Talk:Book of Genesis
Book of Genesis is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee.
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.Nominated by MagicatthemovieS (talk) at 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Genesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Text and textual witnesses
"in the Greek Septuagint it was called Genesis, from the phrase "the generations of heaven and earth," and translated as genesis in Latin and Greek." seems to me to need rephrasing. Maybe something like "The phrase ... was rendered using the Greek word γενεσις genesis in the Septuagint, which provides the Greek and then the Latin title "Genesis"? TomS TDotO (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Something like that :). The word being translated is "toledot", which means something like histories or generations (it's a plural). The phrase is "These are the toledot of the heavens and the earth", meaning the world - the generations of the world. Maybe just forget the explanation and say that it was called (not translated) Genesis in Greek, meaning "origin". Better still, what does the source say? PiCo (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In defence of the serpent
Reading this generally well-written Wikipedia article, I was surprised by the neologism "trickster" to describe the serpent. I have now deleted "trickster", for two reasons.
1. In everyday British usage at least, the word "trickster" is not used in formal speech and is therefore not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Any other British or non-British readers out there who agree (or disagree) with me?
2. I have looked up trickster on Wikipedia, and apart from its informal use, it appears to have a specific literary definition: trickster is a character in a story which exhibits a great degree of intellect or secret knowledge, and uses it to play tricks or otherwise disobey normal rules and conventional behaviour. This literary definition is clearly not applicable to the serpent in Genesis. The serpent itself does not play tricks or disobey rules. Rather, the serpent is a tempter who promises Eve that the forbidden fruit will impart knowledge. And that turns out to be the case, so the serpent is not even lying here.
- I don't want to get into this discussion, but I think that to be fair about what I did by making a link to Serpent (Bible), that article uses the term "trickster" about the serpent. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Article fails to note the historical views of the book of Genesis
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
The vast majority of people thought Genesis was factual before modern science. Is this really controversial?
First, why do you want to see such an assertion put into this article
It is of direct historical interest that it was long considered to be history.
They certainly didn't practice modern science
Exactly, that's what I said in the edit.
people from about the year 100 or 200 CE saw (at times) Genesis as allegoric
Even if that was true what does it have to do with my edit? That still leaves over a thousand years Genesis was considered literal.
Are you seriously arguing that, back in an era of extreme religiosity, when Bible quotations were accepted in courts of law and there was no separation of Church and State, Genesis was not seen as the literal truth?
There was a massive religious theocracy but "people, back then didn't worry about such things"?
Catholics generally interpreted Genesis literally too. 
Um, no, "literal truth" is not a modern concept. You do not have to conduct a scientific investigation to conclude something is true. Biblical contradictions were very carefully explained away before the modern era.
What does that have to do with what I said? Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean, I genuinely don't understand the point you are trying to make.
I'm sorry, but you simply are wrong. While its true St. Augustine thought the descriptions might be allegorical he did not doubt the literal truth of creation and Adam and Eve. There is absolutely no evidence that medieval churchman or scholastics understood the Old Testament accounts as legendary. You say Catholicism did not support literalism but that's demonstrably untrue, as shown by their long opposition to heliocentric theory.
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on "history" explicitly shows how the Old Testament records were regarded as historical during the Middle Ages.  It is simply inconceivable that anyone before modern times, when there is a strong interest in pretending that religion and science are in harmony, would have had the "enlightened" view of the Bible which you express. Nobody before the 17th century doubted the Bible, along with witchcraft and miracles, was completely factual. If you want to understand the state of thought prior to the 17th century I suggest you read Lecky's History of the Rise of Rationalism in Europe. 
There is no Wikipedia rule against using old sources. I don't see the relevance of your other points. The heliocentrism thing was in your response to your false statement that Protestants invented Biblical literalism.
Of course people are extremely uncomfortable acknowledging the reality of how ancestors thought--think about race, for example--but that doesn't mean we should hide it.
I'm merely noting that, during the time period that the Church was dominant and modern science did not exist, Genesis was viewed as real history. Why is this such a big deal?
Really? What is the minimum year for you not to consider it "outdated" and where do you find this in Wikipedia policy?
The article Historicity of the Bible already contains the following The birth of geology was marked by the publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788. This marked the intellectual revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory.
One more point for the record: tradition ascribed Genesis to Moses, who received the information from God at Mt. Sinai (see Mosaic authorship). So they thought God was lying, or telling an allegory? Really?
Furthermore in the Gospels Jesus refers to events in Genesis as factual.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Book of Genesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://http
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929022703/http://www.easyrashi.com/1bereshis/bereshith/Bereshit.htm to http://www.easyrashi.com/1bereshis/bereshith/Bereshit.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked= to true
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
- I set it to "failed" because the webpage works, but the PDF from it doesn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Depends on the image. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Book of Genesis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
|· · ·|
Question - I know we include summaries for "fiction" books but I haven't seen the section of MOS that would permit a summary for a philosophy/religious text without citations, can you please point me towards the policy you relied on so I can review it? It also, after a preliminary read through, does seem that the summary is considerably too long relative to the length of the rest of the article. Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)