Talk:Genesis

Changes

The previous section didn't have any sources so I sourced what I could, removed some material I found questionable, and tried to provide a fuller view of both sides of the debate surrounding Genesis 1. Full disclosure, I support the Young Earth side, and while I tried to do the Day Age theory justice, had trouble finding sources for it. If anyone who supports the theory would like to add to the section to better illustrate the beliefs and arguments of those who support the Day Age theory I'd love to have your participation in the interest of making sure both sides are well-represented. --Joshua Zambrano 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)--Joshua Zambrano 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that either side needs any detailed discussion. Something along the lines of "Various Christian and Muslim fundamentalists consider the Bible or the Koran to be literally true. In the particular case of Genesis, this leads to creationism." seems to be all that need be said here. Or are there Jewish fundamentalists as well?

Many of your sources are quite dubious. This has already been discussed at Talk:Authors_of_the_Bible#No_Sources.3F. As I see it, things like "Creation Ministries International" might be quoted or linked to in an article on creationism, but such fringe opinion should not be treated as significant anywhere else. Sandy Harris 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Content

Well, it originally started when I decided a one-sentence reference to the book's actual content and most of the article written about interpretive disputes wouldn't cut it, so I tried putting a section together more seriously addressing the content. I just couldn't summarize it as well as I'd originally intended. There is way too much there. I am actually trying to be concise here, but every chapter is so jam-packed full of great stuff... --Joshua Zambrano 00:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)