, in that it makes the project stronger with respect to the terms on which it is constituted. We should all avoid editing in areas where we feel a strong emotional response, or possess experiential knowledge that is not grounded in published sources informed by Western / scientific ways of knowing.Content policies do in fact stipulate that academic and critical perspectives form the bulk of our prose, and overshadow religious teachings. Placing published mainstream scholarship on the same level as religious beliefs is WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV does not mean "median point of view", nor "attributing to named individuals everything disagreed with by anyone". We don't really have special carveouts for religious topics. We still treat them as encyclopaedia topics.I'm sorry if you're feeling stung for being called out for rookie misunderstandings. I hope you stick around and continue learning how our community operates. Blessings, Folly Mox (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
'I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice'
It seems to me that our disagreement lies in whether the non-critical claims in question are uncontested and uncontroversial, and not in whether fringe views should be given validity. If they are not uncontested and uncontroversial, then they ought to be attributed to a school of thought or scholar. In my original post, I gave Ehrman (a leading critical scholar) as an authority to determine this. He states, 'I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think'. It appears that Ehrman regards matters in which critical and traditional scholars disagree to be controversial, and thus will attribute a view to a school of thought, not presenting it as if it were an uncontested fact. Given this authoritative judgment, we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial.
I also agree with @ViolanteMD's reply to you which has some great arguments, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial—this talk page isn't meant for changing WP:PAGs.
About the Documentary Hypothesis: it is no longer the only game in town, but not because mainstream scholars are now more inclined with biblicist scholars.
Biblicism says that the Bible is historically accurate, despite the actual historical and archaeological record. Therefore, when biblicist scholars write the history of the Bible, they are writing pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your point that the Documentary Hypothesis is "no longer the only game in town." This actually reinforces the argument for a more nuanced presentation. If there are multiple scholarly perspectives within mainstream Biblical criticism, shouldn't we aim to represent that diversity of thought? Maybe we could:
Present the traditional religious understanding of the text held by those who are of the faith
Introduce mainstream critical scholarship, noting that the Documentary Hypothesis was once dominant and that there are now multiple scholarly approaches within Biblical criticism
Briefly outline areas of agreement/disagreement
This approach would adhere to existing policies and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of both the religious significance and the current state of academic discourse around this topic. ViolanteMD11:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I was not at all proposing a change of policy. I was saying that the current application of the policy is incorrect given what an authority in biblical scholarship says about what is controversial and uncontroversial in his field. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
To your second point, there's a difference between saying:
"The Bible is historically accurate in all details." (a Biblicist claim)
"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." (a statement about religious belief)
"Archaeological and historical evidence supports some Biblical accounts while contradicting others." (a summary of scholarly historical research)
My concern is that by presenting only critical scholarly views without clear attribution, we might inadvertently misrepresent the beliefs held by many religious adherents. I think I've stated this on other pages related to Christianity that we've run into one another on. ViolanteMD12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@ViolanteMD@Violoncello10104 Ok. Two WP:Administrators disagree with you, me and Bishonen, and together we have made over 300,000 edits. A main reason we were elected was that our knowledge of policy and guidelines was good enough that when editors consistently broke them we could block them with confidence. tgeorgescu had over 50,000 edits, many of them in this field. What are the odds that the two of you know more than we do? Doug Wellertalk10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I respect your position and I'm sure you do know than me. I'm interested in your assessment of my argument. Quoting WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' Please know that I am not quoting that to disrespect you or the others. I have an argument which is logical, in line with the current policies, with support from an expert. This was the basis for making this discussion topic. Violoncello10104 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see they actually are a native speaker. My bad. I guess ChatGPT is cranking out material with obvious grammatical errors in it like this nowadays. Those pesky generative AI chat bots... ViolanteMD11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"I could be mistaken" following a direct personal attack is not a defense. Please just move on. These epic threads do little good. Just10A (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I admit that I have conflated the two Viol-something. But in respect to one of them, it is not WP:PA, since it is highly likely at least one of their replies is AI-generated. I mean: if they did use ChatGPT (or something like that), and I accused them of using ChatGPT, it isn't a personal attack. It's just a fact pertaining to their edits. I cannot be blamed for noticing they did, nor for spilling the beans about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The results I got from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written (I did not scan their username as included in the post). I'm not saying this is bulletproof, but it seems to confirm my intuition. I mean: people do not write like that. Especially when they're not writing official reports for the government. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your post, it was most informative. Some people do in fact write like that. I've spent most of my life being told that I "talk funny". Thanks for that! ViolanteMD08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
And the answer is that, despite your protestations, reliable historical research is done by critical scholars only. Other views may by WP:CITED, but only critical scholars speak in the name of the mainstream academia and in the name of mainstream history. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"due to some horrible chemotherapy" Don't take this as an insult Doug, but you are not as energetic as you were in your prime. Do you really want to spend your remaining time and energy in the never-ending dramas of Misplaced Pages's talk pages? They are probaby not beneficial to your state of mind. Personally, I often find myself contemplating the futility of reaching for a compromise through them. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Your claim is overly restrictive and misrepresents academic diversity. "Critical scholars" aren't the sole arbiters of reliable historical research. Mainstream academia includes various methodologies and perspectives in Biblical studies. This stance contradicts Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and could lead to biased articles. A more balanced approach would accurately represent the spectrum of scholarly opinion while maintaining standards for reliable sources. ViolanteMD10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may "often train as historians", but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that not all of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. Mojowiha (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Dismissing all NT scholarship as unreliable is an overreach. Many NT scholars employ rigorous historical methods. The existence of some theologically-biased work doesn't invalidate the entire field.
Your argument seems to be an attempt to systematically exclude NT scholarship from Misplaced Pages under the guise of maintaining academic rigor. This approach would itself introduce significant bias. Misplaced Pages's goal should be to accurately capture the range of scholarly views, including mainstream historical perspectives and the diversity within NT scholarship. This would align with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies.
Any article discussing religious beliefs must also accurately describe what the believers actually believe. Failure to do so renders the article fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative, and potentially useless. Accurate representation of religious beliefs is crucial. Dismissing it as unimportant undermines the validity of the entire discussion, regardless of one's personal stance on religion. It's not our role to judge these beliefs, but to present them accurately.
Instead of blanket exclusion, we should critically evaluate sources, clearly attribute claims, and provide context for different scholarly approaches and beliefs. This maintains neutrality while acknowledging the field's complexities.
WP:RULES are meant to ensure comprehensive, balanced articles, not to exclude entire academic disciplines or misrepresent belief systems based on personal biases. ViolanteMD10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm not using ChatGPT but I noticed you also accused the other user commenting of the same thing. Interesting take from someone whose main refutations besides one-liners are just kopipe.
Your definition of "critical scholarship" is overly narrow; it's not the only valid approach to Biblical studies. Misplaced Pages should represent the full spectrum of scholarly approaches, not just those focused on source criticism. This aligns with WP:NPOV and ensures comprehensive coverage of the field. ViolanteMD10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
If it sounds like the prose of a full professor, writing a paper for the government, who employed several proofreaders, then it is perhaps computer-generated.
Also, some scholars may be WP:CITED, but we don't cite them as they were mainstream historians.
Purely theological exegesis is okay, but it does not count as history.
An obvious point: if they don't abide by the historical method, they are not writing history. They may be writing theology or apologetics, but not history.
If one wants to write history, there are shared rules and shared assumptions for doing so. There is certain stuff which historical research cannot deliver. It cannot say whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus got resurrected, since that is not a matter of historical record.
There can be no evidence that Jesus is God and there can be no evidence that Jesus isn't God. That's not a matter predicated upon objective historical evidence.
In mainstream history, the sentence "Jesus is God" does not have a truth value. It is neither true, nor false.
If one is writing a historical paper, they cannot claim that Jesus is God, nor that Jesus isn't God. That would be utterly puerile.
There are some very important questions, which nevertheless cannot be answered objectively. Pretending otherwise just makes the matter worse. Some stuff is just faith, not history. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I am an MD/PhD with a job in technical writing, but the real answer must be that I'm several teenagers inside of a trench coat using ChatGPT to generate my responses, and not that this article violates WP:NPOV. ViolanteMD08:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
More to the point: despite its sophisticated prose, your argument is essentially a red herring. Since it does not use WP:PAG-based definitions of the terms, but English language dictionaries definitions.tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
We should refocus on the content and policies rather than making assumptions about intentions. Our focus should be on the quality and accuracy of contributions and evaluating edits. If there are specific policies you believe I've misinterpreted, I'm open to discussing them. Ideally something beyond just criticizing the way that I write.
Instead of telling me to "drop this," I think I'll reach out for help. In the mean time, I insist that we attribute information to the originating sources in order to make it plain where the information is coming from. ViolanteMD09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
If you want to present scholarship as "critical scholarship" or "mainstream scholarship," you'll also have to present an overview of the views of non-critical ('traditional', conservative Evangelical) scholarship on these matters. That's possible, akin to the overview at Christ Myth theory, or (preferably) as a separate subsection, which is already there (but not very well written): Genesis creation narrative#Creationism and the genre of the creation narrative. The question is: are those views significant? More precise: are they relevant as scholarly views, or as religious views? As religious views, a short explanation, in a section on religious views, would be: 'Conservative Evangelicals view the creation story as...'.
Without such an addition I also see no point in the attribution, except for the implication that it is 'just an opinion', or as a signal-word akin to "leftish" at India-related pages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
Mesopotamian influence:
borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
Sixth day:
the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
According to Violincello10104, the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. Maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate this very much, as a detailed examination of my original argument is what I was looking for. I feel once we have discussed this there will be no need for the DRN so I will write that I would like to put that on hold at least for the moment. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different times. The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways.
As explained in its main article, the documentary hypothesis has been partially replaced by a fragmentary hypothesis: "the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases." So instead of four main sources, there may have been numerous texts edited into the Pentateuch. Dimadick (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Preceding Ehrman's quote, this statement from VC from the DNR:
According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree.
Ehrman here does not say "most scholars," but he also doesn't say critical scholars"; he just says "scholars," and seems to be quite outspoken that this is broadly accepted. So, VC's 'Ehrman-criterium' seems to be met here.
The book of Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are known. This includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition says that Moses wrote these five books but the scholarly consensus is that Moses didn’t write any of them.
That is evidence of inconsistency on the part of Ehrman, according to his own principle in the blog post I gave, he ought to have said 'the consensus of critical scholarship' or something like that, as he says 'What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about. I might make a mistake about that on occasion.' Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
separate authorship ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
Solved:
Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the Genesis to Moses "as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th century. Scholars of Biblical criticism conclude that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."
I'm not proposing for any additional info to be given, but for attribution of critical scholarship to critical views to be given (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]). I do not know what the source of this quote is, but that is precisely what I am requesting for this article. At the very least, an acknowledgment that scholars 'of biblical criticism' conclude separate authorship. I would actually endorse the insertion of this quotation in the article somehow, and would consider my concerns allayed on that point. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Although this goes beyond my proposal, I think it would be beneficial to include the first sentence about the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The quote is an excellent and brief summary of the authorship question. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
What kind of weighting do you think we should give to the (often contradictory) opinions of religious extremists about this particular mythology? jps (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
This is serious. Unless there is a coherent argument to the contrary, I think that the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as believers in thing mythology are not relevant to the subject of this article and certainly don't belong in the lede. jps (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Discarding scholars because of their religious views, especially when some of them are respected among critical scholars, is never a good idea. If you label this as 'fundamentalist religious POV pushing,' then what you are doing—discarding scholarship based on religion and your own understanding of the world—can be labeled as communist POV pushing, or perhaps as POV pushing from someone who doesn’t like Christians and Jews. As far as I can see, it’s not the Christians and Jews who have an issue with NPOV here, but the editors who call them extremists. Yes, proper attribution must always be provided, such as according to conservative views and according to more mainstream or critical views. However, I don’t think omitting it would be appropriate or NPOV, as they are still scholars with their own reasoning. I mean, it’s up to the readers to discard their theories as nonsense based on the reasoning of science and other considerations, or they may take away other lessons. We should not be the ones to decide which views to censor based on religion if there is sufficient scholarship about it. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If people argue for demonstrably incorrect things as do those who believe in what they call the literal interpretation of the bible, we are under no obligation to spread their opinions. jps (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Traditional views do not necessarily mean literal interpretation. They have philosophical inquiry at their core, especially if the religion itself is not extremely rigid. In this case, I don’t see how traditional views can act exclusively as a support for literal translation. If it’s not already clear enough in the article, maybe someone can work on that (that literal translations without nuance are highly unlikely). More distinction might be required between literal translations and movements that believe in them, and the traditional views of many other denominations, which I agree often come across as apologetics for the religion itself. That’s why I believe attribution is necessary. Still, I don’t see any reason to remove them if they have enough relevant scholarship. Let the readers decide about critical views and apologetic views. There’s no need to censor 'scholars' of one side. DangalOh (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we should include them if third parties have commented on them. But as singular statements of opinion, they don't belong in Misplaced Pages. There are certain ideas (e.g. "Moses authored the Pentateuch") which deserve inclusion because there are third-party scholars that comment on such claims. But detailed analyses trying to shoe-horn some orthodox religious interpretation as worthy "on the other hand" points do not deserve inclusion unless others have commented on them. jps (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Unless others might have commented on them might not be very reflective of the point I was making. In any case, even for that, you need to engage constructively, section by section, with the editors involved, and put forward your objections before deciding on some adjustments. Questions like "How fringe is the view? Is it part of the tradition or a single fringe scholar trying to come up with something new?" etc. should be discussed and analyzed there with the editors involved. But if you act in bad faith and behave as though you are here just to discredit something and resort to name-calling like "extremists," then I don’t think many here would be willing to engage with you, and you will be dismissed on the grounds of bigotry, not because your points were or will not be good enough. I don’t know what your points will be but it was not good enough earlier; I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Also, Traditional views may often claim divinity in them, but then we have a section of critical views to debunk or challenge them. And as I said, leave that to the readers; if someone is more inclined toward science, they will lean more toward critical views, in any case. My job is done here. I’ve given my opinion. Now I rest (hopefully not in peace). Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
He is not against Jews and Christians, since nobody would accept that. He is against fundamentalists trying to pass for historians.
And that’s what I said: fringe claims or sources, such as those trying to prove that the literal meaning of the verses is exactly as written word for word, should be singled out. That is not philosophy. Still, I’m not entirely in favor of completely removing them. I mean, don’t you think the more ridiculous the claim, the easier it is to debunk? On the other hand, you cannot debunk a philosophy, like, for example, the concept of the Trinity and nuances such as the Royal We and singular Elohim which are traditional views held by an extremely large group. These are not fringe claims, nor are they based on literal written meanings, but might be more rooted in belief. They are forms of philosophy that emerged from those scriptures through some form of reasoning. As I said, if someone has a problem with the concept of belief in divinity, they should discuss it in the next section under critical or mainstream analysis using science, logic, facts, reality, or whatever they have in their arsenal. My point is there’s no problem including how Christians and Jews view their scriptures unless it’s extremely ridiculous, like a literal word-for-word interpretation. I would even argue that labeling these people as extremists is not justified unless they are imposing that belief on you forcefully. Everyone deserves to live their life their way peacefully until they disturb others, so it’s better to refrain from labels. Soooo, now I’m going to sleep for real... Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If you can find independent sources who discuss how Christians or Jews view this scripture as it relates to the scripture itself, that's fine. What is not okay is passing off the musings of the faithful that no one has bothered to address in the scholarly literature. jps (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
So... the views of those who continue the Biblical traditions are not relevant, only those of whom questioned these beliefs and rejected them? It means you remove the context and background of critical Bible-studies; that's a pityfull impoverishment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
What basis do you have for thinking that believers in demonstrably incorrect things deserve space in Misplaced Pages articles? I mean, things like "this story happened as written". jps (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're severely strawmanning the views of religous critical scholars. I think that your classification of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as "religious extremists" and Christianity as "mythology", despite that not being the mainstream terms to describe them, speaks for itself. I think its evident that you're not going to get consensus here. Just10A (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? How is a literal interpretation of the bible not religious extremism? How is this not mythology? Who in the mainstream disputes either point? jps (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a "literal interpretation" issue. Nowhere in Genesis does it say Moses wrote it. Moses isn't even mentioned in Genesis. . The idea that Moses wrote it comes from tradition and/or extrapolation from statements that he wrote totally different books. Not literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what editors are talking about. You're clearly inserting your own bias into this by using fringe theory, negative connotation terms and then shifting the talk to literal interpretation debates, despite it not even being the issue here. @DangalOh Already outlined it nicely. You're clearly contrary to editor consensus and no one wants to engage with you because of your name-calling tactics. Probably best to move on. Just10A (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
It is a literal interpretation issue. The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. They are being put back into the article for false balance. That's not okay. No reliable sources should be referencing Answers in Genesis for anything but the recognition that they are the butt of jokes on the internet. jps (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Well that's great, but "The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. is WP:OR. We don't go off of what editors think the sources seem like to them. So on top of you being over-ridden by consensus. It's contrary to policy. Just10A (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR is a recommendation for article writing. It is not a charge that we must act the fool on a talkpage when a source is presented as scholarship which is actually just creationist claptrap. jps (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not merely a recommendation. WP:OR is wikipedia policy. The only exception is via an "ignore all rules" scenario, and that is clearly not met here. Particularly since you're contrary to consensus. Just10A (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Lol! WP:OR applies to articlespace only. I have no intention of changing course. Feel free to file a case with a drahmaboard if you think it's a problem. jps (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I have made an evaluation of a source. Answers in Genesis is garbage as far as a source for anything goes. They deserve to be excised. Go ahead and complain to the admins that I hurt the feelings of acolytes of that website. I don't care. jps (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Why can't you wait for other editors who might share your position? Instead, you are being rude for no reason and acting like a child when you don’t get what you want. I don’t care about the source or what's taken from it, as long as it’s attributed; that’s fine. It’s not like people have written a golden article on AIG , so why even care? Readers can easily check the details about the organization from which the content is sourced right here on Misplaced Pages if they don’t already know. Attribution is key. You are asking for complete censorship. After this attitude, you are also throwing tantrums. Because of this behavior, other proper editors who might have shared your stance will run away. You are crossing the line between criticism and pure hatred. I have nothing more to say to you. DangalOh (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
No. It's not good enough to say, "Readers can check where the information is from". Misplaced Pages should not link to incorrect information. That's all that Answers in Genesis provides. This is a hill I am willing to die on. Try to take me out if you would like.
There is nothing rude about this. It's just a terrible source and it needs to be removed. I cannot conscience the idea of students coming to this page looking for accurate information and being told, "hey, check out these charlatans". No, that's not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about.
WP:OR is not banned from talk pages and crying OR does not prevent the editors from recognizing WP:BLUE stuff. We have to call a spade a spade in the talk pages, regardless of whether a full professor already did that for us. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Think you need to re-read my comment at 18:41. Regardless, editors have already patiently explained to you two why your positions are contrary to policy, and you have cited nothing to support your statements. And now, since you guys resorted to name-calling and overall rudeness, people aren’t interested in walking you through it again or engaging with you anymore. You were contrary to consensus, you tried to explained your position, and the consensus was not swayed. Move on. Just10A (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
This article cites Ken Ham? (yes, at the moment) Answers in Genesis? (yes, it does). For shame. Neither is a reliable source for any information, including about themselves, and they have no place in this article. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I transferred the sentence with the Ham citation verbatim from the old 'Framework interpretation' article (due to the merge), where it was added over ten years ago. The sentence in question is describing the views of biblical literalist young-earth creationists. I actually would prefer another source because he is considered fringe even among evangelicals. I also think there could be a better replacement for AiG. I will do some research and find something in the next few days then propose it here.
My mistake, this is actually a part of the article already hahaha. Since this is already the practice of the article, what is wrong with applying it consistently? In other words, what is your disagreement with my proposed edits to Lines 6, 20 and 27 (not with respect to Mesopotamian influence on this point)? Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
the existence of contradictions between these two narratives
The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary - "often" is imprecise; I'd say "usually," and have added this. I've already added a note there, with the Ehrman-quote, and the line For an apologetic view, see Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press. We could precede that line with something like "Conservative/Evangelical Christians view the two stories as mutually dependend stories which form one narrative." One source (random, Google "evangelicals genesis one narrative"): J. Daryl Charles (ed.)(2013), Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, Hendrickson Publishers, p.2-3, mentions literary versus literal reading, and historical versus literary. I've added this to the Ehrman-Jackson note.
although not all scholars share these interpretations. - imprecise; state "X (kind of) scholars are of the opinion that ... ," which could be added to a note. It's not clear now at all which scholars you'r ereferring to, what they object to, and what alternative they propose.
I'm not sure what your opinion is on my 'Ehrman-criterium' (especially given my response to you in ), but if we accept it, then the second sentence in the lead paragraph 'The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:4, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P)', should be preceded by some statement like, 'According to traditional interpretation, the Pentateuch in its entirety was written by Moses as an inspired and infallible work , while critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy), the first account...' This also applies to the first paragraph of Note b. Also cut out the sentence 'drawn from different sources' and move the note to the second sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
That's perfect except for the word 'mainstream'. My argument (and the Ehrman-criterium) necessitate that this word should be replaced by 'critical'. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning the traditional view since composite authorship is an 'uncontroversial and uncontested fact'. This is in reference to WP:GEVAL which has this 'fringe/mainstream' dichotomy that's been extensively debated on this talk page. Unrelated note: you can remove the first appearance of Note b since it now comes twice in one sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
No. You can't ad hoc interpret your 'Ehrman-criterium' to make it fit your preferences. Ehrman, in two differnt writings, clearly states "scholarly concensus" and "scholars," not "critical scholars" or "Biblical criticism," nor "mainstream. I've changed it to plain "scholars," per Ehrman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I have never said that Ehrman possesses supernatural infallibility in his writings. In determining what views 'mainstream scholarship' includes, I consulted the opinion of an expert in the field, who states that he does not discount evangelical scholars and will not attribute a conclusion to 'most scholars' unless evangelicals agree. His practice in other writings is totally irrelevant. I am interested in his opinion on this matter specifically. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, with respect to NPOV I think this article is fine now and I have no further qualms. But my original argument aside, I think 'critical' should be added before 'scholars' for the sake of clarity. Jewish and Christian tradition maintain textual unity, now 'scholars' dispute this. Why? The reason for this is biblical criticism, therefore this should be specified. Violoncello10104 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
'The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like.' This sentence would be denied by any traditional scholar (including any traditional/orthodox Christian or Jew). As per the Ehrman-criterium (really WP:NPOV), it must not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice but qualified to critical and/or liberal scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
We have also seen that the assertion that the P account lacks anthropomorphisms is mistaken: the first pericope actually depends on an anthropomorphic presentation, where God is a craftsman going through his workweek, taking his rest each evening, and then enjoying his Sabbath. This merges with the anthropomorphic presentation of the second pericope, in which God "forms" the man like a potter and "builds" the woman. Further, we have already seen that, while the first pericope certainly does emphasize God's transcendence, it is far from presenting him as distant or aloof. In fact it invites us to enter into aspects of God's own experience, and to imitate his model. Where does this leave us? Do these pericopes come from separate sources or not? There is no way to answer this question, since the putative sources no longer exist. But for each feature that is put forward to support the source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow of the narrative. In other words, if someone produced this text by stitching sources together, he left the seams smooth indeed.
(Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary, C. John Collins, 2006, P&R Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, pp. 230-231) Composite authorship is contested and controversial. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I approve of this now since you added 'According to Carr,' however you might like to add this argumentation from Collins in response to Carr to round out the POV of this article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The imprint of Mesopotamia’s mythic thought and literature on Genesis’ Primeval History (Genesis 1–11) is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole. But these factors cannot take away from the place of Mesopotamia’s stories of origins in the Bible’s opening chapters; and the latter, remarkably, do not fully conceal these antecedents. To the contrary, in its layout the biblical text appears frank about the locale of what preceded its eventual epic-making call to Abraham to “go forth” (Gen. 12:1) from his homeland and begin anew in a faraway place.
The 'imprint of Mesopotamia's mythic thought and literature on Genesis' is different from 'borrowing of themes'. Notice that Klamm and Winitzer qualify their statement, saying '... is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole.' I believe the current wording of 'borrowing' is too broad and does not give the nuance which Klamm and Winitzer express. Again, I would endorse the addition of the wording of this quote into the article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Violoncello10104: Sarna (1997) says "borrowed some themes"; that's in line with the nuance you're looking for. I've added "some" to the text, and changed the sentence in the lead into
@Dimadick: those two internet-articles are linked in a note, as examples of the conservative/Evangelical view; I wouldn't use them as sources, just as 'illustrations'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
We should not be deciding which sources provide an adequate "idea of the way of thinking". Use a secondary source, not a primary one. jps (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
If, then, the Bible was to offer something meaningful about such topics, Mesopotamia’s version of events would necessarily have to be addressed. The challenge presented by Mesopotamia, therefore, would amount to a delicate balancing act: How was the Bible to incorporate this ancient tradition while at the same time not losing its own claim for a theological revolution?
I can concede this point if my suggestion in is accepted. The term 'borrowing' in my mind connotes a kind of plagiarism on the part of the biblical authors, whereas what you have quoted speaks of 'imprint'. 'Influence' is another good word, and not even orthodox/fundamentalist scholars would disagree that there was Mesopotamian imprint or influence upon Genesis. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
Ehm... I don't recall where that came from ... The article now says:
n Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural, or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings. A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".
I propose that the following expansion be made to this section which at the moment only has one paragraph, and could do with further primary and secondary sources to give a fuller picture of hexameral literature on the Genesis creation narrative. Bouteneff 2008 has been cited as a reliable source since 2010, and no one has produced scholarly judgments to show that Bouteneff is unreliable, so I think it is unreasonable to say this source is so unreliable that all information from it should be immediately removed. In addition, nothing he is saying is controversial; he is just reporting the views of significant commentators in hexameral literature.
I'm not opposed to adding more sources to this, and I would appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions to improve this proposed expansion. However I do think it's highly unreasonable to simply delete this information, as has occurred twice now, rather than using the 'one source section' maintenance template which exists for precisely this kind of situation.
Theophilus of Antioch
The second-century Patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus, wrote a treatise attempting to convince his pagan acquaintance of the Christian faith by discrediting pagan classical literature and prophecy for its alleged contradictions and immorality, while upholding Scripture as possessing "antiquity", predating pagan philosophy. This treatise is known as the Letter to Autolycus and was cited as an authority by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Methodius and Lactantius.
Theophilus attacks the polytheism and lack of divine providence of pagan myths, especially the account of Hesiod, lauding the Genesis creation account for its teaching of creation ex nihilo. His interpretation of the creation narrative is at times allegorical, for example, "through the resurrection is signified, for a proof of the future resurrection of all ". The waters are like the Law and the Prophets; the perfect sun is a type for God while the waxing and waning moon is a type for the human person. Despite his propensity for allegory, Theophilus does not mention Adam-Christ typology which is present in the works of his contemporaries such as Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis, as well as in the New Testament, such that his interpretation resembles the Jewish exegesis of Philo of Alexandria and the midrash on Genesis.
Theophilus establishes an antithesis between pagan myths, which are regarded as deceitful and novel, and trustworthy ancient history as represented by the Genesis creation narrative. From his conviction of the reliability and antiquity of the prophetic writings, he meticulously calculates a chronology: from the Creation to the Flood was 2,242 years, from the Flood to Abraham, 1,036 years, from Isaac to Moses, 660 years and so on until the death of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in AD 180. He then evaluates the historicity of the Old Testament.
This message is not recent in origin, nor are our writings, as some suppose, mythical and false. They are actually more ancient and trustworthy. lived long after and introduced a multitude of gods. For this reason it is plain that all the rest were in error and that only the Christians have held the truth—we who are instructed by the Holy Spirit who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold everything.
Basil's homilies on the six days of creation (Hexaemeron) were appreciated widely; by Ambrose of Milan, Rufinus, Jerome and Socrates of Constantinople. Basil strongly separates the Genesis creation account from scientific accounts of creation, seeing instead a theological aim in Genesis to teach that "the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings, if it is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God". Basil's homilies contain both a literalistic element seen in Theophilus, along with a fondness for practical working-class wisdom, as well as an Origenistic element in the Neoplatonic and allegorical concepts such as the notion of the pre-existence of Creation in the mind of God.
Basil conceives of Creation as existing conceptually in the mind of God before coming into physical existence by his will, comparing God to "the artist , even before the combination of the parts, knows the beauty of each and approves them individually, directing his judgment to the final aim", claiming this to be the meaning of Colossians 1:16 ("For by him were all things created"). However, Basil criticises the excessive allegorisation of the Marcionites, Manichaeans and Valentinian Gnostics, taking the terms "light", "darkness" and "deep" as literal appellations, and emphasising that evil has no origin of itself, but rather that it is attributable to the voluntary fall of man. He also interprets the days of creation as twenty-four-hour periods. Yet, he regards God's sayings "Let there be..." not as a literal spoken word, but as an allegorical "seed" of theology; "the divine will, joined with the first impulse of intelligence, is the Word of God." Basil, like Origen, says that "Theological teachings are scattered as mystical seeds throughout the historical account"; this explains his cautious embrace of allegory alongside the confession of the historicity of the account. On the allegorical interpretations of the "firmament", he says the following.
And if they tell you that the heavens mean contemplative powers, and the firmament active powers which produce good, we admire the theory as ingenious but we will not concede that it is altogether true. For in that case dew, the frost, cold and heat, which in Daniel are ordered to praise the Creator of all things, will be intelligent and invisible natures. But this is only a figure, accepted as such by enlightened minds , to complete the glory of the Creator.
Basil regards Creation as primarily doxological in glorifying the Creator, and secondarily as ethically instructive, for example in the perceived virtue of animals such as bees and turtles.
I have heard it said that the sea urchin, a little contemptible creature, often foretells calm and tempest to sailors. No astrologer, no Chaldaean, has ever communicated his secret to the urchin: it is the Lord of the sea and of the winds who has impressed on this little animal a manifest proof of his great wisdom. God has foreseen all, he has neglected nothing. His eye, which never sleeps, watches over all. He is present everywhere and gives to each being the means of preservation. If God has not left the sea urchin outside his providence, is he without care for you?
Basil's series of homilies on the Hexaemeron were unfinished. There are two homilies on the origin of humanity which present themselves as a continuation of Basil's work, although they differ significantly in style, leading some scholars to doubt their authenticity. In these homilies, the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 is interpreted as referring to the Trinity, unlike Theophilus. The term "image" is associated with the rational soul, and "likeness" with the human vocation to become like God. These homilies also regard men and women as equal in that they both possess the image and likeness of God, "Nobody may ignorantly ascribe the name of human only to the man. The natures are alike of equal honor, the virtues are equal, the struggles equal, the judgment alike". The "making" of Adam in Genesis 1:27 is seen as referring to the soul while the "fashioning" in Genesis 2:7 refers to the deliberate and meticulous forming of Adam's body.
^ Bouteneff 2008, p. 135. Cite error: The named reference "FOOTNOTEBouteneff2008135" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
And I find it highly unreasonable that you have such a hidebound determination to add undue teleological content to this article with so little respect for establishing an actual consensus to do so when your additions are challenged, you having preferred to bludgeon the page. Looking over your comments on this page one detects a determined (glaring) creationist subtext. This content is more about Hexameral literature than it is about the Genesis creation narrative, so it has no place here. It might have a place in its own dedicated article. Carlstak (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Composition of the narrative
The article accepts and promotes a very old-fashioned version of the Documentary Hypothesis, ignoring other theories: the current thinking would be that the Torah was composed between 450-250 BC in a series of expansions, with the creation narrative dating from the end of that period. Achar Sva (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
faq page Frequently asked questions
.jpg)