Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Is it foundational?

I'd say that the statement that Gen 1-2 is foundation to Christian churches is too narrow rather than too broad; it's foundational for Judaism as well. Not as a literal account of the early history of the universe, but as establishing the relationship between God and humans. It's one of the foundational myths of all the Abrahamic religions, along with the Exodus story and maybe a couple of others. I'll see what I can get from Hyers when I'm at work this week, and see if I can put up a documented statement to that effect. Agathman (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it wasn't me who put that statement there, and I've been deleting it whenever it's been reinserted. Second, despite this, I can defend it's inclusion. Welker (the cited source) is a major theologian, and not to be dismissed out of hand. I simply think that in this case he's wrong. For Christianity, the Resurrection is foundational, but not the Creation. You can interpret the Creation story as allegory and still call yourself a Christian, but I don't think you can get away with saying you're a Christian but don't believe the Resurrection ever happened. What's going on, I think, is that Welker writes widely on the relationship between the world, science, and Christian theology - in other words, just as you say, his focus is the relationship between God and humans. But I think in this case his enthusiasm for his own area of interest has run away from him - creation is foundational for Welker, but not, I think, for Christianity (nor for Judaism). PiCo (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "foundational". You can interpret the Creation story as ... well, I wouldn't say allegorical, but certainly as non-historical ... and still be a Christian, but that doesn't mean it isn't foundational for Christianity. Gen. 1 is the foundation of monotheism. It doesn't matter if you think it's a "scientific" account of the origin of the universe, earth, etc., but its point is that all physical reality rests on a single God. Gen. 2 establishes the relationship between God and humans, in which humans have a special status, are dependent on God, but are free. These theological concepts are at the core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Most mainstream Christian denominations deny the historicity of the myths in these chapters, but retain their foundational importance -- like this:

"Unfortunately, myth today has come to have negative connotations which are the complete opposite of its meaning in a religious context... In a religious context, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth, the most basic and important truths of all... They are seen not only as being the opposite of error but also as being clearly distinguishable from stories told for entertainment and from the workaday, domestic, practical language of a people. ... Myths deal not only with truth but with ultimate truth." -- Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation, p. 107.

Agathman (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it should not be offensive to substitute "storied vehicle of supreme truth, among the most basic and important truths of all" in place of "myth". If this is the accepted definition, it should both help disambiguate the statement and lighten the conflict. Perhaps this phrase is applicable to other articles of heated dispute as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.13.107 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem is with the word "foundational". I can only repeat what I've said elsewhere: I can imagine Christianity without Genesis or the entire Torah - it would still be able to centre on Christ as the risen Messiah, and there's still be room for confirming monotheism - but I can't imagine it without the Gospels, which to my mind are far more deserving of that word "foundational". On the other hand, I agree with everything you say about the theological import of Genesis as developed in Christianity - not just monotheism, but the relationship of man to both God and the world, the role of the family and of women in society, even the structure of society itself, all have been grounded at one time or another in Genesis 1-2. That sentence, "foundational to Christianity," just doesn't do justice to this complexity. I'd be very happy if you worked up a new section on the theological interpretations of the chapters in both Christianity and Judaism (Genesis is, after all, a Jewish book, the Christians "hijacked" it and markedly altered its meaning) and add something rather valuable to our article. PiCo (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A little later: The Theology section of the article deals exclusively with the meaning of Genesis 1-2 for the original audience - it doesn't even get onto later/modern Judaism, let alone Christianity. There's a section or subsection on Christian Literalism, but it totally distorts the Christian response to these chapters - Literalism is a fringe view, even in America, and mainstream Christianity needs to be given the major weight. It would be great if you could take this on, if you're willing. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pico, i think that you are misrepresenting something here. Genesis 1-2 is "foundational" to mainstream Christianity, and certainly to the vatican. they allow it to be interpret it differently -- but it's interpretation IS foundational, whicever way you go. you're personal opinion on whether a credible source is wrong has no place here, and you know that Swift as an Eagle (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pico -- you don't take out what you don't like, especially if it's sourced -- and then talk about it. you do the opposite: if you don't like it, talk about it, and then take it out if consensus doesn't like it. you should put it back in at this time. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The practice is that editors add whatever they feel is useful to an article; then, if other editors disagree, they remove it, giving reasons in the edit summary; and if the editor who wishes to make the addition still wishes to do so, he argues his case on the talk page - this is what Agathman and I are now doing. Of course, you're very welcome to join in. PiCo (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts: firstly literalism is a mainstream christian theology, and hardly "fringe". Much if not most of the enormous pentecostal movement including preachers such as David Yonggi Cho, are literalist for example, as are many mainstream protestant churches. The Roman Catholic Church is the most notable that teaches a symbolic interpretation of Genesis, espousing instead evolution, but this hardly marginalises literalism.

Secondly I take issue with the combative nature of PiCo's above posts describing christianity as "highjacking" Genesis and the Bible. It's needlessly antagonistic, aside from ignoring the reality that Christianity (which could also be called a "messianic Judaism") accepts the very same Torah non-messianic Judaism accepts. All the initial christians were Jews, and so the Genesis story was as much their creation story as any other Jew's, just as their Psalms and prophecies were the same. Compare this to say Islam which declares the Bible to be in error.

Therefore, the Genesis is, in one sense foundational to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but in another sense, is not. If it did not exist, there would be neither of the three faiths, but if it were proven to be symbolic each faith would also keep existing. The foundation of christianity is Jesus. The foundation of Islam is the Qu'ran. But had Genesis not been written....? Perhaps there is another word we can use which keeps this duality in mind.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

opening line

I like how Pico changed it. Just like on Noah's Ark this is a loaded term in the intro. let's just leave it out so that it's neutral. if you want to add a section about your beliefs that it is mythology/literal, then do it later in the article. let's leave the introduction NPOV. SAE (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It now reads: "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman found in the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis."

Note the end of the sentence: "found in the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis" That says enough. This means this is a NPOV sentence. It's not according to your beliefs, but according to the first two chapter in Genesis beliefs. We need to start thinking logically here. SAE (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Great guys. I like how the opening is now. The word "Hebrew" in there was the missing link I think. It looks good and definitely does now not add our 21st century western bias to it, but rather states it as plain fact, allowing the readers to interpret as they see fit. SAE (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Translating "YHWH elohim"

I'm just making this post because it's an interesting topic, not because I attach a lot of importance to it. But we have to make a choice over what to do with this phrase, since it's the way Gen.1-2 refers to God.

"Elohim" in Hebrew has a range of meanings, from "god" (any god, not just God) to "judge" and "spokesman" (in Exodus the word is used to describe Aaron's function as spokesman for Moses, and also to describe the "judges" who are appointed to assist Moses immediately prior to Sinai). The word combines plural and singular - the form is plural (the -in ending), but it takes singular verbs - a very odd word indeed. But it definitely means just one God most of the time, in a generic sense, just like the English word.

YHWH (the vowelling as Yahweh is conventional but not certain) is the actual name of the "elohim" of Israel. Other nations have their own elohim - Chemosh, Marduk and others - and Yahweh is the name of this particular elohim. There's nothing similar in English, where God has no name. It can't be translated Lord, as the Hebrew word for this is "baal". Yahweh himself is sometimes called a "baal" in the Hebrew bible, but it's baal Yahweh ("lord Yahweh"), not baal elohim.

Translating YHWH elohim as Lord God is therefore misleading, even though it's been conventional in English for a long time, and I'd rather not use it. Better, in my opinion, to leave it untranslated. PiCo (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I took no objection to your changing LORD to Yahweh on me. I only changed it because the phrase was "Yahweh Elohim" (Yahweh God)", sp I changed the 2nd Yahweh. I see the argument, however most of the world's leading scholars (I assume those whom the publishing companies get to translate their Bibles are leading scholars in the world) obviously translate YHWH as "LORD." Therefore, adding the vowels to YHWH must be even more controversial (less accurate?) than LORD. Plus this being a common English encyclopedia, I would use the common English usage of the word. However, I have no qualms, neither any plans to change it. This is only my opinion. Of course, YHWH means, "I am." Cheers, SAE (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. I think you've done a lot of great work on this article, and if you prefer one over the other, out of respect to you I will accept it.

I think it's better to use YHWH where written, and ELOHIM where written (and 'Adonai' or 'El Shadai' where written elsewhere), though I understand the sensitivities Jews have to printing the 'name' of God, preferring "HaShem" (the name) . "I AM" is not really a name though, as it is a description. He is (the present tense describing the eternal nature). As is "Elohim" or 'most high'. God remains nameless and limitless with either word. As we therefore know the original words, I'd suggest leaving them untranslated.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'deep'

I removed the following sentences from the section on "the 'deep'": "The word is cognate with the Babylonian Tiamat,[8] and its occurrence here without the definite article ha (i.e., the literal translation of the Hebrew is that "darkness lay on the face of tehôm) indicates its mythical origins." First, an assertion about the literary origins must require more evidence than a reference to the dated work of Hermann Gunkel (see Richard S. Hess, “One Hundred Fifty Years of Comparative Studies on Genesis 1-11: An Overview,” in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994], 4-6). There is considerable question about the legitimacy of Gunkel's view (Richard S. Hess, “Genesis 1-2 and Recent Studies of Ancient Texts,” Science & Christian Belief 7 [October 1995]: 143-44; W. G. Lambert, “A New Look at the Babylonian Background,” in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 96-113; Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” Evangelical Quarterly 46 [April-June 1974]: 81-102), that Genesis was has babylonian antecedents (Hermann Gunkel, “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story,” trans. Charles A. Muenchow, in Creation in the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 47; see also idem., The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga & History [New York: Schocken Books, 1964], N.B. 74, 145ff; for other advocates of this view see O. Eissfeldt, “Genesis,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, ed. George Arthur Buttrick [New York: Abingdon Press, 1962], 2:375). In addition, the language "the word is cognate with the Babylonian Tiamat," is misleading. Phonologically, Tsumura notes, it is unlikely that תְהוֹם‬ would lose the feminine morpheme and convert R2 from a glottal stop to a ‫ ,ה‬if it derived from Tiamat (noted earlier by Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2d ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1951], 100). The etymological relationship between the words is indirect, through a common cognate, not that ‫ תְהוֹם‬‬derives from Tiamat (Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters of Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series [Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989], 45-65; cf. Gunkel, “Babylonian Mythology,” 42, 45). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.247.159 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful edit. (By "thoughtful" I mean that you have given thought to it, and we should do you the courtesy of returning that thoughtfulness). Can I just make two minor points to begin: first, I suggest you sign up with an account; and second, on discussion pages new threads begin at the bottom of the page.

Now to your actual points. You suggest that Gunkel's work needs to be considered in the light of more recent scholarship - and it must be getting on for a century old now. I agree. But the actual source being quoted is Nicholson, who is accepting Gunkel's work on this as valid. Nicholson published in 2002, and is thus as recent as we need ask. Second, the authors you quote as disagreeing with Gunkel/Nicholson - Tsumura, etc - are conservative to ultra-conservative. That's not to say they may not be right, but we need to place them on the scholarly spectrum and reflect, in our own article, the prevailing scholarly view. It's my impression that that view is more inline with Nicholson. Not as regards his support for Wellhausen on the composition of the Pentateuch, but just on this matter of the Babylonian origins of much of the imagery and themes of the Creation story in Genesis.

Incidentaly, when the article quotes Nicholson as saying the word tehom is cognate with tiamat, that doesn't mean "derived from" - it just means they come from a common root. This is precisely what Tsumura is saying. (Note also that the article draws attention to the absence of the definite article ha - in other words, while English translations say "darkness was on the face of the Deep", the Hebrew actually says "darkness was on the face of Deep."

PiCo (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Lisa and Agathman

I've reverted a number of edits by these two editors and would like to explain my actions here.

(I'm re-writing my first post to make it more detailed:

• Lisa's first edit was to put against ancient Near East. I don't understand the point - ancient Near East is a commonly used phrase and I think every reader will understand what's meant.
• Lisa then removed this passage: "The story contains distinct mythic elements, but is not entirely mythical, in the sense that it bears the marks of a carefully contrived literary creation, written with a distinct theological agenda—the elevation of Yahweh, the God of Israel, over all other gods, and notably over Marduk, the god of Babylon." This is well-established and I've added a ref.
• Lisa changed the word "the" to "some" in the following: "The Earth according to the civilizations of the Ancient Near East was a flat disk, with infinite water both above and below it." Again, this is a well-established point in the literature - it's referenced.
• Lisa changed "virtually all scholars accept that the Pentateuch "was in reality a composite work...," by inserting "secular" in front of "scholars". I fail to see what point is being made here - scholars are scholars, surely?
• Lisa added a neutrality tag to the Creationism section. This needs to be explained on the Talk page - just what is seen as being non-neutral?
• Agathman deleted this passage as being pov: "It is evolution that is the particular object of dread of biblical literalism. All literalists read Genesis 2 as history, holding that God breathed into the nostrils of a being formed out of dust, and from whose side (or rib) the first woman was formed." (There's a ref to Answers in Genesis for the second sentence; I'm deleting it here as it won't lead to the work in question). The passage is factually accurate - Creationists (some of them) are able to live with modern geology and even with the Big Bang, but not with evolution. It's expressing the pov of the Creationists, not of the author.

Ok, hope that's better and can lead to some discussion. PiCo (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry not to have gotten back on this -- I missed this edit in my watchlist. Yes, I think that the way you've rephrased it is okay. My main objection was to "object of dread", which isn't directly substantiated in the source, and is a loaded phrase. Making them "creationists" rather than "literalists" tightened up the meaning as well. Agathman (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed a bunch of those edits back, but modified some to reflect your concerns.

• Not all ancient near eastern cultures viewed the world as a flat disk surrounded by water. You can bring a source that notes that view, but all it takes is one counter-example to establish that it's only "some". The Bible is one such example.
• The idea that the biblical account had an agenda of elevating God over Marduk is nothing more than one man's hypothesis. There are plenty of views to the contrary. You can't decide that only one source constitutes encyclopedic fact. But you did add a reference, so I kept it in, only changing it to attribute it to Wenham himself.
• And yes, of course scholars are scholars. Do you need me to post the work of scholars who disagree with the idea of the Pentateuch being a composite work, or are you simply going to label anyone holding that view as a "non-scholar"?
• As far as the POV tag on the Creationism section is concerned, you're addressing only Christian Creationism. I don't know for sure that what you wrote is true of all Christian Creationism, but I do know that there are plenty of Jewish Creationists out there who do not say (as you put it) that "should one ele ment of the biblical narrative be shown to be untrue, then all others will follow". As such, the entire section comes across like a polemic against the idea. -Lisa (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the Bible is a counter-example to the "disk surrounded by water" cosmology; that's pretty clearly what it depicts, at least in Genesis. And it's not just one person's view that the Genesis 1 account has the goal of establishing the hegemony of the Hebrews' god over Marduk (and the gods of their other neighbors). Just grabbing what's handy off my shelves at home, I have an introductory Old Testament textbook, "The Old Testament Story", by John Tullock, for instance, who says of Genesis 1, "There seems to be a conscious effort to counter the Near Eastern creation myths. In contrast to the struggle waged by Marduk and Tiamat, God is in complete control over creation. The heavenly bodies ... worshiped as gods by Israel's neighbors, are created." (Tullock p. 39). A very similar analysis is given by Hyers in "The Meaning of Creation". Tullock and Hyers both also mention that Genesis shares a cosmology (watery chaos, Earth as a bubble surrounded by water, etc.) with the Babylonians. I think that if we survey some more sources, we'll see that this is the consensus of scholars. Agathman (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly a counter-example. Where do you see a disk in Genesis? And when you add "(and the gods of their other neighbors)", you're basically changing the argument.

The view of Orthodox Jewish scholars is that the account in Genesis is true, either literally or otherwise. That's a notable view, and you can't present other views as encyclopedic fact even if most secular views differ. Tullock says "There seems to be". Seems-- to whom? To him? If Tullock tried posting that himself here, it'd be redacted as weasel words. There's no basis for it other than his subjective sense. Nor is there any "bubble" in Genesis. -Lisa (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, the usual, courteous approach to editing on Wikipedia is to make your proposed edit ("edit boldly"), and, if it's not accepted (is reverted), to argue your case on the talk page. What you're beginning to do now is edit-warring.

Anyway, to the point(s) at issue. All the points you object to are well referenced, using major scholars. You obviously object, but you haven't provided a single citation to support your own views. If you do that, we can begin to have a discussion. PiCo (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How does one bring a source for the fact that Genesis doesn't mention bubbles or disks? How could such a source exist?

In any case, your sources don't support your claims. They support the fact that some ancient near east cultures viewed it that way, but they simply don't support the claim that all of them did. -Lisa (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Haven't read all replies, but firstly "Near East" is a Eurocentric term and should be avoided. "Mesopotamia" when describing Sumer, Akkad, Babylon etc is better, "Middle East" is better than Near East, while "South-West Asia" is better again.

As for flat/round earth, the existence of the book of JOB, with it's description of the earth, and the high esteem it was held, shows that round earth perception existed in Ancient South West Asian cultures. "Some" is again, more accurate, as we know "some" we do not comprehensively know "all".

Re. secular vs non, it helps a reader place the writer's opinions in context. Secular writers traditionally ignore or attack much which theological writers defend or regard.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should use commonly used terms, and if it's a choice between 'Ancient Near East' and 'Ancient South-West Asia', ANE should be used. As for the Book of Job, some people interpret circle as sphere, others as disc. Some people even think that ""take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13) with its mention of edges doesn't sound like a sphere is being described. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the word used in Job there is kanfot, which means corners, and not edges. Which would contradict a disk in any case. But chug, which is sometimes translated as circle and sometimes as sphere, doesn't mean either. It means round. Circle is maagal.

Look, the fact is, there's no evidence that the ancient Hebrews viewed the earth the same way as the Mesopotamians. You can say that some (or even most) ancient near east cultures saw the world that way, but you can't say all of them did. There's no evidence for that. Nor is it necessary to bring a source for that. That would be like asking for a source to prove that the Hebrews didn't view the earth as a pyramid. They didn't, but how can you find a source for it? -Lisa (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As Dougweller points out, the use of the word "circle" in Job to describe the Earth supports a flat, circular Earth, not a round one - a circle is not a ball. This is supported by the "take the Earth by the edges" reference he cites - one cannot find edges on a ball. I recommend that you read the referenced source in the article, and also the references given by that source itself. Also, it's quite clear that Lisa's proposals have not gained a consensus among existing editors, in fact they've gained no support at all. Nor has Lisa produced any RS for her views. What is happening now is pov pushing. PiCo (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have actually stated that I support her views... As for circle/ball that's splitting hairs considering it's also described as hanging in space, and illustrates other scientific realities such as condensation etc. The earth IS a globe, hangs in space and has condensation. Benefit of doubt re. interpretation, goes with facts not fiction. And the earth has an edge. The surface area is "edge" of the earth. Regardless enough people interpret Job consistently with science to validate what I'm saying. "Some" is an inclusive term, while leaving out the word is exclusive. "Some" covers bases and is more neutral. It can't be argued with. Obviously leaving out, can be argued with. Go for consensus where all parties are happy, not POV override. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, that the Hebrew word used: chuwg is used for both circle, sphere etc.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Beson, this is OR - original research, your own interpretation. You need to get some RS (Reliable Sources). PiCo (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? There's no "original research" when you're talking about an article about words printed in a book. They're either there or they're not.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ANE cosmology

I've reverted a recent edit which placed the word "some" in relation to statements about ANE cosmology - the overall impact was to give the impression that not all AE cultures regarded the world as a flat disk surrounded by infinite water. I gather that the editor wishes to make an exception for the ancient Hebrews, whom he believes saw the Earth as a ball in space, presumably orbiting the Sun - the modern cosmology, in fact. This is inaccurate. The existing article cites a book by Gordon Wenham as its source. The editor wants to edit in such a way as to make Wenham's views peculiar to himself. On fact the book was written as an entry-level college text for Evangelical bible students at tertiary level. As such, it represents the scholarly mainstream, not Wenham's personal views. I invite our editor to read it. PiCo (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This changes not the preference to use "some", as our knowledge - regardless of whether or not you are correct - is incomplete. It allows room for error.

Secondly the fact that there are obviously people who read the bible as describing a round earth http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml means that there is at the very least, enough room for doubt. If in doubt, give ancients the benefit of factual understanding with limited language to express, rather than automatically presuming them to be in error, for it is more likely that the descriptive language was imprecise, given the contexts.

Consensus is about finding statements everyone can agree on. That is consensus. "Some" has less room for disagreement, as it's inarguable that at least some ancient cultures regarded the earth as flat. Hence, "some" is what should be written in the description if Wikipedia is under any illusions about being a neutral, consensus-loving website.

Or are you here just to fight and push your POV over any other's concerns PiCo? --Benson Verazzano (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Benson, thank you for giving a reference, but it appears to be a popular-level Creationist website, not a scholarly source. This is an article about scholarly investigations of the text, not about popular perceptions. And no, I'm not here trying to push my own point of view, but I am trying to represent current scholarly thinking. PiCo (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the information in the website PiCo.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "some", consensus is achieved through use of "some" as it cannot be argued against, and reflects known facts, while leaving room for unknown facts and contrary positions. Leaving it out pushes a POV. That is not consensus. Consensus is where everyone agrees, not where one side bullies or browbeats another into silence. To find consensus construct a sentence that we call all agree on. Adding "some" goes a long way towards that end.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The website is a popular-level Creationist page, without any scholarly standing. Consensus is important, but accuracy is even more so. That all (not some) ANE cultures conceived of a flat Earth is a fact for which I can give multiple references, but the one in the article should be enough to start. If you can find a counter-example please produce it, but your website isn't a reliable source on matters of this nature. PiCo (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just read the article PiCo or are you prejudice against Christian Scholars who happen to understand ancient Hebrew?

http://creation.com/is-the-erets-earth-flat Here's a refutation of Seely. Oh that's right, the writer is a Christian... so he's automatically excluded by his faith, no matter how valid his methodology is. Am I pissed? yeah, prejudice makes me angry. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)