`  == Part of wikiproject mythology? ==   This heading is not necessary, and it is quite incorrect and misleading. Genesis creation narrative is NOT mythology; it is Religion. There is a distinct difference between the two.    :The template is neither ``incorrect`` nor ``misleading``. The 'Genesis creation narrative' is one of many creation myths, and so is legitimately part of that wikiproject. ``Religion' and 'mythology' are not mutually exclusive and many (and probably most) mythologies are or were attached to some religion. Zenkai251 appears to be simply pushing a Christian exceptionalism that has no basis in Wikipedia policy. ''''(P)  ::You are mistaken yet again. I'm not pushing ``Christian exceptionalism``; I'm pushing neutrality. The template needs to be removed because it is false.     again|Tilting at windmills again]] ''''(P)  :::So you're imaginary?    :::: Zenkai, you just avoided a topic ban on this. Step away.    :::::What did I do?    ::::::Drop it. Talk to your mentor who bailed you out last time.     ::: All creation narratives/myths should be part of wikiproject:mythology. Just as (for example) all flood myths, including the Noah myth, should. Wikiproject:religion is also appropriate. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. I'm surprised that this is contentious. 3:10 am, Today (UTC−6)  ::::And just for the record, 's contribution here has not been helpful: his tone has been confrontational, and instead of lowering the emotional temperature he's made every attempt, though no doubt not intentionally, to shift  from engagement with other editors to hostility. I think it would be a very good idea if  also stepped away.    :::::PiCo: Zenkai251 was not seeking ``engagement with other editors`` but rather a renewed WP:BATTLEGROUND to continue his crusade from Talk:Adam (where he made similar demands and showed more interest in other editors' religious viewpoints than in sources or policy). Whilst I (eventually) took ``confrontational`` exception to his repeated, strident and unfounded demands in #``the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God`` above, my use of the Tilting at windmills above was an attempt to lower the heat through an oblique criticism. ''''(P)  ::::::Unfounded demands you say? That's nonsense, of course. My ``demands`` were to simply add a few words to make the article more accurate.    == Bias ==  I was a bit shocked to see such a slant on this article.  I am particularly referring to this section:  :Despite the thorough-going monotheism of Genesis 1-11, and especially Genesis 1, there remain traces of this underlying, older, polytheistic inheritance: thus, when God says ``Let us make man in our own image,`` the most probable reading is that he is speaking to the members of the bene elohim council, and it can be inferred from Genesis 3 (``See,`` says God, ``the man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil...``) that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which give benefits with which the bene elohim gods were associated (knowledge, immortality), were placed in Eden for the benefit of the