Talk:Adam and Eve/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

From 2004

Editing is needed! No it isn't!

The latter part of this article is written from a creationist point of view. NPOV editing is needed! The Anome

No, it isn't. See NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions. gracefool 10:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And the tree of that forbidden fruit

Does somebody have an explanation of why the forbidden fruit is depicted as an apple? -- Error

my guess is, that "apple" is sometimes used generically to mean "fruit." Thus, the French word for potato is "apple of the ground" and I think people used to call tomatoes "love apples" -- in these examples you would do just as well reading "apple" as fruit. But I am speculating. One thing is certain: the Bible doesn't call it an apple! Slrubenstein

one more thing, thet apple is coming for four season,

Tomato was "golden apple" in Italian. I wonder when the tradition started. -- Error

I guess if King James et al. had been Samoan, it might have been a pineapple. Or if they'd been Greek, a pomegranate.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 03:41 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Apple" is old english for "fruit" in general (just like "deer" originally meant any kind of animal), I guess its the same in other european languages. --User talk:FDuffy 17:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

<font|big>WRONG Jim62sch 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall a legend or tale telling that the tree of knowledge later became the tree from which the wood for the Holy Cross was cut. Do you remmber? -- Error

The Latin word "malus" means either "evil" or "apple". It's just a stupid Latin pun, which became pseudo-theology. 71.227.164.50 09:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Being fruitful and mutliplying

"Evidences of varied kinds are abundant in proving the unity of the human race."

As long as we're talking evidence, the vast majority points to a common ancestral species, not two humans of the names Adam and Eve. This sentence is biased at worst and misleading at best.

A difficult text

Adam in Islam: Adam was sent to Earth to live in the Garden of Eden, and was soon joined by Eve. They were allowed to live as they pleased there, but not to eat from a certain tree and taste its fruit. However, they both eventually succumbed to the temptation of Satan, and were sent to Earth.

How is this supposed to be understood? Andres 19:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Winston Churchill, his place in Eden

Upon visiting the website cited for the Winston Churchill fact, there is only a vague reference and there doesn't seem to be any actual family tree. I'll admit I spent a limited amount of time there, but even then, the website is by no means a legitimate basis for this information. Furthermore, Adam is a mythical character, and whether or not he existed is debatable. If Adam did actually exist and was the first man, this piece of information is utterly useless. As anyone who is human would be related to him. Why Winston Churchill would be specified is beyond me. Just another note; Citing Adam as a real person fails to take a neutral point of view, as it acknowledges Adam as a real person and the origin of all humans, which is a religious view. 4/22/04 - MichaelD

Adam the First

Strictly speaking, Genesis does not state that Adam was the first man. This is an interpretation of what is stated. Genesis 1 states that that god created man. In Genesis 2, God creates Adam from the dust of the earth, but does not state that he was the first man. Elsewhere in the Bible, it is stated that Adam was the first man, it just isn't in Genesis. Reading Genesis 2 as if Adam were not the first man makes more sense than assuming that he were. 23:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not true The Genesis 2 account of Adam explicitly says "there was no man to work the ground (v.5)"

BS!!! it says that no one was tilling the ground yet, not that there was no man period!!!!

and then goes on to talk about the creation of Adam. Note that only the translations differentiate between "the man" and "Adam." The Hebrew word for "the man" IS "adam" and translations eventually use that as his name, usually in ch 3 v 17.

MORE BS!!!! Adam was the first to til the "ground" which in Hebrew is "Adamah". His name is not an indication of being the first "man" but the first man to work/till the "ground." There is MASSIVE support in the Bible to suggest that man existed before Adam.--Endasil 15:02 EST 4 April 2006

Man is created at least twice in Genesis. First as male and female in the image of God -Genesis 1.27. This first creation of male and female is nameless, not referring to the man as Adam(man) but male. Then in Genesis 2.7 man/Adam was formed alone, with woman not coming along until Genesis 2.21-23. Also in the original Hebrew Elohim (God) created male and female in the image of God, while Yahweh (Lord) created Adam to till his garden (Genesis 2.15). There is scholarship to suggest these are two different Gods from older stories combined in Genesis.

Guys the Hebrew actually says Gen 2:5 וכל שׂיח השׂדה טרם יהיה בארץ וכל־עשׂב השׂדה טרם יצמח כי לא המטיר יהוה אלהים על־הארץ ואדם אין לעבד את־האדמה׃

which means: "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground." There was no man before Adam! Also, scholarly concensus doesnt say there are 2 Gods but there are two sources, yahweh souce and elohim source and that these have been used, howevern there are texts predating genesis with th phrase יהוה אלהים in. literally meaning "The Lord God". I suggest that you Learn Hebrew before arguing in future

"Man is created twice...There is scholarship to suggest these are two different Gods from older stories combined in Genesis..." That would be questionable scholarship. More commonly acceptable scholarship recognizes that the "two" accounts are merely a Hebrew scheme for rhyme of thought. It occurs repeatedly in the Tanakh, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. We also recognize the liturgical, responsatory construction of the account. An American popular example of such a rhyme would be "Great taste. Less filling." The two statements are symbiotic, and again meant for a "liturgical, responsatory" dialog. They are not necessarily from two different sources.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_and_Eve#two_accounts

--Ep9206 19:00 EST 4 August 2006

image source

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

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Additions?

Hi, I'm new to this, I want to add some links to this page, ... for adam and eve's children ie cain able and seth how would I go about doing this? the pages for cain, able and seth already exist.

Cheers. Murray.

Eve=snake

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

I understand the cognate is Heywa = Snake. The source is "The Encyclopedia of Women's Myths and Secrets".

Torah?

This article mentions the Bible, but doesn't appear to mention the Torah. Should this be added near the top of the article? -- User:Tdoyle 04:25, 23 June 2005

I have added the Torah to the article (you could have as well). Please remember to sign your entries. --Blainster 18:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Aramaic words

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

Chavo

Why in the earth does Chavo redirects here? --Abu Badali 03:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Chavo is Ashkenazic pronunciation of the Hebrew for "Eve".

But who cares? I suppose lots of people looking for another Chavo end up here.

Adam-centric, but Eve redirects here

I was looking for information about Eve, but was redirected here, with titles like "Adam in Islam" etc and very little about Eve. Either there should be at least a section about Eve, or she should get her own article. 132.175.9.1 19:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

See (Women in Islam)--220.238.2.146 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes we need a separate entry for Eve as this is takes a patriarchal bias.John D. Croft 07:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Following up on my suggestion I have created a new separate article on Eve, and redirected enquiries there.John D. Croft 15:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve- Sumerian Story

The story of Adam and Eve is an old Sumerian Story about evolution. The explanation is when humans lived in innocence like animals, they lived in harmony with everything around them. It was a veritible paradise...a garden of plenty and peace. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil is a metaphor for the development of our humanity and coming to consciousness. After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they became aware of themselves as humans and were then conscious of Good and Evil. They were no longer innocent, thus had forced themselves out of the paradise of Eden.

I like it, just like Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. gmrepoli

If Adam and Eve were White, how come I am Black?

Well, obvously it must first be pointed out that the story of Adam and Eve is exactly that - it is a religious myth and/or methaphor. The first modern humans will actually have been black, having evolved in Africa. Please read aticles related to evolution for a detailed account of how humans moving out of Africa evolved to suit their environment.

Saccerzd 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That would not be evolution. That would be mutation or adaptation. Evolution would imply a new species, not just a new breed. The other suppositions mentioned are even further off.--Ep9206 19:30 EST, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution refers not just to the appearance of new species, but also to the evolution of new adaptations within species. Besides Homo sapiens sapiens, is considered to have been a new species, evolving from African Homo ancestor. John D. Croft 07:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

--That's a pretty big supposition there, assuming that since people evolved in Africa they must have been black. Besides, what you just stated is your own personal opinion, try to be objective.(Cabin Tom 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

It is a fair supposition, especially since it seems that the Bushmen of South Africa are the closest living group to our common human ancestor, and the black pigment melanin confers protection against possible skin cancers in a tropical environment. John D. Croft 07:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

--220.238.2.146 09:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC) If Adam and Eve were white and you are black and I am white and the two of them begat only three male offspring, how come either of us are here?

- where does it say they were white? (Cabin Tom 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Where does it say that Adam and Eve were white?-[[User:Agoodperson]

It does not say that Adam and Eve were white. --Ep9206 19:30 EST, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve did not only have three sons. Genesis 5:4 states Adam "begat sons and daughters."

- Being black comes from melanin in your skin, and most likely developed over time to aid people in constantly sunny areas, So that point is useless. Why is nobody talking about the fact that if Adam and Eve were the only humans, then for the species to continue, their children would have had to have mated, and the entire human race would be inbred, and based on incest. Thus incest is right.

- The entire race being inbred sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. --Epsilonnull 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And that really is no problem, especially prior to the Flood, which is way after the Fall. With the Fall, all of Creation goes into rapid decay. Everything has more and more decay consequences. Decay (like genetic decay which is now a proven fact) would also cause the beginning and/or end of successful mutations. Also note that the Mosaic Laws do not occur until well after the Flood.--Ep9206 19:30 EST, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Although there is evidence for a Population bottleneck in human evolution, estimated at about 74,000 years ago (possibly associated with the Lake Toba eruption, this would seem to indicate that there was only 15,000 humans left on Earth, not two (as suggested in Genesis), and not eight (Noah, his wife, his sons, Ham, Shem and Japeth) and their wives and/or possible children), as Biblical evidence suggests. We must look for explanations to the contex of these stories and realise that they were given as "muthos" (true explanations) of the "Iron Age" civilisations. Taking them out of this context is an act of cultural violence. John D. Croft 08:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

- Does anybody ever think about the possibility that God just created more people? Just because Adam and Eve were created first, didn't mean they were the only ones.

Where does it say that God created more people in the Bible? The evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence. John D. Croft 08:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

- No, go with the inbreeding. Look around. It makes sense. --Epsilonnull 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam now redirects to here

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

Snake

"In Aramaic (חיויה,חיווי,xywy)— means snake."

I have taken this out of the article because as it stands, since I'm not that good at reading Aramaic script, it seems unconnected to anything. If anyone can explain it, feel free to add it back in (with the explanation).

Solved it - its Aramaic for Eve - Havva - given in two different spellings (and "xywy" ???) .

--User talk:FDuffy 17:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"xywy" appears to be one way of transliterating חיוי... (I'm not sure who added this) ፈቃደ 19:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

two accounts

not everyone believes there are two accounts. many believe that the story zooms in slowly to increasing detail. why not try npov and allow for difference of opinion? Ungtss 20:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

that's splitting hairs. If you tell two accounts in sequence, will it be one or two accounts? Anybody must agree creation is mentioned twice. You can disagree whether that makes it "two accounts" or just "rhetorical or epic repetition". "increasing detail" isn't right, though, since there are details in the first account that are not in the second, and vice versa. dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

the view of many is that the first section describes the creation at a macro-scale, and the second section describes the creation of humanity in detail. they argue that the two sections are "chaptered," and totally factually consistent. i can provide phd sources for this view if you like. Ungtss 20:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I deliberately wrote that paragraph to take account of that. It essentially states "there are two accounts, but opinions differ whether they are consistent accounts by the same individual representing different viewpoints [e.g. Adam's vs. God's or macro. vs. micro.], or whether this is not the case". The word chapter can't really be used since the first bit ends at 2:3 rather than 2:0, and would lead to confusion. Does the word account suggest something different to you? --User talk:FDuffy 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly it. To me, the word "Account" implies two different stories. The Kenneth Kitchen types don't see it that way. They see it as one single story, covering old ground with increasing detail as it progresses. Ungtss 21:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Ungtss... Not everyone believes there are two accounts, that is total POV to state unequivocally that there are. ፈቃደ 20:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh already!!!! If all of you continue to fight over which minor rephrasing of this passage should be used in this article one minute more, I will add it to the list at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. It appears to me that all of you are arguing over which set of weasel words should be used here -- & the only answer is none of them.

Yes, some people think that there are more than one account of creation in Genesis. And some people think that there is only one. And some people think Genesis is all fiction, a story equivalent to "Jack & the Beanstalk" or Nabokov's Lolita. And some people are reading this exact exchange this very minute, wondering what gang of certifiably mental people are editting this article, & decide that their time is better spent in a Yahoo forum.

Will one of you take the time to find the name, & a good publication, of a leading scholar who holds the various POVs, to wit:

• Who endorses the theory that there are 2 distinct stories of creation in Genesis, based on the documentary hypothesis.
• Who argues against this POV -- & why. If there are more than one theory in competition with documentary hypothesis, then explain what they are.

I'd really expect that if this is such an important point, it is far better to give a name than to say "some people think". Wetman has a rant on his user page about phrases like "legend states" or "considered by many". Read that page & think about what he wrote there. I may not agree with everything he writes, but I can't write what he has any better. -- llywrch 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Lolita is a better story, a bit less pornographic though. Anyway, it isn't really a question of the documentary hypothesis. There are 2 distinct accounts simply at face reading - it describes the creation of man, plants, women, animals, etc. twice, i.e. at two seperate locations. It is simply a fact that there are two descriptions of creation, i.e. two seperate occurances. The documentary hypothesis says that different people wrote it, at different times, in different books, which someone later stuck together. Others, mostly creationists, state that the same person (usually Moses) wrote it, at the same time, in the same book, writing it twice to present two different perspectives, or for other reasons of literary style.

I am at a loss to see why Ungtss is trying to claim that there is only one account - that the creation of man is only described once, that the creation of plants is only described once, etc. - despite the blatent evidence to the contrary - that there are two seperate occurances for each of these, once within 1:1-2:3 and once within 2:4-3:1. My citation for this is the bible itself, specifically Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-3:1. --User talk:FDuffy 20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, in response to Llywrch's request for leading (living) scholars endorsing the Documentary Hypothesis that there are 2 different accounts:

Martin Noth

Richard Elliot Friedman

Israel Finkelstein

Neil Asher Silberman

Elaine Pagels (the most relevant book being Adam, Eve, and the Serpent)

The vatican (I wouldn't exactly call the vatican a leading scholar but it is a significant endorsement of the position)

In addition, a very major reference, the Midrash, and Talmud, works listing the opinions of hundreds of leading Rabbis in classical times, hold that there are 2 seperate creations of woman, and that these 2 occurances were 2 seperate distinct women, i.e. Lilith first, then Eve.

The academic that is notably cited by creationists to be opposed to the documentary hypothesis, that I can think of, is Kenneth Kitchen. But he is not a biblical scholar, but an egyptologist, so his opinion on the matter is not a scholarly opinion but a personal one, tinged heavily by the fact he is a fundamentalist christian. And even he considers there to be 2 accounts, even if he claims they were written by the same person, at the same time, concerning the same event.

Despite all of this, my phrasing of the paragraph is simply that there are 2 accounts, not whether they are different or the same.

--User talk:FDuffy 12:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to make a new section but instead I'll add it here. Are there really two creation accounts in the bible? To me, it seems to say that God created the world, created the animals, and then created men and women. Then it says he created a garden in eden and Adam from mud. Does it ever actually say Adam is the first man? Couldn't Adam just be a man created by God to live in the Garden in Eden. This would explain the two stories and where Cain found his wife after he left. There could have already been people created by God and then Adam was created seperately. - Kuzain 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter where Cain found a wife because there is no real record of when he found the wife. Adam and Eve were putting out offspring and more lineage for at least 130 years. It is more than plausible, and even expected, that everybody in Genesis 3-5 was well inbred.

Legitimate scholarship recognizes that the "two" accounts are merely a Hebrew scheme for rhyme of thought. It occurs repeatedly in the Tanakh, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. We also recognize the liturgical, responsatory construction of the account. An American popular example of such a rhyme would be "Great taste. Less filling." The two statements are symbiotic, and again meant for a "liturgical, responsatory" dialog. They are not contradictory. They reinforce each other by discussing the same exact matter. They are not necessarily from two different sources. --Ep9206 19:30 EST 4 August 2006

May I share a bit of insight. For years I had been confused while reading the creation of Adam and/or man in the first two chapters of Genesis. There are two trains of thought; the six creation days (Genesis chapter 1) and the creation of Adam (Genesis Chapter 2). It appears that both chapters refer to the same creation event. I believe that the Judeo-Christian Bible is all true; therefore I began to place all events into sequential order. As a result both chapters make logical sense. The condition of the earth (before any vegetation is brought forth)is developed in Genesis 2:4 - 2:24. The message is that before God planted anything in the ground, God made Adam, the animals and then Eve and they were meant to dwell in an eternal place, (the garden of Eden where they had access to the tree of eternal life). By inserting the complete Adam/Eve story in the creation story; both chapters merge into one complete story. The following is a short version of my findings:

Day 1 God made Light, it is not a natural light, but an eternal light, as described in the book of Revelations; according to the Christian Bible, Revelation 21:23 & Rev 22:5. Day 2 God made heaven, Day 3 God separates waters that belong in heaven from waters that are below heaven. Then God separates from the water below heaven: (since there is no earth at this point) from the dry land. God calls the waters seas and land he calls earth. At the end of day 3 there is light, heaven and earth. Note there are no planets, stars, sun nor moon until day 4 of creation.

During day 3 of creation between Genesis 1:10 and 1:11 God appears to have done more on day three than is recognized by the casual reader. If one were to examine both stories, Adam and the garden of Eden is sequentially the firstt thing God puts on the earth. Before God plants vegetation He makes Adam. By inserting Gensis 2:4-24 between Genesis 1:10 and 1:11 both texts are bridged into a complete story. I am not a bible scholar, nor do I know Hebrew, but I do see that not only are both chapters Genesis 1 and 2 a story within a story, but run parallel to each other. For those who believe in the JudeoChristian Bible, this has not been an established theory.

It would be almost impossible for both faiths to agree on this hypothesis even though both faith communities have the same creation account at the beginning of their bible. An interesting fact besides the dispute of Jesus as being the Messiah: the Jewish faith believe that Genesis 1:26 God says, "Let us," is God referring to angels however the Christian faith community believe that God is referring to the Messiah and the Holy Spirit. Both faiths share Genesis creation story up to Malachi of the Tanakh and the Old Testament; but both faiths disagree on the word "us" in Genesis 1:26. As a result the literary world is left to take the possible ambiguity out of Genesis 1 & 2 by logic.

To continue in the creation process, on day 4 God creates the sun moon and stars or planets. On day 5 He creates birds and fish, and on day 6 He creates animals, creeping things and finally man.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but this logical placement of scripture not only makes the creation account palatable, it also makes more sense.grdenlite

Article Split?

Why is Adam and Eve one article? Shouldn't there be two articles, one for each person, with one main one that explains their relationship? joturner 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone knows who they were, the interesting part is the story, and cultural affects of it, which is the same. If we split the article into two, we would get two articles, which only differ in the names.

There is very little difference between what would be at Adam, and what would be at Eve. It would leave the major aspect of them split between two places, and duplicated excessively. It would be like splitting Rapunzel's hair (story) into Rapunzel (individual), Dame Gothel, Rapunzel's prince, and Rapunzel's tower. --User talk:FDuffy 15:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

JudeoChristian and Islam Combined

I very much disagree that this article has combined the JudeoChristian tradition and Islamic tradition. One, the two traditions just plain disagree. Eg, in the Qur'an Adam and Eve lived in Heaven, not Eden. Second, there is no clarification as to which

Combining the Jewish and Christian views are fine because they both believe in the Torah, but Muslims believe the Torah was corrupted and thus unreliable. The only difference between the Jewish and Christian is that the New Testament identifies the serpent as Satan where many (at least) Jews do not.

Also, whatever the name of the tradition that includes lillith should be edited into a sub section or another article. To weave her into every heading paints a deceptive picture of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs because very few believe in her.

We should not act as if different traditions are adding to a fuller understading of the story like different history books on the same event. They do not. Rather, they are several different beliefs. They should be respected individually, not lumped as a single set of contradicting ideas.

I'm not familiar with the history of the article, but it seems it's struggled a bit organizationally. I recommend a separate article for Islamic beliefs, Adam and Hawwa, after Eve's Arabic name, and moving the Talmud references to its own section(s) within Adam and Eve. Lillith has her own article and that article should be referenced, not copied here.

Before I make major changes, what are others' thoughts? JBJ830726 07:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

there can be a separate "Islam" section; historically, the Quran is just a continuation of the tradition of the Torah, of course with modifications. Many Christians believe that the Torah is a collection of 7th century BC Isrealite tales and traditions, not any more or less "corrupted" than the Quran (which Christians will of course consider just a fanciful rehash of biblical tradition authored by Muhammad). We should give an overview of the various traditions, Torah, Christian, Muslim, medieval Jewish (Lilith), etc., regardless of what is "believed" by how many people; We can do a section specifically about people who literally believe in the Torah and nothing else, but the scope of the article certaily goes beyond that. From an NPOV perspective, I don't see how the Quran or the Ben Sira alphabet should get any less coverage. We can, of course, easily have sub-articles, specifically about Islam or Young-Earth Creationists, as long as they are summarized and linked from this article. I would argue, otoh, that discussion of Y-Adam and X-Eve are offtopic here. They are just good-naturedly termed after the Genesis characters, but have no topical relation; at best, they should go to the "See also" section. dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so organizationally, we should not have a section entitled "The life of Adam (and Eve)", but sort the article by tradition;

• Torah / Hebrew Bible
• Mythological connections (Sumer)
• later Jewish tradition (Ben Sira, Apocalypse of Moses)
• Christian theology
• Islam
• Historicity/Creationist debate
• Cultural influence (Renaissance and Modern)

dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a very good start. I like having the different beliefs chronologically. What do you think about Lilith? I noticed there's as much stuff on her here as on her own page! I think Y-Adam and X-Eve can stay but with brevity, as they have their own pages. They show that science does not support a single couple beginning the entire human race. I don't understand what Creationism has to do with this, except that they are one of several groups supporting historicity.

I think both the Torah and Qur'anic versions of the narrative should be given separate pages and referenced here since both can become quite large in the future and this is a very long article already. I also think the Sumerian myth should stay under Historicity. Perhaps that too should be given its own page as much of the content does not pertain to Adam and Eve and it appears someone looking for it via Mesopotamian mythology would never think to look here. So it could look like this:

• Torah narrative (brief w reference)
• later Jewish tradition (Ben Sira, Apocalypse of Moses)
• Christian theology
• Islam narrative (brief w reference)
• Historicity/Creationist debate

• Mythological connections (Sumer)

• Cultural influence (Renaissance and Modern)

--JBJ830726 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of separating out the various traditions, as the current method of dealing with the idea that the Adam gets created before Eve may work in some traditions but not in others. For example the Gnostic tradition has Adamas as a conjoint anthropogynous being separated into Adam and Eve.

Because the gnostic and Nag Hamadi texts have a separate tale of the creation of Adam and Eve, I think the true subheadings should be as follows

• Torah narrative (brief w reference)
• later Jewish tradition (Ben Sira, Apocalypse of Moses)
• Gnostic Traditions of Adam and Eve (brief and reference)
• Christian theology
• Manichaean and other Heterodox Traditions of Adam and Eve (eg Bogomils, Cathars etc) (brief and reference)
• Islam narrative (brief w reference)
• Historicity/Creationist debate (brief and reference)

• Mythological connections (Sumer)

• Cultural influence (Renaissance and Modern)

The various traditions need not duplicate those parts of the story in which they are the same as the Torah account, although it would be useful to know about points of convergence and points of departure.

John D. Croft 03:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As people will see I have teased out the differences between the Torah account, Christian Accounts, Gnostic Traditions and Islamic Traditions to the best of my abaility, in the light of the discussion above. In shuffling what people have written I have attempted not to change or re-write excessively. The article is still too long for Wikipedia and could perhaps be split, but I don't know where.

What do people now think?

Regards John D. Croft 22:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted section Vedic (Hindu) Connection

I deleted this section as it's not based on scholarship - the ideas in it are purest nonsense. PiCo 07:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What are your credentials may I ask? What schlolarship. Does the Mundakopisad Upanishad(Shruti Scriptures) not exist? If it does exist I suggest you read it. The story told in them is an exact mirror of the tale of Adam and Eve I suggest you look into this before deleting. If you claim to be a scholar then I suggest you investigate the Mundakopisad Upanishad. I will leave the message here for comment by scholars."A vedic story told in Mundakopanisad (Vedic text) refers to two birds pearched on a Pippala (Ficus religiosa) tree. One eats the fruit while the other watches, the one who eats fruit represents the individual self "Jiva" because it has sensual pleasure(taste) the second bird does not eat(denies the senses) and represents the Supreme Reality "Atman" sanskrit. They are both on the same "tree of knowledge" this symbolises the one body. In the Bible "Jiva" becomes Eve "Atman" becomes Adam and Pippala becomes apple. This philosophical explanation for the origin Adam and Eve where Eve incurs sin for eating the fruit. "Jiva" in sanskrit means "life" could also be the origins of the word "live". In short only the complete control of the five senses leads to the Supreme Reality or God whereas sensual pleasure incurs ultimate unhappyness or sin. This theme runs through all the worlds main religions."

Do you need scholarship to recognise arrant nonsense? You suggest that the allegorical meaning of the A&E story equates to the MU story, but this isn't true: Eve does not represent the individual self, Adam does not represent the atman, the tree does not symbolise or represent the human corpus, and the story is not the need to control the senses. Your linguistic analysis is even more laughable: "jiva" is not the origin of either the Hebrew "Eve" or the English "live", the idea is a piece of psudo folk etymology with no foundation at all. If you put this rubbish back on the main page I'll cheerfully delete it. (P.s., please sign your edits with four tildes). PiCo 20:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to the basic structure Two creatures, a tree,a fruit, God,and "sin", this is worth investigating. Sorry I don't know what tildes are.

(Added an indent to your post to keep it clear who's posting what).

I don't see the resemblances that you claim to see. 2 creatures - but in one they're two birds, in the other they'er not just 2 humans, but the very first humans (so that the real parallel wouldn't be with the MU, but with Manu). A tree and its fruit - but trees and fruit are universal, and it's hardly surprising that people weave them into stories. God - but Atman isn't any kind of god, Atman in a philosophical concept, the world-spirit. (Vishnu, Ram and Krishna are gods, but Atman is not). Sin - I see no reference to sin in the MU, I see a reference to the need to recognise that the world is illusion and that sense-impressions are deceptive. In the A&E I see an allegory about the difference between man and the animals - man, unlike the animals, knows about good and evil. In short, I see no resemblance at all in the themes of the MU and the A&E story.

If you're suggesting that the A&E was influenced by the MU, or vice versa, this also is not correct. You say the word "jiva" is the origin of the English "live", which any linguist could tell you is not true; nor is "Atman" the origin of the word "Adam". Nor, for that matter, are the Upanishads part of the Vedas.

(A tilde is the symbol ~, and four of them in a row will add your name and the time and date to your posts). Thanks for info. 82.70.119.54 11:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For Jiva may be its Viva assuming a Latin origin of the Bible. If the argument is A&E were first Humans literally I have no case, but if not this worth a serious look Sanskrit is the oldest known language. As you correctly deduce I am a lay person who is studying sanskrit. 82.70.119.54 11:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bible was written in Hebrew, not Latin. Hebrew is a Semitic language, unrelated to Sanskrit, Latin and English, all of which are Indo-European. (See language families). So you'll find many - in fact the vast majority - of words in the three IE languages are related/similar - for example, Sanskrit "yoga" is the same as English "yoke", with similar meaning (a discipline, a control - for people in Sanskrit, for animals in English). Any time you came across a word in English of four letters where the last letter is an /e/, try saying it with the final /e/ pronounced as an /uh/ sound, and a Sanskrit word might suddenly pop out. The most basic words are the easiest to recognise - words for mother, father, words for the numbers, words for parts of the body.

The name given as "Eve" in English translations of the bible is something like Hawa in the original Hebrew. Eve is not very close to the real word, which means there's no point finding Sanskrit origins for Eve - Eve isn't the real name of the lady. PiCo 12:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well put, PiCo. BTW:Sanskrit is not the oldest known language, it is one of the oldest known written IE languages (Linear-B and Avestan come close) -- huge difference.

Nonetheless, while it is quite likely that a number of OT Biblical stories are adaptations of stories from other cultures, Inian culture is not among that group. Jim62sch 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Eve in the main body looks good. Eve=life82.43.152.18 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Eve—חַוָּה (Ḥavva) in Standard Hebrew, Ḥawwāh in Tiberian Hebrew, حواء (Hawwāʾ) in Arabic, ሕይዋን (Hiywan) in Geez, and Eva/Eua or Geva in Latin — means simply living one, or life. Hence these names are literal descriptions of the purported parents of humanity According to your theory you should delete this.---PiCo82.43.152.18 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit was never written it was and is sung, even today the creation of language requires, sound eg OM written word came much later. The three root languages are Sanskrit Greek and Latin all have a common source the misguided hunt for a proto Indo-Eur language is on,I would suggest to scholars that Sanskrit is the proto Indo-Eur language.82.70.119.54 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit was never written? Are you daft? What in Krishna's name is this?

Devimahatmya manuscript on palm-leaf, in an early Bhujimol script, Bihar or Nepal, 11th century.

Jim62sch 02:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

When Sanskrit was first conceived of it was in an oral form not written it was written much later82.43.152.18 12:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, just like every other language? Who'd'a thunk it? Jim62sch 21:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Sanskrit texts available today were transmitted orally for several centuries before they were written down in medieval India.82.70.119.54 11:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

New section - "Narrative"

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

Of snakes, eve and Aramaic

I'm guessing the section re eve=snake is likely in error. See this: [1]. See this too: [2]. In fact, the only link I found to support the claim was identical to the wording in this article. Unless someone comes up with much better proof -- i.e., from a middle-eastern linguistics department of a respected school, this just seems like more folk etymology gone awry. Jim62sch 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nöldeke ("Z. D. M. G." xlii. 487), following Philo ("De Agricultura Noe," § 21) and the Midrash Rabbah (ad loc.), explains the name as meaning "serpent," preserving thus the belief that all life sprang from a primeval serpent." This would be Theodore Noldeke (1836-1930), prominent German Semitic scholar. I can just picture him, big bushy beard and snuff-flecked waistcoat, staring seriously into the camera. I have a feeling, however, that more recent scholarship may have been done on the question. (The quote comes from the online Jewsih Encyclopedia).PiCo 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I want a FAR better source than that. The odds of the triliteral for both being the same is very slim -- that is not how Semitic languages work. For example, in Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc., book, read, writer, etc., have the same triliteral as they represent similar ideas. Besides, as the letter "nun" (n) in both languages represents a snake*, and Eve doesn't begin with an "n", it'd be pretty nigh on impossible.

*just like aleph = ox, and beth = house, etc. Jim62sch 10:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's gotta go? Right you are then, consider it done squire! PiCo 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this was the offending item: "In Aramaic, the spelling of the name of Eve - חיויה or חיווי - also means snake. Perhaps coincidentally, there are some examples of iconography depicting Lilith with a snake wrapped around her." Quite apart from a natural wish to defer to Jim's undoubted formidable grasp of Semitic languages, I really couldn't see the point being made by having this sentence(s) in there - the Torah was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic, so what's the relevance? PiCo 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, jeez, I wasn't even done! Here's more anyway.  ;)

Aramaic triliterals: Snake: )kdn N )kdn) 1 Syr snake; and sps N v: )espes

Aramaic triliterals: Life: byws N 1 Syr life; xyw N xywt)1 Syr,JBA life ;xyyn N 1 passim life 2 Syr salvation.

Of course, to support the purported link is this gem of scholarly hocus-pocus: [3]

Which is then rebutted by the more rational, Nun_(letter).

Excise away, my good man! Jim62sch 10:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(Reducing the indents in the name of legibility). Sorry, but I don't get the relevance of nun to the argument. Are you saying that if Eve's name meant "snake" it would start with a nun? Are you saying that because it's h-w-h (two different /h/-es I gather) and not n-w-n it can't mean snake? Wish I could recall what the Arabic for snake was. Being Arabic there's probably fifty different words for the beastie. Trilateral roots, ah yes. Like n-y-k, for example, that's a good one. Got a nun in it. Doesn't mean "snake", though. No nun should ever have a nyk. PiCo 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No nun jokes! It's all three together, of course, not just the beginning letter. Arabic snake is, I believe, Hayya. May a nun find you. Jim62sch 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone jumping pretty quickly to conclusions here with little evidence. Having more than word with the same or similar meanings is a rather common phenomenon, I'm sure you've come across it in English occasionally. Targum Onkelos, the standard Jewish Aramaic translation, translates snake in Genesis 3:1 and the rest of the story, and in Numbers 21:9, and probably elsewhere, as hivya, חויא, which is quite plausibly related etymologically to Havva, חוה. Open up any Mikraot Gedolot if you want proof.

Reorganised sections without major changes to content

I've noticed that a large amount of the existing article can be organised under the heading "Later traditions", meaning later than the account given in Genesis (i.e. the Hebrew Torah). I've tried to draw this material together in a way that clarifies the general "flow" of the article. I haven't made much major change, but I have depeted a few sentences that deal with material now included in the "Narrative" section. For comment. PiCo 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the "Sumerian connection" subsection a section in its own right and moved it to a new position - one that seems to me to be more logical in the overall flow of the article. PiCo 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you told me twice to yake it to talk and keep my pov off the page... But the Documentary Hypothesis is itself just a pov, not a proven fact... The way people go on so confident as to exactly what each alleged "source" contained, you'd think they'd found an actual copy of it laying about in their attics... Folks, this is just some 19th century "Enlightened" people who decided to pull God's Word apart because of the fact that it says YHWH in some parts and ELOHIM in others, and totally ran hog wild with it... If you look at the very top of my talk page, there is better evidence that documents really known to have existed were used as sources for Genesis, without having to invent some that never existed for explicit purposes of propagating points of view... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, sorry...I know it disputes your Bible inerrancy beliefs, but it's essentially a scientific theory that is holding up quite well.

19th century? Huh? You might wish to read up on the concept.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate you declaring your POV. Thank you, Codex. Jim62sch 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your own is no less evident from your home page. Yes, the J E D P stuff was thought up in the 19th Century, just read the article, thanks, and I was right. Also, the hypothesis is not universally accepted, and won't be until you dig up an actual copy of your J, E, D, or P. I see there are a number of scholars who dispute the whole thing, much as some people would love to keep saying it is universally accepted as "Gospel", it just isn't. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And there are scientists who dispute evolution (also a still-extant therory that started in the 19th century), the big bang and other accepted scientific theories, so what? There will always be someone who disputes any accepted theory.

BTW, the cite you found was quite good. One note: we're using standard footnoting, so the best way to put in a cite is to put {{ref|thenameoftheref}} (i.e., {{ref|orthodox}} next to the sentence in the aricle you're referencing and the save the page to see what number that becomes. Then go to the Notes section and put in {{note|thenameoftheref}} [URL of site] in the appropriate spot the so ref and note numbers match up.

Finally, as I'm agnostic/realist, I have no real POV on this other than that the article be the best that it can be, and that explanations represent majority viewpoints like the Documentary Hypothesis (which is accepted by non-dogmatic Biblical scholars and linguists). If you want to argue that the Documentary Hypothesis is incorrect, go to that article's discussion page and have a blast) Oh, I read your account re Jubilees -- interesting, but hardly supported by many (if any) scholars. Jim62sch 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is gradually improving, so there's no need to argue unnecessarily here, but I'd just like to point out in response that if you acknowledge that some scholars dispute the hypothesis, then it's a little premature to define it as "accepted". It seems kind of exclusionist, as if to pretend that the disputers don't exist or don't count, or are, if you will, "excommunicated". A hypothesis is only "accepted" by those who accept it, as long as it's all just guesswork and conjecture. BTW I too would be surprised if my view of Jubilees is supported by any scholars, since it hasn't been peer reviewed, and this isn't the place for that. That's why it's staying on my talk page. The DH article looked balanced enough to me already when I casually glanced at it, so I'm not likely to go in there and upset it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Early on in the article is a link to Textual Analysis/Documentary Hypothesis. That article, which you noted looks "balanced", begins, "documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual..." (emphasis mine), thus that only many support it means that some oppose it. As we have that link, there is no point in re-noting that fact in this article. There is a certain burden on the reader to check out linked and/or referenced notes. (BTW: I forgot to use "Nowiki" above -- the tips on how to add notes should look better now).

Likewise, I changed "Western Christianity" to "Christianity" as I see no point in creating a schism in the intro (or in the article, for that matter).

I think you misread this: "...modern textual scholarship (the documentary hypothesis) continues to analyse the story's many layers, identifying, for example, suggestive parallels with ancient Sumerian mythology." It mearly notes that the analysis has noted the parallels, so the addition of "although this is disputed" is both syntactically incorrect, and completely unecessary.

As to this edit, "Chapter 2 tells what appears to be another version of the story of the Creation. Before the plants [OMIT "and animals"] had grown, God...". It doesn't "appear to be", it is. Second, see Genesis 2:19 -- God creates the animals for Adam, after Adam is created.

I restored "pseudepigraphal" as I believe it to be the more accurate word. I realize that the only other book in this category is your beloved Jubilees, but that doesn't change the facts. Calling it deuterocanonical (second canon) is not really accurate, as it is accepted by only a minority of Christians, and at that is treated nuch like the apochrypha -- not canonical, but worth looking at. Jim62sch 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. The Ethiopian Church most definitely counts Enoch and Jubilees as among the Deuterocanon, the term "Pseudepigrapha" is reserved for those books believed to be spurious that are NOT in anyone's canon, like Jasher. Do not use POV pushing terms like Pseudepigrapha to refer to the EOC canon.

The other edits are POV pushing, I'm trying to restore NPOV. Not everyone sees things your way, not everyone agrees that they are irreconcilable accounts in Chaps. 1 and 2, it's time you realise that there more than just your own POV out there when it comes to these questions and therefore, very neutral language is absolutely required, that means it can list the various schools of thought and attribute them, but it does not appear to be taking sides or endorsing any one viewpoint . ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, you must be very careful not to attribute things to the text of Genesis that aren't there. Chap 2 says God made man BEFORE THE PLANTS HAD GROWN. It most certainly says NOTHING about "before He had made the plants and animals". That's a twisting of the actual text. You can even check it in Hebrew if you like. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the RSV (and perhaps other English translations) have deliberately twisted the Hebrew of Gen 2:4-7 to make it look like all one sentence and the same paragraph, with verse 7 beginning with a "then" clause to make it appear as if the time frame given in verse 4 applies to verse 7. That is NOT an accurate representation of the Hebrew. There is no need to resort to such mistranslations to force a contradiction, when the Hebrew has none. Even the KJV is far more accurate to the actual Hebrew here. Verses 4-6 are one sentence. Verse 7 begins a new sentence. No mention of animals in any translation, at any rate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)::Codex -- you are verging on POV vandalism. You are well-known as a POV-pusher who has created strife on many pages, so the vandalism charge will be easy to maintain.

That the Ethiopian church counts Enoch is nice: however, it is considered pseudepigraphal by the large majority of Christians -- see the Wiki article. Any other point is OR and not allowed. Your objection is understood as the result of your speaking Amharic and dedicating your page to the Lion of Judah.

See Genesis 2:18-19, and I quote for your reading and erudition pleasure: "(18)And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

(19) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." After, Codex, after.

I don't think any version of the Bible has "deliberately twisted the Hebrew" of anything. Saying so says more about yourself than it does about Biblical publishers. Jim62sch 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then I suggest you take it to Mediation. I have never once vandalised any article. Lots of people try to claim vandalism over content disputes, especially when someone calls them on their flagrant POV-pushing. NPOV means not trying to sway things to one side, as you are doing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you've been accused of POV-pushing more times than I care to mention. Besides, I recall that you noted to take it to mediation. Feel free to.Jim62sch 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments regarding the use of the offensive "pseudepigrapha" versus the NPOV "deuterocanonical" to describe The Book of Enoch are tantamount to saying, "Oriental Orthodox Churches are a minority, therefore their viewpoint isn't worth any consideration and should be excluded". We consider Enoch fully canonical and not "Apocrypha", and one of the holiest books, but we use the term Deuterocanonical when discussing it for just this very reason, to show that it is at once canonical to us, non-canonical to others. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed any adjective. Argument finished. Jim62sch 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You also seem to be forcing your own interpretation by making Gen 2:19 to contradict the rest of Genesis. That isn't the way everyone interprets it. Genesis doesn't say that God hadn't already made animals earlier that same day (the sixth day) as he made Adam; on the contrary, it says clearly that He did. Again, you are twisting it with a forced interpretation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so Beth does not follow Aleph? So God didn't note that Adam was lonely and create the animals to keep him company? This would be funny if you weren't serious. Jim62sch 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian tradition

This section is starting to look good, but I think it still needs more work. I hadn't reaised that the Orthodox church also didn't accept the doctrine of original sin - so it seems it's unique to the Western Christian tradition, the Catholic and Protestant churches. By your leave I'll do some more work on this section PiCo 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for the LDS or Judaism, the statement about the Orthodox Church is somewhat misleading. It is true that the Eastern and Western Churches have some differences regarding original sin. Nonetheless, more careful research of the subject should allow clarification of this point. The V. Rev. Antony Hughes' article, cited in the entry, uses "Ancestral Sin" almost synonymously with "Original Sin" to make the point of the difference between the East and the West - that difference being the issue of inherited guilt. The Orthodox Church, with all Christians, does believe that humans are born into sin. The difference is simiply that Orthodox teaching does not attach a sense of guilt to that fallen state. 4 Feb. 2007

Were you talking to me? Yeah, I guess that's the size of it, though there are some who would apply the "slippery slope" here, as long as it slides their way... No matter... It's about bed-time in my time zone, but, the more good editors go over and over the wording, the better and more neutral it gets, is the way it usually tends to work around here... so, you have another go, and I'll take a look at it in the morning... <Yawn> falling asleep soon, see you later! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Did a little more work on the Christian Tradition subsection. What I'm trying to do here is draw attention to the way the Adam and Eve story was developed by the early Church in ways that marked the decisive break with Judaism. That's why I moved Codex's note about Satan/serpent down to the next paragraph. PiCo 02:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Codex, fill me in on why you want this paragraph at the top of the Christian tradition section: "Some branches of Christianity fully accept the tradition of Adam and Eve as portrayed in the Bible, and although some hold various views expressed in the Pseudepigrapha, they do not accept the later Jewish Midrash." I'd rather just start with how the Christian tradition developed - how the doctrine of original sin started, the Christian attitude to women, etc. Differences between Judaism and Christianity can be built into the text, not put separately like this. PiCo 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Narrative" section

I made some edits to erconcile Codex and Jim's conflicting ideas - my basic principle was to quote direct from genesis wherever possible, thus avoiding accusations of distortion as far as possible. Another principle in this section is to state what is in each chapter of Genesis, without trying to reconcile chapters or verses or to provide explanations. This chapter is intended to provide an introduction to the contents of Genesis 1-5, as they erlate to Adam and Eve, to an ideal casual reader - one who is intelligent, curious, and potentially cmpletely uninformed about the contents of the Bible: a Hindu, for example, or a Chinese reader. Please bear that "ideal reader" in mind when editing this section. PiCo 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's starting to look better, but it's too bad you used the RSV which as I said above, totally invents a "when then" clause that is not in Hebrew in 2:4-7. Maybe the best thing would be to put that verse in the original Hebrew (I've seen this done on many articles where the translation is controversial) and then give the correct translation, not a mistranslation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Does sanity run in the family? Nothing created a when/then clause. Additionally, we are not putting a verse in Hebrew in here -- it does not belong, and given that very few people speak or read Hebrew, it would merely turn off the average reader. Jim62sch 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think putting Hebrew in the main body of the article would create too much work for "the common reader" - bearing in mind we're aiming at the level of a reader who is intelligent and curious but without background in the subject. I think it could go in a footnote if you feel this would be useful. Also, about the RSV, I was under the imperssion that the RSV was faithful to the Hebrew at the expense of the Greek - i.e., wherever there was a clash, it favours the Hebrew? Anyway, I won't fight that one - by all means find an English rtanslation that you feel is authoritative, but you'll need to be able to cite your authority. PiCo 01:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I try to avoid putting chapter and verse references in the body of the article, to avoid clutter - for the reference that you've added in the Narrative section, I'd prefer to leave it out, and let the reader follow the footnote at the end of the paragraph, which then leads to an on-line complete text of Genesis 2). PiCo 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The RSV is accurate, Codex, in his usual POV crusade is creating yet another Strawman. Jim62sch 01:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on using the RSV here? It is NOT accurate to the Hebrew. The Hebrew does NOT say "When... then..." in Gen. 2:4-7. Would you like me to paste the entire Hebrew text here and demonstrtae that the KJV is the much more accurate rendering? Or can you acyually read Hebrew? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this slightly shorter version: "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew ... the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed..." Does that distort the actual sense that the passage is conveying by too tight an ellipsis? PiCo 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the actual Hebrew text, and for those of you who don't read Hebrew, a literal English translation side-by-side. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm

Note that Verse Four is all one sentence, but the RSV inacurately makes a new paragraph start in the middle of the verse, in order to form its artificial "When... Then" clause. Please do not use the RSV to support your views, use a less controversial version. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, try reading ALL of Genesis 2, and stop creating a nonsensical strawman.

The RSV is hardly controversial. Somehow, I think using the Masoretic Text, which differs significantly from the original is a tad controversial. Jim62sch 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The only versions that could possibly be any closer to the original than the Masoretic, would have to be Septuagint, Samaritan or Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm not aware that any of those support the bizarre reading of a "when... then..." clause starting in the middle of verse four and carrying on to verse 7, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out for sure... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the forest for the trees. Here is the Septuagint cite site: [4] Jim62sch 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This dispute seems to hinge on punctuation - that on-line Hebrew version uses modern punctuation, full stops and even commas - which makes me suspect it may not be entirely faithful to the original. Any comment? PiCo 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem to have more punctuation than most Hebrew versions, which is a problem. ALso, it translates the waw in verse 7 as "then", even though waw is usually "and" , while "then" is literally "az"... But every Hebrew version I have in my possession, even the ones with no other punctuation, marks where the sentences end, and none put a full stop in the middle of verse 4, only at the end of it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I've reverted to my version, which is a minimalist one (ie., if you go with this, you don't have to chose between the two versions you're fighting over). To bring a bit of peace and sanity, please continue the discussion here until a consensus is reached. PiCo 02:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you've just reverted to the RSV, complete with the artificially contrived "when-then" clause that breaks Verse 4 into two parts, and is not supported by any ancient version. So until you can find an accurate version that is supported by the actual Hebrew (even the KJV would do) I will have to dispute this for neutrality and accuracy. The Hebrew text contains no such self-contadictions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me have another look at it. PiCo 02:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Please be extra careful to differentiate between WESTERN sexual hang-ups that are not shared by the East, OK? Don't paint them as common to all Christians, that's not true or fair. I will look at it in the morning for POV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply removed "when" from the start of the quote - left "then" further on as it's in the Hebrew. Please make sure I haven't distorted the sense by a too-tight ellipsis. (And on sexual hangups, please make comments in the Christian tradition box up above, just to keep things tidy. My interest is in the early church, the period when Christianity was breaking its ties with Judaism abnd emerging as a distinctive religion within its own traditions, rather than the way these rtaditions developed over the suceeding 2000 years - although I guess I wouldn't object if that were interesting enough to sketch in). PiCo 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I pointed out just above, there is no Hebrew word corresponding to "then" either... it has a "waw", which is a normal "and" conjunction, sometimes it gets translated as "but" or "then", but to really say "then" in terms of a timeframe, you'd need the word "az"... I'd still prefer to see a version that was more faithful to the real text than the RSV is in this passage. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ecce citationi multi in pagina; in linguis multis translationem malam non possint essere. Jim62sch 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

New information to write a summary: (A summary should be short)
The Almighty formed Adam out of the dust of the earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and have him dominion over all the lower creatures
. He created him in his own image, and having pronounced a blessing upon him, placed him in a delightful garden, that he might cultivate it, and enjoyed its fruit. At the same time, however, he gave him the following injunction: "Of the tree of knowledhe of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The first recorded exercise of Adam's power and intelligence was his giving names of the beasts of the field, and fowls in the air, which the Lord brought before him for this purpose. A short time after this, the Lord, observing that it was not good for man to be alone, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while he slept, took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh; and of the rib thus taken from man he made a woman, whom he presented to him when he awoke. Adam received her, daying: "This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man". He also called her name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
This woman, being seduced by the tempter, persuaded her husband to eat of the forbidden fruit. When called to judgment for this transgression before God, Adam blamed his wife, "whom," said he "THOU gavest me" and the woman blamed the serpent-tempter. God punished the tempter by degradation and dread, the woman by painful hopes, and a situation of submission, and the man by a life of labor and toil; of which punishment every day witnesses the fulfilment.
As their natural passions now be came irrigular, and their exposure to accidents great, God made a covering of skin for Adam and for his wife. He also expelled them from his garden, to land around it, where Adam had been made, and where was to be their future dwelling; placing at the east of the garden a flame. which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life

Taken from an encyclopedia of 1832
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=nl&vid=OCLC02236831&id=v1ga4m9vIhYC&dq=messiah+date:1700-1900&lpg=PA15&pg=PA18

reomoved surreptitiously added paragraph full of falsehoods

I removed the following paragraph because it contains too many inaccuracies and falsehoods:

"In the early centuries of the Christian era, a whole system of uniquely Christian beliefs was created from the Adam and Eve story. Christians tended to the belief that sex somehow formed the original sin; baptism was introduced to wash away the stain of hereditary sin; and the serpent that tempted Eve was interpreted to have been Satan. The story in Genesis does not even hint at any of these readings, and their observance by Christians marked the new religion's radical break from its parent."

1. Which early Christians ever stated that "sex" was the Original Sin? Sounds like something maybe Tertullian (who later defected to Montanism) or Augustine would have come up with; at any rate, it's hardly anything Christ taught, and so is questionable as a so-called "Christian teaching", early or otherwise.
2. According to the Gospels, Baptism was introduced by John the Baptist and Jesus. As Jesus said, it's a ceremony he himself performed, as an example of what he wants us to perform. It was hardly necessary for him to "wash away the stain of hereditary sin". People who understand and believe these doctrines generally take a dim view of people who don't understand or believe them, trying to explain them to us.
3. The original wording was correct. Anyone who gets that the serpent was Satan incarnate, is getting that from some source other than Scripture. This is not a "uniquely Christian belief" and should not be so described. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In pagina, ecce veritas, ecce citatio, noli argumentum inanum facere. Jim62sch 23:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, I suppose that's an improvement over making Personal Attacks accusing me of insanity; but I thought his was the English wikipedia, so if you don't respond to my points in a language I understand, I will have to remove the objectionable pov-pushing paragraph again! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Teach me to multitask. I meant to post that last. Ok, now I'm posting. Codex, when you say "removed surreptitiously added ... full of falsehoods" you are basically saying Pico and Jim are sneaky liars. Try to be more civil, would you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No KC, he's not accusing Jim of being a sneaky liar, only me. Codex, I don't take kindly to being accused of being "surreptitious" or of deliberately adding "falsehoods". For the first, I live on the other side of the world to you, and I'm going to continue doing my editing in MY daylight hours, not stay up all night to coincide with yours. As for "falsehoods", you'er welcome to tell me I'm mistaken, but please don't accuse me of lying.PiCo 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Both of you have added the paragraph, but it doesn't really matter WHO added it. it's full of falsehoods, I haven't seen any source for them or any attempt at a response to my numbered objections above in a language I can understand; and the fact that the statements in the paragraph are logically false does not imply that whoever added them is deliberately lying; I could assume good faith and suppose you just don't know any better. The statements are still factually false. I apologize for saying "surreptitious" but by that, at the time (last night), I meant that you made about ten edits that were shuffling around footnotes, and buried in their midst, you made one edit that significantly altered the content of the previous article with hardly any comment at all, as if noone might notice. But I shouldn't have assumed that was being sneaky, so again, I apologize for saying "surreptitiously". Now aside from all that, could someone please address my points 1, 2, and 3 in English, regarding the objectionable / borderline offensive paragraph that was silently added? thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To translate (loosely) the Latin: see the friggin footnotes Jim62sch 01:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look at the latest incarnation, I see you have made some effort to address my concerns. I had assumed it was a simple revert and still totally unsourced, so again, I apologize for that assumption. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Concupiscence

I'm sorry, but citing a Roman Catholic encyclopedia that might allege that some Protestants thought concupiscence was the Original Sin doesn't cut the mustard. If any Protestant or anyone else ever said such a thing, you should be able to cite exactly who it was. AFAIK No Church has ever held such a doctrine, no Church Father has, no Christian writer has, but yet you are pushing it in the article as a "uniquely Christian doctrine" which is hardly the case. That will have to be reworded, because it is simply a falsehood to call that a "uniquely Christian doctrine" when no Christians have ever even said any such thing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No Sparky, we can't find original quotes from 500 years ago, nor are we required to -- oh, wait, I get it, you're saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia is lying. How nice.

Your statement that "no Christians have ever even said any such thing" is absurd in the extreme. Not only is such a statement utterly unprovable, it has been, and remains, the belief of many Christians -- especially in the US -- that concupiscence is original sin. It does not matter if it was doctrine (although it was in early protestant churches), it merely matters that Christians believed it. Did you even bother to notice that the way I worded it implies that the belief is incorrect? Just because your church never believed something hardly means that other churches didn't. Why are these concepts so difficult for you? Try to get your head out of your religious beliefs and accept that many do not believe as you do.

OKay, so you can't actually cite WHO exactly it was that ever said concupiscence was the "Original Sin" of Aam and Eve... I see.... But you want to push this as a "Christian Doctrine".... Sorry, you'll have to do better than that.... Come on, allegations generally pointed at "the early Protestants" in A Catholic Encyclopedia are obviously suspect for POV... I want to know WHO ever said such a thing, or its uncited OR. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"For the Christian lay person, as well as for many Christian clergy and writers, original sin was (and is) linked with sex. This belief requires a form of redemption in which denial of the body with its emotions and sexual impulses is primary." Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, Edited by Vern L. Bullough and Bonnie Bullough, GARLAND PUBLISHING. INC., New York & London 1994, Garland Reference Library of Social Science (Vol. 685)[5]

"Christian understanding of sexuality has a long history. Based on a deep spirit-body dualism, Christianity developed “erotophobia”(4) and consequently identified human sexuality with sin." Sexuality as a Locus of Spirituality, Kee Boem So, M.Div., footnote 4 references Marriage and Desire. In The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Answer to the Pelagians II, translated by Roland J. Teske, S.J. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1998[6] KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Augustine Influences Christianity, from section Augustine on Limitations, Sex and Original Sin, too long to paste here.[Augustine Influences Christianity]

'Sermon for the Judson Memorial Church, March 3, 2002: Snake in the Grass - "Mankind's Original Sin is recapitulated in every sexual act, according to Augustine. If you have strong sexual feelings, well, that is simply Satan within your body, speeding you on the path to destruction. " KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"It was a favorite doctrine of the Christian father that concupiscence, or the sexual passion, was the 'original sin' of human nature." History of European Morals, pub. 1869 Vol. 2. W. E. H. Lecky (William Edward Hartpole Lecky). KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) declares that "sexuality is the Creator's ingenious way of calling people constantly out of themselves into relationship with others."", Anthony Kosnik et al. (The Catholic Theological Society of America), Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, New York: Paulist Press, 1977: 85. Cited by Labacqz and Barton in Sex in the Parish, 1991: 35.

"Fox derides his church's obsession with sex, sin and celibacy, preferring to speak of God as a pleasure-seeker and Jesus as an earthly sensualist. When reading authors like Fox, it is important to understand the doctrines of the traditional church teachings that they are lashing out at. By directly linking "original sin" with sexual intercourse initiated by Eve under the influence of Satan, second to fourth century theologians opened the door to a dreadful attitude toward sex and women." (Brown, 1988: 86). Both of the preceeding from Christianity and Sex, [7] The Family, formerly known as The History and Fundamental Beliefs of the Fellowship of Independent Missionary Communities - the family.org. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This quote doesn't connect anything with the original sin of Adam and eve... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That quote needs to be backed up by showing exactly what second to fourth century theologians made any such link, to be of any use... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding me, right? Are you being WP:dense? And no, it doesn't need to include 2nd to 4th century theologians, for if you note the wording of what you deleted, it includes no time period, "Many Christians, based on a possible misunderstanding of Augustine have tended to believe that sexual desire, concupiscence, formed the original sin". Hence you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and being tendencious for no reason other than to push your own POV. Jim62sch 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a Christian source, so it can't be a "Christian belief". It's a non Christian source making allegations about Christians. If you can't cite any Christians of any sect who said such a silly thing, you can't claim it as "a uniquely Christian belief", you can only state that it is hearsay by outsiders. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a good reference to me. The point being made is not that any particular Church Father ever said this, or that the Church ever taught it, but that Christians believe it - just like use Christmas trees without authorisation from the Church. Ok folks, I'll be off for at least a week. Codex, thank you for the aplogy. My coming absence is due entirely to travel and work, nothing more. Look forward to seeing where we've gotten to when I get back :). PiCo 00:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, if this was a Christian belief, you can cite where some Christian somewhere expressed it - ancient ot modern, in or out of the United STates - somewhere, at any time. Youcan't, all you can come up with is this nineties psychobabble from non-Christian sources. So you'll have to rewrite it to make this clear if you really wish to address the topic in the article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To beign with, your logic is a little faulty. Non-Christians can report on Christian beliefs, just as Christians can report on non-Christian beliefs. However: A Presbyterian with a Master of Divinity degree isn't Christian enough for you? "Kee Boem So, M.Div., is a graduate of Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary in Korea and currently a Ph.D. student in Theology, Ethics, and Human Sciences at the Chicago Theological Seminary. He currently writes the Mystics Stories Series in the Korean Christian Journal." Also Augustine, St. Augustine to some, isn't Christian? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you introduce it into the article, don;'t try to ppaint it as a generic Christian belief, because apart from possibly Augustine (if he was or wasn't misunderstood?) the mainstream "Christian belief" has always been what the Bible says: God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I refer you to the senhtence that YOU reverted, obviously without bothering to READ it: "Many Christians, based on a possible misunderstanding of Augustine have tended to believe that sexual desire, concupiscence, formed the original sin". Additionally, I would like you, as the person asserting that the overwhelming evidence provided isn't good enough, to explain, a.) what "mainstream Christianity" entails (i.e., does it include Protestantism? Catholicism), and b.) multiple souces to back up your claim, including something from a 2nd-4th century theologian stating what original is, and I would like to see the quote in toto, i.e., no quote mining. Jim62sch 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lecky disagrees. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If its a "Christian belief", you can find the actual quote from Augustine or whoever expressing it as such. Lecky isn't any kind of priest and has zero authority within any CHurch to set any CHurch doctrines. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, you have generated quite a lot of material that is relevant to the topic and can be used, as long as it is strictly accurate.

Many modern scholars, beginning with Lecky, have alleged that it was a belief of early or modern Christians that the Original Sin of Adam and Eve was concupiscence. Some have cited St AUgustine in this regard, perhaps through some misunderstanding. However, no actual firsthand statement to this effect has been found in any patristic writing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it was Tertullian who first used the term "original sin", and he equated it with sex, so he needs to be mentioned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Tertullian won't count for one twisted reason or another. And Codex, you asked for 2nd to 4th century, Augustine's major work, The City of God was 5th century. Jim62sch 11:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge and Split

Note that these are votes for two different proposals:

Merge from Eve (first woman)

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

Oppose as the wording in that article is inflammatory, can be seen as misogynistic and POV, and not needed in this article. Jim62sch 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Create a redirect from there to Adam and Eve page, merge any useful material, ignore any myth=fact nonsense. — Dunc|☺ 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and merge per Dunc. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and merge - most of the Eve Original Woman article is not worth keeping PiCo 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and merge simply not needed by itself. Staxringold 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Split to Adam

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

Oppose The link you added to the Islamic Adam, and the link I left to the Adam article are sufficient. I think that most editors here are losing sight of the fact that roughly 50% of the world does not believe in Abrahamic religions. They need to read a story that is as factual as possible. Jim62sch 11:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, per Joturner... BTW It is patently absurd for those who openly declare their hostility to Abrahamic religions, to attempt to dictate to "most editors" that an article about a story specifically from Abrahamic religions, be tailored to cater to followers of other belief systems. Of course the article must be factual, but "factual" does not mean a one sided attack on every single element of belief. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Support I support the creation of another page entilted Adam, the name Adam. --GorillazFanAdam 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, keep Adam at Adam and Eve — Dunc|☺ 12:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Divorce was not an option back then. Create a redirect page for Adam if that many people are actually looking for a separate article, something I have yet to see evidence of. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - so far as the Torah/Genesis story is concerned, you can't really separate Adam and Eve. (But see below - I'm supporting the creation od an "Adam Prophet of Islam" article, for reasons given there) PiCo 07:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Support The article title doesn't go with the contents of it. I think Adam deserves his own page in wikipedia, that talks only of him Mystic 07:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Abraham and Sarah, Joseph and Mary, Ahab and Izebel. The resemblances of these cases with this case are (1) biblical figures, (2) man and wife, (3) they have their own pages. Why not with Adam and Eve?
Blubberbrein2 08:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The difference from those various figures is that Adam and Eve are notable together as the first man and woman. Seperating them is like not having an article on the fastest car, but seperate articles on Engine (fastest car in the world) and Chassis (fastest car in the world). Staxringold 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The article is fine the way it it; no split is warranted.

Oppose Eve and Adam cannot be discussed separately without having lots of redundant info on each page. --JBJ 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Adam was a very important character in the Bible and it follows that a page should be created solely for Adam.

Support, and create a separate page for Eve as well. Although there are many cases where having a conjoined, unified page is beneficial, primarily where the two individuals have little or no claim to fame outside of their shared history and relationship together (e.g. Castor and Pollux, Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus), this is clearly not the case with Adam and Eve, who regularly are referenced and discussed outside of each other's context. In fact, Eve, if anything, is even more commonly discussed outside of the context of her pairing with Adam than Adam is, so I would oppose splitting off a separate article for Adam unless the same was done for Eve. The simple fact is that there is more than enough, a thousand times more than enough, information available to expand into daughter articles. Why not keep "Adam and Eve" around to describe most of the information that would be redundant if we had to copy it to two different articles mostly unchanged, and treat "Adam" and "Eve" as daughter articles for providing further details and information that is specific to each of those characters? (Though for that matter, it might make more sense to just move the "Adam and Eve" story to a daughter article of Genesis, since it clearly discusses that Biblical passage in general, not just two specific characters in the Bible.) I don't see what possible harm that could do, and it could have some huge benefits for allowing the articles to expand organically, rather than trying to artificially . Charles Darwin, for example, has a dozen or so articles devoted to all the nuances of his life; not even allowing two or three for mythological figures as major as Adam and Eve is just silly. -Silence 11:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Support and Oppose Why don't we do something like with Abbot and Costello with a page for both of them where we talk about them together (this) and a page for each of them that goes into more detail individually, with links.

Creating Adam (prophet of Islam)

I attempted to move the section about the Islamic Prophet Adam to a new article but was essentially reverted because it was a major change without discussion. So, here's the discussion...

This article has a fundamental flaw. Namely, we have one topic (that would be "Adam") being merged into a different topic (that would be the story of "Adam and Eve"). Therefore, when one wants to reference Adam without referencing the story of Adam and Eve, they cannot. The fact of the matter is, it is possible (at least in Islam) to talk about Adam without talking about Eve. What has been done here is the equivalent of redirecting Sonny Bono to Sonny and Cher. Yes, the two are often associated with each other, but no they are not one and the same. And yet for some reason that logical falacy is applied here. Nevertheless, I am not going to propose a huge split into two or three articles. But when someone is trying to find information about the Prophet Adam in Islam, they shouldn't have to read an long article that is largely irrelevant to the subject. Thus, I moved the Islamic section in accordance with that. This isn't a "featured" article or even a "good" article. And so the demand to first discuss a change that in reality isn't all that major and controversial is unfounded. I kept the intro to the section in this article and referenced the newer one. joturner 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Note the title of the article, Adam and Eve. Given that title, it takes two to tango. The whole piece needs to stay. As noted on your user page, the link can remain for those seeking to learn about Adam's place in Islam, but unless you're going to create a separate article for Eve, the whole piece, to repeat myself, needs to remain. I understand your fervor as a new convert, but as we are trying, even in the face of constant opposition, to create a featured article. Jim62sch 00:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"I understand your fervor as a new convert..." Wow. I'll remain silently insulted. Please refrain from dismissing an attempt to make legitimate changes by calling them fervent. joturner 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely it can remain in both articles - does it really need to be deleted from this one? (No objection to an article on Adam as Prophet of Islam). PiCo

Since it appears the information will have to stay here, I will later work on making the Adam (prophet of Islam) article less like this Islamic tradition section here (right now they're exactly the same). joturner 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jo, I wasn't intending to insult you, I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was merely noting that converts tend to be the most fervant about their religion (and I know a few converts to all three of the Abrahamic religions), which to me merely indicates that they've made a concious decision to amend their beliefs, rather than just sort of believing what they were spoon-fed from birth. I've already noted that I admire what you were willing to put up with to get to where you are now on your journey.

My point about the article, though, was since it is entitled Adam and Eve, focusing solely on Adam is contary to thew purpose of the article.

Also, I look forward to your reworking of the Adam (prophet of Islam) article. Salam. Jim62sch 11:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Adam and Eve as a WP:FORK (probably POV fork, but then I have a suspicious mind, I suspect Christian fundamentalists will try to shunt the Islamic/Jewish povs out of the way) — Dunc|☺ 12:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Dunc FeloniousMonk 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Support the Adam (prophet of Islam) article. Views between Christians/Jews and Muslims are different regarding Adam. There are many details about Adam which are in the Quran and not in the Bible. So I think this detail should be discussed, but some information about Adam and Eve in Islam kept in this article too. I agree with Joturner that it is possible to discuss Adam without discussing Eve in Islam. I think we should have a separate article about Eve in Islam too and that they both be linked from this article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Support per the comments I have already said above. joturner 03:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Support the Adam (prophet of Islam) article. To people outside the Abrahamic religions, Adam is considered a mythical character rather than a historical figure. (See the debate on creationism.) As such, it makes sense to have separate articles on the separate myths. There should, however be good cross-references between the two articles. --PeR 15:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Support keeping it, per anonym's vote. Staxringold 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

what a ridiculous idea. i absolutely disagree, with the belief that adam and eve shall be learned about simutaniously not seperately. all information relevant to either character would be irrelavent without the other, end of discussion.

Support having Adam (prophet of Islam) as a daughter article of the not-yet-created Adam, which in turn should be a daughter article of Adam and Eve, which discusses the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, not the characters themselves. This situation is similar to the one at Jesus, where we have daughter articles for pages like Isa (the Islamic name for Jesus) and also Christian views of Jesus; merging is not acceptable for articles as long and nuanced as Jesus, Adam, and Eve ought to be. It leads to shunting out important information, exactly as joturner relates above, and is an example of an excessive phobia of creating daughter articles (lest they become POV forks) acting to the detriment of the encyclopedia by stifling growth and diversity of coverage. -Silence 12:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Support the Adam (prophet of Islam) article. Bless sins 19:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template: Adam to David

The template showing the geneology from Adam to David was removed because the article is about Adam and Eve and not Adam. This was exactly the problem I was discussing earlier. No one seems to want to create an article for Adam the person (because apparently he is always mentioned with Eve) and yet someone is removing a template on the basis that it's not relevant to Adam and Eve. Certainly we can keep this article, but there definitely needs to be an article devoted to just Adam where this information specific to Adam can go. And saying that adding this template will mean we have to add a template for other religions is just plain incorrect. That's not a violation of NPOV. If you really think that is necessary, we already have Template:Prophets in the Qur'an (which doesn't really belong here thanks to Adam (prophet of Islam)) and so that's two out of the three main Ibrahimic religions. If you really think representing all three main Ibrahimic religions is necesary, we can easily rectify that by creating another template. joturner 11:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It was readded by someone, I removed it about a half an hour ago [8]. It doesn't belong in the article, for more or less the reasons you noted. Jim62sch 11:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I didn't say the template didn't belong in this article. I said Template:Prophets in the Qur'an didn't belong; Template:Adam to David should be in the article as there is no better place to put it as it is the most relevant location. joturner 14:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole article is a mess right now. I tried to improvesome , but I don't know whether i've been succesful (summarized: hebrew bible. Suggestion: decrease textual analysis (into a main article). This article should have not many references to bible/quranic verses for readability.
Blubberbrein2 14:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article was fine until two days ago until people who insist on squabbling over a variety of inane religious differences showed up. The point was to create a factual article, an NPOV article, with as little religious dispute as possible. But, it seems that facts are not appreciated unless they've been skewed to represebnt one religious viewpoint or another.

Additionally, the geneology chart does not belong here, or do you plan on placing it on every damned article that mentions one of the "patriarchs"?

Actually, I think it is. As to who you're referring to, I'm not sure. But that's the greatness of an encyclopedia anyone can edit. joturner 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to explain that to Codex when he comes back.

And no, the article is not fine right now. Encyclopaedic articles should not read like a catechism. Sed, veritas est: In principio creavit homo deum et ex eo tempore poenas dederat. Jim62sch 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I deal with pages like this, the more I can understand how people become atheists. Jim62sch 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this particular article for some time, and it's been like that for quite a while... Matter of fact, from what I can tell, it's always been that way... Quite static, with lots and lots of traffic. Don't expect it to change now all of a sudden, might as well get used to it! Blockinblox 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's sorta like the weather in Nova Scotia... They say if ya don't like it, just wait 15 min. and it'll change ta somethin totally different! Blockinblox 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to, Jim? joturner 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, with which comment? If you're concerned that I was referring to you, I wasn't. You seem pretty reasonable and open to the opinions of others.

Oh, BTW: since almost all of the editors here are male, I wonder if anyone realizes that there's a bias toward Adam that'sd beginning to border on either gynophobia or misogynism. It's getting to the point to where the article might as well be called, "The Great Adam and some dumb broad he slept with." Bah. Jim62sch 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't he the more significant of the two? At least that's my opinion. I do see that this article appears to discuss more about Adam and Eve. I could say something about splitting the article, but I don't want to sound like a broken record... joturner 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is he? Isn't that really a value judgment? Absent a wife, where does the story get us? Extinct. Jim62sch 01:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm talking about him as a person versus Eve as a person. Maybe all the extra information about Adam ought to be put into a new article and this one just concentrate on the story of Adam and Eve. Not to beat you over the head with it, but the topic has just kept coming up recently. joturner 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my head is getting sore.  :) Seriously, The narrative was written by PiCo to capture the full story. Removing the info about Adam, would be like removing all of Hamlet's monologues -- after all, they could be argued to be digressions. Jim62sch 11:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I support having the template "Adam to David" here - nowhere else to put it. The entire article, as I see it, should be used to gather together all the information about Adam and Eve available in Genesis - that means the creation of Adam and Eve, the story of the Fall, and the small amounts of information on their children and deaths (Adam's death anyway). There are already articvles on each of these separately - the Creation, the Fall, the Generations of Adam. The trick is going to be how to say anything in this article that isn't said elsewhere. I think this can only be done by being faily general in this place, and redirecting readers to the more specialised, detailed articles (which would include the Adam Prophet of Islam article - this is the essential reason I support the creation of that article). PiCo 08:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Narrative section: Agreement to lock?

Last night I carried out some edits on the Narrative section and I hope it's now at a state where everyone can accept it. It aims to be as brief and yet as complete as possible, including all relevant info and excluding the irrelevant (hence the editing out of the sentence about the vegetarian nature of Creation - interesting, but not relevant to Adam and Eve). Can we agree that this particluar section is now mutually accepted to the point where we can agree to leave it alone for the next few weeks and concentrate on other parts of the article? Just put a "yes" or "not yet" or whatever comment you like under here. (But if you don't agree, please say why). PiCo 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree. It's not "mutually accepted" on my part. "Locking" any part of a wikipedia article to the preferred version of a small set of users is completely unprecedented. I still object to using the RSV; if you need me to take you through the Original Hebrew of Chapter 2:4-8 Hebrew word by Hebrew word to show that it is a gross distortion, I will gladly do so. The Hebrew does NOT state that God made humans before he made all plants and animals; to produce this forced misinterpretation, you must rely on a deliberate misreading and twisting of only the RSV English version. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Codex, your edits were highly POV and unsourced. I've restored an earlier version. PiCo can restore to his version, but quite frankly, your version, Codex, will never be acceptable as it violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jim62sch 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no agreement. PiCo 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Textual analysis" and revert wars

All I did was state that the so-called "source" texts are completely unattested, unless in their combined form as Genesis. That is crucial to NPOV. I know you like to give them fancy names as if they are real separate documents that exist, but that's misleading, because they are not known to exist under any such names until they were theoretically reconstructed in the 19th centuries. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the section again. Try to comprehend. There are caveats that resolve the issue. Jim62sch 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You call those "caveats"? They are totally misleading. Furthermore, it is false to state that chapter 2 of Genesis makes man to be created before the animals nand plants. That's only obtained from a deliberate misreading of the Hebrew. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Made this into a new section as it has nothing to do with the Narrative section. Codex, several editors have rtied to accommodqate your concerns, and I actually have no problem with the positoin that the Doc Hyp is hypothetical. But it's adequately covered in the section, there's no need to flog the horse to death, which is what you're doing. Please desist. PiCo 03:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just hypothetical. The alleged source documents J, E, etc are all completely unattested and were invented in the 19th century. But you won't even allow it to be mentioned here the true fact that they are "unattested", because you evidently wish to promote to the casual reader the view that all of these theoretical texts actually exist or have been discovered somewhere, by giving them all these made-up titles, when it's not at all certain that they ever existed at all, let alone what their precise contents may be. Come on, be honest. Tell the reader they haven't been attested, and don't make it look like they have.

Also, don't state that Genesis 2 describes Adam and Eve being created before the plants and animals, because that's not what the Hebrew says, and you're mis-inferring that for the sake of your theory and obvious bias in attacking or wanting to tear apart the account as it was actually written. You want to go over the Hebrew, we'll go over the Hebrew. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Codex, can you please keep the Genesis 2 argument in the relevant section - the one immediately before this one. Not that I matters I susppose, but I like to keep things tidy. Now for your fist point: it might surprise you that I ahve no quarrel with your statement that the various texts proposed by the DH are unattested. I simply feel that once this has been stated once in the section, there's no need to go on and on about it. (I prefer to say that they're hypothetical, or reconstructed, but all these adjectives amount to the same thing: J and E and the erst are theories - I have no problem with that).

Your second point, regarding the meaning of Genesis 2, I can't agree with. I can accept that you are right about the when/then construction, but there remains the sequence of events set out within Gen 2 - it quite clearly has man first, then plants, then animals. This sequqence is independent of the wording or punctuation at Gen 2:4. This isn't just my personal POV, it's accepted by reputable scholars. Can you suggest a way to resolve this? PiCo 04:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have proved cites in all 12 languages I can read (and in multiple versions) that show that all of the translations say the same thing. Is Codex really going to say that he is the only person who can correctly translate Hebrew? Besides, his edits are OR. Jim62sch 11:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Proved" was a typo (I would use "proven" anyway, as I'd be using the participial form) -- I meant provided. That you can't read those languages is not my problem. BYW, I also note that you just added Hebrew to your page (3-14-2006), at a level-1 (i.e. basic). If there is one thing the Torah is not, it is basic Hebrew. Jim62sch 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't proved that all translations say the same thing, because they don't. The RSV artificially cuts 2:4 right in the middle, and makes the second part the beginning of a long sentence with a "When" clause in 2:5, paralleled by a "then" clause in 2:7 to make it seem as if all three verses refer to the same timefrme -- which is all a good strawman, but not a bit of it is in the Hebrew Word. Even the KJV is far more faithfully translated with regard to the actual Hebrew, it correctly keeps 2:4 intact as one sentence, and does not introduce a "when-then" clause in the following verses, but keeps the events in proper sequence. There are no words appearing in the Hebrew that correspond to "when" or "then", they were wrongly added by the RSV. Don't say you've "proved" anything when these are crucial differences for your (mis) interpretation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made an edit that eliminates all "when/then" contructions. BUT, the idea that Gen 2 has man created before the plants and animals doesn't come from the placement of a full stop. It comes from the sequence of the entier chapter: man is created, then a garden with trees, then finally animals. You haven't attempted to address this. PiCo 14:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's only a forced interpretation that makes this into a contradiction of Genesis 1. There is no contradiction of Genesis 1. In the seven days account, it says God "created" animals and mankind on day 6. The verb in 2:19 is totally different where it says God "formed" animals on that same day specifically so that Adam could name them; it does not in any way imply that God had not already created animals before Adam on that very same day (the 6th day). Likewise, as for plants, Chapter 1 clearly says God "created" them on the third day. This certainly does not suggest that God was therefore incapable of "planting a garden" with trees on the sixth day, as verse 2:8 says God did. The only reason anyone would infer such a thing that isn't stated, is to try to force the text to contradict itself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, except that I can't agree? To me it seems quite clear that Gen 1 is telling one story, and Gen 2 is telling another. They have different objectives - Gen 1 is telling a story about how God carried out the Creation, Gen 2 is telling a very sophisticated and beautiful parable of man's moral nature. The only reason for refusing to see and admit this is an insistence on seeing the bible as a pedestrian and simplistic account fit for Sunday schools, without any true religious content. PiCo 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd that so many (non-church-affiliated) scholars argee with you, PiCo (as do I). Jim62sch 19:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but the Churches that hold it as Scripture have a different interpretation, and your authority or any other scholar's authority to interpret is not greater than theirs. Of course the scholarly views should be mentioned, but crowding out opposing viewpoints and mentioning only theirs just isn't NPOV. And that was a really weak response anyway; why exactly could God not plant a garden with trees on the sixth day, if He had already created plants on the 3rd day??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are none so blind... Jim62sch 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not rtying to crowd out anyone's views. In this section of the article what I'm trying to do is provide an accurate, impersonal summary of the Adam and Eve story as it appears in Genesis. The story is ambiguous, and that ambiguity is well recognised by scholars and even by churchmen. You, however, seem determined to deny the ambiguity and impose a straight-forward reading where it doesn't exist. PiCo 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be precisely what Codex has done. Jim62sch 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've brought the "Sumerian mythology" section up into the "Textual analysis" section and made it a subsection. It fits there, as the myths have no reason to be mentioned at all in this article unless for the light they throw on the Genesis story. I'm sure Codex won't like it, but I'm through trying to please Codex. PiCo 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't really bother me so much, even if a little strange, and your last two edits before that are a slight improvement. But, I do have to wonder what "last chance" in one of your summaries was meant to convey. "Last chance", or else what? This is wikipedia, there are a vast number of editors on this page besides just us, and it seems like you want something carved in stone here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Last chance before I give up and go off to live in a cave on a mountain someplace. PiCo 15:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll clean that new subsection up a bit tomorrow - add footnotes and check for accuracy. It's late, must go to bed. PiCo 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have deleted the old "Sumerian Myth" section as the material is now merged with the "Textual Analysis" section. I also tried to tighten it up a bit. A major problem with this subsetion (as it now is) is the lack of references. I'll try to fill that in later. PiCo 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative comments on Adam and Eve" subsection

This should be fun. A new editor (to whom we extend the welcome mat) says that Adam's rib was actually a penis. As to the merits of this idea I have no opinion. But I would ask the editor to provide a full reference (make a footnote refering to full bibloigraphic information). On a personal note, I don't think the Hebrew of Genesis actually refers to a rib at all - it talks about taking from the man's side, which sounds odd in English (you almost have to take something from somone's side - you can't just 'take'). I imagine the rib came about be cause non-Hebrew-speaking Greeks and later readers felt there was a gap that needed filling. (In the text, not in Adam). Anyway, it's an interesting addition, but very controversial, and needs to be moer strongly supported with references. PiCo 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Codex removed the addition on rib-penis. Codex, I don't think the editor was being a vandal, although like you I'm not happy with having this in the article - sounds very far-fetched to me. Still, he quotes a source, and it could be checked by someone with access to a good library. I'll paste it in here so others can comment if they wish. Quote: Biblical Hebrew does not have a word for penis. Some scholars (Gilbert and Zevit 2001) have suggested the story is an explanatory myth to explain the absence in human males of a baculum (a bone many male animals have in their sexual organs). In this theory, the description of the missing bone as a "rib" would be a euphemism. (In light of the fact that men and women have the same number of ribs). Biblical Hebrew often uses euphemisms for sexually related matters elsewhere, such as the term "to know" (to have carnal knowledge) and "thigh" (as in, to place one's hand on a thigh as an oath) in place of "genitalia".

Greets, both. I think I'm the new editor on the article. The story of Adam and Eve has been interpreted many ways - fact, moral story, etiological (origin) myth, and so on. I dont see much controversial about recording that it's also been speculated to be a euphemism. A second source would be interesting, but I think for an article on A&E, it has a place to mention this is one interpretation (although not presently a majority one). I won't disagree with the comments that another source would be good, it would help, if only to show its a minority idea rather than a tiny-minority idea. FT2 (Talk) 18:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide full details for your source - book or article title, publisher, etc? We might be able to put it in the Textual Analysis section under a suitable subheading (Highly Speculative Hypotheses comes to mind). Frankly I think this idea is fanciful; that, plus its marginal status, make me doubt that it has a place in an encyclopedia - maybe a sentence at most, with a reference via footnote to your source. But lets plough on. PiCo 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Main reference:

Gilbert, S. F. and Zevit, Z. 2001. Congenital human baculum deficiency: The generative bone of Genesis 2: 21-23. American Journal of Medical Genetics 101: 284 - 285.

Gilbert is a Professor of Biology at Swarthmore College web page. His paper is clinically cited here, and also in the creation/evolution debate website talkorigins.org here. FT2 (Talk) 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit:

The paper also comments further to the above edit, that:

"A baculum, unlike a rib, is associated with reproduction ... Biblical Hebrew has no word for penis, so another term would have to be used. The Hebrew word for "rib" has other meanings such as the supporting columns in trees, or planks in doors; it could have referred to a structural support generally."

FT2 (Talk) 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked up your on-line references and am now more inclined to inclued something, although not the same paragraph you originally posted. In fact I did add a new subsection under the "Textual Analysis" section, titled Adam's Rib. But Codex blew an editorial fuse and removed it. As you might gather, this entier article is extremely contentious, and it's very delicate getting new material accepted (and referring to Codex blowing fuses isn't going to help my case either - ah well, I blew a fuse myself recently over on the Noah article, so we're all human). Anyway, as Codex objects to your material as being "fringe" (and I agree, really), it might be better if I put it in a sandbox first. I'll come back in a moment to finalise the link. PiCo 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(Later)Sorry, some idiot is preventing me from using the sandbox, deleting text as fast as I put it up. I'll put my proposal here:

(Subheading)+++ Adam's rib +++(all proposed paragraphs bullet-pointed)

• Despite popular belief to the contrary, men and women have the same number of ribs (twelve pairs). The misconception that they do not is probably due to the verse at Genesis 2:20, "[T]he Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man."

• If this verse was not attempting to explain a non-existant difference between males and females, what was it trying to do? One theory is based on a continuation of the Sumerian myth of Ninhursag and Enki. Ninhursag was angry with Enki and caused him to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib ("ti"), which is a pun in Sumerian, as "ti" means both "rib" and "life. The other gods persuaded Ninhursag to relent. Ninhursag then created a new goddess named Ninti, (a name made up of "Nin", or "lady", plus "ti", and which can be translated as both Lady of Living and Lady of the Rib), to cure Enki. Given that the pun of "life" with "rib" is present only in Sumerian, linguistic criticism places the Sumerian account as the more ancient.

• An alternative, or possibly complementary, explanation was advanced by Scott Gilbert, professor of biology at Swarthmore College, and his colleague Ziony Zevit in a paper published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics in 2001. Gilbert and Zevit noted that humans (or at least male humans) are almost unique among mammals in lacking a baculum, a bone which stiffens the penis during intercourse. Their theory is that the story of the creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" may have been intended as an explanation of this missing bone. Prudishness and linguistic necessity (ancient Hebrew lacks a word for "penis") may have led the authors of Genesis to use "side" as a euphemism for penis, while the word translated as "rib" is not actually as specific as in English. They suggest also that the reference to "closing up with flesh" the place from where the bone was taken may have been an explanation of the "raphe", or seam of flesh on penis and scrotum, as a surgical scar.

^ Gilbert, Scott F. and Ziony Zevit. 2001. Congenital human baculum deficiency: The generative bone of Genesis 2:21-23. American Journal of Medical Genetics 101(3): 284-285.

Ok, any comments? PiCo 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the theory itself, other than being a tiny minority view (unless other sources can be found) is that it presupposes a knowledge of anatomy that I'm not sure would have been extant 2500-2700 years ago. Unlike the Greeks, I don't think the Jews were known for their anatomical knowledge (although I may be wrong about this) in the sense Gilbert and Zevit propose. I don't have a problem with the thesis' inclusion, if we can find more cites, and if the paragraph is shortened, but there seem to be a number of questions to answer before we include it. Jim62sch 11:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can clarify one aspect of the above questions. The state of knowledge would certainly have been more than adequate. Read Jarred Diamond's prize winning book Guns germs and steel, in which he traces the state of human knowledge of everyday objects in the natural world to many millenia prior to human written history. My strong impression is that most academics working in that field would agree that humans prior to 2000 BCE, who were intimately aware of their gross bodies (insofar as these could be felt, or were seen during injury), would have most certainly been aware that males and females had equal numbers of ribs, and that human males lacked a bone which many other animals did not. The suggestion of the paper is, that this might have formed the basis for an etiological myth, in which the baculum (denoted by the same word "rib" which can indicate any supporting structure) is taken from a man to make a woman. But certainly if this was a traditional myth of some kind, the state of knowledge at the time of writing down, was certainly more than adequate. By 1000 - 3000 BCE, humans had emerged from foragers, to hunter-gatherers, to tribes, to city-states, to small regional kingdoms and horse drawn warfare, had invented mummification, writing, and a variety of surgical procedures including to the skull. For example trepanning was practiced in neolithic times and by the ancient Egyptians. To suggest that they were somehow still not aware that humans lacked a baculum and many other male animals had one, and wonder why, or had not yet developed enough knowledge of the natural world to notice that men and women had the same number of ribs, would need some defending in that light. As for Pico's edit, I like that approach, because it opens up the entire legitimate question "What was it referring to if not a rib", rather than just reporting one paper, which is probably better. FT2 (Talk) 13:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- I was curious (the history of medical knowledge isn't one of my strong points). I'd still like to see one more cite, because it's going to be a bone of contention (oh, that was bad) without another cite. Jim62sch 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave the contentious Professor Gilbert and his euphemorib out of it for the monent, and make a subsection in Textual Analysis on Adam's Rib dealing just with the fact that men and women do have the same number of ribs, and with the possible connection with the Sumerian myth. That much is both interesting and well-accepted. In other words, just the first two bullwt points from the proposal above. (My concern with including the Gilbert hypothesis is one of balance - it's a new and untested idea, superficially plausible though it is, and I think to give it a whole paragraph in Wiki is more prominence than it merits). PiCo 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. What would you say, if it could be bulletted as one or two liner? My interest here is that it seems relevant and interesting to mention (albeit minor), rather than completely overlook. Would footnoting it be a better balance? FT2 (Talk) 04:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new subsection within Textual Analysis, "Creation of Eve" (which will also allow the creation of a subsection on Creation of Adam in the futuer, to help meet the concerns of those who want more on Adam and Eve separately). The new subsection takes just the first two bullet points from the outline above - i.e., makes the point that men and women have the same number of ribs, and then talks about Sumerian parallels. There's a footnote, which links to an online translation of the myth, and also links to the Gilbert idea. Comments? PiCo 07:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like shoddy linguistics... It's main strength relies on the argument that the Sumerian myth is older because in Sumerian, the word "ti" means both wife and rib... give me a break, Sumerian is a monosyllabic language with a limited number of syllables, I'll bet if you look up a simple utterance like "ti" in the SUmerian you'll find dozens of meanings... We have already noted parallels in every language that are unique to only that language and not the others, like Aramaic words for Eve and Snake. THe whole question is far too complicated to be unravelled with something as non-substantial as the word "ti" meaning "wife" and "rib" in Sumerian. At any rate, this meets the very definition of "Original Research", unless you cite an actual scholar who did this "research", and not yourself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It can't be both monosyllabic and have a limited number of syllables (unless the limit is one). Besides, it isn't monsyllabic, nor is it a simple language (in all honesty, the earlier languages were more complex as they tended to be agglutinative, had more persons, few if any preposition and a more complex verb structure). In any case, it is not unlikely that "ti" meant both rib and life. Jim62sch 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Sumerian language on Wiki, Sumerian was agglutinative - you can't be agglutinative and monosyllabic at the same time. On the other hand, it also says Sumerian had a large number of homophones (there's a hint that it may have been tonal). PiCo 08:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not technically monosyllabic, but words can be broken into their components of one syllable that have meaning. And every language has a limited number of syllables that are formed from its repertoire of sounds, but Sumerian is exceedingly small (yes, good evidence for tonality there!). I know the syllable "a" means "water" for instance, but it also has dozens of other meanings. I haven't looked up "ti" yet, but I'd be willing to bet it can mean a lot of other things, besides just "life" and "rib"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Codex, if you find anything on this, please let us know. Since I gather you've been to my user pages, I'm sure you noted that I have a keen interest in languages, and Sumerian is one I am hardly an expert in. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a new addition to the article - it's been in it since before I arrived, in the Mythology section. In fact I thought you wrote it. I gather your objection is only to that final sentence, about the Sumerian myth being older. Feel free to take it out. ("If thy ti offend thee, cast it out!") PiCo 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hang on , just looked again, it says "Life", not "wife", which is even more far-fetched. I haven't looked up "ti" yet, but what little I know of Sumerian, the normal word for "life" is ki, not "ti"... (I have learned the words for "life" in nearly every Ancient language...) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Enki means Lord of Earth. Not Lord of Life. I did come across several references to ti meaning "life" while searching for the footnote that goes with the article. Incidentally, have you looked at the footnote? PiCo 13:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I confused 'Life' and 'Earth' (ki)... the Sumerian word I have in my notes for "Life" is "namtil", it seems to incorporate the "ti" sign.. haven't looked at the link in the footnote yet, but will when I don't have so many other things to do... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I won't do any more till you've had a look. I'd like to start expanding this section (Textual Analysis) with little sub-sections like this one on the ceration of Eve - have creation of Adam, the Serpent, etc, basically just brief lead-ins to the longer articles that (I think, mostly) already exist. PiCo 13:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabic "Hawwa"

"Hawwa means "living", and is connected to "hayy", life. So says our article. "Hayyawanet" means "animals" - living things. (An Iraqi friend once caused great alarm to her daughter by telling her that they didn't need to go to the zoo, as the roads were full of 'hayyawanet'). One word for "snake" is "hayya". (Arabic never has one word for anything - never settle for less than twenty, that's the motto). Anyway, the point of all this is, I begin to doubt that a word "Hawwa" can be related to "hayy". Wrong trilateral. "Life" and all its cognates have the trilateral h-y-y, or seem to. (I'm not a linguist - my knowledge of Arabic comes from experience, not study). "Hawwa" seems to have a different trilateral, maybe h-w-w. Can someone with a Webers check this up? PiCo 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In Ethiopian languages life is "Hiywot" or "Hiywet" (different transliteration, not different sounds), which may indicate a h-y-w pattern, but I'm just speculating here. Life in MSA is hayaa(a? not sure how to add in a ta-marbuta after a long alif) = Ha – Ya – Alif – Ta-marbuta (not the root but the letters). In semitic words with a ta-marbuta in arabic, the corresponding Ethiopic (i.e. in all Ethiopian Semitic languages) word always has "t," and the same "Ha"s (i.e. the early Ha in the abjadi order, not the late one) in the word, so they seem to be cognate, implying the h-y-w pattern. Yom 13:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In Hebrew, you have Heyeem (ie, Chaim), in Aramaic Heyeen; these are both singulars that are plural in form. Arabic Hayat also looks like one of these archaic plurals to me, and the 't' in Ethiopic Hiywot is no doubt connected. I'm just mentioning this in case it sheds any light on your thinking...

BTW, The Anatolian languages are definitely Indo-European instead of Semitic, but their words for "life" look like they start with similar roots, eg. Hittite Huytumarsha, Luwian Huytwalahi... It's definitely mysterious... Assyrian uses a completely different root, b-l-T, but Phoenician has "Hiyuma"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's either a coincidence, like Hebrew shiva and English seven, or Japanese hai and Greek ge (yes), or the word was borrowed (although that's pretty unlikely). Jim62sch 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of Hebrew's Khaym or Chaim, but the "H" in Hiywot is connected to the aspirated H in Haya/t (i.e. that was the sound in Ge'ez), not the Kh/Ch in Hebrew, which was in Ge'ez ኀ.Yom 17:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How interesting also that Luwian "huytwalahi" contains, in addition to the first element cognate with Hebrew and Arabic words for "life", the final element "walahi", which in Egyptian Arabic is used as a common oath, "God upon it". Could there be some mysterious connection at work here across, umm, 4,000 years or so? Pours another glass of wine, waits for responses).PiCo 01:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh...I seriously doubt it. "walahi" really just means "and upon it." We + 'ala (ayin – lam – alif-Maqsura) + hu (indicates third person singular it, or him). "On it" is then in MSA 'Alayhi (alif-maqsura becomes a ya, and the weak damma or "u" sound of the hu is overcome by the ya sound and becomes hi). "Walahi," then is probably just a variation from 'alayhi than a separate evolution. The initial waw is kinda of weird though if it is to be included in some sort of "life upon it" (or similar) phrase, since it would go at the beginning of the clause (and not in the middle). That's just my inexpert opinion, though. Yom 01:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it too. Incidentally, could you sign your contribs on the last line of the contrib itself? Makes it easier to follow. W'alahi.PiCo 02:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I usually put it a spaced line below just for that purpose, actually. Yom 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the article, if you're up to speed on Hebrew, could you check out the very first, intro, paragraph and make sure we've got our Classical Hebrew right? Hawwa, Hava, Chavva, what is it? PiCo 02:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge of Hebrew, but I do know that it would not be "Hava," as the shift from waw to vav hadn't occurred yet. Maybe Codex Sinaiticus/Feqade (ፈቃደ) knows. Yom 02:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unclear definition of sin in Christianity section

This is from the wiki on sin: "The most common formal definition is an infraction against religious or moral law. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered faulty, shameful, harmful to oneself or to others, or which alienates self from others and especially from God, can be called a sin."

Yet this article says: "St Paul was not being true to the Hebrew of Genesis, which nowhere mentions the words "sin" and which does not say that Adam was punished with death. (Adam's transgression in Genesis 3 is disobedience, not sin, and he is expelled from Eden not in order to die, but so that he may not eat of the Tree of Life and become immortal).[19]"

Call me biased, but it seems to me that Wikipedia is more unharmonious about sin than St. Paul. If "any thought, word, or act considered faulty, shameful, harmful to oneself or to others, or which alienates self from others and especially from God, can be called a sin," then how isn't Adam and Eve's disobedience of the command not to eat of the tree a sin?

Furthermore, if they can't eat of the tree of life then they can't live forever and therefore will surely die. So it would be reasonable to conclude that since Genesis says they were banished from the garden so they couldn't eat of the tree of life then it was also so that they would die (Romans).

If I'm simply misunderstanding then there may still be a problem of clarity in this section. Metricdatabase 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right of course - sin is disobedience to God, who is the source of moral law. But the point the article is making is that while St Paul's interpretation is theologically sound, the word "sin" isn't used in that part of the story in Genesis. What the section on Christian tradition is trying to do is to rtace the development of the idea of sin over time, from the interpretation given by Paul, who identified diobedience to God as sin, through Augustine, who brought up the idea of "original sin" (I.e., that Adam's transgression qwas hereditary), and then the identification of sin with sex in much Western culture (not an identification made by the CHurch itself, but by many preachers particularly in the Protestant tradition). PiCo 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a completely false and unbiblical "tracing" and since only the most ignorant at any given time could ever have believed such a preposterous thing, it is highly questionable if it belongs here in a Biblical story. In the Bible, God Himself only declares certain sexual behaviours to be against His Law, not ALL sexual behaviour, and anyone who says the Bible says otherwise, is misrepresenting the Bible. Aside from that, if any groups ever really believed this, they probably would have gone the way of the Shakers. Think about it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Codex, look, whether or not you agree that original sin and sex are related is irrelevant; that the belief has persisted in Christianity for a considerable period of time is. Besides, both KC and I provided proof that the belief was extant in Christianity. Whether the belief is sound or not (based on one's definition of sound) really doesn't matter, the fact that it exists is all that matters. Let's move on, we've had this discussion before. Jim62sch 00:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is significant enough to warrant mention in a Biblical article, because it is a misunderstanding, not even a common one, and should not be presented as if it somehow negates the whole moral of the story, "Be fruitful and multiply"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your relationships with mainstream Christians are, but I assure you it is a quite common belief. That it is a misunderstanding in no way obviates its inclusion in the article. Jim62sch 01:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If it must be, only if it is clearly presented as a gross and unbiblical misunderstanding, so as not to perpetuate it further. Also, "mainstream" in your country is not at all the same thing as "mainstream" in an Orthodox country. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That was what I originally wrote, if you recall: "Many Christians, based on a possible misunderstanding of Augustine have tended to believe that sexual desire, concupiscence, formed the original sin" (you reverted that [10]). And yes, you are correct, mainstream is different depending on where one lives. But, that's precisely my point: the fact that a belief isn't mainstream where you are (or in a orthodox country) doesn't invalidate the existence of the belief. Jim62sch 03:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It still sounds like you're talking about the Shakers to me, I don't know of any other groups that were ever that repressed, only a few individuals like maybe Augustine... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How about shortening this whole thing to something like, "The fall of man forms the basis for the christian doctrine of original sin. For more, see the article on original sin." This way debates pertaining to original sin would take place in that discussion section and this section on Adam and Eve in Christianity would be less controversial.--Metricdatabase 15:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That has possibilities. I'll go take a look at the OS article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to keep the whole sex and original sin thing, a citation would be in order. I am a reasonably mainstream Christian, and I have done a certain amount of reading concerning the history and such with a special focus on issues regarding marriage, sex, and procreation, and the idea that this sort of interpretation of original sin is common in the mainstream is new to me. There's good evidence that it was common among the Gnostics, the Albigenses, and the Shakers, but if you're going to say it is also common among groups traditionally considered orthodox, I think you'll really need to provide a credible source. I second the call to cut the section in question entirely, and provide a link to the original sin article, by the way.

Adam (Hebrew bible)

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

Ancient Jewish scholar's interpretations

An astounding assertion was made that many jewish scholars of ancient times denied the actuality of the Adam and Eve narrative. This, in my opinion, staggering claim cannot be passed off without actual quotes of "ancient jewish scholars". Shykee 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Shykee

Off the top of my head, Philo is one. The Talmud is pretty unanimous that Adam originally had two faces, male and female. Do you think Rabbis believed God created a man with two faces only to seperate them? Personally, I don't. --Ephilei 05:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ancient Jewish scholars" implies a bit more than Philo- a solitary, Hellinized, atypical figure in Jewish history. Also, your quotation of the Talmud is interesting. You say, "the Talmud is pretty unanimous that Adam originally had two faces". The word "unanimous" strikes me. Are you actually familiar with that Gemara? It is a solitary sage who is quoted. Secondly, you say, "Do you think Rabbis believed God created a man with two faces only to seperate them? Personally, I don't." Indeed you are entitled to your personal opinion. However, it is just that- yours. Wikipedia relies on sources; and the Talmud you quoted actually continues to say that G-d separated them. You may disagree with the Talmud, but you do not qualify as an "ancient jewish scholar".

Concerning the Subjection of Women

It strikes me that the section concerning Christianity's historic interpretation of Eve's transgression as justifying the subjection of women is, as a whole, taken out of context. The idea that Eve's sin means women must be subject to their husbands is part of a larger allegory used by Christians (especially early Christians) to conceptualize the relationship between husband and wife. The Fall of Man is set in parallel with the rising of Christ. As Christ is the Second Adam, so there is a second Eve -- alternately Mary, and the Church conceived of as the Bride of Christ (of whom Mary is the exemplar). When Tertulian says that sin entered into the world through woman, his audience could have been expected to understand also that salvation entered the world through woman. As Eve was taken from the side of Adam, so the Church (and Mary by extension) was given new birth by the wounds of Christ (one of which was in his side, incidentally). The Second Adam and Eve represent an ideal for Christian marriage. The Church is obedient to Christ, but Christ gives His life for the Church, and unlike Adam, refuses to separate himself from the sins of His beloved. Adam blamed the Fall on the woman, but Christ, who could truly have placed the blame entirely upon the woman instead took the whole punishment of sin upon Himself. Thus the contrast between the First Adam's actions and the Second Adam's actions reveal the scope of the conversion which the Christian husband is supposed to aspire to. He is supposed to be changed from the selfish First Adam into the Selfless Second Adam.

All of this to say... the actual doctrine that Tertulian and the other Church Fathers spoke of when they referenced the story of Adam and Eve was much more nuanced and, frankly, more foreign to modern minds, than the doctrine presented here. In the article as it stands, we have a very linear presentation of what was (and still is in some areas of Christianity) a pronouncedly non-linear doctrine, and the article ignores the greater part of the doctrine in order to point out a small part of it which happens to be problematic to modern Western minds. The fact is, the idea that Eve fell first was not used as a justification for the subjection of women for the very simple reason that the subjection of women needed no justification at the time. It was the norm in the whole world until the past two centuries or so, and almost completely uncontroversial. Rather, the doctrine of Eve's fall and subjection to Adam was used as part of a larger allegorical system for understanding the relationship between husband and wife, and, more than that, between Christ and His Church.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.110.220.141 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, concerning the Witchcraft tract mentioned in the same section... Since this section is presumably meant to present the mainstream interpretation of Adam and Eve among Christians, why is a book that was condemned by the authorities mentioned? It seems unnecessarily inflamatory.

Daughter articles = good thing

See my argument at Talk:Adam_and_Eve#Split_to_Adam and the section immediately below that (I'm posting here largely because that vote seems to have been scrolled up enough that few people see it). Since this article is clearly focused on the overall story of "Adam and Eve" from Genesis, having two daughter articles (Adam, Eve) for the individual mythological figures themselves would be massively valuable, considering their central importance in thousands of years of the symbolism, storytelling, theological analysis, and beliefs of some of the largest and most influential religions in the history of the world. This article should be used for most of the information shared between the two, but there's sufficient information that is primarily relevant to one person or the other (such as Adam's status in Islam, Eve's affect on the history and mythology of women, etc.) to easily justify separate articles. Preventing the creation of such articles will stunt this topic's ability to grow organically and to analyze Adam and Eve in more detail on their own, as well as causing article bloat and disorganization. -Silence 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be at least a strong minority view in favour of this split. I suggest that, as a first step, you try creating two new sections under these titles. If you find there's so much material that you need to start creating sub-sub sections, then you'd have a strong case for nwe articles. PiCo 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how about we create two prototype pages, Talk:Adam and Eve/Adam and Talk:Adam and Eve/Eve? (And perhaps a third, Talk:Adam and Eve/Adam and Eve, to work out how the top-level page will look after we're done?) Then when they grow large enough for full-fledged articles, we'll simply move them to article-space. I probably won't have much time to help with such an endeavor, but if that's what it takes to get work started on the much-needed daughter articles, that's better than nothing. -Silence 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Queensland

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

Few, some, many, most

Some modern Christian and Jewish scholars of today consider Adam and Eve as an example of religious myth focussing on the teaching of perceived fundamental truths.

My emphasis. This needs a source. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate articles

What's going on with this? I think it's imperative that Adam and Eve have their own articles as they're separate people, and clearly notable as individuals (arguably the most notable humans in history since they kicked the whole race off!). The main article can remain here, but as with Abbott and Costello, there should be daughter articles with mini biographies, akin to Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. — SteveRwanda 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus seems to have been reached. Daughter articles, yes; split, no. Now looking for volunteers. The Editrix 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Started Adam. Ungtss 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

chavo

i put in chavo and this page came up redrecting my search why?

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Someone please look over this article. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Adam and Eve

Why two seperate articles? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would expect one article covering Adam AND Eve, myself. Is there a suggested merge vote process? ^rossnixon 10:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, see discussion in Mar/Apr above - [[11]] Had a quick skim thru and did not see and result/consensus mentioned ^rossnixon 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

8 votes opposed to the split, 7 votes in favor, and one person voted twice. Nope, no concensus.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Merge Adam and Adam and Eve? Voting ends September 14 at 0600 (UTC).

Yes

1. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
2. ^rossnixon 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
3. PiCo 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Wiki Wikardo 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No

1. Silence 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Pedro 00:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

No cut-off date for voting? Shall we say 1 week, which would be Sep 14th? ^rossnixon 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Today is Sept 15 (at least on my side of the globe) - only four votes, but but persumably that represents all who are interested. As it's unanimous, would someone care to do the merge? PiCo 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Leave Adam separate, as he's one of the most significant mythological figures in existence in the largest religions in the world, and we could literally fill dozens of pages with highly noteworthy information about him; "Adam and Eve" should be reserved for the information which an Adam and an Eve article would share (e.g., the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis), to avoid redundancies. For the same reason, resplit Eve into her own article. If Gilbert and Sullivan are noteworthy enough for three articles in this sort of scheme, then Adam and Eve are surely hundreds of times more deserving of such specialized treatment.
• Hell, who could argue that it's more important for us to have distinct articles on Frankenstein's monster and Victor Frankenstein, two fictional characters of much less cultural and historical significance, than to have distinct articles on Adam and Eve? If need be, treat Adam and Eve as specialized "daughter articles" of the top-level Adam and Eve page, created out of necessity because of how exceedingly important and complex this subject matter is; part of the reason Superman is a featured article is because it has avoided bloat through the judicious use of daughter articles like Clark Kent and Kal-L, and if Adam and Eve ever hopes to even approach that level of quality, it will need to do the same at some point, and utilize a multi-article scheme rather than try to compress thousands of years of mythology and theology into a tiny little shadow of an article. Surely if different personas and characteristics of certain fictional characters are worthy of distinct articles, we can spare two articles for two of the most centrally important mythological figures in human history? -Silence 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why have Adam in a separate article. Are there ancient writing about him that do not involve Eve? ^rossnixon 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are (even in Genesis itself, in the "The Adam" of the first Creation account), but that's beside the point. First, this is not purely an issue of "How often are Adam and Eve discussed exclusively?"; it is primarily an issue of practical concern, as the sheer amount of information about both figures necessitates having as many distinct articles about them as possible, lest important information be excluded due to space concerns. If our Charles Darwin article can have ten distinct daughter articles for providing the many significant details which would not into the top-level page, is it really so much to ask to have two daughter articles for Adam and Eve, one for each member of the pair?

Second, there aren't many ancient writings about Scylla that do not mention Charybdis, yet even relatively minor mythological entities like those have separate articles. That two characters are frequently mentioned in the context of one another, or are strongly associated with one another, in no way implies that they cannot have distinct articles of their own; else we'd not have distinct articles for, for example, Hades, Pluto, Dis Pater, and Orcus. If we can have dozens of articles on different aspects or representations of a single mythological figure, how can you argue against having even one article for a clearly distinct, and monumentally important, mythological figure like Adam? One could argue that, next to Jesus (and possibly Abraham), Adam is the most famous figure in the entire Bible (and the most famous of all in the Tanakh); yet we are reluctant to give even a single article to present information specifically concerning him alone, while absurdly minor Biblical figures like Ammishaddai, Izehar, and Zaavan get distinct articles aplenty? It's a nonsensical double standard. -Silence 02:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Silence, you say that there's lots to be said about both Adam and Eve separately, but the existing article Adam is woeful - it could be deleted entirely and Wiki-readers would lose nothing. This Adam+Eve article is pretty weak too, but it's better than the Adam article. I suggest that we all devote our energies to miproving this article, for the time being. When (and if) it gets too long, we can think about a split. PiCo 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Inefficient. It's so obvious that we'll desperately need a separate article about Adam eventually (probably as soon as anyone takes the time to expand the information we have on him), that it would be silly to artifically merge the two. In the long run, it will take a lot less time to have them separate from the start, so we can keep in mind the best way to balance the three articles in coordination as they organically expand, rather than to mess around with constant remergings and which will cultivate inconsistencies and redundancies and waste time unnecessarily. That a daughter article is low-quality is a reason to improve it, not a reason to merge it back into its parent article: the only reason to do that would be if Adam was not a significant mythological figure. :) Moreover, as you correctly point out, the Adam and Eve article is pretty poor too; by your logic, we should merge it back into Genesis until someone takes the time to improve it. -Silence 03:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve as allegory

The Adam and Eve story covers five themes: the dualistic nature of humankind as mind or spirit ("breath" of God) and body (the "dust" from which Adam is fashioned); the derivative nature of woman as social being (fashioned from the man's "bone"); the relationship between moral awareness ("the tree of knowledge of good and evil"), self-consciousness and other-consciousness ("they saw that they were naked"); the connection between material scarcity (in the sweat of they face shalt thou eat bread") and psychological alienation ("he drove out the man.."); and the virtual impossibility of returning to the natural state of humankind ("the Garden") from the socio-economic state ("East of Eden").

The symbolic architecture is complex, employing the common Biblical "breath/blood/flesh/bone" symbol set (subsets of the underlying mind/body dichotomy) and ; the "serpent" symbol (representing bodily, physical or material desires being a creature of the "dust"); and the "tree/fruit" symbol set (representing action and consequence).

The Adam and Eve story is notable for its use of the reversal device (as in the woman being "born" out of the man), which is designed to emphasise that the story is concerned with the origins of the social rather than the natural order.

A detailed allegorical analysis may be found at http://www.understandinggenesis.com

Rib or Side

I have seen abundance evidence from good scholars that "rib" in the story should be translated "side." I've incorporated some into the article. I have yet to find any reason to think "rib" is better except that most Bibles still translate that way. My only estimation (personal) is that they continue translating this way because it's tradition. I realize that it's not WP's place to decide who is right, but to merely represent others. But who do we represent? Should wikipedia follow the majority who don't back up their translation or the minority that have overwhelming support? --Ephilei 05:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wan't this in Yentl? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have two main reasons for reverting. One, this subsection was created because some editors were complaining that the article as a whole gave too much attention to Adam and not enough to Eve - hence this paragraph about the creation of Eve, The new edit turns it from a note about what the Genesis story says about that, into a scholarly discussion of the meaning of certain words in Hebrew. Probably accurate in its own right, but it moves us away from the purpose of the paragraph. Second, Arthur Custance...I'd never heard of him, so I looked him up. Turns out he was a Canadian scientist with an amateur interest in OT thrology. Widely read, intelligent, but not, I must say, a scholar, biblical or otherwise, as he never submitted anything to peer erviwe and was never published in any scholarly forum. He's a interesting example of the autodidact, but not a quotable source. (And finally, the quote from the rabbi is simply irrelevant, although it couold be summarised and put into the Traditions section).PiCo 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

can you at least tune down the rhetorics? You preach NPOV, reverting to a version with things like "Some scholars who are evidently unaware of the original Hebrew"? That's classical spinning. It is only Wikipedia's voice, that is, yours, that makes so terribly much of the distinction of "rib" vs. "side". The text goes on to say that "Biblical scholar Arthur Custance recognizes the correct translation of 'side' instead of 'rib,' but still posits a connection with the Sumerian myth", so how on earth can you defend the "who are evidently unaware of the original Hebrew" potshot? dab (ᛏ) 12:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the editor who first wrote "Some scholars who are evidently unaware of the original Hebrew..." was I? I have only reverted to it because at least it presents the whole story, rather than rv to a version tht does not even come close.. It may well need some more fine tuning for compromise acceptable to everyone... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have looked into it, and it turns out that the godswordtowomen.org blurb is simply mistaken. They quote some Archdeacon who admits he just looked up the term in a Hebrew concordance, and they didn't even glance at the text for crying out loud. This is not what we mean by WP:RS, this is a writeup by someone clearly ignorant of the matter, and apparently motivated by some obscure theological preference for "side" over "rib". To conjure up such a dichotomy is simply philological ignorance. Same goes for Greek pleura. Next time you insist on a particular version, you would do well to at least check if it is at all researched or verified. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Stating that your viewpoint is "clear" when it is in fact quite disputed, is definitely POV, as well as original research if you can;t cite someone who says it is "clear". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

preaching water and drinking wine, are we? I am not going to prove to you that "one of Adam's X" means that Adam has several, countable Xs. Or that Adam didn't lose one of his two "sides" (hint, both Hebrew and Greek have the dual, quite apart from the absurdity of the proposition). That article is obviously not even aware of the "one of" construction, and insisting on using it as anything like a notable source is simple WP:POINT. Cite someone who is aware of the Hebrew at least, not someone who cites archdeacons who looked something up in a concordance (I mean, really, what were they thinking). dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast. The Amharic Bible, for instance, has a word meaning "bone", ie it states that God took one "bone" from Adam's side. Assuming that this bone, or whatever was taken, was a rib, is much like assuming that the forbidden fruit was an apple. There is nothing in the Hebrew to specify what was taken, so it's an assumption. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Amharic Bible is just as irrelevant as the KJV here. This is about the Hebrew text. Which has "God took one of his tsela". Now don't be ridiculous and suggest that this might mean "God took one of his flanks" (what does that even mean?). Your cherished WP:NPOV is subject to WP:RS, and as long as you cannot present a discussion that is based on the Hebrew text, we don't even have anything to discuss. This whole debate was apparently initiated by some half-informed writeup on godswordtowomen.org. And call me elitist, but godswordtowomen.org is not my idea of a WP:RS. dab (ᛏ) 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't change what I just said above about the Hebrew: There is nothing in the Hebrew to specify what was taken, so "rib" is an assumption. I mentioned the Amharic Bible only to demonstrate that not every translation assumes "rib" is the thing that was taken. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A tsela` was taken, which means "rib". I think now that we've established that the term for "rib" in Daniel 7:5 is the Aramaic form of the same word, that cognates of the word in other Semitic language mean "rib", and that it is from a root meaning "to be bent", we have established beyond reasonable doubt that the godswordtowomen.org simply doesn't known its ins or outs. You are still free to cite an academic source questioning the "rib" translation. dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Took out Kate Bushnell, as her "God's Word to Women" is simply wrong. Plus I'm not happy with the way both of you want to turn this into a learned article on the meaning of Hebrew - Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a learned journal!PiCo 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but nothing short of resorting to watertight scholarship would convince Codex that Kate was out of her depth. I suggest you keep the details around in footnotes for the next time someone tries to add the claim. dab (ᛏ) 11:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Separate Torah from tradition

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

YouTube links

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

Saints?

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

Historicity & Rome Church

The "Historicity" paragraph gives the impression that only "conservative" christians/jews now believe that Adam and Eve were real individuals. Dismissing for a moment the discussion of which Christians are not conservative, I note that the Catholic Church (or, the Roman Church), officially believes that Adam and Eve were real individuals. Or, at least, this is what I understood from this web page: http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp (Look for the "Adam and Eve: Real People" paragraph)

Since I'm not an expert, I won't edit the main article, but I put here this note to draw some expert's attention to the issue.Danjar 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but I understand that Pius XII's Humani Generis - the text quoted and referenced in your source - still stands as the Church's position on evolution and on Adam and Eve. Which is unfortunate, as it makes the Church look ridiculous - and for that matter, I've seen words from the hand of the current Pope Benedict taking a much more nuanced view. Still, you could put it in the article. PiCo

I believe that by God creating the first man, it means that God influenced the evolution of the apes. This is what I've been taught.Therequiembellishere 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam's Rib section -- "Rabbi Joshua" and no citation

Who is "Rabbi Joshua"?

The footnote citation is blank.

This phrase is not objective, scientific "encyclopedia voice" --

"An old story of the rib is told by Rabbi Joshua:"

Should be something like:

"The XXX Century Jewish scholar, Rabbi Joshua LAST NAME, gave this description in his work NAME:"

Justification for Ge'ez Transliteration

In my History edit with note:

"Rather than adding Aramaic, Ancient Greek, Latin, Coptic Christian -- and transliterations in other languages not used in the original texts, I thought removing Ge'ez instead would be more efficient."

I removed the Ge'ez transliterations from the head of the article.

In case the note doesn't explain my logic: Ge'ez is not the original language of an original use of the names Adam and Eve -- and there are a number of equally august ancient languages with Biblical connections that would also need to be included if Ge'ez is.

But another editor reversed my edit, with the History note:

"rv. Don't do that again."

With no explanation here in Talk.

I'm guessing this might be the work of some kind of Ethiopian nationalist, or Afrocentrist who believes Biblical events actually took place in Ethiopia (and thus Ge'ez is the "true original language" of the Bible).

Whatever -- I'm removing it again.

If you have some justification for including Ge'ez transliteration, please explain it here -- with references to support any claims.

Thank you (unsigned by anon)

I'm reverting it again. According to the Ethiopian Church, the only complete Book of Enoch was found in the Ge'ez language and is the original, and is indeed believed by them to be the original language Enoch and Adam spoke. Obviously you do not share their opinion, but this belief is equally valid to the inclusion of Hebrew and Aramaic and we have to be NPOV, not cater to your opinion of what language Adam spoke. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Adam, First Man

The Evidences for a Recent Dating for Adam, about 14,000 to 15,000 years Before Present [12] Locates Garden of Eden including evidence for the other two rivers named, the Pishon and Gihon. --4.156.171.249 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic section looks like possible copyvio

I have no idea how long it has been there, but by formatting it looks like a copyvio that has been cut and pasted from elsewhere. SchmuckyTheCat 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cat is correct. It is straight from http://www.islam101.com/history/people/prophets/adam.htm. Yikes. We have some work ahead of us. Wrad 05:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jewish Encyclopedia has mention of the muslim opinion with references unforutanately it is down right now!

--Java7837 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do next? Delete the copyvio immediately, or wait, or what?PiCo 06:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted it on the copyvio page, so an admin should do something (I don't know what). Sure is taking awhile. Maybe we should just delete it and start over with that section. Wrad 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As Java says (above), the Jewish Encyclopedia has material on the Islamic viewpoint. There are two reasons for being cautious abt the JE as a source - first, being Jewish, it offends some Muslims, and secondly, it's older than my grandmother. But it's not copyright-protected, and it can be edited into a paragraph or two without cut-and paste. PiCo 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the offending edit - [13]. I'm reverting that section to what it was before the edit. --Alvestrand 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The original sin explained.

After spending some 20 years researching half-truths, it was noted that there exists a negative side to truth, that may be the remnants of the original sin.

Oxford Univesity has confirmed this research.

The metaphor from the bible is a tree. Taking of this tree, the tree of knowledge or truth, gives a person a truth, problem is this is not the whole truth.

Contrary to what the devil told Adam and Eve, this would not make Adam and Eve like God to discern between good and bad.

History is full of examples of how mankind has attempted to use truth to correct problems with paradoxical problems.

Examples:

"Stop violence against women' is actually two half-truths. First the model ignores all other forms of abuse, and second it ignores men and children.

So it appears that there is a negative side to truth, that is still not within the books. Truth ~ LIGHT

While this is my original research I point this out to researchers on this site who might want to reference it.

-References-

Wow is that Theology, or a George Bush speech? Wouldn't a better example be the Truth the Creationists see in Genesis is only dimly perceived by them, leading to their paradoxical rejection of the reality of the universe which God created. 83.70.219.86 05:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert

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