Talk:Adam and Eve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles
Four groups


Dating of documentary sources[edit]

I would argue that the 'P' source is older than the 'J' source. From the introduction to the Anchor Bible notes and commentary on Genesis: The question of P's date is difficult to solve for several reasons. Numerous sections, especially in the other books of the Tetrateuch, have long been relegated by the critics to a relatively late age, after the Babylonian Exile in many instances. Of late, however, there has been a growing sentiment--backed by a substantial amount of internal evidence--in favor of dating various portions of P to pre-Exilic times, and in some cases to the pre monarchic period. This evidence embraces even certain passages in the ritualistic Book of Leviticus. A careful new look at the P material in Genesis is therefore definitely in order.

When we re-examine, for instance, the genealogies of the patriarchs before the Flood (cf. v), the style and approach are unmistakably P's, yet the material has to be derived from ancient data. The same applies to the Edomite lists in ch. xxxvi. Just so--to stray for a moment from the Book of Genesis--the census records in Num xxvi, although again set down by P, deal with names and situations (notably the distribution of land holdings by lot) that go back of necessity to the early stages of the Israelite settlement in Canaan. At the same time, there are other passages throughout the Tetrateuch that are undoubtedly much later. All this testifies to a wide coverage by P, ranging over many centuries. The conclusion that is usually drawn from these facts is that we have before us a series of separate P documents, as many as ten according to some critics. But such solutions fall to account for the prevailing uniformity in outlook and phraseology which typifies P as a whole.

The assumption that commends itself in these circumstances is that P was not an individual, or even a group of like-minded contemporaries, but a school with an unbroken history reaching back to early Israelite times, and continuing until the Exile and beyond...(E. A. Speiser, Genesis: a new translation with introduction and commentary, 1986, Doubleday and Company Inc. New York, page xxv-xxvi)Nameshmame (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Speiser is a rather dated source (1986), but yes, the composition of the Torah remains disputed. To bring your comments up to date, these days there's a broad division between American scholars, who still hold to some form of the documentary hypothesis, and the Europeans, who don't. Both of them recognise P as a source, although disagreeing over whether it's a document or not (i.e., a school of thought/way of thinking that may have persisted for centuries). The argument that P is older than J obviously depends on seeing both P and J as unified documents rather than as "schools"; as a way of seeing the composition problem it's uniquely Israeli, and identified with Kaufman. Kaufman was trying to establish the argument that Israel was always monotheistic, and that the revelation to Moses at Sinai was a real historical event - this idea is now well outside the mainstream. Anyway, to summarise, everyone agrees that the Adam and Eve story belongs to the J source, but there's no agreement over the date of J.PiCo (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

First, is it your opinion that a 1986 publication date makes commentary on a book first compiled more than 2000 years ago 'dated'? Or do you have a source to that effect? Second, you say the composition problem is uniquely Israeli and identified with Kaufman. Where on earth did you come up with that? It started in 1753 with the French Physician Jean Astruc. His suggestions later became a point of departure in the literary criticism of Genesis. The documentary theory was developed on well-understood collective evidence. The history of this process begins on page xxii of Speiser's introduction. Nameshmame (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Scholarship on the sources/composition of the Pentateuch has moved on quite bit since 1986. The quasi-consensus on the documentary hypothesis has collapsed, and with it the attempt to date the documentary sources. Regarding Kaufman, what's identified with him is the idea that the P source is the earliest source. Also, please note that most of what I wrote supports your points.PiCo (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"Scholarship on the sources/composition of the Pentateuch has moved on quite a bit since 1986." Is this your opinion? "The quasi-consensus on the documentary hypothesis's collapsed." Do you have a source to that effect? Finally, as to the claim that the dating of the P source comes down to some guy with a discredited theory (according to you). There was a substantial amount of internal evidence in favor of a more ancient date. This evidence embraces even certain passages in the ritualistic Book of Leviticus. "When we re-examine, for instance, the genealogies of the patriarchs before the Flood (cf. v), the style and approach are unmistakably P's, yet the material has to be derived from ancient data. The same applies to the Edomite lists in ch. xxxvi. Just so--to stray for a moment from the Book of Genesis--the census records in Num xxvi, although again set down by P, deal with names and situations (notably the distribution of land holdings by lot) that go back of necessity to the early stages of the Israelite settlement in Canaan. At the same time, there are other passages throughout the Tetrateuch that are undoubtedly much later. All this testifies to a wide coverage by P, ranging over many centuries. The conclusion that is usually drawn from these facts is that we have before us a series of separate P documents, as many as ten according to some critics. But such solutions fail to account for the prevailing uniformity in outlook and phraseology which typifies P as a whole." Now don't give me any more of your scholarly-sounding excuses unless you can cite sources. Nameshmame (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC) If I weren't familiar with the Wikipedia crowd I'd be surprised that you got yourself in a tizzy and deleted this last post immediately after I published it. If you had a fraction of the faith you claim to have you would not be afraid of this discussion. Nameshmame (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the Bible actually say that God banished 'the human'?[edit]

Second paragraph, last sentence, 'the man' was changed to 'the human'. My Bible says 'the man'. Is this change according to an actual translation of scripture or is it someone's opinion? Thanks. Nameshmame (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Orthodox Jewish Bible says, "24 So He drove out HaAdam; and He placed miKedem (at the east) of the Gan Eden HaKeruvim, and a flaming cherev which was ever-turning, to be shomer over the Derech Etz HaChayyim (the Way of the Tree of Life, see Yn 14:6 on Derech)." HaAdam refers to mankind or humanity; the Hebrew word for man is Ish. YoPienso (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's that cut and dried. He was 'the man' before Eve was created, but in Genesis 2: 22 it says "And God Yahweh fashioned into a woman the rib that he had removed from the man, and he brought her to the man." Nameshmame (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Nameshmame (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes on verse 22 in the Anchor Bible: to the man. In Heb. the defined form hã' adãm is "man," the undefined 'ãdãm, "Adam," since a personal name cannot take the definite article. With Prepositions like le- (the 'e' should be raised and have an apostraphe) "to," the article is elided and only the vowel marks the difference between "to Adam" and "to the man", so that the consonantal text is bound to be ambiguous (l'dm in either case). Since the form without preposition appears invariably as hã' adam in ii-iii (the undefined form occurs first in iv 25), and is not mentioned until the naming of Adam v 2, the vocalized "to Adam" (also vs. 20, iii 17) is an anachronism. In iii, LXX favors "Adam" even in the presence of the consonantal article." (E. A. Speiser, Genesis: a new translation with introduction and commentary, 1986, Doubleday and Company Inc. New York, page 18)Nameshmame (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What's your point here? The note you're quoting says that Adam wasn't referred to as an individual until Gen. 4:25. If you're going for an entirely literal approach and insist HaAdam refers to one specific human male, i.e., Adam, then Eve wasn't driven out. Does that make sense? YoPienso (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My Bible says 'the man'. The Anchor Bible says in Genesis 3:23, "So God Yahweh banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken." It used to say 'the man' in this article but it was changed. The real question is why would you use words that aren't there? Nameshmame (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize this is a moot point since the wording was changed almost a year ago. Bye. YoPienso (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I objected at that time. I'll take your answer to mean that you can't answer my objection. You're a light-weight! Bye!Nameshmame (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Myth versus Belief[edit]

The point of providing such information to readers is to provide a unbiased view of information, to allow the readers to make up their own mind. As there are many readers, and as shown in your own statistical poll referenced in your article, a majority that have religious faiths that believe in the reality of Adam and Eve, I don't know why Wikipedia needs to fail to respect them by calling this a "myth," rather than a "religious belief." Various religions have a number of beliefs that are based on faith, not scientific factual analysis. I imagine if Wikipedia decides to go through all of the major religious faiths of the world and describe their core beliefs as "myths," a large number of its readers and users will be justifiably offended, and unnecessarily so. The term "myth" is a value-judgement on someone's else's beliefs. It is not necessary to use this judgmental term in referring to other people's religious beliefs. I believe simply changing the phrase "myth" to "religious belief" would address this matter, while still allow Wikipedia a diversity of views. Jeffreyimm (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyimm (talkcontribs) 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation myth is the correct, formal, terminology for such foundational stories of ancient supernatural beings and heroes, in this (Genesis is a textbook example of such) and any religion, and indeed they are and should be described as such in relevant articles (and supported by reliable sources). This is a discussion that has been had multiple times (to stay euphemistic) in this and related articles -- appeals to offence and the majority are not new, and have consistently failed to gain any traction. This is in accordance to many policies, including WP:RNPOV. Unless you have a fundamentally new angle on the question, this is unlikely to go anywhere. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 23:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

perhaps we should add a clarification, to avoid offense, for example "The use of the word myth in this article is not meant to imply it is untrue" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikerabbits! (talkcontribs) 06:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to change creation myth to creation narrative as it is less offensive to believers, also the word narrative is used throughout the article. I don't see the need for unnecessary provocation. WhyJesus (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Offensive to a religious believer is not a reason to change a term. It is a myth which means a story. It is not more verifiable than Greek Mythology. -- Alexf(talk) 12:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Since I was blocked from posting on my own page without valid cause, I'll post here. I did not attack anyone. As usual the truth seems to be treated like hate speech these days. Refuting false claims by God denying atheists should be recognized and accommodated. If there is evidence to the contrary then make your argument. Where is my post on Adam and Eve that should be here? You deny censoring and yet you do it. There are two kinds of liars in my estimation, liars and damned liars. The latter are unrepentant and damned to hell fire according to my copy of the book. My advice repent quickly, keep the word narrative in and keep your delusional evolutionary biases out. WhyJesus (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You have been warned before that Wikpedia talk pages are NOT forums, please stop your proselytising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Another editor has handed him a 31 hour block for disruption. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is a valid objection to the wording of the article that can't be refuted by anyone here, you have an obligation to change it since you have blocked everyone else from doing so[edit]

You changed 'the man' to 'Adam and Eve'. This is not supported by the verses in question. Also you state that the 'J' source is older than the 'P' source. This is refuted by the source I cited below. Please correct this and undo your changes to the wording 'the man'. Nameshmame (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nameshmame: I made no such change. All I've done is moved your post to the bottom where it belongs. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam and the serpent[edit]

"who was apparently party to the entire exchange between the woman and the snake" was removed from the article last night and I replaced it with an edit summary that showed I wasn't sure if it was in the source, which I couldn't read on my iPad. The editor posted to my talk page saying it wasn't in the source. But on my large screen PC I see the source states "who appears to have been present at the encounter with the serpent". But this is disputed so I changed apparently to 'may'. This is just a kludge and might need fixing. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

odd section[edit]

this section is odd, and I understand the reason for pico's removal. pls explain why this stuff should be here, gathered in one place under this strange header.

Physical evidence


Scientific incompatibility

The story of Adam and Eve contradicts the scientific consensus that humans evolved from earlier species of hominids[1] and is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics; in particular, if all humans descended from two individuals that lived several thousand years ago, the observed variation would require an impossibly high mutation rate.[2] This entails a lower bound on the size of the ancestral group, currently thought to be of the order of 10,000 individuals.[2]

Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve

The names Adam and Eve are used metaphorically in a scientific context to designate the patrilineal and matrilineal most recent common ancestors, the Y-chromosomal Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve. Those are not fixed individuals, nor is there any reason to assume that they lived at the same time, let alone that they met or formed a couple.[3][4] A recent study on the subject estimates that the Y-chromosomal Adam lived in prehistory 120 to 156 thousand years ago, while the Mitochondrial Eve lived 99 to 148 thousand years ago. [5] Another recent study places the Y-chromosomal Adam 180 to 200 thousand years ago.[6]

Impact on religion

The evidence against Adam and Eve existing has caused many Christians to move away from a literal interpretation and belief in the Genesis creation narrative to an allegorical approach, while others continue to believe in what they see as fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. In particular the evidence for their non-existence casts doubt on original sin and the origin and nature of evil.[2]

References

  1. ^ Dilley, Stephen C. (2013). Darwinian Evolution and Classical Liberalism: Theories in Tension. Lexington Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0739181068. 
  2. ^ a b c Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve". All Things Considered.  Transcript
  3. ^ Takahata, N (January 1993), "Allelic genealogy and human evolution", Mol. Biol. Evol., 10 (1): 2–22, PMID 8450756 ""
  4. ^ Cruciani, F; Trombetta, B; Massaia, A; Destro-Bisol, G; Sellitto, D; Scozzari, R (June 10, 2011), "A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa", The American Journal of Human Genetics, 88 (6): 814–818, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.002, PMC 3113241Freely accessible, PMID 21601174 
  5. ^ Poznik, G. David; Henn, Brenna M.; Yee, Muh-Ching; Sliwerska, Elzbieta; Euskirchen, Ghia M.; Lin, Alice A.; Snyder, Michael; Quintana-Murci,, Lluis; Kidd, Jeffrey M.; Underhill, Peter A.; Bustamante, Carlos D. (2 August 2013). "Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males Versus Females". Science. 341 (6145): 562–565. doi:10.1126/science.1237619. PMC 4032117Freely accessible. PMID 23908239. 
  6. ^ Francalacci, Paolo; Morelli, Laura; Angius, Andrea; Berutti, Riccardo; Reinier, Frederic; Atzeni, Rossano; Pilu, Rosella; Busonero, Fabio; Maschio, Andrea; Zara, Ilenia; Sanna, Daria; Useli, Antonella; Urru, Maria Francesca; Marcelli, Marco; Cusano, Roberto; Oppo, Manuela; Zoledziewska, Magdalena; Pitzalis, Maristella; Deidda, Francesca; Porcu, Eleonora; Poddie, Fausto; Kang, Hyun Min; Lyons, Robert; Tarrier, Brendan; Gresham, Jennifer Bragg; Li, Bingshan; Tofanelli, Sergio; Alonso, Santos; Dei, Mariano; Lai, Sandra; Mulas, Antonella; Whalen, Michael B.; Uzzau, Sergio; Jones, Chris; Schlessinger, David; Abecasis, Gonçalo R.; Sanna, Serena; Sidore, Carlo; Cucca, Francesco (2 August 2013). "Low-Pass DNA Sequencing of 1200 Sardinians Reconstructs European Y-Chromosome Phylogeny". Science. 341 (6145): 565–569. doi:10.1126/science.1237947. PMID 23908240. 

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the historicity or otherwise is completely on topic, and this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text??? Reverted with extreme prejudice.GliderMaven (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The content is incoherent, and the third section is actually creationist fuckwittery. The second paragraph makes biological claims of "accepted knowledge" based on primary sources, which we don't use. The first paragraph is kind of OK but also sources scientific content based on poor sources. The three don't really hang together well under the header. You should perhaps set your "extreme prejudice" aside and think clearly. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I also don't think that material is necessary: the lead points out it's mythological, the top links to a disambiguation page which includes Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. As for the last part, if it could go anywhere it would be under the Christianity section. —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, we have a responsibility to explain that there is very strong evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist. The article simply describing Adam and Eve as it's written in the bible is incorrect and unencyclopedic.GliderMaven (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The notion is OK, the execution is just very bad. Am working on something better and will propose here. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Then we need to revert your edit until you've done that, because even a 'very bad' section that is nevertheless accurate and referenced is better than a section you haven't written yet, and may, for all I know, never finish. I have no problem at all with you replacing it with better material, at any time.GliderMaven (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, whatever the exact timing of the various reversions and proposals, let me just toss in my opinion that, once the dust settles, there should be some mention of the historicity issue. Given that the historicity of Adam and Eve is widely discussed (in all manner of sources), I think this Wikipedia article should at least contain something on the question. Something reliable, of course. Alephb (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I kind of think we should just bring the lead of Human evolution here, under a header "Human origins" or the like. Those paragraphs need a bit of clean up but I think that would do. The other two sub-sections are not really relevant here. -- Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be off topic, the topic is Adam and Eve.GliderMaven (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It would need an introductory sentence, for sure. I was trying to think of how to quickly address your desire for ~something~ there now.
The content that really should be here is a "history of interpretation" of this story, that would pull in both the current main section on the nachleben in literature and art, and the current main section on "Abrahamic traditions", and add a subsection section on "Anthropology".
All of this would show more clearly that there is a long tradition in each of the traditions of reading this story on multiple levels (the classic 4 in Christianity being literal/historical, allegorical, moral, and anagogical/mystical) and showing how especially starting in the Enlightenment the historical one became less tenable on multiple levels (and seen increasingly as one among many creation myths as the field of anthropology established itself), and even more so following Darwin, and even more so as the sciences of paleoanthropology and genetics grew. And how a counter-movement arose in the form of fundamentalism in some of the Abrahamic traditions, which is how we have the situation today. We can probably pull that together here with WLs and bits from the relevant articles elsewhere so that we remain well-knitted into the fabric of WP and this article. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is all good thinking and I want you to improve the article, but right now the article is missing the material, so I'm reverting the removal until you can do that.GliderMaven (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss how to move forward. How you feel about my intentions was never relevant and is still irrelevant. Do you favor this "history of interepretation" approach, or do you look for some other structure that would make this coherent? Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I simply don't believe you, you're just deleting material you don't like. Wikipedia has a scientific slant, and your editing is going completely against that. Removing material like this when you have nothing remotely to replace it with is simply not on.GliderMaven (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I really doubt this. In any case, we should focus on the content not editors... —PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Glidermaven exactly because you are editing "with extreme prejudice" I am trying to go slow and build consensus. It would be helpful to get your input on the way forward Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose adding content by GliderMaven per WP:FRINGE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand, that Adam and Eve actually happened is the WP:FRINGE theory. And that's the problem. What Jytdog has done has removed all of the non fringe material from the article. The stated reason he gave at the top of this section is because "this section is odd" which seems to me to be simply a euphemism. What has happened is exactly like removing all the science from the astrology article, or the homeopathy article. There is now a massive NPOV problem in this article.GliderMaven (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't care that much how you do it, but if good science doesn't magically reappear in this article, stat, then I'll be looking to get the arbcom creationism-related restrictions applied to anyone and everyone who has been removing all the science bits. Clear?GliderMaven (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that we generally agree with you that mention of the scientific consensus is required and that some new material should replace the older one. —PaleoNeonate – 16:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, except I don't believe you. It's now been removed for 4 days, and it was AWOL for months before that. And there's been negligible effort to write anything to replace it, and the removal significantly mischaracterised it in the first place. When people revert war out material like this, they're not trying to add material like that in, otherwise they would do that.GliderMaven (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
And what you don't seem to understand is that I am not going to waste my time drafting something along the lines i suggested if you are going to "revert with prejudice" yet again. I am specifically waiting for you to respond to the "history of interpretation" proposal or make some movement toward constructing something.Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I added a new historicity section, please review. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So you did! Very nice, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

First sentence in lead[edit]

Unfortunately a revert with simply a "nope" edit summary is not very informative or helpful in understanding why the edit was rejected. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I felt that this edit was closer to the long standing first sentence in the intro that existed from at least four years ago to a couple of weeks ago. I believe that this was a neutral wording compromise that most parties on most of the spectrum could agree to since it linked to creation myth, which is a bit more informational than just "mythical". I don't believe that "mythical" was ever actually discussed, making the hidden note somewhat misleading (I'm still digging through the talk archive to see where that discussion actually happened). So what is wrong with the previously long-standing first sentence? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to talk. This is unfortunately a style thing. This is going to end up at an RfC that will come down to who gets out more votes (not !votes, just "votes"). So yeah, "nope" because you have opened the gates to hell. (this version that you linked to sucks less than the one you tried and i wonder why you didn't go for it?) Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough - I was trying to hew a bit closer to what the Leeming citation talks about with respect to ancestry, but I don't think it's necessary since that concept is introduced later in the intro. One of my main concerns is that a wlink to "creation myth" is more informative, easier to defend than "mythical", and easier to trace to discussions on the talk page per the hidden note. Would you or anyone else object to me restoring the 24 Oct 2013 version, which is truer to the long-standing status quo? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I can live with that. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
If this means the first sentence of revision 578537442, I see no problem with it. —PaleoNeonate – 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Eviction from Eden[edit]

At the end of the section "Eden narrative (The Fall) " the text relates that God banishes Adam and Eve from Eden in case they eat from the Tree of Life as well. Whoever wrote this claims this is the first mention of the Tree of Life, but it isn't, it is first mentioned in Genesis 2:9 (King James version) whereas the eviction is related in Genesis 3:23. An interesting diversion is that Adam is allowed to eat from the Tree of Life along with anything else in the Garden, apart from the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 2:16-17). Presumably he does not do so, and once he has full knowledge, God can no longer run the risk of him also obtaining immortality, leading to the eviction. May I edit the text? Cathi M (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Cathi M (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Historicity section[edit]

While the historicity section was a good idea, does any of the given sources actually contain mention to Adam and Eve?

The Irving Finkel source is about the well-known connection between the Noah narrative from the Genesis and Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Kostas Kampourakis source is about evolutionary biology, and the Netherlands source is about life in the Precambrian eon (4600–541 million years ago). The N. Takahata source is about human evolution. They seem unlikely to be analyzing the Genesis.

Per Wikipedia: Synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you contesting that this article is about a story within the primeval narrative section of Genesis? Are you contesting that this is creation myth that includes human origins? Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The section was quickly written to fill a need and can probably be improved. I indeed myself selected these examples because they are obvious, notable and sourced. I'm confident that we could find an additional source to make those connections, or which is directly about the historicity, because it's not new knowledge. The section also doesn't cover human evolution itself much (but was intended to be general and short for weight concerns). —PaleoNeonate – 03:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The previous section that was carelessly deleted for 'being odd' did actually use references that referred to Adam and Eve. Also, the section title 'historicity', is inaccurate if you're talking about LUCA and ancestral species, because LUCA and all the other species are prehistoric. History is only written material, yes?GliderMaven (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Not careless. See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Carelessly, as in caring about how the text reads, rather than the references or accuracy, and while removing verifiable content. So, yes, carelessly, is entirely accurate.GliderMaven (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Just as a heads up to everyone, Jytdog has been, and today, threatening me on my talk page, about him trying to get me blocked if he doesn't have his own way in this article.GliderMaven (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Among other material that has vanished is the impact that the lack of historicity has, and is having on religions.GliderMaven (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Disagreeing with a decision is one thing; mischaracterizing others' actions as "careless" is another. You are generating more diffs for AE which is ...not good for you.
In any case this side discussion is not about improving the article, so I will not reply on this issue further. Happy to discuss content, as always. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I will note that this diff is clearly WP:POINTy. There is no discussion about POV issues per se here. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Genealogical Adam[edit]

The claim of scientific incompatibility is in correct. It should be changed to:

There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed. It is commonly thought, incorrectly, that their existence is in conflict with human evolutionary genetics. However, human evolutionary genetics allows for a "genealogical" Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, as long as there were others "outside the garden," with whom their offspring interbred.[5] This couple could even have been recent, less than 10,000 years ago, in the Middle East.[6] Though science does not demonstrate they existed, allowance for their existence might alleviate tension between religious communities and evolutionary science; a 2014 poll reports that 56% of Americans believe that "Adam and Eve were real people", and 44% believe so with strong or absolute certainty.[7]

Citing: http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/ http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/ http://peacefulscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GenealogicalAncestry-Swamidass.pdf (accepted preprint)

The scientific error is incorrectly equating genealogical and genetic ancestry. They are not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sswamida (talkcontribs) 06:16, December 12, 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts, and please don't insert them into previous threads. I moved it to the bottom of the page where it should have been.
I note that this thread had been started by an editor whose username is almost identical to the author or the material being sourced (S. Joshua Swamidass) suggesting that the user is the author in question. This appears to someone citing his own, as yet unpublished, work. That's more than a bit questionable, and the claim of a possible common ancestor less than 10,000 years ago needs far more than this. Meters (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Haven't had to go through this before. I am the author. If you do not want to cite me that is fine. The key paper was first published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842 There are several supporting studies. This well established finding in population genetics. Sswamida (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
A problem is that this has nothing to do with the mythological iron-age couple. The historicity section also mentions some science which borrowed the names (because of notability), but clarifies that it is otherwise unrelated (those two lines don't meet at a precise point and go back to many thousand years before the period of this narrative). We would need a reliable secondary source (without conflict of interest) to summarize (these may exist if the new hypothesis is notable, becomes mainstream). —PaleoNeonate – 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Reliable secondary sources are not hard to find. There are 49 references and a detailed review of the scientific evidence here [1]. It is just flat out incorrect as currently stated in the article. I am happy to produce some text that quotes these other studies, but I'm not sure the rules here. Perhaps it would be "unconflicted" for someone else do this. Or I could come back with the paper hits print. It really is accepted. Sswamida (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC).
One valuable unconflicted secondary source is found here.[2] It is an online journal (not a blog).Quoting, "So is belief in a historical Adam inconsistent with belief in the Common Ancestry Thesis and the Large Initial Population Thesis? Actually, it is not inconsistent; these are neither contrary nor contradictory. For so long as it is possible for both to be true, then the affirmation of one does not require the negation of the other. And–as the symposium shows–in point of fact it is possible for both to be true." This is written by a theologian who affirms a historical Adam in response to this.[3]
Another uncoflicted source is here.[4] Written by Jeff Hardin,[5] the chair of zoology at UWisc endorsing the science on behalf of BioLogos, the organization founded by Francis Collins (current head of NIH). Both Hardin and I, btw, affirm evolutionary science. This is not pseudoscience. It is a correction from the scientific community in how the science is represented to the public Sswamida (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Finally, many theologians do not think that A&E were mythological and in the Iron Age. Perhaps they are wrong. Who knows. The key theological claim for them seems to be universal genealogical (not genetic) ancestry. Some add on to this a paleolithic agricultural context (not Iron Age). I'm happy to provide references for that, and would point to Collins,[6] Kidner, and Stott. There are certainly conceptions of A&E in conflict with evolution, but there are also conceptions that could work. Sswamida (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
We walk a very narrow line; belief in biblical literalism is one thing; claims that Adam and Eve existed in some specific time is pseudoscience and pseudohistory that we treat as such and is subject to discretionary sanctions under the pseudoscience arbcom case. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
To be 100% clear, I am not claiming that A&E existed. That is a claim outside of science, and not my place to make. I have no stake in that battle. However, it is not scientifically accurate to say that science is in conflict with belief in A&E; the fact is that it is essentially silent on them. One would not come to believe they exist from science, but if one did from other means, science does not uncover evidence against it (unless of course we are going to claim they never interbred with others). My issue with the current text is that it claims science disputes something that it, in fact, does not. There is no scientific evidence for A&E but there no evidence against it either. Sswamida (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, at issue for me is this sentence, which is scientifically inaccurate (the bolded part):

There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed, and their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics. 

"There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed" this is essentially true (unless we consider ancient texts physical evidence, but that opens an avoidable can of worms). However, this is obviously false: "their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics" There should be zero disagreement that A&A could have existed, but not been universal ancestors. Moreover, as I have referenced several works, they could also have been universal ancestors too. To think they could not have been universal ancestors is to be making a scientific error. That comment therefore, should be deleted and updated with accurate science. Sswamida (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to emphasize again that I am not advocating that the article changed to claim that A&E actually did exist, certainly not at any specific time or place. Rather, I am just saying that the science should be accurately stated. Right now it is in error. It is not introducing pseudoscience or pseudohistory into an article to accurately explain what science does and does not say re: belief in A&E. Right? Once again, to reiterate, I affirm evolutionary science too. None of what I am raising here is outside mainstream science. Sswamida (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so your blog posting is not a reliable source in Wikipedia. I get that you want to use Wikipedia as a platform to further expound your views, but you cannot do that here. We reflect mainstream, accepted knowledge, as expressed in the breadth of high quality, reliable sources. Maybe in several years your perspective will be widely picked up, and we can discuss it in Wikipedia then. Not now. Please do read WP:SOAP, and please stop what you are doing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Point taken. Let's give it time. Though, for the record, I've given several primary references apart from my blog post, in the scientific literature (and can produce more). I have also given secondary sources showing how theologians that care about A&E are responding. We need not reference my blog post. But as you suggest, we can wait. No rush. I'm stopping. Sswamida (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Just out of idleness, here are some of the salient points of the biblical Adam and Eve story:

  • Time: They lived approximately 4000 BC (a bit hard to judge but that's close enough);
  • Ancestors: None - they were created, they did not evolve (all those hominin fossils....);
  • Place: Middle East (not Africa);
  • Adam was Neolithic (he cultivated the ground); no Paleolithic in Genesis; at 4000 BC he was a bit late for the Neolithic.

Just in case anyone's interested :) PiCo (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and anything relating to biology is basically off-topic in this article, except of course the existing mention of the notable names which were borrowed (and otherwise unrelated)... —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)