Talk:Book of Genesis

Genesis is important to Islamics Christians and Jews

Its opening needs to be a little less ethnocentric. Rktect (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit seems to suggest that Genesis is part of the Koran, though. It was better, if not perfect, in its prior state. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Genesis is important to Muslims (there's no such word as Islamics) is simply nonsense. Muslims are hardly aware of its existence. PiCo (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

--68.161.159.108 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Genesis search should lead to disambiguation page

searching wiki for the term 'genesis' leads us to a page about the bible. the word genesis has many more meanings than the first chapter of a christian book. searching the term should lead either to the Quantum Leap episode or the rock band. 173.49.48.72 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A change of this nature needs to be discussed and consensus reached before the page is redirected, not after. About 1,100 other articles contain links to Genesis, and based on the history, it is likely that most of the editors who inserted them expected them to link to the Book of Genesis article. If this is to be changed, someone will need to review and re-target all of those other links (are you volunteering, 173.49.48.72?). Because of the potential disruption to other articles, I have reverted the redirect until after consensus is reached. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline on this is that if there's a primary topic, the article name should be a redirect to the article on that topic. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm decidedly not religious in any way, but my take is that the primary meaning of "Genesis" in the English-speaking world is to the book of Genesis, and so the present redirect is the correct one. If there's a consensus otherwise, I would not object to renaming Genesis (disambiguation) to "Genesis", and using that page to redirect to Book of Genesis as with all other Genesis-named pages. I do, however, find the assertion that either the rock band or an episode of a science fiction TV show that was canceled more than 15 years ago is the primary meaning to be patently ludicrous. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet there are > 50 other things on the redirect page. Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing section

Though this article documents scholarly theories on the authorship of Genesis, it doesn't explain its history as a text after it was written—what is the oldest surviving copy of Genesis? Do any early texts show variations or alterations? When was it translated into other languages? When did the Christian Church formally adopt it as canon and why? This all needs to be laid out here. Postdlf (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that wpould be useful, you're welcome to add it. (The oldest surviving mss are among the Dead Sea Scrolls, next come the Septuagint translations, finally the Masoretic, although you could also mention the Syriac and Samaritan mss. The various mss show considerable differences between them, notably in the chronology, but also in other details such as the number of persons who went down into Egypt with Jacob. The process of canonisation is complex, but could be mentioned briefly.) PiCo (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Postdlf. If you would like to see some possible differences in wording, two widely available translations of the Bible that list variant readings are the Revised Standard Version and the later New Revised Standard Version. I don't have others on hand at this moment. Neither of these translations always goes into detail about how old a reading is (in fact, they generally don't say that at all) but I find them good enough for a non-specialist like myself. LovesMacs (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Trinity

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." This passage is interpreted by a majority of Christians to mark the first emergence of the distinctive Catholic and later Protestant Christian concept of the Trinity

I'm by no means a specialist here but I'd formed the impression that the dogma of the Trinity was a somewhat later development, not becoming fully formed until the fourth century. Is this not right? BTLizard (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording is a bit funny - "a majority of Christians" because some, it seems, are not Trinitarian. "The first emergence" meaning...what? I think perhaps our editor meant that this is the first text in the bible that can support Trinitarianism. "Catholic and Protestant" - what about the Orthodox, who I think are as Trinitarian as anyone else? Maybe some editing is needed. PiCo (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the section wholesale. A section along those lines would certainly be good, but it would be easier to start from scratch than to fix that one. Not a reference in sight, it reads as OR of questionable accuracy, as BT has pointed out. The problem BT points out, as well as others, were recognized over a year ago in a comment here. No one has jumped to its defence since then in that thread, so I think I am justified in having deleted the section. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Race

Comment moved from Talk:Book of Genesis/Comments. It is very hard to find and is unlikely to get an answer there. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to know, Was Noah and Ham of the Black Race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.135.166 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue that there isn't, in my opinion at least, such a thing as 'race', there's also the question of whether there was was a real Noah and Ham. So, your question can't be answered. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're inquiring about the Curse of Ham, aren't you? See Hamitic for why the idea doesn't hold up. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Abimelech, king of Gerar

Under summary, I read:

Abraham represents Sarah as his sister before Abimelech, king of Gerar.

Further on, it is said that:

Isaac represents Rebekah as his sister before Abimelech, king of Gerar.

I am sure that just one of the two stories is in the Bible. I think - but am not 100% sure - it was Abraham. I don't have a Bible at hand here to check it. Can someone remove one of the two please? Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you do have a Bible to hand, and in several versions too, namely at Wikisource: Genesis is here. Chapter 20 concerns Abraham and a king Abimelech of Gerar; chapter 26 concerns Isaac (Abraham's son) and a king Abimelech of Gerar. The Matthew Henry commentary suggests that the two kings may be different people who happen to have the same name (by analogy English history has a lot of 'King Someone N" and King Someone N+1. I suspect that Robert Alter might take a view point of type scene (but I don't have his 'Five Books of Moses' commentary to hand!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't know that. Thanks for the explanation! Woodwalker (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

== "Christianity has reinterpreted Genesis as the prefiguration of Christian beliefs, specifically the Christian view of Christ as the fulfilment of the covenantal promises."

I'm wondering what that means, seeing as Christianity is only seperate from Judaism because the Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. Seems like something someone who neither believes in Judaism or Christianity would write. Rather than explaining how it applies to both beliefs, it sounds more like, "This religion takes that religion's beliefs and claims it as their own". Thats not exactly how it should be explained.