Talk:Adam and Eve/Archive 1

message: The latter part of this article is written from a creationist point of view. NPOV editing is needed! The Anome
:No, it isn't. See NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions. gracefool 10:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing is needed! No it isn't! 

message: Does somebody have an explanation of why the forbidden fruit is depicted as an apple? -- Error
:my guess is, that "apple" is sometimes used generically to mean "fruit."  Thus, the French word for potato is "apple of the ground" and I think people used to call tomatoes "love apples" -- in these examples you would do just as well reading "apple" as fruit.  But I am speculating.  One thing is certain: the Bible doesn't call it an apple! Slrubenstein
one more thing, thet apple is coming for four season,
::Tomato was "golden apple" in Italian. I wonder when the tradition started. -- Error
::I guess if King James et al. had been Samoan, it might have been a pineapple.  Or if they'd been Greek, a pomegranate.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi 03:41 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"Apple" is old english for "fruit" in general (just like "deer" originally meant any kind of animal), I guess its the same in other european languages. --User talk:FDuffy 17:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <font|big>WRONG</font> Jim62sch 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the tree of that forbidden fruit 

message: Adam in Islam: Adam was sent to Earth to live in the Garden of Eden, and was soon joined by Eve. They were allowed to live as they pleased there, but not to eat from a certain tree and taste its fruit. However, they both eventually succumbed to the temptation of Satan, and were sent to Earth.
How is this supposed to be understood? Andres 19:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A difficult text 

message: I like , but the image page doesn't give any background (artist, year, school...). I think we should either figure out these (I tried, but couldn't find it on the net) or replace it with another image of "Adam & the animals". dab 07:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: image source

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 08:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The {} sign/s

message: I can't find any evidence that the aramaic meaning of Havva is "snake". Reverting until someone can cite your sources.Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eve=snake

message: This article mentions the Bible, but doesn't appear to mention the Torah. Should this be added near the top of the article? -- User:Tdoyle  04:25, 23 June 2005
:I have added the Torah to the article (you could have as well). Please remember to sign your entries.  --Blainster 18:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah? 

message: There are a couple (?) Aramaic words here defined as meaning "snake". But the section is about references to the words Adam and Eve in other languages, and the Aramaic entry does not indicate whether it refers to Adam, Eve, or both. We can make an assumption, but it would be helpful if it could be clarified.  --Blainster 18:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aramaic words

message: I was looking for information about Eve, but was redirected here, with titles like "Adam in Islam" etc and very little about Eve.  Either there should be at least a section about Eve, or she should get her own article.  132.175.9.1 19:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See (Women in Islam)--220.238.2.146 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam-centric, but [[Eve]] redirects here

message: I have been fixing disambiguation links to Adam, all day.  The vast majority of these refer to the Biblical figure who is currently being served by this article which includes a disambiguation block at the top.   For this reason I have changed Adam to redirect to this page, rather than Adam (disambiguation).  This will also make it easier in the future, if Adam and Eve get separate articles, since changing the many references from Adam to Adam and Eve destroys the specificity of those links.  Finally, for the rare instance that a link to Adam is not referring to the Biblical figure, there exists Adam (name) which currently redirects to Adam (disambiguation), although this seems somewhat backwards to me.  Benanhalt 08:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adam]] now redirects to here 

message: "In Aramaic (חיויה,חיווי,xywy)— means snake."
I have taken this out of the article because as it stands, since I'm not that good at reading Aramaic script, it seems unconnected to anything. If anyone can explain it, feel free to add it back in (with the explanation).
Solved it - its Aramaic for Eve - Havva - given in two different spellings (and "xywy" ???) .
--User talk:FDuffy 17:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "xywy" appears to be one way of transliterating חיוי...  (I'm not sure who added this) ፈቃደ 19:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake 

message: Why is Adam and Eve one article? Shouldn't there be two articles, one for each person, with one main one that explains their relationship? joturner 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very little difference between what would be at Adam, and what would be at Eve. It would leave the major aspect of them split between two places, and duplicated excessively. It would be like splitting Rapunzel's hair (story) into Rapunzel (individual), Dame Gothel, Rapunzel's prince, and Rapunzel's tower. --User talk:FDuffy 15:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split? 

message: Added this new section, as it seems sensible to let casual readers know what the Adam and Eve story is, before they come to any more detailed information. PiCo 02:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section - "Narrative" 

message: I removed the following paragraph because it contains too many inaccuracies and falsehoods:
"In the early centuries of the Christian era, a whole system of uniquely Christian beliefs was created from the Adam and Eve story. Christians tended to the belief that sex somehow formed the original sin; baptism was introduced to wash away the stain of hereditary sin; and the serpent that tempted Eve was interpreted to have been Satan. The story in Genesis does not even hint at any of these readings, and their observance by Christians marked the new religion's radical break from its parent."
# Which early Christians ever stated that "sex" was the Original Sin?  Sounds like something maybe Tertullian (who later defected to Montanism) or Augustine would have come up with; at any rate, it's hardly anything Christ taught, and so is questionable as a so-called "Christian teaching", early or otherwise.
# According to the Gospels, Baptism was introduced by John the Baptist and Jesus.  As Jesus said, it's a ceremony he himself performed, as an example of what he wants us to perform.  It was hardly necessary for him to "wash away the stain of hereditary sin".   People who understand and believe these doctrines generally take a dim view of people who don't understand or believe them, trying to explain them to us.
# The original wording was correct.  Anyone who gets that the serpent was Satan incarnate, is getting that from some source other than Scripture.  This is not a "uniquely Christian belief" and should not be so described. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In pagina, ecce veritas, ecce citatio, noli argumentum inanum facere. Jim62sch 23:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, well, I suppose that's an improvement over making Personal Attacks accusing me of insanity; but I thought his was the English wikipedia, so if you don't respond to my points in a language I understand, I will have to remove the objectionable pov-pushing paragraph again! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Teach me to multitask. I meant to post that last. Ok, now I'm posting. Codex, when you say "removed surreptitiously added ... full of falsehoods" you are basically saying Pico and Jim are sneaky liars. Try to be more civil, would you? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No KC, he's not accusing Jim of being a sneaky liar, only me. Codex, I don't take kindly to being accused of being "surreptitious" or of deliberately adding "falsehoods". For the first, I live on the other side of the world to you, and I'm going to continue doing my editing in MY daylight hours, not stay up all night to coincide with yours. As for "falsehoods", you'er welcome to tell me I'm mistaken, but please don't accuse me of lying.PiCo 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict--moving) Agreed.  Codex, Io scriverò in quale lingua preferisca, capisce?  BTW: I added references for the items you found objectionable.  That should fulfill your requirements and end this discusion.  Mille grazie. Jim62sch 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To translate (loosely) the Latin: see the friggin footnotes Jim62sch 01:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I look at the latest incarnation, I see you have made some effort to address my concerns.  I had assumed it was a simple revert and still totally unsourced, so again, I apologize for that assumption. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reomoved surreptitiously added paragraph full of falsehoods 

message: Support. Don't think that a separate article needs to be opened. Each person was a unique character, but since they are almost always discussed together, a seperate article is redundant. --Shuki 11:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Eve (first woman)]]

message: Support This article has far too much information about Adam that is irrelevant to the story of Adam and Eve, which is what this article should be about. joturner 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split to [[Adam]]

message: Last night I carried out some edits on the Narrative section and I hope it's now at a state where everyone can accept it. It aims to be as brief and yet as complete as possible, including all relevant info and excluding the irrelevant (hence the editing out of the sentence about the vegetarian nature of Creation - interesting, but not relevant to Adam and Eve). Can we agree that this particluar section is now mutually accepted to the point where we can agree to leave it alone for the next few weeks and concentrate on other parts of the article? Just put a "yes" or "not yet" or whatever comment you like under here. (But if you don't agree, please say why). PiCo 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't agree.  It's not "mutually accepted" on my part. "Locking" any part of a wikipedia article to the preferred version of a small set of users is completely unprecedented.  I still object to using the RSV; if you need me to take you through the Original Hebrew of Chapter 2:4-8 Hebrew word by Hebrew word to show that it is a gross distortion, I will gladly do so. The Hebrew does NOT state that God made humans before he made all plants and animals; to produce this forced misinterpretation, you must rely on a deliberate misreading and twisting of only the RSV English version.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Codex, your edits were highly POV and unsourced.  I've restored an earlier version.  PiCo can restore to his version, but quite frankly, your version, Codex, will never be acceptable as it violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jim62sch 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Narrative section: Agreement to lock? 

message: Adam (Hebrew bible) is a separate article that does not appear on the disambig page, and is not linked to from this one.  I'd recommend that it be merged either with the current article, or with the "Adam" split-off (assuming one is created.) --Tim4christ17 07:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam (Hebrew bible) 

message: See my argument at Talk:Adam_and_Eve#Split_to_Adam and the section immediately below that (I'm posting here largely because that vote seems to have been scrolled up enough that few people see it). Since this article is clearly focused on the overall story of "Adam and Eve" from Genesis, having two daughter articles (Adam, Eve) for the individual mythological figures themselves would be massively valuable, considering their central importance in thousands of years of the symbolism, storytelling, theological analysis, and beliefs of some of the largest and most influential religions in the history of the world. This article should be used for most of the information shared between the two, but there's sufficient information that is primarily relevant to one person or the other (such as Adam's status in Islam, Eve's affect on the history and mythology of women, etc.) to easily justify separate articles. Preventing the creation of such articles will stunt this topic's ability to grow organically and to analyze Adam and Eve in more detail on their own, as well as causing article bloat and disorganization. -Silence 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be at least a strong minority view in favour of this split. I suggest that, as a first step, you try creating two new sections under these titles. If you find there's so much material that you need to start creating sub-sub sections, then you'd have a strong case for nwe articles. PiCo 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, how about we create two prototype pages, Talk:Adam and Eve/Adam and Talk:Adam and Eve/Eve? (And perhaps a third, Talk:Adam and Eve/Adam and Eve, to work out how the top-level page will look after we're done?) Then when they grow large enough for full-fledged articles, we'll simply move them to article-space. I probably won't have much time to help with such an endeavor, but if that's what it takes to get work started on the much-needed daughter articles, that's better than nothing. -Silence 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughter articles = good thing

message: Was the garden of Eden located in Queensland ?212.190.72.16 10:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queensland

message: : Some modern Christian and Jewish scholars of today consider Adam and Eve as an example of religious myth focussing on the teaching of perceived fundamental truths.
My emphasis. This needs a source. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few, some, many, most 

message: What's going on with this? I think it's imperative that Adam and Eve have their own articles as they're separate people, and clearly notable as individuals (arguably the most notable humans in history since they kicked the whole race off!). The main article can remain here, but as with Abbott and Costello, there should be daughter articles with mini biographies, akin to Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. — SteveRwanda 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems to have been reached. Daughter articles, yes; split, no. Now looking for volunteers. The Editrix 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Started Adam.  Ungtss 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles 

message: Someone please look over this article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]] 

message: # Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # Silence 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: I have seen abundance evidence from good scholars that "rib" in the story should be translated "side." I've incorporated some into the article. I have yet to find any reason to think "rib" is better except that most Bibles still translate that way. My only estimation (personal) is that they continue translating this way because it's tradition. I realize that it's not WP's place to decide who is right, but to merely represent others. But who do we represent? Should wikipedia follow the majority who don't back up their translation or the minority that have overwhelming support? --Ephilei 05:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wan't this in Yentl? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two main reasons for reverting. One, this subsection was created because some editors were complaining that the article as a whole gave too much attention to Adam and not enough to Eve - hence this paragraph about the creation of Eve, The new edit turns it from a note about what the Genesis story says about that, into a scholarly discussion of the meaning of certain words in Hebrew. Probably accurate in its own right, but it moves us away from the purpose of the paragraph. Second, Arthur Custance...I'd never heard of him, so I looked him up. Turns out he was a Canadian scientist with an amateur interest in OT thrology. Widely read, intelligent, but not, I must say, a scholar, biblical or otherwise, as he never submitted anything to peer erviwe and was never published in any scholarly forum. He's a interesting example of the autodidact, but not a quotable source.  (And finally, the quote from the rabbi is simply irrelevant, although it couold be summarised and put into the Traditions section).PiCo 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And reverted again - you took it back to the old version that does not give all sides of the story, please see WP:NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: can you at least tune down the rhetorics? You preach NPOV, reverting to a version with  things like "Some scholars who are evidently unaware of the original Hebrew"? That's classical spinning. It is only Wikipedia's voice, that is, yours, that makes so terribly much of the distinction of "rib" vs. "side". The text goes on to say that "Biblical scholar Arthur Custance recognizes the correct translation of 'side' instead of 'rib,' but still posits a connection with the Sumerian myth", so how on earth can you defend the "who are evidently unaware of the original Hebrew" potshot? dab (ᛏ) 12:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the editor who first wrote "Some scholars who are evidently unaware of the original Hebrew..." was I? I have only reverted to it because at least it presents the whole story, rather than rv to a version tht does not even come close.. It may well need some more fine tuning for compromise acceptable to everyone... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Stating that your viewpoint is "clear" when it is in fact quite disputed, is definitely POV, as well as original research if you can;t cite someone who says it is "clear". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: preaching water and drinking wine, are we? I am not going to prove to you that "one of Adam's X" means that Adam has several, countable Xs. Or that Adam didn't lose one of his two "sides" (hint, both Hebrew and Greek have the dual, quite apart from the absurdity of the proposition). That article is obviously not even aware of the "one of" construction, and insisting on using it as anything like a notable source is simple WP:POINT. Cite someone who is aware of the Hebrew at least, not someone who cites archdeacons who looked something up in a concordance (I mean, really, what were they thinking). dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so fast.  The Amharic Bible, for instance, has a word meaning "bone", ie it states that God took one "bone" from Adam's side.  Assuming that this bone, or whatever was taken, was a rib, is much like assuming that the forbidden fruit was an apple.  There is nothing in the Hebrew to specify what was taken, so it's an assumption. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Amharic Bible is just as irrelevant as the KJV here. This is about the Hebrew text. Which has "God took one of his tsela". Now don't be ridiculous and suggest that this might mean "God took one of his flanks" (what does that even mean?). Your cherished WP:NPOV is subject to WP:RS, and as long as you cannot present a discussion that is based on the Hebrew text, we don't even have anything to discuss. This whole debate was apparently initiated by some half-informed writeup on godswordtowomen.org. And call me elitist, but godswordtowomen.org is not my idea of a WP:RS. dab (ᛏ) 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That still doesn't change what I just said above about the Hebrew: There is nothing in the Hebrew to specify what was taken, so "rib" is an assumption.  I mentioned the Amharic Bible only to demonstrate that not every translation assumes "rib" is the thing that was taken.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Took out Kate Bushnell, as her "God's Word to Women" is simply wrong. Plus I'm not happy with the way both of you want to turn this into a learned article on the meaning of Hebrew - Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a learned journal!PiCo 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but nothing short of resorting to watertight scholarship would convince Codex that Kate was out of her depth. I suggest you keep the details around in footnotes for the next time someone tries to add the claim. dab (ᛏ) 11:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rib or Side 

message: Normally I'd just do this myself, but since this article has a lot going on constantly, I propose this: Seperate the Jewish section into two parts: what's in the Torah and what's in Talmud and other traditions. The reason is that 1 all Jews believe what's in Torah, but not everything else 2 Christians believe what's in the Torah and no other Jewish source. If someone wanted to come see what a Jew believes, they'd quite misdirected thinking Lillith is an essencial character. Will anyone oppose me making this change? --Ephilei 05:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Torah from tradition 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Are they saints or not? I think their feast day is 24 Dec, but I don't know . . . Therequiembellishere 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saints?

message: In my History edit with note:
"Rather than adding Aramaic, Ancient Greek, Latin, Coptic Christian -- and transliterations in other languages not used in the original texts, I thought removing Ge'ez instead would be more efficient."
I removed the Ge'ez transliterations from the head of the article.
In case the note doesn't explain my logic: Ge'ez is not the original language of an original use of the names Adam and Eve -- and there are a number of equally august ancient languages with Biblical connections that would also need to be included if Ge'ez is.
But another editor reversed my edit, with the History note:
"rv. Don't do that again."
With no explanation here in Talk.
I'm guessing this might be the work of some kind of Ethiopian nationalist, or Afrocentrist who believes Biblical events actually took place in Ethiopia (and thus Ge'ez is the "true original language" of the Bible).
Whatever -- I'm removing it again.
If you have some justification for including Ge'ez transliteration, please explain it here -- with references to support any claims.
Thank you (unsigned by anon)
:I'm reverting it again.  According to the Ethiopian Church, the only complete Book of Enoch was found in the Ge'ez language and is the original, and is indeed believed by them to be the original language Enoch and Adam spoke.  Obviously you do not share their opinion, but this belief is equally valid to the inclusion of Hebrew and Aramaic and we have to be NPOV, not cater to your opinion of what language Adam spoke. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for Ge'ez Transliteration 

message: The Evidences for a Recent Dating for Adam, about 14,000 to 15,000 years Before Present
  Locates Garden of Eden including evidence for the other two rivers named, the Pishon and Gihon.
--4.156.171.249 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Adam, First Man 

message: I have no idea how long it has been there, but by formatting it looks like a copyvio that has been cut and pasted from elsewhere.  SchmuckyTheCat 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cat is correct.  It is straight from http://www.islam101.com/history/people/prophets/adam.htm.  Yikes. We have some work ahead of us. Wrad 05:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Jewish Encyclopedia has mention of the muslim opinion with references unforutanately it is down right now!
--Java7837 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do we do next? Delete the copyvio immediately, or wait, or what?PiCo 06:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As Java says (above), the Jewish Encyclopedia has material on the Islamic viewpoint. There are two reasons for being cautious abt the JE as a source - first, being Jewish, it offends some Muslims, and secondly, it's older than my grandmother. But it's not copyright-protected, and it can be edited into a paragraph or two without cut-and paste. PiCo 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the offending edit - . I'm reverting that section to what it was before the edit. --Alvestrand 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: Following advice on copyvios, all revisions of the article with the offending section are now missing from the log. --Alvestrand 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic section looks like possible copyvio

message: After spending some 20 years researching half-truths, it was noted that there exists a negative side to truth, that may be the remnants of the original sin.   Lakehead University - Fall Issue 2005
Oxford Univesity has confirmed this research.
The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth - The Jesus Christ Code. 
The metaphor from the bible is a tree.  Taking of this tree, the tree of knowledge or truth, gives a person a truth, problem is this is not the whole truth.
Contrary to what the devil told Adam and Eve, this would not make Adam and Eve like God to discern between good and bad.
History is full of examples of how mankind has attempted to use truth to correct problems with paradoxical problems.
Examples:
"Stop violence against women' is actually two half-truths.
First the model ignores all other forms of abuse, and second it ignores men and children.
So it appears that there is a negative side to truth, that is still not within the books.   Truth ~ LIGHT 
While this is my original research I point this out to researchers on this site who might want to reference it.
-References-
Wow is that Theology, or a George Bush speech? Wouldn't a better example be the Truth the Creationists see in Genesis is only dimly perceived by them, leading to their paradoxical rejection of the reality of the universe which God created.
83.70.219.86 05:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The original sin explained. 

message: Technically shouldn't there be a spoiler alert on this article?
83.70.219.86 05:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Alert