Jump to content

Talk:Adam and Eve: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Adam and Eve/Archive 4) (bot
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Adam and Eve/Archive 4) (bot
 
(175 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Philosophy|class=C}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}
{{notice|'''Regarding the use of the word "myth"'''
⚫
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{notice|The meaning of "myth", in the context of this article's lead, can be found in [[wikt:myth]]:
The meaning of "myth", in the context of this article's lead, can be found in [[wikt:myth]]:
{{quotation|A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.}}
{{quotation|A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.}}
⚫
Lengthy discussion of this usage can be found in the archives of this talk page (and in those of the talk pages of a number of related articles). Please [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass]].}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Gonzaga_University/COML_509_(SP_2019) | assignments = [[User:Tmendo26|Tmendo26]] | start_date = 2019-03-18 | end_date = 2019-05-10 }}
⚫
Lengthy discussion of this usage can be found in the archives of this talk page (and in those of the talk pages of a number of related articles). Please [[WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass]].}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Bible|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C|importance=top|bible=yes|bible-importance=Top|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=top|bible=yes|bible-importance=Top|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|small=|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|small=|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=high |needs-infobox=yes}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Mythology|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Mythology|importance=high}}
{{WPReligion|class=c|importance=|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low|Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|class=c|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=Low}}
}}
}}
⚫
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}

{{Archive box
{{Archive box
| auto = yes
| auto = yes
Line 42: Line 42:




== What year was Eve born I know Adam was born on day 6 just what eve? ==
== Myth (perennial) ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 20:52, 21 August 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1850503940}}
{{re|Parise.michael}} Please see the following from the archives (and that's only from the last archive page of the three): [[Talk:Adam_and_Eve/Archive_3#Myth?|1]], [[Talk:Adam_and_Eve/Archive_3#Myth|2]], [[Talk:Adam_and_Eve/Archive_3#Mandatory_discussion|3]], [[Talk:Adam_and_Eve/Archive_3#Creation_MYTH|4]]. Here's also a short definition from WordNet: "A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"; a longer one from Webster: "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical". Also relevant are [[creation myth]], [[origin myth]], [[flood myth]], etc. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 11:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
:Yes but it still has the conotation that it’s an incorrect idea. [[User:Beccabodily|Beccabodily]] ([[User talk:Beccabodily|talk]]) 06:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
::It ''is'' an "incorrect idea". Paleontology has significantly progressed since the inception of this story. [[User:Kleuske|Kleuske]] ([[User talk:Kleuske|talk]])

:::Viewed as an allegory its proven to be a masterpiece of the human condition. As we become more knowledgeable and godlike we inescapably expel ourselves from the environment.
:::[[User:Tusk Bilasimo|Tusk Bilasimo]] ([[User talk:Tusk Bilasimo|talk]]) 20:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

::::Why do so many atheists hijack Wikipedia to push to there anti religious propaganda? You very well know, that when people see the word myth they interpret it has something untrue. Atheists are using Wikipedia to push atheism instead of being fair and truthful. Wikipedia is for everyone not just atheists! [[User:Samueltheggg|Samueltheggg]] ([[User talk:Samueltheggg|talk]]) 03:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

::::In reply to Kleuske, Paleontology does not disprove the Adam and Eve creation story. It actually proves that humans come from a original male and female. [[User:Samueltheggg|Samueltheggg]] ([[User talk:Samueltheggg|talk]]) 03:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::You should not conflate utmost respect for mainstream science with atheism. Science does not have any opinion upon whether God or gods exist or not, but it certainly has debunked the myth the first human. [[WP:CHOPSY]] teach that it is a myth, so we kowtow to their academic learning. See also [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 05:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting here that the Encyclopedia Britannica (generally regarded as the pinnacle of encyclopedias) does NOT refer to the story as a myth. Rather, it sticks to neutral language—simply stating that it's a story from the Hebrew Bible, with significance in the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions. See: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adam-and-Eve-biblical-literary-figures In my opinion, this supports the removal of "myth". It doesn't matter whether you believe the story, it only matters that you remain neutral, skeptical, and open-minded. "Myth" implies editorial judgement which does NOT meet those criteria.[[User:Hyperglyph|Hyperglyph]] ([[User talk:Hyperglyph|talk]]) 20:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

:The word "myth" may not be used in that particular article, but clicking through to [https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature the full article on "Biblical literature"], I quickly found this:
::''The Hebrew myths of creation have superseded the racial mythologies of Latin, Germanic, Slavonic, and all other Western peoples. This is not because they contain historically factual information or scientifically adequate accounts of the universe, the beginning of life, or any other subject of knowledge, but because they furnish a profoundly theological interpretation of the universe and human existence, an intellectual framework of reality large enough to make room for developing philosophies and sciences.''
:So, no, the Britannia editors do not shy away from using the word "myth" in exactly the scholarly context that this article uses it. Indeed, the article frequently contains phrases such as "probably a reflection of older mythical material", and frequently discusses the intent of the various authors thought to have contributed to the Old Testament we are familiar with. It remains open-minded (actually, rather over-flattering for my taste) about the ''moral'' value of the Bible, but makes no attempt to treat Genesis as an accurate historical source. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 12:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

::Regarding the use of the word myth - I agree that it should be changed. You could just as easily say “according to the literature regarding the origins of humans...in the religions of Christianity, etc.” with causing controversy.

::My problem stems from the first talk post - using this definition of myth to attempt to give credence to the use of the myth in conjunction with this belief
::in 2018, when the talk was opened up...the first post read “ from Webster: "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified;” - the word originally clearly point to something historical in nature. The belief, whether or no you chose to believe it is very much current and ongoing. So.... since that definition does not say originally and ongoing, or currently, myth is an invalid term to be used here. How do we get it changed? [[User:ChocolatOpal|ChocolatOpal]] ([[User talk:ChocolatOpal|talk]]) 00:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

:::You don't. Even Christian theologians (of the non-fanatical sort) agree it's a myth. And Jewish scholars also. It's a textbook case of a myth. If this isn't a myth, then there aren't any myths. One has to be very deluded about history and science in order to consider this couple historical. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 01:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to add my two cents regarding the use of the word "myth." I don't find this term neutral at all, as it clearly implies falsehood. The story of creation is, in fact, a story, and differs from cultural myths (like Celtic, Scandinavian, etc.) in that those myths don't purport to be true. Several adherents of the Abrahamic faiths do purport these events to be true, and I doubt they have any more evidence than those who disbelieve it. If anything, this is a story, an account, or a tale, who historicity is disputed. [[User:TheKingLives|TheKingLives]] ([[User talk:TheKingLives|talk]]) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually read the article on [[myth]]: "However, as commonly used by [[folklore studies|folklorists]] and academics in other relevant fields, such as [[anthropology]], the term ''myth'' has no implication whether the narrative may be understood as true or otherwise." [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 09:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
:Also, the idea that those pre-Christian peoples didn't believe their myths to be true is ridiculous. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 10:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Adam and Eve|answered=yes}}
I need to change the fact that it calls this a myth. It HAS NOT been proven to be a myth and it is just as justified as scientific theories!! The Big Bang Theory isn’t called a myth, even though it hasn’t been proven to be true yet. I plan to change where it calls it a myth, so it instead states that the “Abrahamic religions” state it, rather than “the myth states”. This is unacceptable. [[User:SporadicSpork|SporadicSpork]] ([[User talk:SporadicSpork|talk]]) 13:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

:{{not done}} See [[WP:TE]] and [[WP:NOBIGOTS]]. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 14:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

::"NOBIGOTS," except if you're an atheist[ic] bigot, then "BIGOTSAOKAY!" [[Special:Contributions/67.4.76.65|67.4.76.65]] ([[User talk:67.4.76.65|talk]]) 08:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

:::[[User:Tgeorgescu#Atheism]]. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 11:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

== So, let's be logically consistent here ==

If Adam and Eve were alleged myths (with no actual evidence/proof of that assertion given, of course, but only bare citations of a couple of conveniently selected sources while ignoring other sources that say otherwise), then Cain, Abel, and Seth (as well as their many other sons and daughters) were myths, which makes Enos[h] a myth, which makes Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, etc., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., Matthat, Heli, and Joseph myths, which makes Jesus a myth, which makes all his disciples and followers myths, which makes a lot of editing needed on Wikipedia to insert the word "myth" into the articles for every single biblical figure -- if the godless, atheist editors and admins were logically consistent, which they aren't and never will be. All the whole matter of inserting the word "myth" into this article is about is their need to express their POV displeasure, disagreement, and hate against religion -- and specifically Judeo-Christianity -- in a supposedly intelligent and legitimate way which is really just a barely disguised method of trolling. [[Special:Contributions/67.4.76.65|67.4.76.65]] ([[User talk:67.4.76.65|talk]]) 08:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
:That's a millenia-long slippery slope fallacy. By that reasoning, if you want to be consistent, then you would be a myth.
:Or one could read Adam and Eve to be a stand in for "the first sapient hominids." [[Parables of Jesus|It's not like the Bible ever uses allegory]]. [[Apocalyptic literature|Or metaphor]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 08:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
::No, it's logical consistency, which you don't want to admit. Explain to me how it's not. If Adam and Eve are myths, then why aren't Cain, Abel, Seth, and all their other children myths? Logically, they'd have to be. Then that would logically make their grandchildren myths, and their great-grandchildren myths, etc., ad infinitum. Where do you cut off the "they're myths" idea and presume the reality of the persons mentioned? How do you know that's where to cut it off? Can you logically, rationally defend that idea, or just illogically, indefensibly throw out the "NOBIGOTS," "POV," "slippery slope" nonsense? [[Special:Contributions/67.4.76.65|67.4.76.65]] ([[User talk:67.4.76.65|talk]]) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:::The idea of a first man is mythical thinking, it is not scientific thinking. No amount of sophistry will change that. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 00:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:::Still don't see why we're listening to you if you're a myth. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] applies here. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:Also [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Will expand their block as necessary. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 00:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


Please Help [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A40:B270:4911:6EF9:B9EE:F3DC|2600:1700:A40:B270:4911:6EF9:B9EE:F3DC]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:A40:B270:4911:6EF9:B9EE:F3DC|talk]]) 12:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel like this rant was designed to evoke a reaction like "of course not, that would be ridiculous", but honestly, why ''shouldn't'' the whole of the Bible be referred to as mythology? The sentence "according to the myths of Christianity, Jesus rose from the dead" would sound perfectly reasonable to me, in precisely the same way as "according to the myths of Ancient Greece, Cronus was the father of Zeus". The only difference I can see is that it's easier to find current believers in Christ than in Zeus, but it's just as easy to find people who believe in neither. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to shoe-horn the term into every article to make a point, but there are plenty of contexts where it would be appropriate. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
: [[Genesis creation narrative#Sixth day|The 6th day]] of the same year. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 12:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)


== Punished, not Cursed ==
:Yup, and many Christian theologians would gladly grant that point. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


"God curses all three, the man to a lifetime of hard labour followed by death, the woman to the pain of childbirth and to subordination to her husband, and the serpent to go on his belly and suffer the enmity of both man and woman"
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020 ==


In the Biblical story the curses were given the the serpent (Gen 3:14), and the ground (Gen 3:17). It is noted that Adam ad Eve face certain punishments, but they themselves are not cursed by God.
{{edit semi-protected|Adam and Eve|answered=no}}
In the section "Hebrew Bible narrrative", there is an erroneous claim that "Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures". This should be changed to reflect the fact that 1 Chronicles 1 starts off with a clear reference to the same Adam as mentioned in Genesis 2-5.
<ref>{{Cite web|title=1 Chronicles 1 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre|url=http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a01.htm|access-date=2020-11-18|website=www.mechon-mamre.org}}</ref>


I also found the above quote from the article to not be supported by the source given. Thoughts on this? [[User:XZealous|XZealous]] ([[User talk:XZealous|talk]]) 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
My suggestion:
change "Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures..." to "Eve is not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, and Adam is referenced once in 1 Chronicles..." [[User:Morhc|Morhc]] ([[User talk:Morhc|talk]]) 03:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:28, 19 December 2024


What year was Eve born I know Adam was born on day 6 just what eve?

[edit]

Please Help 2600:1700:A40:B270:4911:6EF9:B9EE:F3DC (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 6th day of the same year. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punished, not Cursed

[edit]

"God curses all three, the man to a lifetime of hard labour followed by death, the woman to the pain of childbirth and to subordination to her husband, and the serpent to go on his belly and suffer the enmity of both man and woman"

In the Biblical story the curses were given the the serpent (Gen 3:14), and the ground (Gen 3:17). It is noted that Adam ad Eve face certain punishments, but they themselves are not cursed by God.

I also found the above quote from the article to not be supported by the source given. Thoughts on this? XZealous (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_and_Eve&oldid=1263926205"