Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 2

message: Most of artist are absurd. How could they depicted God has something like what they had done?
God doesn't have hairy things on his body or even cover like we humans do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimerarc (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABOUT PAINTINGS 

message: It seems that this artucle uses "textual criticism" and "textual critic" throughout, when it is actually referring to "source criticism" and "source critic."
I'm particularly troubled by the sentence: 
"The small minority[citation needed] of academics rejecting the methodology of textual criticism, as well as non-academic Creationists, argue that when a biblical text is measured against the scholar's own concept of unity and found wanting, this probably says more about the biblical scholar's sense of unity than about the text's prehistory. (Carr 24)."
 which seems to imply that conservatives who reject the two-source theory are rejecting textual criticism (when in fact many of them are very active textual critics).  I propose that in this section (and elsewhere in the article) the term textual criticism be replaced with source criticism, the term "textual critic" be replaced by "source critic" and this particular sentence be altered to read "Some question the methodology of source criticism in passages like this and argue that[...]" This would both help in avoiding arguments over loaded terms like "small minority" and "academic", and improve the accuracy of the statement.  I know many conservative biblicists who would agree with the above argument with respect to source criticism in the Pentatech, but fully accept the methods of source criticism elsewhere (e.g. in identifying Q-quotations in the Gospels), and use the same text-critical methodology as any more liberal scholar would.
Demmeis 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: May I point out that Judaism believes that G-d wrote the Torah, not Moses. --86.138.210.93 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism POV 

message: The interpretation of Genesis as a literal text has a long history which this article largely ignores.  Beginning with Augustine's De genesi ad literam and Basil's Hexaemeron through such medieval scholastics as Peter Lombard, Robert Grosseteste and Thomas Aquinas, there is a complex tradition of biblical exegesis in which theologians sought to interpret Creation within the context of then known scientific theories.  I have no doubt there are similar Jewish and Muslim traditions, but I don't know that literature.
I'd like to hear thoughts of how a historical perspective would fit in the present article.  --SteveMcCluskey 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs historical perspective 

message: I tried to tidy this long section up, but probably butchered it instead. Nevertheless, I do see some real weaknesses in it. It's too long! And it's rambling and it fails to deal adequately with the Mosaic traditional view (which is why there was so little left of that view by the time I'd finished). It isn't very good oin the DH, either - Welhasen is dead, the theory to look at is the modern version, not the old...plus what about non-DH views? (not every scholar who rejects the Mosaic tradition is automatically a follower of the DH) PiCo 11:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: I've modified The dual account theory to include a very brief description of an interpretation as dual cosmogonies given in much more detail in the source cited. This seemed the best place for it, though it might be made a separate sub-section. ... dave souza, talk 11:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual cosmogonies

message: Please note that this is a lengthy article which (IMO) is focussed on the text of Genesis 1-3, and issues such as authorship, rather than the interpretation. The "interpretation" section at the end is just a brief summary of the various interpretative options. Extensive arguments and counter-arguments do not belong here -- they should be added to the main articles for each position. Tonicthebrown 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Argumentation

message: As noted above, this article is quite long. I suggest splitting a majority of the information into two different articles relating to what many theologians consider the priestly account which uses the term, "Elohim," for God and the Jahwist account which uses the term, "Yahweh," for God. I believe there is a good deal of information on both to constitute separate articles such as the creation week story disenchanting nature from polytheistic dieties or the Jahwist apparent concerns against idolatry and pride denoted in the stories of the Garden of Eden, Flood, and Tower of Babel. Pbarnes 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. However, I personally do not feel that such a split would be realistic or helpful. There is too much common ground -- for example, the discussion about single vs. dual authorship and dual perspective. Much of the existing article looks at Genesis 1-3 as a whole. Having said that, the article is very long and perhaps someone needs to go through it to see if anything can be made more concise. Tonicthebrown 07:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divide Article to Creation Week and Garden of Eden 

message: This is somehing I've never been able to get, maybe someone here can answer me: Is Genesis supposed to be about the creation of the entire universe, or just the planet Earth? Thanks!
12.218.145.112 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth/Universe

message: I'm a bit concerned about the section regarding the number seven. "Seven was regarded as a significant number in the ancient Near East, representing a quarter of the 28-day lunar cycle, and appearing as the third prime number, the preceding primes being three and five." Two is also a prime number, and seven is the fourth prime number. Whether the belief was wrong, or just this article, I'm unsure. Thoughts? -Unnatural20 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is doubtful in many ways, and not just these. I think there are many other musings about the significance of the number 7. There are many things about this article that I am unhappy with.--Filll 19:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sounds a bit BibleCode-like to me.  7 is the fourth prime number also, so have removed this section. Slov01 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, with all due respect this is not Bible Code. The way the number 7 is used in the text is intentional by the author, and this is observed by numerous commentators. A reputable commentary (by Gordon Wenham has been cited. I agree with you, however, the the prime number stuff is dubious and so I have left it removed. Tonicthebrown 11:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lunar cycle is 29.53 - certainly nothing to do with the number 7 there.  As the prime number part has been removed and the reference has been repaired only a minor edit has been applied.Slov01 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think whoever added that comment (7 is a quarter of the lunar cycle) was referring to the theory that the 7-day week derives from ancient Mesopotamian astronomy, which estimated the lunar cycle as 28 days and divided this into four. However, I agree that the relevance of this to Genesis 1 is questionable. Tonicthebrown 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primes

message: I'm not sure how to integrate the following info into the article, but...
It is often stated by young earth creationists that the "inconsistencies" can be rectified by the fact that in chapter 2 uses the past tense "had" (e.g. vs 8 and vs 19), making reference to the fact that the animals that Adam named had already been created beforehand. Chapter 2 probably details the events of day 6 in chapter 1:
*all of creation - except for humans - had already been made
*God made a man 
*God put the man in the garden of Eden and gave him the task of naming all the animals in the garden.
*after the animals of the garden were all named, it was found that none of them were suitable partners for Adam.
*so God put Adam to sleep and formed a woman out of his rib.
*Adam named the woman Eve
{end the recount of day 6}
for more info see http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html, although a different source should be cited for the article because Christiananswers.net would be considered biased or POV... hence I won't jump in and edit the article myself...
--Hypershock 15:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent order of events