Talk:Generations of Adam
Wikipedia:Edit history --User talk:FDuffy 21:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- How often do I need to explain that your sources should be on the page, not in the edit history? Do you trust an encyclopedia without sources? Heck, even your darling Jewish Encyclopedia lists its sources! JFW | T@lk 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Content must be verifiable, not verified. The sources are listed in the edit summary as a concession to those who troll my edits and insist on verifying every single word I write. They don't have to be there, and they certainly don't have to be in the article. --User talk:FDuffy 15:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 2002/2006 July 2002/2006
The sources should definitely be listed at least at the end of the article page. Putting them in the 'edit history' is NOT HELPFUL. Throwing stones and claiming to be a victim is not helpful, either.Ryoung122 06:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Comparison Between The Lines
In this section of the article, the author compares the lines by adding Adam and YHWH to the side of Cain. To me, it seems more accurate to compare Seth to Cain, as he is Cain's replacement if you were to do that you would get this:
Cain Seth Enoch Enosh Irad Cainan Mehujael Mahalaleel Methushael Jared Lamech Enoch Methuselah Lamech
This way you can see more clearly that it is the result of two different traditions as the article says. It is also easier to see that the Enoch, Irad Mehujael, is just the reverse of Seth's Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch. This suggests to me that there are only five unique descendants. The two Enochs and Enosh are arguably the same character.
Each geneology eventually comes to a point where there are three sons who father "groups" of people. In Cain's line it's Jabal (herdsmen), Jubal (musicians), and Tubal-Cain (artisans). In Seth's line it's Japheth, Shem, and Ham; though their descendants are seperated by race or culture, not by profession. KilltheBadger 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If we disregard the sequence, the equivalents are obvious:
Genesis 4 Genesis 5 Cain Cainan Mehuyael Mahalaleel Irad Jared Enoch Enoch Methushael Methuselah Lamech Lamech
Genesis 4 was probably dictated to a scribe by an old Judean priest from memory. He remembered the names, but not the correct sequence or the numbers. Greensburger 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent analysis. Why not include in the main article yourself? Also, what about linking to a source?Ryoung122 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Using Jewish-only dates
Why not also a 'Christian' date system (such as Ussher's)? It is unfair to use only Jewish dates, as Wikipedia is used by more than just Jewish users.Ryoung122 05:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Low Quality Article: Too Many Tables
I think we have to admit that this is a low-quality article. One of the main problems is the number of tables, which keep listing the names repeatedly but with slight differences in order or in the purpose of the table. We need to find a way to reduce their number without removing content that would be appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, we need to make sure that speculative and unreferenced material is removed: it seems to me that some of the material is just that. (Example, the etymologies of the names are speculative and disputed, but the brief summary found in this article implies that the etymologies are better established than they are.) I took a stab at reducing some of the redundancy, thinking that it would be OK if some non-redundant material was removed collaterally because readers don't really want to see so much detail. Greensburger felt that the second table I had deleted was not redundant and sufficiently important to keep. I don't agree, since the second of those tables just puts the names side-by-side, which isn't necessary since the text already makes the point that there are obvious homologies in both geneologies and also because the tables that remained in the article put them sufficiently close in sequence for any reader to see if for his/herself. Therefore he restored both tables (not just the disputed one), but I think that clearly this does restore some redundant material. Request: please suggest a way to compactify the various tables in this article into a smaller number with higher quality content. I could take another stab at it but it would probably be better to get some discussion from the rest of the community first. Thanks! Sanddune777 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Another problem is that it is blatantly sectarian. It does not rleate any of its information to scholarship (I don't think the word chronography, which would be the only justification for this page) appears in it at all, and it only cites sectarian sources. (HC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Enoch canonical in Coptic Christianity?
As far as I read so far, only the Ethiopian church considers Enoch a canonical writing, and as far as I know the book exists today only in Old Ethiopic (Ge'ez) language and translations from that. Could you please give a source for its canonical status in the *Egyptian* Coptic church? -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The point is relevant - and also goes for the similar attribution of the book of Jubilees. The reference to Enoch has disappeared from the article since your comment was written; but the Jubilees reference remains.
- Personally, I suspect that simply some writer temporarily may have confused the Coptic and the Ethiopian churches. (This is all too easily done - I've done that mistake myself...) I'll change the remaining instance, without now making a more careful study of the sources; the view presented in our article Jubilee coincodes with the impression I've got elsewhere. JoergenB (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
similarities in the names