Talk:Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

message: The article mentions that "Some conservative Christians think that seeing Genesis as a myth or as an allegory is some kind of "cop-out," and that it was always interpreted literally until biological evolution came and disproved it." I think disprove should not be used here, since there are always arguements revolving around the topic. Given Wiki's NPOV, perhaps it should be changed to "challenged"? Allan Lee 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cop out

message: The whole premise of this article is flawed. The most likely categorization of the Adam and Eve story is myth, or "mythos." But using the term myth has undesirable connotations with pagan "mythology." Christians would cite the book of Revelation that refers to Genesis and asserts that the snake was Satan as proof within the same scripture that it is not "allegorical" to view the snake as Satan. Ironically the author of Revelation could have viewed the story as myth (the type of myth that is universally true), we will never know.
Furthermore, it is in my opinion a violation of NPOV to include this in a series called "Creationism." The subject is Allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Creationism, whatever it may be, would tend to use the text as factual documentation. Admission that it may be allegorical means that it is not a literally true account, and does not document how the universe was created.The age of fable (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws of this article

message: The first sentence doesn't make sense. Lynchical 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten it for better readability and clarity. Aardvark92 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: Why is evolution singled out as disagreeing with Genesis?  It's merely a single strand of scientific evidence that precludes a literal interpretation of Genesis.  Evidence from astrophysics and geology is far more seriously at odds with literalism.  I'll alter unless someone can point out something I've missed.  Cheers, --Plumbago 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was originally taken from a section in the theistic evolution article. I agree that there's no reason to single out evolution; I expect this article will grow away from its roots and encompass the whole range of allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Aardvark92 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there is a place for it. Since the article is titled Allegorical interpretations -- plural -- it ought to cover the many different ways people have allegorized Genesis. Aardvark92 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution? 

message: About the "contradictions", a few words: Job, Jude, and John are not part of the Genesis text itself. To a Jew, of course, the latter two are irrelevant. Job's mention of the "morning stars" has been traditionally understood by Jewish teachers to be referring to the angels, not the physical stars. At any rate, Job isn't part of the Genesis text, so there's no contradiction within itself Genesis on this point, unlike some of the other obvious issues between the Two Accounts in Genesis. Also, as a side-note, the oft-cited John 3:13 doesn't contradict Genesis 5:24. The Greek verb is in the "middle voice" (no analog in English) and it speaks of the intent and will of the subject. John 3:13 is better rendered, "no man has PUT HIMSELF up to heaven". Enoch was "taken away BY GOD to heaven", he didn't do it himself. John is saying nobody ever went to heaven by their own power or will. No contradiction there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.91.37 (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is precisely what Genesis does say: that Adam will die immediately, "in the day that thou eatest".  You are imposing later Christian apologetics here.  In the original Hebrew, the repetition of the word for "death" (sometimes translated as "dying you shall die" represents emphasis, not postponement.  The same construction is used in the previous verse, "...surely eat".  In the story, Adam wasn't created immortal, and was therefore going to die eventually anyhow (this is why he was evicted from Eden in Gen. 3:22, to prevent him becoming immortal, which God did not want).  In the Sumerian original, the god Enki lies to the Sumerian "Adam" (Adapa) to stop him eating the food of the gods and becoming immortal: the Hebrews adapted the "toxic lie" to a different magical food. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you. It's amazing how spread is the idea that Adam and Eve would be immortal if it were not for the original sin, when Gen. 3:22 tells differently! Anyway, I don't think there is necessarily a contradiction between Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 5:5. Why not accept that in Gen. 2:17 God simply deceived (lied to) Adam?... Gazilion (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictions 

message: The first reference, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html , is used to demonstrate that Augustine interpreted the creation in Genesis allegorically; however the first point on that reference page states that "Augustine stresses that his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is literal and not metaphorical or allegorical".  This seems to be a misleading use of this reference, since the reference text itself contradicts the idea that Augustine viewed Genesis metaphorically.  199.254.216.2 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what Augustine called a "literal view" would be considered metaphorical by today's literalists. Aardvark92 18:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Reference 

message: "Nahmanides' disciple, rabbi Isaac of Akko, a prominent Kabbalist of 13th-century, held, that the Universe is about 15 billion year old - strikingly close to the modern scientific calculations."
This is an incorrect statement. R' Akko believed that "God's day" was like a thousand human years and therefore each human year of 365.25 days is like 365,250 years from God's perspective. He also believed the world went through certain Kaballistic cycles of creation and that each of these cycles lasted 7000 years. He also believed that we are currently in the _second_ cycle. If you do the math that adds up to 2.5 billion years per cycle. And if we are currently in the year 5767 (Jewish calendar) of the second cycle that leads to a grand total of ~4.6 billion years. 
It was Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's commentary from the book Sefer Yetzirah where he made the assumption that we are currently in the _seventh_ cycle of creation (something R' Akko did not believe) which he then equated to ~15 billion years which is comparable to modern science's estimates.
If anything, R' Aryeh Kaplan can said to believe the universe is ~15 billion years old, but one cannot say the same of R' Akko. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orthoprax (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R' Isaac of Akko 

message: The Christian consensus before 1700 was that Genesis was a (possibly imperfect) historical record, not only allegorical.   The beginning of the interpretation section trys to sweep this uncomfortable fact under the rug.
The sources cited by that section are:
1.) An unsourced (dead link) vague generalization by an archbishop, which doesn't amount to an assertion that a denial of the historical accuracy of Genesis was ever common or tolerated before the 1700s.
2.) Several other articles with cherry picked quotes of early church figures supporting various historical interpretations of Genesis.  Many of them just quarreled with the meanings of "day" and "light", e.g., "A day of the lord is 1000 years".
Though they may have disagreed on some details, Christians who believed that Genesis had little or no historical accuracy were a very small minority until the 1700s.   
Here's a list of people who've been burned at the stake (or threatened) for contradicting the church's interpretation of Genesis as a historical document:
"In 1749, the distinguished French scholar Comte de Buffon proposed that the 6 days of creation may have been 6 long epochs of time and that the Earth's surface had been shaped and reshaped by processes still going on. The Church took great exception to this and threatened Buffon to recant and publicly accept the Old Testament age of 6000 years. No doubt remembering the fate of Galileo (who lived most of his life under house arrest for proposing the Earth went around the Sun,) and Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for proposing the same theory and adding that he believed there was life elsewhere in the universe, Buffon complied." - http://starryskies.com/Artshtml/dln/6-97/earth.age.html
"In Les époques de la nature (1778) Buffon discussed the origins of the solar system, speculating that the planets had been created by comets colliding with the sun (see Passing star hypothesis). He also suggested that the age of the earth was much greater than the 4,004 years b.c. proclaimed by Archbishop James Ussher of the church. Based on the cooling rate of iron, he calculated that the age of the earth was 75,000 years. For this he was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and his books were burned. Buffon also denied that Noah's flood ever occurred and observed that some animals retain parts that are vestigial and no longer useful, suggesting that they have evolved rather than having been spontaneously generated. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon
"A French scholar, Bernard Palissy who lived from 1510-1589 believed the Earth was much older based on his observations that rain, wind, and tides were the cause for much of the present-day appearance of the Earth. He wrote that, these forces could not work over such a short period of time to produce the changes. He was burned at the stake in 1589. A bad time for scientific inquiry. " - http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/age.htm
"Another was Thomas Burnet, a member of the English clergy, who lived from 1635-1715. He had written a book around 1681 supporting the idea of a worldwide flood, but in 1692, he wrote another book in which he questioned the existence of Adam and Eve, and that ended his career."  http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/age.htm
Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Before the 1500s, almost no one, perhaps no one, understood enough to have any good reason to say that the earth was older than 6,000 to 12,000 years, and most Christians accepted Genesis as a historical account by default. Christians back then believed in Adam and Eve because their alternative was that Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic "original sin" by a non-existent individual.   Modern DNA evidence proves that we are not the inbred descendants of only two people.
--------
I don't know about the other names in your list, but Bernard Palissy was not burned at the stake. He died in a dungeon, not because of his scientific theories, but because he was a Protestant. http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=867 I'm not sure if he was actually part of any of the various the Protestant revolts, however, so this might have been a case of guilt by association. At any rate, I know of no primary sources which record persecution against Palissy for his scientific views, or even that they were given much attention at all. Delsydebothom (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian consensus before 1700 

message: I am deleting the Noah "contradiction" because I don't see what is contradicting what. The fact that he didn't have kids earlier in his life doesn't contradict anything that I can see. If anyone reposts this quote, they should re-write it so the contradiction is more "apparent". Yaki-gaijin 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unapparent Contradictions

message: This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. there should be some contribution to the article like citations added rather than just tag and run.19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Most of this article appears to be original research. I don't see many sources, just what editors think are discrepancies, interpretations, etc with a heavy reliance on primary sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you removed was added just in the last week and already removed several times. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've left messages on the editor's talk page. I was talking about the rest of the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: As I've said just above, this appears to be OR and unrelated to the subject of this article, allegorical interpretations. If the sources used (and sources should be used, not our own ideas) to discuss allegorical interpretations mention discrepancies, great, then include them if that helps the article. But this is not a 'discrepancies in the Bible article' and I've removed the section as irrelevant, unsourced and evidently one or more editors original research. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies section 

message: The article is called Allegorical Interpretations of Genesis, implying ALL of Genesis, which is 50 chapters; in fact it's interested only in the the first few chapters. Should it be changed? PiCo (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title? 

message: This article is a pov fork from Genesis creation narrative, which treats the same subject. It's also extremely badly written and almost unsupported by reliable sources. Would someone like to recommend it for deletion?Achar Sva (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is pov fork, should be deleted