Talk:Book of Genesis

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)

Does the "myth" description need more subtlety?

In saying "most mainstream Bible scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical" does this require more subtlety? Sure, Gen.1-11 is mythological, as discussed well in its "primeval history" article. That's basically fine. But Gen.12-50 has very different genre characteristics; indeed the word "myth" never appears in the main body of its "ancestral history" article.

So isn't the statement about the whole book "...consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical" too blunt in not distinguishing the different genres across the primeval/ancestral divide?

Note: I'm basing this on the summary in the article lead. But the myth-description in the main body (section "Genre") has the same over-generalisation problem, so it's probably better to start from there, then to reflect an appropriate summary back onto the lead.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Subtlety is nice, but I believe the passage in question adequately characterizes the whole text, as the purpose throughout both the primeval and ancestral history halves is to explain and interconnect the origins of the world and the Jewish people within it. Remsense诉 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@IP Your bigotry against Christian’s is obvious—are you suggesting that only fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals can be called "Christians"? How should we call that, I wonder. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Do Evangelicals count as actual Christians? Their political and social ideas rarely align with other Christians, and Exvangelicals point out that the movement's misogyny and rather enthusiastic support for sexual abuse are in opposition to Christian ethics. Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

"Genesis 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Genesis 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 6 § Genesis 6 until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Revert

Stop changing the last sentence of the last paragraph, literally almost no mainstream biblical scholars believe Genesis is mythology or symbolic. LiquidEclipse (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The last sentence of the second paragraph* LiquidEclipse (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you were reverted by multiple editors, you should stop and discuss. You cannot insert your own opinion in articles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Martin Luther- His Lectures on Genesis, in "Luthers works volume 1". John Calvin- "Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis". Basil of Caesarea- "Hexaemeron, Homilies on the Six Days of Creation". Pope Pius XII "Humani Generis". Pope Leo XIII "Providentissimus Deus".

And i can keep naming more, obviously main stream biblical scholars believe in Genesis if they didn't it would be hard to even be Christian since, there would be false information, that you yourself believe isn't real, so why would you be Christian if you believe its fake? LiquidEclipse (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That is incorrect, mainstream Biblical scholars primarily (as in not only, but mostly for the Book of Genesis' stories) consider the Genesis composition to be mythological and as etiology, not literal or historical. The Genesis creation narrative in particular is an origin myth that even draws on other ancient near-eastern traditions and cosmologies. You can read about the scholarly perspectives on that page in the Genesis creation narrative#Literal interpretations. Moreover, see Biblical literalism#Criticism by historical-critical methodology scholars. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Martin Luther- His Lectures on Genesis, in "Luthers works volume 1". John Calvin- "Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis". Basil of Caesarea- "Hexaemeron, Homilies on the Six Days of Creation". Pope Pius XII "Humani Generis". Pope Leo XIII "Providentissimus Deus".

And i can keep naming more, and theres the sources, obviously main stream biblical scholars believe in Genesis if they didn't it would be hard to even be Christian since, there would be false information, that you yourself believe isn't real, so why would you be Christian if you believe its fake? LiquidEclipse (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

None of those people are modern Biblical scholars, but Protestant theologians and reformers of the past, as well as Catholic popes.

Once again, no they don't. Even the religious mainstream scholars engaging in historical-critical methodology and academic study of the Bible, have different ways of practicing their personal faith and viewing the narratives. They unlike the Biblical fundamentalists, can still be actively a part of a devotional belief system while acknowledging not everything in the Bible is 100% factual. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

well wikipedias not letting me send my reply so never mind, i was mostly just saying most modern day christians follow the church which follow the founding, church members and they all agree genesis was real only a small percentage of christians believe geneis was myth, and the ones that do are the phd scholars which no one listens to since they are basically heretical, and dont believe in some basic christianity principals, but if wikipedia really want people who are trying to learn and research the bible to think oh genesis is fake and most people agree, when that is not true and only a small percent does but you make the final call i guess so keep it if you want, but i think its better to do the other. LiquidEclipse (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Savagecrybaby Well, more than half the world's Christians are Catholic, and the official Catholic position is that the early chapters of the Bible state spiritual truths "in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured" (Humani Generis 38). Modern mainstream Lutheranism, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism and Methodism all reject uncritical claims of literal truth in these stories. I don't want to make assumptions about you personally, but I suspect that if you have the impression that the majority of Christians support Biblical inerrancy, you are viewing the world from inside a fairly small bubble out on the fringe. Sorry. Doric Loon (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Pope Leo XIV the current pope who is infallible, mostly believes Genesis, only thing he doesnt really agree with from what i can see is the earth being created 600 years ago, which that is only a tiny part of genesis and he believes the rest of it, which i could not believe the earth was made 600 years ago, since it could be like obviously the people back then wouldnt understand it was made 7 billion years ago and like let there be light could be the big bang just simply which i think i heard about that from somewhere but just one example of how if only the earth being made 600 years ago still genesis is a lot more than that and the pope believes everything else, so that means 1 billion Christians believe everything but the earth being made 600 years ago which isnt crazy, but saying all of genesis is metaphorical is factually wrong and almost every christian agrees most of genesis actually happened. LiquidEclipse (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Chapter 1 of Genesis contradicts chapter 2. We have WP:RS for it. See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS7LgbMr1m4&t=705

The Pope is considered infallible when he speaks together with the College of Cardinals, i.e. not every opinion of the Pope is infallible.

Very many Bible scholars believe in the theological orthodoxy, but put a wall of separation between their scholarship and their faith. Liberal Christianity (i.e. most Christians in the world) does not believe that the Book of Genesis is literal truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, use people for sources that no one has heard of and have died in the past 5 years, and have done barley anything, and say because those people who like i said no one knows of, you take that to mean the mass majority of scholars believe its myth, instead of listening to the most famous, fundamental people in Christianity who all say genesis was real and not myth or symbolic, like Martin Luther, every Pope, literally almost every single person. LiquidEclipse (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

"fundamental people in Christianity" We have no reason to listen to the proverbial village idiots and their beliefs about the world, when we have centuries-worth of scholarship and archaeology informing us that nothing in the Book of Genesis is historical. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)