Talk:Genesis creation narrative
(Redirected from Talk:Creation according to Genesis)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Mr10209839 in topic Wiki Education assignment: Religion 100 Introduction to Religion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genesis creation narrative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | 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, use 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. |
 | Discussions on this page have often led to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes. |
Frequently asked questions
Summary of this FAQ
A large number of these questions are relating to the term creation myth, its meaning and its proper usage in this article.
Q1: What is the definition of creation myth?
A1: Creation myth is a widely accepted term that has a precise definition[1][2][3][4][5] that is "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities."
Since there is a consensus among reliable sources on this definition, it is used here for the purpose of accuracy and proper word use. Q2: Why do we use creation myth to describe the subject, even if it might offend readers or conflict with their beliefs?
A2: The term creation myth is used for reasons related to scholarship and research, not out of a desire to offend the feelings or beliefs of Wikipedia's readers. While some readers, especially those not familiar with the scholarly terminology referenced when using the term creation myth, might take offense at seeing this subject called a creation myth, Wikipedia should not be rewritten just so that certain readers will be more comfortable. 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.
Q3: Isn't calling this a creation myth the same thing as calling it a fairy tale, since that is one of the informal definitions for the word myth?
A3: No. The term creation myth is a coherent term 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 myth. Just as an electoral college is not an institute of higher learning even though it contains the word college, a creation myth is not necessarily a fairy tale even though it contains the word myth. Formally defined terms provide unambiguous meaning that aid in the presentation of a more accurate and scholarly encyclopedic article.
[clarification needed] Q4: Does this article say or imply that Genesis 1–11 is not literally true? And if so, is that neutral?
A4: The viewpoint that Genesis 1–11 is literally true is held by only a tiny minority of sources. Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not say that articles must "give equal validity" to such views (see WP:GEVAL). In writing this article it also becomes necessary to proceed with some implicit assumptions that many readers are bound to find controversial (see WP:MNA). Q5: Why does the article name have "narrative" rather than "myth"?
A5: This has been discussed several times, and there has not been sufficient consensus to change the name of the article.
References |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions
|
 | Other talk page banners | |||
| ||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Historicity of Genesis
editCompared to other creation myths around the world, such as the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Genesis Creation Narrative (including the Flood Narrative) reads more like history than myth. Genesis is set apart from other creation myths around the world in that it is written in the style of a historical narrative. Very unusual for a creation myth. Why doesn't the Wikipedia article say that the Genesis Creation Narrative "reads more like history than myth" compared to other creation myths, perhaps with its own words?WorldQuestioneer (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Because we don't write whatever we want or find to be the case in articles, we include what reliable sources have to say for a given topic, in proportion to how prevalent each aspect or claim is within said body of sources. Remsense 🌈 论 23:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- it is written in the style of a historical narrative" I don't see any particular imitation of historical narratives in the text. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." It sounds like a very typical once upon a time tale, in the style of Charles Perrault and the Brothers Grimm. When I first heard the silly tale at the age of 5, I asked a teacher why there is no Darwinian evolution in the text. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The Waw Consecutive Imperfect and Wayyiqtol conjunction
- WorldQuestioneer (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Myth or Account?
editAt the beginning of the article, it says creation myth with a link to the "creation myth" article. However throughout the rest of the account it refers to the narrative as an account. Shouldn't it be consistent throughout? I would even say a more neutral word like "narrative" or something should be used throughout the article to promote a NPOV. "Myth" is specifically a fictional tale, whereas "account" is something that really happened. People believe differently about this, so neither word should be used in my opinion. AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello AnonymousEditor366. This is covered by the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- See also Genesis_creation_narrative#Genre. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Okay that makes sense. The link can also help people understand too I guess AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Religion 100 Introduction to Religion
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2026 and 6 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mr10209839 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Mr10209839 (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)