Talk:Book of Genesis/Archive 1

message: The phrase "Of course, only Moses' original intent can tell us what those 6 days really meant." Should read "Of course, only the author's original intent can tell us what those 6 days really meant." since it is very unlikely Moses was the actual author of Genesis.--Daniel 11:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moses

message: While I have heard much discussion that the serpent is Satan, I learned from one of my professors that a common mistake was that no where (and I am reading Genesis right now (NIV/CEV)) does it specifically say that the serpent is Satan. And on that note, if God made the snake to crawl on its belly as punishment, if that was Satan, how did Satan come to test Jesus during Jesus' sojourn in the desert? Just some food for thought....
:Its quite right to say that Genesis does not identify the serpent as satan, although later tradition did and there is reference to "that old serpent satan" in the new testament. Internally very little is said about satan in the Hebrew Bible. As for tempting Jesus in the wilderness, I don't see the problem. Snakes have little trouble wandering around the desert and crawling on one's belly doesn't stop one tempting someone else. Francis Davey 09:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken on the tempting bit -- I guess I've just seen too much of that movie The Greatest Story Ever Told, where Satan is portrayed as man. My original point about Satan vs. the Serpent of Genesis is that the original wiki article seemes to make that distinction very clear ("Later, starting in verse 3:1, Eve was convinced by a talking serpent (Satan) to eat of the forbidden fruit."). Now given the nature of the Bible and its numerous authors, does it not seem to be too bold a statement. Perhaps a simple rephrasing, such as: "Later, starting in verse 3:1, Eve was convinced by a talking serpent (believed to be Satan in some of the Abrahamic Religions) to eat of the forbidden fruit." I've just never liked how some people like to make assumptions about it when little is known, and much is ambiguous. Thanks!
I don't think a Biblical scholar would agree with you "about little being known, and much being ambiguous" about the Serpent/Satan assumption. It is not that many people (namely Bible belivers) assume the Serpent who tempted Eve is Satan, it has been a topic of hot debate and extensive rigorous study by Bible scholars, pastors, and Jewish OT experts. While all except possibly the latter, agree that the book of Genesis never anywhere identifies the Serpent as Satan, they also came to another conclusion. It is generally believed at least in the so-called "protestant" world, that the Serpent is simply a symbolic representation of Satan, aside from any assumptions one might have about its mentioning. But what I've found to be quite interesting even in this recent discussion, is that in spite of anyone assuming the Serpent is Satan, most assume the Serpent is some sort of snake (or went on to be one after he was condemned by God) or animal that we understand and know of today. That's interesting because many say it is irresponsible to simply assume the Serpent is Satan, just because he's evil; while they themselves assume that the Serpent is a snake just because the word serpent is used and God cursed whatever it was to "crawl on its belly." I think the real issue here isn't who the Serpent was, but what exactly does the word serpent refer to here. Serpent was used to describe dragons in the middle ages, serpent was used to describe dinosaurs by early paleontologists and in many, many, many world mytholgies and religions of the ancient world (some that still survive today) the word and appearance of a serpent was used to represent evil. Perhaps the author of Genesis simply used the word "serpent" to describe whatever it was that tempted Eve, because he could not rightly think of any other word to describe whatever it really was. Snakes don't talk people. So what was it? Maybe there wasn't a word to describe such a thing in the time the book of Genesis was written.
ManofRenown87 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If one were to refer to the original language Genesis was written in, Hebrew, one could examine the Hebrew word for serpent used in the passage contained in chapter three. Nachash, נחש, is the word used to describe the creature which did tempt Eve.  Nachash is translated into English as serpent thirty-one times in the Hebrew language of the Tanakh, and when used in its context, the word is being used to dicribe the animal, the snake.
Brother Emerson 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Serpent as Satan

message: Is Lamech descended from Cain or Seth?  The paragraph leads me to believe Cain, but the diagram, Seth  This section is unclear and could use better organization.  I came here looking for just such information, so I can't yet fix it myself. yEvb0 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Adam to Noah

message: I think some of teachings may be disputed by various religious groups.  For instance Calvinists would probably dispute the claim that evil comes about only by abuse of free will, since to them everything is predetermined.  Also, when you say that things are in stark contrast to previous texts in history, are you including Ikhenaton's religion, which was monotheist? —???? (not in the history)
If you're referring to something in the article, the Book of Genesis gives account for events in history before there ever was an Egypt or Akhenaton. So... yeah.
-- ManofRenown87 08-04-2006
I would assume that I was on some alternate Earth if many of these things were not disputed by at least *some* religious groups!  ;-)  The material I have added was based on the peshat of the text; Orthodox Jews sometimes use this term to mean the "literal" meaning of the text, as opposed to the "derash", the meaning read into the text by a later author.  However, I was using the religiously-neutral use of the term "peshat" - the meaning of the text that the original author intended to convey to the original audience.  Scholars affirm that it is literally impossible to determine the peshat of any ancient near-eastern text unless one becomes an expert on comparative linguistics, history, myhtology and archaeology.  I agree, and I defer to their findings.  This, obviously, makes me a heretic according to Orthodox Judaism and many Chrisitian branches.  C'est la vie.  However, this info is well accepted by the scholars in the Anchor Bible project, which includes scholars from Judaism, Protestant and Catholic Christianity.
RK
"Although many think that she questioned Satan wisely, a quick study of the scripture reveals otherwise."
"In response to the corruption of man's gene pool (not sinfulness as many think), God decides to cleanse the world with a flood and start again."
These statements seem a bit POV to me.  I think it would be appropriate for the summary to mention common interpretations, but it isn't the place of the article to endorse one interpretation or another. Any suggestions/volunteers to fix this? I dont' really feel qualified to do it myself yEvb0 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial statements

message: Two things: I am not a big fan of importing any text that is older than my grandmother, since the language and scholarship tends to be questionable by todays standards (much as my grandma's language and scholarship was questionable by today's standards). While here, it is simply a question of adding a precis of the plot, i am not enthralled with the language and style. Furthermore, the Jewish Encyclopedia, no matter how scholarly, is coming from a certain perspective--that of Jews at the turn of the century, so in some instances, the POV could be challenged. The second point regards the authorship section--material I haven't touched academically in well over a decade. If we are going to discuss the four author hypothesis, there is plenty of evidence of P in Genesis (the seven of every species for sacrifice comes to mind). And yet, even this scholarship is somewhat outdated, and says nothing of other strands, redaction, sources of legends, political significance (since it tells the stories of Joseph and Judah, it is all the more interesting here), etc. etc. I would rather have contemporary scholarship, even if it means less text, than excessive verbiage that could well turn the average reader off from reading the article. Just some thoughts. Danny 01:52, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally. I just wanted to import a good public domain summary of the main story lines and themes; I was amazed after so long so little had been done on this entry.  This new imported text can and should be edited to remove out of date terminology, to remove the Jewish POV bias it has, and to just make it more readable.  RK 22:51, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I too am worried about the 1906 summary of the documentary hypothesis, and I tried to avoid importing most of the JE's discussion on this issue. The JE has an excellent example of the open scholarship of the time, but it is outdated. Interestingly, the JE's discussion of the documentary hypothesis and related source-criticism are not Jewish POVs; Orthodox Jews then and now viewed them as non-Jewish Protestant POV, or as secular (if not atheist) POV's!  Obviously, I disagree with that latter view. In fact, I think that critical-historical studies, and related fields, are the best efforts of open-minded scholars on the subject; this approach is the origin of what we now call NPOV!  However, I agree that the historical studies of 1906 are, shall we say, outdated. Better to have less text that is more up to date than large amounts of text that are wrong. RK 22:51, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Jewish Encyclopedia''

message: There is some controversy and confusion about this passage. When the Bible was translated in the King James Version, the being was called a "man", since it appeared heretical to claim a man wrestled with God and won. But the Hebrew clearly says he wrestled with God, which is why he was called Isra-El ("Isra" roughly meaning "struggle, and "El" clearly meaning "God".) Later, more accurate translations (such as the NIV) translate the figure as "God". This may be controversial for many people, since it seems doctrinally difficult -- but this is an encyclopedia. We shouldn't change what the text says simply because it's uncomfortable for some. Quadell (talk) 14:38, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
: We should document the controversy and confusion, and not fall down on any one side. Some also speculate the "man" was specifically Christ; we should note this too. Also, we can't assume (in the article) that the NIV is a more accurate translation than the KJV; a (vocal) minority disagree (the KJV-only crowd). — Matt 14:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacob wrestles with God 

message: Grendelkhan removed the spoilers tag, correctly, I think. He noted that "I refuse to believe that Genesis has spoilers". For the most part, yes, and I agree with this edit. However, I have a sad experience to recount: I have had some experience in public school education, and to my astonishment I found that more than a few 10th grade inner-city minority students had no idea what the book of Genesis was about. A few didn't even know about Adam and Eve; many believed that Jesus created the world 2,000 years ago. Many did not know about Abraham and Sarah, and very few knew the storylines in any meaningful way. Those that went to a church heard the book mentioned often, but most never actually read it, let alone studied it. (A few years ago if someone told me this I would have called them a liar! I have since been forced to remove all my preconceptions of what people should be assumed to know, on many subjects. I even recently met inner-city high school girls who practiced unprotected vaginal sex, but didn't do oral sex. Why? Because "the baby grows in the stomach, so I can't get pregnant if I don't swallow sperm". Today we have a whole new reality out there. RK 02:55, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
Seriously, a spoiler warning??? isn't excactly Dan Brown... simply pointless, although amusing enough.--80.203.81.98 23:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The spoiler warnings are back up, I'm going to go ahead and remove them. At the moment, it looks more like it's gently poking fun at the subject, and it undermines the article. It was funny though, I suppose. --Doug (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my thought: "looking at the issue objectively" does not mean looking at it like a simplistic robot, ignoring all subtleties of the situation. The fact is, for all sorts of logical and cultural reasons, putting a spoiler on it is just plain silly. Looking at something 'intelligently' is the primary objective.  That objective includes objectivity, and a whole lot more.--Daniel 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: An anon posted some info that looks like it came out of an encyclopedia, but without noting source. It may be good stuff, but it's not even a little Wikified, and was just sort of dumped in. I'm removing it to here until someone can properly reintegrate it. See my Talk for more info and oter instances from same user. One-dimensional Tangent 03:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some essays 

message: Here's a problem that's a bit less controversial than some of the others: The caption for the Egg picture says, "Bereshit, or the book of Genesis, written on an egg, in the Jerusalem Museum." Well, I don't think so. Looking at the hi-rez version, the egg appears to have <40 lines averaging <60 characters each, for a total of less than 2400 characters. But there are more characters than that in the first chapter of Genesis; certainly there are many, many more in the whole book. Does anyone know what is really on the egg? A portion of Genesis, perhaps, but certainly not the whole thing. Nowhither 03:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Problem solved. It's the first chapter of Genesis. Delete this section if you get tired of it. — Nowhither 23:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Egg Picture Caption 

message: Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"?  All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, as well as one of the other Torah books (Numbers).  If there are no objections, I'll have it changed.
Speaking of articles, why do English-language translations begin, "In THE beginning", when the definite article is missing from the Hebrew? Lee 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, because they're translations?  As opposed to English-word-for-Hebrew-word swaps that is.  Or have I missed something?  --Plumbago 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book of Genesis

message: This article would not be complete without some form of reference to Secret_knowledge#The_Classic_Gnostic_Myth, aka their Prelude to Genesis.  I dont know why Gnosticism is listed as Secret_knowledge either.
:Can you indicate why? JFW | T@lk 21:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnostic's Prologue to Genesis

message: The article should give some reference to the creatures mentioned which are half man and half angel.  I forget the name.  It starts with an "N". -Husnock 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Half Angel

message: From the "Summary" section, under the sub-section "Noah and the Great Flood":
"Into this ark they bring a mating pair of each kind of animal and bird on Earth."
The Bible contradicts itself on this issue.  Here are two quotes from http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/:
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.
Should we perhaps say that Genesis is inconsistent on how many animals went into the Ark?  -- Bowlhover 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in 7:2 and 7:3 that Noah should take 7 pairs of each clean (kosher) animal, and 2 (1 pair) of each unclean (non-kosher) animal. 7:9 says that all of these animals went into the ark two by two, i.e. in pairs - there is no mention of how many animals went in. I see no inconsistency, although I do recommend that you find a better translation than the KJV, which is notoriously hard to understand in terms of modern English. In this case it is in no way clear that the term "sevens" (note the plural) means seven pairs, while two (note the singular) means one pair. Dbratton 13:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah and the Great Flood 

message: It says in the article that god created the firmament of heaven on the second day, (sky, sun, moon and stars) but then created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.  Did it happen twice?
:No. The firmament is what divides the waters above from the waters beneath. There's no indication that there are any planetary or stellar bodies visible at that point. Francis Davey 15:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firmament of heaven? 

message: Is it just me or does the article look over crowded and sloppy due to the positioning of the Bereshit aleph image (the egg)? The fact that the egg is never mentioned in the article, let alone the beginning, really says to me that it doesn't need to be there. So I suggest that it is either moved somewere else on the page and something be written about it to make it relevent or just remove it altogether. Jimmyjrg
:I've thought this for some time, and would support either removing the image or moving it to a less crowded location. Dbratton 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bereshit aleph image makes article look sloppy 

message: wheres the Tower of Babel in all this? wasn't that in Genesis? Edit by Joshuagross: posted 09:27, 6 March 2006 by 165.173.126.243
: See Genesis 11. Joshuagross 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tower of Babel]] 

message: Great simularities exist between ancient Chinese texts and the creation story found in Biblical Genesis. Through Chinese texts the meaning of the dark waters is expanded into the primal state of the material universe, which is given order under the law of physics to produce light and life. The workings of darkness (water) are ruled over by the Moon, just as light is ruled over by the Sun. The Lunar Calendar is manufactured as multiples of 6, and the Solar is multiples of 7, this is referred to as the 6 and 7 steps or days in the I Ching, just as they are referred to as the 6 and 7 days of creation in Genesis. This idea may be dismissed but there are also other common elements, in the 40 light and 40 dark numbers that the Chinese workings use to manufacture the workings of time, which we still use today, and in the workings of Trigrams and Hexagrams of the I Ching, as geometrically they are exactly the same as The Star of David or Seals of Solomon. In both the 2 trianglar forms of Heaven and Earth are placed together to reveal the Stars' or Seals' secret numerical values. The values show us that the whole Precession of the heavens fit into 64 Hexagrams or cubes as a hexadecimal progression (based on fitting a binary code of light and dark - days and nights, into integers from 1 to 10), which when fully worked out or fitted together give the dimensions of 'The Measure of the Fish' (Vesica Piscis). The measure is the same rectangle as is found within a hexagon, and gives a 12th division of a circle (8 x 8 x 8). The rectangle formed by the 2 intersecting circles of Vesica Piscis and its division into 12 parts seems to be the reason it is linked to the Greek value of the name Jesus, and is the sign of Jesus. I mention Jesus in the context of Genesis as in his first miracle he turned water into wine - mimicking the creative processes power of turning the dark universal waters into the blood of the living body. Karen Solvig 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six and Seven Days of Creation. 

message: Someone needs to put a spoiler warning in the summary section. I don't know how to.
:Advocating spoilers in bible articles? Heaven help us! -ZeroTalk 02:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. If you view it as a story, it needs a spoiler warning. If you view it as an historical or religious text it doesn't. Since there could be viewers of both types, we both do and don't need them. Which is impossible. However, the former type would be helped and the latter can jut ignore it, so a spoiler warning does make sense. DirkvdM 04:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. No one is buying a Bible and reading it because they're just looking to 'read a story'.--Daniel 11:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: {spoiler}Jesus dies and comes back to life{/spoiler} Umm, seriously, I think it's a bit silly to expect spoiler warnings on a book written almost 2000 years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhialto (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: :Genesis begins with creation narrative, or narratives, depending on one's point of view, which may be understood literally, or as allegory. However, it is mainly called an allegory by those who wish to believe in the theory of evolution. In the view of an allegory, the allegory continues to chapter eleven. It thereafter records what is agreed to be historical narrative to the end of the book. Those who believe that the first eleven chapters are literal point out that the style of writing does not change, although this is a point of contention, nor does it state anywhere that any of it is not literal. There are a growing number of Christians and Jews who argue that the beginning ‎of ‎Genesis is not an account of the physical creation of the world; but, in keeping with ‎how ‎ancient Hebrews would have viewed this text, believe it is an account of God's ‎‎dissemination of order on a physical plane that was there before the narrative begins. ‎‎Some even decry any attempt at interpreting the text as anything but a bestowment of ‎‎order on the physical universe. This interpretation has largely arisen from many in the ‎‎Christian and Jewish faith, who acknowledge the importance of Genesis and do not want ‎to lose an accurate, literal interpretation of the narrative, but do not want to ‎ignore widely ‎accepted scientific theory.‎
This whole section seems to have very loaded language and I get the impression it was written by someone with an axe to grind.
Somebody should make the language more NPOV, and it should be made into its own section, as it doesn't really help as an introduction to Genesis--DCAnderson 05:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph of Introduction 

message: Can we change subtitle of Gen 22 portion and links to either "Binding of Isaac" or "Akedah"?
24.55.105.80 03:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binding of Isaac? 

message: As a kid I wondered what happened after Cain and Abel. Where did the next generation come from? Incest? Unlikely. Then I read Genesis and found out that Cain left and met another people. Hold on! Where did they come from then? The conclusion I drew from that is that the bible is about the origin of the Jews, not mankind in general. Or rather the Semites, since the story is also in the qur'an. But then what about the creation of heaven and earth and all that? That sounds more like an 'overall' creation story. I can't be the first person to wonder about this, so what explanations have scholars come up with for this? DirkvdM 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incest wasn't forbidden by Jewish law for many generations afterward, and Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain, Abel and Seth (Genesis 5:4).  It's believed by many that God didn't ban incest until it stopped being necessary for the survival of mankind.  Cain and Seth probably would have married their sisters.  --Pifactorial 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Bible really just about the origin of the Jews? 

message: These sentences appear in the Literal versus Allegorical Interpretations section:
:‎‎Some even decry any attempt as inaccurate that interprets the text as anything other than a bestowment of ‎‎order on the physical universe. This interpretation has largely arisen from many in the ‎‎Christian and Jewish faith who wish to rationalize a literal interpretation of the narrative with modern scientific thought. Saint Augustine took this view in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, but strongly rejected the suggestion that it represented an allegory; he took, instead, the position that in the Bible, "light" is continually used to mean order, enlightenment, or a higher plane of existence, and that similarly, "day" means an indeterminate interval of time defined by some central paradigm, as in the expression "dawn of a new day".
The sentence, "This interpretation has largely arisen from many in the ‎‎Christian and Jewish faith who wish to rationalize a literal interpretation of the narrative with modern scientific thought," directly contradicts its surrounding context. The very next sentence indicates that the view was held by Saint Augustine, who lived and died more than 1000 before the modern scientific method existed. I'm removing the offending sentence. Aardvark92 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bestowment of Order 

message: I have added the spoiler warning again. It was my original comments a long time ago that got it added in the first place, and in the subsequent discussions NOBODY has given any sort of good or logical reason it should not be there. Whether you believe in them literally, interpretively or not at all, you have to agree they are stories. Stories with a plot; a beginning, a middle and an end. As I know from personal experience and was back up earlier in the talk page, there are people who do not know the stories and/or their endings. I always note spoiler warnings on wiki when reading about a book I intend to read so the plot and/or ending isn't ruined. There is no conceivable reason we should not extend this same curiosity to those viewing this page. Thank you. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the small point about the Bible not (ostensibly) being fiction.  It's more or less not intended to be read as a made-up story.  Obviously there are those who take it completely literally, and those who view it as unbridled gibberish, but even objective historians find some grains of verifiable truth in there (albeit as heavily mythologised/garbled versions of the truth).  In previous debates on this point it's been argued that, even if fact, stories need spoilers, but I'd be astonished if a history text contained spoiler warnings, and surprised if any other encyclopedia deigned to flag Genesis up this way.  If nothing else because it runs the risk of attracting the wrath of the creationists.  To this end, I'm with RK, Daniel, Doug and Zero in thinking the warnings should be removed.  --Plumbago 08:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DROP the spolier tag. The Bible should be treated as a history text, not as a work of fiction. Not to be picky, but do the articles for other religious texts (e.g. Qu'ran) have spoiler tags in them? -- Mycroft.Holmes 13:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a spoiler warning does not imply that it is a work of fiction. It is a story in the sense that there is a progression of events. There is a plot. You cannot dispute this. There is a start, middle and an end. The end is written here and can spoil it for people who aren't familiar with the ending. I only suggested a spoiler on Genesis because I randomly browsed this page, but there should be spoilers on every page where somebody's enjoyment/interest in something may be spoiled due to unsolicited prior knowledge about how it ends. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 00:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DarkSide, with your interesting brand of "logic" we should also have spoiler tag on e.g. the September 11 article, because we reveal the succession of events (8 am first plane strikes, 8:15am second plane, 10:30 first tower falls etc., not exact facts just example!) and many non-fiction books have been written about it. Having spoiler tags seems exceedingly unprofessional - would you expect it in Britannica or another "pro" encyclopedia? No way - it may be funny (the first time round) but it does not belong in Wikipedia especially considering the direction the project is moving. Enough is enough. The spoiler tags are a joke, and it stopped being funny the second time they were re-added. 87.127.94.57 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitive Spoiler Debate 

message: (Overwriting my own earlier post here).
The Summary section as it existed treated each chapter of Genesis as a unit. I feel this produces a distorted effect - the individual episodes don't naturally fit into the chapters, which are in any case a medieval convention. I've therefore re-written it taking episodes as the units to be summarised. This created some problems in its own right: the episodes don't always fall as discrete units, they're frequently broken up and there are frequent re-tellings. I felt it was important to preserve the interruptions and the re-tellings, as this is a summary of the book of Genesis, not the story - an important distinction. Thus when Genesis tells three times over why Isaac is named Isaac, my summary does also. The only departure from this is the first section of the story of Joseph, which is sepoaratged in Genesis from the rest of this well-known story by a chapter dealing with Onan and Tamar - in this case I felt it was more important to give the Joseph story more textual coherence than Genesis does. I've also added footnotes. Mostly these are online links to the relevant chapter, so that readers can check for themselves. But a few are explanations of the meaning of Hebrew words. I've tried throughout to remain completely neutral and express no opinoions, either mine or anyone else's. For comment. PiCo 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware it is some time since you did the rewrite and it might have changed, but as it stands now it seems to me an excellent summary, and I agree with your observations regarding method. Good work! TH 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Summar section 

message: should it be noted that much of the myths in Genesis were inspired by "The Epic of Gilgamesh"?
:Noah's Ark bears traces of Gilgamesh - that hardly amounts to "much" of Genesis. The article Noah's Ark covers this. It's true, in a wider sense, that much of the pre-Abraham part of Genesis (almost all of it, apart from the genealogies) shows Mesopotamian influence. But it's a complex subject, and a simlle statement along the lines that the first part of Genesis is based on Babylonian myths wouldn't do it justice. PiCo 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gilgamesh

message: I've renamed and expanded this section, largely in the direction of setting out the DH in general terms and as it relates to Genesis. Comments welcome. PiCo 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition and date 

message: Why is there no explanation of where the word "genesis" comes from? Rhialto 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First line of the article: "Greek: Γένεσις, having the meanings of "birth", "creation", "cause", "beginning", "source" and "origin"." What more would you like? PiCo 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the Koran also has a part with content parrallel to these stories. May be worth noting what they call their collection of these stories. Rhialto 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Koranic stories aren't collected in one place, but scattered throughout. This is inevitable given the principle (principal? - I never was good at these things) on which it's organised - the suras are ordered by their length rather than their content or chronology. PiCo 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I tried to re-write the Christian belief section, keeping the general gist but deleting some material that I feel is a bit too intellectual for the average reader. I think this section could go much further - so far it doesn't get past the first line of Genesis 1! (although it's quite right to link this to the opening of John's gospel, and to begin with a general statement that the early Christians saw Genesis as authoritative). One thing that could be mentioned, for example, is the way the early Church interpreted the Jesus as the new Adam, and it should also mention the influence of the Abraham story and the Jewish covenants on the development of Christian beliefs about the end of the Jewish status as the exclusive chosen people. If anyone else would like to do this I'd be glad to assist. PiCo 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian belief 

message: Question:
:::::Anybody Know?
:::God said to Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would die that same day (Genisis 2:17), yet they didnt, why is this?
Answer:
If your friend says, "I would die to have some chocolate right now!",  would you then hand them a piece of chocolate and expect their death?
If you were seriously looking for an answer then this would be useful reading.  The question is raised because folks do not examine or understand how the word “die” or “dead” is used in context, and in other places in scripture. Below are several quotes from other portions that use the word dead about people that are clearly still walking around (as Adam was).  The use of the term dead has a precise purpose and accurate meaning.  (Even as a friend who would like some chocolate has a purpose in their use of “die” in the example above.)  The portions below make it clear.  And the last portion describes the effect of Adam's death.
[Ephesians 2] He has quickened you, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience
[Colossians 2:13] And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses
[Luke 15:24 and 32] for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.  …It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’”
[Romans 6:11]  Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
For an explenation of the effect of Adam's death you can look at:
[Romans Chapter 5] and [1 Corrinthians 15]Katherin 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Katherin, but it wasn't me who asked the question - it was someone who didn't sign in. PiCo 06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer

message: Day 2 is also not called good (Gen 1:-8)  Reference 5 needs to be updated to say there are _3_ exceptions. Michael.Pohoreski 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Michael, well spotted. In fact the summary was dead wrong - it's day 2 that lacks the "it was good" formula, not day 6. This ommission led to a lot of commentary from the rabbis in the middle ages, along the lines that day 2 marks the real beginning of creation, a separation between Heaven (realm of God, above the firmament) and earth, (man's abode down below), and that God foresaw all the trouble that would ensue, and had divine doubtsP: hence the lack of an "it was good". The modern position is that some scribe at some point made a mistake and dropped the formula out, and the error has been perpetuated ever since. Another interesting point that comes from the first two chapters of Genesis is that Creation in Genesis 1 begins with a phrase along the lines of "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth," while Creation in Genesis 2 reverses the order of words, something like "In the beginning when God created both the earth and the heavens..." (these aren't exact quotes, just from memory). The reversal doesn't mean a great deal, but it does tally with the focuses (foci?) of the two accounts, the first God-centered, the second more interested in what Adam and Eve did. PiCo 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly.  Day 2 is not called good because it represents the division of 1 into 2 (male/female, good/evil, etc) which was a necessary evil. Sort of like how being given the opportunity of free will, also carried the consequences of excercising poor choice(s).  Every contradiction and "scribal error" in the bible is intentional, because it is designed to point out the absurdities in a literal story, and provoke the mind into thinking about the deeper meaning.  As said a few thousand years ago... "What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven.   What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil?  I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealed." (Origen - Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142). Michael.Pohoreski 13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Days called Good

message: I was asked by user ljkopl to reconsider the paragraph on the nephilim part of the Summary section: he or she though it might be too minor to include at all (it's only about 4 verses long), that the title is misleading, and that it and included debateable material on the 120 years reference. I have accepeted that the 120 years needs to be glossed - my reading was that this meant God seting the human lifespan to 120 years, but as ljkopl rightly pointed out to me, there's an important tradition that it means God was giving mankind 120 years to repent before sending the Flood. So I've made some changes to accommodate all these points. But ljkopl's other point still stands: are these 4 verses important enough to include at all? My reason for doing so was that I was summarising the book of Genesis, not the story - I simply wanted to get every detail in, without thinking how important to the whole it might be. So, two things I would like other editors to look at: first, is the section acceptable as it stands; and second, is it really so trivial that it shouldn't be in the summary at all? PiCo 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "sons of God," the "days of man," and the "nephilim" 

message: ::* a myth is a story
::* it is or was sacred for the members of some culture (religion, group sharing a belief system, denomination, sect, individual, ethnic group, family...)
::* some members of this group belief ore believed it to be factual or historic
::* other people, especially those belonging to other cultures (religions, groups sharing a belief system, denominations, sect, individuals, ethnic group, family...) do not belive in its factuallity or believe it is fictious.
::This definition means: 
::*calling one of these stories "fiction" would be offending for the members of the culture believing in it.
::*calling it "fact" would be offending for the members of othter cultures.
::Therefore, a third category is introduced called "myth", marking the story as 
::*sacred to some and 
::*as a story with a disputed factuality. 
::The culture to which the story was sacred may be extinct or still existing.
::The stories may be written or my be oral traditions.
::In an environment where neutral point of view is to be enforced - like Wikipedia (see NPOV ) - calling such a story fact would violate the NPOV principle in giving the associated belief system a special status and disregarding other belief systems. Calling it fiction would violate the NPOV principle by disregarding the possibility of the truth of its associated belief system. Therefore, to respect all sides and to avoid a NPOV violation, we would talk about such stories as "Myth". Therefore "Myth" in the sense of this definition does not indicate that the story is not fact. It indicates that its status as fact is disputed between cultures and that it is sacred for some.
:::While your definition is certainly thought-provoking, it is the dictionaries' definition that carries the most weight, and they all provide TWO definitions, making it what we in the linguistics field like to call "am-BIG-u-ous"...  The earliest known recorded usages of the word "myth" found by Oxford University clearly show from the context, that it first entered the English language with the meaning "falsehood", long before anyone tried to reassign it a more 'innocent' meaning.  Further, the history of the word is anything but neutral: it has consistently been used by opponents of religious belief, from hardline Communists to the leaders of the French Revolution, and always with the aim of discouraging or weakening religious practice if not outright prohibiting it, something wikipedia cannot appear to engage in and still pretend to be "neutral" -- no matter how noble you say your intentions are now in labelling the Bible as "mythology".  Correctly attributing that as a POV to a reliable source that considers it mythology is one thing, though remember just as many sources who adamantly insist that it is not, and is history, can also readily be found - but making the project endorse one POV or the other with a disputed category is on a whole other level. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Mythology

message: ::According to this definition the following examples are myths:
::*Stories about the gods of ancient or present cultures (Roman, Grecian, Egyptian, Mayan, Baluba, Yoruba, Hindu etc.)
::*Stories about the life of the Buddha, Christ, Zoroaster, etc., a long as their factuality is disputed and they are sacred within the context of the associated belief system
::*Religious stories about creation (Creation myths) from the book of Genesis (Hebrew people) or the story of the creation of the world by Kabezya-Mpungu (Baluba people)
::*Stories about the great flood from Genesis and perhaps from the Gilgamesh epic
::*The story of the babel tower from Genesis
::*The story fo the ancestor Abraham from the book of Genesis (Hebrew people) or about the ancestor Ngurangurane (Fang people ) - (ancestral myths)
::*The story that the Japanese Emperor is a descendant of the solar goddes Amaterasu
::*...
::The following are not myths according to this definition:
::*Stories about King Arthur and his Knights (except the grale story is or was sacred and believed true for some)
::*Grimm's Fairy Tales (although the story of "Frau Holle" might be derived from ancient German mythology)
::*Star Wars (a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..) -  definitely just fiction
::*Stories about Eru, the god in J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional fantasy world Middle-earth (just fiction - fictive mythology)
Nannus 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nannus, I guess "Creation stories" should be pretty obvious and I really can't see any reasonable objections to that. "Creation stories" is already a subcategory of "Mythology" (and rightly so), so a separate inclusion in the latter is superfluous. Does that solve the problem? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Future Perfect, thanks for mediating here. We can leave it like that for the time beeing (people interested in comparative mythology and looking into the mythology category will find this article), although there is more than a creation story in Genesis (despite the name), e.g. a great flood story and an ancestor story (Abraham etc.). Nannus 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: User Undon, who ercently changed the word "story" to "account" throughout because he believes "story" implies fiction and "account" means fact, might be interested to know that the word "account" is related to the French "conte", meaning "story" :).PiCo 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accounts" and "stories" 

message: Codex, I think it's better if we discuss this para here rather then keep making multiple alterations. This is the para as it currently stands:
Genesis is said to be structured around the Book of Generations, hypothetically an originally independent text not traceable to any of the JEPD authors. Ten occurrences of the toledot (Hebrew "generations") formula introduce what the redactor presumably saw as ten units of the book...
''
My problem with this formula is:
1. "Genesis is said to be structured around the Book of Generations..." Said by whom? In fact, said by every respectable critical scholar I can think of. I imagine you find this controversial because you see it as implying non-Mosaic composition. I don't see it that way at all - pieces of prose are always structured, it's an inescapable by-product of their existence. I'd take out the "is said to be" bit and replace it with a reference to Friedman or someone. 
2. "...what the redactor presumably saw as ten units of the book..." I'd take this out, as it can't be supported by citation.
PiCo 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both this comment and your earlier one you just replaced it with are making irrelevant assumptions about my motive.  It doesn't matter at all what I think or feel personally, so much as it matters that the article be phrased accurately.  It must be clear that inferences are inferences -- not things that are directly stated in the text specimen being analyzed.  The idea that Genesis has any such structure is an inference, even if it is correct one, we don't have any authoritative word that it was so structured.  The optimum case would be if you could attribute what authorities or theorists first pointed out this inferred structure. We can't just state that it "is" structured, we need to know what authority says it is structured.  The 'Book of Generations' since no copy of this 'Book' has ever yet been discovered to exist, is obviously a "hypothetical" book extant only in the minds of certain theorists, and this also needs to be made clear. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codex - discussion on the toledot/Book of Generations para 

message: I renamed a section headed "Main Themes" as "Theology", and tightened the language up a bit. A few points I removed entierly as being off-topic or unsupported. Feel free to comment/amend. PiCo 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed section, Theology of Genesis 

message: I moved this section to Creation according to Genesis because (a) it's not actually about using Genesis to date the Creation at all - it's the whole OT that's used to do that, not just Genesis; and (b), the Creatoin, although important, is only 2 chapters of a book with 50 chapters - it seems very disproportionate to devote so much atention to just these two. The sectoin seems to fit better in the other article. PiCo 07:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on dating Creation from Genesis 

message: I rewrote this sectoin because I felt it dwelt too much on the documentary hypothesis and ignored the contemporary scholarly scene, which has moved well beyond Wellhausen. For the details of the DH - which is course still important and needs to be mentioned - the reader can see the article on that subject. For non-DH approaches I've simply noted the non-DH moderls and given an example from each. Comments welcome. PiCo 02:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition and date