|
The latter part of this article is written from a creationist point of view. NPOV editing is needed! The Anome
- No, it isn't. See NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions. gracefool 10:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does somebody have an explanation of why the forbidden fruit is depicted as an apple? -- Error
- my guess is, that "apple" is sometimes used generically to mean "fruit." Thus, the French word for potato is "apple of the ground" and I think people used to call tomatoes "love apples" -- in these examples you would do just as well reading "apple" as fruit. But I am speculating. One thing is certain: the Bible doesn't call it an apple! Slrubenstein
- Tomato was "golden apple" in Italian. I wonder when the tradition started. -- Error
- I guess if King James et al. had been Samoan, it might have been a pineapple. Or if they'd been Greek, a pomegranate. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 03:41 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I seem to recall a legend or tale telling that the tree of knowledge later became the tree from which the wood for the Holy Cross was cut. Do you remmber? -- Error
"Evidences of varied kinds are abundant in proving the unity of the human race."
As long as we're talking evidence, the vast majority points to a common ancestral species, not two humans of the names Adam and Eve. This sentence is biased at worst and misleading at best.
Adam in Islam: Adam was sent to Earth to live in the Garden of Eden, and was soon joined by Eve. They were allowed to live as they pleased there, but not to eat from a certain tree and taste its fruit. However, they both eventually succumbed to the temptation of Satan, and were sent to Earth.
How is this supposed to be understood? Andres 19:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Upon visiting the website cited for the Winston Churchill fact, there is only a vague reference and there doesn't seem to be any actual family tree. I'll admit I spent a limited amount of time there, but even then, the website is by no means a legitimate basis for this information. Furthermore, Adam is a mythical character, and whether or not he existed is debatable. If Adam did actually exist and was the first man, this piece of information is utterly useless. As anyone who is human would be related to him. Why Winston Churchill would be specified is beyond me.
Just another note; Citing Adam as a real person fails to take a neutral point of view, as it acknowledges Adam as a real person and the origin of all humans, which is a religious view. 4/22/04 - MichaelD
Strictly speaking, Genesis does not state that Adam was the first man. This is an interpretation of what is stated. Genesis 1 states that that god created man. In Genesis 2, God creates Adam from the dust of the earth, but does not state that he was the first man. Elsewhere in the Bible, it is stated that Adam was the first man, it just isn't in Genesis. Reading Genesis 2 as if Adam were not the first man makes more sense than assuming that he were. 02:32, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
image source
I like Media:AdamAndEve_fx.png, but the image page doesn't give any background (artist, year, school...). I think we should either figure out these (I tried, but couldn't find it on the net) or replace it with another image of "Adam & the animals". dab 07:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The {} sign/s
One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
|
