Jump to content

Talk:Adam and Eve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xtalkprogrammer (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 26 February 2016 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Creation MYTH

Please replace the word "myth" in the context above, in the first sentence of the article, with something like "account" or "story". While the writer's belief may be that the story is a myth, this is not a fact and should be left up to the interpretation of the reader.

Jbytell


- I totally agree with Jbytell. It's a creation story; not yet debunked

TomcatMurr1966 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mainstream academia disagrees with both of you as to what myth actually means. Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic sources, so unless you can demonstrate that the sources cited in this article do not represent mainstream academia, tough luck. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Sure, i can go ahead and add 'myth' to an article about biological evolution. no harm, right? *rolls eyes* TomcatMurr1966 (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to respond like that, I'm going have to assume you're just a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the word "event" as we are talking about an event in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.98 (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to do that, we need to describe the thawing of Ginnungigap, Purusha's self-sacrifice, and the division of Pangu as historical events as well. If you don't want to do that, then you need to admit that you're pushing a religious bias based on only one interpretation of the Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to assume good faith of the IP with edits like this. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would make no difference if it was changed to "story" or "narrative". I am not criticizing, but why choose a word which many other users would be offended? After all, it is not the only choice. I no longer get easily offended by anything here, but why choose a derogatory word when there are other choices? After all, if you need to balance other religions, change all references to "myth" in other religious articles as well. It would not make any difference. Also, evolution is not a myth either, but a scientific view. So, "myth" should not be used there either. Just say religious creation narratives are "stories" or "religious narratives" and evolution is a "theory" or "scientific fact".68.100.116.118 (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

Place "citation needed" after the last line in the introductory section: "There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever actually existed, and their existence is incompatible with human genetics." In particular I'm talking about the second part - 'their existence is incompatible with human genetics.' I genuinely want to read about why! 207.179.110.34 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intro summarizes the body. In this case, the citations are in the section "Physical evidence." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: see the reply above.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird: some citations in the introduction are allowed and some others aren't. Please, be consistent and either add a citation to the sentence about the incompatibility or remove the other citations from the introduction. As it looks now, the introductions gives a strange impression of prejudice. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Eve are a Myth from Ugarit

I think that someone (not me cause Im not interested in editing anything that has to do with religion) should read this and add it to the article New book: Adam, Eve, and the Devil – A New Beginning.

This Adam and Eve thing could have been a normal myth incorporated to the bible (which is normal since Ugarit is northwest-Semitic and ancient Hebrews were also northwest-Semites).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BCE vs BC, a question of era

I recently changed BC to BCE in this article and was, then, reverted by The C of E, who insisted that I must first obtain consensus for this kind of change. Honestly, in this case, I fell like this should b a clear case of what is appropriate for this article. Adam and Eve is a Jewish myth. All of the places in the article that use BC (or I think should use BCE) are in reference to Jewish priestly literature or reign of King David. I propose to change BC to BCE. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue tends to appear in many discussion pages and has its section in our article on style. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style. The relevant section is the following: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change."

If you still consider the era change a valid edit, please start a discussion here. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I read that in the manual and decided to start this discussion .... Do you have a response? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would agree with the change in era. This is of more relevance to the Ancient Near East than Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposal for a modest change, but one that I think is appropriate. One step at a time, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Science

How does "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24- it has been shown that human chromosome 2 formed when Humans split from Chimpanzees, and the associated two chromosomes 2a and 2b remain separate in the other primates" directly relate to Adam and Eve? This comes from the Adam_and_Eve#Scientific_incompatibility section. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems over-specific to me. I was Bold and simply edited that part out to make the section more to-the-point -- details of genetics are delegated to relevant linked articles. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gamall. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_and_Eve&oldid=706917043"