Talk:Adam/Archive 1

I'd like to have more introductory information in the first few paragraphs, perhaps a list of religious texts that include Adam in them.

I've copied over some stuff from the Russian Wikipedia below to see if we can find equivalent articles on here and maybe find sources:

Adam is revered as a prophet in Islam, and in the Mandi and Bahaism religions.

In comparative religion the story of Adam is considered an example of anthropogenic myth.{I think this refers to creation story}

The biblical story of Adam introduced the world of art and culture to a number of characters, such as: Eden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree of Life, the forbidden fruit, the serpent, the expulsion from paradise.

here's a link to a Google translate of the Russian page.--illumi (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanna change the first paragraph to:

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم) is a prominent figure in Abrahamic Religions, the first man created by God in the Christian Bible and the Judaic Torah, he is also noted in the Islamic Qur'an [citation needed?]. His wife was Eve.^[1]

Then maybe have another paragraph giving the paragraph from the Russian article about Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil etc, and perhaps an overview of the story (the elements that are universal through religions anyway).

Changing from Genesis to the name of the books (The Hebrew and Christian Bible) seems better, I think it'd be more widely understood by people who aren't of either religion (or who aren't very religious). I'm also trying to give more oomph to the introduction, it felt rather understated before, Adam is one of the first figures in the Bible so it'd make sense to give an idea of how widespread knowledge of him is. I also'd like to clearly state at the opening whether or not Adam exists in Islam (I'm not totally clear if this is a fact or not as of this moment)--illumi (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A slight problem, I've confirmed Adam exists in the Islamic Qur'an, but there is a technicality in that the Qur'an doesn't state that he's the first man created by God, although it does state that God created him (this is according to my sources). I guessed that in Islam he was the first man (it just doesn't say that in the Qur'an), and I've reorganized my idea for the first paragraph and now added it to the article. But now I see user:St.Trond recently removed an unrelated statement that Adam is the first man. In hindsight my sources did not say that he was the first man created by God in Islam at all, I guess I actually assumed that bit: I'd be fine with it being removed from the first paragraph until a source can be found to clarify this. My sources did seem to say that Eve was the first woman, which would make it confusing if Adam's not the first man. --illumi (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The word Adam comes from the word "adem" اديم which means earth soil because he was created from earth soil.

This is metion in the arabic wikipedia by the way.

Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.24.26 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I really must object the listing of "God" as Adam's parent in the little template box. That field is irrelevant and you know that it doesn't belong there. If anything God is the creator and not the parent but that is too obvious it's not noteworthy. I suggest removal. 114.75.184.218 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bible calls God Adam's father. Look up the Gospel of Luke 3:38. I appreciate that some people, especially those with a Muslim upbringing, find it offensive to hear God being referred to as a father. But, the Bible clearly uses that expression. Perphaps, "God" could be removed from the template box and then reference to God being Adam's father could be mentioned in passing in the section that speaks about the Biblical view of Adam, and in that case it would be a good idea to add the Bible verse as a source. Al-Shaheed (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This section needs to be majorly cleaned up. The language is unfocused and sophomoric, particularly in the first few sentences. I would have done it myself but I don't have enough of a grasp of the actual issues involved to fix the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.165.155 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually removed this section. I hope I haven't overstepped any boundries here. I removed it because it was simply proselytizing. The section attempted to present someone's personal interpretation of Adam's significance as fact. (Not to mention, of course, the issues mentioned above.) Joefromrandb (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Adam-God Theory does not belong in this article. It is not accepted by the LDS Church. Why is it even on here?--CABEGOD (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be taken out. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Suplemental (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It was at one time, by the leader of the LDS church. That makes it notable. It's clearly stated that this is not the LDS view, but omitting it entirely seems more like censorship. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not say the subject has received "significant coverage" which is required with regard to notability. Also, try reading the source for that section: Our Own Liahona. It doesn't support the Adam-God theory in any way. --Suplemental (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That citation is from Brigham Young. Spin it however you want, he said what he said. It's appropriate to clarify that this is not the LDS position, and the article does that. But omitting it entirely, as I said, is censorship. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, I'm not sure it's a "spin" to remove that. The article is called "Adam" and the section is called "LDS view". If this article and section were "Odd things Brigham Young said" or "Disavowed Beliefs of the LDS" I think you would have a point. But it's not.

The sections are simply giving a sampling of some various churches views of Adam. Therefore, as Brigham's views are not the LDS faith's views, they have no place in this section and article. They would have great relevence to a section about splinter group's beliefs, and I've put them there - temporarily. It needs a citation of which churches are the "splinter groups" you are refering to. Alexandria177 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement that Adam and Eve had "many other children", excluding Cain, Abel, and Seth, is speculative. Also, whilst it is proper to list the two children mentioned in the Book of Jubilees, it should also be mentioned that that book is considered cannon by a tiny fraction of those who believe Adam and Eve to be the first human beings (i.e. Jews, Christians, and Muslims). I believe that the Book of Jubilees is considered cannon only by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and possibly a fraction of the Coptic Orthodox Church.Mk5384 (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick check of the Wikipedia article. It says that the Book of Jubilees is regarded as cannon by the Ethopian Orthodox Church, and Beta Israel Jews.Mk5384 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced statement about "many other children". I also noted that the Book of Jubilees is not considered cannon by most Abrahamic faiths.Mk5384 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

the link is gone, although i believe the Druze DO believe in Adam (and Eve) as they are Abrahamic, but now there is no corroboration on "cosmic forces" (sorry), but I DO think the Druze should be included, I'll try and find something although they are very secretive...

thanks Dava Dava4444 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed this from the article:

Islam indicates that because Adam was the first human, as a prophet he was also the first Muslim ("one who submitted to God"), thus teaching that the "word of God" is the oldest such religion that Islam has represented.

The reason is that according to the Koran, Muslim was only used since Abraham, and then about his descendants.

[22.78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

Please provide a source and description. St.Trond (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the part about their views on creation in general. I left in their views on "Adam". The material would be better put in an article on their views in general, not here. Alexandria177 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that should come out. It is uncited, and this is about Adam. In showing views of Adam, I wonder about how small an offshoot of differing faiths we need to show. The SDA, LDS and JWs do have varying - quite varying - beliefs about Adam, and there is some merit in showing them. But to list out every single denominational offshoot would make this article endless. I propose that the section on the LDS splinter groups be removed in it's entirety. Alexandria177 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, lookie there, Adam and Eve (LDS Church) and Adam-God theory, lots of red meat. The three grafs should be moved directly to the latter article; the former article correctly contains one graf; and this article should have just one or two sentences on "there is an Adam-God theory", perhaps naming the denoms. JJB 22:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So, I'm a bit new - how do we go about this? Alexandria177 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cut and paste, a little common sense, and edit summaries:  Done. In general, it's usually easy to move overspecific text from a general article after finding the appropriate equally specific article. JJB 05:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Alexandria177 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a section regarding the scientific consensus of the validity of the Adam and Eve story? I feel it would add some encyclopaedic value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.186.62 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

i second this. this article is very lacking.

--Volound (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The translation of Adam as a generic term for mankind is not the only possible translation. Adam, the individual, could have been created both male and female in the image of God (i.e. having both sets of genitals). Suggesting that Adam was not the first man but the first hermaphrodite. This would be more in line with the concept of God as being all encompassing, both male and female rather than the limited genderising of God as masculine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.125.219 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a fascinating interpretation...do you have any reliable sources that discuss this theory? Note that per WP:OR, we can't insert our own hypotheses or research into Wikipedia--all we can do is report what reliable sources have already said. If you do know of such sources, please post them here and we can see if they can/should be added to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are three different ways the Hebrew word "adam" is used in Genesis. "Adam" can just mean the generic term for mankind in general,male in particular, or as a title as is seen in ancient Near Eastern parallels where the lu-sign for ruler means "man". In Genesis 1:27 the term "Adam" includes both male and female referring to all humanity. Richard S. Hess (1990). "Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis". I believe the unsigned is referring to Adam Kadom the primeval soul that contained all human souls- the 2nd usage of Adam per Hess. As Kadam has it's own page and is linked from Adam, I would refer the unsigned to make additions on that page and, vote to close this topic.

--Ashadeofdarkness (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we not add a section on the correlation scholars have posed to the Sumerian linage, especially given that several theological texts are known to derive from older Sumerian sources e.g. Epic of Gilgamesh-Noah?

Biblical Adam may be the same man named Alulim the first king in the Sumerian King List, who lived before the great flood. He was the first king of Eridu which may be the Biblical Eden. Adam is also equated with Adapa, the first sage of Eridu. Shea explains that the "p" in Adapa could change to "m" in Hebrew giving the name Adama. WILLIAM H. SHEA (1977). "ADAM IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN TRADITIONS".

There are three different ways the Hebrew word "adam" is used in Genesis. "Adam" can just mean the generic term for mankind in general, or male in particular. In Genesis 1:27 the term "Adam" includes both male and female referring to all humanity. In Genesis Two "Adam" refers to a male in contrast to a female. The second use is a historical person named Adam. Hess states that not until chapter 4:25 is a historical person meant. The third use of "Adam" as a title, is seen in ancient Near Eastern parallels where the lu-sign for ruler means "man". The Hebrew Adam and the Sumerian Adam are similar in usage. Both can mean humans or humanity. Richard S. Hess (1990). "Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis".

As a general rule in the Hebrew, when Adam has a definite article, it means man or human; while Adam with no article is a personal name. Victor P. Hamilton (1990). "The book of Genesis:chapters 1-17".

--Ashadeofdarkness (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, we could discuss the debate illustrated here: . "But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all." "Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science." Others are quoted, for and against. I'm not sure how much this should be here and how much at Adam and Eve. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't actually discuss such things, we should instead report the discussions of citeable authorities. That may seem a quibble but I think it's a very important one. As editors, our own opinions on the matter are neither relevant in articles, nor even in talk pages except for the special and negative purpose of sometimes disqualifying ourselves from talk page discussions for COI reasons. Of course we need to balance possible COI against the fact of life that the things we are knowledgeable about, and interested in writing about, tend to be things about which we also have opinions. And of course this is an issue both for Christians such as myself and followers of other religions, and for those who see religion itself as a bad thing, for whatever reason.

Anyway, at the risk of quibbling, I hope that part of my contribution to this sometimes tricky area of discussion can be positive. With an academic background in formal logic and a professional background in audit, I can claim some expertise in splitting hairs. The trick is to make such pedantry productive. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Obviously, Doug meant that Wikipedia could discuss the debate. This could at least be mentioned if the source is considered reliable, the opinion notable and the mention remains short enough not to run afoul of WP:UNDUE. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to draw attention to a confusing aspect of this article. Under the Individual/humanity and etymology section it states that אָדָם‎ comes from "the earlier Canaanite 'adam" and then cites a Jewish Encyclopedia page (which doesn't mention a 'Canaanite' language) and the NIV Study Bible which I do not have a copy of. The problem as I see it is two-fold.

First, there was not one 'Canaanite language' as our very own wikipedia article Canannite language makes clear. I believe this misunderstanding comes from the fact that the Biblical text often times lumps all of the people living in the land of Canaan as being one homogenous group. But, as we see in other parts of the Bible and in a lot of other ancient artifacts, the peoples living in Canaan actually had different cultures, religions, and dialects (even if their languages mostly fell into one linguistic family). What that means is, just like today we could learn to speak French, Italian, and Latin we can't learn to speak Romance language.

Second, in my (admittedly very brief) investigation, I cannot find a clear etymology of the word in question. Brown Driver and Briggs suggest a link between אָדָם‎ and (what appears to be a hypothetical) Assyrian adâmu.

Citing the Assyrian seems more reliable to me, especially since the transliteration of the 'Canaanite' appears to simply be a transliteration of the Hebrew which calls into question its validity. In other words 'adam could easily be someone's transliteration of אָדָם and not come from some mystery Canaanite language. However, I don't simply want to remove this link because it is well sourced and I cannot personally verify the source. It just seems a little suspicious to me.

Canaanite is a family of languages. Does anyone have a source mentioning a possible link between a particular Canaanite language and the Hebrew word אָדָם‎? Or, would we all feel comfortable changing the text to say something like "in the same way as the earlier Canaanite languages used 'adam."? If anyone happens to have the source that the article is currently referencing it may be able to illuminate the situation a little better.

Thank you for your time, I know that it sounds like a minute detail that doesn't matter, but linguistics is important. BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew is one of the Canaanite languages, so presumably "Canaanite language" means "Proto-Canaanite language" here (the reconstructed most recent common ancestor of all Canaanite languages). (It can also be used to refer to some unspecified preliterary period somewhat later or even somewhat earlier than the beginning of the dialectal divergence of Proto-Canaanite; say, sometime in the 2nd millennium BC or 3rd millennium BC if the divergence started at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, i. e., approx. 2000 BC). The word in question would seem to be inherited from Proto-Canaanite. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the New Testament, Jesus is invoked as the last Adam, and is contrasted against Adam.1 Corinthians 15:45–47 Quote: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven." Adam is invoked as bringing death (through sin) whereas Jesus is invoked as bringing life to mankind.Romans 51 Corinthians 15:21–22 Quote: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research. None of what you are presenting here matters.Jasonasosa (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the original research (WP:OR)? Jesanj (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source. Interpreting what a Bible verse means is always original research. In order to include such info, we need reliable secondary sources that explain what these mean. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I get that. I'm saying I don't see the interpretation. I'll look for a secondary source though... Jesanj (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Click on Romans 5th chapter. It says "Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ", for example. Jesanj (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In the first sentence, it says "...according to the creation myths of Abrahamic religions...." Creation myth should be removed because it would not change the meaning of the sentence, and removing it would also remove the extremely obvious atheist bias. Zenkai251 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections? Ok, good. Zenkai251 (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should mirror whatever consensus exists at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Jesanj (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And there's no atheist bias... Do you have a reliable source for that charge? Jesanj (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no justification for this article mirroring the article that you are referring to. I think that articles in general exist as separate entities. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bus stop. Articles ought not mirror each other's content. Find a good reference and edit it appropriately. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an atheist bias, it's a fact. Do you think any Christian, Jew, or Muslim would call it a "myth"? The answer to that question is a definite NO. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Schäfer does here . Then there's Howard Schwartz (writer and editor) here who writes a lot about Jewish mythology. That took a couple of minutes. Oh, and obviously I object, that's why IU put it bck. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note Here are some simple facts that no one can ignore:

Anti-religious/Atheist POV (which is the way it is now)

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to the creation myths of Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God.

Christian/Jew/Muslim/etc POV

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was the first man created by God.

Neutral POV (the way it SHOULD be)

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God.

Zenkai251 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You've been told often enough that you are misrepresenting what is made by 'creation myth'. You've ignored the fact that I've shown you wrong about your claim that no Christian Jew or Muslim would call it a myth (and note that no one is using the word 'myth' on its own here in any case. It isn't anti-religious to call something a creation myth. And by the way, stop calling people atheists when they haven't stated on their user page or somewhere that they are atheistic. As I've pointed out, you can be religious and talk about creation myths. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't care about neutrality? If so, you have no place on wikipedia. Zenkai251 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No characterization of this material is called for. It is gratuitous and a contrivance to pigeonhole the material in any way at the top of the article. There is no justification for saying for instance that:

"Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to the creation myths of Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God."

"Creation myths" is a characterization of the material being referred to. It is not the only characterization available for this material. It is probably not the most prominent characterization of the material being referred to. There is no cause for characterizing the material in any way in the first sentence of the article.

"Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) was, according to the Abrahamic religions, the first man created by God."

The above is sufficient. It is also preferable because it refrains from characterizing the referred-to material in any way that does not receive universal support. In fact many do not characterize the referred-to material as a "creation myth". We should leave out gratuitous characterizations. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@Zenkai 251. Do you have a reliable source saying creation myth carries an atheist bias? I created the article political myth. Like creation myth, that has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. There is no POV in using it, as Dougweller showed with sources, which also demonstrates he belongs here. Jesanj (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, depending upon how long the wording of the lead is, it can be easily left out. Jesanj (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you and Dougweller atheists? Zenkai251 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The individual religious convictions of editors have no bearing in this discussing this article. One can still believe in a god or gods and still believe this is a myth and/or not a true story. Creation myth should stand.--Adam in MO Talk 22:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai, asking other users that on an article talk page is wholly inappropriate. See WP:PA and WP:Talk. No user has any obligation to disclose their religious affiliation on wikipedia in order to edit, and indeed "calling them out" on such issues is poisoning the well. Please stop. Dougweller has presented sources for his view, defending the current wording. I would encourage you to do the same.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but I am a theist, and not only do think the phrase "creation myth" is unbiased, but I actually find it helpful in providing a clear context for the first sentence. The creation myth article is a "must link" somewhere in this article (the story of Adam is clearly one of many stories used by religions to explain the origin of the world/universe/humanity), and the lead sentence actually seems like the most appropriate. Putting "creation myth" in the lead is no different than the fact that the word theory is linked in the first sentence of General relativity. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE Please read my other "note" above, thanks. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually pretty hard to work the phrase "creation myth" into the lead sentence. Adam himself isn't a myth, he's a figure in a myth - it's not easy to put that into the first sentence. I'd be happy to leave it out. PiCo (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Second thought: You could get round by saying Adam is the "mythical First Man" in Genesis. (And I wouldn't worry too much about the Koranic Adam - Mohammed was simply borrowing the name from the Jews and Christians). PiCo (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead using Hendel's article on "Adam" in Eerdman's bible dictionary - it's a far better source than the Encyclopedia Britannica, for obvious reasons. Not that Hendel distinguishes four separate meanings of the word Adam - this is absolutely essential, as Adam the first man is only one of those four. I've also gone on and corrected later parts of the article which have misinterpreted Hendel. PiCo (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the content or the source. It is already covered in the Etymology section, so there is no need to lead with it in the intro. The intro needs to contain the source(s) from which the biblical figure came from.Jasonasosa (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Nothing wrong with what source? Nothing wrong with what content? The intro needs to contain the sources the biblical figure came from? What sources are those? PiCo (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant that there was nothing wrong with your (User:PiCo) content and source (Hendel)... However, what you had in the intro is already covered in the Etymology section. It could stay in the intro... but eliminating what was there prior to your edit, was really the most incorrect thing to do. - Jasonasosa (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've only made a small edit to your reinstated original lead (a few words that I find redundant). I still think we need to inform readers, in the lead, that "Adam" isn't only an individual "first man" - it's a generic term meaning "mankind", and (although Hendel doesn't say this) it only becomes the First Man in about halfway through Genesis 2, when the initial "ha-" is dropped (turning ha-adam, "the man", into simply Adam, "Man" - which Christian tradition interprets, though wrongly, as a personal name). This can be sourced from any number of Genesis commentaries. PiCo (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hendel may be a fine source, but you are misquoting it. The Immaculate Conception has a meaning, and it is not the means by which Jesus was conceived; the Immaculate Conception always refers to Mary, as the Virgin Birth refers to Jesus. Also, Hendel doesn't use the phrase "immaculate conception" in the citation posted, while the link to the Wikipedia article on "Immaculate Conception" informs readers right away that it doesn't refer to Jesus. I changed the text and link a while back, but someone reversed it without researching it. Feel free to brush up my wording (as long as it fixes this error), but I'm changing it back.Jim Casy (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus to keep the phrase "creation myth" in the lead. Please stop removing it.--Adam in MO Talk 02:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no there's not. Did you read the discussion above? I doubt you did. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@Zenkai, the discussion above was not consensus to remove "creation myth". It was mostly off-topic ranting about how some editors here are atheists and/or biased. Please establish firm consensus before making that change again. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam in MO—this is not even an article on "Genesis". You are arguing to insert in an article on "Adam" that "Genesis" is a "Creation myth" and you are arguing that that characterization be placed in the Lead. That is uncalled for. In fact no characterization in any way is called for of "Genesis" in the Lead of the article on "Adam". Such an addition of material is gratuitous. If no editor objected, then that might be acceptable. But you are arguing for a fundamentally untenable position. As long as several editors are objecting to this material, you should be acceding to their requests. When you call "Genesis", in an article on "Adam", a "creation myth", and you do so in the Lead, you tend to introduce an anti-religious element. There is certainly a valid and a responsible and a scholarly use for the term "creation myth". But it can't, or shouldn't, just be tossed in anywhere. No matter where or how it is used it tends to impart a characterization of "falseness". In this article we find for instance:

"To be fair, Scientology’s Xenu story is no more scientifically untenable than other faiths’ origin myths. If there is no testable means of determining which creation cosmogony is correct, perhaps they are all astounding science fictions."

In this case the phrase used is not "creation myth" but something similar; in this instance we find the phrase "origin myths". But note the emphasis in the surrounding language. "Origin myth" is used within a general theme of "falseness" in that particular Scientific American magazine article. We read phrases like "scientifically untenable", "no testable means", "science fictions". That also happens to be the last paragraph in that magazine article, and it is the subject of that article—Scientology—that is being alluded to as an "origin myth".

We would not be writing an encyclopedia article responsibly if we start out an article with the contrived characterization of the subject matter as "false". "Genesis" is not even the subject of this article, yet some are arguing that we should be offering an opinion on "Genesis" in the Lead of the article on "Adam". Sometimes "Genesis" is simply referred to as a "story" or an "account". That reference, as a characterization, is different from the reference to "Genesis" as a "creation myth". We should be writing responsibly and not unnecessarily characterizing, especially where characterization is not even called for. Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So what is your proposal? What is special about the words on that page of the Book of Genesis that somehow elevate it above that of other origin myths? I am sorry that you don't like it but Genesis is a myth. It is an explanation of origins from a divine source. It doesn't matter if you think it is true or not. It doesn't matter if you don't like the word myth or not. Genesis is a myth.--Adam in MO Talk 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Genesis 1-11 is indeed a collection of myths; and Adam is indeed a mythical person, not a real one; but, nevertheless, I see no need to shoehorn the word "myth" into the lead if it doesn't "flow" naturally from the sense of what's being said, and it doesn't. PiCo (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that he is is known as a central figure in a creation myth is an important detail about him, and I think omitting it for the sake of "flow" would be a mistake. Do we leave out mention of "fruit" in the article on apples if it doesn't flow with the rest of the wording? No. We structure our wording around that point because it is a defining characteristic of an apple. The story of Adam is a creation myth; that descriptor encapsulates and contextualizes the entirety of the work in a way no other label can. There may be reasons not to use "creation myth" in the lead, but "flow" is not one of them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Again, speaking as a theist (to Bus stop), it is simply disingenuous to argue that any primary religious document (or an oral tradition, for those that aren't written) is not a myth. I literally don't understand how this is even a matter of debate. A myth is a type of literature/story. The Genesis narrative is one such story. That some people belief it makes it no more or less a myth. It's just like the fact that a scientific theory remains a theory no matter how many scientists concur with it; even if it were disproven, it would still fall into the category of theory. Maybe Zenkai and Bus stop need to take this up at WP:NPOVN or somewhere... Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I know the King James is beautiful, but it's not very accurate - scholarship has advanced quite a bit since the 17th century. Please, drop the quotes from the KJV and go to a good modern translation - the JPS is excellent, but there are others. Also, be careful about meanings - a simple phrase like "dominion" (where Adam is told he has "dominion" over all creation) isn't nearly as straightforward as they told you in Sunday School. PiCo (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand why you keep reverting the edit. It is not prohibited to add more information. And there is also no reason to let the Genesis be preceded in contrast with the Qur'an, as stated by Dominus Vobisdu. Is this a sign of anti-Islamic behaviour? Runehelmet (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In a sense, you're right; the article's lead doesn't adequately summarize it's contents. However, it's not appropriate to place new material there that isn't covered in the body. I'm going to try rewriting the lead right now. to summarize the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The "creation myth" phrase was re-added to the article introductory sentence and the editor commented that it had been repeatedly discussed and that consensus had been reached that it was correct per sources. First, no sources are provided in the article introduction (which is standard on wikipedia). So the "per sources" comment is not valid. Second, sources don't make it "correct." They just make it sourced. Third, I read the discussions--no consensus was ever reached. The debated ended by attrition. The concept of the creation story/creation myth is addressed further down in the article and a link is provided to the main article on that subject. Since treatment of the topic and direction to further sources is given in its appropriate place, then I see no reason why the article introduction should not be rendered more neutral by omitting the phrase "creation myth." Interested readers will be able to find all that they need for further analysis of the 'creation myths' concept by reading the pertinent portions of the body of the article. Furthermore, the phrase "creation myth" is merely iterative to those who don't believe in the Abrahamic religions anyway. Those who oppose the concept of a 'myth' are appeased by omitting the phrase from the introductory sentence while those who feel that it is a myth gain nothing by its presence and lose nothing by its removal. I am in the camp that feels that wikipedia should be as neutral as is possible without compromising validity. Leaving the discussion of (and links to) the creation story as written in the body of the article, while omitting it from the introduction is the best compromise. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot. Please talk it over and establish consensus first before reverting other editors on the article. Compromises are arrived at with input from multiple editors... not proposed and enacted by a single editor with no outside input. I'll also point out that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. As you indicate, "sources don't make it 'correct.' They just make it sourced"... and that's all that matters.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you see what you just did? You reverted my edit without reaching consensus and then told me not to revert edits without reaching consensus. I'm not trying to engage in an edit war. Though I am editing boldly per policy.

I agree, wikipedia is about verifiability but both sides of this debate can be verified by sources. So that is not the issue at hand. It comes down to neutrality and accuracy--not truth or verifiability. Thanks. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD and WP:CON. You're proposing that we change the article to remove "creation myth", a term which has been present in the article for some time, and received broad support in numerous discussions. Making proposals is fine, but the way to do that is to talk it out first. If you believe your position is well supported in the sources, it would be helpful for you to list them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on this and related articles, and the consensus is to use "myth", as do the reliable scholarly sources. Further discussion is pointless per WP:DEADHORSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

While sources don't have to be used in the lead per WP:MOS, they can be. MorbidAnatomy, if a source that used the term "creation myth" were added after that phrase, would that satisfy you? Personally, I don't understand the concern with the word; as someone even believes (in part) in the story, I consider myth to be wonderful term, completely neutral, and perfectly encapsulating the fact that this is in no way a verified historical "fact", does not have any independent corroboration in archeology or even comparable texts, and is a matter of faith among those who believe it to be accurate. That sounds just like a myth to me.

Regarding the process, though, Mann jess is correct: since you (MorbidAnatomy) are the one seeking to make a controversial change, its up to you to establish a consensus for that change. Your initial removal of the phrase was fine (though it would have helped if you'd looked through the history and seen we've been through it before, it's in no way required), but now that you see a strong consensus for keeping the phrase, you'll need to figure out if you can change that consensus. You are always welcome to pursue dispute resolution if you would like the input of uninvolved editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What you (or I) may think of the word shouldn't be the issue. It's what the average reader thinks. I'm positive that for the majority of people, when they read or hear the word, they think of the third definition found on wiktionary. Maybe you were taught the first definition in school, but I know that I, and the people I know, weren't. And I think we need to keep the reader in mind, first and foremost. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term "creation myth" in the lead of the article constitutes the gratuitous bashing of religion. The term "creation myth" clearly favors the sensibilities of nonbelievers. That is where the "gratuitousness" arises—there is no need for any characterization whatsoever. The sentence reads fine as follows:

"According to the Abrahamic religions, he is the first human."

Instead editors are arguing for the contrived inclusion of a gratuitous characterization, as follows:

"According to the creation myth of Abrahamic religions, he is the first human."

In the body of the article this area of characterization can be expanded upon fully to bring all readers up to speed on the terminology and what it means and what it does not mean. In the lead it is uncalled for. In the lead the insertion of such terminology is jarring and easily misunderstood. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So, anyone want to offer up any actual evidence to back up these claims? Musdan, do you have any evidence that the more common definition is not the first one in wiktionary? Bus stop, do you have any evidence that calling something a myth is bashing? Simply asserting that something is POV or bashing or negative does not necessarily make it so. Also, just to make this a little easier (and maybe faster), could someone above supporting the term provide a direct quotation or two that justifies the term? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Added a source. N^oformation ^Talk 06:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian—despite any extent of academic usage, the term "creation myth" is more likely to be misunderstood than to be understood. It is a contrivance to overlook the development of an article. An article starts with the general and moves on to the specific. The lead is for the general; in the body of the article we tackle the specific. In the case of religion, there is good reason to avoid clobbering the reader from the outset with the implication of "falsehood". This is not something that is required of an article on the figure "Adam", that is a significant component of a religious body of thought. The immediate characterization of that body of thought as "myth" is off-putting to those for whom a degree of respect and reverence is tastefully expected. But the term "creation myth" has applicability here. It is the heading under which all such explanations of a non-scientific nature of the origin of the world are placed. I am not denying that the story of Genesis and the character Adam are placed, at least academically, in a category of creation myths. But there are those who do not embrace this particular characterization or pigeonholing. Therefore we should not be foisting a characterization that is not universally held, on the reader, in the lead. There is plenty of space for expanding on the place of the terminology that we are discussing—in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia of knowledge, WP is supposed to represent academia and does so using academic sources. Your opinion is irrelevant, what matters is what sources say - this is the entire point of WP:NPOV. Secondly, people make all sorts of claims regarding common usage but the fact of the matter is that no one has produced any sources regarding the most commonly used definition, nor whether people know multiple definitions, nor anything else regarding public perception of myth. Not that it really matters per point #1, but still, it just illustrates that some people on WP believe that most people won't know the definition of the word when they really have no evidence, save for possible anecdotes, to support the assertion. If we're going to call old greek religious beliefs mythology there's no reason to do differently for Christianity - the fact that people still believe this mythology is not really relevant as to whether or not it's mythology. N^oformation ^Talk 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing, A dictionary of creation myths (page 113) is direct and accessible. That may be a good addition here. There are less direct alternatives in Christian mythology and elsewhere. One is "Christian Mythology" (page 22) by George Every. No google books or amazon preview is available, however. There are others.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If Christian scholars talk about Christian myths and mythology (and of course they do), then using the word isn't anti-Christian. There is a 'simple Wikipedia' which might not use the word, but we are the real thing, a real encyclopedia and shouldnt avoid it where appropriate, any more than we should avoid using images of Mohammed where appropriate. We shouldn't be exempting specific religions from certain words. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I apologize for starting all of this. When I made my initial edit it didn't even occur to me that this would be such a huge ordeal. I thought I was just rendering the article more neutral and simplifying the text. I didn't review the article history to see that this had been done before because I didn't realize that it would extend beyond a matter of neutrality. In hindsight, I guess it should have been obvious.

Dougweller, your statement is not really valid. "Christian scholars" aren't necessarily Christians and they actually do use anti-Christian language quite frequently. But that topic is a tangent from the main discussion. Editors who favor retaining the "creation myth" have repeatedly demanded sources from those who prefer it's removal. Yet sourcing is not the issue here. Both sides of the argument can find sources supporting whether or not the word "myth" is appropriate. The question at hand is not one of verifiability. The question at hand is whether or not including the phrase "creation myth" in the opening sentence actually adds anything of value to the article. So lets please stop demanding sources and asserting definitions. That is not the issue. Those who favor its inclusion have not yet provided clear explanation of what its inclusion in the opening statement does to benefit the article. Phrasing the opening sentence as "Adam, according to the Abrahamic religions, was the first human" provides an ample amount of context and preface to the ensuing text of the article without the redundancy which is added by including "the creation myth of" in the clause. Furthermore, its omission leaves no room for further argument about bias--while it's inclusion causes all this debate. No one will debate that the story of Adam is found in the Abrahamic religious texts. Many will (and have) debated whether or not it is a myth. I maintain that the most appropriate place to introduce the concept of creation myth (and redirect to the appropriate main article) is in the body of the article, not the opening sentence. The article is equally valid, sourced, verified, and rendered more neutral by this. Please address these points specifically. Sources and verifiability are not the issue. Thank you. (you'll notice that I didn't revert this time). I'm all ears. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MA, you've said repeatedly that "both sides can find sources", but I've asked for them and have yet to see any. Per WP:V, we cannot represent any view in the article without sources. Your next reply should be links to sources and nothing else. To answer your question anyway, the label is important because the story of Adam is, itself, a creation myth. We are not talking about a figure simply appearing in a religious text (like Jesus or Mohammed); we are directly and explicitly defining a central figure within a creation myth, and excluding the label for ideological reasons would be a disservice to that definition.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally, an answer to the actual question at hand. Thank you. Jess, I see your point and I think it is reasonable--though I still disagree with it. The first part of your most recent post demonstrates to me why this topic has never truly reached consensus on this talk page and has only been brought to a close through attrition. You once again diverted to the subject of sources. All of that has come and gone in the archives of the talk page on the Creation Myth article. I was trying very hard to avoid restarting that here, which is why I was merely giving the summary statement that both sides of the myth debate and the sources they apparently choose to accept. This article is about Adam and the talk page is to improve upon that topic--not debate what "myth" means. I maintain that the inclusion of the phrase in the opening statement provides nothing beyond the context of the Abrahamic religions statement. The quality of the article is in no way enhanced by its inclusion in the opening sentence. But I am now exhausted by people repeatedly dodging that point to rehash the definition and source debate. Forget it. Thank you for your time and efforts. Attrition wins again. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MA, I'm sorry that you feel exhausted by the discussion. I understand where you're coming from. However, if you think that we are "diverting to the subject of sources", you are missing the point of wikipedia. The one and only thing we care about is the sources. When we have a bunch representing one view, and none presented to represent another, we as editors do not have any choice in what we print. That is why consensus is as firm as it is. If you'd like to come back to the discussion later and present sources supporting an alternate view, then we can reopen the discussion then. Hopefully I'll see you around elsewhere. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As the actual content on the Islamic Views of Adam page is mimimal, and no objections were raised when asked in talk of that page, I am merging it with the section on this page. This section could use significant expansion and work, I'd love it if any third-party sources could be found (so much bloody hadith synthesis) particularly on the subject of Adam's Prophethood. Peter Deer (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Text and/or other creative content from Islamic views on Adam was copied or moved into Adam#Islamic View with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Hope I did this right! Peter Deer (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The intro contains the sentence:

In addition, Islam holds that Adam was eventually forgiven, while Christianity holds that redemption occurred only later through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that this statement is incorrectly associating the Islamic concept of forgiveness with the Christian concept of redemption.
In my limited experience the Islamic and Christian concepts of forgiveness are almost synonymous.
I suggest that the sentence be removed as it is both:

• Incorrect / Miss Leading
• Superfluous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisped (talk • contribs) 23:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia, "Adam" redirects to "Adam und Eva". This is the error message I got while trying to add a link for German on "Adam":

Site link Adam und Eva is already used by item Adam and Eve (Q58701). Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Feel free to ask at Project chat if you are unsure.

This suggestion seems kind of silly. English Wikipedia has chosen to split up the topics, while German Wikipedia has combined them. Why should both wikis have to have a one to one structure in order for the articles to have relevant inter-language links?

The bottom line is that if I'm on English Wikipedia's "Adam" or "Adam and Eve", and I want to read about Adam in German, "Adam und Eva" is where I want to go, so both English articles should have this link. Attys (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not seen any commentary about this?

Torah: ^[1] Cant use it but it says: our image and likeness

King James Bible: ^[2] Cant use it but it says: our image... our likeness

Sumerian "Creation" tablets. I have been comparing the Sumerian creation (myth) with the Bible and Torah. Need a reference to the creation myth tablets. The Wikipedia reference dates it to 1900bc. Research that I have been doing on it dates the tablets back to just before the pyramids were built. It points to a lot of things were changed in the history when the Babylonians and the Akkadians took over the kingdom around 3500BC. I read that the Egyptian Kings got their schooling from Mesopotamia, learning advanced math, geometry and astronomy. Their number systems back then was based 60-60 like our 360 degrees-minutes-seconds and 12/24 hour clock. They understood Pi and the golden number. All these were decoded from the Sumerian tablets. There is references to the 9 planets in our solar system back then and tablets with distances to local stars.

Nobody has commented on God creating man in "OUR" image and likeness? Are we still being repressed or censored my a monotheistic culture? I know that we all have been taught about Adam being the first human, but what about where the Torah and Bible came from? The Sumerian "Creation Myth" seems to me to be not a myth but stories that were handed down and finally transcribed onto a tablet. Is it a coincidence that the stories parallel the bible in so many ways including the great flood?

My main point here is that Adamu or Adam or ha'adam (the man) as God was narrating it was created in OUR image implying that God was not alone. My perspective on this is that OUR refers to what we interpret now as His angels. Back then the Sumerians, and up to and including the Romans, and the Greeks, believed in the "gods" and that they were not of this earth. The "gods" were here for a very, very long time and were mining gold. They got tired of the labour and decided to create a helper "man" to do the work for them so they could rest on the seventh day. Just like the most of the amateur archeologists ignore the fact that 6000 years ago water levels were a lot higher than they are now, most amateur historians are ignoring the fact that we interpret our history differently now than we did 5000 years ago. Things are not the same now that they were at the end of the last ice age and how we perceive "God" now is different.

I hope that in the discussions about Adam - the man, that somebody finds the wisdom to include the reference to God in PLURAL.

Thank You,

Mdc on ca (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)mdc_on_ca

This is an archive of past discussions about Adam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.