Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Lead - describes?

212.144.96.70 reverted the language "The Genesis creation narrative....describes the creation of the world" in the lead with the edit summary "You just cannot say that Genesis describes the creation of the world. Because that would presuppose that there was a creation." I have changed it back, because description does not imply truth. If I say "The Wizard of Oz describes the land of Oz," I am not making a judgement one way or the other on the truth of that description. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That is because Oz is not real, but the world is. If you claim "The Genesis creation narrative....describes the creation of the world", I will ask you "Does it accurately describe the creation of the world?" A description of something fictional is inherently different from a description of something real. ≡ CUSH ≡ 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I disagree, stating that a story describes something doesn't necessarily imply that this description is accurate. For instance, "Steve describes horses as having twenty legs, a xylophone, and being primarily composed of tungsten" says nothing about whether we believe a horse is actually primarily composed of tungsten. Surely one can describe the substance of a narrative without inherently stating that it must be true?Aindriahhn (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To describe (from Latin describere, descripsi, descriptum) means to write down from a real source. The source can be another work, in which case it means to create a copy or derivation, or an observation of something that exists or happens, in which case it means to give an account. The Genesis text neither tells about what another source has stated nor does it record what anybody has observed. Genesis is a myth of the beginning of the world by divine incantation. But that is not a description. At best it is a hypothesis that yet lacks confirmation and at worst it is just made up. Given the known history of the ANE and the history of Judaism we all know which is more likely. Stating that the Genesis is a description of the creation of the world is plain wrong. Genesis does not describe the expansion of the early universe, colloquially and derogatorily called "big bang", does it? ≡ CUSH ≡ 07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cush, the etymological argument you are making is WP:OR. In current English, the language we use here at Wikipedia, describe usually means something like - to represent or give an account of in words (Merriam Webster). Any account, given in words, is by definition subjective. It is by definition representative only of the POV of the creator of the description. You're simply wrong here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to the lead

In December of 2010, a change has been made to the lead that replaced "As a creation myth it is markedly similar to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths" with "It shares features with several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths". I do believe this change was made against consensus, as individual editors have been trying to introduce it for some time.

• In August 2010, an IP made the change and was promptly reverted and asked to take it to the talk page (1).
• In November 2010 the exact change was made again by a registered user—surrounded by minor style and reference edits—this time with the edit summary 'harv ref format' (2). Griswaldo reverted it, writing "please discuss this change on the talk page first ... this language came out of some rather intense arguments I'd rather not have again".
• In December, 2010 it finally stuck on December 1st, as a 'style edit' (3).

After reading the talk archives, I can see that there is very tenuous consensus about anything in this article. In the discussion about the "myth" to "narrative" name change, Griswaldo wrote "Please note that the discussion is not about removing the term "myth" from the main article. No one is suggesting that we stop calling it a creation myth in the entry, even in the open lines of the introductory paragraph. It is a discussion about the title only." However, that's exactly what happened. The lead no longer specifies that this is a creation myth; at best it tangentially implies it.

• I propose, per Griswaldo's rationale, that we reinstate the mention of this narrative being a creation myth into the lead:

ex. "The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth that describes the creation of the world, as written in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible".

This change clearly defines the topic and gives the reader a jumping point for further research. Any reader concerned about the definition of 'myth' can click the link and read a succinct, accurate and unbiased explanation. If anyone feels there's a better place to include the reference to a creation myth, feel free to suggest a better way. Let's discuss. DubiousIrony ^yell 08:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly change it to something like the prior version. Let's see if it sticks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! You've obviously put in a lot of hard work into what is clearly a difficult article. Thank you DubiousIrony ^yell 21:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So far so good.Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

looks good I have no issue with it The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Overview of the creation narrative

If I may present some thoughts I have on this section, I believe this is depicting what I notice to be a common misinterpretation to the text of the 2nd chapter of Genesis. The overview describes two separate stories to the creation narrative, showing a differing order of events. While at a brief glance this may seem to be the case, I believe further observation would prove otherwise. The first book would give a chronological description of the creation narrative. This list of events actually ends at the beginning of the second book in verse 4-6 saying: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." I believe it to be important that verse 4-6 be described together as the punctuation states it as one sentence. Therefore summarizing the order of events within that one sentence. From that point, it goes on to describe in more detail the creation of man, and then the planting of the garden of Eden stating: "And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." This is obviously not descriptive of the vegetation of earth as a whole, but most likely of the garden of Eden exclusively. Now bearing in mind the horrendous execution of narrative by the author, it would only make sense that what is described after Genesis 2:6 is a recap and not a restructuring of the previous order of events. With that said, I respectively believe the 'overview' section of this article to be inaccurate based on the punctuation seemingly overlooked. I would move to edit it unless someone may enlighten me to something I may have missed.

P.S. I'm using the standard New King James version of text as my reference.

Brutalrepublic (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. Do you have a reliable secondary source to back it up? If not, I'm afraid it would be original research to include it in the article. Gabbe (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's one. It s quite a common argument IIRC. www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html ^rossnixon 03:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a secondary source alright, but is it reliable? Gabbe (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say. There are many versions of this same scripture that have the same punctuation. HNV, DBY, and WYC versions of the bible to name a few. However, many newer prints of the book punctuate this section as several different sentences. Since the debate of which versions would hold legitimate truth would be too dizzying to bother with, (although it would logically seem the more this scripture is re-translated, the less legitimate it becomes) I believe the 'overview' of the topic to be merely incomplete. I would not think it to qualify as 'original research', as in accordance to the logical interpretation of the versions I have named, this is no attempt to advance a position that the source does not, but merely understood by literary law. On the other hand, the English Standard Version would verify the current 'overview', but the King James Version is cited on the article as well. Would it be inappropriate to recognize the differing versions of the same passages in the overview? I believe this to be a significant blemish in the article because it states in a decisive matter that there are indeed two back to back, and contradicting accounts of the creation narrative. This conclusion is indeed based off of the grammar characteristics of the ESV version of the scripture. What I have are four sources of the same scripture that because of differing punctuation, come to a different conclusion not based on opinion, (I do not regard the book of Genesis as truth) but based on common literary interpretation.

Brutalrepublic (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to ignore the source you cited. It is indeed a similar argument, but not quite the point I'm getting at. However, it's obvious this site is based off of a preconceived religious bias, but their points are valid. Although, I would hesitate to use this as my source, as it is not specifically my point. Thanks for that link though.

Brutalrepublic (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Elohim is plural

While the Hebrew word elohim has the form of a plural, the verb bara is singular. It can be argued that the old reference of the word elohim was to plural gods, it can also be argued that this is some sort of honorific plural. Do we really want to get into a discussion of the various possibilities? Perhaps, but if so, shouldn't there be citations? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Other editors can explain the intricacies of Hebrew grammar far better than I can, but the basic point is that the word elohim, despite ending with that plural -im, is treated as singular. Compare, for example, English words such as "economics" and "mathematics", which are similar in that they has an -s on the end but always take singular verbs ("economics is the dismal science", not "economics are"). In short, it's not worth a mention. PiCo (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It could also be said (though not all would agree, particularly outside of Christianity) that the grammatical construct hints at trinitarianism. Agreed that it doesn't warrant mention in this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The plural form of the word is in my opinion the correct one. Taking the Book of Watchers into consideration, (claimed to be written by Enoch, Great-Grandfather of Noah, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) the scripture gives a fairly detailed layout of a divine hierarchy. Although it can be interpreted into plural gods, the scripture would more describe plural deities. As it still claims there to be one God. This seems to hold much more credibility than the trinitarianism theory, and I may presumptuous in saying so, but I've long assumed the reason of the Book of Watchers being removed from biblical scripture was because it contradicted the trinitarianism agenda. Brutalrepublic (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not "removed from biblical scripture" - no major group has ever considered it to be canonical. Since Judaism also rejects trinitarianism and has also never included the Book of Enoch in their canon, I think your theory has some holes. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Iron age

I am puzzled. The 'composition' section clearly states that these stories date from 1000-450BC (iron-age in the middle east) yet when I try to put this into the lead to give some form of context, I am reverted. Why? Abtract (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have marked those statements as needing a source as well. There is no "general consensus", and there is an enormously wide gap between secular or liberal scholars and evangelical scholars. The date of the writing is not notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're reverted because the date of composition isn't all that important - not important enough for the first sentence or even the first para. If you have an interest in who wrote it, and when, and why, go to the Bibliography section at the bottom of the article and look around. I could tell you my understand (and Maher etc could tell you his), but it's best that you read the experts. PiCo (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Where, when and by whom sets the context and assist understanding ... it should be in the lead imho. I must confess I assumed the body of the article was 'correct'; when it is, the lead should include a summary of this useful context. Abtract (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We should put it in only when we have a source (or ideally multiple sources) which explicitly state that it was authored in the Iron Age. If we have no source which deigns it important enough to state, then it isn't our job to increase its importance. Further, it could be seen as a violation of WP:SYN if there's not general agreement on when it was authored, or what periods it would fall under.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that I know that the article itself is in doubt over dates etc, I am in no rush. All I am saying is that 'who when and where' is important context and should be in the lead when it is known. Abtract (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Preparation" vs. "Creation"

User:Louisstar made some bold edits, reversing a long history of referring to God's acts in Genesis 1 and 2 as "creation", replacing that notion with "preparing". If there is sufficient evidence that the most reliable sources use this type of language, then I'm willing to accept that kind of change, but I think it should be discussed first. HokieRNB 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with HokieRNB. Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but the problem arises when you ask for "reliable sources" to back this up. The topic being discussed here is what the words of Genesis actually say. The purpose of this article should be to express in an unbiased manner what the account is actually expressing. If we rely on external sources, then we're invariably going to get biased opinions (i.e. atheistic views vs. theistic ones). The best way to explain the Genesis creation account is to describe exactly what it says. Two of the key words that should be focused on when describing the Genesis account are the words "create" and "make". In the Genesis account, the word "create" is only used in certain instances (like 1:1). It is not used when describing the events of the 4th "day" (which is misunderstood by many). In that case (1:16), the word used is "make", not "create". In Hebrew, there is a very clear distinction between "creating" something and "making" it. When it says that God "makes" the sun/moon/stars, it's referring to God causing those celestial bodies to give light to the earth. Those bodies already existed when they were created in 1:1 (part of "the heavens"). This is backed up by the fact that Genesis 2:4 refers to the collective "heavens" as including sun, moon, and stars. So again, my purpose in making those edits was to help express exactly what is being described in Genesis, not what biased religions and atheists think it says. --Louisstar (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've explained further my problems with this article in the new section below called "Problems With This Article". --Louisstar (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems With This Article

This article has a ton of issues that need to be addressed. The purpose of this article should be to explain what the Genesis account says, without bias and without the assumptions often expressed by atheists and religionists. Here are the problems:

• Using the word "world" to describe what is being created is linguistically and contextually incorrect. The primary dictionary definitions of "world" refer to the earth and the people on it. Although some dictionaries offer "universe" as a secondary meaning, this is not something that casual readers will understand, so it's misleading to say that the Genesis account describes the creation of the "world". In Biblical Hebrew, word for "world" first appears in 1 Samuel 2:8, and does not occur in Genesis chapters 1-2. Thus, it's more accurate to say "creation of the universe" or "creation of the physical heavens and earth and the things on the earth", or something similar. The word "world" does not communicate correctly what the Genesis account is saying.

• When describing what is "created", there needs to be a clear distinction made between what God "creates" and what he "makes". The words "create" and "make" are not used interchangeably in the Genesis account. The Hebrew word "create" is referring to raw creation, whereas "make" is referring to an action that prepares something for a specific purpose. This can be seen by just doing a simple word study of the two Hebrew words being used. So when 1:16 says that "God made the two lights", in Hebrew it's the same as saying "God caused the two lights to have a purpose", or similar.

• One major feature of this article is the idea that there are two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The primary differences pointed out with respects to the second account are the fact that the animals (2:19) and vegetation and trees (Genesis 2:5-9) are created after man. The Genesis account uses two verb tenses: Perfect and imperfect. The verb "created" in 1:1 is in the perfect tense, meaning that the act of creation was definitely started and finished. By contrast, the verb phrase "Let there be light" in 1:3 is in the imperfect state, implying that the appearance of light was already in progress, and was not yet complete. With that basic understanding of the two verb tenses used in Genesis, then a proper understanding of Genesis 2:19 can be seen. In Genesis 2:19, when the Hebrew says that God "formed", the verb "formed" is in the imperfect tense. This means that the action being described does not necessarily have a definite beginning or ending. That is, it's expressing something that is in progress, but is not necessarily completed. Thus, the statement in 2:19 that seems to say that God made the animals after man already existed is now better understood. Since the verb is expressing progressive action with no specified beginning (i.e. the imperfect tense), then the action of creating the animals could very well have taken place prior to the creation of man, as expressed in chapter 1. On the other hand, the perceived problem of the vegetation and trees appearing after man is resolved by the fact that Genesis 2:5-9 does not refer to "creating" or even "making" vegetation and trees. These verses simply say that the vegetation/trees are in the process of growing. Is it not logical to conclude that although Genesis 1 refers to the creation of vegetation and trees, Genesis 2 is now discussing their growth, which would obviously be something continuous? Again, since the Hebrew word "create" is not used in 2:5-9, and since the word "grew" is in the imperfect tense, it is inaccurate to refer to this as a separate "creation" narrative.

• One final point (which may not belong in this article) is the fact that the seventh "day" is not followed by the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning", as is the case with the first six days. Further, when the Hebrew says that God "rested" on the seventh day, the verb "rested" is in the imperfect tense, once again denoting continuous action, with no specified ending. Due to these two linguistic and contextual facts, it cannot be stated for certain that the seventh day had ended, since the account never actually says that it does (contrary to what is stated of the other six days). --Louisstar (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While I am largely sympathetic with what you have to say, most editors here will consider what you are doing as Original Research. You need to know that WP is NOT about TRUTH. It is only about what can be proved from reliable sources. And, for most editors here, most any source that is Christian or published by a Christian organization is automatically an unreliable source. Given that, you can figure out for yourself how NPOV WP is. Allenroyboy (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)