Talk:Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Moses 2 The Serpent as Satan 3 From Adam to Noah 4 Controversial statements 5 Pre-historical texts? 6 Zoroastrianism vs. Judaism 7 Jewish Encyclopedia 8 Jacob wrestles with God 9 Spoilers 10 Authorship/Christian Views 11 Removed some essays 11.1 BEGIN CUT, from section DATE AND HISTORY 11.2 END CUT 11.3 BEGIN CUT, from section TWO ACCOUNTS OF CREATION 11.4 END CUT 11.5 BEGIN CUT, from section THE NEPHILIM 11.6 END CUT 12 dating and history 13 The Egg Picture Caption 14 Historical work? 15 Book of Genesis 16 Gnostic's Prologue to Genesis 17 Half Angel 18 Lack of Terminology 19 Noah and the Great Flood 20 Firmament of heaven? 21 Bereshit aleph image makes article look sloppy 22 Tower of Babel 23 Six and Seven Days of Creation. 24 Spoilers 25 First Paragraph of Introduction 26 Binding of Isaac? 27 Is the Bible really just about the origin of the Jews? 28 Contradictions within Genesis 29 Bestowment of Order 30 Definitive Spoiler Debate 31 Revision of Summar section 32 Gilgamesh 33 Composition and date 34 Etymology 35 Christian belief 36 Anybody Know? 36.1 Answer 37 Days called Good 38 The "sons of God," the "days of man," and the "nephilim" 39 NPOV 39.1 Definition of Mythology 39.2 Examples 40 "Accounts" and "stories" 41 Codex - discussion on the toledot/Book of Generations para

[edit] Moses

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)

[edit] The Serpent as Satan

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)

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)

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)Bro Em

Since the story in Genesis was derrived from earlier creation myths, it is more than likely that the serpent had nothing at all to do with the later concept of Satan at the time of the writing. Instead, it was more of a primitive animal spirit and it being Satan was a 'retrofit'.--Daniel 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Adam to Noah

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)

I answered my own question; there is a Lamech in both. Sorry for the confusioin yEvb0 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial statements

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)

one more:

"The absence of independent evidence confirming the Biblical narrative (outside of the Bible itself) have caused many scholars to question the accuracy or even the veracity of the historical account, and it is now generally accepted by objective historians not to be literally true, insofar as it pertains to the creation of the physical universe. This boils down to believing the Bible or not, since there are no historical records to confirm or disprove creation. This subject is discussed in The Bible and history."

I wouldn't say that it boils down to believing The Bible or not (many people 'believe' in the Bible without taking the creation story literally); It is however a major point of faith (literal belief vs interpretation). How could this be worded more clearly? yEvb0 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"...since there are no historical records to confirm or disprove creation." this could be clarified. It seems to me that the majority of the scientific community would argue that fossil records, etc, disprove Creation as presented in Genesis. BigHat

Heehee! Funny. In response to the "believing the Bible or not" yes, it does boil down to that. The whole point of the Bible is undeniable belief, if you "believe" in one part of the Bible but don't believe in another part, you don't believe any of it at all. It presents itself as an all or nothing faith, complete faith means complete belief, you can't "believe" in just part of something or someone while rejecting another part and if you say you can, well that just proves my point. "Partial belief" is a symptom of unbelief. How unstable one must feel to believe that they actually "believe" in a piece something or someone while completely panning another part.

[edit] Pre-historical texts?

"In stark contrast to the pagan religious texts of middle and near-eastern pre-history..."

"The texts of pre-history" - I think we want to find a better way to say this.  :-)

[edit] Zoroastrianism vs. Judaism

*Some believe Genesis to be one of the older examples of monotheistic belief, second only to Zoroastrianism. However, in Genesis the Hebrew God is primarily a tribal God. The commandment "have no Gods but me" implies that the Hebews were not to worship the gods of other poeples, but only their own tribal god. A universal conceptualisation of God in judaism is much younger, and came as a result of Greek influence.

This sounds to me like a bunch of pseudo-scholarly hooey. Please give evidence to support any of these statements, otherwise I think the article should be reverted to the pre-Zoroastrian insertions. Mkmcconn 22:54 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Jacob wrestles with God

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)

Fine, I removed the reference because I was not aware of the Christian POV on this matter. As far as Jewish sources (midrash) are concerned, the "man" was sar'o shel Eisav, Esau's [protective] angel. Please do retain this POV if you feel the segment should be rewritten. JFW | T@lk 16:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

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)Asbjørn

The spoiler warning actually made me laugh out loud. That is not to say that it is not warrented, just that it is hilarious. Batmanand 09:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

you can't be serious - tenth graders? I mean, I'm a Creationist, and I find that hard to believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.173.126.243 (talk • contribs).

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)

Looking at the issue objectively, is there a reason not to have spoiler tags? From what christians and non-christians agree alike, it's a book that tells a story. Whether it's fiction or fact depends on the readers interpretation/point of view. Either way, one can argue that reading the summary instead of the original material will diminish the impression the Genesis has in itself (and yes, I did read it myself. And no, I did not know what it was about beforehand, apart from the whole 7 days thing.) Please realize I'm not trolling, but I honestly believe that spoilers don't equal fiction and that they should be used here. Any thoughts? --Snakemike 09:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Authorship/Christian Views

I removed the following recent addition from this article:

despite the fact that the Hebrew Bible was not written until several centuries after his death by Hebrews living in Babylon.

This was added half way through the first paragraph of the "Christian views" section. Problems include: it breaks the structure of the paragraph, it's off-topic for the section and it's a little POV. I'm afraid I'm not imaginative enough to find a way to NPOV it. — Matt 21:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be there at all. As you said, the section is "Christian views", not a discussion of authorship. The previous section is on authorship, and it already mentions the view that it was written later. And that's all it is, a view, so it is not "a little POV", but very definitely POV. Philip J. Rayment 23:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heya, I wrote it. How can it be NNPOV if it doesn't an opinion; it is an historical fact. As I added it I was a bit confused; how could Christians come to this conclusion? Perhaps someone should change 'authored by Moses' to 'inspired by Moses.' Moses lived many centuries before anything in the OT/Hebrew Bible was written, so if this line is to remain it should include something about the general confusion of modern Christians over who wrote what.Yeago 19:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not a historical fact that Moses lived before anything in the Bible was written. It is the view of some that the Old Testament was not written until the Jews were in exile in Babylon. Others are of the view that it was written by Moses, and yet others, as is explained in the Authorship section, are of the view that Genesis was compiled by Moses from even earlier documents. So by asserting one particular view, the article was not NPOV. Philip J. Rayment 01:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 'view' that it was written by Moses is pretty antiquated but if you insist on it being part of this article, that's fine with me. It is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the mistaken 'Christian Views' about the Hebrew Bible/OT.Yeago 19:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's only "antiquated" in the sense that it has been around a long time. It is still a current view. Philip J. Rayment 23:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See authorship section.

That Moses didn't author Genesis is not a "view", it is a fact. It is a fact in as much as anything can be said to be a fact. There is also a Flat Earth Society, but that doesn't mean that in order to be NPOV in the article on the Earth, we can't say that the Earth is spherical. Those who think Moses authored Genesis are a fringe group of people uneducated on the subject who believe what they do for cultural reasons, so it is not POV to state known facts. HOWEVER, having said that, it is also true that, just because something is a fact, does not mean it is automatically NPOV. The statement originally quoted above WAS POV and SHOULD have been removed because (1) discussion of authorship was extraneous to a section on 'Christian views' and (2) that extraneous mentioning of authorship was included merely to cast judgment and commentary on those views.--Daniel 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to the statements made by .--Daniel and Yeago, I would like to ask what is a fact? If something is a fact, it is either self-evident or provable from self-evident premises. Taken in that light, denial of Mosaic authorship is probably not a fact. I do not know of any manuscripts from any era that contain anything that would indicate their authorship or lack thereof. If this is truly the case, then how can anyone assert as fact whether or not Genesis was authored by Moses. I would be interested to know what scholar or scholars make such an assertion in their works. Please, if you know of any, enlighten for I am completely familiar with this matter. I just always question assertion of the word fact. Anpetu-We 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Many Christians interpret this as an example of apostolic teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ; however, Genesis standing alone does not clearly suggest this teaching, although there are some possible allusions to it, such as in Genesis 1:26 when God refers to himself in the plural."

It is not generally accepted, even within the christian community, that Genesis 1:26 contains an example of G-d referring to Himself in the plural. Judaism teaches that the use of words 'us' and 'our' in this verse is G-d addressing the heavenly host of angels. Evangelical christian author Gordon Wenham writes in his commentary "Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author." The NIV Study Bible (a christian work) contains in its commentary on this verse "Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)"

Suggest removing everything from "although there are" to "in the plural."

DB 19.52, 02 Oct 2005

I changed the sentence you mentioned. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed some essays

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)

[edit] BEGIN CUT, from section DATE AND HISTORY

   *
         o
               + it-1 pp. 592-594 Day ***

DAY

Jehovah God introduced this fundamental division of time on the first “day” of the period during which he prepared the earth for mankind, when diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, thus causing the moisture-covered earth to experience its first day and night as it rotated on its axis through the light of the sun. “God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Ge 1:4, 5) Here the word “Day” refers to the daylight hours in contrast with the nighttime. However, the record thereafter goes on to use the word “day” to refer to other units of time of varying length. In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, the word “day” (Heb., yohm; Gr., he·me´ra) is used in a literal and in a figurative or even symbolic sense.

A solar day, the fundamental unit of time, is established by one complete rotation of the earth on its axis, as from the time the sun leaves a meridian, the highest point it attains at midday, until it returns to it. This solar or civil day is currently divided into two periods of 12 hours each. The forenoon period is indicated by the Latin ante meridiem (a.m.) and the afternoon period by the Latin post meridiem (p.m.). However, in Bible times various other methods were used for dividing the day.

The Hebrews began their day in the evening, after sunset, and ended it the next day at sunset. The day, therefore, ran from evening to evening. “From evening to evening you should observe your sabbath.” (Le 23:32) This follows the pattern of Jehovah’s creative days, as indicated at Genesis 1:5: “There came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Compare Da 8:14.

The Hebrews were not the only ones who reckoned a day from evening to evening; the Phoenicians, Numidians, and Athenians also did so. The Babylonians, on the other hand, counted the day from sunrise to sunrise; while the Egyptians and the Romans reckoned it from midnight to midnight (as is commonly done today).

Although the Hebrews officially began their day in the evening, they sometimes spoke of it as if beginning in the morning. For example, Leviticus 7:15 says: “The flesh of the thanksgiving sacrifice of his communion sacrifices is to be eaten on the day of his offering. He must not save up any of it until morning.” This usage was doubtless simply a matter of convenience of expression, to indicate overnight.

As mentioned in the creation account, the daylight period is also called day. (Ge 1:5; 8:22) In the Bible it is divided up into natural periods: the morning twilight or morning darkness, just before the day’s beginning (Ps 119:147; 1Sa 30:17); the rising of the sun or dawning (Job 3:9); the morning (Ge 24:54); noon or midday (De 28:29; 1Ki 18:27; Isa 16:3; Ac 22:6); the time of the sunset, marking the day’s close (Ge 15:12; Jos 8:29); and the evening twilight or evening darkness (2Ki 7:5, 7). The times for making certain offerings or the burning of incense by the priests were also time periods known to the people.—1Ki 18:29, 36; Lu 1:10.

What is the time “between the two evenings”?

With reference to the slaying of the Passover lamb on Nisan 14, the Scriptures speak of “the two evenings.” (Ex 12:6) While Jewish tradition tends to present this as the time from noon (when the sun begins to decline) on until sundown, it appears that the correct meaning is that the first evening corresponds with the setting of the sun, and the second evening with the time when the sun’s reflected light or afterglow ends and darkness falls. (De 16:6; Ps 104:19, 20) This understanding was also that offered by the Spanish rabbi Aben-Ezra (1092-1167), as well as by the Samaritans and the Karaite Jews. It is the view presented by such scholars as Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Gesenius, Maurer, Kalisch, Knobel, and Keil.

There is no indication that the Hebrews used hours in dividing up the day prior to the Babylonian exile. The word “hour” found at Daniel 3:6, 15; 4:19, 33; 5:5 in the King James Version is translated from the Aramaic word sha·`ah´, which, literally, means “a look” and is more correctly translated a “moment.” The use of hours by the Jews, however, did come into regular practice following the exile. As to “the shadow of the steps” referred to at Isaiah 38:8 and 2 Kings 20:8-11, this may possibly refer to a sundial method of keeping time, whereby shadows were projected by the sun on a series of steps.—See SUN (Shadow That Went Ten Steps Back).

The early Babylonians used the sexagesimal system based on a mathematical scale of 60. From this system we get our time division whereby the day is partitioned into 24 hours (as well as into two periods of 12 hours each), and each hour into 60 minutes of 60 seconds each.

In the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry, the practice of dividing the daylight period into hours was common. Thus, at John 11:9 Jesus said: “There are twelve hours of daylight, are there not?” These were generally counted from sunrise to sunset, or from about 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. So, “the third hour” would be about 9:00 a.m., and it was at this time that the holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost. (Mt 20:3; Ac 2:15) When Jesus, tired out from a journey, was sitting at Jacob’s fountain it was about “the sixth hour,” or noon, which was also the time when Peter became very hungry at Joppa. (Joh 4:6; Ac 10:9, 10) It was also about noon when darkness fell over all the earth until “the ninth hour,” or about 3:00 p.m., when Jesus expired on the torture stake. (Mt 27:45, 46; Lu 23:44, 46) This ninth hour was also called “the hour of prayer.” (Ac 3:1; 10:3, 4, 30) So, “the seventh hour” would be about 1:00 p.m. and “the eleventh hour,” about 5:00 p.m. (Joh 4:52; Mt 20:6-12) The night was also divided into hours at that time.—Ac 23:23; see NIGHT.

There are times when the Hebrews used ‘day and night’ to mean only a portion of a solar day of 24 hours. For example, 1 Kings 12:5, 12 tells of Rehoboam’s asking Jeroboam and the Israelites to “go away for three days” and then return to him. That he did not mean three full 24-hour days but, rather, a portion of each of three days is seen by the fact that the people came back to him “on the third day.” At Matthew 12:40 the same meaning is given to the “three days and three nights” of Jesus’ stay in Sheol. As the record shows, he was raised to life on “the third day.” The Jewish priests clearly understood this to be the meaning of Jesus’ words, since, in their effort to block his resurrection, they quoted Jesus as saying: “After three days I am to be raised up,” and then they requested Pilate to issue a command for “the grave to be made secure until the third day.”—Mt 27:62-66; 28:1-6; note other examples in Ge 42:17, 18; Es 4:16; 5:1.

No names were used by the Hebrews for the days of the week, except for the seventh day, called the Sabbath. (See SABBATH DAY.) Reference was made to the various days by their numerical order. In the days of Jesus and his apostles, the day preceding the Sabbath was called the Preparation. (Mt 28:1; Ac 20:7; Mr 15:42; Joh 19:31; see WEEK.) The practice of naming the days after the names of the planets and other heavenly bodies was pagan. The Romans named the days after the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn, but in northern Europe, four of these names were later changed into the Germanic equivalents of the Roman gods whom the days represented.

Sometimes the word “day” is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in the expressions “a day’s journey” and “a sabbath day’s journey.”—Nu 11:31; Ac 1:12; see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

In prophecy a day is at times used to stand for one year. This can be noted at Ezekiel 4:6: “You must lie upon your right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.”—See also Nu 14:34.

Certain specific numbers of days given in connection with prophecies are: three and a half days (Re 11:9); 10 days (Re 2:10); 40 days (Eze 4:6); 390 days (Eze 4:5); 1,260 days (Re 11:3; 12:6); 1,290 days (Da 12:11); 1,335 days (Da 12:12); and 2,300 days (Da 8:14).

The term “day(s)” is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Lu 17:26-30; Isa 1:1.

Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Ge 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zep 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zep 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2Co 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2Pe 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Re 16:14), and others.

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Ex 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at Genesis 2:4: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”

Man’s situation does not compare with that of the Creator, who does not reside within our solar system and who is not affected by its various cycles and orbits. Of God, who is from time indefinite to time indefinite, the psalmist says: “For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch during the night.” (Ps 90:2, 4) Correspondingly, the apostle Peter writes that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) For man, a 1,000-year period represents some 365,242 individual time units of day and night, but to the Creator it can be just one unbroken time period in which he begins the carrying out of some purposeful activity and brings it on to its successful conclusion, much as a man begins a task in the morning and concludes it by the day’s end.

Jehovah is the Originator of our universe in which time, space, motion, mass, and energy have all been proved to be inescapably interrelated. He controls them all according to his purpose, and in dealing with his creatures on earth he makes definite time appointments for his own actions toward them, right down to the “day and hour.” (Mt 24:36; Ga 4:4) He keeps such appointments with the utmost punctuality.

In the medieval era, religious rationalists such as Maimonides held that it was a gross error to read the creation stories literally; in this view, while the Bible is indeed the word of God, it was designed to teach deep metaphysical truths about the universe, and the surface stories were intended to be read as allegories.

The absence of independent evidence confirming the biblical narrative cause many scholars to question the accuracy or even the veracity of the historical account. This subject is discussed in The Bible and history.

[edit] END CUT

[edit] BEGIN CUT, from section TWO ACCOUNTS OF CREATION

Further Creative Activities Involving Earth. Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 2, verse 3, after telling about the creation of the material heavens and earth (Ge 1:1, 2), provides an outline of further creative activities on the earth. Chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1. The inspired Record tells of six creative periods called “days,” and of a seventh period or “seventh day” in which time God desisted from earthly creative works and proceeded to rest. (Ge 2:1-3) While the Genesis account of creative activity relating to the earth does not set forth detailed botanical and zoological distinctions such as those current today, the terms employed therein adequately cover the major divisions of life and show that these were created and made so that they reproduce only according to their respective “kinds.”—Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; see KIND.

Interestingly, the question of whether God invented the seven-day week is rarely wondered at by readers. Some may wonder whether it was this chapter of the Hebrew Bible that gives us our seven-day week, and may further speculate about the importance of the number seven; surely God would not arbitrarily choose seven days to do this. However, research into the origin of the week tells us that it came from Babylonian culture; one day for each heavenly body (visible to the eye) representing a different deity.

The second account of creation is much more human-oriented, and less concerned with explaining how the Earth, its creatures and its features came to exist as they are today, what order they were presented, etc. Instead it explains that the earth was lifeless, how God brought moisture to this dust and how man was formed from this clay (Adam translates from Hebrew to mean 'Red Earth').

[edit] END CUT

[edit] BEGIN CUT, from section THE NEPHILIM

The reference to the "sons of the true God" are 4 The Neph´i·lim proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of the [true] God continued to have relations with the daughters of men and they bore sons to them, they were the mighty ones “The mighty ones.” Heb., hag·gib·bo·rim´.who were of old, the men of fame.Lit., “name.”

(Numbers 13:33) 33 And there we saw the Neph´i·lim, the sons of A´nak, who are from the Neph´i·lim; so that we became in our own eyes like grasshoppers, and the same way we became in their eyes.”

   *
         o
               + it-2 pp. 491-493 Nephilim ***

NEPHILIM

(Neph´i·lim) [Fellers; Those Who Cause [Others] to Fall Down].

This is a transliteration of the Hebrew word nephi·lim´, plural in its three occurrences in the Bible. (Ge 6:4; Nu 13:33 [twice]) It evidently stems from the causative form of the Hebrew verb na·phal´ (fall) as found, for example, in 2 Kings 3:19; 19:7.

The Bible account describing Jehovah’s displeasure with men in the days of Noah before the Flood relates that “the sons of the true God” took for themselves wives from among the attractive daughters of men. It then mentions the presence of “Nephilim,” saying: “The Nephilim proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men and they bore sons to them, they were the mighty ones [Heb., hag·gib·bo·rim´] who were of old, the men of fame.”—Ge 6:1-4.

Identity. Bible commentators, considering verse 4, have offered several suggestions as to the identity of these Nephilim. Some have thought that the derivation of the name indicates that the Nephilim had fallen from heaven, that is, that they were ‘fallen angels’ who mated with women to produce “mighty ones . . . the men of fame.” Other scholars, focusing their attention particularly on the statement “and also after that” (vs 4), have said the Nephilim were not the ‘fallen angels’ or the “mighty ones,” since the Nephilim “proved to be in the earth in those days” before the sons of God had relations with women. These latter scholars hold the opinion that the Nephilim were simply wicked men like Cain—robbers, bullies, and tyrants who roamed the earth until they were destroyed by the Flood. Still another group, taking into consideration the context of verse 4, conclude that the Nephilim were not themselves angels, but were the hybrid offspring resulting from materialized angels having intercourse with the daughters of men.

Same as “gib·bo·rim´.” Certain Bible translations adjust the location of the phrase “and also after that,” placing it near the beginning of verse 4, thus identifying the Nephilim with the “mighty ones,” the gib·bo·rim´, mentioned in the latter part of the verse. For example: “In those days, as well as afterward, there were giants [Heb., han·nephi·lim´] on the earth, who were born to the sons of the gods whenever they had intercourse with the daughters of men; these were the heroes [Heb., hag·gib·bo·rim´] who were men of note in days of old.”—Ge 6:4, AT; see also Mo, NIV, and TEV.

The Greek Septuagint also suggests that both the “Nephilim” and “mighty ones” are identical by using the same word gi´gan·tes (giants) to translate both expressions.

Reviewing the account, we see that verses 1 to 3 tell of “the sons of the true God” taking wives and of Jehovah’s statement that he was going to end his patience with men after 120 years. Verse 4 then speaks of the Nephilim proving to be in the earth “in those days,” evidently the days when Jehovah made the statement. Then it shows that this situation continued “after that, when the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men,” and describes in more detail the results of the union of “the sons of the true God” with women.

Who were the ‘sons of God’ that fathered the Nephilim?

Who were “the sons of the true God” that were involved? Were they men who were worshipers of Jehovah (as distinguished from the general run of wicked mankind), as some claim? Evidently not. The Bible implies that their marriage to the daughters of men resulted in whipping up the badness in the earth. Noah and his three sons, along with their wives, were the only ones in God’s favor and were the only ones preserved through the Deluge.—Ge 6:9; 8:15, 16; 1Pe 3:20.

Hence, if these “sons of the true God” were merely men, the question arises, Why were their offspring “men of fame” more than those of the wicked, or of faithful Noah? Also, the question might be asked, Why mention their marriage to the daughters of men as something special? Marriage and childbearing had been taking place for more than 1,500 years.

The sons of God mentioned at Genesis 6:2, therefore, must have been angels, spirit “sons of God.” This expression is applied to angels at Job 1:6; 38:7. This view is supported by Peter, who speaks of “the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days.” (1Pe 3:19, 20) Also Jude writes of “the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place.” (Jude 6) Angels had the power to materialize in human form, and some angels did so to bring messages from God. (Ge 18:1, 2, 8, 20-22; 19:1-11; Jos 5:13-15) But heaven is the proper abode of spirit persons, and the angels there have positions of service under Jehovah. (Da 7:9, 10) To leave this abode to dwell on earth and to forsake their assigned service to have fleshly relations would be rebellion against God’s laws, and perversion.

The Bible states that the disobedient angels are now “spirits in prison,” having been ‘thrown into Tartarus’ and “reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” This seems to indicate that they are greatly restricted, unable again to materialize as they did prior to the Flood.—1Pe 3:19; 2Pe 2:4; Jude 6.

Increased Wickedness. “The mighty ones who were of old, the men of fame” that were produced by these marriages, were not men of fame with God, for they did not survive the Flood, as did Noah and his family. They were “Nephilim,” bullies, tyrants, who no doubt helped to make conditions worse. Their angelic fathers, knowing the construction of the human body and being able to materialize, were not creating life, but lived in these human bodies and, cohabiting with women, brought forth children. Their children, “mighty ones,” were therefore unauthorized hybrids. Apparently the Nephilim did not, in turn, have children.

In Mythology. The fame and dread of the Nephilim, it appears, gave rise to many mythologies of heathen people who, after the confusion of languages at Babel, were scattered throughout the earth. Though the historical forms of the Genesis account were greatly distorted and embellished, there was a remarkable resemblance in these ancient mythologies (those of the Greeks being only one example), in which gods and goddesses mated with humans to produce superhuman heroes and fearful demigods having god-man characteristics.—See GREECE, GREEKS (Greek Religion).

A Report Intended to Terrorize. The ten spies who brought back to the Israelites in the wilderness a false report on the land of Canaan declared: “All the people whom we saw in the midst of it are men of extraordinary size. And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who are from the Nephilim; so that we became in our own eyes like grasshoppers, and the same way we became in their eyes.” No doubt there were some large men in Canaan, as other scriptures show, but never except in this “bad report,” which was carefully couched in language designed to strike terror and cause panic among the Israelites, are they called Nephilim.—Nu 13:31-33; 14:36, 37.

[edit] END CUT

[edit] dating and history

The absence of independent evidence confirming the biblical narrative cause many :scholars to question the accuracy or even the veracity of the historical account. :This subject is discussed in The Bible and history.

Let me requote this paragraph with the substitution of a few words: :The absence of independent evidence confirming the evolutionary theory cause many :scholars to question the accuracy or even the veracity of this account. :This subject is discussed in The Bible and history.

— why isn't this article plastered with NPOV warnings? "question the accuracy" indeed ;o) I daresay most biblical historians do not even consider accuracy, and rather try to figure out how the text was preserved. What are the earliest extant manuscripts? I googled something around 1000 AD. What is the estimated date of composition? I googled ca. 700 BC. Why do we not have any information about these things here? dab (ᛏ) 16:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ok, I just found the Documentary hypothesis link. I still think the natural content of "dating and history" would be an account of text-internal (linguistics) and external (manuscripts) dating attempts, and not about "veracity" claims. That would belong under "Christian views", I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 16:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm just dying to know the independent evidence confirming the Genesis account of the Creation. Since the Creation, as described in Genesis, happened before there were any human witnesses, it will be fascinating.

Here´s an answer for you. The Holy Spirit of God was seen in Genesis 1:2 as being there and in 2 Timothy 3:16 it says all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore, since the Holy Spirit was there, the Holy Spirit is who gave the account of creation to Moses. In fact, there are many instances in the New Testament where the Holy Spirit of God gives commandments and doctrine to the Apostles and others. Acts 1:2, Acts 1:16, Acts 15:28, Prophecy in Acts 21:11 and Acts 28:25, 1 Corinthians 2:13 speaks of spiritual wisdom used to break the petty arguments of men, Hebrews 3:7 says that the Holy Spirit speaks to people(He has a voice), and the last and best verse is 2 Peter 1:21 which says "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." So you see, the Holy Spirit is the independent evidence confirming the Genesis account. There were no people so no person could have seen the account to write about it since Adam was created on the 6th day, he couldn´t have seen it and any sumerian or chinese texts can only copy from the Bible or from word of mouth of the people that came from the tower of babel. ---- added on 11 Jan 2006 by bchasteen

The best we can hope for is that Moses received his information from God. However, nowhere in the text of Genesis is this stated: it's merely an assumption. If Moses was writing down pre-existing oral tradition or recompiling existing texts, then these would have to be based on SOMETHING. Would Adam have related the tale of his downfall to his descendants?

Exile 09:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want to know the independent evidence when the article states that there is none? Although I don't really agree with that, as there is independent evidence, albeit disputed and not conclusive. For example, Genesis 1 says that God made living things to reproduce after their own kind, and what we know from breeding and genetics is that that is just what happens. But of course as that is something we can observe, it could be argued that the ancients observed the same thing; it doesn't prove the creation narrative as such.

I don't know why you think that the best we can hope for is that Moses received it from God. The Authorship section mentions the possibility that Moses compiled it from older text, and yes, why wouldn't/couldn't Adam have written it down and passed it on to his descendants?

Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Egg Picture Caption

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)

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)

[edit] Historical work?

FROM THE INTRODUCTION: "Genesis is presented as a historical work."

I am not a theologan so it is difficult for me to determine what fraction of Jews and Christians believe Genesis is a historical work but I can speak for Catholics. From the preface of the book of Genesis in the Catholic Bible:

"While we do not view the account of the patriarchs as history in the strict sense, nevertheless certain of the matters recounted from the time of Abraham onward can be placed in the actual historical and social framework of the Near East in the early part of the second millennium B.C. (2000-1500), and documented by non-biblical sources."

No exact author of the preface is named however it can be assumed that it was composed by the Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee consisting of: Most Rev. Theodore E. McCarric, D.D. Most Rev. J. Francis Stafford, D.D. Most Rev. Richard J. Sklba, D.D. Most Rev. John F. Whealon, D.D.

ALSO FROM THE INTRODUCTION: "It is a well-planned and well-executed composition of a writer (or set of writers, see documentary hypothesis), who has recounted the traditions of the Israelites, combining them into a uniform work, while preserving the textual and formal peculiarities incident to their difference in origin and mode of transmission."

Being an engineer and reading statements such as "It is a well-planned and well-executed composition of a writer" to me is not different than reading a statement "It is a composition of a writer" because "well-planned" and "well-executed" are opinions. I am new to the Wikipedia community so I would appreciate any assistance or input as to how to change the entry to the satisfaction of the community. Thank you.

• This article really needs cleaned up. Thanks for pointing that out. It is the opposite of The Bible and history#Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Let's work on it. --Noitall 21:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Genesis

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)PawYiLee

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)

[edit] Gnostic's Prologue to Genesis

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)

[edit] Half Angel

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)

[edit] Lack of Terminology

Early man lacked the terminology and scientific knowledge possessed by modern man. Genesis could very likely be an attempt by early man to describe terraforming and genetic engineering by extra-terrestrials.

[edit] Noah and the Great Flood

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)

Verse 2 it talking about 7 pairs. Verse 8 simply says that they came in pairs. No contradiction.

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)

[edit] Firmament of heaven?

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)

[edit] Bereshit aleph image makes article look sloppy

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)

I have tried moveing it around a bit but it looks bad everywere as the article is really crowded anyway. It would look best if a section were written on it so that it would look ok in the context, or even better yet if it were given it's on article and then it was linked at the botom of the page.--Jimmyjrg 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I have moved it to "Historical placement of its content" as I think it works there, but feel free to move it if you do not agree.--Jimmyjrg 05:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tower of Babel

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)

[edit] Six and Seven Days of Creation.

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)

[edit] Spoilers

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! -Zero^Talk 02:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

{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).

[edit] First Paragraph of Introduction

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)

[edit] Binding of Isaac?

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)

Also, what is the accepted form for transliteration? The translit for Isaac is not quite phonetic (something more like yitzchak) and it's also not quite academic (yis.h.aq is about the best I know how to do in html [the dots should appear underneath the s and the h]). Tmargheim 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Bible really just about the origin of the Jews?

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)

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)

[edit] Contradictions within Genesis

Some examples...

• In Genesis 1, humans are created after the other animals; in Genesis 2, they're created before them.
• Genesis 1:27 says that the first man and woman were created at the same time; yet Genesis 2:18-22 says man was created first, then the animals, then woman, from Adam's rib.
• In Genesis, God creates light on the first day, but doesn't make the sun until the forth day.
• Plants are created on the third day, before there is any sun to provide photo-synthesis.
• Birds are created before reptiles and insects (their food), and flowering plants before any other animals (needed to pollenate them).

It seems pretty important that Genesis blantantly contradicts itself in a quite a few places, yet there is no mention of this anywhere.

Most important articles have some kind of "Criticisms" section to give balance, but this article hardly mentions the fact that a great many people view Genesis as simply absurd, even just going by the fact that it contradicts itself all over the place. Remember this is a page in an encyclopedia, not a religious-education pamphlet handed out at Sunday School...-Neural 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There's enough of that in other articles. This one is a pretty fair view compared to some. This article should not become an exposé. All of your points and other "contradictions" are refuted by creationist literature time and time again.

Regarding the comment about light and the sun, consider this: There are sources of light other than stars. Man has created artifical light sources. So why try to limit God's light to the sun? PrometheusX303 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should become an exposé - I'm saying it should become NPOV. At the moment the article does not even mention that anyone has the slightest criticism of Genesis, when in fact it is highly controversial and even considered a form of extremism by many.

As to the contradictions being refuted by creationists (well they would, wouldn't they?) why not simply list common objections like these and point out that they are refuted, explaining what "logic" creationists use to get around them?

That's not biased - that's merely showing both sides as opposed to only one side (POV)...-Neural 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I got logged out first time)

Two other articles, Creation (theology) and Creation according to Genesis, deal with criticisms of Genesis.

"why not simply list common objections like these and point out that they are refuted, explaining what "logic" creationists use to get around them?" Because, as happens on many articles, each side would then feel obligated to add something more, and it might end up looking like Critics of Genesis point out that ... ... However, those arguments can be countered because... ... Yet the logic suggests that counter-arguments fail because... ... Neutral POV is different than round-robin POV. PrometheusX303 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out (see my reasons above), the article is about as far from NPOV as you can get. The whole assumption of the article is that Genesis all basically true and that nobody disagrees with it. This is totally misleading to the casual reader who only wants to find out what Genesis is. The only nod to "differing views" is on whether it should be read as allegorical or not. The article is blatantly biased.

However, having been anonymously attacked on my talk page (I assume by somebody who disliked some of my above comments), I think I will leave it there. I don't need a flame-war with anyone. The article will remain totally one-sided and wikipedia will be worse off as a result... unless somebody else takes up the debate, at which point I may rejoin this argument.-Neural 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bestowment of Order

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)

[edit] Definitive Spoiler Debate

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Revision of Summar section

(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)

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)

[edit] Gilgamesh

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)

[edit] Composition and date

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)

[edit] Etymology

Why is there no explanation of where the word "genesis" comes from? Rhialto 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Christian belief

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)

[edit] 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?

This is a question which generations of teenage boys have raised in an effort to annoy their elders. The answer is out there, somewhere. (If you seriously want one, I suggest you take it up with a priest or rabbi, as the mind of man, let alone of God, is beyond my ken).PiCo 12:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good question to me, although I'm sure you can find a hundred different answers if you look. And I'm embarrassed that I don't know even one. But I checked the Sarna commentary, and he notes that the phrase "you shall die" in 2:17 must mean "being deprived of the possibility of rejuvenation by means of the 'tree of life'..." He references Sanh. 59b, although I didn't see anything there. —Dfass 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Some claim it was a spiritual death, separation from God, and some say it was the beginning of physical death, and some say both: "The Hebrew grammar actually means, ‘dying, you will die.’ In other words, it would be the commencement of a process of physical dying. It also clearly involved spiritual death (separation from God)."[1] Prometheus^-X303- 17:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

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)

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)O.K. Good to see you are still alive.

[edit] Days called Good

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)

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)

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)

[edit] The "sons of God," the "days of man," and the "nephilim"

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)

As it stands now, I have no problem with your phrasing which uses "days" instead of "lifespan". And, in case we happen to work together on anything else, you can refer to me as "he". Thanks for being open-minded.--Ijkopl 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

On Wikipedia - a site used and edited by people with many different religions and beliefs - NPOV with respect to religion means that Wikipedia must not treat any religion special. This includes Christian and Jewish beliefs! With respect to the Genesis article this means that it is appropriate to put it into Category:Mythology or Category:Creation stories. The book of Genesis contains a story describing the creation of the world. So that is a creation story. It is also containing Mythology in the sense of the word used in comparative study of religion. Not putting this article into those categories while creation stories from other religions are put into these categories means that the principle of NPOV is violated by giving Christian or Jewish beliefs a special status. So the principle of NPOV demands that the article is left in those categories if an editor chooses to put it into them. This does not make a statement about the truth of the book of Genesis. It is just an application of one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. If I put the article into those Categoris, undoing my edit is a vioplation of one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Nannus 18:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. 'NPOV' doesn't mean we have to call the Bible "mythology". Calling the Bible "mythology" is a POV. One that many would vehemently disagree with. We have been through this many times before, and that is still the way it is. Please save yourself the trouble of stirring up this can of worms yet again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe our problem comes from differences in what we think the word "Mythology" means. Therefore, as a basis for further discussion, here is my definition of it:

[edit] Definition of Mythology

• 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)

[edit] Examples

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)

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)

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)

Bold text

[edit] "Accounts" and "stories"

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)

[edit] Codex - discussion on the toledot/Book of Generations para

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)

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)