Talk:Genesis creation narrative

4377:

anthropomorphic presentation of the second pericope, in which God "forms" the man like a potter and "builds" the woman. Further, we have already seen that, while the first pericope certainly does emphasize God's transcendence, it is far from presenting him as distant or aloof. In fact it invites us to enter into aspects of God's own experience, and to imitate his model. Where does this leave us? Do these pericopes come from separate sources or not? There is no way to answer this question, since the putative sources no longer exist. But for each feature that is put forward to support the source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow of the narrative. In other words, if someone produced this text by stitching sources together, he left the seams smooth indeed.

3129:

directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Knowledge policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines.

2568:

are super interesting in critical literature studies.As an aside, I do identify as a person of faith, and I never edit in the topic area of my own faith. It's upsetting, unwinnable, and contrary to the principles of Knowledge, whether I like it or not. That's good, in that it makes the project stronger with respect to the terms on which it is constituted. We should all avoid editing in areas where we feel a strong emotional response, or possess experiential knowledge that is not grounded in published sources informed by Western / scientific ways of knowing.Content policies do in fact stipulate that academic and critical perspectives form the bulk of our prose, and overshadow religious teachings. Placing published mainstream scholarship on the same level as religious beliefs is

2093:'Then what does it mean to say that “most” scholars hold one view or another? It always depends. If you mean “most scholars total” then you would have to include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. And I frankly don’t know the proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country. That’s why I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about.' 1310: 360: 2594:

In my original post, I gave Ehrman (a leading critical scholar) as an authority to determine this. He states, 'I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think'. It appears that Ehrman regards matters in which critical and traditional scholars disagree to be controversial, and thus will

2820:, 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' Please know that I am not quoting that to disrespect you or the others. I have an argument which is logical, in line with the current policies, with support from an expert. This was the basis for making this discussion topic. 1844: 1207: 1712: 1003: 1269: 982: 4239:'The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like.' This sentence would be denied by any traditional scholar (including any traditional/orthodox Christian or Jew). As per the Ehrman-criterium (really 785: 512: 565: 544: 420: 430: 393: 670: 649: 4891:- Genesis is not called a narrative, and Genesis is not a narrative. Genesis is a series of narratives. It begins with either the Genesis creation narrative or the Genesis creation narratives. My own opinion is that it is two narratives that are inconsistent. Regardless of whether one accepts the documentary hypothesis, Genesis 1 is the Priestly creation narrative, and Genesis 2-3 is the Yahwistic creation and original sin narrative. 1092: 2123:'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats of NT writings) or not.' 1071: 575: 320: 1826: 680: 1771: 1164: 4477:

Bible as a whole. But these factors cannot take away from the place of Mesopotamia’s stories of origins in the Bible’s opening chapters; and the latter, remarkably, do not fully conceal these antecedents. To the contrary, in its layout the biblical text appears frank about the locale of what preceded its eventual epic-making call to Abraham to “go forth” (Gen. 12:1) from his homeland and begin anew in a faraway place.

351: 1684: 880: 3077:"due to some horrible chemotherapy" Don't take this as an insult Doug, but you are not as energetic as you were in your prime. Do you really want to spend your remaining time and energy in the never-ending dramas of Knowledge's talk pages? They are probaby not beneficial to your state of mind. Personally, I often find myself contemplating the futility of reaching for a compromise through them. 859: 2572:. NPOV does not mean "median point of view", nor "attributing to named individuals everything disagreed with by anyone". We don't really have special carveouts for religious topics. We still treat them as encyclopaedia topics.I'm sorry if you're feeling stung for being called out for rookie misunderstandings. I hope you stick around and continue learning how our community operates. Blessings, 1325: 4963:, specifically the 'Interpretations' section. Over a week has passed, and discussion resulted in unanimous consent due to the fact that the framework interpretation article fits within the Genesis creation narrative article; it deals solely with interpretation of the first creation narrative which is a topic in this article, and therefore makes little sense as a separate article. 890: 775: 754: 3124:, but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that 2458:, I'm not saying your use of the word "neutral", as in "As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally", is wrong (and it's very, very common amongst new users). But its implication that Knowledge should not take sides between non-religious and religious criticism goes completely against Knowledge's policy 3912:]). I do not know what the source of this quote is, but that is precisely what I am requesting for this article. At the very least, an acknowledgment that scholars 'of biblical criticism' conclude separate authorship. I would actually endorse the insertion of this quotation in the article somehow, and would consider my concerns allayed on that point. 2606:'s reply to you which has some great arguments, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. 4113:

like, 'According to traditional interpretation, the Pentateuch in its entirety was written by Moses as an inspired and infallible work , while critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy), the first account...' This also applies to the first paragraph of Note

2952:, since it is highly likely at least one of their replies is AI-generated. I mean: if they did use ChatGPT (or something like that), and I accused them of using ChatGPT, it isn't a personal attack. It's just a fact pertaining to their edits. I cannot be blamed for noticing they did, nor for spilling the beans about it. 4798:

traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

4527:

must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole.' I believe the current wording of 'borrowing' is too broad and does not give the nuance which Klamm and Winitzer express. Again, I would endorse the addition of the wording of this quote into the article.

3961:

My mistake, this is actually a part of the article already hahaha. Since this is already the practice of the article, what is wrong with applying it consistently? In other words, what is your disagreement with my proposed edits to Lines 6, 20 and 27 (not with respect to Mesopotamian influence on this

3721:

The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be

3225:

Your definition of "critical scholarship" is overly narrow; it's not the only valid approach to Biblical studies. Knowledge should represent the full spectrum of scholarly approaches, not just those focused on source criticism. This aligns with WP:NPOV and ensures comprehensive coverage of the field.

2801:

disagree with you, me and Bishonen, and together we have made over 300,000 edits. A main reason we were elected was that our knowledge of policy and guidelines was good enough that when editors consistently broke them we could block them with confidence. tgeorgescu had over 50,000 edits, many of them

2547:

This approach, I believe, better serves our readers and more accurately fulfills the role of an encyclopedia in explaining religious concepts. I hope this clarifies my position and opens up a constructive dialogue on how we can best handle these sensitive topics. Or you could just call me "too new to

2532:

While I understand the importance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MAINSTREAM, we must apply these carefully in religious contexts. Presenting mainstream academic criticism of religious beliefs as the primary content, rather than the beliefs themselves, could be seen as violating NPOV by unduly favoring

2408:

Thank you for the links. My proposal does not include any additions of content, so I believe the charge of 'ventilating pseudohistory' is irrelevant. I merely proposed attribution to certain claims which are both controversial and contested in biblical scholarship, and do not represent a consensus of

2274:

I agree with you. The current article does violate WP:NPOV by presenting contested scholarly interpretations as facts. Your proposed edits would better align with NPOV by clarifying that these views are held by "most critical scholars" rather than presenting their conclusions as undisputed facts. Per

4476:

The imprint of Mesopotamia’s mythic thought and literature on Genesis’ Primeval History (Genesis 1–11) is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the

4204:

To be honest, with respect to NPOV I think this article is fine now and I have no further qualms. But my original argument aside, I think 'critical' should be added before 'scholars' for the sake of clarity. Jewish and Christian tradition maintain textual unity, now 'scholars' dispute this. Why? The

3097:

Your claim is overly restrictive and misrepresents academic diversity. "Critical scholars" aren't the sole arbiters of reliable historical research. Mainstream academia includes various methodologies and perspectives in Biblical studies. This stance contradicts Knowledge's NPOV policy and could lead

2593:

It seems to me that our disagreement lies in whether the non-critical claims in question are uncontested and uncontroversial, and not in whether fringe views should be given validity. If they are not uncontested and uncontroversial, then they ought to be attributed to a school of thought or scholar.

2567:

I don't agree that this is likely, and think that most readers consult Knowledge for mainstream academic consensus on their topics of interest. Knowledge is built upon mainstream scholarship.I might be biased here because I have a lot of experience with textual history, and early Biblical narratives

2441:

biblical scholars" to "biblical scholars" and turned the phrasing "The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts" into "Scholars analyse the creation narrative as consisting of two separate accounts". All of these changes tend to create a false balance between mainstream scholars (again,

5122:

What an utterly absurd closure. Absolutely no effort appears to have been made to notify anyone of this discussion, and closing after a week, claiming 'unanimity' after only one other person has commented is an abuse of process. The content added is nothing but a series of external links, and isn't

4797:

n Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural, or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings. A

4715:

If, then, the Bible was to offer something meaningful about such topics, Mesopotamia’s version of events would necessarily have to be addressed. The challenge presented by Mesopotamia, therefore, would amount to a delicate balancing act: How was the Bible to incorporate this ancient tradition while

4526:

The 'imprint of Mesopotamia's mythic thought and literature on Genesis' is different from 'borrowing of themes'. Notice that Klamm and Winitzer qualify their statement, saying '... is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it

4376:

We have also seen that the assertion that the P account lacks anthropomorphisms is mistaken: the first pericope actually depends on an anthropomorphic presentation, where God is a craftsman going through his workweek, taking his rest each evening, and then enjoying his Sabbath. This merges with the

4309:

Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not

4112:

I'm not sure what your opinion is on my 'Ehrman-criterium' (especially given my response to you in ), but if we accept it, then the second sentence in the lead paragraph 'The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:4, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P)', should be preceded by some statement

3863:

Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the Genesis to Moses "as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th century. Scholars of Biblical criticism conclude that it, together with

3716:

scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different

3500:

views? As religious views, a short explanation, in a section on religious views, would be: 'Conservative Evangelicals view the creation story as...'. Without such an addition I also see no point in the attribution, except for the implication that it is 'just an opinion', or as a signal-word akin to

3386:

We should refocus on the content and policies rather than making assumptions about intentions. Our focus should be on the quality and accuracy of contributions and evaluating edits. If there are specific policies you believe I've misinterpreted, I'm open to discussing them. Ideally something beyond

4189:

I have never said that Ehrman possesses supernatural infallibility in his writings. In determining what views 'mainstream scholarship' includes, I consulted the opinion of an expert in the field, who states that he does not discount evangelical scholars and will not attribute a conclusion to 'most

3754:

has been partially replaced by a fragmentary hypothesis: "the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases." So instead of four main sources, there may

2543:

I'm advocating for a nuanced approach that accurately represents religious beliefs as they are understood by adherents, clearly distinguishes between claims of faith and historical/scientific claims and includes relevant academic perspectives and criticisms where appropriate, without letting these

1377:

states "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." This is also the main thrust of

5138:

I've struck the above, since it appears that I'd been looking at the wrong edit or something. Having said that, there seems to be more than a whiff of WP:OR in the content added, and the material added in external links is clearly inappropriate, as a selection of primary-source material chosen to

3827:

That is evidence of inconsistency on the part of Ehrman, according to his own principle in the blog post I gave, he ought to have said 'the consensus of critical scholarship' or something like that, as he says 'What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually

2278:

WP:DUE is also relevant here. While we shouldn't give undue weight to "minority" views, we also shouldn't present "majority" views as universal facts. Your proposal strikes a better balance. The WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline encourages presenting multiple scholarly viewpoints when they exist as well.

4148:

That's perfect except for the word 'mainstream'. My argument (and the Ehrman-criterium) necessitate that this word should be replaced by 'critical'. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning the traditional view since composite authorship is an 'uncontroversial and uncontested fact'. This is in

3778:

According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and

3173:

Any article discussing religious beliefs must also accurately describe what the believers actually believe. Failure to do so renders the article fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative, and potentially useless. Accurate representation of religious beliefs is crucial. Dismissing it as unimportant

3128:

of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not

2980:

The results I got from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written (I did not scan their username as included in the post). I'm not saying this is bulletproof, but it seems to confirm my intuition. I mean: people do not write like that. Especially when they're not writing official

1370:

in its informal sense should not be used but also clearly states that we should treat all faiths and beliefs the same (e.g. Not referring to a Christian belief on the one hand and a Hindu myth on the other). Thus all faiths' creation myths are referred to as such in their respective articles as

5154:

Could you please review the discussion under 'This article contains bias towards critical scholarship'? You will see that the state of the article was reached through consensus, and that we aimed to give priority to the majority view in scholarship while mentioning the traditional view which is

2651:

I appreciate your point that the Documentary Hypothesis is "no longer the only game in town." This actually reinforces the argument for a more nuanced presentation. If there are multiple scholarly perspectives within mainstream Biblical criticism, shouldn't we aim to represent that diversity of

3169:

Your argument seems to be an attempt to systematically exclude NT scholarship from Knowledge under the guise of maintaining academic rigor. This approach would itself introduce significant bias. Knowledge's goal should be to accurately capture the range of scholarly views, including mainstream

4738:

I can concede this point if my suggestion in is accepted. The term 'borrowing' in my mind connotes a kind of plagiarism on the part of the biblical authors, whereas what you have quoted speaks of 'imprint'. 'Influence' is another good word, and not even orthodox/fundamentalist scholars would

3843: 2528:

I agree that "What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history." But that's precisely why we need to clearly delineate between theological claims and historical ones. A statement like "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim; it's an accurate

4171:

No. You can't ad hoc interpret your 'Ehrman-criterium' to make it fit your preferences. Ehrman, in two differnt writings, clearly states "scholarly concensus" and "scholars," not "critical scholars" or "Biblical criticism," nor "mainstream. I've changed it to plain "scholars," per Ehrman.

5199:

Please see my argument in this Talk page under 'Arbitrary header #1'. The response to this was in general unproductive, however I believe there was real discussion and consensus-building in points to which Joshua Jonathan drew from my arguments, offering criticism and suggestions for

2356:

It is well to recognize that the dominant viewpoint among scientists is not the only one. There are various minority viewpoints, represented by qualified scientists, but these viewpoints are largely suppressed by majority voices, by active persecution, and by selective reporting in the

1353:

is a formal and proper term used by a wide range of academics and scholars (religious and secular) to define a supernatural account of how life, Earth and everything in general came into existence. This term does not imply falsehood unlike the way that the informal use of the word

1469:. The goal in writing the article is to be as neutral and dispassionate in describing this subject, but, as with any contentious topic, it is sometimes not possible to accommodate everyone's feelings while writing a neutral, accurate, verifiable, and sourced-based reference work. 4450: 2712:

My concern is that by presenting only critical scholarly views without clear attribution, we might inadvertently misrepresent the beliefs held by many religious adherents. I think I've stated this on other pages related to Christianity that we've run into one another on.

3483:

If you want to present scholarship as "critical scholarship" or "mainstream scholarship," you'll also have to present an overview of the views of non-critical ('traditional', conservative Evangelical) scholarship on these matters. That's possible, akin to the overview at

2520:

However, there's a critical distinction we need to make when dealing with religious topics. The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a religious concept or belief is primarily to explain what that belief entails, not to debate its historical accuracy or scientific

4674: 3478:

All encyclopedic content on Knowledge must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a

3268:

If one wants to write history, there are shared rules and shared assumptions for doing so. There is certain stuff which historical research cannot deliver. It cannot say whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus got resurrected, since that is not a matter of historical

4048:

We could precede that line with something like "Conservative/Evangelical Christians view the two stories as mutually dependend stories which form one narrative." One source (random, Google "evangelicals genesis one narrative"): J. Daryl Charles (ed.)(2013),

3651:

I appreciate this very much, as a detailed examination of my original argument is what I was looking for. I feel once we have discussed this there will be no need for the DRN so I will write that I would like to put that on hold at least for the moment.

1456:

is used for reasons related to scholarship and research, not out of a desire to offend the feelings or beliefs of Knowledge's readers. While some readers, especially those not familiar with the scholarly terminology referenced when using the term

4777: 3722:

easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways.

2081:

regarding Genesis. As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally. In addition, many biblical scholars (generally those who are not critical scholars) would reject those statements anyway.

2251:

Even the order and method of creation differs. "Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined."

3926:

Although this goes beyond my proposal, I think it would be beneficial to include the first sentence about the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The quote is an excellent and brief summary of the authorship question.

3979: 4978:' be merged to the 'Interpretation...' section of 'Genesis creation narrative'. The framework interpretation solely deals with the first creation narrative (Gen. 1:1-2:3), and so it makes little sense for it to be a separate article. 3797:

The book of Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are known. This includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition says that Moses wrote these five books but

2295:

I'm unlikely to respond in any detail today due to some horrible chemotherapy. But, and I don't mean to be rude, both of you are very new editors and I'm not convinced you understand our policy. More tomorrow if I feel well enough.

3779:

contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree.

2246:

God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become

2683:

I was not at all proposing a change of policy. I was saying that the current application of the policy is incorrect given what an authority in biblical scholarship says about what is controversial and uncontroversial in his field.

4910: 166: 2499:

It is called "neutral point of view", but a proper name would be "normative point of view". Like a civics teacher does not teach his/her own opinions, nor a mixed bag of all opinions, but the normative views of the society.

5217:

I am at a loss, then, as to what you mean by "traditional" view. It is not explained above nor in this statement here. What "literary analysis and interpretation" deserves inclusion on this page that is different than the

4059:- imprecise; state "X (kind of) scholars are of the opinion that ... ," which could be added to a note. It's not clear now at all which scholars you'r ereferring to, what they object to, and what alternative they propose. 3177:

Instead of blanket exclusion, we should critically evaluate sources, clearly attribute claims, and provide context for different scholarly approaches and beliefs. This maintains neutrality while acknowledging the field's

3390:

Instead of telling me to "drop this," I think I'll reach out for help. In the mean time, I insist that we attribute information to the originating sources in order to make it plain where the information is coming from.

3784:

Ehrman here does not say "most scholars," but he also doesn't say critical scholars"; he just says "scholars," and seems to be quite outspoken that this is broadly accepted. So, VC's 'Ehrman-criterium' seems to be met

1911: 2539:

Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. It originated in its religious

3690: 3295:

I am an MD/PhD with a job in technical writing, but the real answer must be that I'm several teenagers inside of a trench coat using ChatGPT to generate my responses, and not that this article violates WP:NPOV.

2598:

a view to a school of thought, not presenting it as if it were an uncontested fact. Given this authoritative judgment, we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and

1878: 2524:

When we describe what Christians believe about the Trinity or what Muslims believe about the Night Journey, we're not making historical claims. We're representing the content of a belief system. This is not

2666:

This approach would adhere to existing policies and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of both the religious significance and the current state of academic discourse around this topic.

1933: 4486: 2636:

says that the Bible is historically accurate, despite the actual historical and archaeological record. Therefore, when biblicist scholars write the history of the Bible, they are writing pseudohistory.

2517:

I'm not advocating for the promotion of pseudohistory or fringe theories. I fully agree that Knowledge should rely on mainstream academic sources and not be a platform for marginal or discredited ideas.

3166:

Dismissing all NT scholarship as unreliable is an overreach. Many NT scholars employ rigorous historical methods. The existence of some theologically-biased work doesn't invalidate the entire field.

1867: 1547:: The viewpoint that Genesis is literally true is held by only a tiny minority of sources. Knowledge's neutrality policy does not say that articles must "give equal validity" to such views (see 2864:

Oh, I see they actually are a native speaker. My bad. I guess ChatGPT is cranking out material with obvious grammatical errors in it like this nowadays. Those pesky generative AI chat bots...

3222:

No, I'm not using ChatGPT but I noticed you also accused the other user commenting of the same thing. Interesting take from someone whose main refutations besides one-liners are just kopipe.

5052:

If you believe there is any POV content in the 'Framework interpretation' section such that it is 'propaganda', that is a separate issue to the merge, but I would be happy to discuss that.

5289: 2590:'I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Knowledge's voice' 2116:

states that 'Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.'

2429:, "the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural" is the mainstream academic approach to the Bible. That's the reason I reverted 2127:

Thus, it appears that an authority does regard evangelical views as worthy of legitimation through comparison to accepted scholarship. Therefore, my proposed additions would not violate

3888: 4732: 4579:@Violoncello10104: Sarna (1997) says "borrowed some themes"; that's in line with the nuance you're looking for. I've added "some" to the text, and changed the sentence in the lead into 4520: 2565:

Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques.

4987: 4944: 364: 3281:

There are some very important questions, which nevertheless cannot be answered objectively. Pretending otherwise just makes the matter worse. Some stuff is just faith, not history.

160: 4992: 4398:

I approve of this now since you added 'According to Carr,' however you might like to add this argumentation from Collins in response to Carr to round out the POV of this article.

2046: 1889: 2658:

Introduce mainstream critical scholarship, noting that the Documentary Hypothesis was once dominant and that there are now multiple scholarly approaches within Biblical criticism

5203:

I also need to say, none of the edits in dispute state that the events of Genesis occurred; they are literary analyses and interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative.

4974:

Given that this article now has an 'Interpretation...' section, and the 'Framework interpretation' article is fairly short and relies on only a few sources, I propose that '

4814: 1955: 1694: 3174:

undermines the validity of the entire discussion, regardless of one's personal stance on religion. It's not our role to judge these beliefs, but to present them accurately.

5279: 311: 2242:

while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an

5093: 4601:@Dimadick: those two internet-articles are linked in a note, as examples of the conservative/Evangelical view; I wouldn't use them as sources, just as 'illustrations'. 4007: 1142: 5294: 3432:. I have made a post on the dispute resolution noticeboard with the agreement of ViolanteMD. I would just like an evaluation of my argument and the debate in general; 2995:

Thank you for your post, it was most informative. Some people do in fact write like that. I've spent most of my life being told that I "talk funny". Thanks for that!

2108:: These additions should not be made because the opposing (traditional/conservative/evangelical) views are fringe, that is, they are marginalised in reliable sources ( 2063: 2035: 2025: 1900: 3864:

the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."

2536:

I'm not suggesting we ignore academic or critical perspectives. But they should not overshadow or replace the primary explanation of what the belief actually entails.

2514:

Thank you both for your input on this matter. I appreciate the references to various Knowledge policies, but I believe there's still a crucial point being overlooked.

2009: 3181:

WP:RULES are meant to ensure comprehensive, balanced articles, not to exclude entire academic disciplines or misrepresent belief systems based on personal biases.

2101:, but they would be informative to readers in demonstrating that the qualified statements originated in critical scholarship, rather than scholarship in general. 2437:, the authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc" to the previous "The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc", added " 3272:

There can be no evidence that Jesus is God and there can be no evidence that Jesus isn't God. That's not a matter predicated upon objective historical evidence.

3519: 3242:

If it sounds like the prose of a full professor, writing a paper for the government, who employed several proofreaders, then it is perhaps computer-generated.

2254:

These differences motivate critical scholars to conclude that consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. (Note

631: 3821: 3744: 4153:

which has this 'fringe/mainstream' dichotomy that's been extensively debated on this talk page. Unrelated note: you can remove the first appearance of Note

3098:

to biased articles. A more balanced approach would accurately represent the spectrum of scholarly opinion while maintaining standards for reliable sources.

1053: 525: 5399: 3489: 3265:

An obvious point: if they don't abide by the historical method, they are not writing history. They may be writing theology or apologetics, but not history.

2917: 2630:

About the Documentary Hypothesis: it is no longer the only game in town, but not because mainstream scholars are now more inclined with biblicist scholars.

1215: 1184:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 520: 403: 5384: 1988: 1132: 4321:.) This statement was signed by a number of prominent evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, and represents traditional Protestant interpretation. 964: 4190:

scholars' unless evangelicals agree. His practice in other writings is totally irrelevant. I am interested in his opinion on this matter specifically.

3466: 2068: 57: 4053:, Hendrickson Publishers, p.2-3, mentions literary versus literal reading, and historical versus literary. I've added this to the Ehrman-Jackson note. 1944: 1922: 1551:). In writing this article it also becomes necessary to proceed with some implicit assumptions that many readers are bound to find controversial (see 502: 5389: 1966: 1818: 736: 1275: 1508:

in its own right that should not be parsed into separate words. The term has a unique meaning different from the informal definitions of the word

4384:, C. John Collins, 2006, P&R Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, pp. 230-231) Composite authorship is contested and controversial. 3606:

I believe and can be subsumed into one point. Point was never in dispute as this was always attributed to the various scholarly perspectives.

2707:"Archaeological and historical evidence supports some Biblical accounts while contradicting others." (a summary of scholarly historical research) 2470:

Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Knowledge's voice, for example

841: 5319: 621: 4662: 203: 4870: 4646: 5369: 3971: 3936: 1108: 1043: 4832: 4821: 4769: 4748: 4536: 4428: 4407: 4393: 4369: 4330: 4286: 4269: 4252: 4214: 4199: 4184: 4166: 4143: 4126: 4078: 4026: 3921: 3837: 3682: 3661: 3615: 2425:

I'm no theologian, but an experienced Wikipedian, and to me the most important point here is that Knowledge is a mainstream encyclopedia.

1530:. Formally defined terms provide unambiguous meaning that aid in the presentation of a more accurate and scholarly encyclopedic article. 5379: 4107: 181: 1995: 5359: 5324: 5304: 5176: 2360:

Poythress, Vern S.. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (p. 21). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

1977: 954: 918: 492: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 148: 92: 4357:

That's a primary source, and does not directly address Carr's statement, or the perceived differences in narrative structure/content.

3732:, Apologetics Press, gives an apologetic view, but still refers to the documenatary hypothesis, which seems to have been superseeded. 3444: 2829: 1409:

is a widely accepted term that has a precise definition that is "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of

5374: 5274: 4706: 4627: 4467: 4044:- "often" is imprecise; I'd say "usually," and have added this. I've already added a note there, with the Ehrman-quote, and the line 3621:

I've gone through the objections, but see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of

2889: 2843: 2693: 2646: 2418: 2290: 456: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 3540:

separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")

5404: 5334: 4566: 3588:

Maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards,

3278:

If one is writing a historical paper, they cannot claim that Jesus is God, nor that Jesus isn't God. That would be utterly puerile.

2934:"I could be mistaken" following a direct personal attack is not a defense. Please just move on. These epic threads do little good. 2615: 2376:

We aren't going to be using something published by Crossway as a guiding light. This is an encyclopedia, not a campus bible study.

1753: 726: 4613: 3908:

I'm not proposing for any additional info to be given, but for attribution of critical scholarship to critical views to be given (

3764: 5394: 5284: 4882: 3903: 2811: 1849:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

1099: 1076: 597: 3419: 3402: 3381: 3260: 3038: 2990: 2975: 2784: 2351: 2305: 5344: 5314: 5309: 3367: 3351: 3325: 3307: 3290: 3237: 3217: 3192: 3161: 3109: 3006: 2875: 2859: 2758: 2742: 2724: 2678: 2559: 2371: 2268: 1171: 1019: 831: 5231: 5212: 5194: 5083: 5061: 4900: 3954: 3645: 3600: 3513: 2581: 2493: 5364: 4413: 3523: 3086: 2509: 98: 2961: 2943: 2929: 2907: 142: 3945:

do you think we should give to the (often contradictory) opinions of religious extremists about this particular mythology?

926: 464: 319: 4970:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4875:

We simply need to tip toe around the real terminology used in society to engage readers to read on an educate themselves.

4866: 4623: 5354: 5349: 5013: 4695: 3067: 1224: 2385: 2217:

two separate accounts drawn from different sources. The first account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 is from what scholars call the

5299: 4975: 4956: 3586:

the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.

2430: 1798: 702: 588: 549: 138: 43: 3312:

More to the point: despite its sophisticated prose, your argument is essentially a red herring. Since it does not use

3170:

historical perspectives and the diversity within NT scholarship. This would align with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies.

2399: 5329: 1010: 987: 4855: 2816:

I respect your position and I'm sure you do know than me. I'm interested in your assessment of my argument. Quoting

2238:

contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire

701:-related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 5255: 5115: 3876:

don't give any additional info on conservative views on the authorship of Genesis; no reason to do otherwise here.

1107:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

922: 807: 460: 188: 5339: 5269: 3338:

ChatGPT can produce inhumanely slick and professional answers, but it does not mean that ChatGPT understands the

3058:, but only critical scholars speak in the name of the mainstream academia and in the name of mainstream history. 2459: 1187: 1175: 930: 903: 864: 112: 5148: 5133: 4862: 4619: 3727: 4589: 2149: 1255: 468: 444: 398: 117: 33: 3275:

In mainstream history, the sentence "Jesus is God" does not have a truth value. It is neither true, nor false.

3050:

And the answer is that, despite your protestations, reliable historical research is done by critical scholars

2097:

My proposed additions below (in bold), reflect Ehrman's practice. They would not only meet the expectation of

5034: 3433: 2192: 1757: 1283: 1247: 693: 654: 87: 5185:? Isn't it a claim that the events of this myth happened as literally described? Or am I missing something? 3707: 2621:

we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial

2209:, most critical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the 4497: 3670:

And I'm very interested in getting to know more about these 'alternate' (conservative, Evangelical) views.

1664: 1291: 1243: 373: 3848:

separate authorship ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")": -->

2213:

and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."

4046:

For an apologetic view, see Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press.

1749: 798: 759: 78: 154: 5208: 5172: 5160: 5057: 4983: 4960: 4940: 4828: 4744: 4658: 4532: 4403: 4389: 4326: 4248: 4210: 4195: 4162: 4122: 4022: 3967: 3932: 3917: 3833: 3657: 3611: 3440: 2885: 2825: 2817: 2689: 2611: 2414: 2264: 1220: 914: 198: 37: 4843:

Genesis is called a narrative, but the article does not explain why. Could someone elaborate on this?

5250: 5227: 5190: 5110: 5079: 5030: 5008: 4896: 4850: 4809: 4764: 4727: 4641: 4608: 4515: 4423: 4364: 4281: 4264: 4179: 4138: 4117:. Also cut out the sentence 'drawn from different sources' and move the note to the second sentence. 4102: 4073: 4002: 3950: 3883: 3816: 3739: 3677: 3640: 3595: 3508: 2704:"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." (a statement about religious belief) 2381: 1690: 5164: 5067: 3873: 2798: 2232:

Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature.

2086: 1541:

Q4: Does this article say or imply that Genesis is not literally true? And if so, is that neutral?

1018:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

806:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

596:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4550: 4243:), it must not be stated in Knowledge's voice but qualified to critical and/or liberal scholars. 1193: 122: 3488:, or (preferably) as a separate subsection, which is already there (but not very well written): 5144: 5129: 4585: 3909: 3751: 2948:

I admit that I have conflated the two Viol-something. But in respect to one of them, it is not

2569: 2447: 2145: 4653:

Thank you, I approve of that edit as it places 'borrowing' within the context of 'influence'.

2655:

Present the traditional religious understanding of the text held by those who are of the faith

2275:

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with inline attribution."

5204: 5168: 5053: 4979: 4936: 4824: 4740: 4654: 4528: 4399: 4385: 4322: 4244: 4206: 4191: 4158: 4118: 4018: 3963: 3928: 3913: 3829: 3653: 3607: 3436: 3416: 3378: 3372:

Great, more lack of good faith. You should just drop this, you aren't going to get your way.

3261:

https://nypost.com/2024/02/21/tech/student-put-on-probation-for-using-grammarly-ai-violation/

2972: 2881: 2821: 2808: 2794: 2685: 2607: 2451: 2410: 2302: 2260: 1786: 1533: 1361: 1251: 379: 3434:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genesis_creation_narrative

5244: 5223: 5219: 5186: 5104: 5075: 5026: 5002: 4892: 4888: 4844: 4803: 4758: 4721: 4635: 4602: 4509: 4417: 4358: 4275: 4258: 4173: 4132: 4096: 4067: 3996: 3946: 3877: 3810: 3733: 3671: 3634: 3589: 3502: 3408: 3397: 3362: 3347: 3321: 3302: 3286: 3232: 3213: 3187: 3157: 3104: 3063: 3033: 3001: 2986: 2957: 2925: 2880:

I have never used AI to generate text. I guess you'll just have to trust me on that point.

2870: 2854: 2848:

I get the feeling you don't know very well what a non-native English speaker sounds like.

2839: 2779: 2753: 2738: 2719: 2673: 2642: 2554: 2505: 2377: 2366: 2347: 2323: 2319: 2285: 2128: 2109: 1620: 4634:

You're right, but is it consequential? The idea is to get an idea of the way of thinking.

3844:

separate authorship ( "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")

2916:, I don't know it where to report it, but the phrasing and the arguments remembered me of 1683: 8: 2577: 1567: 1287: 1239: 580: 350: 68: 5159:. I have argued for that extensively, so I think it's unnecessary to restate my points. 4694:

establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of

4455:

borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology": -->

2729:"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." —true, but misleading: 2187:

identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is

1446:

to describe the subject, even if it might offend readers or conflict with their beliefs?

4562: 3760: 3485: 3134: 3082: 2490: 2443: 2426: 2395: 2139: 2078: 1467:

Knowledge should not be rewritten just so that certain readers will be more comfortable

1429:), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities." Since there is a consensus among 1309: 1294:

exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

1279: 83: 4861:

The many RM:s, listed under "This article has previously been nominated to be moved."

4592:, and borrowed some themes from them, adapting and integrating them with their unique 4318: 1466: 1379: 334: 5140: 5125: 3899: 3828:

pretty sure what I’m talking about. I might make a mistake about that on occasion.'

3205: 2939: 2903: 2477: 1770: 1653: 1515: 1233: 1181: 1104: 64: 2334:. Knowledge is not a venue for ventilating pseudohistory. What is fine and dandy as 5182: 4679:

the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation": -->

3942: 3626: 3557:

borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;

3492:. The question is: are those views significant? More precise: are they relevant as 3411: 3373: 3201: 2967: 2803: 2730: 2327: 2315: 2297: 2221:(P). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the 1524:, a creation myth is not necessarily a fairy tale even though it contains the word 895: 5021:. The merge was effected by the proposer: Violonvello10104 and it appears to be a 4451:

borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology

3789: 174: 5100: 5040: 4150: 3869: 3630: 3425: 3392: 3357: 3343: 3339: 3317: 3297: 3282: 3246: 3227: 3209: 3182: 3153: 3149: 3099: 3059: 3055: 3028: 2996: 2982: 2953: 2921: 2865: 2849: 2835: 2790: 2774: 2748: 2734: 2714: 2668: 2638: 2603: 2549: 2501: 2455: 2361: 2343: 2311: 2280: 2218: 2202: 2180: 2113: 2105: 1803: 1720: 1631: 1548: 1472: 1434: 1374: 1329:

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

435: 4013:

Do you support my proposed edit to Line 27 which is now the first comment under

3726:

So, not controversial (unless you reject Bart Ehrman, of course). Wayne Jackson

3027:

Why do you have to appeal to being more experienced and not a Knowledge policy?

5022: 4240: 3471: 3316:-based definitions of the terms, but English language dictionaries definitions. 2573: 2098: 2077:, because it presents contested assertions as facts, namely the conclusions of 2074: 685: 3560:

the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;

3490:

Genesis creation narrative#Creationism and the genre of the creation narrative

1642: 1229: 330: 5263: 4675:

the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation

4558: 4554: 3756: 3622: 3429: 3313: 3130: 3078: 2898:. Please refrain from unconstructive "chatGPT" comments. You've been warned. 2624: 2486: 2391: 2331: 1711: 1584: 1552: 1500: 1405: 1393: 1349: 1339: 1314: 4702:

Leeming (2004) Oxford University Press; Smith 2001 Oxford university Press.

4838: 4205:

reason for this is biblical criticism, therefore this should be specified.

3895: 2949: 2935: 2913: 2899: 2895: 2802:

in this field. What are the odds that the two of you know more than we do?

1748:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 1566:: This has been discussed several times, and there has not been sufficient 1430: 1196:

when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

790: 593: 4911:

Merge 'Framework interpretation (Genesis)' to 'Genesis creation narrative'

455:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 4546: 2463: 2243: 2163: 1589: 1015: 4739:

disagree that there was Mesopotamian imprint or influence upon Genesis.

2701:"The Bible is historically accurate in all details." (a Biblicist claim) 2450:

and similar theories. It unduly legitimizes the documentary hypothesis.

1665:

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lessonplans/programs/bookofgenesis/

1518:

is not an institute of higher learning even though it contains the word

1234: 1002: 981: 335: 4782:

the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."": -->

4716:

at the same time not losing its own claim for a theological revolution?

4618:

The Evidence Unseen absolutely goes into the creation bits of Genesis.

4593: 2918:

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 251#China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran

2159: 2153: 4720:

I also don't see how this could be "too controversial and contested."

5181:

How is the "traditional" view (whatever that's supposed to mean) not

4877: 4793:

Ehm... I don't recall where that came from ... The article now says:

2920:. I admit that I could be mistaken, so they should not take offence. 2633: 1781: 1426: 909: 511: 2085:

The leading critical scholar Bart Ehrman has written on this issue (

1433:

on this definition, it is used here for the purpose of accuracy and

5047:

Any editor, including the editor who originally proposed the merge,

3520:

Knowledge:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Genesis creation narrative

2335: 1807: 1422: 1410: 1231: 451: 429: 332: 4488:

Did Genesis Borrow the Creation and Flood from Mesopotamian Myths?

3984:

the existence of contradictions between these two narratives": -->

2162:(the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with 2144:

The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from

1790:

column on 22 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

1560:

Q5: Why does the article name have "narrative" rather than "myth"?

564: 543: 3253: 2339: 2222: 2169: 1520: 1091: 1070: 698: 574: 419: 392: 4584:

The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative were influenced by

4382:

Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary

2183:) into a work very like Genesis as known today. The two sources 1268: 669: 648: 5070:

into a redirect. I'm not okay with the edits that were done to

2485:

actually present the mainstream consensus as undisputed facts.

2239: 2087:

https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/

1811: 3800:

the scholarly consensus is that Moses didn’t write any of them

3773:

Preceding Ehrman's quote, this statement from VC from the DNR:

3407:

Reach out where exactly? Not to bring in more editors, that's

3252:

Purely theological exegesis is okay, but it does not count as

2030:

RM, Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation narratives,

1324: 1235: 913:-related subjects on Knowledge. Please participate by editing 336: 5049:

is permitted to perform a merge in accordance with consensus.

3543:

the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;

3120:

From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may

2210: 2206: 1594: 1488:, since that is one of the informal definitions for the word 1414: 803: 3980:

the existence of contradictions between these two narratives

3249:, but we don't cite them as they were mainstream historians. 5290:

Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion

5139:

promote one particular perspective within a broader topic.

4508:

This is also far beyond "too controversial and contested."

2698:

To your second point, there's a difference between saying:

1526: 1510: 1505: 1418: 1366: 1337:

A large number of these questions are relating to the term

2168:

been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the

1286:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If 4310:

yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

2834:

I got an eerie feeling that ChatGPT wrote your answers.

2733:

does not claim that the Bible is historically accurate.

2409:

experts, even within critical scholarship (cf. Ehrman).

2249:, although not all scholars share these interpretations. 2014:

1-year moratorium on further proposals, 22 February 2016

1621:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/creation+myth

879: 858: 802:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 3695:

the existence of two separate creation-narratives": -->

2064:

This article contains bias towards critical scholarship

4057:

although not all scholars share these interpretations.

2548:

know better" again and not address my actual points.

1343:, its meaning and its proper usage in this article. 774: 753: 173: 4093:

although not all scholars share these interpretations

3755:

have been numerous texts edited into the Pentateuch.

3709:

Two (Contradictory?) Accounts of Creation in Genesis?

2533:

one perspective (academic) over another (believer's).

1461:, might take offense at seeing this subject called a 4928:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2166:) view the first major comprehensive draft as having 1993:

1-year moratorium on further proposals, 1 May 2014,

1103:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1014:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 885: 780: 697:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 675: 592:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 570: 425: 28: 5280:

Knowledge vital articles in Philosophy and religion

4319:

https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf

4313:(International Council on Biblical Inerrancy 1978, 4257:Why would it be denied, according to which source? 4015:

Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Arbitrary header #1

2215:

The creation narrative is analysed as consisting of

523:, a work group which is currently considered to be 4778:the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man." 3537:the existence of two separate creation-narratives; 1654:http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O69-Creation.html 5295:B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion 4499:Was Genesis Copied from Mesopotamian Flood Myths? 4274:I've attributed this piece to it's author, Carr. 3691:the existence of two separate creation-narratives 5261: 4051:Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation 3719:The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming 1850: 46:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2661:Briefly outline areas of agreement/disagreement 2234:The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are 449:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 1632:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creation+myth 907:. This project provides a central approach to 4931:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 4553:has its own article, and it is not part of a 3148:We're all here at this talk page to obey the 2119:Response: In Ehrman's blog post, he states, 1814:reflected in the last three days of creation? 1706: 1282:while commenting or presenting evidence, and 187: 4935:The result of this discussion was to merge. 2544:dominate the main explanation of the belief. 5400:Knowledge articles that use British English 5243:I'll try to look into all of this - later. 4315:The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 4091:I've made a series of edits; it looks like 4038:The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 3729:Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? 1643:http://www.stenudd.com/myth/mythlogics2.htm 1219:. Please read recent comments, look in the 5385:High-importance Ancient Near East articles 4157:since it now comes twice in one sentence. 2158:Critical models of the composition of the 1724:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 5025:for fundamentalist Christian propaganda. 2623:—this talk page isn't meant for changing 2435:According to mainstream biblical scholars 5390:Ancient Near East articles by assessment 4014: 2894:You are straying into personal attacks. 1861:RM, Creation according to Genesis -: --> 1819:Knowledge:Recent additions/2007/February 4708:Mesopotamian Mythology and Genesis 1–11 4469:Mesopotamian Mythology and Genesis 1–11 4131:I've added a line on this to the lead. 4042:as contradictory but also complementary 1117:Knowledge:WikiProject Ancient Near East 348: 5262: 4705:Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), 4466:Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), 3792:he writes (emphasis Ehrman, not mine): 3750:As explained in its main article, the 3387:just criticizing the way that I write. 2966:Agreed. Tests range from 0 to 99% AI. 1120:Template:WikiProject Ancient Near East 5320:High-importance Christianity articles 4698:neighbors. (Leeming 2004, Smith 2001) 3574:the interpretation of "God says "Let 3356:The irony of this post is too much. 2529:representation of a Christian belief. 2179:later expanded by other authors (the 2040:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 2019:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 2003:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1982:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1971:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1960:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1949:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1938:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1927:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1916:RM, Genesis creation narrative -: --> 1817:A record of the entry may be seen at 1806:Chapter One, the first three days of 1756:, this should not be changed without 1238:Restarting a debate that has already 4922:The following discussion is closed. 2747:That's why I used the word "many". 1838: 1765: 1678: 1299: 1263: 1201: 1158: 1097:This article is within the scope of 1008:This article is within the scope of 796:This article is within the scope of 691:This article is within the scope of 586:This article is within the scope of 519:This article is within the scope of 441:This article is within the scope of 344: 15: 5370:Mid-importance Creationism articles 5074:page in supposed response to this. 2152:, but adapted them to their unique 1693:on 15 February 2007. The result of 36:for discussing improvements to the 13: 5380:B-Class Ancient Near East articles 4976:Framework interpretation (Genesis) 4957:Framework interpretation (Genesis) 4549:, not the creation narrative. The 4062:Levenson: already moved to a note. 3501:"leftish" at India-related pages. 3204:, which is part and parcel of the 2433:, where they added phrasing like " 1824: 1570:to change the name of the article. 606:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity 510: 14: 5416: 5360:Top-importance Mythology articles 5325:WikiProject Christianity articles 5305:High-importance Religion articles 5103:for the full procedure. regards, 4802:That's perfectly fine, isn't it? 4095:is the only issue left. Regards, 1825: 1216:previous arguments being restated 1028:Knowledge:WikiProject Creationism 609:Template:WikiProject Christianity 5375:WikiProject Creationism articles 5275:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 4966:The discussion above is closed. 4955:The merge proposal was to merge 2468:Avoid stating facts as opinions. 2229:Composition: Structure (Line 27) 1905:RM, Genesis creation myth -: --> 1894:RM, Genesis creation myth -: --> 1883:RM, Genesis creation myth -: --> 1872:RM, Genesis creation myth -: --> 1842: 1769: 1710: 1682: 1323: 1308: 1267: 1205: 1162: 1090: 1069: 1031:Template:WikiProject Creationism 1001: 980: 888: 878: 857: 783: 773: 752: 678: 668: 647: 573: 563: 542: 428: 418: 391: 358: 349: 318: 58:Click here to start a new topic. 5405:Knowledge Did you know articles 5335:Mid-importance Judaism articles 5066:Okay. I can get behind turning 4545:Both sources are talking about 3584:According to Violincello10104, 1884:Creation according to Genesis, 1873:Creation according to Genesis, 1689:This article was nominated for 1484:the same thing as calling it a 1186:Content must be written from a 1170:The subject of this article is 1137:This article has been rated as 1048:This article has been rated as 959:This article has been rated as 939:Knowledge:WikiProject Mythology 836:This article has been rated as 731:This article has been rated as 626:This article has been rated as 497:This article has been rated as 5395:Knowledge controversial topics 5285:B-Class level-5 vital articles 5256:17:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5232:17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5213:16:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5195:16:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5177:16:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5149:16:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5134:16:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5123:encyclopaedic content at all. 5116:09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 5084:16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5062:15:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5035:15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 5014:09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4988:08:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4945:08:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 4901:15:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4690:The body of the article says: 4590:ancient near eastern cosmology 4429:11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4408:08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4394:08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4370:06:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4215:13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4200:08:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4185:07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3955:16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 3518:Contested points, copied from 3137:) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 2400:03:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 2386:02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 2201:Although tradition attributes 2199:Composition: Sources (Line 20) 2150:ancient near eastern cosmology 1658: 1647: 1636: 1625: 1614: 1391:Q1: What is the definition of 942:Template:WikiProject Mythology 477:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 378:It is of interest to multiple 1: 5345:Top-importance Bible articles 5315:B-Class Christianity articles 5310:WikiProject Religion articles 4883:00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4871:08:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4856:07:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4833:23:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4815:17:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4770:06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4749:23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4733:17:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4663:08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4647:06:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4628:05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4614:05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4567:02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4537:23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4521:17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4331:11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4287:10:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4270:10:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4253:08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4167:11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4144:10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4127:08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4108:06:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4079:03:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4027:22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4008:17:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3972:22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3937:22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3922:22:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3904:16:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3889:16:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3838:08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3822:03:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3765:02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3745:16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3683:03:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3662:22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3646:17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3616:22:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3601:16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3514:04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3445:19:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3420:09:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3403:09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3382:09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3368:08:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3352:10:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3326:13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3308:08:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3291:13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3238:10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3218:10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3200:"Critical scholarship" means 3193:10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3162:10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3110:10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3087:12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3068:10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3039:08:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3007:08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 2991:16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2976:16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2962:16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2944:14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2930:14:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2908:14:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2890:12:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2876:11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2860:10:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2844:10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2830:10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2812:10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2785:10:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2759:12:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2743:12:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2725:12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2694:12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2679:11:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2647:11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2616:11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2582:01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 2560:10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2510:09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2494:08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2419:11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2372:10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2352:08:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2306:06:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2291:21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2269:16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1573: 1362:Knowledge:WTA#Myth and Legend 1111:and see a list of open tasks. 1100:WikiProject Ancient Near East 1022:and see a list of open tasks. 901:This article is supported by 810:and see a list of open tasks. 711:Knowledge:WikiProject Judaism 705:and see a list of open tasks. 600:and see a list of open tasks. 480:Template:WikiProject Religion 55:Put new text under old text. 5365:B-Class Creationism articles 5001:- fits within this article. 3706:Bart Ehrman (May 11, 2021], 2981:reports for the government. 2462:, which may be designated a 1906:Genesis creation narrative, 1284:do not make personal attacks 714:Template:WikiProject Judaism 7: 3245:Also, some scholars may be 3122:"often train as historians" 1996:Endorsed in this discussion 1928:Creation story in Genesis, 1180:When updating the article, 816:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible 63:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 5421: 5355:B-Class Mythology articles 5350:WikiProject Bible articles 4961:Genesis creation narrative 1796:... that according to the 1778:Genesis creation narrative 1531: 1470: 1319:Frequently asked questions 1143:project's importance scale 1123:Ancient Near East articles 1054:project's importance scale 965:project's importance scale 842:project's importance scale 819:Template:WikiProject Bible 737:project's importance scale 632:project's importance scale 503:project's importance scale 38:Genesis creation narrative 5300:B-Class Religion articles 4711:, Oxford Bibliographies: 4472:, Oxford Bibliographies: 3894:Support this. Great job. 3868:Ergo: not controversial. 2652:thought? Maybe we could: 1945:September 2012 discussion 1480:Q3: Isn't calling this a 1252:"asking the other parent" 1212:Discussions on this page 1182:be bold, but not reckless 1136: 1085: 1047: 996: 958: 873: 835: 768: 730: 663: 625: 558: 518: 496: 413: 386: 93:Be welcoming to newcomers 22:Skip to table of contents 5330:B-Class Judaism articles 5068:framework interpretation 4968:Please do not modify it. 4925:Please do not modify it. 3874:Composition of the Torah 2773:I hope you feel better. 2041:Genesis creation story, 2020:Genesis creation story, 1879:February 2010 discussion 1799:framework interpretation 1780:appeared on Knowledge's 1534:WP:WTA § Myth and Legend 929:standards, or visit the 589:WikiProject Christianity 467:standards, or visit the 21: 4551:Genesis flood narrative 4317:. Oakland, California. 3550:Mesopotamian influence: 2466:. I quote the policy: " 2431:Violoncello's edit here 2338:could be utter crap as 2004:Genesis creation myth, 1983:Genesis creation myth, 1972:Genesis creation myth, 1961:Genesis creation myth, 1939:Genesis creation myth, 1934:March 2012 discussion 2 1923:March 2012 discussion 1 1917:Genesis creation myth, 1912:April 2010 discussion 2 1901:April 2010 discussion 1 1868:January 2010 discussion 1862:Genesis creation myth, 1011:WikiProject Creationism 5340:B-Class Bible articles 5270:B-Class vital articles 5051: 4800: 4718: 4700: 4598: 4586:Mesopotamian mythology 4481:Some alternate takes: 4479: 4379: 4312: 3866: 3804: 3781: 3752:documentary hypothesis 3724: 3530:Authorship and dating: 3481: 3197:Are you using ChatGPT? 3152:, not to change them. 3139: 2448:Documentary hypothesis 2146:Mesopotamian mythology 2125: 2104:Objection courtesy of 2095: 2073:This article fails at 1830: 1174:and content may be in 515: 88:avoid personal attacks 5044: 4795: 4757:Good; see . Regards, 4713: 4692: 4582: 4503:], Answers in Genesis 4474: 4374: 4307: 3861: 3795: 3776: 3714: 3476: 3118: 2460:Neutral point of view 2193:Mesopotamian theology 2121: 2091: 1989:April 2014 discussion 1967:Feb 2013 discussion 2 1956:Feb 2013 discussion 1 1950:Creation in Genesis, 1943:, 28 September 2012, 1890:March 2010 discussion 1828: 1532:Further information: 1471:Further information: 1188:neutral point of view 904:WikiProject Mythology 612:Christianity articles 521:Interfaith work group 514: 365:level-5 vital article 312:Auto-archiving period 113:Neutral point of view 4889:User:Joshua Jonathan 2034:, 16 December 2022, 2024:, 22 February 2017, 1877:, 16 February 2010, 1754:relevant style guide 1750:varieties of English 1364:clearly states that 1034:Creationism articles 445:WikiProject Religion 118:No original research 5161:WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS 4496:Liz Abrams (2022), 4492:]], Evidence Unseen 4485:James M. Rochford, 3526:and VC's comments: 3467:Arbitrary header #2 3054:Other views may by 2818:WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS 2602:I also agree with @ 2069:Arbitrary header #1 2008:, 22 January 2016, 1978:Jan 2014 discussion 1976:, 22 January 2014, 1965:, 4 February 2013, 1954:, 1 February 2013, 1895:Biblical Creation, 1866:, 27 January 2010, 1752:. According to the 1334:Summary of this FAQ 1248:tendentious editing 1227:before commenting. 694:WikiProject Judaism 581:Christianity portal 4863:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 4820:Already resolved ( 4620:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 4040:are often regarded 3486:Christ Myth theory 2444:Biblical criticism 2427:Biblical criticism 2330:. And please read 2233: 2191:a critique of the 2138:According to most 2079:biblical criticism 1831: 1442:Q2: Why do we use 1244:disruptive editing 1218: 945:Mythology articles 919:assess and improve 516: 457:assess and improve 374:content assessment 99:dispute resolution 60: 5165:WP:TALKDONTREVERT 4594:belief in one God 3712:(emphasis mine): 3206:historical method 2799:WP:Administrators 2236:often regarded as 2231: 2154:belief in one God 2058: 2057: 2054: 2053: 1987:, 23 April 2014, 1910:, 20 April 2010, 1888:, 25 March 2010, 1835: 1834: 1764: 1763: 1705: 1704: 1677: 1676: 1604: 1603: 1516:electoral college 1317: 1298: 1297: 1262: 1261: 1256:consensus changes 1223:, and review the 1213: 1200: 1199: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1114:Ancient Near East 1105:Ancient Near East 1077:Ancient Near East 1064: 1063: 1060: 1059: 975: 974: 971: 970: 933:for more details. 852: 851: 848: 847: 799:WikiProject Bible 747: 746: 743: 742: 642: 641: 638: 637: 537: 536: 533: 532: 483:Religion articles 471:for more details. 343: 342: 79:Assume good faith 56: 27: 26: 5412: 5253: 5247: 5205:Violoncello10104 5169:Violoncello10104 5155:significant and 5113: 5107: 5054:Violoncello10104 5011: 5005: 4980:Violoncello10104 4937:Violoncello10104 4927: 4880: 4853: 4847: 4825:Violoncello10104 4812: 4806: 4790: 4789: 4785: 4767: 4761: 4741:Violoncello10104 4730: 4724: 4696:ancient Israel's 4687: 4686: 4682: 4655:Violoncello10104 4644: 4638: 4611: 4605: 4529:Violoncello10104 4518: 4512: 4463: 4462: 4458: 4426: 4420: 4400:Violoncello10104 4386:Violoncello10104 4367: 4361: 4323:Violoncello10104 4284: 4278: 4267: 4261: 4245:Violoncello10104 4207:Violoncello10104 4192:Violoncello10104 4182: 4176: 4159:Violoncello10104 4141: 4135: 4119:Violoncello10104 4105: 4099: 4076: 4070: 4019:Violoncello10104 4005: 3999: 3992: 3991: 3987: 3964:Violoncello10104 3929:Violoncello10104 3914:Violoncello10104 3886: 3880: 3856: 3855: 3851: 3830:Violoncello10104 3819: 3813: 3742: 3736: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3680: 3674: 3654:Violoncello10104 3643: 3637: 3608:Violoncello10104 3598: 3592: 3511: 3505: 3437:Violoncello10104 3414: 3400: 3395: 3376: 3365: 3360: 3305: 3300: 3235: 3230: 3202:source criticism 3190: 3185: 3107: 3102: 3036: 3031: 3004: 2999: 2970: 2882:Violoncello10104 2873: 2868: 2857: 2852: 2822:Violoncello10104 2806: 2795:Violoncello10104 2782: 2777: 2756: 2751: 2731:liberal theology 2722: 2717: 2686:Violoncello10104 2676: 2671: 2622: 2608:Violoncello10104 2599:uncontroversial. 2557: 2552: 2480: 2473: 2452:Violoncello10104 2411:Violoncello10104 2369: 2364: 2300: 2288: 2283: 2261:Violoncello10104 2258:: Levenson 2004) 1932:, 4 March 2012, 1921:, 4 March 2012, 1899:, 4 April 2010, 1851: 1846: 1845: 1839: 1827: 1773: 1766: 1717:This article is 1714: 1707: 1686: 1679: 1667: 1662: 1656: 1651: 1645: 1640: 1634: 1629: 1623: 1618: 1574: 1431:reliable sources 1327: 1313: 1312: 1300: 1290:is not reached, 1271: 1270: 1264: 1236: 1209: 1208: 1202: 1166: 1165: 1159: 1125: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1094: 1087: 1086: 1081: 1073: 1066: 1065: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1005: 998: 997: 992: 984: 977: 976: 947: 946: 943: 940: 937: 931:WikiProject page 898: 896:Mythology portal 893: 892: 891: 882: 875: 874: 869: 861: 854: 853: 824: 823: 820: 817: 814: 793: 788: 787: 786: 777: 770: 769: 764: 756: 749: 748: 719: 718: 717:Judaism articles 715: 712: 709: 688: 683: 682: 681: 672: 665: 664: 659: 651: 644: 643: 614: 613: 610: 607: 604: 583: 578: 577: 567: 560: 559: 554: 546: 539: 538: 485: 484: 481: 478: 475: 469:wikiproject page 438: 433: 432: 422: 415: 414: 409: 406: 395: 388: 387: 371: 362: 361: 354: 353: 345: 337: 323: 322: 313: 192: 191: 177: 108:Article policies 29: 16: 5420: 5419: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5260: 5259: 5251: 5246:Joshua Jonathan 5245: 5111: 5106:Joshua Jonathan 5105: 5096: 5009: 5004:Joshua Jonathan 5003: 4995: 4972: 4971: 4952: 4923: 4913: 4893:Robert McClenon 4876: 4851: 4846:Joshua Jonathan 4845: 4841: 4810: 4805:Joshua Jonathan 4804: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4781: 4780: 4765: 4760:Joshua Jonathan 4759: 4728: 4723:Joshua Jonathan 4722: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4678: 4677: 4642: 4637:Joshua Jonathan 4636: 4609: 4604:Joshua Jonathan 4603: 4516: 4511:Joshua Jonathan 4510: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4454: 4453: 4424: 4419:Joshua Jonathan 4418: 4365: 4360:Joshua Jonathan 4359: 4282: 4277:Joshua Jonathan 4276: 4265: 4260:Joshua Jonathan 4259: 4180: 4175:Joshua Jonathan 4174: 4139: 4134:Joshua Jonathan 4133: 4103: 4098:Joshua Jonathan 4097: 4074: 4069:Joshua Jonathan 4068: 4003: 3998:Joshua Jonathan 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3983: 3982: 3910:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 3884: 3879:Joshua Jonathan 3878: 3870:Book of Genesis 3857: 3853: 3849: 3847: 3846: 3817: 3812:Joshua Jonathan 3811: 3740: 3735:Joshua Jonathan 3734: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3694: 3693: 3678: 3673:Joshua Jonathan 3672: 3641: 3636:Joshua Jonathan 3635: 3596: 3591:Joshua Jonathan 3590: 3522:, referring to 3509: 3504:Joshua Jonathan 3503: 3469: 3412: 3398: 3393: 3374: 3363: 3358: 3303: 3298: 3233: 3228: 3188: 3183: 3105: 3100: 3034: 3029: 3002: 2997: 2968: 2871: 2866: 2855: 2850: 2804: 2780: 2775: 2754: 2749: 2720: 2715: 2674: 2669: 2620: 2570:WP:FALSEBALANCE 2555: 2550: 2478:the sky is blue 2475: 2472:the sky is blue 2471: 2367: 2362: 2298: 2286: 2281: 2219:Priestly source 2181:Priestly source 2071: 2066: 2045:, 7 June 2023, 2026:2017 discussion 2010:2016 discussion 1843: 1758:broad consensus 1721:British English 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1663: 1659: 1652: 1648: 1641: 1637: 1630: 1626: 1619: 1615: 1600: 1599: 1580: 1572: 1571: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1498:: No. The term 1493: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1447: 1439: 1438: 1435:proper word use 1398: 1388: 1387: 1380:WP:NOT#CENSORED 1375:Knowledge:RNPOV 1335: 1320: 1318: 1292:other solutions 1237: 1232: 1206: 1163: 1139:High-importance 1122: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1080:High‑importance 1079: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1023: 990: 944: 941: 938: 935: 934: 894: 889: 887: 867: 821: 818: 815: 812: 811: 789: 784: 782: 762: 716: 713: 710: 707: 706: 684: 679: 677: 657: 628:High-importance 611: 608: 605: 602: 601: 579: 572: 553:High‑importance 552: 499:High-importance 482: 479: 476: 473: 472: 436:Religion portal 434: 427: 408:High‑importance 407: 401: 372:on Knowledge's 369: 359: 339: 338: 333: 310: 134: 129: 128: 127: 104: 74: 12: 11: 5: 5418: 5408: 5407: 5402: 5397: 5392: 5387: 5382: 5377: 5372: 5367: 5362: 5357: 5352: 5347: 5342: 5337: 5332: 5327: 5322: 5317: 5312: 5307: 5302: 5297: 5292: 5287: 5282: 5277: 5272: 5241: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5234: 5201: 5119: 5118: 5095: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5023:stalking horse 5016: 4994: 4993:Support/Oppose 4991: 4965: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4918: 4916: 4912: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4840: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4779: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4752: 4751: 4676: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4616: 4599: 4580: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4540: 4539: 4506: 4505: 4494: 4452: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4396: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4272: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4202: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4060: 4054: 4030: 4029: 3981: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3906: 3845: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3793: 3786: 3782: 3774: 3768: 3767: 3692: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3665: 3664: 3619: 3618: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3569: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3558: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3541: 3538: 3532: 3531: 3468: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3388: 3342:of Knowledge. 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3279: 3276: 3273: 3270: 3266: 3263: 3257: 3250: 3243: 3223: 3198: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3113: 3112: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 2892: 2878: 2862: 2787: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2705: 2702: 2696: 2681: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2659: 2656: 2631: 2628: 2600: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525:pseudohistory. 2522: 2518: 2515: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2358: 2276: 2070: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2038: 2028: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1980: 1969: 1958: 1947: 1936: 1925: 1914: 1903: 1892: 1881: 1870: 1856: 1855: 1847: 1833: 1832: 1822: 1816: 1815: 1774: 1762: 1761: 1715: 1703: 1702: 1695:the discussion 1687: 1675: 1674: 1669: 1668: 1657: 1646: 1635: 1624: 1612: 1611: 1609: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1592: 1587: 1581: 1578: 1577: 1562: 1559: 1558: 1543: 1540: 1539: 1514:. Just as an 1504:is a coherent 1494: 1479: 1478: 1448: 1441: 1440: 1399: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1372: 1359: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1321: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1303: 1296: 1295: 1272: 1260: 1259: 1230: 1228: 1214:often lead to 1210: 1198: 1197: 1167: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1135: 1129: 1128: 1126: 1109:the discussion 1095: 1083: 1082: 1074: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1050:Mid-importance 1046: 1040: 1039: 1037: 1020:the discussion 1006: 994: 993: 991:Mid‑importance 985: 973: 972: 969: 968: 961:Top-importance 957: 951: 950: 948: 917:, and help us 900: 899: 883: 871: 870: 868:Top‑importance 862: 850: 849: 846: 845: 838:Top-importance 834: 828: 827: 825: 822:Bible articles 808:the discussion 795: 794: 778: 766: 765: 763:Top‑importance 757: 745: 744: 741: 740: 733:Mid-importance 729: 723: 722: 720: 703:the discussion 690: 689: 686:Judaism portal 673: 661: 660: 658:Mid‑importance 652: 640: 639: 636: 635: 624: 618: 617: 615: 598:the discussion 585: 584: 568: 556: 555: 547: 535: 534: 531: 530: 517: 507: 506: 495: 489: 488: 486: 440: 439: 423: 411: 410: 396: 384: 383: 377: 355: 341: 340: 331: 329: 328: 325: 324: 194: 193: 131: 130: 126: 125: 120: 115: 106: 105: 103: 102: 95: 90: 81: 75: 73: 72: 61: 52: 51: 48: 47: 41: 25: 24: 19: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5417: 5406: 5403: 5401: 5398: 5396: 5393: 5391: 5388: 5386: 5383: 5381: 5378: 5376: 5373: 5371: 5368: 5366: 5363: 5361: 5358: 5356: 5353: 5351: 5348: 5346: 5343: 5341: 5338: 5336: 5333: 5331: 5328: 5326: 5323: 5321: 5318: 5316: 5313: 5311: 5308: 5306: 5303: 5301: 5298: 5296: 5293: 5291: 5288: 5286: 5283: 5281: 5278: 5276: 5273: 5271: 5268: 5267: 5265: 5258: 5257: 5254: 5248: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5220:WP:MAINSTREAM 5216: 5215: 5214: 5210: 5206: 5202: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5192: 5188: 5184: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5174: 5170: 5166: 5162: 5158: 5153: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5136: 5135: 5131: 5127: 5124: 5117: 5114: 5108: 5102: 5098: 5097: 5085: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5059: 5055: 5050: 5048: 5042: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5032: 5028: 5024: 5020: 5017: 5015: 5012: 5006: 5000: 4997: 4996: 4990: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4969: 4964: 4962: 4958: 4953: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4929: 4926: 4920: 4919: 4915: 4902: 4898: 4894: 4890: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4879: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4854: 4848: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4813: 4807: 4799: 4794: 4786: 4771: 4768: 4762: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4750: 4746: 4742: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4731: 4725: 4717: 4712: 4710: 4709: 4703: 4699: 4697: 4691: 4683: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4645: 4639: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4615: 4612: 4606: 4600: 4597: 4595: 4591: 4587: 4581: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4555:creation myth 4552: 4548: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4519: 4513: 4504: 4501: 4500: 4495: 4493: 4490: 4489: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4478: 4473: 4471: 4470: 4459: 4430: 4427: 4421: 4415: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4378: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4368: 4362: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4311: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4288: 4285: 4279: 4273: 4271: 4268: 4262: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4203: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4183: 4177: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4149:reference to 4147: 4146: 4145: 4142: 4136: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4106: 4100: 4094: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4080: 4077: 4071: 4066: 4061: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4047: 4043: 4041: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4006: 4000: 3988: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3941:What kind of 3940: 3939: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3881: 3875: 3871: 3865: 3860: 3852: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3820: 3814: 3803: 3801: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3780: 3775: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3753: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3737: 3731: 3730: 3723: 3720: 3713: 3711: 3710: 3699: 3684: 3681: 3675: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3638: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3599: 3593: 3587: 3577: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3559: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3549: 3548: 3542: 3539: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3525: 3521: 3516: 3515: 3512: 3506: 3499: 3496:views, or as 3495: 3491: 3487: 3480: 3475: 3473: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3418: 3415: 3410: 3409:WP:CANVASSING 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3396: 3389: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3380: 3377: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3366: 3361: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3306: 3301: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3267: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3255: 3251: 3248: 3244: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3236: 3231: 3224: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3191: 3186: 3180: 3178:complexities. 3176: 3172: 3168: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3138: 3136: 3132: 3127: 3123: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3111: 3108: 3103: 3096: 3095: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3040: 3037: 3032: 3026: 3008: 3005: 3000: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2877: 2874: 2869: 2863: 2861: 2858: 2853: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2810: 2807: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2786: 2783: 2778: 2772: 2760: 2757: 2752: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2718: 2711: 2706: 2703: 2700: 2699: 2697: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2680: 2677: 2672: 2665: 2660: 2657: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2635: 2632: 2629: 2626: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2592: 2589: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2553: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2498: 2497: 2495: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2479: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2407: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2365: 2359: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2332:pseudohistory 2329: 2325: 2324:WP:MAINSTREAM 2321: 2320:WP:NOTNEUTRAL 2317: 2313: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2304: 2301: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2284: 2277: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2259: 2257: 2250: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2230: 2226: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195:of creation: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2165: 2161: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2141: 2136: 2135:Lead (Line 6) 2132: 2130: 2129:WP:NOTNEUTRAL 2124: 2120: 2117: 2115: 2111: 2110:WP:NOTNEUTRAL 2107: 2102: 2100: 2094: 2090: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2061: 2048: 2044: 2039: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2007: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1979: 1975: 1970: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1935: 1931: 1926: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1869: 1865: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1823: 1820: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1795: 1792: 1791: 1789: 1788: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1708: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1666: 1661: 1655: 1650: 1644: 1639: 1633: 1628: 1622: 1617: 1613: 1610: 1608: 1596: 1593: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1585:Creation Myth 1583: 1582: 1576: 1575: 1569: 1565: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1535: 1529: 1528: 1523: 1522: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1501:creation myth 1497: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1482:creation myth 1474: 1468: 1464: 1463:creation myth 1460: 1459:creation myth 1455: 1454:creation myth 1451: 1445: 1444:creation myth 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406:Creation myth 1402: 1396: 1395: 1394:creation myth 1381: 1376: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1352: 1351: 1350:Creation myth 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1342: 1341: 1340:creation myth 1331: 1330: 1326: 1316: 1311: 1304: 1302: 1301: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1266: 1265: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1211: 1204: 1203: 1195: 1191: 1189: 1183: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1172:controversial 1168: 1161: 1160: 1144: 1140: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1078: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1055: 1051: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1007: 1004: 1000: 999: 995: 989: 986: 983: 979: 978: 966: 962: 956: 953: 952: 949: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 911: 906: 905: 897: 886: 884: 881: 877: 876: 872: 866: 863: 860: 856: 855: 843: 839: 833: 830: 829: 826: 809: 805: 801: 800: 792: 781: 779: 776: 772: 771: 767: 761: 758: 755: 751: 750: 738: 734: 728: 725: 724: 721: 704: 700: 696: 695: 687: 676: 674: 671: 667: 666: 662: 656: 653: 650: 646: 645: 633: 629: 623: 620: 619: 616: 599: 595: 591: 590: 582: 576: 571: 569: 566: 562: 561: 557: 551: 548: 545: 541: 540: 528: 527: 522: 513: 509: 508: 504: 500: 494: 491: 490: 487: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 453: 448: 447: 446: 437: 431: 426: 424: 421: 417: 416: 412: 405: 400: 397: 394: 390: 389: 385: 381: 375: 367: 366: 356: 352: 347: 346: 327: 326: 321: 317: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 202: 200: 196: 195: 190: 186: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 137: 136:Find sources: 133: 132: 124: 123:Verifiability 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 110: 109: 100: 96: 94: 91: 89: 85: 82: 80: 77: 76: 70: 66: 65:Learn to edit 62: 59: 54: 53: 50: 49: 45: 39: 35: 31: 30: 23: 20: 18: 17: 5242: 5200:improvement. 5156: 5141:AndyTheGrump 5137: 5126:AndyTheGrump 5121: 5120: 5071: 5046: 5045: 5018: 4998: 4973: 4967: 4954: 4930: 4924: 4921: 4917: 4914: 4842: 4801: 4796: 4792: 4719: 4714: 4707: 4704: 4701: 4693: 4689: 4583: 4507: 4502: 4498: 4491: 4487: 4480: 4475: 4468: 4465: 4381: 4375: 4314: 4308: 4154: 4114: 4092: 4056: 4050: 4045: 4039: 4037: 3994: 3867: 3862: 3858: 3809: 3799: 3796: 3777: 3728: 3725: 3718: 3715: 3708: 3705: 3620: 3585: 3583: 3575: 3517: 3497: 3493: 3482: 3477: 3470: 3125: 3121: 3119: 3051: 3049: 2595: 2564: 2482: 2467: 2438: 2434: 2255: 2253: 2248: 2235: 2228: 2227: 2225:source (J). 2214: 2198: 2197: 2188: 2184: 2176: 2173: 2157: 2137: 2134: 2133: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2103: 2096: 2092: 2084: 2072: 2059: 2042: 2031: 2021: 2005: 1994: 1985:No consensus 1984: 1974:No consensus 1973: 1962: 1951: 1941:No consensus 1940: 1930:No consensus 1929: 1919:No consensus 1918: 1907: 1897:No consensus 1896: 1886:No consensus 1885: 1875:No consensus 1874: 1863: 1854:Discussions: 1836: 1797: 1794:Did you know 1793: 1787:Did you know 1785: 1777: 1776:A fact from 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1718: 1698: 1660: 1649: 1638: 1627: 1616: 1606: 1605: 1563: 1544: 1525: 1519: 1509: 1499: 1495: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1449: 1443: 1404: 1400: 1392: 1365: 1355: 1348: 1338: 1328: 1322: 1274:Please stay 1242:constitutes 1240:been settled 1185: 1169: 1138: 1098: 1049: 1009: 960: 921:articles to 908: 902: 837: 797: 791:Bible portal 732: 692: 627: 603:Christianity 594:Christianity 587: 550:Christianity 524: 498: 459:articles to 450: 443: 442: 380:WikiProjects 363: 315: 197: 184: 178: 170: 163: 157: 151: 145: 135: 107: 32:This is the 5252:Let's talk! 5112:Let's talk! 5010:Let's talk! 4852:Let's talk! 4811:Let's talk! 4766:Let's talk! 4729:Let's talk! 4643:Let's talk! 4610:Let's talk! 4547:flood myths 4517:Let's talk! 4425:Let's talk! 4366:Let's talk! 4283:Let's talk! 4266:Let's talk! 4181:Let's talk! 4140:Let's talk! 4104:Let's talk! 4075:Let's talk! 4004:Let's talk! 3885:Let's talk! 3818:Let's talk! 3741:Let's talk! 3679:Let's talk! 3642:Let's talk! 3633:. Regards, 3627:Doug Weller 3597:Let's talk! 3524:these edits 3510:Let's talk! 3413:Doug Weller 3375:Doug Weller 2969:Doug Weller 2805:Doug Weller 2464:term of art 2299:Doug Weller 2164:Deuteronomy 1719:written in 1590:Creationism 1452:: The term 1025:Creationism 1016:Creationism 988:Creationism 915:the article 161:free images 44:not a forum 5264:Categories 5157:not fringe 3631:tgeorgescu 3578:make man." 3567:Sixth day: 3426:Tgeorgescu 3344:tgeorgescu 3318:tgeorgescu 3283:tgeorgescu 3210:tgeorgescu 3154:tgeorgescu 3060:tgeorgescu 2983:tgeorgescu 2954:tgeorgescu 2922:tgeorgescu 2836:tgeorgescu 2791:ViolanteMD 2735:tgeorgescu 2639:tgeorgescu 2604:ViolanteMD 2502:tgeorgescu 2456:ViolanteMD 2446:) and the 2390:Amen! ;-) 2344:tgeorgescu 2244:omnipotent 2189:considered 2160:Pentateuch 2106:tgeorgescu 2047:discussion 2036:discussion 1812:poetically 1607:References 1486:fairy tale 1421:, and the 404:Interfaith 5183:WP:FRINGE 4839:Narrative 3943:weighting 3498:religious 3494:scholarly 2634:Biblicism 2596:attribute 2574:Folly Mox 2521:validity. 2476:believes 2328:WP:CHOPSY 2316:WP:FRINGE 2142:scholars, 2043:Not moved 2032:Not moved 2022:Withdrawn 2006:Not moved 1963:Not moved 1952:Not moved 1829:Knowledge 1782:Main Page 1730:travelled 1568:consensus 1427:cosmogony 1288:consensus 1254:, unless 1194:citations 936:Mythology 910:Mythology 865:Mythology 368:is rated 101:if needed 84:Be polite 34:talk page 5101:WP:MERGE 5094:Comments 5041:WP:MERGE 5039:I quote 4559:Dimadick 4151:WP:GEVAL 3962:point)? 3859:Solved: 3757:Dimadick 3623:Bishonen 3430:Bishonen 3340:WP:RULES 3247:WP:CITED 3150:WP:RULES 3131:Mojowiha 3079:Dimadick 3056:WP:CITED 2797:Ok. Two 2540:context. 2487:Bishonen 2392:Carlstak 2336:theology 2312:WP:GEVAL 2247:god-like 2140:critical 2114:WP:GEVAL 1808:creation 1742:artefact 1691:deletion 1579:See also 1549:WP:GEVAL 1473:WP:RNPOV 1423:universe 1411:humanity 1315:faq page 1221:archives 1192:Include 526:inactive 474:Religion 452:Religion 399:Religion 199:Archives 69:get help 42:This is 40:article. 4999:Support 4241:WP:NPOV 3896:Just10A 3717:times. 3472:WP:NPOV 3269:record. 3254:history 3126:not all 2936:Just10A 2914:Just10A 2900:Just10A 2625:WP:PAGs 2340:history 2223:Jahwist 2203:Genesis 2172:source) 2170:Jahwist 2099:WP:NPOV 2075:WP:NPOV 1804:Genesis 1784:in the 1746:analyse 1738:defence 1521:college 1176:dispute 1141:on the 1052:on the 963:on the 840:on the 735:on the 708:Judaism 699:Judaism 655:Judaism 630:on the 501:on the 370:B-class 316:30 days 167:WP refs 155:scholar 5019:Oppose 3995:See . 3629:, and 3479:topic. 3474:says: 3314:WP:PAG 2483:should 2481:." We 2357:media. 2240:cosmos 1734:centre 1726:colour 1553:WP:MNA 1250:, and 376:scale. 139:Google 5222:one? 4959:into 4412:Done 3785:here. 3399:nteMD 3394:Viola 3364:nteMD 3359:Viola 3304:nteMD 3299:Viola 3234:nteMD 3229:Viola 3189:nteMD 3184:Viola 3106:nteMD 3101:Viola 3052:only. 3035:nteMD 3030:Viola 3003:nteMD 2998:Viola 2950:WP:PA 2896:WP:PA 2872:nteMD 2867:Viola 2856:nteMD 2851:Viola 2781:nteMD 2776:Viola 2755:nteMD 2750:Viola 2721:nteMD 2716:Viola 2675:nteMD 2670:Viola 2556:nteMD 2551:Viola 2368:nteMD 2363:Viola 2310:Yup, 2287:nteMD 2282:Viola 2211:Torah 2207:Moses 1908:Moved 1864:Moved 1595:Bible 1415:earth 1371:well. 1280:civil 813:Bible 804:Bible 760:Bible 357:This 204:Index 182:JSTOR 143:books 97:Seek 5228:talk 5209:talk 5191:talk 5173:talk 5145:talk 5130:talk 5099:See 5080:talk 5072:this 5058:talk 5031:talk 4984:talk 4941:talk 4897:talk 4887:No, 4878:Moxy 4867:talk 4829:talk 4784:edit 4745:talk 4681:edit 4659:talk 4624:talk 4588:and 4563:talk 4533:talk 4457:edit 4414:diff 4404:talk 4390:talk 4327:talk 4249:talk 4211:talk 4196:talk 4163:talk 4123:talk 4023:talk 3986:edit 3968:talk 3951:talk 3933:talk 3918:talk 3900:talk 3872:and 3850:edit 3834:talk 3790:here 3788:And 3761:talk 3697:edit 3658:talk 3612:talk 3441:talk 3417:talk 3379:talk 3348:talk 3322:talk 3287:talk 3259:See 3214:talk 3158:talk 3135:talk 3083:talk 3064:talk 2987:talk 2973:talk 2958:talk 2940:talk 2926:talk 2912:Hi, 2904:talk 2886:talk 2840:talk 2826:talk 2809:talk 2739:talk 2690:talk 2643:talk 2612:talk 2578:talk 2506:talk 2491:tålk 2474:not 2454:and 2439:most 2415:talk 2396:talk 2382:talk 2348:talk 2303:talk 2265:talk 2177:then 2148:and 2089:), 1810:are 1699:keep 1697:was 1527:myth 1511:myth 1506:term 1490:myth 1419:life 1367:myth 1358:can. 1356:myth 1278:and 1276:calm 1133:High 925:and 923:good 622:High 493:High 463:and 461:good 175:FENS 149:news 86:and 5224:jps 5187:jps 5076:jps 5027:jps 4881:🍁 4823:). 3947:jps 3350:) 3324:) 3289:) 3216:) 3160:) 3066:) 2989:) 2960:) 2928:) 2842:) 2741:) 2645:) 2508:) 2378:jps 2350:) 2205:to 2185:are 2112:). 1802:of 1465:, 1225:FAQ 1044:Mid 955:Top 927:1.0 832:Top 727:Mid 465:1.0 189:TWL 5266:: 5249:- 5230:) 5211:) 5193:) 5175:) 5167:. 5163:; 5147:) 5132:) 5109:- 5082:) 5060:) 5043:. 5033:) 5007:- 4986:) 4943:) 4899:) 4869:) 4849:- 4831:) 4808:- 4763:- 4747:) 4726:- 4661:) 4640:- 4626:) 4607:- 4565:) 4557:. 4535:) 4514:- 4422:- 4416:. 4406:) 4392:) 4363:- 4329:) 4280:- 4263:- 4251:) 4213:) 4198:) 4178:- 4165:) 4137:- 4125:) 4101:- 4072:- 4025:) 4017:? 4001:- 3970:) 3953:) 3935:) 3920:) 3902:) 3882:- 3836:) 3815:- 3763:) 3738:- 3676:- 3660:) 3639:- 3625:, 3614:) 3594:- 3576:us 3507:- 3443:) 3208:. 3085:) 2942:) 2906:) 2888:) 2828:) 2692:) 2614:) 2580:) 2496:. 2489:| 2417:) 2398:) 2384:) 2342:. 2326:, 2322:, 2318:, 2314:, 2267:) 2156:. 2131:. 1744:, 1740:, 1736:, 1732:, 1728:, 1564:A5 1555:). 1545:A4 1496:A3 1450:A2 1417:, 1413:, 1403:: 1401:A1 1246:, 402:: 314:: 308:26 306:, 304:25 302:, 300:24 298:, 296:23 294:, 292:22 290:, 288:21 286:, 284:20 282:, 280:19 278:, 276:18 274:, 272:17 270:, 268:16 266:, 264:15 262:, 260:14 258:, 256:13 254:, 252:12 250:, 248:11 246:, 244:10 242:, 238:, 234:, 230:, 226:, 222:, 218:, 214:, 210:, 206:, 169:) 67:; 5226:( 5207:( 5189:( 5171:( 5143:( 5128:( 5078:( 5056:( 5029:( 4982:( 4939:( 4895:( 4865:( 4827:( 4788:] 4743:( 4685:] 4657:( 4622:( 4596:. 4561:( 4531:( 4461:] 4402:( 4388:( 4380:( 4325:( 4247:( 4209:( 4194:( 4161:( 4155:b 4121:( 4115:b 4021:( 3990:] 3966:( 3949:( 3931:( 3916:( 3898:( 3854:] 3832:( 3802:. 3759:( 3701:] 3656:( 3610:( 3439:( 3428:@ 3424:@ 3346:( 3320:( 3285:( 3256:. 3212:( 3156:( 3133:( 3081:( 3062:( 2985:( 2956:( 2938:( 2924:( 2902:( 2884:( 2838:( 2824:( 2793:@ 2789:@ 2737:( 2688:( 2641:( 2627:. 2610:( 2576:( 2504:( 2413:( 2394:( 2380:( 2346:( 2263:( 2256:b 2174:, 1821:. 1760:. 1701:. 1492:? 1437:. 1425:( 1397:? 1382:. 1258:. 1190:. 1178:. 1145:. 1056:. 967:. 844:. 739:. 634:. 529:. 505:. 382:. 240:9 236:8 232:7 228:6 224:5 220:4 216:3 212:2 208:1 201:: 185:· 179:· 171:· 164:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 141:( 71:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.