Talk:Fall of man

message: Has anyone actually read the Bible, Genisis 1:26 states "Then God said, let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness"
Then Genesis 3:21 states "The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil"
I believe people take what they can, and never read it!
:Queen Elizabeth I said, "We princes are set as it were upon stages in the sight and view of the world." Ergo, Queen Elizabeth I was a prince. Q.E.D. --Eliyak T·C 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, she was two or more princes 190.225.211.174 (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: QED denied. The "royal we" argument is used as an apologetic gloss both by Jews and Christians to avoid acknowledging the handful of passages in their scripture that are likely relics of an older polytheistic period (as it is known that the pre-exile religion of Israel was polytheistic; that Yahweh, who had a wife, was the god of Israel, but among the gods themselves was just another one: not the chief god, whose name was El. This is why the Hebrew text uses sometimes El ("God"), sometimes Jehovah (or Yahweh - "the LORD", or "Jehovah"), and sometimes (as in Genesis 1) "Elohim" - the gods. We're only fortunate the ancient societies wrote in stone, or attempts to rewrite history forever and ever might have worked. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Read Bible?

message: One or more of the sign/s:  placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category :Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 11:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The {} sign/s 

message: i'd like to change the title of this article to The fall of Man.  thoughts?  Ungtss 21:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  title. 

message: I agree, it's more specific and the term is commonly used.
:cool -- i'll do it.  Ungtss 14:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many near-death experiences deal with the meaning of the life and existence before coming to earth, and several of them also deal with the meaning of The Fall. The Fall is seen as a symbolic descent from connectedness of God and eternal Love to Earth, to experience life in material world and to experience suffering, injustice, separatedness and death, for purpose. The existence on Earth and life in matter enables us to grow and to develop as souls before returning back to unity with God. Almost all near-death experiences which involve on knowledge of the Fall imply we are here on Earth as volunteers, and voluntarily chose the sinful state to apply free will to find our way back to Heavenly Home. This is very much parallel with the previous felix culpa argumentation.
DJ Clayworth 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  title change 

message: I removed the following because I can't see how it is related to The Fall in any sensible way, or how the statements made relate to near-death experiences: 
:Many near-death experiences deal with the meaning of the life and existence before coming to earth, and several of them also deal with the meaning of The Fall. The Fall is seen as a symbolic descent from connectedness of God and eternal Love to Earth, to experience life in material world and to experience suffering, injustice, separatedness and death, for purpose. The existence on Earth and life in matter enables us to grow and to develop as souls before returning back to unity with God. Almost all near-death experiences which involve on knowledge of the Fall imply we are here on Earth as volunteers, and voluntarily chose the sinful state to apply free will to find our way back to Heavenly Home. This is very much parallel with the previous felix culpa argumentation.
DJ Clayworth 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Near-death experience]]s

message: While I agree that the language of the article needed some cleaning-up, there is no reason to avoid the masculine pronoun for God, which is almost universal in Christianity except among a small minority. (It is equally acknowledged that God is neither male nor female except as incarnate in Jesus; the pronoun is merely conventional.) Removing all personal pronouns makes for needless awkwardness. There was certainly no call for moving the article without discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awkwardness fixed:  We now have the actual biblical text!Emerymat 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice in theory, but we can't use "by permission" text in Wikipedia. Biblical quotes are ordinarily Fair Use, but they're not normally so lengthy -- this includes the entirety of Genesis 3. In general we should not include source text in Wikiepdia anyway. See WP:NPS. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To top it all, someone had quite misleadingly headed the Genesis account subsection with ...(King James Version), which it isn't.  I have therefore removed this from the heading. DFH 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, if the extended quote from Genesis was replaced by the same passage from the KJV, the "by permission" issue would be solved when the citation note is removed or replaced. DFH 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender-neutral 

message: Shouldn't the article be more clear that most mainstream Christian churches interpret the Fall of Man symbolically, as with the rest of Genesis? JF Mephisto 20:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that "symbolic" is the wrong term. Typologically, perhaps. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: The section headed A Warning ? looks very POV to me.  I propose to remove it, also on the grounds that it cites no supporting references. DFH 20:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headed "A Warning ?" 

message: The article has two sections with almost identical headings, Interpretation and Interpretations.  This is a little confusing.  Can anyone suggest a better title for the first one? DFH 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings? 

message: *Is it neccessary to have a copy of the NSRV on the page?
See this
*Also, additions like: Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Like this, many more have been added. Should they really be included?
xCentaur |  talk   11:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: Move to The Fall or The Fall of Humanity?  Or the like?70.74.35.252 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The word decieved implies that Eve was made to believe that God had not forbidden them to eat from the tree or that the serpent (Satan) lied while the serpent left out certain facts he was not lying also she knew she must not eat from the tree what would be more correct is to say that She was tempted by the serpent and fell to the temptation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.29.135 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serpent and wording 

message: I've heard from a few various sources that the serpent is not Satan as the Jews at the time Genesis was written did not have a dualist view.  Can anyone verify this? 66.87.166.247 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serpent not the devil

message: There is another mainline Protestant church that rejects The Fall as changing human nature. I came here to remember the name, but they're not included. I seem to think it was the Church of Christ. Kudos to whomever can find out and include it in the article. --Ephilei 08:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another church rejecting The Fall 

message: Judaism, for one, gives great meaning to the idea of the "fall" – it is just not as central to the religion as in Christianity. The section needs serious updating. I don't feel up to it right now, but I wanted to point that out. --Eliyak T·C 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, why is this article pretty much all about Christianity? The introduction section itself points out that other religions have similar concepts. These should be explored for neutrality. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism & Islam section 

message: http://www.laingsociety.org/colloquia/psychotherapy/serpent2.htm
for example, "But to fully appreciate the dialogue between Eve and the serpent, another point must be born in mind. The serpent, who is reproached by devout souls for his deceptiveness, his antipathy to righteousness, and so on, is actually telling the truth ."
:Austerlitz -- 188.102.29.117 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerliz -- 88.75.201.76 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  who is who and what did they want? 

message: "The sinfulness to that estate wherein man fell consists in the guilt of Adam and Eve's (first man and woman) first sin: the want of original righteousness which is iniquity and the corruption of their whole nature which is commonly called original sin or iniquity together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it."
I can't decide if this is worse than the sentence here, though. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the sentence was a recent addition. I went ahead and removed it so that the lead is readable again. Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst sentence in Wikipedia? 

message: This article assumes the 'fall of man' is inherently true, and is what the bible intended to portray, which is disputed. This is an interpretation of the bible, and my view is the writers did not mean this to be true in any sense. I reject the whole concept, but accept many christians do not, but id just like that batle of ideas put into this article. Im finding Christianty articles on wiki generally a big mess. Maybe bcasue the religion is a big mess suppose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.76.223 (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis on interpretation

message: This article needs a bit of a makeover. To keep it consistent with other like articles, I plan to prepare its structure similar to the article: Original sin. Any concerns, please comment. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: Are there any views criticising this doctrine? Especially from the point of view of science, the evolution, primate psychology and similar. 93.103.74.8 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't make much sense since the doctrine can be interpreted in ways that don't contradict any of the above.  It seems like it might be its own category really.  Like specific critiques or whatever.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevShestov (talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Shouldn't this article be named "The Fall of Humanity" and not "The Fall of Man"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:700:328E:E08F:5359:B91B:E839 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of Humanity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fall of man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224002549/http://wesley.nnu.edu:80/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does a small section for Fall of God find place here? DTM (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with what you are talking about and the wiki link didn't work. Can you elaborate? Squatch347 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When your Gods fall 

message: I don't know what you mean by removing those paragraphs with academic references from the section on Gnosticism, since they are useful to give context to Gnostic interpretations of the Fall and to the section itself, so there's no harm in keeping them and it would be counterproductive to delete them. I could understand removing that particular picture as unrelated to the topic of this article, but I don't think it would help anyone deleting all the rest. GenoV84 (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, some of those references are also cited in the other paragraphs of the same section, therefore they are pertinent to the same topic. GenoV84 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections added are WP:UNDUE.  There is no reason to have a section explaining the background of gnosticism when a simple wikilink will do (we already have a wiki link, and a callout link at the top).  We don't include backgrounds of parent articles into child articles per WP:SS.  You'll notice there isn't a background paragraph for Islam or Zoroastrianism.  There is no loss to article quality if removed, as you mention the sources are referenced later or in the parent article.  I'm all about bold edits, but you need to gain consensus when there is an objection before including it.  Squatch347 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for clarifying this to me. I made those edits in good faith, I didn't mean to go off the rails. GenoV84 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnosticism 

message: you noted "You should add a reference" with your undo of my brief section on the concept of an Atemporal fall. There are many references in the main article, and I will consider which of them is most helpful here. As I get that in place, please let me know if there is anything else to improve. Thank you for your help. Jjhake (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay,  I've reworked it with some references. Let me know of any other issues. Jjhake (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atemporal fall section 

message: Precisely this aren't just interpretations, but different traditions, accounts, and retellings of one original myth. For example, Islam doesn't interprete Genesis differently, it has its own variation (and probably not even based on Genesis, but on alternative sources actually available to late Antiquity Arabia), without snake, no tree of good and evil, angelic prostration etc, entirely absent in the Bible. And Gnosticism likewise has its own unique narrative. The Creator deity (Ialdabaoth) is neither YHWH (Judeo-Christian interpretation of the text) nor Eloha/El (Elohim the actual term used). The "Fall of Man", isn't a strict codified narrative, but a tradition passed through different myths through the areas of Mesopotamia, later spreading through Abrahamic religions, captured whenever a scripture based religion felt like canonizing their beliefs. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the title for "other interpretations" into "other traditions"