Talk:Adam and Eve/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

"== Hebrew Bible narrative ==

The Creation of Adam depicted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangelo

Adam and Eve are figures from the primeval history (Genesis 1 to 11), the Bible's mythic history of the first years of the world's existence. The History tells how God creates the world and all its beings and places the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) in his Garden of Eden, how the first couple are expelled from God's presence, of the first murder which follows, and God's decision to destroy the world and save only the righteous Noah and his sons; a new humanity then descends from these sons and spreads throughout the world. Although the new world is as sinful as the old, God has resolved never again to destroy the world by flood, and the History ends with Terah, the father of Abraham, from whom will descend God's chosen people, the Israelites."

Suggest changing the unnecessary wording "mythic" to the word "telling" or Suggest changing the unnecessary wording "mythic history" to "story"

The wording is long and purposefully spiteful to each religion that has the belief in the early Genesis text. Further none of the major religions use this word in their Wikipedia pages, other than Christianity. The leaning this shows is obvious and ignorant to major faiths worldwide.

Consider this request from a non member of this community and if questions arise contact [email protected] 174.0.24.124 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. A myth is a sacred narrative, which features gods, demigods or supernatural humans. This fits the definition. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

We aren't going to do this - see the message at the top of this talk page concerning your request. Or read the books by believing theologians who write about religious myths. Your bias also shows in your apparent claim that this is somehow a Christian page. It's not. Heck, we have articles on Jewish mythology, Hindu mythology, Islamic mythology and more. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Why have you for years not removed the word myth? It’s hateful atheist propaganda!

The word myth has the connotative meaning of lie. Nearly everyone views the word myth as lie. The editors who inserted the word in the first sentence and refuse to remove it are atheists with an agenda. You can see this by there atheists literature sources. I see no logical reason to use the word myth. You can easily change it to story or narrative.

This whole page is atheistic nonsense. In the first paragraph they even quote a badly written 1985 book saying Jews don’t believe in original sin or the fall of mankind. Which is a lie since uniformity of Jewish thought on this topic is impossible to find. It varies from the period and area. Samueltheggg (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Samueltheggg: nonsense. I'm sorry but you are very ill-informed and are hardly an expert on "nearly everyone". Believing theologians write about myths. Paul Ricœur was a Christian[1] and was an expert on the "Adamic myth".[2] Read Christian mythology. Personal attacks and refusing to accept good faith are a bad idea. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Bennv3771, FWIW, IMO the historicity bit is borderline lead-worthy, but reasonable people may disagree, I won't fight about it. If you're good with moving US-opinion as you did, I'm good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think adding some more content that reflects Adam and Eve in Arts and Literature that represent the Jewish and Islamic traditions would add a more balanced tone to the article. Tmendo26 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)TMendoza.

LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY DNA REPORTS

LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY DNA REPORTS

Dna reports state that they can trace all male dna back to one man, in north eastern africa, the same for the female dna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.147.13 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So? That sounds like the Y-chromosomal Adam or the Most recent common ancestor concept. It doesn't mean that they didn't have their own ancestors or that they lived at the same time, just that everyone can be traced back to them. There seems to be a dispute as to whether they were located in Africa or Asia (or both, as there are two of them). Doug Weller talk 13:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In general there is a lack of source link regarding the DNA evidence. This quote “There is physical evidence that Adam and Eve never existed; findings in genetics are incompatible with there being a single first pair of human beings.” Ought to be removed if there is no link added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie91 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chinoiserie91: This is an old thread that you responded to, but the citation you're looking for is probably in the "Historicity" section. The sentence you are referring to is in the lead, which is a summary, not needing a duplicated citation per WP:LEAD. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 01:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Genealogical Adam and Eve

See this article from today that might be relevant to historicity section. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/04/upcoming-book-leaves-scientific-possibility-existence-adam-eve-column/3826195002/ Sswamida (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your message on my talk page. Presumably there'll be some academic responses - if there are enough of them, we could probably use some of them in the article. But not right now, it needs to show that your book is significant in terms of having some impact. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Last year's discussion is here. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. There has already been academic response, but there is going to be a lot more soon. No rush either, so we'll give it some time to work out. Sswamida (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I also did follow the COI policy. No edit to the page was made, only to the talk page. Experts in areas with academic contributions are allowed to offer their expertise to the wikipedia community this way, right? Sswamida (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, though it would have been a bit wiser to wait until there was more reaction to the work. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The usatoday article is in the "story/opinion" section and appears to be a press release for a book. As such, it does not seem to be a usable reliable source (WP:RS) to support new material in this article, other than to confirm the existence of the book and its aims. If the book becomes notable (meets the WP:NBOOK notability guideline), a Wikipedia article will most probably eventually exist about it (WP:WTAF is a decent related essay). This also means that other sources would be referencing ideas of the book. I would see no problem to then support a link to it in a paragraph about theistic evolutionists (the article mentions "special creation") attempting to reconcile traditional stories with modern science (and presenting notable opinions, as opinions, per WP:YESPOV, that are highlighted by an independent reliable source). It would be a different thing to use material from the book to support its own conclusions and use it as a source, especially for non-mainstream views.

This is only an impression and I admit that this page is not the right place to discuss such details (the science reference desk may be better) but I can immediately think of apparent contradictions to all extant humans going back to that specific region ~10k years ago: from confirmed modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens presence on other continents like America nearly 100k years ago, the nearly parallel development of agriculture at different places about ~10-12k years ago, the discovery of earlier people in the Levant and an understanding of tradition development, etc. As we keep looking for older mitochondrial/Y-chromosomal "Eves/Adams", their specific location and age are also often surprising... —PaleoNeonate – 13:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree about 100,000 years ago, but there were definitely people in the Americas. Australia, Siberia, Europe, etc over 10,000 years ago, but I presume Sswamida has a response to this. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I could very well be mistaken there, I seem to remember proposed evidence of ~70k years or so and then of possibly 90. It's not my field and I'd have to review. My memory may also have been confused by some fringe claims (a regular occurence )... Also out of spontaneous memory:

We of course have intelligent Homo Sapiens subspecies going way before, with which human populations sometimes appear to have admixture (Neanderthals in Europe, Denisovans in Asia are examples). Where would the special-creation of Adam/Eve occur, somewhere early in the Homo genus? Before? Why in the Levant if humans like us appear to originate from Africa? Why are some of the oldest religious artifacts 35-20k old Paleolithic stone fertility goddesses from Siberia, with pre-agriculture traditional religions so different, including animism? How would one explain that monotheism appeared late and sparingly and was not the norm for most of humanity? Why did the "real deity" never reveal itself unambiguously to all of humanity, back then and today? What about the problem of suffering (the conjectures of every tradition varies without an objective answer)?

In this context, if there was special creation, how could it be from that specific Abrahamic Levantine god rather than Akna? By extension, why call them Adam and Eve rather than Mashya and Mashyana or Ask and Embla (or perhaps even consider them bodhisattvas or a result of ancient astronauts)? Other than metaphorically of course (like for the Y-Chromosomal "Adam", but that is not claimed to have any actual relation to the man of that particular tradition). Where is the evidence for foreknowledge of evolution in the Tanakh if its origin claims were accurate? Why the immense discrepancy in time between observed 300-200k years (the first Humans similar to us) and that comparatively late story (that also is frequently interpreted as refering to an event only ~7k years ago)? What is the actual purpose of linking extant humans to that particular story (no such purpose is needed in biology)? Etc... I'll stop here though as I see some discussions have already occurred at the original poster's talk page in 2017 and I may be stretching WP:NOTFORUM... —PaleoNeonate – 06:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Swamidass did not claim that he has evidence. He only constructed a what-if story, using his scientific knowledge. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation request

The last sentence of the opening paragraph states that "many" consider the Adam & Eve narrative to be an allegory, and that there is "evidence" that they did not exist. While I am aware of the allegorical interpretation, and while I do not contest the claim that scientific evidence is unfavorable to the idea of there having been an original ancestral couple, I nevertheless maintain that the claims should be backed by appropriate citations. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CITELEAD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, Tgeorgescu. I was not aware of that particular guideline; I only checked the general guidelines for applying the "Citation needed" template. However, I don't see the statements elaborated upon in the body of the article. The word "allegory" is nowhere to be found in the section on Adam and Eve in Christianity, and the evidence of there not having been an original ancestral couple is only briefly touched upon in the section on "Historicity". Since the opening sentence of the lead contains the words "according to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions", one would think it unnecessary to even give attention to the question of historicity in the lead, but I understand that given the massive presence of young earth creationist propaganda, it may be warranted in this particular case. For that same reason, however, I believe that there should be a citation here in the lead as well, especially because the topic is not dealt with at length in the body of this article.

As a theologian, I should be able to find a suitable citation for the allegory statement myself. When it comes to the genetic evidence, however, I am not knowledgeable enough to know where to look for a citation (unless the one at the end of the "Historicity" section covers it, which I am notable to tell). Nikolaj1905 (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the allegory reference. On the genetic point, I see your wish to have something rather than nothing, so I have re-cast the sentence to include wikilinks to Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Feline Hymnic! Your contribution made the sentence a whole lot more useful! Nikolaj1905 (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Truth

Not a myth. For billions of people the origin of Adam/Eve in the Bible is the truth and should be labeled as such. Truth792693 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read what the term "myth" means. DMacks (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, we do not use ad populum, we use WP:VERECUNDIAM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

The Adam and Eve story shouldn’t be labeled as a “creation myth” or myth in any capacity. For billions of people across the whole world the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible it is the truth and should be labeled as such. Have respect for God and others beliefs. Truth792693 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done For all the reasons that are written many dozens of times every time this is asked. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This article as usual makes a mockery of Wikipedia's so called neutral stance. Unlock please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.232 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Original research

@Lelouch0zerogeass: Smacks of either original research or copyright violation. Swamidass's work isn't scientific fact, but unsubstantiated speculation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Category: People whose existence is disputed

Regarding the existence of Adam and Eve, what about these? https://www.christiantoday.com/article/renowned-genetics-expert-proves-existence-of-adam-and-eve-through-dna-research/60539.htm, https://www.irishpost.com/news/adam-eve-exist-proof-162201 and https://evidenceforchristianity.org/did-adam-and-eve-exist-and-did-man-evolve-from-apesr/. I do believe in cavemen, but I think that Adam and Eve were the first of are kind. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The articles you link are from ultra-conservative Christian websites and the popular press, and misrepresent their sources. But if you want to take the biblical Adam and Eve story seriously, it holds that the first human man was created from mud (improbable) and the first woman from his bones (equally improbable), and that this happened roughly six thousand years ago, which is also the age of the Earth (improbable), and that they spoke Hebrew (well, maybe). In short, the articles you point me to are not talking about biblical Adam and Eve.Achar Sva (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary when you reverted my change doesn't make sense. I find it very difficult to respond to. Anyway, you shouldn't be reverting while there is a discussion underway here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm moving the thread above to this place from my personal talk page because it relates to article improvements. Specifically the question of whether this article should be added to the category "People whose existence is disputed". It amazes me that anyone could consider Adam and Eve to be people at all - they're created from mud and bones by God, which makes them mythical beings, not people. However, let's by all means have this pointless argument yet again, if the community wishes it so. Achar Sva (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The dicussion related to Wikipedia content isn't whether we feel the Adam and Eve story is true, or even anywhere in the realm of possibility...apparently some people might because that's how religion is I guess. But that Answers in Genesis would be drawn to a creation-scientist who conflates mitochondrial Eve with the specific Eve character of the bible is not surprising. I think per WP:FRINGE we don't consider their position to rise to the level of a "dispute" against vastly-mainstream position. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion would have some thoughts? DMacks (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at those links from Davidgoodheart more closely:

• The first quotes "Dr. Georgia Purdom, a molecular geneticist from Answers in Genesis", who cites "creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson"; if the term "creation geneticist" isn't a clear enough clue, Dr Jeanson is Dr. Purdom's colleague at Answers in Genesis. Their about us page sums up their approach to science thus: "The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world." These are not scientists making surprising discoveries which happen to match Biblical accounts, they are people who have dedicated themselves to re-interpreting scientific findings so that they match the Bible. It is not particularly notable or surprising that they claim to have succeeded.
• The second is a peculiar press release for the Christian press to pick up on, because one of its key conclusions is the "non-exceptional" nature of humans, something Biblical literalists would normally find hard to stomach. The particular article linked rambles rather wildly, from "a catastrophic event that wiped out humanity" to "humans possess an inbuilt evolutionary process wherein humanity breaks down and dies out" via "reviewed ... the writings of Charles Darwin" (as though reviewing 150-year-old texts would be key to new insights). Luckily, the actual paper in question is open access - DOI:10.14673/HE2018121037. It mostly discusses an analysis of mitochondrial DNA "barcodes" as a measure of speciation, and discusses possible reasons why most species have clear differences in this DNA, rather than a continuous spectrum. Its tentative conclusion is that relatively recent population bottlenecks best explain the data observed in most animals, including humans, and places a particular time frame in the human case of 100000 to 200000 years. Reduction to a single breeding pair by catastrophe would be consistent with that analysis, but that is not how Adam and Eve are described in Genesis.
• The third link presents no evidence at all. It also baldly states "The fossil record is: ape, ape, ape, man, man, with no ape/man in between." This is the myth of the missing link, and is simply false.

- IMSoP (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned one way or another if the category is there, just wanted to note that the Catholic position is that Adam and Eve were the first hominids with souls, and while not necessarily the oldest ancestor of all humanity, a part of of some genetic bottleneck or something. Some have interpreted this metaphorically. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

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

 Not done See WP:TE and WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

So, let's be logically consistent here

If Adam and Eve were alleged myths (with no actual evidence/proof of that assertion given, of course, but only bare citations of a couple of conveniently selected sources while ignoring other sources that say otherwise), then Cain, Abel, and Seth (as well as their many other sons and daughters) were myths, which makes Enos[h] a myth, which makes Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, etc., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., Matthat, Heli, and Joseph myths, which makes Jesus a myth, which makes all his disciples and followers myths, which makes a lot of editing needed on Wikipedia to insert the word "myth" into the articles for every single biblical figure -- if the godless, atheist editors and admins were logically consistent, which they aren't and never will be. All the whole matter of inserting the word "myth" into this article is about is their need to express their POV displeasure, disagreement, and hate against religion -- and specifically Judeo-Christianity -- in a supposedly intelligent and legitimate way which is really just a barely disguised method of trolling. 67.4.76.65 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a millenia-long slippery slope fallacy. By that reasoning, if you want to be consistent, then you would be a myth.

Or one could read Adam and Eve to be a stand in for "the first sapient hominids." It's not like the Bible ever uses allegory. Or metaphor. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's logical consistency, which you don't want to admit. Explain to me how it's not. If Adam and Eve are myths, then why aren't Cain, Abel, Seth, and all their other children myths? Logically, they'd have to be. Then that would logically make their grandchildren myths, and their great-grandchildren myths, etc., ad infinitum. Where do you cut off the "they're myths" idea and presume the reality of the persons mentioned? How do you know that's where to cut it off? Can you logically, rationally defend that idea, or just illogically, indefensibly throw out the "NOBIGOTS," "POV," "slippery slope" nonsense? 67.4.76.65 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea of a first man is mythical thinking, it is not scientific thinking. No amount of sophistry will change that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Still don't see why we're listening to you if you're a myth. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely WP:NOTAFORUM applies here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTHERE. Will expand their block as necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this rant was designed to evoke a reaction like "of course not, that would be ridiculous", but honestly, why shouldn't the whole of the Bible be referred to as mythology? The sentence "according to the myths of Christianity, Jesus rose from the dead" would sound perfectly reasonable to me, in precisely the same way as "according to the myths of Ancient Greece, Cronus was the father of Zeus". The only difference I can see is that it's easier to find current believers in Christ than in Zeus, but it's just as easy to find people who believe in neither. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to shoe-horn the term into every article to make a point, but there are plenty of contexts where it would be appropriate. - IMSoP (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, and many Christian theologians would gladly grant that point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

In the section "Hebrew Bible narrrative", there is an erroneous claim that "Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures". This should be changed to reflect the fact that 1 Chronicles 1 starts off with a clear reference to the same Adam as mentioned in Genesis 2-5.

My suggestion: change "Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures..." to "Eve is not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, and Adam is referenced once in 1 Chronicles..." Morhc (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I would say that a more reliable source is needed to make this change; as the source you've provided is a primary source. If you need help finding some, go to the reference desk. @Morhc. Seagull123 Φ 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I wasn’t really using it as a primary source. It just was something I was using to get my point across. On the Wikipedia page for Adam it lists p. 84 for the following book as a source for Adam in 1 Chronicles: Enns, Peter (2012). The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins. Baker Books. ISBN 9781587433153. Morhc (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Standardizing Information

On this page, in the intro to the "Hebrew Bible narrative" section says, "The opening chapters of the Book of Genesis provide a mythic history of the infiltration of evil into the world... Neither Adam nor Eve is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, suggesting that although their story came to be prefixed to the Jewish story, it has little in common with it." However, this is inconsistent with the Adam page in the "Origin" section says, " (Adam appears only in chapters 1–5, with the exception of a mention at the beginning of the Books of Chronicles where, as in Genesis, he heads the list of Israel's ancestors)". This page should be updated to be more accurate because the Adam page is the correct one when consulting the Hebrew Bible. Morhc (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Myth (perennial)

@Parise.michael: Please see the following from the archives (and that's only from the last archive page of the three): 1, 2, 3, 4. Here's also a short definition from WordNet: "A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"; a longer one from Webster: "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical". Also relevant are creation myth, origin myth, flood myth, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 11:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes but it still has the conotation that it’s an incorrect idea. Beccabodily (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an "incorrect idea". Paleontology has significantly progressed since the inception of this story. Kleuske (talk)

Viewed as an allegory its proven to be a masterpiece of the human condition. As we become more knowledgeable and godlike we inescapably expel ourselves from the environment.

Tusk Bilasimo (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The word "myth" may not be used in that particular article, but clicking through to the full article on "Biblical literature", I quickly found this:

The Hebrew myths of creation have superseded the racial mythologies of Latin, Germanic, Slavonic, and all other Western peoples. This is not because they contain historically factual information or scientifically adequate accounts of the universe, the beginning of life, or any other subject of knowledge, but because they furnish a profoundly theological interpretation of the universe and human existence, an intellectual framework of reality large enough to make room for developing philosophies and sciences.

So, no, the Britannia editors do not shy away from using the word "myth" in exactly the scholarly context that this article uses it. Indeed, the article frequently contains phrases such as "probably a reflection of older mythical material", and frequently discusses the intent of the various authors thought to have contributed to the Old Testament we are familiar with. It remains open-minded (actually, rather over-flattering for my taste) about the moral value of the Bible, but makes no attempt to treat Genesis as an accurate historical source. - IMSoP (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

My problem stems from the first talk post - using this definition of myth to attempt to give credence to the use of the myth in conjunction with this belief

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

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

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

Actually read the article on myth: "However, as commonly used by folklorists and academics in other relevant fields, such as anthropology, the term myth has no implication whether the narrative may be understood as true or otherwise." Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the idea that those pre-Christian peoples didn't believe their myths to be true is ridiculous. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the word myth Digital shell (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please keep the word myth, and give those who don't understand the word the opportunity to learn something.--Doric Loon (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Myth" editnotice

Due to the perennial-ness of the "myth" issue, I have created an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Adam and Eve, which I've transcluded below. If anyone has any objections to this, or would like to request any changes, please let me know. You can also file an {{edit template-protected}} request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Adam and Eve.

If people like this idea, we could potentially expand it to other articles where the "myth" term comes up often.

-- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Red skin

A first issue is that this interprets Josephus, where a secondary source should do it for us. Another is that the editor interpretation may be wrong: it seems that Josephus writes about the etymology of a word because of the related belief that red clay may have been used during creation. Thus nothing suggests that the skin of living Adam would be red. A last issue is of course that Josephus reports about claims attributed to Moses who is itself a mythological figure. This is the kind of material for which more context by a reliable secondary source is ideal. —PaleoNeonate – 17:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:It is saying that Adam’s skin was red(at least according to Josephus), “Adam, which in Hebrew signifies one that is red, because he was formed from red earth, compounded together;” Now I want to be clear, like Mr. Weller I am not trying to be enemies with you, I want the same thing, a free encyclopedia. I also understand you are a agnostic, so I want to be as kind as I can to you. If you want to discuss further here with more discourse I am fine and ok with that. ThanksTeertrevo (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Teertrevo, forgive me here but you stated on Doug's talk page that this source is "mostly reliable(but not every part)"". But mostly reliable is not reliable. How can something be reliable but not all the way reliable in the topic field it is discussing? Perhaps we agreed that a source was not reliable when it comes to politics but generally reliable when it comes to other topics we could see a practical use for that. But if this source is not completely reliable in the topic for which it is primarily focused then it isn't reliable. This has nothing to do with a source being truthful. The two are easily distinguishable. Historians and scholars don't determine what is reliable on Wikipedia. This community does. I think the community is right to scrutinize this heavily. In my opinion after looking at the source there is nothing definitively saying this is mainstream Jewish tradition. But I encourage anyone to look at it yourself, maybe you see something I missed. Maybe we can form a consensus one way or another. --ARoseWolf 19:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

My personal beliefs don't matter, but Moses § Historicity and its sources may be useful, —PaleoNeonate – 09:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolfI’d be more than happy to discourse it with you. Do you want to talk about it here or in my talk page or your page? Either is fine with me. Hope we can talk soon!
(As a side note when I said “not every part” I was referring to parts that where it tends to exaggerate the good qualities and ignore the unflattering failures, such as Aaron's golden calf, in an effort to promote the Jewish cause.) Teertrevo (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The word myth is offense that Athiest say

. 69.67.84.25 (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the use of that word is explained near the bottom of the yellow text box above. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tmendo26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Religious Education

Where was Adam and Eve place after they were created 72.27.40.116 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are asking what happened to Adam and Eve after the Bible story, you will find the true and inerrant story at Legend of the Rood.--Doric Loon (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

They were in the Garden of Eden, but where that was is anyone's guess. Achar Sva (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Though of course, there are traditions. See Garden of Eden! --Doric Loon (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The story of Adam and Eve a myth? The Bible is constantly proving itself as archaeology is constantly being revealed in the earth and always will. The creator God never leaves any stone unturned. Everything hidden will always be revealed.

My concern is that someone edited that story about Adam and Eve citing the creation account given us in the inspired Word of God as a myth. My question is by what authority do you claim this to be a myth and not a true account? God is not a man that he should lie. On the first day God created the heavens and the earth and separated the light from the darkness. On the second day God made the expanse and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. God made dry land appear and called it earth. He gathered the waters together and called that seas. Then God said that the earth produce vegetation plants yielding seed and fruit trees on the earth. On the fourth day God said let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night Thar would be for signs and seasons and days and years. On the fifth day God made fish in the sea and birds in the sky and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Then God said let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock and creeping things and the beasts of the earth and according to their kinds. Now that he got everything ready he brought in mankind that he made in his own image to take care of all of this. Bible account goes on to say he created Adam out of the clay out of the dust into his image and breathed life into him. He had Adam name all the animals and that is when Adam realized he did not have a mate as all the animals did. That is one God made a woman, a mate for Adam out of his own rib. Historyoftheworlds (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

See the box at the top of the page with the i in the blue circle. This has already been addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You’re right. It is wrong to label it so because there is no evidence to disprove it. Asims6801 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you perform WP:PROFRINGE again you will get blocked. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence to disprove Dumbo, either. Achar Sva (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That's mythology Jamesman666 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Totally agreee. Can’t believe this would be allowed to stand. It wouldn’t even be allowed if it was an offensive statement against Islamic beliefs! Totally unacceptable. The Big Bang is still called a “Theory” which means it hasn’t been proven, either. 2600:1700:4FC0:3960:5CCA:20C1:55F8:E271 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

See the pictures from Muhammad. WP:CRYBLASPHEMY does not work for them either. If you want to assign it a religion, then Big Bang is a Popish theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Myth?

Asked and answered, and already covered to death in the archives and the box at the top if this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Myth? Biblical story is at least a theory, as is the Big Bang “Theory.” Why insult millions of Christians worldwide? Would you do the same if the issue was of Islamic belief? I’ve always been willing to donate each year but will reconsider if the word “myth,” which is offensive to my believes, is allowed to remain. 2600:1700:4FC0:3960:5CCA:20C1:55F8:E271 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Donations are never leverage upon content. The Wikipedia Community is not in charge of the money anyway. It is fairly easy for donors to find out that Wikipedia supports WP:CHOPSY-style information about holy books and religions, which is the very Nemesis of fundamentalists, true believers, and Bible thumpers. We do not seek to pamper their prejudices, and we invent no excuses to that extent. Mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not pander to piety, and neither does that Wikipedia. This is simply put not a friendly website for people who get easily offended by what is taught at the Ivy League. This above all: to the academic truth be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, this is why aware people and companies donate to Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC) I thought Wikipedia also opposed belittling groups of people: "fundamentalists, true believers, and Bible thumpers", really inclusive language there lol. But go ahead and mock the new editor some more lol 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC) @Ficaia: If you want to write about a religion/ideology/whatever from that religion/ideology/whatever's perpective, then WP is the wrong place to write. See WP:RNPOV. WP is not the domain of the true adherents of any faith. They're as welcome as any other editors within WP:s policies and guidelines, but it's not their domain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC) RNPOV doesn't say "true believers" have no place editing religious articles. It just says all editors should adopt NPOV and use scholarly terminology (many devout religious scholars do just that). You could've explained that to the IP without belittling his belief. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC) @Ficaia: I have seen so many devout religious attempts at POV-pushing that I no longer WP:AGF. What I know is that the OP usually (not always) ends by mentioning something about Wikipedians and Satan or hell. Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. There is an organized group that wishes to replace science with religious pseudoscience on Wikipedia, and this page is one of their main targets. As for bias, Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC) AGF is not optional. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC) @Ficaia: Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. They just have to find unused IPs (there's a black market for that) and behave as if they're newbies. The similarity of their responses suggests WP:DUCK. There is no personality and no individuality in what they write, they behave like chatbots of their own church. Bots don't have a theory of mind, but most people do. So either their theory of mind has been excised through brainwashing, or they are awarely trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Creation myths are called such for a reason. FYI, Islam's creation myth is also Adam and Eve, so it is the same situation. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Why insult millions of Christians worldwide?" Because if these so-called Christians believe that the Book of Genesis is a historical account, they are delusional. Creationist nonsense aside, who would ever believe that all humans on planet Earth can trace their descent to a relatively recent ancestor from the Garden of Eden? Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Your comment should be scrubbed from the talk page as irrelevant and unnecessarily provocative. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Pre-biblical Version from Ugarit ~1200BC

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265184845_Review_of_Adam_Eve_and_the_Devil_by_Marjo_Korpel_Johannes_de_Moor_Sheffield_2014

"The tomb was dated late 13th century and contained the only extant tablets in Ugaritic" ... "KTU 1.107/100 tells the story of how Adammu comes to earth, is bitten by the serpent and dies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:E7F:8410:98CD:A0BE:C671:CB8 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Myth?

This is offensive to Christians, Muslims and Jews. It’s a matter of opinion and not factual therefore offensive language should be removed from the post. The words “creation narrative” would be more appropriate. 24.36.216.197 (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Anon, we're here to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored and it does not pander to any group. Please refrain from rehashing old arguments. The matter has been discussed to death. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I hardly think requesting not to have your lifestyle insulted when your group which represents billions is requesting "pandering" at all. It's been discussed to death because this is a post representing BILLIONS of people who have the right to say "actually that's a really offensive thing to write". I'm a Christian yes but my main gripe with this situation is the bias. Only Atheists call these Religions myths. So if anything youre pandering to Atheists. 194.207.207.211 (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Myth? This is misleading

"creation myth" should obviously be rewritten to a neutral phrase. The level of offense that has already been presented should make it crystal clear that those defending this verbiage are not Christian and have taken the opposite view.

The wording should clearly be "Origin story", which would be more accurate and appropriately considerate of the Wikipedia audience.

Wikipedia has a larger reputation to uphold, and it is this specific type of issue that deter a larger, donating audience, from participating in it.

Wikipedia is losing credibility, respect and significant donation opportunity by retaining "creation myth". The argument to keep it is thin and clearly bias.

Please change this to "origin story" in lieu of "creation myth" and stop the blatant disrespect of 2.6 billion people on this page. Swift0ne1 (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"myth" in this context clearly violates the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View, in which it states verbatim:

"

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

"

Calling it a myth is simply supporting the narrative of those who do not hold this religious view and in many ways disrespects the foundational belief of 2.6 billion people. A "myth" is often referred to as a something that is fantasy and not real. Christians believe it to be real.

Please have this changed to "origin story", which is clearly a far better, and more neutral representation. It is, by very definition and timeless accuracy, "the story of Adam and Eve".

A story does not indicate true or false, hence honoring the Neutral guidelines that helps to retain the integrity of Wikipedia, which are written specifically, for instances like this. Swift0ne1 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Most Christians do not believe this is a true story, and those who do are rejecting the best evidence of science and history that Wikipedia is based on. Their ideas are fringe, and Wikipedia's neutrality principal is not about giving equal time to way-out views that reject the best scholarship.

Myth is a technical term that applies correctly to this material. In particular, the words "Creation Myth" in the head of this article are linked to another Wikipedia article with that title. So this is the correct approach. (Having said that, I have no objection to the phrase "origin story", and would be very happy to see that also used elsewhere in the article.) Doric Loon (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"I have no objection to the phrase "origin story", and would be very happy to see that also used elsewhere in the article." Origin story wound indicate that it is fiction. Origin story is a jargon term for stories depicting the past of specific fictional characters, and clarifying their unique perspective and motivation. Basically, what set them apart from the others. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick Indeed, stories like Adam and Eve are the inherited fictions of a non-literary culture, obviously. But the OP at the top of this section was asking for us to use "Origin Story" instead of "Creation Myth" on the grounds that that is somehow more respectful. I disagree: they are both scholarly, and both perfectly respectful to the cultural environment the stories come from. Doric Loon (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Christians believe it to be real." Then they should talk to their psychiatrist and not to Wikipedia's editors. If they have trouble telling the difference between an ancient myth and real life, something is clearly wrong with them. Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick Careful of the ad hominem attacks! Wikipedia is not the place for pushing a fundamentalist agenda, but it is also not the place for insulting fundamentalists. It would however be pertinent to point out yet again that it is the fundamentalist fringe, not Christians in general, who believe this is a true story. Doric Loon (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I was about 5-years-old when I was shown documentaries about human evolution, about Louis Leakey, and about Homo habilis. I hadn't even heard about Adam and Eve until I was about 9, and their story sounded like a rather crude imitation of pagan myths. The Book of Genesis is not worth much thought as a story of human origins. Dimadick (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick Oh, but there are great stories in Genesis, and they're told with an impressive concision and economy: I don't find that crude. The fascination of the thing is that you can read it on so many levels, starting with the source hypothesis and working out what the original texts said before they were compiled, and comparing with other mythologies to see where ideas came from; then you can see the Genesis compliation as a witness to the needs of a later period. And that's only the start: 2000 years of retelling and reshaping the stories, and representing them in poetry, theatre and art. This is a goldmine of human culture. Doric Loon (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"and representing them in poetry, theatre and art. This is a goldmine of human culture." As with most Biblical texts, the adaptations tend to be far better written, crafted, and given more depth and characterization than the source texts. I have enjoyed my share of adaptations over the decades. I just don't expect to find answers to existential questions in the Book of Genesis. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for proving the bias 194.207.207.211 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And as someone who has a real mental health condition your use of needing a psychiatrist as an attempt to insult is VERY low hanging fruit. Biased rude atheist as usual. 194.207.207.211 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

WRONG. Only a minority of Christians hold that the story is literally true. Most real theologians know that it is a parable, an allegory, or a folktale. The Bible is full of such stories that were NEVER meant to be taken as fact. There is no way the Fall ever really happened. It is an insult to claim that it did and that all Christians hold a fundamentalist, charismatic, or Pentacostsal viewpoint. SN 22 July 2023

"myth" is biased

Cut it however you like but it is. And some people arguing for using this word were incredibly offensive, some even comparing religion to mental health as an insult. I feel this really proves the point of the bias. We aren't allowed to post offensive material to LGBTQ groups using certain touchy words like mental illness for gender dysphoria (a scientific fact) but you can post all you want discrediting faithful people. Why can't we all just have tolerance for each other no matter the side you're on and stay neutral? As a Christian (and same sex attracted person before I get accused of some ironic things) I don't want posts pandering to my faith. But they should be informative whilst remaining respectful and neutral. Greek mythology is mythology because it isn't followed anymore. Billions follow Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Haven't Jews been through enough already? This is petty and childish to use such words and be so openly offensive to defend it afterwards. Maybe you find it annoying but just to remind you BILLIONS follow these Religions so you're discussing a lot of people within those groups who absolutely have a right to freely say it is upsetting. Christianity keeps me from harming myself as a PTSD sufferer. I find church soothing and the hope of prayer gives me the strength to keep going. 194.207.207.211 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Note I have since updated my response below. 194.207.207.211 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I stand (slightly) corrected

I clicked on the link for "creation myth" and see that Wikipedia is using "myth" to mean something else. However the common usage of the word IS that something is false and as we can see from some very unpleasant responses from Atheists, Christians aren't the only ones who are reading that article and taking "Myth" to mean false. Clearly this article requires some kind of improvement. I think a better idea than changing it would be saying after the link "not to be confused with -link- myth -link-" as I've seen that a lot on Wikipedia when a term is used to mean something different. Seems very in line with Wikipedia's style and I think it's neutral enough not to upset Atheists or Christians etc. This is a touchy subject for a lot of people and it is perfectly understandable why people would get upset seeing the word "myth", especially given that most people don't click the links (myself included, guilty!) Thanks. Maybe my idea is poo as well but perhaps the editors need to improve the clarity of that statement somehow. I love Wikipedia as it is a very useful resource. 194.207.207.211 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts for you. First, "myth" may be used popularly with a looser meaning, but "creation myth" is not - it is a technical term and nothing else. Secondly, this technical use of the word "myth" was developed by theologians, i.e. by religous people, and while you're obvously right that not all religious people like it, this is not coming from atheists. But thirdly, sorry, the Adam and Eve story is not a historically true story, so people who understand the word that way are still not being misled.

Only a tiny percentage of Christians believe the Genesis creation story literally, and they are out of step with mainstream history, biology, and geology. Wikipedia strives to present scholarly consensus, and we simply cannot present that kind of fringe idea as an equally valid option. I'm glad you take comfort from your religion, and that it helps you with your PTSD, and I truly would never want to hurt you. But I would gently suggest that you can have the religion without subscribing to something as intellectually fragile as a literal reading of Genesis. It would actually make your religion more robust if you can work with the idea of myths as fictions that communicate truth (like parables). This doesn't need to threaten you. Doric Loon (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"out of step with mainstream history, biology, and geology" True about history and biology, but why geology? There are not many geological claims in a story about a common descent of humanity from a married couple of humans. Dimadick (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

People who complain about Adam and Eve getting called myth, usually have no objection against speaking of Hindu mythology, although Hinduism is practiced by roughly one billion people. Hint: mythology is always someone else's religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick Geology attests the great age of the earth, and contradicts young earth creationism - the world is not 7000 years old. Doric Loon (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)