Talk:Adam and Eve/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A New Adam and a New Eve

Or more exactly, a proposal for a complete re-write of the A&E article. It could use it. I suggest the following section headers (excluding the lead, which shouold summarise the article):

• 1. Narrative. A precis of the A&E story from the first chapters of Genesis.
• 2. Later traditions. How the A&E story was developed by the rabbis, by the Christian church, by Islam. Should include things like gnosticism.
• 3. Science and A&E. The Documentary Hypothesis and later biblical study, links to Mespotamian myths, modern anthropology, anything else in that vein.
• 4. Literalists and A&E. Not sure there's anything to say here - does anyone really believe in a literal A&E today? but should go in if worth having.

As constant readers will realise, this is based on the headings from Noah's Ark, which reached FA status. So could this. With work. Comments? PiCo 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Answering item #4. Yes. God, most true Christians, orthodox Jews, moslems. ;-) ^rossnixon 08:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

God believes in A&E? Are you the God spokesperson? If so, I have some questions to ask. -SESmith 09:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay on-topic folks: I'm after comments on this proposed list of section headings, not thoughts on God's thoughts on...well, you know. 09:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Earth

"Tabari goes on to state that God responded by sending the Angel of Death, who took clay from all regions, hence providing an explanation for the variety of appearances of the different races of mankind."

This is a Jewish Rabbinic Tradition (I think Pirke D' R' Elizer). I think that the trradition states something to the effect that his head was taken from Israel, his body from Babylonia, and his arms and legs from the rest of the world (I may be confusing details). It's obviously meant to be an allegorical statement describing the preachers (most of the aggadot were taken from sermons) political views. I am to lazy to try to add the information to the main article.Wolf2191 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Split?

It says that this article is in the category for articles to be split. I can't really find what section needs to be split though? Eric Wester 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk about split

Do you want to know what's more split Eric? That this article has two of itself split in half. There's the article Adam and the article Eve. Hmmmm....O_o--Angel David 02:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Art-specific content

I'm surprised there isn't a separate article dedicated to "Adam and Eve in art." Since there isn't, but this article has many better-known images, perhaps that section could be added to this article. I regret that I cannot do it myself, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable about art; I've just seen a lot of it. (Perhaps it could help to mitigate the offense any Muslims may feel about this article if the more explicit depictions were put in the art section and the depictions with leaves or with grainier image quality were used in other sections.) IrisWings 08:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi All, Sorry to bother, but, paragraph number (2) mentions Adam, Steve, and Eve. Wondering who Steve is ? Perhaps vandalism, thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changeit360 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Section Removed

Requires a source for this section: "Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason prompted some Christians to interpret the Bible as strict history; William Whiston was one such early scholar. "

The Age of Reason was a Deistic article that heavily criticized various organized religions. How would it influence theologians to interpret the Bible's Adam and Eve portion as history? Also, mentioned opposition to A&E as historical fact through archeology, paleontology, etc and not just evolution but biology in general due to the "incest" issue and the impossibility of populating the earth with only two humans (not enough genetic variation).

Intranetusa (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We need sources for the above - I will give you time to locate some; The rest of the page also needs refs. Hardyplants (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Phyllis Tribble ...

.. anyone? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're meaning feminist overtones in A&E? I wouldn't feel competent to do it. But there's also Elaine Pagels, who wrote about the Christian inversion of Jewish attitudes to sexuality on the basis of the A&E story.PiCo (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean someone who has done a very close reading of the text. I do not mean to single her out, nor to lable her as a feminist. I see her first and foremost as a person who takes the text seriously enough to read it closely and she is not the only one. But it seems to me that much of this article is superficial, reflects popular prejudices and not scholarship. Pagels is an expert on the Gnostic Gospels and I did not know that she had published ay original research on Genesis 1 or 2 (I know the book you refer to, I thought it was her popularizing reflections on research done by others), but I did know that Tribble has, which is why I brought her up. How about EA Speiser too? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also mention Orlinsky's Notes for his translation of Genesis - why he translated a specific word or phrase as he did. Not sure what he said regarding Genesis 2-3 but I'll look him up. PiCo (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

evoutionary section

why was the part that evolution deals with AE as historical people taken out?? i have to go to past article versions to quote and i find no reason why it shouldn't be on the current page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.125.135 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't deal with A&E as historical persons, and I'm not sure what your note means. What are wanting to quote?PiCo (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Some more info

To the best of my knowledge, every fetus first produces estrogen (female hormones) and only later is testosterone (male hormone) released that causes the male features to develop. Thus the Bibles account is a bit backwards since first the female is there and then male. Although according to the Jewish tradition that they were created as an androgynous creature this isn't a problem. In any event, I have no source but I'm sure someone discusses this.Wolf2191 03:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states that A&E were told by G-d that they could eat of any tree in the Garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's not true, G-d told Adam he could not eat of the tree of knowledge, but there is also the tree of life. Later G-d is relieved that Adam and Eve only ate from the tree of knowledge and not the tree of life, for if they had then they would have been immortal and therefore just like G-d. So, one must assume that it is TWO trees that G-d commands Adam that he can not eat from. Plus as i recall, G-d never tells Eve not to, it is only to Adam that G-d told this to, Eve was not created yet, it's not known whether G-d told Eve directly or if Adam simply passed it on to her, G-d only talks directly to Eve during the punishment after the fact, at least in what is in the Torah, we don't know what was really said, if it happened at all. See Genesis chapter 2, verse 9 and chapter 3, verse 22. Camelbinky (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Meaning of Adam

It was always my understanding that the Hebrew word "Adam" meant "red", or possibly "red earth", whereas this article suggests it means "dust". A quick googling seems to support what I thought, but I don't have the time to research this properly at the moment.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Just to amplify: Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, says "This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red"--FimusTauri (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Go to Strong's or a commentary on Genesis for the meaning/s of the name, rather than Josephus - Joe no doubt did his best, but he isn't necessarily right. :) PiCo (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point about Josephus, but he was just one (not very good) example. See [1] for another. The Bible itself says he was called Adam because he was "created from the dust", and I suspect that that is why that definition is used in the article. However, I am sure that Adam actually means red (earth) (i.e. clay).--FimusTauri (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If the bible itself says he was named Adam for that reason, we have to take it seriously. :). I always assumed that when the bible says X or Y was given a name for such-and-such reason, it was talking etymology; but then I read somewhere that the biblical writers weren't actually interested in the linguistic derivation of words, but more in what we would call puns - but puns with a difference, since they saw a power in words. Their assumption (and I'm retelling this from memory) was that speech was the attribute of God, or the gods - both Yahweh and the Egyptian/Mesopotamian gods create things through speech, by naming them - so that names are bound up with creation, and both are the work of the divine. Words therefore have a supernatural origin and meaning, and not a linguistic or human one. So if adam (man) sounds like adamah (dust) and also like dom (blood, red), then these facts all have a divine meaning, and not a linguistic one. In the minds of the biblical writers, that is. And then along we come with our own assumptions about languages and their history, seeking a type of meaning in words that the original writers would never have thought to find. PiCo (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with all of that. However, as the article stands it suggests that "adam" (note no caps) means "dust". If the actual meaning of the word is "red" (or "ruddy") then should that not be listed for the etymology? The point about the pun would certainly then have a place in the article, where it could be explained that adam means red(earth) or clay and, by extension, "dust". Its a subtle distinction (and I could be wrong that adam means red) but seems relevant to me.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymologies are usually given with this type of article, and I recall it used to be on this one (something longer than what's there now), but it seems to have been removed. Other articles use Strong's as their source. PiCo (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally got round to checking Strong's - it says that Adam means "red" [2]--FimusTauri (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New section, "Textual notes"

Added this new section, largely to deal with issues of translation rather than interpretation, but since translation and meaning are so closely intertwined it's difficult to impossible not to give interpretation at the same time. Also, I ran out of things worth saying at the end of Genesis 2 - Genesis 3 seems not be very interesting in this regard. All except one of my entries are from Harry Orlovsky's Notes to Genesis (the exception is the note about the translation of rib/side, which is bit harder to find the source of).

I'd like to argue that the view point made here---

"...in our image." The phrase image of God has had many interpretations, although something more than the simply anthropomorphic seems intended.

Saying that it's 'seems' to be more than just anthropomorphic is not NPOV. I personally believe otherwise, and know plenty others who believe it to be just as simple as we look like God. I understand that this belief isn't the popular. I'm at a loss of how to reword it though without sounding stupid.--Jonathanhuns (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-writing my post as the first now seems a bit dismissive. I gather your problem is that the wording seems to suggest that image=physical image is ruled out entirely. That's not what I intended when I wrote it. Perhaps something like "While not ruling out the possibility of a simple physical image of God, something more than this seems intended..."? Feel free to make the alteration yourself if you're happy with that. PiCo (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to follow our policies, V and NOR. Instead of putting in what we believe, and struggling to find the right words, let us identify notable points of view and just quote them - use their established (verifiable) wording. For the Jewish view, for example, whatever Rashi says (to atart with). For a critical view, we can start with Speiser. There is little guesswork here as to "what it might mean" because it is not up to us editors to decide what it might mean, we find reliable sources for verifiable, notable views, and report what they say. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section as badly sourced. A good idea, but we need modern academic sources, not blogs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Feminist conclusion?

"Hebrew tsela` can mean side, chamber, rib, or beam. The traditional reading of "rib" has been questioned recently by feminist theologians who suggest it should instead be rendered as "side," supporting the idea that woman is man's equal and not his subordinate"

Is there a special logic to feminist thought? In my mind, something taken from the "side" is just about equal to "rib" in relation to order of importance. The "sidekick" of comic books is just what his name implies. I dont see why this special translation (also possible with septuagint reading "μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν" btw) should "raise the value" of woman as told in the story. --89.15.211.134 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Trinitarian Bible Society

The views of the Trinitarian Bible Society (citation 2) cannot be held as representative of mainstream Christian views. Hackwrench (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a fact tag, and removed several other references to an invitation only blog (and even if it wasn't invitation only, we don't use blogs as reliable sources). Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources - to Pico

Pico, I'd assumed that you'd added the blog at a time when you didn't understand our policies. I see now that you've replaced the blog references to references to a person - you know our policy on verification, you have to provide information that can be verified, which includes details enough to find the book or article and in the case of a book, the page number. I'd also like your comments on the Trinitarian issue above. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Other children

Besides it being biologically necessary to have had female children, Genesis 5:4 says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." So please don't take that out again, if anyone wants to add a cite, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Augustine's misunderstanding of Paul's Greek

I did a quick check as the source was clearly partisan, and found this [3]. On that basis, I've removed it - it iesn't a vital part of this particular article anyway, the main article would be Original sin and that article doesn't say this either. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Eve is NOT mentioned in the Qur'an

This article is factually incorrect.

Eve (Hawwa) is NOT mentioned in the Qur'an. There is only a referral to Adam's "mate". She IS mentioned in Hadith, but this is contentious, as it is considered that this story was taken from Christians and Jews explaining the stories in the Torah/Old Testament to Muslims.

Also, Adam in Arabic is not a name, it functions as a collective noun to represent humanity. See for example Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim readings on Genesis and gender By Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing, Valarie H. Ziegler

Mynameisnot (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Did Adam and Eve Have Blood Before The Fall?

Iam trying to find out for a bible study when G-d gave/activated Blood in Adam and Eve's bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.101.204 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You can't be alive without blood!!! ^rossnixon 02:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Islamic View of Sinless Prophets

I'm trying to dig up some sources, but I'm pretty sure the Islamic view of prophets is that they are not sinless. Even Muhammad is considered to have sinned. So in the meantime, I think I'm going to delete the bit about Adam being sinless since it's most probably inaccurate. Anyway, there isn't a citation for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekkai.wallace (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Belly Button

Is it worth noting in the article that all representations of them have a belly button, a clear absurdity Auto98uk (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe God has a belly button, and therefore Adam has a belly button not from being born, but from being created in God's image. 82.139.87.250 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would God have a bellybutton in the first place? 222.152.99.13 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of human features that God would have no need for. Perhaps God looks like an action man below the waist. Wondering why Adam is depicted with a belly button is the absurdity.90.207.106.37 (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to "Well, maybe God has a belly button, and therefore Adam has a belly button not from being born, but from being created in God's image." If Adam was created in God's image as having a belly button, why would God have one. 118.90.93.191 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry Orlinksi

Does anyone know the specific book that is cited in the first footnote? There are several JPS Tanakhs listed online and Dr. Orlinski wrote many books, but I'm not clear on which title would be the one to use to learn more about his Tanakh commentary. Thanks in advance. NaturalMary63 (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the 1962 JPS Torah. I don't think it's available online. PiCo (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Feminism"

Why id this article in WikiProject Feminism?

Forgot to sign. 86.161.66.83 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason it should be but I hope it gets taken off, they have a tendency of making articles a little too "feminist friendly" if you know what I mean.Props888 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is tagged for WikiProject Feminism since this story is central to religious justifications for patriarchy, both historically and in the modern world. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Meaning of ADAM AND EVE (Hawwah)

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

This is mentioned in the arabic wikipedia by the way. The meaning of eve is also mentioned there. You could use Google translator to see it in the arabic wikipedia.

Peace

Umm, why? It comes from Hebrew, and the meanings are already provided. Breein1007 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Ian Chattan NATO SIS 178.116.241.155 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Evangelicals question the existence of Adam & Eve

See [4]. "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. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Added. Jesanj (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The section I added, "In science" made its way to the lead but was mistakenly reverted as unsourced, for the record. Jesanj (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparative mythology section?

I put a sentence from the lead into the body under its own section, and it was put back on the basis it needed a paragraph, not a sentence, to justify a section.[5] I'll propose another possibility. We could put it in its own section and label it with {{Expand section}}. Jesanj (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you object with the statement and that's why you want to move it out of the intro. It does not deserve its own section or some expanded box. The statement is properly sourced from Oxford University Press.Jasonasosa (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I comprehend what it says, but per WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article. If there is no comparative mythology section it's awkward and a bit undue, IMO. Do you agree that a comparative mythology section is warranted in an ideal version of this article? My thinking here really has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. Since you bring it up though, can you provide a quote? Jesanj (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference is provided for the reader to look up, and for us editors to verify. The statement is almost word for word if not exact. It would only deserve its own section if you plan on writing a subsection that compares several mythologies from the Near East to the Genesis narratives. I'm not, however, going to compile that information because its too extensive to cover other cultures who believe in their own "Adam" and "Eves" having various other names. Further, you should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs - Jasonasosa (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it would only deserve it's own section if you or me were planning on doing something with it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It would be another thing entirely if I suggested trying to start a section with a sentence in a featured article. I see you implicitly agree with the concept though, of a section. I guess it's the look of the thing that bugs you? Jesanj (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I started this "section"[6] the other day because I know it would be useful. And over at PhRMA you can see a couple more examples. It's OK to tell readers we know we're incomplete. It's the same idea behind WP:Red links. Jesanj (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand work in progress... However, I stand behind Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Additionally, I don't plan on elaborating on it... and even if I were, I would have already developed a small well thought out paragraph, with references included, before posting it, even if it were under construction.Jasonasosa (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I take it you also understand a section can exist simply with an expand section template. Are you opposed to me taking the sentence out of the lead, and putting it in a section with that template? That's what I think would be best for the long-term development of the article. The topic of genetics has its own section but no sentence in the lead, meanwhile. Jesanj (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

With as much time as we've spent debating this nonsence, you could have already written a paragraph on the subject that would suffice, in order to meet the simple criteria of not putting one-liners in its own section. This conversation is a waste of my time. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No really, it is genetics

I've tried to simplify a section by making it just say genetics, but I've been reverted.[7] Biochemistry is conserved across species, it really is just genetics. Human DNA does not obey different chemical and physical laws than elephant DNA, for example. Jesanj (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Human genome is a subject of Genetics. But what you are saying is like refering to the study of Blackholes as the subject of Physics, when really its a subject of Astrophysics. So with that, perhaps we should use Mitochondrial genome instead, which "sheds light on human evolution; for example, analysis of variation in the human mitochondrial genome has led to the postulation of a recent common ancestor for all humans on the maternal line of descent. (see Mitochondrial Eve)" from Human genome#Mitochondrial genome Jasonasosa (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps instead of genetics we could use the more specific mitochondrial genetics. It really depends on the science. An "expert" in the field might be warranted, so we can also get a better citation. Population_bottleneck#Examples shows why I think linking human genome is wholly inappropriate; bottlenecks aren't established across species based upon human genetics. It really is something more universal, like genetics or mitochondrial genetics. Jesanj (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of genetics or mitochondrial genetics, maybe population genetics would be best. Jesanj (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(Coming from WT:BIOLOGY#Adam_and_Eve) I've removed the genomics link as that wasn't right. The mitochondrial Eve article linked to human genetics which I think is the most sensible. What sort of sources are you looking for? Do you want to briefly summarise the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam articles? SmartSE (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't confident the NPR source was absolutely reliable for the smallest number of people thought to exist on earth. The article currently says that the number didn't drop below 10,000, but I thought we could use a good source or two to put a better number or range on it, perhaps with a confidence interval, if it exists. Jesanj (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But yes, eventually I think it would be ideal for the article to summarize those two. Jesanj (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I seem to recall hearing similar figures to 10k before, I'll see if I can find a better source though. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory (and the references there) discusses this in most detail. 10,000 seems a little high, but it's a reasonable enough approximation. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, I don't think it is appropriate to label the section as a criticism section. Right now it is "Human origins criticism". The paragraph is not intended a criticism of the Adam and Eve story, it just reports the findings of human genetics and how that relates to the subject. I still prefer "Genetics". Jesanj (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the simple "genetics" title, but may be wait for Jasonasosa's $0.02. You could use something like "Adam and Eve in science" like Noahs_Ark#Noah.27s_Ark_and_science as alternative. SmartSE (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

From criticism section, alternate words such as "evaluation," "review," "critique," or "assessment" are suggested. I could settle for "Genetics critique". Jesanj (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In science is good too, IMO. [8] My top three, in order of what's ideal, is 1) In science 2) Genetics and 3) Genetics critique. (removed due to POV/OR concerns explained below) Jesanj (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This statement in the paragraph: "it would take an impossibly high mutation rate if all humans descended from two individuals," constitutes criticism of Adam and Eve. Thus an appropriate title would be: Scientific criticism... since you all want to keep it general. It is not an evaluation, not a review, nor a critique. It specifically states something contrary to the biblical text. Jasonasosa (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that statement is just one of fact. If you happen to think it contradicts the biblical text, then that sounds like a matter of your own interpretation of a religious text, which is beyond the scope of this project, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a mini-consensus of 2-1 against this edit, IMO. Jesanj (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary of that edit I disagree with also contained a factual error. It claimed "This paragraph questions Adam and Eve as being the first two humans" but that is not what it does. The paragraph does say, scientifically, that everyone today couldn't have been descended from just two people, however. Jesanj (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam & Eve, Jack & Jill, who cares what their names are... The point is the questioning of descendantcy from two people and if you even read the section, it does point to Adam & Eve. I am sick of talking in circles with you. - Jasonasosa (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) True, that's the point. But Christians are free to believe, for example, that the whole Adam and Eve story is figurative. I understand why it can be seen as a critique of certain literal interpretation, but that's it. (Also, why couldn't God have created some other folks after the flood to help repopulate the earth, for example?) So, unless we name it as critiquing that interpretation, it's inaccurate through it's vagueness, IMO. Jesanj (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps then you should let this one go, since two people like "In science" or "Genetics" as their top choices? Jesanj (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Though repopulation after the Flood should not be ignored, it really is beyond the scope of this page. However... I will say, that if one refers to the latter portion of the Book of Genesis, there were eight survivors who repopulate in contrast to the first two humans who populate. The Human Genome Project suggests up to 10,000 points of origin. So: 2, 8, maybe 100, or even 1,000 repopulaters doesn't impact the 10,000 that the Project suggests. So, this Scientific criticism would apply to both population narratives: Adam & Eve and Noah's family. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant, there's total agreement among biblical scholars that the Book of Genesis (all of it, not just the Adam and Eve story) is fictional and dates from the 5th century BCE. That should be mentioned in the article. PiCo (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Pico you are completely shortsighted in regards to this subject. This discussion is based on real field work that is used to test the accuracy or possibility of human descendants to stem from only two points of origin within a short time frame. (Thus the reference to Mitochondrial Eve). In this modern era, we have the capability and technology to do real field testing (the Human Genome Project) that has allowed an "agreement among biblical scholars" to be made across Christian and non-Christian lines. To get from A to C, this Project is B. Basically, User: Pico, you are suggesting that this Scientific criticism section (what this discussion is based on) ought to be removed, because you claim that it is irrelevant.Jasonasosa (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"User: Pico, you are suggesting that this Scientific criticism section (what this discussion is based on) ought to be removed, because you claim that it is irrelevant." You've got it :).

I have no idea what you mean by "agreement among biblical scholars across Christian and non-Christian lines" - some biblical scholars are Christian, some are Jewish, and I guess some are neither. But most are either one or the other, as nobody else cares much.

These scholars have NOT reached their conclusions on the basis of the human genome project, you can trust me on this one.

(By the way, there's no need to refer to me as "User Pico" - plain Pico will do nicely).

I know. Jasonasosa (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the section title "Scientific criticism" is misleading, POV and OR. Scientific research does not seek to critique "Adam and Eve"; the subject matter is a religious story open to interpretation. It is impossible for there to be a scientific criticism of such an uncertain concept. However, it is possible for particular interpretations of the Adam and Eve story to be contradicted by science. But that is not what the section title says, so it is misleading. Also, it is POV because it requires an subjective editorial bias that there is one correct version (in this case, a literal interpretation that they are the ancestors of all). I'm changing back to "In science" to revert the edit I identified above as being inappropriate. Jesanj (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesanj... you are absolutely wrong.

Intro from Mitochondrial Eve > "In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal "MRCA" (most recent common ancestor). In other words, she was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person."

Jasonasosa (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That means the thousands of females that lived with her have no extant matrilineal lines. Jesanj (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Did I say something other than what a reliable source said? If not, please don't attribute things I said to me as my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You missed my point. I wasn't attributing anything to you. However, you did say: "Scientific research does not seek to critique "Adam and Eve";" And I'm saying you are wrong... read up on Mitochondrial Eve.Jasonasosa (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a section/quote/source you think that would be relevant to our discussion about the name of the section? Jesanj (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if scientists set out to critique A+E, but I have just come across this published in Newsweek in 1998 which looks as if it would be a great source for the article. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mutation rate and time frame

Our sentence about mutation rate is currently nonsensical since it doesn't mention a time frame. The original quote from the source says: "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible."

If you are not limited to a certain time frame (in this case the bible's 6,000 year time frame) you can have an infinite amount of mutation even with the slowest possible rate. The NPR article doesn't do an especially good job explaining this, but it is basic mathematics. The timeframe is critical to the argument about the mutation rate. Kaldari (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The time frame issue does not matter. Whatever year scientists think 10,000 people existed is the year we're talking about. Introducing a synthesis of young earth creationism by interpreting the bolded quote above is against our core policies. Jesanj (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not synthesis. The source is clearly referring to young earth creationism: "Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged... long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago." Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I added it back, per the source then: [9]. Jesanj (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Science and Adam and Eve

Just a note on why I deleted the Science section.

AE is a religious topic, not a scientific one. The article should deal with the circumstances through which it came to be written, its theological purpose, and maybe its reception history. But it has no scientific value whatsoever, and never did - not even the people who wrote it thought of it as science.

Now for sources: Since AE is a religious subject, religious sources are called for. Obviously Genesis commentaries are essential, but also works by scholars like Walton would be useful. General works too I suspect, like Eerdmans and the Oxford. If the article uses good sources, it will be a good article. PiCo (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... as Evolution is to Creation... I must have had a bad one. Jasonasosa (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

? Not sure what your reference is here - did I miss something? PiCo (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Adam and Eve are discussed in reliable sources as they relate to science,[10] I see no reason why we can't do the same (as with art, literature, etc.) Jesanj (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The author of that paper isn't talking about AE - he just mentions them in passing. Nor in fact does he mean what he says - at the head of that paragraph he talks about "our prehuman ancestors", then goes on to talk about the evolutionof human species, whereas the AE story is quite explicit that we don't have prehuman ancestors and is about divine creation. It's not a source for our article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're trying to do here is point out flaws in the YEC view of the Bible - maybe in all literalist readings. If you want to do that, this isn't the best approach. You need to get a good biblical scholar like John Walton, and summarise what he has to say. But I really don't think it's necessary at all - Creationism is a tiny minority viewpoint world-wide, and even in the US it's not really that prevalent. Just ignore it.PiCo (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda, I just think that the human genome project is interesting enough to be on the article because it is related. Like anything in science, the section seeks to prove a theory... and the theory being explored is... did humans populate from a two person male/female original source? The mission is not so much trying to prove evolution, but it's more like shooting a probe into creationism... and since AE are tied to it, I think some scientific criticism is healthy. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to flag that scientists think that the species Homo Sapiens might have sprung from a single human pair, then you'll need something more solid than that article - that guy is just floating an idea. I have no idea where you should look, though - I know a bit about biblical studies, zilch about biology. PiCo (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I absolutely agree that a more substantial article should be in place. I guess I was afraid that if it were taken out, it would be forgotten about... Jasonasosa (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned about the solidness of the article too, thus some discussion above where SmartSE said that things were in line with scientific sources at Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory. All I know is that some Christians think Adam and Eve were only father and mother of everyone (whether or not they are YECs or not) and this is an interpretation that is contradicted by science. And reliable sources have discussed the tension. I don't know of polling data that shows how prominent this view is within Christianity, but if NPR is covering it, I'll argue it's not fringe. Jesanj (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

God was to blame

There has been much deleting and reverting of the words "implies a sentiment that God is also at fault for making the woman in the first place". Can I just point out that this understanding of the verse has been commonplace in Jewish and Christian readings of the passage at least since the Middle Ages, so unless this article is to ignore traditional interpretations (which it doesn't elsewhere) and is to concentrate only on a pure philological reading of the Hebrew text, I think that idea has to be in there. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How old are they ?

Hi, I Don't know a lot about this story and I have no bible. Could someone please answer this question : how old are Adam and Eve when they eat the apple ? We know that Adam will live 930 years, but do we know how old are they when they are in Eden ? Is there any obvious clue about their age ? Do we even know if they are adult or children ? They are always represented as adults but it is obvious in the bible ? Thanks. kliolao 15:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.199.61.124 (talk)

I hope you don't mind my saying this, but you seem to me to be amazingly lazy. There are online bibles, I suggest you look one up. PiCo (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Eden" means the whole earth before the old testament "god" intruder-invader came and ruined many things. Eden is nothing that the Jewish or Christianic cultures own. Adam, who was a man among population of many, was a tribe elder and now there is this mythological story around him,, like being the first human, lol. Adam did not live 930 years. You are reading the bible wrong. All the numbers in bible are mixed so that a commoner just like you could interpret things falsely. Adam perhaps lived 93 years as he slaved his tribe to feed him the best. He also might of lived only 39 years. At least you can take the zero out. Learn to read bible. You don't read bible by reading it.UnionWorker (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What I learn so far is that nobody seems able to answer the question. You know, I was just expecting a "Yes, Adam was 40 yo when he was banished from their garden", or "No, there's no indication of their age, nowhere". The "930 years" is indicated here, in wikipedia : " Adam's lifespan is 930 years". Learn to read wikipedia, you read it by reading it. And yes, I'm awfully lazy. I'm like George W Bush, I don't see the point of reading 100 pages of a boring book if someone can sum up and answer a simple question for me. It seemed obvious for me that those working on this article have to know perfectly the story of Adam and Eve and are able to give an answer that, btw, might be interesting to add for this article. Cheers. kliolao (talk)17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to condone laziness, the Bible does not state how old they were when they ate the forbidden fruit. However, the implication is that it was shortly after they were created so, in effect, they were less than a year old.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, according to the Book of Jubilees, Adam was 7 years, 2 months and 17 days old when he took a bite.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seven years old? Presumably that's 7 years after his creation, not a lad who should be in grade school? or else his relationship with Eve was truly supernatural :). This could go in the article if you're inclined. PiCo (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Was going to add it, but not sure where is most appropriate. If you can see where, the reference in Jubilees is at ch3 v 17 (see [11]).--FimusTauri (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to take the time, you could put it in the Jewish tradition section, and incidentally re-write that entire section - it all seems rather unstructured, and I suggest taking the developing tradition chronologically, from Jubilees onwards, outlining what age each added to the Genesis story. You could add an intro sentence to the effect that the Genesis story raised questions that the later writers tried to answer, such as how to reconcile the two accounts of the creation of man and woman, and the question of who Cain married (and the question of bellybuttons, which could go in the Christian tradition section - it doesn't seem to have worried the Jews). Til might like to help. PiCo (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done--FimusTauri (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

adam eve are presumed to be 30 years of age when created the same when your sprit goes to one side or the other of the gulf when you die you are there at age of 30..1 day in heaven is the same as 1 yr on earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.119.10 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to go by Bible scripture, and not debate whether it is possible or not based on science, Adam and Eve did not have an age in terms of what we call age. This description is clear in Genesis. Genesis 2:9 states that there were trees (Tree of Life) and the (Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil). We later learn that Adam could eat of the Tree of Life, but not of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he did eat of the latter "thou shalt surely die" are the words used. If he could eat of the Tree of Life in the garden but wouldn't "surely die" if he didn't eat of the Tree of Knowledge, age isn't a factor in terms of how it's being looked at here. Age is unknown, but if they couldn't die prior to eating of the fruit . . . (Rustydangerfield (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I believe that there is a banner at the top of this page saying that this is not a forum for a general discussion about Adam and Eve. If the article doesn't say how old Adam and Eve are, there is no point to having a long discussion of it. Let's move on, folks! —Anne Delong (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nude Pictures

Please, remove all pictures of Adam! Do not or never publish pictures of any people that you "Wiki" and other billion people in this world have never seen. Stay sharp if this is called encyclopedia and respect every human own vision of Adam. Think "Wiki",what happens if all living people and all before sends their own sights of Adam?Soylar 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you know Adam is the first prophet of Islam. So Adam and Eve both are very respectable among muslims. Publishing the paintings in which Adam & Eve are shown without any clothes is blasphamous and hurts all muslims. As per wikipedia policy we should respect everyone's beliefs and shouldn't

hurt anyone. So i recommend to remove these pictures. DJ 11:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For a WP policy that addresses the subject of your concern, see HERE. Generally material that is subjectively offensive to a group of people is not removed from WP. –SESmith 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP policy for Profanity where it is clearly written

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

These profane pictures are just imaginary paintings of artists, not real pictures. Their omission would not cause the article to be less informative, relevant or accurate. There is already too much related information is given with reliable sources. So there is no need of these blasphemous pictures which offends muslims all around the world. DJ 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And why do you assume your standards are the same as a "typical Wikipedia reader"? I'm going out on a limb here—but I think classical art would not be considered to be obscene or offensive by such a "typical" reader. We are not all religious Muslims. It probably won't be removed unless there is consensus that something is offensive or obscene. –SESmith 08:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DJ, I'm just curious about this: Why do you think Muslims would find pictures of Adam and Eve without clothes to be offensive? When they were created by God (or Allah), He created them without clothes. This is the way it was. So why is it offensive? PiCo 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am of the view that all the nude pictures may be of very interest to you or like minded people like you because according to you that its piece of art but associating these images with any respectable person is really offensive no matter what religion and faith do you follow. what I think is that viewing such images and associating with holy personalities is always not acceptable. My questiong with PiCo is that since he and his family are also born naked can he post their detailed naked pics over such a forum as well ?------ SamsKlan 15:01, 4 July 2007

Let's stop the personal attacks—implying that PiCo is not a "respectable person" because he doesn't support removing the artwork is below the belt. This really sounds like much ado about nothing. There are far more offensive websites and WP pages that the indignant could focus their energies on. I suggest you start with Fisting and work up to Masturbate-a-thon. –SESmith 10:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, you are right that every human born without clothes, but no one likes to come in public without clothes, nor anyone like to publicize his or his family's nude pictures. So if we don't like it for ourselves or for our relatives then how can we assume that it will be non-offensive to Muslims for their holy Prophet. Making nude paintings of holy prophet of any religion is profanity, whether you do it in the name classical art or whatsoever. We must respect the holy personalities of all religions. Yes we should also work against Fisting & masturbat-a-thon. DJ 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DJ, let me assure you that I have the greatest respect for Muslim people. I have lived in Egypt and in Morocco, and I'm imperssed by the piety and honesty of the people there - personal honesty is certainly higher in those countries than it is in many Western ones, and I believe it's due to Islam, which is so clear on matters of morality. But you misunderstand my point: Adam and Eve are not like you and me, they were ceratedv directly by God, and when they were created, and before they were tempted by Satan and fell into sin, they had no more shame about nakedness than a little child has. They were God's little children. So whyen we show Adam and Eve naked, it's not like showing you or me naked: they were different. PiCo 11:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The pictures in question are some of the most famous ever created of the couple. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel, for example. Not including these pictures would downgrade the article quite a bit. Wrad 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DJ's arguments might make sense in the context of an article which addresses an exclusively Islamic view of Adam and Eve, but not this page. An example of a page where DJ's argument might well apply is Islamic view of Adam. But for this page, it's an argument that is difficult to take seriously. –SESmith 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pico,You are right that God created them directly (Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's Rib) but they are not God's little children. Moreover God didn't created them in the form of little children but in the form of Adults. After their creation they used to cover their body parts through leaves when they were in the garden of Eden and through animal skin when they were on earth. So showing Prophet of Islam and his wife without clothes in paintings is profanity.

SESmith, on this page Adam and Eve everyone's (christian's, jewish, islamic & others) view of Adam & eve is given. I am not asking to remove any one's point of view. But just asking to remove nude images as every religion teaches to respect the holy personalities of other religions and can't allow to publish nude pictures of other religion's holy prophet. Moreover profanity is profanity whether it is done on the web page of islamic view or elsewhere. DJ 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that nearly every single one of these pictures was produced at the behest of some noble who professed the Christian faith, and many of them have been displayed in churches, or considered proof of the Christian devotion of their sponsor. The attitude towards nudity in Christianity has varied hugely over the years, and still varies hugely within different Christian groups. I think these pictures are important parts of the context of how people have viewed the story of Adam and Eve throughout the centuries. --Alvestrand 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think removing nude pictures would not downgrade the article as they are imaginary pictures. So these profane & nude pictures shouldn't be in the article. Marsheo 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course images of imaginary people are going to be imaginary.--4.242.150.231 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think they should be removed. This is a informative article, those pictures are a part of this article. Furthermore, they were not created to be "profane" or erotic. The art was done by some of history's greatest artists, who were telling a story concerning their religion. To remove these would mean you'd have to go through other biblical articles and remove their images because they either showcase the same images or similar depcitions of biblical characters. Like the Eve article, you might as well get that image removed,too, because its so darn offensive. And if you go on a campaign to wipe out all nude pics of a biblical nature, well it eventually becomes pretty absurd & probaly a waste of time. Its not like we are depicting the prophet Muhammad here. Furthermore, note that these images were created by Christians and in some case for Christians and not Muslims Xuchilbara 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say DJ has a point - the point being that the profanity guideline (not policy) needs some rethinking. Guettarda 20:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this to the most absurd level. I don't think Adam & Eve existed (other than as metaphor), and what if I say I'm offended not by the nudity, but because I'm offended by the over religiosity of the images? Then, because I'm Jewish and don't believe that Jesus ever existed (not because I'm Jewish), I don't like Christian symbols, so let's start purging those images from the project. This could get out of hand in a few days. I edit a few Nazi articles, and you don't know how nauseated I am by those images, yet I would never endeavor to have them deleted. These images are not pornography. They are not profane. As Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart once said, "I know it when I see it," referring to pornography. This is not pornography. And if we tailor this project to the sensibilities of the smallest minority, then give up, because this encyclopedia will just be a mish-mash of ideas that meet the standards of the broadest group of people--so, that means we have an article that says 1 +1 =2. These are lovely works of art, with a symbolism that is beautiful. As I note, there have been kilobytes of discussion on this point, whereas the article as a whole is being ignored. Orangemarlin 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To Guettarda. I'm not sure I understand? Orangemarlin 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand his point from the Islamic perspective, but I don't think one censors Wikipedia because a specific group is offended. Seeing that picture will not damn a Muslim to hell, although gawking at it might. •Jim62sch• 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's point is well taken. The principle "if you don't like it, don't continue to look" seems to be the one that needs to govern here. –SESmith 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not minority who is offended; not specific small group. It's muslims and their religious values that hurt because of these pictures. I simply can't understand when it comes to your families then you say "NO" a big "NO" and it's personal. ADAM and EVE are Father and Mother of all human kinds and they should be respected. Would you accept to paste nude pictures of your father and mother whether imaginary pictures or so called classical art and associate their names. There is no harm in removing these pictures and the essence of the article will remain so if its hurt muslim religious values, this should be removed immediately. - [ [ User MAG ]]

-- 10:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there is "no harm" to the article by removing. Deleting relevant classic art diminishes the encyclopedic quality of the article. And you are wrong—it is a "minority" that is offended. Even if every Muslim in the world is offended, it is still a minority of the world's population. I certainly don't see a consensus developing here to remove, and that's what it would take, so I don't think they are going to be removed. Sorry. –SESmith 10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ the above. I would like to say that other non-Abrahamic religions, or religious people are not catered to normally. And when they do complain about something like this, its usually ignored. Well most don't complain anyway. The group of Muslims here that are offended, I'm sorry it does not fit into your Islamic ideals, but niether does the rest of the world or better yet people don't. You can't just expect wiki to cater to every religions' ideals. Thats not what wiki is here for and not everyone is going to be satisfied w/ the results of this article anyway. Furthermore, I've seen Satanist try to make wiki conform and use it for their own personal use or because they didn't like something wanted to remove it. Needless to say it didn't get to far. Wikipedia is not here to be censored for anyone, its here to be informative. If some of it has to be the naked truth, then so be it. Theres worse things going on in the world that you could be fighting and there are worse articles on wikipedia than any of the content here.

Xuchilbara 21:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we agree not to have nudity within the Islamic Tradition section of the article? (Esp. since there isn't any there anyway...)PiCo 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we're going to censor an article based upon the complaints of ONE individual? He doesn't represent a minority POV, he represents an individual POV. Censoring of any article is completely distasteful. Censoring based on one person's complaints? That's unspeakable. Orangemarlin 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. We're going to agree to change exactly nothing (there's already no nude pics in the Islamic section) while pretending to compromise. Ingenious, isn't it?PiCo 02:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a complaint of just one individual, most of the people are against nude pictures in the article. Ignoring discussion of talk page and doing whatever you like is not acceptable. Marsheo 06:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also not a complaint of "most people" in the WP community. "Most people" are not concerned about it. –SESmith 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On behalf of all(?) fundamentalist Christians, I see no "nude pictures". I only see a very low-res sample of Michelangelo's art. The only way to tell that a male body is depicted is from the torso musculature. ^rossnixon 06:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you just have a crappy monitor. –SESmith 07:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ross is right: there used to be some more pics, one of A&E getting expelled from Eden, one of the creation of Eve. I fear we've been gazzumped. (As for Michelangelo's Adam, generations of art critics have commented on how miraculous it was that became the father of all humanity with such a small endowment) PiCo 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that vandals are editing this page every several days trying to cut out random images. Wikipedia does not censor itself to appease various minorities because if it did, there would be nothing that could achieve unanimous support. The images reflect a certain conception of Adam and Eve in history and serve to inform the reader of how society views or has viewed Adam and Eve. This is not pornographic but art, so their nudity is a moot point. Also, if one believes in Adam and Eve as literal or even figurative beings, wasn't the whole point of them clothing themselves a result of disobeying God and becoming aware of their nakedeness? It would only make sense that an artist would portray them nude prior to their fall.

If the article is continued to be vandalized, maybe it ought to be partially locked. Jayran 18:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add, for the record, that religious Jewish custom is to NOT depict in any picture any human being, whether naked or otherwise.Ewawer (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw mate, first of all... its an encyclopedia so its displayis pictures and articles of information of how people depict, and their opinions of past happeneings... Adam and Eve and were the first man and woman (how are they gunna have clothes????) according to the Bible... not that I beleive in the Bible but I respect their views and if many Christian Artists have depicted Adam and Eve as being naked then so be it, this is their opinion and they are showing us and Wikipedia are simply displaying this so LIVE WITH IT MUSLIMS!! I respect that muslims don't believe in nakedness or displayin themselves but some people do so sort it out!! If you don't want to see a penis or a vagina or a rack of breasts then don't look on the site, everyone else is perfectly happy with these fine creations of art!! Can some people not accept that there is a possibility they may have been naked... At the end of the day all these religions believe their own things but you can't all be right even if one of you was, which I find hard to beleive, nevertheless i respect these views, I just think they are false... second of all, Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters and whatever, but in order to continue the human race, there must have been a whole lot of incest to make it happen, so although I know its a myth and all, but I don't get why everyone "beleives" in it...

Well, this is certainly a curious conversation. The solution in a nutshell: see WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOIMAGE. Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are dispaying your naivity!

Theoretically Adam and Eve were created BEFORE there were such things as clothes. Clothes came later. Yes, I am laughing.

Ian Chattan NATO SIS 178.116.241.155 (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the greatest history artists or making a masterpiece under a priest's supervision doesn't always mean all of my work is acceptable or uncensorable. Though all religions respect arts and highly encourage its advance, there are some restrictions to avoid it being ugly eyesore or offensive, pointless work even if of high quality. Religions are not the only things that do so, but also basic human values and morals do. Whether it is hurting a majority, minority or even one idividual, nobody has any right to publicise such work just for the article to be fully informative. These nude images simply have no mere significance in this article; actually, I don't even know for whatever purpose these great artists have made them or why the Church had approved and encouraged them at the time. It was that Renaissance Age when everyone revolted against everything, so should we still continue their revolutionary style? Although Adam and Eve were nude, they always used to cover themselves, like we do now. The fact that we are all nude behind our closes doesn't mean we should take them off or for what have they been made in the first place? I never see a point in depicting nudity and it of course doesn't add a letter of info to the article.Mohamed 151995 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed 151995 (talk • contribs)

We shouldn't heed another Islamic call for self-censorship, we really shouldn't.--Insert coins (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You’re requesting we change something based off of your personal and religious beliefs. That’s not how wikipedia works. It’s not happening. Blackbird5555 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, could we have a compromise here? Wikipedia allows content that is included in the article but must be clicked on to be seen. It the nude pictures were kept in the article but put into hide/show templates, then those who wanted to see them could, and those who wanted to read the article without being offended or distracted from the text could just not click on the "show" button. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's really against WP:CENSOR. If readers want to limit what they see, there are many mechanisms. But as editors, it's not up to us to second-guess them or give weight to "some" possible offenses. That's not how it works here. Also, this discussion petered out months ago:) DMacks (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

@ DMacks wrt Adam's baculum

I assume the good professors wrote that letter as a joke, and the editors thought it was funny. I've written to Gilbert and Zevit to see. Yopienso (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good approach! This sort of biblical study is not my area of expertise at all, so it may well be. I was just reacting to the reason given for removing the content, and there may well be some other basis for removing it (or else an adjustment to the wording that "it has been humorously proposed that...". DMacks (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

One has responded, and he does think the original narrative refers to the baculum. I hesitate to quote him without permission, so I'm not using his words, but he did think the treatment in the journal was light-hearted, since the question wasn't one of medical science but of parsing ancient legends. I'm curious to see if the other responds. At this point, I'm leaning toward keeping the content, but with an explanatory note.

Thanks so much for your pleasant reply! Yopienso (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I've heard from the other, and indeed they were serious. Surprisingly, he didn't tout his new book on the subject.

I'm glad you were quick to correct my knee-jerk reaction. Yopienso (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you for following up and getting confirmation! DMacks (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Islamic view of Adam and Eve in Islamic tradition

Tabari is already referenced, but there is no mention of this:

History of al-Tabari, New York: State University of New York Press, 1989, Volume 1, pages 280-281

— "His Lord called out to him: Adam, is it from Me that you are fleeing? Adam replied: No, my Lord, but I feel shame before You. When God asked what had caused his trouble, he replied: Eve, My Lord. Whereupon God said: Now it is My obligation to make her bleed once every month, as she made this tree bleed. I also must make her stupid, although I created her intelligent (halimah), and must make her suffer pregnancy. Ibn Zayd continued: Were it not for the affliction that affected Eve, the women of this world wound not menstruate, and they would be intelligent and, when pregnant, give birth easily."

This belief is supported by many sahih hadith:

Bukhari 1:6:301

— Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence.' Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

And the Qur'an:

^{[Quran 2:282]}

— Yusuf Ali: O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

In summary; Allah made Eve menstruate, suffer pregnancy and become stupid as a punishment for her transgressions in the garden, therefore all women menstruate (deficient in religion) and are created stupid (deficient in intelligence).

I think these details should be added. Its a common belief.

these are not Quranic at all and what you have posted are these scholars' interpretation of the text and it remains their interpretation no more no less. is it a common belief among Muslim? I would say no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.38.33 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Judaism and Original Sin

quote: Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of this so-called "original sin"; some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants;

source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13761-sin

It is perfectly plain that some Jewish theologians believe in original sin. The article as it stands is wrong. I hope we can agree to change the article.

I also notice in the above section Islamic view of Adam and Eve in Islamic tradition evidence that original sin is not foreign to Islamic thought.Jimjilin (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be objecting I will make a small edit regarding original sin. I hope the exalted Poobahs of Wikipedia don't object.Jimjilin (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

From your own link!: While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin,

So again Dougweller you are wrong.Jimjilin (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not wrong at all. I wrote "not generally shared". Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the alteration.Jimjilin (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Highly biased comment.

(Sock comment removed, per WP:DENY.)

Thank you for your analysis to improve the article. This controversial interpretation of nefesh has been moved to Abrahamic traditions#Jewish thought and listed under Reform Judaism by Harry Orlinsky. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Parent

Can anyone find the revision where it says "Parent: God (according to Genesis X:X)"? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Holly Quran has lot to Contribute " to this topic"

In the Quran , there are lot of details about Adam & Eve . From their creation , Life in Heaven & later arrival & Existence on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDARaoof (talk • contribs) 06:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

suggested rewrite of Gnostic and Manichaean traditions section

Main article: Gnostics

The writer has confused Lucifer with Satan. Gnostics did not call the tempter in the Garden Satan. Please revise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UMinventor (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Gnostic Christianity has two unique texts containing stories of Adam and Eve: the Nag Hamadi text "Apocalypse of Adam" and the "Testament of Adam" text. The creation of Adam as Protanthropos – the original man – is the focal concept.

According to the Apocalypse of Adam, Adam and Eve were originally conjoined in a single androgynous being. This being was ranked greater than the eternal angels and higher than Samael, the God of the Aeon. Irenaeus (I, xxix, 3) says that the Aeon Autogenes (i.e., the self-created Aeon) created a true and perfect human, Protanthrôpos, also called Adamas, who had Perfect Knowledge. Certain angels become jealous, so the God of the Aeon then separated Adam from Eve; in this separation they lost their superior knowledge of God.

In other Gnostic interpretations, the perfect Protanthropos was created by a non-material emanation from God. This emanation was called the Son of God. Thus Adam is seen as prefiguring Jesus, "The Second Adam". According to the Naassene sect, Protanthropos was non-material until separated into Adam and Eve, who then "sank" into material form.

Theodotus, a Gnostic of the Valentinian sect, (c. 160) found confirmation for the idea that the first human was andrygynous in the Genesis verse "according to the image of God he made them, male and female he made them".

Main article: Manichaeans

The Manichaean Gnostic sect believed that the Protanthropos was "the World Soul", (Anima Mundi), sent to fight against darkness. The "Fall" meant the primordial man being delivered up to evil and swallowed in darkness, with the Universe as a whole coming into existence as a means of delivering the primordial Adam from Darkness. Sex between Adam and Eve was seen as the way in which darkness overcame the light.

"Mani said, 'Then Jesus came and spoke to the one who had been born, who was Adam, and explained to him (about) the gardens (of Paradise), the deities, Gehenna, the satans, earth, heaven, sun, and moon. He also made him fear Eve, showing him how to suppress (desire) for her, and he forbade him to approach her, and made him fear to be near her, so that he did (what Jesus commanded). Then that (male) archon came back to his daughter, who was Eve, and lustfully had intercourse with her. He engendered with her a son, deformed in shape and possessing a red complexion, and his name was Cain, the Red Man. Then that son had intercourse with his mother, and engendered with her a son of white complexion, whose name was Abel, the White Man. Then Cain again had intercourse with his mother, and engendered with her two girls, one of whom was named Hakimat al-Dahr and the other Ibnat al-Hirê . Then Cain took Ibnat al-Hirê as his wife and presented Hakimat al-Dahr to Abel, and he took her as his wife.'"

Another Gnostic tradition held that Adam and Eve were created to help defeat Satan. The serpent, instead of being identified with Satan, is seen as a hero by the Ophite sect, because it was trying to help the couple gain knowledge to defeat evil Samael. "The Origin of the World" states:-

Now when the heavens had consolidated themselves along with their forces and all their administration, the prime parent became insolent. And he was honored by all the army of angels. And all the gods and their angels gave blessing and honor to him. And for his part, he was delighted and continually boasted, saying to them, "I have no need of anyone." He said, "It is I who am God, and there is no other one that exists apart from me." And when he said this, he sinned against all the immortal beings who give answer. And they laid it to his charge.

Then when Pistis saw the impiety of the chief ruler, she was filled with anger. She was invisible. She said, "You are mistaken, Samael," (that is, "blind god"). "There is an immortal man of light who has been in existence before you, and who will appear among your modelled forms; he will trample you to scorn, just as potter's clay is pounded. And you will descend to your mother, the abyss, along with those that belong to you.

Other Gnostics believed that Satan's fall, however, came after the creation of humanity. As in Islamic tradition, this story says that Satan refused to bow to Adam. (As a result of his exclusive love of God, Satan felt that bowing to humankind was a form of idolatry.) This refusal led to the fall of Satan, recorded in works such as the Book of Enoch.

some info has been omitted from this rewrite, as I couldn't see what it has to do with Adam and Eve:

Theodotus also extended this interpretation to mean that God also was single in origin, later becoming a dual Mother/Father. Gnostic Gospels scholar Elaine Pagels writes "The followers of Valentinus suggested that "It was because [the God of Israel] was foolish and ignorant of his Mother that he said, 'I am (the only) God; there is no-one beside me'. (p.69 in the Secret Book of John). But by announcing this he indicated to the angels ... that another God does exist; for if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?"

Gnostics followed the Marcionite belief that the Wrathful Yahweh of the Torah and the loving Father of Christianity were two separate divinities.

207.134.250.140 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, no comments so I will put it in the article (probably even a bit shorter) 207.134.250.140 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian View of Adam and Eve missing.

There is Christian Bible, AKA Genesis account of Adam and Eve listed on Wiki. Why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.49.161 (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

Please edit the 1st line of text that reads "Creation myth" to remove the word "myth" as the biblical account of creation cannot logically be denounced as a myth due to the fact that it cannot be scientifically dis-proven. 69.207.220.79 (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unless you have a RS that says otherwise, see creation myth. creation myth is a distinct term that is used for similar accounts within different religions and cultures. Cannolis (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

myth vs. religion

I'm just wondering what reasoning was used in selecting the term "myth" instead of "religion"? It almost seems like the author is trying to incite arguments by using the word "myth", which to most non-scholarly people, is synonymous with "fiction", "untruth" or "fairy tale". Why not use the term "religion"? As in, Abrahamic religions believe... To a Christian, refering to Adam and Eve as myth is like saying God is a myth; He is dead. It is a slap in the face. The article is well written and thought out, except for references to Christian beliefs being mythology.204.14.79.178 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I support removing the reference to "myth" or "myths" or any other such synonymous term. It is unnecessary and only seems to serve as an antagonistic statment. I believe it is also not in line with the NPOV policy or the spirit in which this encyclopedia is suppose to function. --122.111.254.165 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose it. Creation myth is the accepted terminology. Myth: *A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.* If Genesis is not a creation myth (and a myth), then nothing is. If noting is, then the creation myth page should be renamed or suppressed, and every mention of every mythology as myth expunged. This outcome is absurd; therefore the premise is absurd. 90.56.6.239 (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been gone over ad nauseum in all of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic (Abrahamic) creation-related articles. Myth is the accepted academic terminology and is the term used throughout Wikipedia for non-Abrahamic religions (and after endless discussion, for many Abrahamic religions also) for reasons of consistency and WP:NPOV. Editor2020 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Really?. See the Adam and Eve section in Biblical narratives and the Qur'an where the wording is creation stories, for example. Why don't you go and change that to myths then Editor2020, re your "accepted academic terminology" that everyone has already accepted as acceptable via consensus. I don't think so. 122.111.254.165 (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. I have done so, thanks for pointing it out. 90.39.44.198 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• FIN 122.111.254.165 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Creation myth is a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, I see no reason why it shouldn't be used in the article, it is the accepted academic terminology and we shouldn't pander to non-scholarly/uneducated opinions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am responding now, for one last time, only to your statment Theroedislong.

My objection to the use of the word myth has nothing to do with anything except being respectful to the beliefs of others. If you consider that "pandering to non-scholarly/uneducated opinions" I think that you have a small minded, rude and arrogant attitude. For example, some people believe the earth is only about 6 thousand years old due to their interpretation of the bible. This clearly goes against all obvious accepted scientific observations and rigorously tested theory's and I do not think that that sort of a counter argument should be excluded from an article on the subject. However I do believe, out of respect for the religious beliefs of others, that one should not first say in the lede of an article on that subject that, for example, Christian fundamentalists believe in the myth that the earth is only about 6 thousand years old. This is just an insult to add to the injury of the strong scientific evidence to counter their assertion and is therefore, just that, an unnecessary insult. 122.111.254.165 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I precisely wouldn't call the 6000-yo earth a myth. It is a terribly wrong assertion, but not part of any mythological tradition -- that I know of, at least -- it's just an interpretation of the Torah that's been around for about a millennium. It's only a 'myth' in the vulgar sense of "bollocks", which I privately agree with, as you well know, but which has no place in a WP article. In an article, myth is used in its academic sense, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly. The word is concerned with the nature and the history of the story, and in that respect it is the most appropriate qualifier for Genesis. As for the rest of your point, the injury and the insult are self-inflicted. If someone chooses to ignore evidence, that is their prerogative, but they should not expect the rest of the world to tiptoe around them, dull the edges and child-proof the power plugs. That would be a disservice to everybody; including them, actually. Indeed, that would only diminish their chances to ever correct their mistakes, by making the problems appear more compatible with reality than they are. Unless you are arguing that it is not important whether the things people believe in are factual or not. If it is not, then why the fudge bother about encyclopaedias at all? 90.39.44.198 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Precedent setting by allowing the word Myth in this article's opening sentences, would mean I may change the following Wikipedia articles' opening sentences as books of myths: The Holy Bible, The Qur'an, The Old Testament etc. why this is still being discussed is beyond me as it is clearly written from a viewpoint. I happen to believe the story as well as the bible are mythological, however I would not try to impose my views on the subject as factual being that we are dealing with beliefs. Reverting my BOLD EDIT without discussion and agreement is against Wikipedia Policy.108.245.182.174 (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Tanakh and Qur'an contain various myths from Hebrew, Arab, Babylonian, and other cultures, but are not strictly "books of myths". They also contains laws, proverbs, genealogies, etc. The story of Adam and Eve is pretty much a textbook example of a myth: "A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." The story is much more than just a religious allegory and is well known outside the context of Abrahamic religions. Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification quote: "Creation myths are symbolic stories describing how the universe and its inhabitants came to be. Creation myths develop through oral traditions and therefore typically have multiple versions." One needs to document that the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-2 is written in a symbolic manner and show, to the satisfaction of all, who has the right to make the determination concluding that Genesis 1-2 is a creation myth. The first on the list should be scholars of the Hebrew language. The Bible has texts which are well known as being written in the specific symbolic style of Hebrew (i.e., parts of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.). Genesis 1-2 is written in typical prose, unlike any of the well known symbolic or even the poetic sections. Thus, based on textual style one is hard pressed to say Genesis 1-2 is symbolic. It seems that the reason it is called myth is only because of the topic, ignoring how the Biblical authors actually wrote. RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To say that "myth" is the "accepted academic terminology" as the reason for retaining the terminology is like saying that "we must use jargon for this topic." WP itself says "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon ..." (emphasis added). Yes, "myth" is the technical term, but if it is used, it should be phrased to bring understanding to all the readers who are likely to have an interest in this topic, even those who are not academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradfisher (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC) (forgot to sign) Bradfisher (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2014

In the second sentence of the second paragraph, "In the first, Adam and Eve were created together in God's image and jointly given instructions to multiply ..." I suggest an edit "In the first, Adam and Eve (though not referenced by name) were created ... The source text does not use the names "Adam" and "Eve" in chapter one. Bradfisher (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)