Talk:Adam and Eve
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adam and Eve article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. 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. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Regarding the use of the word "myth"
The meaning of "myth", in the context of this article's lead, can be found in wikt:myth: Lengthy discussion of this usage can be found in the archives of this talk page (and in those of the talk pages of a number of related articles). Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Adam and Eve. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Adam and Eve at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience . The final decision was as follows:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Should we add details from the “Genesis creation narrative” page?
Its first four paragraphs are generally pretty good. I think this page needs to incorporate specifically the explanation for them as demythologized Babylonian creation myths. IncandescentBliss (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2024
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Luke 3 it shows the genealogy of Jesus right through to Adam. Your information needs to be corrected. There aren’t two separate accounts of creation either, they are the same. One provides an overview while the other is more detailed. It is quite possible too that the authors may have been different and provided those insights by God in different ways for the same message. So as a correction there is direct linage from Jesus back to Adam. Jesus is often referred to as the second Adam. The first bought death and the second bought life. 220.235.136.97 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keegancroteau12 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Keegancroteau12 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Did they exist or not?
This article should make it more clear wherever they were real or not, the article is currently extremely vague about this crucial part. 189.201.36.86 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The first sentence says "according to the creation myth..." A myth is something for which there is no concrete evidence. The simplest thing to say is that we have no evidence they existed. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Theistic Evolution and Species Debate Edit Request
Some Christian believers in theistic evolution have argued that Adam and Eve may not have been H. sapiens. For example, philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig has argued that Adam and Eve were Homo heidelbergensis. I think this article should add some information about this topic. TheYamsAreRipe (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Humans are great apes. Our ape ancestors were never less than one thousand individuals, at any given time. So, it is preposterous to speak of humans originating in one man and one woman, heidelbergensis or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Among believers in theistic evolution, many believe that the descendants of Adam and Eve interbred with hominids not descended from Adam and Eve.
- In any case, this is an article about religious belief, and I'd argue that positions of religious scholars that gain enough prominence should be mentioned regardless of whether they are scientifically supported. TheYamsAreRipe (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- We do render church dogmas for what they are. What Craig says isn't dogma of any church. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)