Difference between revisions of "Talk:Genesis"

Revision as of 23:03, March 28, 2007

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a source? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --Mtur 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--CWilson 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Serpent versus Satan

I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. JesusSaves 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word serpent is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. Karajou 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. JesusSaves 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. Karajou 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. Karajou 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --Petrus 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. Karajou 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. JesusSaves 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. Karajou 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.JesusSaves 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. Karajou 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Changes

First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? Karajou 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --Petrus 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Archaeological notes

There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. Karajou 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed (Touchstone, 2002). --Petrus 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. Karajou 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Petrus' and my edits

Despite agreeing on the Biblical creation account talk page that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("yom") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses yom to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that yom in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I reverted Petrus' change from

• One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 appears to describe the creation of animals after the creation of Adam

to

• One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 describes the creation of animals after the creation of Adam

His edit note was, "'describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The words "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the meaning that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase in isolation has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

Philip J. Rayment 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --Petrus 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). Philip J. Rayment 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --Petrus 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

No, not except chapter 1. The same principle applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. Philip J. Rayment 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmm! Uncanny how this [1] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --Petrus 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book answering alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't anticipate the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. Philip J. Rayment 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Question on text

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? Nematocyte 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The account doesn't spell it out. Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).

Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. Karajou 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. Philip J. Rayment 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)