Talk:Genesis creation narrative: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:28, 4 December 2019 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,789 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 26) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:15, 14 January 2020 edit undoOldstone James (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,816 edits →Biblical literalism is a misreading?Tag: 2017 wikitext editor Next edit →
Line 76:		Line 76:

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

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

	:You won't care for the article ], then. ] (]) 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)		:You won't care for the article ], then. ] (]) 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:15, 14 January 2020

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genesis creation narrative article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

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.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

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.

faq page Frequently asked questions

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.

See also

References

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: Interfaith High‑importance

	Religion portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mythology Top‑importance

	Mythology portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Creationism Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Creation according to Genesis -> Genesis creation myth, Moved, 27 January 2010, January 2010 discussion
RM, Genesis creation myth -> Creation according to Genesis, No consensus, 16 February 2010, February 2010 discussion
RM, Genesis creation myth -> Creation according to Genesis, No consensus, 25 March 2010, March 2010 discussion
RM, Genesis creation myth -> Biblical Creation, No consensus, 4 April 2010, April 2010 discussion 1
RM, Genesis creation myth -> Genesis creation narrative, Moved, 20 April 2010, April 2010 discussion 2
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, No consensus, 4 March 2012, March 2012 discussion 1
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Creation story in Genesis, No consensus, 4 March 2012, March 2012 discussion 2
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, No consensus, 28 September 2012, September 2012 discussion
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Creation in Genesis, Not moved, 1 February 2013, Feb 2013 discussion 1
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, Not moved, 4 February 2013, Feb 2013 discussion 2
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, No consensus, 22 January 2014, Jan 2014 discussion
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, No consensus, 23 April 2014, April 2014 discussion
1-year moratorium on further proposals, 1 May 2014, Endorsed in this discussion
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth, Not moved, 22 January 2016, 2016 discussion
1-year moratorium on further proposals, 22 February 2016
RM, Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation story, Withdrawn, 22 February 2017, 2017 discussion

Genealogical Adam and Eve

Would this line of work be worth including?

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

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

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

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

Biblical literalism is a misreading?

The article, as it is now, repeatedly claims that "misreading the story as history rather than theology leads to Creationism and the denial of evolution". However, not only do the sources listed do not appear to support this claim – the most the sources say is that one shouldn't interpret the Bible as history, which is a whole lot different from saying that the Bible wasn't intended to be historically accurate – the article on biblical literalism itself does not have a single mention of the "fact" that it's a misreading. I am also fairly confident that, upon research, I will be able to quote a number of atheist scholars as saying that the Bible was intended to be taken literally. I don't think the fact that biblical literalism is a misreading is unequivocal at all, and so I believe the claim that it is should be retracted from the article.la 10:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't open a new thread on the same subject as the immediately preceding one.PiCo (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The preceding thread you are referring to was not yet opened at the time I started writing this section. I may merge the two sections in a minute, though, if you give me the permission to. la 12:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What if we remove the prefix "mis-"? Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That would misrepresent the cited sources showing mainstream expert opinion. . dave souza, talk 06:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bad information

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

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

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

Categories: