Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

(All entries are as found on the discussion page; brief descriptions of the contents of each are given in brackets)

Ararat (Mount Ararat vs. Mountains of Ararat)

This was on the page:

Gen. 8:4 reads, in the KJV, "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." (And modern Christian translations, and the old JPS, are similar.) Ararat is a region in Armenia, according to Biblical scholars, so the verse

• is entirely consistent with the ark landing somewhere other than Mt. Ararat (whether or not the writer knew that), and
• is entirely consistent with the ark landing on Mt. Ararat (without the writer knowing that), but
• is hard to explain if the ark landed there and the writer intended to convey that.

So the widespread traditional belief that the Book of Genesis identifies Mt. Ararat as the resting place of Noah's Ark must be described as a misconception.

Can't figure out what it means, could someone who knows please rephrase it and put it back into the article? If it's worth it, that is. Gaurav 11:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wrote it, but

• obviously it's not worded well enuf, and
• on reflection, IMO most of it belongs only on this talk page, to serve as verification of some version, in the article, of the conclusion of that argument.

What it's supposed to get across is

Anyone you ask will tell you that the Bible says the ark landed on Mt. A. But where did they get that idea? It doesn't say that, it just says it landed in a region that might mean "somewhere in a group of mountains that includes Mt. A" or "somewhere in the region whose largest city was also the largest city near Mt. A"

OK, it doesn't say it landed on Mt. A, but does it say it didn't? In fact, historians say all the time that "the Wehrmacht was defeated at Stalingrad", without mentioning that it happened on the Volga, bcz everyone knows that. So the writer may have known its landing point in that much detail (or not); all we can tell is that for some reason they didn't decide to give any detailed information.

But we can say this: the people who tell you it landed on Mt. A. don't have to be wrong about that, but they're wrong if they tell you they got the idea by carefully reading the Bible.

Do you think most people can figure out this:

The tradition that Mt. Ararat was the resting place of Noah's Ark is widely known. Similarly widespread is the misconception that the Book of Genesis asserts that. (In fact it says as to location only "And the ark rested ... upon the mountains of Ararat", at Gen. 8:4, KJV.)

Even if it's not "worth" the long version, i think one this short is well justified on the article. --Jerzy(t) 18:41, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

That's nice, but I think "And the ark rested ... upon the mountains of Ararat" does sound like the literal mountains of Ararat are meant, and not merely the area near them (if I understand your point correctly). Is there some confusion in the meaning arising from the translation, etc? Alternatively, you could just add it to the article and then we'll fight over how best to phrase it .. the Wiki Way! *cheesy grin*. Nicely written article, btw. Very thorough! Gaurav 17:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The change to the article was a corrective to statements on WP that Mt. Ararat, not the range that includes it, is supposed to be the resting place. No one is suggesting that it was not said to be on a literal mountain. If you think "mountains of Ararat" is more widespread than "Mt. Ararat" (which means a specific well identified peak) bring evidence of that, and the words "the widespread misconception" can be softened, but your comment is not a valid criticism of my proposed language, which i will indeed insert. --Jerzy(t) 00:50, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

(Untitled entry - Biblical genealogies, gopher wood, and African Noah)

The numbers given for the ages of the persons listed in the Genesis genealogies are symbolic and represent the number system of the ancient afroasiatic ancestors of Noah. The statement that the ark was made of gopher wood is misleading. The Hebrew word for Noah's ark is the same word that describes the reed basket that Moses floated in. Gopher means it was sealed with pitch. Noah ruled in the area of Lake Chad in what is called the country of Noah or "Bor-nu" the only place on earth that claims to be home to the biblical Noah. (See The Biblical Noah on Drell's Descants. descants@classicalanglican.net) There are two flood accounts in Genesis. One is African and the other is Mesopotamian. Noah is the African hero and the ancestor of Abraham. The Mesopotamian story is based on the account of Ziusudra, not related to Abraham. Alice C. Linsley

Clarification Please (Number of clean/unclean animals)

I thought Noah brought two of each unclean animal (one male and one female) on board to the ark. But this article says two pair which means four of each?

No, two by two means the mode of entry into the Ark — in pairs.71.100.184.44 20:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

2004 Fall (Dinosaurs and extinctions and the Ark)

Animals & Water Source

This article, particularly "The flood" and "The Flood under scrutiny", has several serious problems, which hopefully I will return to fix. But first, can somebody support the claim that "mabbuwl" literally means "storehouse of water" or "heavenly ocean"? I think this is quite suspect. Philip J. Rayment 15:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph, on the ground that the inaccuracies in it leave it with no merit whatsoever.

While the flood might explain the extinction of species such as the dinosaur, it gives no explanation for the extinction of any marine life, which of course would not have drowned. Also, the Bible mentions that Noah took 1, 2 or 7 pair of EACH land animal on board (more precisely, every land animal with the breath of life in its nostrils). Why he would not have taken any dinosaur on board is not explained. It is impossible that dinosaurs didn't breath or breathed through their skin like some insects simply due to their size.

The flood is not used to explain extinction, as the ark was used to prevent extinction. Nevertheless, the geologic upheavals involved with the flood would have suffocated and buried many marine creatures, potentially leading to some extinctions. The paragraph assumes that dinosaurs were not on board then argues that on Biblical grounds they should have been. The latter is correct (they should have been), so why the assumption that they weren't? Philip J. Rayment 04:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 

I have now consulted not only Strong's Concordance, but also The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by Benjamin Davis, and "mabbuwl" does not mean "storehouse of water" nor "heavenly ocean". Therefore I have changed the first paragraph of "The Flood" to reflect this, and added a bit about the rain being only one source of the water.

I have also made the following changes to the "The flood under scrutiny" section.

I removed the line "However, the Bible is very clear on how the deluge happened. It doesn't speak of a flood, but of 40 days of continuous rain, which is something very different." as it is based on the incorrect meaning of "mabbuwl".

I removed the paragraph about the amount of rain required and the amount of thermal consequences as it ignored the contribution of the "fountains of the deep".

I rewrote the paragraph about "kinds", as it wrongly claimed that Christians who believe in a literal flood disagree with speciation, and therefore wrongly concluded that representatives of each species must have been on the ark.

I removed the paragraph regarding the distribution of animals from the ark for several reasons. The lack of evidence for such a distribution implies that we should expect such evidence, but why should we? The sentence "There is no explanation why certain species can only be found at certain continents, such as marsupials in Australia." is unwarranted because (a) it was contradicted by the next sentence which purported to offer just such an explanation(!) and (b) because this problem is not confined to a Biblical worldview, but is a problem for almost any attempted explanation of animal distribution. The creationary explanation given for the distribution is really an explanation for isolation, not for distribution, it was vague ("the earth looked much different then") and the criticism of it as requiring impossibly fast geological processes seems to ignore the possibility that the main process involved was rising sea levels at the end of an/the ice age.

I modified the last paragraph of the section to make it more NPOV. As it stood, it said in effect, "such and such is the case, although creationists disagree". Philip J. Rayment 02:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 

Following Gene Poole's modifications and reversions, I made the following further changes:

I again removed the bits about the thermal consequences of the rain, as it was still based on an unsupportable assumption about the quantity involved. To clarify, I provided extra information--in general terms--regarding the water volumes.

I reinstated some wording regarding the animals on the ark as the previous changes were written as though the two accounts of the numbers were necessarily in conflict, which would only be the case if the two accounts were both intended to be comprehensive. There is not reason to presume this, as far as I am aware. (i.e. the first could be a general description of the numbers involved, and the second a more-detailed description.)

I also removed the word "allegedly". This section is describing the story. In one sense the entire story is "alleged", so I see no need to add that word additionally at this point.

I also re-removed the paragraph regarding the distribution of animals. When removing it the first time I explained why (see above), and it was re-instated without any case being made to do so, and without any refutation of my reasons for removing it.

Philip J. Rayment 06:37, 9 Sep 2004 (U

Restored Discussion

The following discussion between two editors (apparently continuing what is just above the heading) was removed by one of them (the IP 198.208.159.14, AKA Charlie Turek), and then again, the second time over the protest of the other. It is now restored by Jerzy·t 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

C)

I am considering of drawing the reader's attention to the 2 different traditions that exist within the Noah's of Ark story. Instead of using the traditional J,E,P,D. I would prefer to simplify using A and B. The story of Noah's Ark contains the most vivid and striking examples of multiple authorship. Since the story of Noah's ark is so popular and confusing in its telling, if it is closley examined; (at least it was for me) I think this is the right place. Then I will link it to the Documentary Hypothesis. I welcome your comments. User:Kazuba 18 Oct 2004

If you do this, you need to be clear that the idea of "two different traditions", indeed the entire J,E,D,P, theory, is by no means universally accepted, but is just one way that people have tried to explain the Bible from a liberal perspective. I suspect that one of your examples is the first reference to animals being in pairs, and the second to some animals being in sevens. But this can just as easily be explained as initial summary information followed by more detailed information at a later date. It is frequently possible to see patterns where none exist. Philip J. Rayment 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, There is very much more. I do not consider myself a liberal, or an anything, I have genuine curiosity. I love a good puzzle. I do have one problem. I cannot understand why people desire conclusions and convictions and why delving into things as deep as possible is rare. I have a difficult time with boundaries. I have heard it said,"God lives in details." Man, I love details. Kazuba18 Oct 2004

Forget it! Putting this stuff on here is tough. I've got better things to do that won't get people upset..again. Perhaps this time I can keep my trap shut and sacrifice my curiosity for the sake of others. Yeah sure...Kazuba19 Oct 2004

Preservation of Discussion

It is fundamental to this community's use of talk pages that the course of the discussion be preserved, either in its original location or in archives easily found from that location.

The removal of one's own discussion (always in cases where it has appeared long enough to elicit comment by others, and generally in any case) requires extraordinary circumstances that produce a consensus for removal; unilateral removal of one's own remarks is vandalism, and removal of others' on-topic remarks, or removal of the context in which others' were made, is suppression of the others' right of expression, or effective forgery of their their signed remarks by changing their meaning.

The IP in question is warned that both the previous removals are absolutely unacceptable, and repetions will not be tolerated.

If there is need to mark certain remarks as regretted, misconstrued, or whatever, that may be done, with time-stamps and signatures (coded with --~~~~ to provide a clear history, and it may even be justified to strike thru some text thusly to emphasize (without rendering it unreadable) that its content is substantially deprecated. If that is desired, it should be discussed, again with proper time-stamps and signatures.
--Jerzy·t 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ark as Story, and Everything Else About Noah (Article Noah's Ark should be about Noah)

some of you have mentioned that Noah's Ark was only a story. While not trying to take sides, I would have to say that there is plenty of evidence for the flood. Also. Whoever wanted to merge it with the article Noah, I disagree. This is about the ark itself and the events that surrounding it. The article about Noah should be about Noah as a man, of course give some info about the Ark, but mainly him as a person.

The page history show the above to have been added in Revision as of 20:54, 14 Nov 2004 by User:Tommajor.

Ancient Chinese characters (Evidence for real Noah's Ark in ancient Chinese characters)

First, i failed to make myself understood in an effort to be pithy. I meant "goofy" not in the PoV sense of being laughably false, but in the sense of being at the fringe of opinion. This is objectively goofy in that sense:

• The other subheads of "The historicity of the flood" describe familiar sorts of arguments, of multiple generations' standing, but this is still an obscure one after 25 years; i think i've heard all the others before, but never this one.
• This argument puts itself at odds with prevailing scientific opinion in a qualitatively different way from the others: biology and geology draw conclusions about events that can't be directly observed, using very complicated networks of evidence (including rocket-science methods like molecular biology and super-high-pressure, -temperature, and -viscosity chemistry, sonics, and fluid dynamics) that laypeople can't hope to check, so the arguments are hard to disprove to a layperson's satisfaction. In contrast, the handful of sentences in the 2nd 'graph quickly attack the foundations of the argument with reasoning most people will believe they could verify to their satisfaction with a few hours' study of well-organized relevant evidence, and the only sense in which the 2nd 'graph has encountered rebuttal is the bizarre and unsupported implicit assertion that "boat" is an "abstract idea". The linguistic evidence is far from the usual rocket science, and for most people the "Ancient Chinese characters" argument not only has no traction so far, but will continue to have none.

That is not PoV, it is verifiable if we were to finance a survey, and it is already clear by the standards that we already apply on VfD.
Here's what is PoV:

it's related to "other flood accounts," so it should follow that section.

The "Other flood accounts" section concerns various stories that are apparently unequivocal accounts of great floods; they are of interest because Noah's tale is an unequivocal account of a great flood; they are agreed to be relevant, despite whether they support historicity by showing a common experience of all cultures, or undercut historicity by showing the universal fact-free "saleability" of a compelling work of imagination -- or (why it's not in the article already is not to the point here today) patterns of thot that come as naturally to humans of any culture as do the "bird-of-prey + carnivore + snake = dragon" tales that combine the three horrors that haunt small primates. (Is it rhesus monkeys who have a specific warning cry for each of those predators?)
This is not another unequivocal account of a great flood, nor does it enter into the dicussion in the same way. If this one were true, it would be about faithful transmission of details over something like 4000 miles (and the need to explain why those details show no other presence in pre-missionary Chinese culture, and why it took 500 years of missionaries before anyone came up with this theory). It would be a totally different line of evidence. And calling it relevant is PoV because it is only relevant if what some have called the goofy argument is accepted as true. It doesn't need the support of the "Other flood accounts" section, nor does it supplement that section. It is independent, and it belongs in a separate section under historicity. A later section, so that the many readers who will judge it of negligible interest can make their decision on that after they've seen the meat and potatoes, rather than reading it (and maybe quitting the article completely in disappointment) because they hesitate to start skipping stuff when they're barely halfway through.
No reasonable argument has been made for putting it anywhere but where I did, just before the "Theology" subsection. (At the risk of getting off track, that subsection is also differs, in different dimensions from those "Ancient Chinese characters" differs in, from all the other sections: it defends the historicity of a myth (in the Rudolf Bultmann sense) with the theology, rather than what the rest of the section does, which is defend the historicity of the myth with natural arguments, to the end of producing receptivity to the theology. I don't see (yet) any problem with it being in the historicity section, but i'm glad it's at one end or the other.)

very persuasive:). i consent to your better reasoning:). Ungtss 01:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The POV of this page is seriously skewed. The Chinese character nonsense is only the tip of the iceberg. There is virtually no scholarly research and quite a few fabrications. I suggest that the page be reverted to the state it was in a year ago and new page created for "Opinions about the Flood Myth". --- John_Hardy 27 April 2005

Deleted the last sentence "However....". Not only it comes from a questionable source, but also it doesn't address the problems in interpreting the "boat" character. Yenchin 17:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment of Narkas-based content (Disputing an Ararat Ark-photo)

The article said:

An Italian archaeological group named La Narkas is the most recent of numerous groups claiming to have pinpointed the location of Noah's Ark close to the top of Mount Ararat, which straddles the border of Turkey and Armenia. Photographs of this alleged discovery are available on their website [1].

until i removed it.

Is it the top (summit?) or some other portion of the mtn that crosses the border? In either case, the NYTimes/London Times 1983 Atlas of the World shows the summit outside Armenia by over 20 miles. The Turkish-Armenian border (which is a river big enuf to extend about 300 miles up- and down-stream, from that area, parallel to the ridge Ararat is on, not down the mountainside) is at that point below 1000 m (in contrast to the 5156 m summit and 2000-3000 m ridge running from it parallel to the border. If someone thot the reality justified describing it as straddling a border, why would they mention only the Armenian one? The Turkish border with Iran is at least 25% closer than that of Armenia, and in a direction along a line that drops slowly as the ridge dies out, not steeply toward the valley and Armenia. It could be argued that the tail of the ridge crosses into Iran, but anyone who believes the mountain extends across the border with Armenia is probably a dupe of someone willing to lie (to raise money from Armenian-Americans? for the greater glory of God?) to produce that belief.
The removed 'graph should stay here until it is determined whether it is the website or the editor who cited it who can't be trusted, and fixed before moving it back.
--Jerzy·t 23:20, 14 & 23:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As'm't to Cat "Mythology" (The meaning of the word "myth")

_ _ My edit summarized

(rv ed of Jayjg to last by Festival of Souls, since cat is defined "Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious..)

restored the article to Category:Mythology, whose full description is

Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious or belief system.

For more information, see the article about Mythology.

_ _ In response, user:Codex Sinaiticus reverted, summarizing

(rv; pick a less offensive term)

_ _ This talk page's article meets the Cat't criterion (which BTW is long-standing, see Category talk:Mythology), and the aspects that make it do so are significant aspects of the article, so it belongs in the Cat; in that light, removing it destroys an appropriate WP navigational facility, and constitutes vandalism. No single article (or group of articles for that matter) is an acceptable place to act on any complaint about the offensiveness of the word "mythology" in this context (or for that matter, the accuracy of the Cat's description): if there is any problem, it is a problem with the Cat and must be addressed on it or its talk page; in view of the already evident controversiality of the desire to remove the Cat tag, it would be foolish to start with the Cat page rather than its talk page.
--Jerzy·t 21:43, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

The following material is being deprecated here by strikethru, with the contents copied to the various talk pages where they are pertinent:

1. The first sentence to User talk:Jerzy/Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy;
2. The second sentence to User talk:Codex Sinaiticus#Formal Warning;
3. The remainder to Category talk:Mythology.

--Jerzy·t 19:40, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
I would like to remind anyone who may be new to wikipedia to read the guideline policy: Assume good faith. As for vandalism, I don't happen to think it is vandalism to remove an inappropriate or offensive category; this happens all the time on wikipedia. Try leaving it to the reader to decide whether or not he feels this is mythology, instead of trying to make his mind up for him, which usually isn't going to be effective anyway. Stick with verifiable, referenced assertions and above all, the principle of neutrality (this always wins on wikipedia with any pov that is controversial); throwing a "mythology" tag up is just a backhanded form of pov pushing in this case, especially as a great number of people disagree. The definition at the article mythology makes it quite clear that this is a term only used for stories that could not have any truth to them, and is a way of implying this; therefore it is pov and should be removed in the paramount interest of maintaining NPOV without provoking cries of 'vandalism'... Codex Sinaiticus 03:37 & 03:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [Potentially confusing timestamp adjusted by Jerzy·t 19:40, 2005 August 3 (UTC)]

How did fresh and saltwater fish survive the Flood? (How fish survived the Flood)

Some salt-water fish can live in wide range of salty waters Some ocean fish such as the Mozambique tilapia can thrive in waters that vary greatly in salt content. This fish can be transferred from freshwater to sea water and back and adjust to the change in salinity. The gills of adult fish contain mitochondrion-rich cells known also as ionocytes that regulate the internal ionic composition of cells. The mitochondrion-rich cells were classified into 4 kinds by Junya Hiroi and associates at St Marianna University School of Medicine, and University of Tokyo, Japan; the USGS Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Massachusetts; and the University of Massachusetts. After transfer of fish from freshwater to seawater, type IV cells appeared in 12 hours and increased in number thereafter. When fish were transferred from seawater back to freshwater the type IV cells decreased and disappeared within 48 hours and type III cells increased; in addition, type II cells, which are not found in sea water, appeared at 12 hours and continued to increase after that. Since the type I cell occurs in both water changes, it was thought to be an immature cell that could give rise to any of the other 3 cells. These changes were achieved by moving a sodium-potassium-chloride cotransporter from one surface to another and replacing it with a chloride channel. (Journal of Experimental Biology 208:2023-2036, 2005; from Science Briefs)71.100.184.44 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The above material is copyrighted and you may have violated the copyright. To quote the overlying main page [2]: "Use of Material On the Science Museum of Minnesota Web Site The information, artwork, text, video, audio, or pictures (collectively, "Materials") contained on the Science Museum of Minnesota web site are protected by copyright laws. You may only access and use the Materials for personal or educational purposes. You may not modify or use the Materials for any other purpose without the Science Museum of Minnesota's ("SMM") express written consent. Except as provided below, you may not reproduce, republish, post, transmit or distribute any Materials on the SMM web site. You may print Materials on the SMM web site for personal or educational purposes only, and you must include any copyright notice originally included with the Materials in all copies." Carrionluggage 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some ocean fish such as the Mozambique tilapia can thrive in waters that vary greatly in salt content." OK. Nevertheless, as any aquarium owner and pet-shop proprietor can affirm, some is not the same as all. And here, in the Ark story, we're definitely talking about all. Anville 11:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not Ararat! (Real location of Ararat)

There are no any Ark on Ararat. The word 'Ararat' on ancient jewish means Caucasus, Northern Lands or Northern Mountains, not one mountain. I think that Ark could stay anywhere on Caucasus mountains.

I found this:

"On the mountain Karataw, Ark is remain,
If this mountain not holy,
What Ark doing there?"
                       Folk Poetry

Karataw is a mountain in modern Kazakhstan. 16:41, 23 September 2005 195.82.23.228

And in what language was that allegedly written? (not the translation, the original) Jim62sch 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we Noah's descendents? (Question of descent from Adam and/or Noah)

So, the Bible says humanity descends from Noah, not from Adam? I am not that familiar with the Bible, so this is a honest question. --Daniduc 19:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct, but since it also says that Noah descends from Adam, it would mean we can all claim descent from both Adam and Noah. Codex Sinaiticus 21:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but does Eve enter the picture someplace? Are there purported to have been descendents of Adam who were not descendents of Eve? If my guess is right that you folks assume all descendents of Adam were descendents of Eve, it would be politer to include her. Carrionluggage 01:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't venture my own opinion here, I just answered the question as it was written by someone asking about what the Bible says. What you usually see in the Bible is descent traced along the paternal line, to a male ancestor. Mention of even the female ancestors' names there is the exception, not the rule. Eve is mentioned, and of course, the Biblical view is that we are all today descended from her as well (and for that matter, from Noah's wife, not named in Genesis, but called "Emzara" in Jubilees...)Codex Sinaiticus 06:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But today, Jews determine membership by descent along the maternal line (they also accept other ways to membership). Carrionluggage 03:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out where Cain's wife came from. Jim62sch 19:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"history" (Against Creationism in the article)

I think it is unfortunate to allow 40% of article text to be taken up by this creationism stuff. Even if it is debunked, discussing this nonsense at such lengths suggests that it is accepted as a serious argument. 81.63.58.100 12:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

When in a madhouse, do as the madmen do. Carrionluggage 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"I've got a question for you. It's a one-word question. Dinosaur!" — Bill Hicks.

Anville 11:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC) What about dinosaurs?

The ark was a lot bigger than thought? They only took dinosaur eggs? Uhmmm...  :) Jim62sch 19:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Trilobites, Neanderthals, and Obesity (Age of the Earth, etc)

These people who believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark need to explain if there were trilobites, ammonites, sabre-tooth tigers, Neanderthals, pterodactyls, Hesperornis, brachiopods etc. on the Ark. Now there are modern brachiopods and fossils dated to the " very early Cambrian, roughly 550 million years ago" according to the Wikipedia article on Brachiopods. Something's gotta give here. Wikipedia speak with forked tongue. Either the Earth existed long before the dates deduced from Genesis, or it did not. I have seen a lot of Creationist and Intelligent Design material disputing radioactive dating as "inaccurate." But the scientists using these methods know they are not perfectly accurate and include error ranges. For example, a paper in the current issue of Nature (Vol 483, pp. 51-56) discusses Neanderthal and Aurignacian (our ancestral) populations overlapping in France 40,000 to 42,000 and 42,000 to 43,000 years ago. Hey, guys, if you step on a scale, and you are 6 ft tall and weigh 275 lbs, you can argue that the scale is not "accurate," but you are obese. If it is 270 lbs or 280 lbs the result is the same. Carrionluggage 18:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The scientists "error ranges" have massive assumptions. Do a search on the RATE project for the latest scientific research into the problems with radiometric dating. And Neanderthals were just a variation of Homo Sapien. RossNixon 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Neanderthals were rather different and died out. I looked a little at the RATE project, but it is almost impossible for intelligent people who understand science to keep up answering the barrage of nonsense emanating from the true believers in literal Genesis. When scientists do take the trouble, they spend a lot of time and who knows if anyone on the other side reads their presentations. For an example, since about 1961 a chap named "Robert V. Gentry" has been publishing materials designed to show that the Earth is not very old. He was reduced to putting letters to the editor in Physics Today, but I think they got tired of it. I am not a geologist but a good one (in my opinion) gave a very detailed answer to Gentry on [3]. It's in pretty simple terms - perhaps you would take a look. It illustrates how unjustifiable assumptions can lead a person (Gentry) astray. Carrionluggage 05:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

RATE doesn't rate as anything but drivel. Neanderthals are of the species Homo Neanderthalensis. Jim62sch 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization (Is it ark or Ark?)

So is ark capped or not? In some places it is, in others it is not.

I think it should be capitalized (please note spelling - you want "capitalization" for the noun) because it is capitalized in the title, and it is a specific ark, "Ark" being part of the name. As in Empire State Building, not Empire State building. Carrionluggage 03:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ark is only capitalized when preceded by a definite article. If preceded by an indefinite article, it is lower case. (e.g., an ark, the Ark) Jim62sch 13:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism (Literalism and Scepticism)

The following paragraph has been removed by KillerChihuahua and re-added by Carrionluggage three times:

The following objections are evidently proffered by supporters of a literal reading of the Bible, because they all are couched in the form of scientific objections, but few if any scientists would take the Flood story literally. Witness that there is no scientist or other "skeptic" identified with any of these objections. Nevertheless, there follow the "objections" which the proponents of literal interpretation of the Flood story concoct so as to provide a platform for their replies:

Comments on the history page are getting a tad vitriolic.

I find the skeptical objections to be reasonable; I find the paragraph to be POV and have removed it. Caroline Sanford 04:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The objections may seem reasonable to people who take the story literally, and thus it is likely that they were raised by such people, and then answered from within the same goup. The context makes it seem as though people who regard the story as an allegory nevertheless are concerned with nit-picking at details. Then they are put in their place by effective answers from the other side. It is a charade and does not belong in the encyclopedia. The point, again, is that true skeptics about the literal (rather than allegorical) truth of the story would not come up with these "reasonable" objections; the objections are first of all unattributed, and secondly are minor, as compared to questions about who wrote that story, and why; whether it was intended for children, or as allegory for children or adults; whether it was a sort of "filler" item to explain a few things until further research might make them clearer, etc. I may work on another rephrasing you would find more middle-of-the-road, but it would really be better to drop both the objections and the replies. Wikipedia is not a place for charades. The Bible and the Flood story stand on their own and exist in a plane different from the practical - you could call it spiritual or allegorical. Carrionluggage 06:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Caroline, if you are going to make a link of a username, please add User: before the name, or else you make a redlink to a non-existent article, or (if there is an article with the same name as the user) you make a link to the article instead of the user. thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Carrionluggage, I think I better understand your objections now. Here's a solution with which I think we can both agree.

First, we both agree that some people take the Old Testament literally. This is already covered in the article, which mentions fundamentalist Protestants, among others. Why, just the other day I read a Time/CNN poll in which 59 per cent of Americans said they believe the events in The Book of Revelations will actually happen. Since some people really do believe in the Noah's Ark flood, I think it's worth looking at the logical problems associated with the concept. We shouldn't be afraid to say something right just because it seems pedantic. That's why I argue that the subsection should remain.

Second, let's examine the ostensible purpose of the Skepticism subsection. As it currently stands, it collates a somewhat random assortment of objections to a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark story. Some objections are dealt with in detail in other subsections ("Biology", "Geology", etc). I think this subsection would be better if we put it at the end of the "The Flood as Purported History" section and re-named it to "Other objections" or something similar.

Third, I think the "Skepticism" and "Creationist answers" sections should be collated into one subsection. It's only fair to pair up the complaints and the responses.

Fourth and finally, some of these issues are already dealt with in other subsections. For example, many of the points about animal species could be moved into the "Biology" section. This would result in a substantially smaller "Other Objections" section for now, and longer "Biology" sections.

If all this seems reasonable to you, I will draft up a copy. Caroline Sanford 12:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Biology ("Biology" section to be removed?)

Can anyone give a reason why this whole section should not be removed from an article titled "Noah's Ark"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Skit (Ark-searcher Ed davis)

"The skit told of an American soldier in World War II named Ed Davis."

Was this a comedy show, or is this an obscure typo? --Slashme 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

linguistic and race classification ("Linguistics" section)

I edited out the section on linguistic and race classification. It read: "Linguistics until the 19th century divided the races and languages of the world into three categories: Semitic (Middle Eastern), Hamitic (North African) and Japhetic (European), under the assumption that the peoples of these regions were descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth respectively. The former two terms are still considered valid linguistic divisions, but the latter has largely fallen out of use since the mid-20th century. Exactly how languages outside of the classical world fit into this scheme has been debated."

This is simply nonsense - while the terms Semitic and Hamitic are indeed still in use for historical reasons, there's no connection today with the Flood story. The final sentence is the worst of all - there's no debate among linguists about how languages fit into the 19th century 3-fold division, it's a non-issue. Please, let's keep WP accurate! PiCo 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, you are completely correct. Jim62sch 20:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Depth of floodwaters (Depth of floodwaters and Winnie the Pooh)

This entire page seems to me to be getting off topic, and is tending more to the subject of creation than being restricted to Noah's Ark and the reason for the ark's existence, the flood. I would like to add some detail regarding the possible depth of floodwaters, but want to remove paragraph two of that section which deals with the possible creation of a single continent. Short of where I can move it to, does anyone have any objection? In my view, it is not relevant to the heading, and the argument that mountain heights have changed as a result of the flood has already been put. 202.61.229.133 09:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Cobblers 09:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why bother. There is simply insufficient water on the planet to flood the whole thing to the highest mountains, hills, or whatever term you want to use. Sorry, but no matter what kind of logic you attempt to use, this story is as valid as Jesus having a discussion with Pilate in Latin (or any other language for that matter). Jim62sch 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The story is on a par with the long rainstorm and raft described in Winnie the Pooh. Why not just reference that and not fiddle with adding purported "scientific" details to what started as a simple children's story? Carrionluggage 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• My humble apologies. You are quite correct. I got carried away, and was overly influenced by the extensive analysis and perspective inserted by previous contributors :)

• I thought that the subheading depth of floodwaters should perhaps contain something about depth of floodwaters, not unsupported comment about terrain changes, and something conjectural about a single continent creation. I now realise that the subheading is itself a little too far off topic, and it should be deleted in its entirety. Your comment is therefore appreciated. I am wondering how an entire page like this can practically be trimmed back to topic whilst retaining the goodwill of all previous contributors.

• Cobblers 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cats (Cat. "Mythology")

Mythology is not POV, its a definition. Advise reading the Mythology article, which states "stories that a particular culture believes to be true" are myths, and later "Some use the words myth and mythology to portray the stories of one or more religions as false, or dubious at best. While nearly all dictionaries include this definition, "myth" does not always imply that a story is either false or true." How is that POV at all?

Secondarily, what cats should this article be in? Torah events only? Should we add a Bible based cat? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The POV of the ambiguous and slippery word "Mythology" to describe Biblical beliefs is heavily under dispute. Not only is the mythology page locked because of this dispute, but I advise you to read the talk page of the Christian mythology category you tried to add this to (All three archived pages) to see the consensus about what constitutes "Christian mythology"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Did already. I concur with the view from Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Archive_2#A new suggestion. the reason people take umbrage at the word "myth" is they have the erroneous belief that "myth" implies falsehood. It doesn't, they're ignorant, and I'm not going to try to swim upstream if its not productive.

I am open to better ideas - Category:Bible stories was deleted. Category:Bible is still extant. I just don't see that Torah is the only cat for this. If Bible and Christian mythology are out, Category:Water transport is about all that's left that I can see, altho I think it would be rv'd faster than a Myth cat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bible certainly seems to fit. As for "myth", its definition of "a fictional belief" is not erroneous or ignorant, if its supported by dictionaries. This is currently being debated at length on Talk:mythology, where some people agree with you that this definition is erroneous and ignorant and they don't wish to accept this definition, despite its being included in practically every dictionary; while others agree with me that the dictionaries are not erroneous or ignorant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The ignorance is that "myth" does not always mean "fictional belief". It can and does mean "faith based belief, which may or may not be fictional". I agree, people should actually read the darn dictionary, then they'd know this.

So Bible? Is there a sub-cat of Bible which would work, now that Bible stories is gone? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth would likely be the appropriate category, and one that would not likely raise a mythical hair on a bald man's head, were the topic the flight of Icarus, Prometheus giving fire to man, the Aeneid, the Bhagavad Gita, 70 virgins (or raisins), etc. The Noachic Flood is nothing more or nothing less than the above-mentioned stories, hence it is a myth. Jim62sch 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So you are thinking Category:Mythology not Category:Christian mythology? It is included in Judaic beliefs as well, so that would be accurate.

On Category talk:Mythology, FestivalOfSouls states Noah's ark in the cat is 100% accurate. Since a myth is a story which people believe, which may or may not be true, which usually involves supernatural elements, I see no reason this article should not be in the Christian mythology cat. There is also a Category:Religion, but apparantly not a Category:Religious mythology which would cover all angles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would also object to the Gita and the 70 virgins being called "myth" as pov, but not Icarus, Prometheus or the Aeneid -- not because I believe in the Gita or Quran, but rather because "myth" is the very word used in most Encyclopedias (at least until very recently) to draw a distinction between beliefs that are no longer widespread, from those that are still currently widespread. Anyway, there is enough of this debate going on the other page, and we're getting off topic, so lets just leave it at that. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing)If you don't want to contribute any more to deciding what Cats are appropriate for this article, Codex, that's your choice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just suggesting that we not use this page to enter into yet another debate about the dictionary's definition(s) of "myth". As for appropriate cats, what is wrong with Bible, or maybe one of its subcats? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned Bible as a possibility, and you replied to that already. Why reiterate what's already been said? We're currently discussing Mythology, Christian mythology, and other possible cats. soeone mentioned Children's literature as well; that sounds like a good idea to me because the Noah's Ark story is always a favorite children's story, and anyone browsing by cat for a children's story might be interested in this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in reiterating it again: Category:Bible is appropriate and npov, and no one will object to it. Anything with "mythology" in it will be disputed, and will trigger another probably lengthy debate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A lengthy debate does not mean that the categorization as myth is wrong, it just means that people's beliefs get so offended that their intellects cease to function. Jim62sch 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A lengthy debate also might mean that what you just said is a P-O-V, and one that is not universally shared. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) Writing an accurate article is my only concern. Part of that accuracy is accurately categorizing the article. Currently, the one and only cat is insufficient. Mythology is accurate, Christian mythology is specifically accurate. Your argument reads like you don't want to be accurate because you are afraid of POV pushers. Trust me, you should go over to Bigfoot to see POV pushers in action. DreamGuy and Bishonen are active editors on that page, and not once has either of them ever said, oh heck, too many debates, let's go ahead and let this article be inaccurate. Good example, that. I'm serious, check it out - talk page and history are both illuminating. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Which I think is what I said. Jim62sch 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Mythology page (for the first time), and I am truly amazed. No wonder you guys are arguing. The word myth (deriv. muthos) applies to a sound-word, imitating the sound of speech, and is therefore verbal tradition (and likely to be subject to variation in the telling). I have always understood that when a story is documented and no longer handed down verbally, then it is no longer myth. Christian theology is a documented tradition, so the term Christian mythology is a misnomer. Today, with everything being committed to writing, there should be no myth except perhaps children’s bedtime stories, and to now categorise a documented belief system (of any flavour) as myth is to imply a slur on its consistency, as if it were a story still told. I would suggest that the word mythology should only refer to ancient stories which in their day were transmitted verbally. Cobblers 07:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you derived that etymology, but it is false (and as I just noticed, someone notes that below). All of the alleged Greek and Latin "myths" are written down (else we'd know nothing of them), so does that make them not myths? A myth is any story that purports to be true, whether written or oral (verbal does not mean oral), but that cannot be shown to be true, has no supporting evidence from history, and is believed by a specific group of people. Thus, virtually every story from every religion is a myth for those reasons. The reason people bristle at the use of the word myth is because they do not understand it. Jim62sch 13:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The summary on the Mythology page says this in toto:

"The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυϑολογειν mythologein to relate myths, from μυϑος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λογος logos, meaning speech or argument) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, "mythology" is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths."

This implies that a myth is an orally transmitted narrative embodying stories believed to be true and which embody the eupernatural to interpret natural events and explain the universe and the nature of humanity. Apart from the oral transmission, that description fits the biblical Ark story like a glove. The current state of bibilical scholarship is that Genesis was apaprently written in its persent form in around 500-400 BC, drawing on older written sources of indeterminate age. But clearly those written forms of the story were once orally based - the Ziasudra myth is an obvious ancestral varient of the bibilcal story, for example...except that Ziasudra is only known to us in written form, too... Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Ark story fits the description of a myth, using that word in a non-derogatory way. (I hope it's clear from the addition I made to the main article today that I certainly don't hold the Ark story in derision). So keep the myth cat I say. PiCo 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no -- "-ology" is a suffix meaning to discuss/study a particular subject, it does not imply "oral" in any way [[4]]. Based on the conclusions drawn by two misreadings of the etymology of mythology, one would be led into assuming that biology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, cardiology and even etymology are oral traditions only. Obviously, that would be incorrect.

I hope this nips that little misconception in the bud. Jim62sch 14:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more iem, from Liddel and Scott (the authoritative greek dicytionary): 6. like Lat. dicere, to mean, ti touto legei; what does this mean? Ar., Plat.; pôs legeis; how mean you? Plat.:--to explain more fully, eisô komizou su, Kasandran legô get thee in--thou, I mean Cassandra, Aesch.; potamos Achelôion legô Soph. Jim62sch 14:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should post that on the Talk:Mythology page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Jim62sch

Thanks Jim62sch. So Mythology cat seems secure. I wish someone would comment on my pretty big addition to the main article - is it a good idea or what? PiCo 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of category (Cat. "Mythology", part II)

The category is not POV, it is accurate. If you wish, I can provide you with the OED definition of "myth" so that you may see that the categorization is appropriate. If you object to it being called "Christian" mythology, then the only other alternative is "mythology". Unlike some here, I am not afraid of discussion, nor do I seek the easy way out in order to avoid discussion. Do you deny that Noah's Ark is a story? Do you deny that it is a story held to be true by only a certain group? Let's talk rationally, rather than screaming "POV, POV". Jim62sch 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you're POV pushing, because the word "mythology" has more than one meaning, it's ambiguous, slippery, offensive, and until very recently, was applied strictly to dead beliefs. This is a belief that is still widely held, and calling it "mythology" is only your way of pushing your POV. I am prepared to debate this for as long as necessary to ensure that religious scriptures are not labelled as "mythology" by anti-religious bigots. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sparky, enough with the personal attacks. If you can't discuss things rationally, then please desist from discussing anything. Calling me a religious bigot is a bit ridiculous, as you know nothing about my beliefs. Actually, I'm a bit surprised you didn't go right for "atheist bastard".

Additionally, you just tipped your hand with your "religious scripture" comment. Your POV is clearly showing: it is one in which belief trumps reason. It's a shame really, given that our intellects are the only things that separate us from the animals we were given dominion over.

As for words having more than one meaning, look up the following from your own venomous (the snake in the real garden?) screed: slippery, ambiguous, offensive, very, widely, pushing, dead and debate. I'm guessing that linguistics is not your forte, so you might not want to go into the arena with that lion.

BTW: I know you think your alias means something in Latin, but, uh, it doesn't. Jim62sch 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1) My name is not Sparky. Is that some kind of personal attack? 2) I did not call you a "religious bigot". I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I said that it is the goal of ANTI-religious bigots to label religion "mythology", as it always has been. The history of mankind proves that there have always been anti-religious bigots. Trying to label religion as "mythology" is only their latest feeble game plan, as it's a but futile for them to try to throw people of the "wrong" faith into gas chambers of the moment. But I note that they're always there, ready to deny that this ever happened, and always ready to deny that there are those who would do it again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear me, I actually made a typo, so let's agree for the record that you called me an anti-religious-bigot then, so then I suppose I'm an atheist? That kind of nonsense has already gotten several people banned from editing on Wikipedia for periods ranging from one day to one week.

Additionally, your claim of historicity reads more like a "how do I explain away what I said" rather than an expansion of your previous statements. No one involved in this discussion is some Marxist atheist hell-bent on destroying religion. However, what we strive for is accuracy. Thus, labeling stories of a particular group of people as myths is both accurate and logical. I realize that that will offend some people, but that is, as I've stated before, merely because they do not understand what "myth" really means. Jim62sch 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Category page is clearly stated: "NOTE: Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only. The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false. "

Its not slippery and offensive to anyone who can read. What is your issue with the word? and why won't you explain it here, instead of reverting? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Because all the dictionaries that say it means "story, either true or false" were written within the past couple of years. All the older dictionaries say it means "false" or "discarded" belief. Most people still use and understand the word that way. No Encyclopedia other than wikipedia chooses to label peoples' Religious scriptures as "mythology", because that is so blatantly pov terminology. Dictionaries are not supposed to redefine words away from the way people use them. If the word has more than one meaning, it is ambiguous and not the best term. How many times do I have to explain this? Every time you ask me to explain, I do, and you act like you can't understand a word I'm saying. But I will repeat myself as many times as it takes until it starts to sink in. Calling peoples religious scriptures "mythology" is POV. It might be the POV of Karl Marx, but IT IS NOT NEUTRAL. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you even the remotest clue of what you are going on about? I have in my possession the 1933 printing of the original Webster's Universal Unabridged Dictionary, which gave, in the 19th century the following definition of myth: "A traditional story developed or created out of a conception or idea." I'd hardly say that that's a new definition, especially given that the science of lexicography is not very old.

As for dictionaries not being "supposed to redefine words away from the way people use them", you are obviously of the prescriptivist, not descriptivist, school. The job of a good dictionary is to provide all of the possible definitions of a word.

So, am I a commie or a pinko socialist? Besides, if it weren't for Marx you'd be working 12-hour days, six days a week. Reality bites, dude.

Can you explain why all the encyclopedias of the 20th century used "mythology" to refer to Greek and Norse mythology, and did not use that term to describe the modern day world religions? I'd love to see your explanation for that, and I'd also love to see why you think its suddenly okay to call modern religions "mythology" and pretend its not POV-pushing, just because now any Tom Dick or Harry can write an encyclopedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See both my and KillerChihuahua's previous explanations of the phenomenon. An encyclopedia that offends one's religious sensitivities is unlike to sell as well as one that doesn't. That does not, however, mean that the encyclopedias were correct in doing so. Additionally, were one to read a number of textbooks on philosophy and intellectual heritage, one would note that religious stories are treated as mythology as a means of comparing and contrasting the stories. Sorry, but sometimes the intellect must overrule the emotions. Jim62sch 14:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I like what you did with adding the explanation above the categories, though - that is good thinking! It allows us to be accurate, and addresses your concerns that some people ight not understand the meaning. No need to type in all caps, that is considered YELLING and I would appreciate your not doing it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note you are in violation of 3RR, if you revert again, Codex. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I never violate 3RR. Please look and pay attention to the edit before you assume I am reverting. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing something someone else wrote is not reverting? I'd really like to see your dictionary. Jim62sch 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, whom were you referring to as "anti-religious bigots"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer to this ought to be a doozy. Jim62sch 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, KC, obviously I was one -- I think this makes time number ten that I've been accused, either directly or indirectly, of being an atheist. Jim62sch 15:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Modern searches (Self-explanatory)

These are in the modern searches section:

• 1840 earthquake story
• 1876 James Bryce story
• 1952 American oil worker named George Jefferson Green story
• 2004 Mount Ararat, samples turned out to be rock story

I can find no reference of any of these stories. We have 4 links under "Ark search", and none of them seem to cover any of these stories. We need to work on this, people - if there are modern searches which are on the sites which are not in the article, we need to add them, and we need to either find references for the searches listed or remove them as unsourced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The 2004 story is about some New Zealand researchers who thought the samples they obtained may have been wood. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-539.html RossNixon 07:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Forums are not considered reliable sources, however the link you posted gave another link to World Net Daily, which I am adding - thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The WND article did not show the results, that's why I added the Rense link. The NZ Herald requires a subscription to see older articles (couldn't find article even on www.archive.org), but I do remember the testing and results being discussed on our primetime TV news here in New Zealand. RossNixon 03:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree if we can find the source, we should put it here, but surely we can do better than Rense.com. If nothing else perhaps we can identify the issue of the NZH and add the information as we would any print source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed George Jefferson Green - the only instances on the web are us, and one edu site which probably got the info from us. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Added source for the 1876 Bryce story. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Categories (Cat. "Mythology", part III)

Not to get off the subject (if there is one), it seems to me that it's better to include more categories than fewer, if they are at all relevant. Whatever the dictionaries say, people from various cultures may be interested in the myths and fables of others. Americans can study Aesop, the Bhagavad gita, and the Elder Edda, the Adi Granth or the Koran, whilst those in other cultures who have not (yet?) been converted to Christianity can study the Bible as literature - and - yes, though I may incur the "Terrible Swift Sword" at Judgement Day (or before), as mythos. It is very POV to insist that the Bible stories can't be referred to the category of myth and fable. I don't say "classified solely as" myth or fable - I say referred to through the Wiki categorization process. Carrionluggage 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. Jim62sch 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why classify the Bible under "myth". There is no evidence to show that it is anything other than historical documents, despite several hundred years of "Higher Criticism" and "Scientific" ridicule. RossNixon 02:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule? Scientists have better things to do, and are more polite than to vent ridicule on the Bible. What a strange comment - perhaps tending towards paranoia. If you think you know of a scientist who ridiculed the Bible - please give a reference to that. Carrionluggage 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a belief. A myth is a story about supernatural events, which people either believe, or did believe at one time. This is completely neutral about whether or not they are "historical" or not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean like Evolution? This belief has supernatural aspects - matter organizing itself, increase in information content, complexity and utility. Feel free to add the "Myth" category to the Evolution article. :-) RossNixon 02:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In Evolution matter does not (I believe) organize itself (although it does so in the formation of crystals and snowflakes). I believe that in Evolution, many random (not organized) changes occur and only the most viable and competitive survive. That refers to the evolution of life once it started. As to the start of life on Earth, I believe the theories are very speculative so if you want to insist on a master intelligence in that case, that's a better place for you to ply your trade. Carrionluggage 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Evolution article. Please take your thoughts about what categories that article belongs in to that articles talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the definition of myth by the vox populi is the radix malorum in this discussion. In any case, KC is correct, evolution discussions belong on the evolution page, not here. Jim62sch 03:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As you stated earlier??? You can state that definition is a vox populi until you are blue in the face, but that still won't take it out of the English dictionary as a legitimate definition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you might want to look up vox populi before you make a fool of yourself. Additionally, it appears likely that you are a bible literalist (I'm not casting aspersions, just noting a possibility), and if this is the case your opinions and arguments may be far too POV for you to rationally analyze what KC and I are trying to say. Jim62sch

It is too late to advise Mr. Nixon or Mr. Sinaiticus not to make fools of themselves. Maybe it is timely to advise them not to create a scene by touting their distraction. Of course, they both have an idée fixe. Reminds me of that chap who thought he was Napoleon for decades. The doctors in the mental hospital tried one treatment after another without success, but one day the patient seemed cured and thanked them: "Doctors, I am so glad you have restored my grip on reality. I am now sure I'm not Napoleon. Just wait a moment while I tell the good news to Josephine." Carrionluggage 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Carrion, you have made two posts to this section. In one, you said it is paranoia to think that "scientists" would ridicule the Bible. In the other, you are heaping ridicule and personal attacks on me for what you perceive as my faith in the word of the Bible. Not only are these two positions 100% mutually contradictory, but they constitute a clear and direct personal attack in violation of numerous wikipedia policies, which will be reported as an incident the next time it occurs. This time it is just a warning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex, if you really believe that scientists sit around and ridicule the Bible, you are indeed paranoid. Contrary to Fundamentalist dogma, most scientists are theists of one type or other; they just happen to realize that no holy book or religious tradition has all the answers to reality.

Second, I do not believe that Carrion was ridiculing you for your beliefs, rather he was pointing out your intransigence. To infer, in high dudgeon, that he was ridiculing your beliefs speaks to both paranoia and a persecution complex. (By the way, two items being contradictory implies mutuality). Jim62sch 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

His comments were out of line, no matter what the reason he was ridiculing me. As it is for you to attempt to psychoanalyse me or Ross for anything we have said in here. Maybe you should analyse yourslf to see what causes you to assert some kind of authority over me, when you have none. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your generosity is appreciated. I was poking fun at you, not at the Bible, nevertheless. It is fine for you (and your cohorts and even legions) to hold any belief you see fit. But it can be considered inappropriate to try to enforce or promulgate those beliefs in an encyclopedia. Carrionluggage 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If we stated that Noah's Ark was a historical proven, undeniable fact, that would be wrongly promulgating a pov. Stating that it is a "myth" is promulgating the opposite pov. Neutrality means doing neither, and deep down, I'm sure even you know it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you just simply don't, can't or won't get the concept of the word "myth". Additionally, as far as I can tell I never attempted to assert any authority over you -- although I have little doubt that you'll misquote and misinterpret something I wrote to "prove" your claim. De cruce descende! Nam lignum desideramus. Jim62sch 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the Mythology article, which states "In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which some believe but which is not true. In this sense, a myth is a "mere story" that might hold meaning meaning for people but is not historical fact". Common usage should prevail, so as not to confuse the average reader. Therefore the "Myth" category is not applicable to this article RossNixon 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixon as usual is defensive and sets up a strawman, by choosing to say "Common usage should prevail" and ignoring the next few sentences in Mythology, which broaden the concept. Also please see: [5]. If it's good enough for the Rangers, maybe it will be good enough for Mr. Nixon.Carrionluggage 02:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like quote-mining. Ross, did you bother to read the rest of the article or just the part that suited you? For example, "Many modern day rabbis and priests within the more liberal Jewish and Christian movements, as well as most Neopagans, have no problem viewing their religious texts as containing myth". (Moreover, no, this does not equate the rabbis and priests with the Neopagans, so don't go there).

Also, it appears quite likely that both you and Codex in rejecting myth would like to see instead the category of "History", or better yet, "Literal Truth". Sadly, neither would be accurate. Myth on the other hand is accurate, your quote regarding "common usage" notwithstanding. Essentially, this argument is similar to the ongoing "theory" argument, in which the nonscientific scream, "it's just a theory, not a fact!", essentially using the colloquial rather than scientific meaning of the word.

Free your mind from the shackles of dogma, allow yourself to use the greatest gift man has ever received, his intellect, to guide you through the process. The truth is out there if you merely seek it. Jim62sch 12:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ross, but I for one would not allow a category of "history" or "literal truth", because that is every bit as much an unjustified p.o.v. as a category of "myth". When I say I'm neutral, I really am neutral. Please do not ascribe to me sentiments that are the exact opposite of what I have already indicated. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you would reject those terms, that was my purpose in positing the possibility. In any case I fail to understand your objection to myth -- it is not POV, it is factual. That you are concerned regarding the colloquial definition of the word is understandable, but as has already been pointed out, so long as a disambig of myth is included, it is accurate. Like it or not, the stories of all religions are in fact myths. Jim62sch 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, you must be all knowing or have a nice time-machine, to know that stories of "all" religions are in FACT myths. And poleeeese, don't say that science proved it. That is so old. For every scientist you find to say it's a myth, I can find scientist that will say it's a fact. That statement was very arrogant. Slash Gordon 08:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

New section: Story of the Ark ("Narrative" section added - use KJV or not?)

Added this because I think it's important to let readers know just what the story is. I imagine some editors might object to the use of the KJV as the basis for the summary. Please bear in mind that what's important is this section is simply to summarise the plot of the ark story. Anyway, I like the KJV - it's got the poetry :). PiCo 03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

'Cause you asked. :)

It is large, and also as the Ark story is also a Torah story (and maybe elsewhere?), I'm concerned we may be violating NPOV by using King James. The reason I didn't comment about your addition before is that I freely admit I love the cadence and phrasing of the KJV, so I'm tempted to be too favorably biased towards inclusions from it. I don't suppose that is much help, I am sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the KJV is extremely nice writing, but, alas probably POV and difficult for many to truly comprehend. What might be best is to find a modern-English translation of the story, either directly from the Torah, or even something like The New American Bible or the Good News version. Absent that, there is no reason that you yourself cannot take it out of the KJV version and render it in modern English. Jim62sch 15:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I redid it using the New International Version. No, it's not as poetic, but as a number of the visitors to the English version of Wiki do not speak at a native or near-native level, it will be more understandable to them. Here's the link, [flood]

I'll miss the poetry, but it's ok :). Incidentally, I think maybe change the title of the new section to "Narrative", which better describes the reason for including it. PiCo 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the poetry, but while Jacobean English is Modern English, a lot of folks have trouble understanding it (kind of like Shakespeare's Elizabethan English, the precursor to the Jacobean style). Ooops, we were discussing the flood story and I wandered off into linguistics, sorry.  :)

Let's see if we can get input from a few others and reach a consensus then we an make both changes. Jim62sch 22:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* Well we can always read it at home, eh PiCo?

It is still far too long; here is a suggestion. Rewrite the whole thing, triming like mad. Take out all Chapter references, all quoted bits. Tell it as a narrative or story, as the section title indicates. Make it short, sweet, and not include a good deal of the fine detail. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I can do that if that's what everyone wants, it's easy enough. I should be able to get it to half it's current size. I can just footnote the whole passage as Gen 6-9. Jim62sch 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here 'tis: [narrative] Jim62sch 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats it. Simple, covers it. Finish the first sentence, copyedit a little, and I think that will do it. Do you mind if we work on it there? (you, I, PiCo and whoever else) until we feel its ready for prime time? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit away. I'm sure it can be tweaked a bit.  :) Jim62sch 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked was an understatement. Grrr. Jim62sch 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked it even further. Bye-bye poetry. One aspect I had in mind was length: the Tower of Babel page begins with a section called Narrative which gives the Tower account verbatim; but it only comes to 237 words: even my edited version still comes in at around 270 words. Another aspect was avoiding giving a misleading idea of the complexities of the story by editing confusions and nuances out of existence - the summary, for example, mentions nothing of the permission God gives Noah to eat meat after the flood (the Bible strongly implies that mankind was vegetarian from the Expulsion until this point), and the institution of halal butchery. Anyway, how about this one? PiCo 08:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a few grammatical changes (note: ark is itself lowercase, especially when preceded by an indefinite article, it is only uppercase when specified as the Ark). Anyway, I think it should be fine now. Let's get KC to weigh in and then we can go with it. (I'm not worried about length, it's not easy to condense 4 chapters into a summary unless we go with something like: God was pissed. He decided to kill all animal life except Noah. Noah built an ark. It rained for 40 days and nights. Everything flooded. The waters receded. Noah, his family and the animals left the Ark. God and Noah made up with God using the rainbow as a sign of peace.) Jim62sch 13:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the items regarding dietary laws and halal aren't really necessary to the story. If you had a section called "How the flood changed Judaism" or something like that, it could go there. Jim62sch 13:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should work with Jim's version a little more, and use it. Expulsion from the Garden is unnecessary to this story, IMHO - also concur on the food not being germane. Can we keep editing one version? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I felt that way about the garden, but I figured I'd wait until you weighed in. Feel free to edit away. I guess we can make mine a bit shorter if necessary. Jim62sch 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I pared a bit more out, fixed some typos and grammar. Jim62sch

I removed the dove's talons - makes me envisage a dirty great eagle, not a sweet bird of peace. Otherwise I'm happy. PiCo 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Minor point: doves are not peaceful, they are actually rather vicious birds. Jim62sch 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I copy-pasted it into the article and changed to section-heading to "Narrative". ("And on the seventh day Noah sent out a rather vicious dove..." nah, it doesn't work :) PiCo 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pico, and Jim, you need to be congratulated. Its hard to write a summary and take into account all of the fine 'between the lines' detail. I am sure I could not have put the text together so succinctly. But please don't now sigh if I say I have one suggestion. It is important. There is in the record much made about how the flood occurred, that it was more than lots and lots of heavy rain, but that subterranean waters, 'fountains of the deep' were opened, and were the principal source of the flood. (The critics love to weigh in with the 'you can't get that much water out of 40 days rain' accusation.) How about it? Again, congratulations. Cobblers 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a quote from Genesis about the 'fountains of the deep/windows of heaven' plus added also the names of Noah's sons. Plus some small stylistic edits to make it read more smoothly. PiCo 03:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cobblers, thank you. I had excised the part about the fountains of the deep, primarily to see if anyone was paying attention.  :) OK, maybe that's slightly devilish, but it worked.

PiCo, your edits were great! I changed one thing, the colon before the quote to a comma. Jim62sch 14:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wives aboard the Ark (Link to a new article with this title)

One of the links under See also is an article called Wives aboard the Ark. The article makes this statement: According to ancient traditions, the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, enjoyed fantastically long lifespans, living for centuries, while speaking prophecy to each generation they saw come and go. They were reputed to be known as Sibyls, original authors of the corpus of texts known to the Mediterranean world as the Sibylline Oracles. Other Sibyls were thought to have followed in their stead, adding to the Oracles. (The original Sibylline books were considered sacred even to the Greeks and Romans, but are no longer extant; the Oracles that are extant today are widely considered to be pious forgeries.) Can anyone confirm that this is accurate? I was under the impression that the Sibyl was totally Greco-Roman. PiCo 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is Greco-Roman. Any attempt to directly link Judaic traditions with Greco-Roman beliefs, especially in the sense of declaring those Judaic traditions to be precursors of Greco-Roman beliefs, is revisionist history with an evangelical/theological purpose. Anytime I hear/read this argument, I recall the quote of the Sibyl of Cumae (see Satyricon and The Wasteland, άποθανειν θέλω. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to weigh in on Talk:Wives aboard the Ark. CS is cheerfully using a source he knows, and admits, is a fabrication. Putting in a section which mentions this fabrication is fine; leading off with content from it presented as "ancient tradition" is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa - I didn't ever admit it is or is not a fabrication one way or another. The article already states that it is widely regarded as a forgery, and that is about as npov and true as you can get, so I don't know why you keep suppressing that. Even if it is a forgery, and it could well be, it is undeniably ancient, not exactly modern revisionism. All the part you keep blanking states, is that it is ancient, and that it is considered a forgery; it certainly does not "declare" that there is any definitely established connection between Greek and Jewish beliefs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Either I phrased myself badly, or you read me wrong, because your post doesn't make any sense to me. - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now, your latest edit there seems to have sorted it, if anyone wants to discuss this further, let's use the talk page over there. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BTDT. Jim62sch 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ark (Number of clean/unclean animals on the Ark)

From the article:

In preparation for the flood, Noah, his wife, his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives entered the ark - eight persons in all. They took seven pairs of each kind of clean animal, two pairs of each kind of unclean animal and seven pairs of each kind of bird into the ark. Then God sealed the door.

It is a commonly held misconception that there were only two of each animal on board the ark. This misconception is furthered by many traditional depictions of the scene.

Actually, given that between Gen 6:19-20 and Gen 7:2-3 there appears to be a change in the story, I doubt it could be considered a "misconception". If anyone has access to the bible used in Catholic Schools (I used to, but I cannot find it at the moment) would they be so kind as to see if an E, Y(J) or a P follows these entries? This would give an indication as to the writer of each section.

Also, the Amplified Bible notes, " Noah had many years in which to interest travelers in securing these animals for him. The five extra pairs of clean animals were for food, and for sacrifice later." If this is accurate, it needs to be pointed out in the text. Jim62sch 14:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: In the Koran, the animals are only in pairs (The Believers (Al mu'minun), 23:27), not 7 pairs of this, or only two of that. Jim62sch 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here in Wikisource - the bible Documentarily Hypothesised. The Priestly Source says 2, the Jahwist says 7. Not two pairs and seven pairs, by the way, just two and seven. If you follow the DH, the conflist is a result of the two sources, but Biblical literalists naturally see this as a problem (if the Bible is the word of God there can't be any contradictions) and so look to reconcile such discordancies. The note you quote from the Amplified Bible is an example of this mode of thinking - sacrificial offerings is a reasonable guess, but the text of Genesis says nothing.

Looking back through the talk page, I gather that this article once contained a discussion of the ark story in the light of the documentary hypothesis, but time and the day seem to have washed it away. I'll draft something up to replace it, as it seems like a useful addition. PiCo 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, thanks a million! I'm glad someone didn't think I was just rambling on about the P, Y and E stuff (I knew it couldn't be D, so I omitted that one), and the note from the Amplified Bible. I have my guesses on what happened, but you have to fix your link -- it goes nowhere. Jim62sch 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the link :) PiCo 22:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Precisely as I figured -- (and as you pointed out earlier) different sources. My guess is that a problem was noted with the sacrifice of animals -- "hey if they were sacrificed, how did they procreate?" -- so the "sevens" were added to resolve this issue (and, of course, given numerology's importance to Judaism, seven was an apt choice). Jim62sch 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of early redacteurs noticing things, one thing that impresses me about this earlier part of Genesis is the extremely precise arithmetic of the ages of the Patriarchs - Methuselah dies in precisely the year of the flood, thus saving the emabrrassment of having him survive despite not being on the Ark. (Although it then opens up another embarrassment, that he was presumably numbered among the wicked who were destroyed). PiCo 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicked? Died of old age just before the flood is more likely. RossNixon 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering his age, you're probably right :). PiCo 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Genesis 8:20 (More about clean/unclean animals)

"And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar."

Is that to imply that Noah sacrificed all the clean animals? Or only one of each type of clean animal? In which case, Noah is responsible for the killing of 1/7th (or 1/2, depending) of all living, non-human things on the face of the Earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.156.242.39 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

it would be 1/14 or 1/2...but anyway...this is part of why I asked my question in the topic above re annotations. Jim62sch 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There were probably, more animals born on the Ark during the year+ flooding and descending waters. It would be clean animals that were sacrificed, inwhich there were many more of them, than unclean... 7 pairs of clean vs. 1 pair of unclean. Also. since it would take a long while, for human procreation to repopulate the earth again, that would give plenty of time, for the animals to procreate, and lessen the chance of extinction. Slash Gordon 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the slow repopulation of the earth. Nevertheless, the reduction of the clean animals from 7 pairs down to 1 following the sacrifices would have meant that Noah and his family would have to stay vegetarian for a year or two after leaving the ark, or else! PiCo 09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (Incidentally, Rabbinic tradition records that there was no procreation during the time spent on the ark, and the number that left was the same as the number that boarded).

What date do we have for these Rabbinical records? 3000+ years after the event? ^rossnixon 10:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First few centuries of the Christian era - so certainly a long time after the event. But the point is that much thought has already been given to the question SlashGordan raises. Remember also that the rabbis were extremely learned men, both in scripture and in theology. Their opinions shouldn't simply be dismissed out of hand. Were the rabbis right? I don't know. I don't know that they were wrong, either. PiCo 10:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic mythology (Cat. "Mythology", part IV)

I added the above cat, even though Christian mythology is listed. In fact, Christian mythology could probably be removed so long as Abrahamic mythology remains.

Also, lest we get into a long fight over "mythology" again, the disclaimer above the cat listing is a must read for all. Jim62sch 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is all a violation of the previous workaround, where "Torah events" was made a subcat, so that a "mythology" supercat wouldn't have to appear on the page. It seems your entire purpose is to go against all this that was decided by prior consensus, just to get the word "mythology" on the page somehow anyway with both a subcat and the supercat. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So who added the "Christian mythology" category and the disclaimer? Not I. Besides, Abrahamic mythology is far more accurate. If there was some previous arrangement, did you complain when Christian mythology was added? Given that its existence precedes the category I added are you sure that there was a work-around and a consensus? Jim62sch 19:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through the talk page, I saw no consensus matching that which you claim. Jim62sch 20:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I did add it after we discussed it. Thus since I added it, I'm removing it in favor of Abrahamic mythology as the story is part of the three Abrahamic religions.

New section: Textual analysis (New section with this title added)

I've added a new section, basically the documentary hypothesis as it applies to the Ark narrative. Open for comment and suggestions. PiCo 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Julianonions (where do people get these nicks?) for the very useful and appropriate additions. I've taken the liberty of moving them to the third paragraph of the section, as their prime import seems to be to point out the differing agends of the two sources. PiCo 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I got my "nick" from my parents through a naming ceremony shortly after birth. :) Codec 09:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very, very good. I made a few changes to spelling (I'm going to look at syntax next), and changed two pairs to one pair. The way that it reads, "two of every sort (i.e., species)" and "male and female" would indicate only one pair. In addition, had there been two pairs, the need for seven pairs would have been obviated. Jim62sch 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Although two pairs doesn't allow for many accidents, maybe there should have been a parity pair :-) Codec 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

lol, thanks for the chuckle. This page gets too little light-heartedness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Either the dates are wrong or the math is (my bet's on the math): two hundred years between the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, and the fall of the southern kingdom of Judah around 586 BCE.

I got my info from the Priestly source article: "Since P follows the layout and stories of JE, but uses a later form of Hebrew, it is thought that the writer of P must have seen the text of JE, and as such P must date after JE was created. JE is associated with the fall of biblical Israel, and thus requires P to have created after 722BC. This date, however, leaves almost 200 years in which P could have been created, while still being before the exile." I then looked up articles on the fall of the kingdom of Judah, and got the 586 BCE date. As you so coreectly guess, doing sums is not my strong point. Only just now did I run this through my pocket calculator, and came up with 722-586=136 - "almost 200" seems an inadequate description of this number. So what's to be done? PiCo 02:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I just took out the phrase about 200 years, left the two dates - let others do the sums :) PiCo 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like people are trying to 'reason' what the most sensible version of 'pairs' to go with. Could we just stop re-writing history and go with the correct version, not the one that sounds the best.--Piedras grandes 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the correct version, then? Jim62sch 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we do the "this version, that version" thing and have both? Or the "discrepencies" variation on that? And since its me posting here, a brief reminder that cites will be wanted for all versions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Both are there...in the textual analysis. If you were thinking of the narrative, it'll read kind of weird, "Noah took one pair, no, maybe two pairs, hold up, no it was seven pairs of each, blah, blah, blah..." Jim62sch 18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, currently reads "he was to bring a male and female of all living creatures" How can we phrase that so it covers the situation, without losing the cleanness of the narrative?

"he was to bring pairs of all living creatures, male and female, "

Would that work? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it just might work! Jim62sch 18:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and put it in. If anyone has a better rewrite, I am more than open to it being replaced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem since "all living creatures" modifies "pairs." 70.110.236.117 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC) <- I forgot to sign in Jim62sch 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I went back to the text of the KJV to see what it actually says about pairs. The Jahwist says this: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: And of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." (6:9-10). That seems to mean just seven and two, not seven pairs and two pairs. He goes on to say that birds also went by sevens. There's a slight logical problem with how animals in groups of seven can form a complete set of pairs - it should surely have been noticed by the author, and I have no explanation. The Priest says this: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female." (6:12) Again, I read this as meaning just one male and one female. He repeats this a few more times, but the sense doesn't change. I'm happy with 'pairs of all living creatures, male and female' - it leaves the necessary envelope of vagueness that takes in both sources. (Piedras grandes, I've joined your section-heading into the previous section, as the subject is still the way we treat this section in the article dealing with the DH - hope you don't mind).PiCo 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pairs again - Revised Standard Version says 7 pairs, no ambiguity. I think the KJV was simply guilty of using bad English. PiCo 08:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vulgate has the same: ex omnibus animantibus mundis tolle septena septena masculum et feminam de animantibus vero non mundis duo duo masculum et feminam. Jim62sch 00:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for Septuagint: "...επτα επτα αρδεν και θηλυ...δυο δυο αρδεν και θηλυ" Jim62sch 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Other flood accounts (Revision of section on Mesopotamian/world flood myths)

I've given a substantial re-write to this section, as I felt there was much interesting material that could be added about the ancient Sumerian and other flood stories. Please comment and make any edits you feel are useful. Codex Siniaticus especially might like to look at how I've integrated his material on Berossus into the section. I've tried not to remove anything, only to add.

Carrion: could you develop this a little further? "In Norse mythology, rain is caused by a goddess milking her cows in the Dodola legend. The Chippewa Indians have a legend more like the Noah story [http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/North_america/great_serpent.htm" Jim62sch 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article this links to says Dodola is Slavic, not Norse, and also says nothing about a flood legend. Delete? PiCo 09:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I though that if the theory wasn't supported by the facts we change the facts. Oh, no, wait, that's in the White House. Yes, delete. Jim62sch 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Biblical literalism and the Ark narrative (New section created on this subject)

I've added a new section with this title, and slightly changed the title of the preceding section to read Textual analysis (the documentary hypothesis) and the Ark narrative, so that the article has a balance of these two competing POVs. The new section amalgamates material previously in a number of other sections, which have been deleted - the sections have been deleted, but their contents have mostly been moved into this new section. I've had to edit material to make it read smoothly - there was a good deal of repetition and not-quite-optimal construction, but I've tried to be fair and unbiased. Where I have deleted whole masses of material, it's been for good reasons - for example, the subsection about flood geology was simply repeating the already existing article called Flood geology, and was rather off-topic for tghis article, which is the Ark, not the Flood. Similarly I've deleted the materal about ancient Chinese characters, as it was just plain wrong - the author had simply misunderstood the way Chinese writing works. Open for comment. PiCo 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please put the Chinese characters material back - it is disputed, not necessarily wrong. ^rossnixon 09:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok Ross - but I'll edit it so it's shorter, as it's taking up more room than it merits at the moment. Have a look and see what you think. PiCo 10:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made it a new article, with a link from the "See also" section. The reason why: it's very difficult to slot it into the structure of the article in a natural way, as it doesn't quite belong with anything else - it's not really one of the things that literalists talk about when discussing the Ark narrative, since it isn't essentially about the Ark per se but rather is used by Creationists as an argument for the historical truth of the Flood. This article takes the Flood for granted - it's not something to be rpoven or disproved - and is instead about analysing the Ark story, whether from the documentary hypothesis position or from the literalist position (plus a few add-ons about other flood narratives and Ark searches).

My other problem is one you're not going to like: I don't agree that the Chinese character idea is disputed, it's just plain wrong. If you want to take this up, we'll have to go to the experts. If the experts (experts on Chinese, that is) say the idea is plausible, I'll take back my words, but at the moment, having talked to Chinese friends, I can only repeat that the idea is just plain wrong. PiCo 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)--ragesoss 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Having done a bit of linguistic research (one of my specialties) the boat story is utter nonsense (no surprise there) and should not, under any circumstances readded unless it is as a brief sentence along the lines of "Some people think the Chinese character for boat refers to Noah's ark, however, linguists have noted that this is folk linguistics or wishful thinking at best, and a hoax at worst".

The story is, in fact, akin to the nonsense that ΙΧΘΥΣ was given the to Greeks by God and was pre-ordained to mean "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior" (Ιηςους Χριςτοςθεου Υιος Σοτερ). Essentially, both are examples of pseudo-linguistics and show an ignprance of the target language.

One of the less technical (i.e., easier to read) sources I found [6] 71.242.5.11 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the part about Renaissance scholars beginning to investigate the story as literal history rather than allegorical, and the way this spurred other natural history work? That was one of the few parts that actually gives some historically context to modern literalist interpretations (and one of very few parts of this article with a citation from a mainstream scholarly source).--ragesoss 01:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited it out because it seemed to me to be more about the Flood than the Ark. I've put it back in under a separate section-heading (I don't see a close connection to Biblical literalism either). I still favour removal, perhaps to the Flood article. But of course I'm open for discussion. PiCo 01:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC) You might well convince me if you expand the paragraph to make it more informative - it's a bit dry at present. PiCo 01:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. I added some birth/death dates to give it more context. PiCo 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the relationship between the natural history investigations and the Ark. The literalism connection, as Browne presents it, is that a turn towards literalism by humanist Bible scholars first made them consider how animals might have spread out to reach their known habitats, when they had to cross inhospitable climates to get there; reindeer had to cross deserts to get from Ararat to Lapland, etc. So they began to think not only about the relationship between animals and climate, but also about climate change. Please let me know how I can improve that passage some more; I'll need to get a hold of that book again to do much significant expansion, but I think the content definitely belongs in this article, even if I haven't put it in an acceptable form yet. The fact that Browne (who, incidently, is the editor of the Darwin papers and probably the most authoritative historian of Darwin) called her book on the history of biogeography The Secular Ark is indicative of the significance of this connection.--ragesoss 02:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has a place in the article. I think the point you're making needs to be contextualised a little - perhaps an intro sentence along the lines of how the Enlightenment and the rise of scientific inquiry led scholars to try to relate the Ark story to their expanding knowledge of the world, and how that attempt in turn led to the present situation where the biblical story is no longer seen as literally true (as it had been, without question, from ancient times)? I'm happy to leave it in your hands. PiCo 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Genesis 8:7ff - the raven and the dove (As it says)

Genesis 8:6ff says this:

7 and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground; 9 but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more.

So it seems the raven was flying to and fro for at least two weeks, maybe three. PiCo 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The raven didn't come back. As it will happily feed off carcases, this is possibly why. ^rossnixon 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The "why" is unimportant. What is important, is that the doves are of the Jahwist edit, the raven of the Priestly. Spend some time figuring out the importance of that difference. Jim62sch 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah...I was wondering what your post was for. It's not for me to figure out - I am one of the majority(?) of Christians who completely discount the "Documentary Hypothesis". ^rossnixon 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What's puzzling is how the raven managed to keep flying - there was no dry land for another two weeks at least. PiCo 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure there was dry land. It takes about 100 days for an olive tree to grow to the stage that a dove can pluck off a leaf. ^rossnixon 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bible says: Raven sent out, goes "to and fro" until the waters are dired up from the earth (Gen8:7); dove sent out for the first time, after the raven but how long after isn't specified, but finds "the waters...still on the face of the whole earth" (8:8-9); dove sent out again, one week later, and finds "the waters had subsided from the earth" (8:10-11). That's at least one week, and possibly two, between the time the raven goes out, and the second time the dove goes out. I was wrong earlier saying that the timeframe is at least 2 weeks - it's a minimum of 1, although the way Noah waits a week between times with the dove makes me suspect he also waited a week between raven and dove. But whether one week or two, still too long for the raven to be flying all that time. Of course, you might be right about the carrion - it may have settled on floating corpses. PiCo 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the importance of the doves and ravens is that the Jahwist doves are birds suitable for sacrifice, and so the Priestly editor, who didn't accept anyone offering sacrifices before Aaron appeared, replaced the Jahwist dove with a non-sacrificial raven. Of course, this is the position of those who accept the documentary hypothesis. Rossnixon makes the point that a possible majority of Christians don't. My own opinion is that a majority of ordinary Christians have never even heard of it. But apparently the Vatican believes that an overwhelming majority of bible scholars, do.

(reducing indent) PiCo, you forgot to sign the above. In any case, the opinion of "a majority of Christians" is totally irrelevant in this case for exactly the reason you noted: they never heard of the documentary hypothesis. What amazes me is the number of people who read the bible on a daily basis and are blissfully unaware of all of the contradictions, the changing stories, the inconsistencies, etc. Jim62sch 11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ross, I'm a bit confused by this statement of yours and was wondering if you could clarify your meaning? "It takes about 100 days for an olive tree to grow to the stage that a dove can pluck off a leaf". Jim62sch 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 21:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia (JE gives agreement to use material)

While checking the various links that go with the article (I mean the ones at the end of the article), I came across the Jewish Encyclopedia. The entry contains much excellent material on Jewish and Islamic versions of the Ark story, and I'd like to include it - but it would be a massive breach of copyright, and so I don't quite know what to do. Any suggestions? PiCo 01:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Try contacting them at this address, info@jewishencyclopedia.com <info@jewishencyclopedia.com>, and explain why and where you want to use the info (including what info you'd like to use). Reference this: "3.2 You may search, retrieve, display, download, and print content from the Service solely for your personal, internal use, and shall make no other use of the content without the express written permission of JE.com and the copyright owner (or its authorized agent) of such content. " Jim62sch 11:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) PiCo 11:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got the permission and have added a new section, the Ark in Rabbinic and Islamic tradition. The JE people said we should acknowledge them as the source, which I've done. I have the email from JE giving permission - am I supposed to register it with WikiAdmin or something? PiCo 07:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I'm not sure about registering. Contact either KillerChihuahua or FeloniousMonk and ask. Maybe you could add it to your user page. Jim62sch 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Permission from JE:

+++++++++++

Fine to use in a non-profit way (Wikipedia) as long as JE is cited.

Josh

Jim62sch 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If the permission is electronic, wouldn't hurt to paste it here in the talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what that junk after the plus signs was. OK, it was really ugly.  :) Jim62sch 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

permission to quote from Jewish Encyclopedia

Emails with Kopelman Foun dation (Jewish Encyclopedia) ergarding permission to quote JE material for Wikipedia

BEGIN

From: "Kopelman Foundation" <info@kopelman.org> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book To: XXXXXXXXXXXX Subject: RE: Request for use of material Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:00:04 -0500

Fine to use in a non-profit way (Wikipedia) as long as JE is cited.

Josh

---

Original Message-----

From: XXXXXXXXX Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:17 AM To: info@jewishencyclopedia.com Subject: Request for use of material

Dear Sirs

I am currently working on an article on Noah's Ark for Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark). I would like to include information from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on this subject, specifically the sections on the Ark in Rabbinical literature and in Mohammedan (Islamic) literature - see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1780&letter=A&search=noah.

I am therefore writing to ask your permission to quote extensively from this material, and to ask what conditions you might impose.

I would, of course, acknowledge all material from the JE.

XXXXXXX

END

References+citations

I've started adding references to the text of the article, beginning with the section headed "Narrative". I'll make them as hyperlinks wherever possible, otherwise as footnotes pointing to books. I'm using the RSV as my bible-text, because it's more readable than older ones and, I believe, more faithful to the original Hebrew. PiCo 11:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and the newer the Bible (generally speaking) the more reliable it is (as long as it doesn't translate "firmament" as "dome"). Jim62sch 22:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Section - The search for Noah's Ark (Revision of section with this title)

I re-wrote this section to give it more form and better content. Some dubious material has been edited out. Comments? PiCo 01:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some grammar edits, I'll go back to it later for format. There are a few things that read "oddly" to me, but it might just be that it's early in the morning and I'm tired. Jim62sch 13:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I also updated the Gopher wood section, correcting the Latin and adding the Greek. My friend hasn't heard back from her rabbi yet, so I can do anything with the Hebrew. Jim62sch 13:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Section - Other flood accounts (Creation of new sub-sections)

I split this into two sub-sections, as there's a clear distinction between the Mesopotamian stories and the rest. I also rtied to keep the length down. Comments welcome. PiCo 13:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

footnotes

I started adding footnotes, but it'll be a while before they are done. Jim62sch 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Finished the footnotes but you might like to check them. PiCo 12:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The search for Noah's Ark as pseudoscience (Is it pseudo-science to search for Noah's Ark?)

rossnixon deleted this from the end of the section on Searches for Noah's Ark, explaining that he [didn't] my correctionbelieve it [i.e. ark-searching] to be psuedoscience (plus some further explanation that I didn't quite understand):

Searches for the physical Noah's Ark is regarded as pseudoscience by archaeologists, who point out that they consume time, energy, and money, all of which could be put to better use supporting existing scholarly excavations around the world.[7]

carrionluggage reverted it soon after, without acknowledging or explaining. I regard this as bad manners, whatever my personal feelings about the passage. Rossnixon had the courtesy to explain why he made his edit, and if anyone disagrees, it should be brought here to the discussion page. I've re-reverted to rossnixon's edit, even though I don't agree with it (I actually wrote the deleted passage), and if anyone wants to put it back, they should give reasons here and take no action on the article page until a consensus is reached. PiCo 23:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe it was a case of substandard manners on my part, but the explanation by Nixon made no sense and it seemed like a revert-war was in progress, so I butted in. Obviously I did not agree with Nixon's "justification," so it seemed redundant to say that. Next time I will be better. Most of these fundamentalists have no manners at all, accusing scientists of being atheists or "secular humanists." They are as angry as any Islamic fundamentalist and have declared their equivalent of a jihad against science. See Wedge Strategy. Most scientists are lucky that that religious ("Christian" fundamentalist) fanatics can't easily or do not dare to physically attack them, as was done to university of Kansas professor Paul Mirecki recently: [8]. Carrionluggage 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just one other comment about this - searching for a possibly historic relic is an expedition or search, not practical science. Science (or pseudoscience) would be the analysis of any physical samples obtained. ^rossnixon 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I think what the archaeologists are talking about is exactly this spending of money on scientific analysis when scientists have already said the effort (the specific effort, not the general search) is a waste of time - for example, McGivern's spending money (his own, admittedly) to buy time with a commercial imaging satellite, and the Wyatt people's endless laboratory analyses of what the geologists have already told them is just a pile of mud. Funding for genuine archaeology is not easy to come by, and the academic practitioners see such things as a waste of money that could be put to better use. PiCo 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We could point out that these searches are done more for religious reasons (essentially to verify the inerrancy of the bible), rather than for archaeological reasons, and that the Wyatt analyses are junk science...but calling the whole thing pseudoscience is probably inaccurate. Jim62sch 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All archaeological fieldwork is done for a reason, and to verify Biblical inerrancy is as valid a reason as any other. Science is about means, not aims, and so long as biblically-driven archeologists use recognised methods, (i.e. keep stratigraphic records, retain untouched areas at the site, etc), their activities have to be called archaeology. In fact, this is exactly what has happened with Wyatt and his mud-pile: he began by saying it was the Ark, but the results of the investigations he carried out - analyses conducted under scientific conditions by reputable laboratories - have led to his followers now claiming that the clay walls of the site (no longer claimed to contain wood) represent only the "bow wave", so to speak, of the Ark as it slid downhill. The original thesis ("this is the Ark") was crackpot, but the results of genuine archaeological methodology have led to a revision, as good science should. Maybe I'm convincing myself that it isn't pseudoscienceafter all, just a gigantic waste of time and money, a.k.a. junk science :). PiCo 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Science is, in my opinion, not just about means, but about aims as well. Somebody accurately estimating the chances of winning in a bridge tournament with a certain history of expertise and perhaps a certain hand dealt out may use scientific and statistically valid methods, but is not doing science. Somebody who says she/he is doing science, and using what appear to be scientific means and methods, but who has a secret agenda (perhaps even unrecognized by him/herself), often ends up doing pseudoscience. Examples are cold fusion, much of ESP research, a lot of crank work on relativity (from people who just can't believe Einstein was right), Lysenko's genetic studies, and Cyril Burt's "proof" that intelligence is strongly correlated between identical twins and exhibits differences among races. (Of course, twins have some correlation, but Burt selected or faked data to make it come out the way he wanted, stronger than is correct.) Fault him on methods or on just plain fabrication if you like, but the fact is it looked scientific but was warped by his intentions (evidently to establish for the British upper class that they were almost a kind of "master race." Similarly, "scientists" for the tobacco industry "proved" for decades that smoking does not cause lung cancer (using the concept that some subtle genetic difference made people want to smoke and also gave them lung cancer), many scientists advising President Bush tell everybody that human activity does not appreciably add to global warming (I do not claim it is the whole story, but, for sure, it adds in there), and Edward Teller, driven by hate of Communism and wanting a large nuclear arsenal and large nuclear test programs, used to say that the radiation from fallout was just like "sunshine" [9], Talk:LD50 which reads in part:

'For example. In the 1950's, one of the Atomic Energy Commission's top scientists began promoting the term "sunshine unit", to describe exposure to nucleotides and radiation. Like it was no more worrisome than getting a suntan. We all know that by the 1960's, fallout had become such a serious problem that it led to the end of above-ground nuclear testing...' ... etc etc. (I believe that the writer in Talk:LD50 meant "radioactive nuclides" and not "nucleotides"). Carrionluggage 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Science=aims as well as means? Off the top of my head, you seem to make a good point with the example abuot the bridge player. Nevertheless, the ark-searchers have an aim which, in archaeological terms, isn't out of the ball park - rather, it's just extremely archaic. Consider this: between 1926 and 1932 William Foxwell Albright, of Johns Hopkins University (i.e., a respected and mainstream academic archaeologist) excavated Tel Beit Mirsim, in Palestine. No-one has ever questioned Albright's field methods - they were absolutely in accord with the standards of the day. His aims? He was trying to find evidence of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, as described in the biblical books of Joshua and Judges. He came away convinced that he had found exactly that: he identified the site with the Bible's Canaanite city of Dirbir, and he found evidence of a violent destruction around a date he set at 1230 BC (no radiocarbon back then). Other archaeologists found similar signs at many other sites, and so Albright's findings and conclusions seemed to be confirmed and this scenario became the scholarly consensus. Later, off course, it all fell apart - sites were re-dated, artifacts once ascribed to the Israelites were re-ascribed to other peoples (or just labelled "unknown"), and other, non-Bibilical historical references were applied to the analysis (most notably, Palestine in the years around 1230 was an Egyptian province - Joshua would have had to fight the Egyptians, not the Canaanites). As a result, respectable archaologists no longer acept Albright's conclusions. Nevertheless, his aims, at the time, were perfectly scientific, as was his methodology. The problem with those who today search for Noah's Ark is that, unlike the archaeological community in general, their aims are still stuck in the world of the 1930s. PiCo 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the censorship (External links) (Editor complains of deletion of external links)

I am at a loss to understand why my External links edit was reverted. These links were quality links having to do specifically with the subject of Noah's Ark.

Dougp59 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Doug I added (External links) to your section title to make the reference a little clearer.

I wasn't the one who deleted your links, but I do support the delete. Here's why: The article currently has 29 internal references (through the footnotes), plus another link to a book. Most of those links, 23 of the 29, come from just 2 sections, Biblical literalism and the Ark narrative" and "The search for Noah's Ark".

I believe those 23 links are enough. As you know, the Web is full of Ark-related and Bible-related sites - and equally full of sites maintained by people wanting to discredit both. At an earlier stage this article had an External Links section, and it was turning into an arms race, each side adding sites simply to try to outpace the other, but without adding anything to the article itself. I want the article itself to become a good, solid introduction to and overview of the Ark, in all aspects, from the textual analysis of liberal Biblical scholars to the ark-searches of literalist believers like James Irwin (a man whose integrity I respect, even if I think personally that he was wasting his time). So, I want to avoid that pointless arms-race of piling on sites without actually contributing to the article here on Wikipedia.

I'm not advancing this under the "Wiki-should-have-balance" banner, as I think the prime aim of this, and any, article should be to ensure that a particular part of the subject should be covered adequately, given due regard to its importance within the whole. But I would ask you to have a look at your links, compared them to the 23 already there, and ask yourself dispassionately whether they add anything that's not already covered. If you feel that one of your links is better than one that's already there, go ahead and replace it. If you think there's a point in the text that has no reference and one of your links could usefully support it, go ahead and add a new footnote. But I'd be very reluctant to add external links just because they're to a site that's a personal favourite. (Incidentally, one of your linked sites is already there - noahsarksearch.com is referenced at footnote 27, to a specific page on the site treating the Durupinar site).

But rest assured, your participation is valued.

PiCo 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks PiCo for your response. I've thoroughly reviewed the article and the links. Most do not deal with the search for the Ark or attempts to technically explain the feasibility of the Ark. The overall impression of the article is that the Ark is a myth and should be discounted as so. I guess for NPOV to be really obvious in the article, a seprate link to a new article "The Search for Noah's Ark" would add balance. I am willing to write such an article, but would it be allowed to be posted and would you add a link to it?

63.73.199.69 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Doug: I'd have no objection if you wrote an article on the searh, in fact I'd welcome the initiative. As I think I suggested in my earlier post, the search for the Ark, and the arguments over technical details, are two areas that generate a lot of heat, and I'd like to turn that heat away from this particular article. There's been some discussion lately on another 2 articles, Ararat anomaly and Durupinar, about whether to merge them with each other and with a third article, Noah's Ark hoaxes and misconceptions: lately everyone seems to have lost interst in the topic and simply let it drop, but I think all three couold be wrapped up into an article called The search for Noah's Ark. (The Hoaxes/Misconceptions article shows up the pitfalls of writing this sort of thing: whoever started it apparently wanted to simply make the point that the idea that the Ark was on Ararat was a misconception, but it grew and grew, and then I took a hand to it, but everything I wrote made it more and more POV in an Ark-is-false way, which was't at all what I wanted...anyway, there's scope for your suggestion). PiCo 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes (Suggested change to footnote format)

I would like to change of the footnotes structure of this article, to something similar to timeline of evolution. While the current system contains the text of the footnotes in a special section, it would use the ref-tag to define the text of the footnote within the text (see the source of that article). In my opinion it would make further editing easier (though it may feel cluttered to some). For example, the ordering of the footnotes would be automatically corrected when sections are moved within the article, and footnotes can be added and edited without scrolling up and down.

Another change I would like to make at the same time, is the format of the individual footnotes, again similar to the format in the timeline of evolution article, which would appear:

1. "A representative quote from the referenced article or a quote that contains the information referenced." Exact name of page

Finally, I would suggest that bible references be linked to wikisource, for obvious reasons. Wikisource features, among other texts:

1. Bible, King James
2. Bible, World English
3. Bible, English, American Standard
4. Bible, Free
5. Bible, English, King James, Documentary Hypothesis, JE source, Jahwist source

Are there reasons to not implement these changes? -- Ec5618 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bible translations are a minefield - all sorts of apparently harmless little words can blow up in your face. The KJV has the poetry, but the scholarship belongs elsewhere, and it seems many modern children are completely unable to understand Jacobean English (although I'm completely unable to understand many modern children, so that's fair enough). Unfortunately we have no choice but to use the Wikisource KJV for the documentary hypothesis as it's the only one available. Modern American translations tend (more than tend - almost all of them do this) to translate the Old Testament so that it confirms the New - e.g., because the NT, based on a Greek version of the Pentateuch, says Mary was a virgin, they translate the Hebrew "almah" at Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" instead of the correct "young woman", because otherwise the NT would be wrong. The Revised Standard Version is the most accurate of modern translations, but it's very unpopular with American churches on account of consistently translating Hebrew as if it were Hebrew instead of Greek. Wikisource doesn't have the RSV - I'll look through those others and see if they accord to my extremely high standards (joke!). PiCo 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Most conservatives would agree that the NASB (New American Standard) is the most accurate, if a little stilted because of that. And finally, in 1995 they removed all the "thees and thous" ^rossnixon 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The NASB is "strong on Greek, weak on English" - i.e. hard to read. See this site. I'd prefer something different. (Also, although scholarly, it's based on a Greek text and does force the OT to conform to the already-existing English NT, rather than to the original Hebrew). PiCo 02:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New section: Christian tradition

Added this new section as it contains a subset of information on the Ark not otherwise touched on. PiCo 06:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate?

How does everyone feel about putting this up as a candidate for Featured Article? PiCo 11:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be cool with it. I'd like to run a spell check at least first. Jim62sch 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, too much Documentary Hypothesis conjecture in it for me. I believe this hypothesis has been largely discredited. ^rossnixon 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the nature of a hypothesis to be conjectural :). But, try looking at it this way: we're trying to write a balanced article, covering all aspects of the subject. The DH is one of those aspects: we should try to cover it fairly and objectively, like any other part. What you could do, and what would be very valuale given your personal background, would be if you could look at the "Literalist" section for us - is it fair, balanced, complete yet succint? That would be most welcome. PiCo 11:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism. (New wording on Judaism's understanding of the Ark)

Under the Biblical literalism section it says that: 'Many conservative Christians (especially in the United States) and Orthodox Jews are believers in Biblical inerrancy, the concept that the Bible, as the word of God, does not set out to mislead, and hence should be interpreted using the historical-grammatical method whenever there is no clear reason for any other reading.' Orthodox Jews don't have any term like "historical-grammatical" interpretation and their methods are quite different from what that generally implies. If there are no objections, I will rewrite this sentence. JoshuaZ 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I think this sentence is rtying to get too detailed, and might be better just saying: "Many conservative Christians (especially in the United States) and Orthodox Jews are believers in Biblical inerrancy, the concept that the Bible, as the word of God, does not set out to mislead, and hence should be taken literally whenever there is no clear reason for any other reading." PiCo 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, see my current wording. If you prefer your wording, feel free to swap it in. JoshuaZ 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed a "that" to a "who" for the sake of grammar (use a personal pronoun for persons), but otherwise it looks ok to me. IF you can do this, it would be very useful to check those traditional dates for the composition of the Pentateuch. Be sure to add a reference for any change you might make.PiCo 02:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

weird sentence (An editor queries some mangled wording)

What is this sentence trying to say? "According to the hypothesis the five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—were edited together in the 5th century BCE from four independent sources."

What is "the hypothesis"?--ragesoss 14:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I see now; there was a bad copy-and-paste job from one section to another. The narrative and textual analysis sections need some clean-up before I'm ready to vote FA.--ragesoss 14:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

repeated material (More mangled words)

The narrative and textual analysis sections have some repeated material about the Priestley text.--ragesoss 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made the clean-up. PiCo 22:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest: Christian Skeptic

As I have had an edit removed out of the article by a self confessed [10] publisher of creation journal entries. If someone could put it back as I do not wish to violate 3RR even though this user has a clear conflict of interest and some fringe theories that they appear to want edit into wikipedia. The edit I made was to fit the above discussion. This user also appears to regard the BBC as not a referenceable organisation because they have (claimed) "a clear anti-christian bias", the BBC is most definitely able to be used as a citation. From the user's homepage: "That all life forms were created some 6000 years ago during the creation week; And that there was a global cataclysm. Both the creation and the Flood are established fact within which science is done. They are not hypotheses to be falsified by the scientific method." Which is a completely niche view and completely at odds with science and (as this article suggests) even at odds with the majority of religious followers. NathanLee (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have myself reverted edits by Christian Skeptic, as they have appeared blatantly motivated. I keep a close eye on him specifically because of that conflict of interest. But let's not forget about your conflict of interest. I have objected to your edit because it drags the article offtopic right in the middle of the introduction. In case you're unaware, geology proves nothing about whether the Ark was fictional. Geology proves that there was no global flood. It says nothing about the Ark. Your inability to distinguish between the two subjects is just one of the issues causing you problems with the content of this article. The BBC article does say that 'experts' believe the Ark itself was impractical ('It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'), and that reference definitely belongs in this article. But as I have already pointed out, that reference is already in this article, and I know because I was the one who put it there.

Your history of editing this article demonstrates that you have no interest in contributing any material relevant to the Ark, all you want to talk about is the flood. You have contributed nothing about the Ark whatsoever. You have repeatedly attempted to increase the amount of weight given to the flood in this article. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that the flood receives due weight in this article, including an entire section on how post-Renaissance science demonstrated there was no global flood, and how by the 19th century most scientists and Christians had abandoned the literal interpretation of the flood. Your only interest is in posting references which prove there was no global flood. That's fine, but it doesn't belong here. For this reason I have invited you to go and edit the relevant page, which is on Noah's flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, my understand is that this article is not about a mythological vessel, it is about the myth in its entirety. Just would like to seek clarification on that. I do agree that Deluge (mythology) is the appropriate place to discuss theological and scientific merits of a global flood - but material pertainly directly to the flood as it appears in the Noah story does rightly belong here for the moment. The deluge article points readers to here as the "main article" for teh Noah's ark (and flood) story.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is about a mythological vessel. It's about the mythological vessel called 'Noah's Ark'. This is conveyed to the reader by means of the article title, which is 'Noah's Ark'. I agree that material pertaining to the flood does belong in here. Let me make something clear to you. There is already an abundance of material pertaining to the flood in this article. It is utterly bizarre that pepole are arguing for an inclusion of the flood in this article, when this article already includes plenty of material on the flood. Are people just not reading the article? The deluge article points readers here only because there is no separate article on the Genesis deluge. That is not an excuse for dumping anything and everything on the flood, in this article. It's a reason why we need a separate article on the flood, as I have argued repeatedly. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an abundance of material relating to ships. This needs to be about the story, that includes flood, animals, Noah etc. Actually: that IS what the article is about if you just stop using this excuse to remove something that disagrees with the idea that the bible is giving a factual view of history rather than just a legendary/mythical story. NathanLee (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)