Jump to content

Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Kinds/species

Some clarification on the new addition here, please: "by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative. This was because they equated the modern term species with the old biblical term kind (miyn) despite the arguments of the Scriptural Geologists of the early 19th century who clearly believed that "kind" was a larger biological classification than "species." This is an apologetic argument, not history. Master Books is the publishing arm of ICR I believe. Please quote the passage(s) on 196 where this claim is made. I think it's important to cross-ref this analysis from other sources. It's implausible that 18th century natural historians shared our modern definition(s) of species. And the statement seems to oversimply the range of evidences natural historians were then coming to terms with. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Now removed. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Ark was like the TARDIS, with a lot more room inside than was apparent from the outside. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
"Take that box over there..." that explination still tickles me. Padillah (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No, they didn't share our modern definition(s) of species, but the argument should be taken seriously. If some voice told you to gather two of every animal into your boat would you grab an african and asian elephant? Or would you just grab the first two elephants that walked your way?Drew Smith What I've done 09:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The claim read, "by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative.[4] This was because they equated the modern term species with the old biblical term kind (miyn) despite the arguments of the Scriptural Geologists of the early 19th century who clearly believed that 'kind' was a larger biological classification than 'speicies'." Just one the several problems with it was that it did say that 18th century natural historians used the modern definition. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Another problem I have is how are 18th century historians taking 19th century geologists into account? Padillah (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe 18th century and 1800s were confused? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Narrative vs Story vs Mythology Consensus

We've been arguing over content for quite some time now. I think it'd be a good idea to have an actual request for consensus on the matter. Please do not argue with one another here, as it will make determining consensus much more difficult (use one of the other threads on the matter to argue/discuss/whatever). Please state your wording preference followed by a brief summary if you like. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Narrative (or story) Per comments above. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Story It's previous use in other academic works establishes it as acceptable and provides a real-world rationale if/when anyone questions it in the future. The mythology point of view can be elucidated in the article body. Padillah (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mythology is preferred option, though I would also accept sacred narrative (or religious narrative, though slightly less preferred) as a reasonably closely equivalent. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mythology or myth are the most accurate and suitable, and, frankly, anything else is POV pushing by people who don't make similar fusses to the articles about the myths of other cultures that are called myths straight out. I also think a straw poll by people jumping in from out of nowhere who have no demonstrated knowledge of the terms in question isn't particularly helpful or representative. Experts refer to it as myth, so that's what Wikipedia has to follow even if a bunch of people object. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Story per the Encyclopaedia Britannica which uses this predominantly in its article. The word counts for Britannica are story = 10, narrative = 3, theme = 2, myth = 1, mythology =1, passage = 1. It uses myth / mythology when talking of the Babylonian accounts of the flood which seem related to the Biblical version. Some variety of usage is appropriate for stylistic reasons, as elegant variation, but the word story seems best stylistically as it is simple and short. Similarly, myth is better than mythology as the latter properly indicates a collection or study of myths. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I am not in favor of one over the other; either option seems merited to me— `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Story per all of our discussion, and as the most neutral term. The body of the article can present the facts and let the reader come to their own conclusion regarding the veracity of the account. I feel that myth(ology) is rather less neutral and is not currently supported sufficiently well by RS to be preferred over story. --MoreThings (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Narrative (or story). I think that is neutral. SAE (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mythology - it's the appropriate academic descriptor. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mythology - per a fairly extensive reading on the classification of the story. Ben (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Narrative (or story) per MoreThings's and Colonel Warden's discussion. These two are the only only terms under consideration that do not carry a strong (negative) connotation as to its veracity. (Community editor (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Narrative (or story) Narrative is the most neutral term, while story is most supported by academia. Either one is fine by me.Drew Smith What I've done 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Narrative (or story). This is most accurate for we know for sure that this certainly is a narrative or story. But we don't know for sure that it's truth, or that it's myth (per a very extensive reading of "myth" as it's used by far and away the most people in the world, including universities). Blahzzz (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Narrative or story without preference between the two. My reasoning is explained in my RfC comment above. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mythology or myth is my preferred option. The definition of "myth" is pretty clearly laid out here and in other articles on mythology, and the primary OED definition is consistent with this and open about the factual nature of such topics. That said, religious/sacred narrative is a tolerable compromise. --PLUMBAGO 16:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Narrative: The word myth as used by sociologists has no meaning or relevance to Christians. Trabucogold (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Writing the article from a Christian point of view would clearly violate WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
So would writing the article from the anti-Christian point of view. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to argue about it. — e. ripley\talk 19:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Says who? What rule are you citing? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The person who started this section asked that it only be used for voting, and not arguing; read the opening paragraph above. It's not a rule, but rather a matter of common courtesy. — e. ripley\talk 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
They can ask, but they don't own the section and don't have the right to dictate its contents. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

New Opening Sentence

How about this (following the Tower of Babel's lead):

"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach) according to chapters 6-9 of the Book of Genesis was a large vessel built by Noah, at God's command, that saved Noah, his family, and a representation of all the world's animals from a great flood."
This is as NPOV as you can get ("according to Genesis...") and more comprehensive than what's there... what do you all think? SAE (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's good. I'd add more to the paragraph to go with this, as I proposed above. But this is a good start. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. I'd suggest leaving that as a single-sentence intro paragraph defining the subject, with further info in separate paras. PiCo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and replace the current (quite sucky) intro sentence with this one, seeing as no one seems to dislike this one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a direct quotation from a source? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
XD.Drew Smith What I've done 09:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This fails to account for the islamic viewpoint. You can't trump one religion with another. Work with the generic one and go from there. We have to be fair to all the religions who have this story in their mythology. NathanLee (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this was one of the reasons for de-listing from featured article status: that it doesn't compare other deluge myths. Not even including virtually identical mythology is a major oversight. NathanLee (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

POV Consensus call?

It seem to me that this call in this page is unnecesary. Mythology and Christian mythology have already gone throw this discussion in a broad sense, and the Consensus was that its ok to call histories in the bible mithology (since the definition in wikipedia of mithology). If you wanna change it, you need to change more than this article and breach the consensus in other articles in order to bring a self-consist definition—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.158.14.75 (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. You're a little too late to the party. Consensus has been reached that while scientifically "myth" does not denote truth or fiction, but that in the layman vocabulary it is commonly used to label a story as rubbish. Narrative on the other hand is both accurate, and neutral.Drew Smith What I've done 09:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Drew Smith. Consensus is not a one time vote...it is fluid, it can change, and it very well might change back towards "myth" eventually, but currently consensus is for "story" or "narrative." Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Consensus that violates other policies is not valid. The people voting to remove "myth" were doing so to promote a POV that their religious beliefs should not even be roundaboutly "denigrated" by being called an accurate word that some ignorant people might think means something else, but the religious beliefs of other cultures are just fine with being called myths. A huge tagteam of POV pushers descended upon this article. That's not to say you've won, you've just manage to push your way into getting what yo want temporarily. One enough of these POV pushers get banned (many of them are heading that way already from actions on other pages) or enough other editors see what they are up to and respond, it'll all be over. DreamGuy (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that this was the result of POV pushing. To the contrary, because of the common usage of the word myth to refer to non-sense, THIS is POV pushing (and a majority of editors agreed). This is NOT becaus eof my religious beliefs. In fact, had I interest in the articles, I'd hope to see the same neutral POV used with any such articles (including the "myths" of other religions...). Further, it was demonstrably shown that other academically accepted works (indeed, other encyclopedias) use a similar wording as was agreed upon by consensus... As I stated earlier, this isn't a win or lose... and consensus may very well change back to "myth." If when that happens, the article should definitely use that word rather than narrative. I didn't attempt or manage to "push" anything. I asked for a consensus of opinions. In fact, I gave very little dialogue on the matter myself other than my voice for "narrative" or "story"... Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I shall simply say that I prefer mythology, and Drew Smith is wrong in saying someone is too late for the party, as consensus can change. The idea that we should refer to say Greek myths as Greek narratives seems a bit odd to me, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Narrative" or "story" doesn't violate any policy-and by definition all myths must be stories. "Myth" is shortened ver. of the greek word for story, mythos. I've read through a dozen references now, including Oden who was used as the inline for myth in the first place. The degree to which mainstream and academic sources on Noah's Ark term it a "myth" has been overstated here. "Myth" is not so controversial a usage as some seem to think-but it's also not the standard terminology used either. (So nobody misconstrues from the comment above, "religious belief" and "myth" don't have the same definition-they aren't interchangeable.)
One suggestion left earlier was to limit future polls to those editors who can first accurately define myth. I can't see what purpose is served using terminology in the opening sentence which we know to be widely misunderstood in the mainstream. The hyperlink is a poor work-around-it diverts a reader to another article to read before the reader finishes the first sentence of this one. Do we want to distract further by trying to explain "myth" there in the intro instead of describing "Noah's Ark"? Why not develop the myth discussion in a section where there's enough room-that's how it's more commonly done in the sources anyway. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There's something very wrong with the lede here. It says "Noah's Ark is a story" - now, I had thought it was a boat belonging to Noah. Has it been written like that just to make it clear that the ark itself did not exist? It is not just that the word "story", in most people's minds, implies a fiction, but the statement reads that the article is about this fiction, not the ark itself. Surely "Noah's ark is a boat found in some versions of a common middle eastern folktale or legend"? Redheylin (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's not as clear as it need be. Noah's ark is consistently described in various texts and traditions as a wood built structure that serves as shelter in a great flood, but whether or not it is built as a boat or a box or something else is different depending on the particular text, era, or interpretation. Who knew this was a subject of dispute? The lead doesn't let on, does it? Whether the Noah account is a myth or story or history or theology or any of that-this article carries the name of one feature of it-the ark. While we describe the Noah account, the reader is wondering "but what is an ark?" Professor marginalia (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That not my point, i do see the consensus vote above me, my question is why that consensus was called (in may 2009) if other articles have been over this exact debate for half a year or more. Christian mythology for example already list Noah's Ark in "Important examples of Christian mythology", Deluge myth list Noah's Ark in the jewish flood myths (Biblical Flood redirects there) , Jewish mythology under Connections with pagan mythology, . It seem to me that the call for concensus over that word was not necesary. Look for example at this pharse:

"Like other deluge stories such as the Babylonian Gilgamesh flood myth"

now consider it with the allegued "bad word" for the layman:

"Like other deluge myth such as the Babylonian Gilgamesh flood myth"

the reason it fits, its because since the other articles but this already consider noah's ark as a myth, being that word neutral, specific and semantic rich, more than stories or the other words that has replaced it here.

Even so i will respect the consensus reached here, my objection is wheather it was necesary for other than pushing a POV not for improving the article. --190.158.6.164 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I've seen this debate flare up over MANY articles that have any religious conotations over and over again. I assure you that I'd GLADLY accept the outcome of a concensus, regardless of which way it fell. My personal opinion is obviously to use story, however, this is certainly not a POV attempt. The necessity for this consensus has nothing to do with POV-pushing, and everything to do with AVOIDING POV pushing, edit-wars, and constant arguing. If the consensus shifts towards "myth" then we should certainly use that term. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some points for consideration

I'd just like to make some points here:

  1. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. It should have very little detail, but should cover all the major points made in the main article.
  2. The first sentence should be a very simple definition of the topic, in the form X is Y. (Noah's ark is/was..., with the second part very brief).
  3. Someone in a thread up above asked whether Noah's Ark is/was an object or a story. Good question. It can be either. If treated as an object, then there's very little to say - just repeat what Genesis says, it was so big, had 3 levels, and its purpose was to hold animals (and Noah and family) during the flood. If treated as a story there's a lot more to say. Since the "story" approach includes the "object" approach, it's probably better to approach it that way.
  4. Noah's ark is not Nuh's ark - the two have very little in common - Noah's ark was intended to ride out the destruction of Creation (not just a flood - this was more than a lot of water), while Nuh's ark was intended to punish those who refused to accept the oneness of God. Nuh's ark is obviously based on Genesis, just as the Genesis ark is obviously based on the Babylonian one, but all this can be covered in a single paragraph - it's not essential to the subject.

For your consideration. PiCo (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Arlen22

Arlen22 made a series of edits today that removed substantial amounts of material and replaced it with new material, all of it generally tending to promote a literalist perspective. Much of the new material, particularly the section on sightings of the Ark on Mt. Ararat, is either lacking sources or cites fringe sources (e.g. Tim LaHaye and John Morris). I think that it would be appropriate to review these changes here before restoring any of them. Agathman (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about what the book said. How should I write it then. Arlen22 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The Ark on Ararat is simply a compilation of many accounts. When I read it I saw no way to refute it. And especially the part about how many animals could fit on the Ark. I recommend you see if you can find a copy and read it. It does cover the controversial Fernand Navarra expeditions. After reading that book, I don't really care to give him much credit. I really wonder what would happen if the ark were actually up there and was discovered and the news broadcasted to the whole world. The leader is about Noah's Ark and what it was used for. The body is for refuting. I think you would make a good editor for Noah's Ark does not exist :) I am just teasing you of course but I think we should have content that provides what is recorded about the ark in the leader. Like "According to the Bible..." This is how the myth articles do. Arlen22 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen many Greek myths written as a historical account. Shouldn't the Bible (which I have never found to be refuted) have better status than Greek Mythology that everyone knows is not true? Arlen22 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose putting the narrative section in the header. Arlen22 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"The Ark on Ararat" is book by an engineer (Morris) and a minister (LaHaye). If you really want to substantiate the claim that there are remains of the ark on Mt. Ararat, I think that something written by archaeologists would be more appropriate. See scholarship section in Reliable Sources. Furthermore, in the thirty-odd years since the book was published, hasn't any compelling evidence been found? Seems a more recent source would also help. Agathman (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What is an archaeologist. Where ever you look to there will always be those who study and say that the flood happened. The Ark landed on a mountain top according to the bible. And it is very unlikely that it came down. If you don't call them archaeologists then what. :) Arlen22 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
An "archaeologist" is somebody trained in, and performing research in, the field of archaeology. People who don't meet those criteria can probably be labelled "amateur archaeologists", "armchair archaeologists" or similar (possibly even "pseudoarchaeologists" in some extreme cases), as the situation merits. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. What Archaeologist is going to waste his time on top of an icy mountain in search of an object that everyone says is up there but no one can find. The many eyewitness accounts are going to do little if it can no longer be found. Might as well send a search team up to find it first then go up once they find it. Thanks again. I didn't know an archaeologist is trained. Arlen22 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Ark story" contains far more than the ark itself. Archaeological evidence of continuous settlement through the period of the purported flood would be evidence against it, as would lack of evidence of any global and simultaneous catastrophic abandonment and gradual resettlement spreading out from the mountains of Ararat. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok Thanks. I do realize that there is mainly Geological evidence. However Archaeologists have discovered stuff like the flood stories that many civilizations have. Arlen22 (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Stories are the realm of cultural anthropology, not archaeology. And I doubt if the stories contain sufficient commonality with the Genesis Flood story to be identifiable as being the same, let alone contain any reference to the inexplicable immediate diaspora from the mountains of Ararat, and likewise inexplicable immediate long journeys to the ends of the Earth required for them to have set up civilisations in sufficient time for them to later be discovered, that would be needed to thread them together into a coherent common (as opposed to parallel) narrative. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not at all talking about stories. But I do see what you are talking about. Apparantly what I am talking about is geologists have discovered evidence rather than Archaeologists. Arlen22 (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If God changed their languages they immediately had a new culture. Language is the basis of culture. Arlen22 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(i) This claim appears to have no relevance to the points I was making. (ii) This claim is itself contradicted by the body of knowledge generated by the field of historical linguistics, which traces the evolution of languages throughout history. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The changing of the languages answers your question very easily. The culture quickly changed, and in 2000 years (about the time of Christ) the Indians were already in Mexico. Apparantly, your historic linguistics do not account for the change of the languages. I think it would be very helpful if you would look at the greek myths and follow their style in editing Noah's Ark. That is what I have been doing. Arlen22 (talk) Smile :) 12:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I added the coat of arms of Nakhchivan City (in Azerbaijan), Nakhchivan is close to Mount Ararat and the coat depicts the great flood and Noah's Ark. So its definitly related to this article. Neftchi (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is actually a Russian-period "coat of arms" of the town of Nakhchivan. If so, that doesn't remove its relationship to the article, but makes the description wrong: "Nakhchivan City" is a modern term, used to distinguish the city from the region. Perhaps more interesting would be to have a picture and some info about "Noah's tomb" which was located in the same town but destroyed during Soviet times. Meowy 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It's relevance is highly tenuous -- so I'm removing it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Explain why its relevance is highly tenuous before removing it. The article already contains imagery depicting Noah's Ark, and this particular image is derived from the region most closely connected to the story. Meowy 19:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Nakhchivan City plays no part in the Noah's Ark story or its reinterpretation. It is just 'yet another object bearing an image of Noah's Ark' -- of which there are probably thousands. Also see comment below. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
And it has no relevance whatsoever to 'Modern Biblical literalism'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better description is required for the picture but Nakhchivan City is very close to Mount Ararat and is definitely related. Neftchi (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Geographical proximity on its own does not establish relevance. In any case, the arms date from the Imperial Russian era (in the 19th century). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"In any case"?? So it will be OK for me to remove all the other 19th-century images that are in the article? All of them are just objects bearing an image of Noah's Ark. Meowy 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of localities that have had the Ark on their coat of arms at various stages. Why should the 19th century one from Nakhchivan, which has no other association with the Ark, be given especial prominence? Where the other images are primarily of (preferably prominent) depictions of the Ark story, I would suggest that they are relevant. I'm less certain of Ibn Battuta & the Torah scroll -- both of which seem only very tenuously related to the Ark. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What have Geologists discovered

Have geologists discovered anything against the ark. If so, what? Arlen22 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything against the ark?. I don't think there is any. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that may have been referring to the man who claimed he had a piece of the ark; geologists identified the rock as not fossilized wood, but another type of rock. My memory is fuzzy on this; this is merely a guess. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. To my recollection (without searching on it) geologists even confirm a great (at least) local flood. It's hard not to since every middle-eastern history has a great flood story. As to geology nixing claims of individuals who claim to have a piece of the ark, that doesn't at all nix any claim of a flood. Cheers, SAE (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there have been local floods, easily confirmed by geology. What does this have to do with the literal acceptance of the Ark story? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Simply because if it is literal there will be evidence. Arlen22 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidence of more than a flood. Evidence of a flood is simply evidence of a flood. It does not confirm the literal interpretation of the ark story. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Killer, I think that point was that in the article, it said that geologists findings have shown the flood to be false, but this is being questioned here. No one's trying to prove the literal ark story, but have geologists proven that this great flood was false? Not to my knowledge. Cheers, SAE (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What 'great flood' was falsed? Yes, geologists and others have proven that a universal flood never happened, but if you mean some other flood you'll have to be more specific. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
More specific? We're talking about the flood that spawned the story of Noah's Ark and other middle eastern flood stories. That's as specific as I can get. Have geologists proven that this flood behind these stories never happened? SAE (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Question. What have geologists discovered to prove that Noah's Ark didn't exist. We are not going to debate about whether they think they found something. But what they found and if it is worth being called evidence. Arlen22 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To start with, how is it that there is limestone on top of a mountain. And why are there all kinds of animals frozen in the Siberian ice. And why are there stories from every part of the world that say there was a world-wide flood. In almost everyone there are a couple good people that are spared. Arlen22 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

no, the question is, how can we improve this article? this is not a forum - you're talking about all kinds of speculation, without suggested improvements to the article and without sourcing. I support your removal of the "geologists" from the article, as we have no idea who added that word and why - although I suppose one of us could do the due diligence and dig thru the history - but your posts since are not about the article. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Thanks for the reminder. Arlen22 (talk) Smile. 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
For your information and delight I've added a source about the attempt in 1823 to show that geology showed "relics of the flood", a position soon abandoned by its supporters who found that the evidence was only of local floods, or as it turned out glaciation. That particular source doesn't mention the issue that by then geologists considered the Earth to be much more ancient than the Biblical timescale, and doesn't give the date that Buckland himself abandoned his flood ideas, apparently by 1837. May hunt up some sources for that. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Narrative Section

Shall we put the narative section (which is right under the Table of Contents) up above for the summary. And move the section about those who disagree about whether the ark was real to the first section below the TOC? I think that would provide a much better article. Please comment. Arlen22 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. (i) it would make the lead too long & (ii) it gives excessive emphasis to the narrative story itself, as opposed to its influence on religious traditions, historicity, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question though. Why are the articles about greek mythology written that way? Arlen22 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
(i) Because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (ii) Why don't you ask a regular on "the articles about greek mythology"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to the disagreement. This is exactly what we want. It is more important for the article to tell about Noah's ark than to say that some think that it existed and others think it didn't. The latter is unimportant first because it is quite commonly known and second because this article is about Noah's Ark not Noah's Ark-Real or Imaginary. It should present information about it first before it says whether it existed. Arlen22 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Then you want another wiki. Wikipedia bases its articles primarily on third-party sources, not simply summarising the primary source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Also the narrative and the lead are very redundant. This makes a longer article, but does little to improve it. In fact, it greatly degrades it. Arlen22 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Then shorten the summarised version in the lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not what I am talking about. This article is about Noah's Ark not about the criticism. This should not even be in the leader. Arlen22 (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, this was an encyclopaedia, not The Little Book of Bible Stories. As such it's main function is to present scholarly information on the Ark's historicity, theological implications, etc, etc, not to simply recount the story. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True, Hrafn, but the article does not, actually, give even a word about present scholarly info on the Ark story - a para on literalism is as close as it gets.PiCo (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Section "Textual Notes"

I've started this new section to include notes on translation difficulties and on important interpretations as advanced by major scholars. I've made one entry and unfortunately will have to look around to see whose interpretation this is that I'm giving - it's not mine, but I can't remember off-hand who's it is. PiCo (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now the section only lists the two reasons why God sends the flood, which I don't think is very important to the article. I don't see how this merits its own section.ReaverFlash (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past editors have discussed the reasons for the flood, and that's why I put this in. By itself it doesn't merit a section, but there are more things that can go in, like the meaning of the word translated as "ark", which is used only once elsewhere in the bible, to describe the "ark" of Moses; the word "gopher" can also go in here, and the word for "flood", mabbul. The idea is to give the discussions given these words by previous major translators.PiCo (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "story" revisited

Some time ago, perhaps a month, consensus was reached to remove the word "story" and "myth" from the lede as both implied negative, or false, in the laymans defenition. After consensus had been reached, the lede was in a much better state, and presented all sides of the case fairly.

Now, the word "story" is back in the lede. To be fair, the current text is not nearly as bad as the previous text, but still has a slightly condescending tone. Perhaps a good compromise would be "According to Moses..." or, if Moses is not the generally agreed upon author, "According to the author of the book of genesis...".Drew Smith What I've done 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the nature of consensus on Wikipedia to dissolve like smoke. I see nothing wrong with describing the Flood pericope (fancy word) as a story - nor is it condescending, nor is it inaccurate. But if you like you could use that fancy word - pericope. It's a technical term from biblical studies, and might avoid offending the sensitive readers of Wikipedia. (It'll mystify them instead).PiCo (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And "myth" is the technical term that's not so jargon-laden. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice. But whats wrong with the suggestions I gave? We could even say "According to the book of Genesis" which doesn't imply true or false.Drew Smith What I've done 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Then say it. I'm the one who put "story" there. Cheers, SAE (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Remember that the word "myth" does not imply or suggest a falsehood. 72.134.97.155 (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
bull.. what world are you living in? "does not imply or suggest"... right, and the summer does not suggest sun, or hot weather, or the beach. lol 76.253.107.76 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if you actually read up on the topic (see Mythology) you wouldn't be making such aggressive arguments out of ignorance. DreamGuy (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Much as I expected based upon the previous "debate", the word "story" is now viewed with literalist suspicion. I suspect that whatever replaces it will later be judged offensive too. In the meantime, may I suggest "narrative" as the next word to be put in the firing line? --PLUMBAGO 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The people who removed "myth" did so for POV-pushing reasons, and as such has always been in violation of a founding principal of this encyclopedia. The Christian apologists keep hijacking this article, and that's not what an encyclopedia is for. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

so says the biggest pov-pusher on this site. your record (and logs, and blocks,and continual erasing of talk page, and suits filed against) speak for themselves. Enough said. 76.253.107.76 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its Myth is NOT POV, its what it is, if its POV then everything is point of view! Thats absurd.--203.213.11.49 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


I just voted for mythology in the archive concensus, counts are 9/9 i think --DevakiPaladin (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


whats the problem? Ark is a myth (its not true). Just because some people need to believe in it to believe the bible is accurate (which it is not) does not change the fact its a myth, fairy tale, made up, just not true or how ever you want to call it.

Myth is correct and accurate, so it should be used, If that upsets those they deny reality... Tough luck if you avoid reason and fact so be it, but we will write the facts nad truth, no matter what you bizzare baseless beliefs are.--203.213.11.49 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This type of trolling got old a long time ago. This has nothing to do with the argument over using the word "myth." If, on the other hand, you actually want to discuss the issue, please read up on the academic usage of "Myth" (see also other sources, such as Britannica). Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 05:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

More material on modern scholarly findings

The article sort of stops at the year 1900 or thereabouts. There's a brief para about literalism, but nothing about what mainstream biblical scholars have said. I've added two things and will look for more. I think it's important to add only those things which have wide acceptance, and I believe these two do. PiCo (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

7 of each clean kind?

How about adding the reference where it claims there was 2 of each clean kind?

Just to be more accurate about the contradictions of the bible.--203.213.11.49 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Arlen22 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There are two "Ark" stories in the King James version of the Bible. One says "Two of every animal" the other says seven of each clean animal, two of each unclean animal. The anon apparently thinks this contradiction is not well represented in the article. I would argue to the anon that the fact is that the Ark story is widely regarded as apocryphal and this "contradiction" does nothing to cast aspersions on the Bible. Padillah (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Well you can make all sorts of lame excuses for the bible onthis and other things, but it does contradict itself claiming 2 of each animal unclean and clean, then the next passage claiming 7 of each clean animal. Maybe this means 9?

The ark story of the bible which is different than the earlier versions, has been proven wrong by DNA and histroy for starters. Its a fairy tale.--203.213.78.179 (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the article isn't to take a stance regarding whether the deluge myth or story of Noah's ark is true or false, just to provide information. Should you feel the need to write a well sourced section regarding apparent contradictions regarding the ark story or the deluge myth feel free to do so here. Nefariousski (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian Bias

The opening paragraph should talk about the myth in general. The myth existed before the christians and before the jewish (which the bible version contradicts) where created. The christian version is covered latter on with some other versions.--203.213.78.179 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead links to Deluge myth, which talks about the myth in general. This article talks specifically about the version which is described in the Bible/Torah. Mathias-S (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We didn't realize that Turkey's official Noah's Ark site (named "Durupinar" after its discoverer) was here but saw an article about it, with photos, at the quiet Simer hotel in Dogubayazit, a town that is the base of all Mt. Ararat climbs.

Durupinar site

The Durupinar site is just 2 miles from the northern Iran border, and the skirmishes on the border involving Mt. Ararat make the government reluctant to approve archeological work on Ararat itself and may be a reason for Turkey and Ataturk University's earlier seal of approval for this place 17 miles away from the military forbidden zone of Mt. Ararat. Here's the famous Life Magazine picture taken from an aerial survey plane from 10,000 ft.

The site doesn't seem geared toward tourism dollars; there are no obvious road signs to let you know the ark site is there, and the road going up to it is just barely navigable, to put it nicely.

I had very little time inside so just took photos of some of the articles on the walls so that I could read them later. Here's an online article of Pros and Cons (more the latter) with pics. And History Channel's documentary from 2001 includes pictures and comments on this Durupinar site which are interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.134.149 (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Flood In Islam

woooo! fine fine ... i just wanted to help out so il just give u the verses and you figure out what they mean .. no interpretation or anything

and if u want me to provide u with all the details even if they're not useful then fine but don't complain sir



011.040 YUSUFALI: At length, behold! there came Our command, and the FOUNTAINS OF THE EARTH gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family - except those against whom the word has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but only a few believed with him.

011.042 YUSUFALI: So the Ark floated with them on the WAVES (towering) LIKE MOUNTAINS, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!"

011.043 YUSUFALI: The son replied: "I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water." Noah said: "This day NOTHING can save, from the command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy! "And the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood.

011.044 YUSUFALI: Then the word went forth: "O EARTH swallow up thy water, and O SKY Withhold (thy rain)!" and the water abated, and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and the word went forth: "Away with those who do wrong!"


....................


036.041 YUSUFALI: And a SIGN for them is that We bore their RACE (through the Flood) in the loaded ARK; this talks about humanity

............................ 054.009 YUSUFALI: Before them the People of Noah rejected (their messenger): they rejected Our servant, and said, "Here is one possessed!", and he was driven out.

054.011 YUSUFALI: So We opened the gates of HEAVEN, with WATER pouring forth

YUSUFALI: Then he called on his Lord: "I am one overcome: do Thou then help (me)!"

054.012 YUSUFALI: And We caused the EARTH to gush forth with springs, so the waters met (and rose) to the extent decreed.

just focus on the capital words no interpretation no nothing

there is no quranic verse stating the flood was local all the flood descriptions Ive mentioned up ... so its obviously unneutralized and unfair and unmeaning to make such a assumption with no proof. Moodswingster (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be your own unsourced interpretation of reading between the lines of the primary source; but blanking out a cited interpretation from the article was uncalled for, so I'm restoring it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note that you blanked out my earlier response above, and your response is confusing as it is mixed in with your first message. However, I have nothing to add to what I said before. Please do not blank out citations, and do not use your own unsourced commentary as a pretext. If you refuse to adhere to editing protocol, steps will have to be taken. If you have a citation or reference to a secondary source that makes your point, feel free to add it in, not blank out sourced and attributed information. Thanks Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


I didnt add any interpretation except the Quran all u have to do is focus on the capital words and compare them with what we view as something local .. thats it

there is no place at all where the Quran describes the flood to be local instead the Quran says the flood came from the skies and earth so this isnt local at all and nor is MOUNTAIN HIGH WAVES LOCAL? and there is no quranic source providing proof of a local flood so thats a bit unfair so its better off to keep it neutral sir .. plain and simple? just focus on the Quranic verses thats all82.194.62.25 Moodswingster (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There are also other verses that make it even more clear that it was global, such as all creatures being wiped from the face of the earth along with everyone after that begin a descendant of Noah. Either all people an animals of the world were in that one place, or something is wrong here if the flood was local. I fear that people are just kissing up to modern mainstream science, when there are plenty of global flood theories they could find. Here are some verses.

"And Noah said: `O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth! For if Thou dost leave (any of them), they will but mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones.'" S. 71:26-27 - Were there no unbelievers anywhere else in the world?

Ibn Ishaq, in turn, as we are told by Ibn Humayd- Salamah (- Ibn Ishaq), said... They said: Those who were with him in the boat were people who believed in him and followed him. However, they disappeared and perished, and no descendants of theirs survived. In this world today, the children of Adam are the direct offspring of Noah and of no other descendants of Adam, as God says: `And We made his offspring the survivors.' (Ibid., p. 368) - So, where there no other people anywhere else around the world or did everyone else suddenly become unable to reproduce?

"Abu Ja'far (al-Tabari) says: (Noah) and his family became (muslims), whereupon God revealed to him that he would never bring another Flood to the earth. (Ibid., p. 367)" - This can't be a local flood since these are common till this day, so it must mean a global one.

More verses are listed here http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/flood.htm

I am not trying to discredit the Noble Q'uran by saying this, not at all. I am trying to say that people do not have to say that it was a local flood for it to be possible (look up global flood theories), and making a case that the Quran does in fact imply a global flood. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.30.85 (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Paragraph Second: Does no one catch the reference to the Irish? Whhaaa? Color me confused. 72.43.2.101 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Star


recent supposed discovery

The word is out among creationists, this discovery by the Chinese group is a fraud. 75.147.49.73 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read about the recent discovery and saw many similar recent stories about it (the team claiming 99.9% certininty that it is the real deal) but I did find a ref with the claims that it might all be a fake: [1]. Should this be somehow added at the bottom of the article?Calaka (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, that's why we have Searches for Noah's Ark, but thanks. It's pretty clearly a hoax, see [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 April 2010
I think that Searches for Noah's Ark should be displayed on the Noah's Ark page. I went there trying to find information about the searches and was surprised not to have seen any mention of searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.175.100 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 April 2010
There is a link on the Noah's Ark page now. Look for it in the See also section. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

.

yes its true but clearly the quran says that Noah was one of the first messengers sent to humanity therfore all the decsendants of Adam back then were all gathered up so they all died except Noah's family .. that doesnt mean it was global .. clearly the Quran states Noah was the first messenger ever so in his time people werent spread so god doesnt need to send a global flood to destroy a small portion of life in earth

all what he provided was proof that Noah is the first messenger of Islam and that the flood destroyed everyone on earth but was earth THE SAME EARTH IT IS TODAY?.. the Quran itself stated Noah was the first of prophets and his people were the first of people to deny prophecy and he came in a time humanity was not yet spread .. therefore why would god send a global flood to kill a tribe? .. and there is no mention that the flood is global in the quran .. if there was then god would have spoken of it in the Quran to make it clear ...therfore its false and many scholars like Harun Yahya have denied a global flood ..

here are the VERSES pickthall=true&yusufali=true&shakir=true&arabic=true&chapter=4&verseBegin=163&verseEnd=163 4:163], 6:84, 11:25, 26:107, 29:14, 37:75, 57:26, 71:1, 71:2, 71:5

which states Noah was the first messenger..proves the argument.. there is no mention that the flood was global therfore its irresponsible to just guess and claim "god sent a worldwide flood to destroy a small tribe that lived altogether" btw scholars like Al Tabari have based thier philosophies on the Old Testmant and thats considered exegises ,Exegesis is banned here and we cant put the philosophies of a scholar when it contradicts the philosophies of others like Harun Yahya

http://books.google.com/books?id=VUe8WYAE8uIC&pg=PA15&dq=quran+nuh+global&lr=&client=firefox-a Perished Nations by Hârun Yahya, Mustapha Ahmad, Abdassamad Clarke, 1999 p. 15-17.

and there is no mention in quran that god promised he will never send a flood again .. this is all irresponsible and a work of assumption..Highdeeboy (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Then why did he have to round up a pair of every kind of animal? It seems like a wasted effort for a localized event. And that reaises another question, why did he even have to built an ark? He could have just been informed to leave the area before the flooding happened. Was it just an elaborate test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.136.190 (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if the area was relatively small, let's say the size of modern Turkey or even Israel, that would be a long haul when you could just build a boat. Maybe there would not be time. Heck there was a flood in New Orleans and many people died because they could not get out in time, whereas if they had boats they might have lived. That's just one city. Even over a relatively small area gathering two of every animal (and 14 of every clean animal) would be necessary to repopulate the area; there might even be important animals which were uniquely endemic to a certain region. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The warning was given well in advance with plenty of time to leave the area, so the comparison to New Orleans doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.136.190 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Height of ark

In the "numerology" section, there is this:

(The height of the Ark at 30 cubits is incidentally just enough to allow it to rest on the mountains at the height of the Flood, when the peaks are covered by 15 cubits of water)

This isn't sourced or explained and does not make sense to me. There isn't a straightforward relation between the height and draft of a vessel, as this sentence would imply. I am going to add "citation needed" for now but suspect there isn't any rational explanation for that sentence and that it should be deleted. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nostrils

As was partially said in the comment. The details found in Genesis 7:21-22 define which animals were on the Ark and which were not. This follows a typical progression found many, many, times through out the Bible. First the author makes a broad, generalized statement, which is then followed by details which qualify the generalized statement.

The Story of the Flood first states:

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." Genesis 6:17

This is then qualified to mean only those animals that live on dry land and breath through their nostrils.

"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. [i.e.] Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." Genesis 7:21-22

When the text uses the term earth it does not mean the globe, but rather dry land.

So 6:17 says "I am going to bring floodwaters on the dry land to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on dry land will perish."

And 7:21-22 reads: "Every living thing that moved on the dry land perished—-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the dry land, and all mankind. [i.e.] Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."

The problem over the years is that people read their own ideas into the text. They see the word earth and think globe. And they read the first description of what dies and miss or ignore the qualifying statements that follow. Allenroyboy (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So how did insects survive the flood? PiCo (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
1: Many insects have part of their life cycle existing in water, for example mosquitoes. 2: It would be impossible to keep many types of insects off the ark because of their symbiotic relationship to many of the animals and birds which were on the ark. 3: Conditions which would kill animals that breath through their nostrils need not have the same effect on insects. One can imagine, if you choose to, scenarios where different types of insects could survive conditions that are not normal. 4: And given the vast quantity of insects of each kind, that sheer quantity can ensure that some can survive a disaster.
Part of the problem concerning the flood and its effects is perception of what it was like. Some imagine it so mild that it left no impact on the surface of the land. Some imagine it so violent that nothing could survive. The question to ask is, what does the Bible really imply, not what do I think? Of course, some don't think the Bible and the Flood story have any validity. So, any discussion of possibilities is a ridiculous waste of time. And any suggestions by believers is nonsense. Fine. They can believe that way if they want. It would great if they would offer the same freedom of belief to others. Allenroyboy (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(1) Insects absorb oxygen directly through the exoskeleton. They die if immersed in water. This applies to water-dwelling insects as well as land-dwelling ones - the aquatic ones have various ways of carrying air bubbles with them underwater, or else they come to the surface to breathe, for example, mosquitoes. (2) Are you arguing that God, who brought about a flood so vast that it killed off all the animals on earth except the handful he chose to save, was incapable of removing fleas from dogs? If the insects got on the ark it would be in contravention of the commandment of God that only those animals which breathe through nostrils are to be saved. (3) Conditions which kill animals which breathe through nostrils (or to put that a better way, using lungs) will also kill insects, but quicker. I can't imagine any scenario where a termite survives being underwater for a year. (4) Why would God make special provision for a handful of creatures with lungs, but let those with exoskeletons take their chances? Had they done something specially offensive? PiCo (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, I don't have all the answers to every minute detail of why this or that because the Bible does not go into all the details. All I can do is make educated surmises based on what the Bible does say. To be sure in a global flood scenario one would expect vast numbers of every kind of animal and plant to be destroyed, drounded and buried; not only land dwelling animals that breath through their nostrils but also insects, fish and other aquatic life forms. But just as you only need few of any specific land based nostril breathing kind--a single male and a single female in most cases--to survive the disaster, so too with the insects and aquatic animals. Given the vast numbers of such creatures, the chance survival of a few in ege, larve or adult form is within survival probability.
Again, part of the issue here is perception of the Biblical flood, in this case it's duration. The Flood cataclysm began, but it wasn't until day 40 that the Ark was picked up and began to float, which implies that the "dry land" was not all completely covered until some time after that. Then the Ark was grounded on day 150 and other mountains became visible shortly afterwords. Then the rest of the land was drained over the rest of the year. So there was about 110 days (not quite 4 months) of likely total flooding. And even then, many Flood geologists propose that tectonic movement and tidal fluctuation may have occasionally but briefly exposed some areas of recently deposited sediments during this time. Is the probability great enough for a few of this or that animal to survive this time period? Flood catastrophists say yes.
Another proposal is that in a flood scenario one would expect mats of ripped up vegetation to be floating throughout and for some time after the event. It's proposed that some insects might survive in such a setting. Again, out of typical billions of any specific insect, only a few need to survive.
I find it interesting that non-literalists take the Bible far more literally than "literalists". Literalists realize that no written communication could possibly describe every minute detail of such a catastrophe as a global cataclysm. Especially such a description so short as the few verses given in the Bible. Thus one would expect only the greatest of generalities which give the foundation and framework upon which to build more detailed flood models that use and interpret the physical evidences found in the geologic record. Note, flood catastrophists start with the Biblical flood cataclysm as a given, a fact, not a hypothesis. Non-literalists consider the flood a hypothesis which could be falsified by the evidence. There is no common ground between these views. And there will be no agreement between them. Thus the continual disagreement between you and I and others like us. Allenroyboy (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think I don't take the bible seriously? I find it curious myself that those who read it literally, take God out of it. So the Flood becomes no more than a weather report. What the bible says is that God had an intention which was to exterminate all life. There was no room for chance - the earth had grown corrupt, and he wished to destroy it and start again with the few he chose to save. Also, you seem to be relying entirely on English translations of the bible. What do you understand the word "swarm" to mean? (the creatures that swarm are among those to be destroyed). Ok, I'll help - it means insects. Have you considered that the ancient authors of the flood story didn't know how insects breathe, and believed they did it like everyone else, through nostrils?PiCo (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Why assume that the ancients were more ignorant than us? The idea of ignorant cave man to modern intelligent mankind is an evolutionary scenario not a Biblical one.
The following list is all but one verse in the Flood story where the phrases creeping thing and creeping thing that creepeth appear. In every case creeping thing is translated from:
remes, noun
Gesunius' Lexicon: "a reptile, collectively, reptiles, what ever creeps upon the ground."
Strongs Exhaustive Hebrew lexicon: "a reptile or any other rapidly moving animal"
And creeping thing that creepeth is from remes ramas, the above noun with the following verb:
ramas verb
Gesunius' Lexicon: "To creep, move lightly, move about walk on all fours."
Strongs': "To glide swiftly, i.e. to crawl or move with short steps (swarm)."
Gen 6:7
KJV the creeping thing
NIV creatures that move along the ground
Gen 6:20
KJV every creeping thing
NIV every kind of creature that moves along the ground
Gen 7:8
KJV every thing that creepeth
NIV all creatures that move along the ground
Gen 7:14
KJV every creeping thing that creepeth
NIV every creature that moves along the ground
Gen 7:23
KJV the creeping things
NIV the creatures that move along the ground
Gen 8:17
KJV every creeping thing that creepeth
NIV all the creatures that move along the ground
Gen 8:19
KJV every creeping thing
NIV all the creatures that move along the ground
However, verse 7:21 is different, it uses sherets rather than remes.
Gen 7:21
KJV every creeping thing that creepeth
NIV creatures that swarm over the earth
Sherets noun
Bible Usage: 1) teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmers, a) of insects, animals, small reptiles, quadrupeds
Gesenius: "collectively 1) reptiles, 2) smaller aquatic animals."
Strongs: "a swarm, i.e. active mass of minute animals"
The meaning of sherets depends upon the context. In Lev. 11:21 it clearly means insects.
Lev 11:21-22
KJV "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind."
NIV "There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper."
However, in Lev. 11:29-30 the same word sherets clearly means other animals.
Lev 11:29-30
KJV "These also [shall be] unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole."
NIV "Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon."
The context determines what kind of animal sherets means. In Gen 7:21 the context of breathing through its nostrils clearly rules out insects. Allenroyboy (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Lev 11:21-22 (KJV): "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." So insects are included among creeping/swarming beasts. (And locusts and grasshoppers have four legs!) PiCo (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Goeth on all fours" KJV or "walk on all fours" NIV is a figure of speech meaning "crawling on its legs" as opposed to "those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground." (in the same verse). I knew you would bring this up. This is such a typical skeptic complaint for which there has been a simple answer for millennia. (And which is completely off topic.) And this is, again, a case of skeptics being far more literal than literalists--who acknowledge common modes of communication and writing. Allenroyboy (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
And you find that a convincing explanation?PiCo (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Lets see. How can I put this simply? Yes. Allenroyboy (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Image choice

I agree that the former image is notable, but its style is a tad impressionistic for the article in my opinion. Would a good compromise include putting both images in the article?--Gniniv (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we should really only include notable art within the article at all, unless we're really pressed for a depiction of a particular section or concept. The lead image should definitely be a notable one. I would be okay with including that image somewhere else in the article which doesn't have a picture yet, assuming its relevant and we can nail down the artist and other info below the image a bit. The previous text said "An artists impression..." which is a little vague. On another note, is there a reason we shouldn't be using impressionistic art in this article? Jesstalk|edits 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason for the usage of a certain type of art in the article's illustrations, but it seems that most of the images in this article are of that genre. Pending your reply, I will replace one of the impressionistic paintings with this image (+some documentation info on the author).--Gniniv (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The documentation is below:

Noah's Ark, Noah's Flood
Author: Uriel Vidal
URL: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/noah/eng/index.html
--Gniniv (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Just make sure not to replace a notable image with a non-notable one. If memory serves, most of the images on the page are from famous artists who are appropriate to link to. Jesstalk|edits 09:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this new image one that we can freely use? It's not at all clear from the location from which it's taken that it's freely available (the link above doesn't help on this point). Nor, as Jess notes, is it clear that the artist is notable. Also, it might be more appropriate over at somewhere like Flood geology since it appears to present a modern creationist interpretation of the Ark. --PLUMBAGO 09:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the original documentation link where the author releases it for free Wikipedia use:

File:Noah's Flood.jpg (Just click on the photo)--Gniniv (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

← Thanks. I hadn't noticed the note from the uploader, Penharol (for reference: a [literally] single purpose account, last used in 2007). I'm still not sure about the notability angle that Jess mentions. This work appears to be by a low key current artist with practically no web presence. Since the piece was uploaded by the artist himself, part of me worries that WP will be acting as an advertising service for him! Anyway, that said, I've yet to find anything in our policy documents to guide me on this. I guess it can stay for now, but I still don't think it's in keeping with the rest of the article. It seems a little too much like creationist cruft to me rather than art − but I'm no art critic. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it - it's not by a notable artist, and it doesn't look very impressive as art in any case. I'll remove it. (I'm quite happy to use good art by notable artists).PiCo (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The documentation is provided, but I will bow to the common will with just one note. "Good" is a very subjective term in art and it is purely a matter of personal opinion....--Gniniv (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reality

The fact the ark was not real should be stated.--27.33.106.67 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If it was stated it would need to have proper sourcing and be worded like:
"Most secular scholars discredit the Ark as a myth, but it has a substantial following amongst fundamentalist Christians".--Gniniv (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned content from Flood myth

As part of a makeover effort of Flood myth I'm removing all the synopses of various such myths so we can build a general entry on the subject matter. I am unsure of where to put the following information, if anywhere. It was listed there as part of the Biblical myth section. I considered adding it to the entry here but then thought better of it. Any thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As a well-known part of Genesis, the flood myth has appeared in various films and stories. A notable example is Robert A. Heinlein's Lost Legacy, which combines a worldwide flood with the sinking of the Lost Continents of Atlantis and Mu. A recent example is the 2009 film "2012" by Roland Emmerich, which portrays a worldwide flood and crust shift that only a selected group survives using specially-built modern arks. Expeditions searching for Noah's ark on Mount Ararat have been filmed and shown on television. In Orson Scott Card's sci-fi book Pastwatch a character uses a machine to look into the past and see the moment rising sea levels led to the sudden flooding of the Red Sea, which was a lowland pasture until the ocean crumbled the narrow isthmus and let the waters from the Gulf of Aden come pouring in.

I'm proposing a section on the Global V local flood debate

Hi all, in recent theological debates there are a number of arguments and points of data that are raised to suggest Noah's ark may have been a more local story.

The following is what I propose to add:

Modern work on the Hebrew term 'kol erets' now questions whether the emphasis in the passage is on a global flood, or a more local event. Rich Deem has compiled a list of all bible verses where 'kol erets' is actually used to mean the whole land rather than the whole earth/planet. Deem has also compiled other arguments showing where the passage itself suggests a local flood. One example is the Global Desert argument. In Gen 8:6-7 it says ‘the water was dried up from the earth’ or ‘the earth was completely dry’. Is Genesis really implying that after God added trillions of km's of extra water, God removed all water and oceans from the entire planet so that the Earth was devoid of water? Globalist's defending a global flood would also need to defend a global desert if they want to use 'kol erets' consistently. It makes much more sense for both to be rendered in the local sense, which would give us a local flood and local drying, so that we have the rendering the "land was completely dry".

Other commentaries also explain that the mountains were not necessarily submerged, so much as drenched. Walton[1] discusses Genesis 7:20, which currently reads in the New International Version as "20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." However, the word 'covered' is often also used in the sense of 'drenched'. After extensive analysis, Walton concludes the Hebrew could more accurately be rendered "Fifteen cubits above rose the waters, and the mountains were drenched" implying that the flood was 20 feet above the plains, and the mountains were drenched.

Deem supplies another alternative, and shows where the Hebrew word for 'mountain' has been used as 'hills' in other verses. Walton's commentary takes another approach, and discusses various categories of mountain in Ancient Near East thought. When viewed through the lens of the geography and world-view of Sargon of Akkad, it would be unthinkable to suggest that greater 'Cosmic mountains' were threatened by a mere flood. They have more to do with the heavens than the earth. As the passage mentions nothing of these 'edge of the world' mountains, the story to Ancient Near East ears would naturally assume lesser mountains.

The Global verses Local flood debate requires many Hebrew word studies, and much detailed analysis of the ark story. There appear to be a variety of opinions on whether the flood was Global, covered the 'Known World', or was Regional or Local. However, it would be fair to say that there is a strong case for the NIV to change their rendering of the English from the 'whole earth' to the 'whole land'.

Eclipsenow (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Eclipsenow, you might be wondering why your addition to the article was deleted. I wasn't the person who did the deletion, but I can understand why it was done. Since you're a new editor on Wikiledia I think you deserve a little explanation of the other editor's reasons, as I understand the, (or guess them). Essentially it's a matter of sources: you quoted Rich Deem as your source. Rich Deem is an individual who runs his own website. He may or may not be an expert in the subject, but we have no way of knowing. For that reason personal websites like this are generally not used as sources on Wikipedia - i.e., we can't check the credentials of the person running them. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Silly to call it a myth in one article, and story in an other

I think it is very inconsistent to call the myth of Noah's ark a myth in one article (Flood Myth) and call it a story in the other (this one). It is a myth, Encyclopedia Britannica calls it one, calling it a story is just being PC for the sake of being PC - to appease Christians and Muslims.

If it is not a myth, don't link it to myth articles in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.101.173 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No one denies that it is a story (or narrative). Millions deny that it is a myth, unless the speaker is using academic mumbo-jumbo. rossnixon 01:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Argumentum ad populum -- a fallacy. Noah's Ark meets the formal definition of a "myth": "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" (M-W). And even taking the less formal definition of "an unfounded or false notion" does not change its applicability unless and until somebody can provide RS evidence of its truth. Wikipedia does not exist to coddle people's preconceptions, but to represent clearly and unambiguously what reliable sources state. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Your agenda seems to be to decalre those sources that share your POV "reliable", and those that don't "unreliable" - thus doing an end-run around NPOV rules just to appease what you admit is a minority POV, and antagonize the majority POV. Are you sure you're ready to open up this whole can of worms again? Seems to me it's already neutral as it is, without appeasing anyone, but that never seems to be good enough for the minority who want the majority to be offended in the interests of "educating" them, i.e. "telling them what religious doctrines they're supposed to believe and not believe". Which is about as un-neutral as you can possibly get, and the very definition of "pushing" your own POV to try and make it bigger. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a WP:RS archaeological source that supports the existence of Noah's Ark, or even that there is a legitimate dispute over its existence. Otherwise we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to this WP:FRINGE claim. Oh and if you think I am unfairly 'declaring' "those that don't 'unreliable'" -- then by all means take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise cease and desist the unsubstantiated abuse! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable that after this debate has raged for all these years, you still don't get what it's aout, and it's almost as if you have never even stopped talking long enough to listen to what others are saying. There is no need for me to find "reliable archaeological sources" for the existence of Noah's Ark because - and this is the [art you don;t seem to get - we aren't here to issue a ruling as to whether or not Noah's Ark existed, or whose view of history is correct. The whole name of the game here is trying to get you to acknowledge that there are multiple widespread views of history, and that your view of history does not really enjoy the monopoly that you fantasize about. It's all about trying to get you to see past the end of your nose. We know you don't consider other POV's legitimate. It's truly sad that working on a neutral encyclopedia hasn't gotten you to realize that there are vastly different views of history besides your own, which is precisely why we use neutral language ("story") wherever possible, rather than the POV-laden attack words ("myth") used by partisans of a particular POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel: given your little rant has neither substance (let alone substantiation), nor civility, I will simply ignore it, unless and until you can actually substantiate from reliable sources (don't feel you have to take my opinion of what's reliable, by all means take the issue to WP:RSN) any of your claims regarding these "multiple widespread views of history" of Noah's Ark. Until you present such RSs, I see no need to "acknowledge" anything of the sort. It is policy that POVs need RSs for Wikipedia to recognise them. Regardless, as Dougweller points out below, it is the formal definition of 'myth' that we should be talking about (I jumped the gun with the informal/"an unfounded or false notion" definition, because I've seen it brought up so often in similar contexts, as to why "myth" should not be used, that I was attempting to 'spike the guns' of that argument). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I essentially agree with Til here regarding the fact that myth as "untrue" is completely off topic here. We don't consider ancient stories on the basis of how scientifically probable they are. On the other hand I don't think the Flood myth context comes through in this entry at all right now. There is no reason to completely remove the word "myth" from the entry, and there absolutely should be discussion of where it fits in the larger Mesopotamian context, among other flood myths. I've added one sources sentence to the lead but I'm rather shocked to see nothing from the the mythological/ comparative lit perspective in here at all. In the Western World this is the archetypal flood myth.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Til reverted you, but the only problem I can see is that perhaps it should have been more tentative, and I've fixed that. We don't let Creationists determine what an article says any more than we would let atheists do it. We can use 'story' and 'myth', 'as a flood myth' is accurate, whether it is true or not, it is still a flood myth, as well as a story or whatever. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


From what I've seen of this argument in the past, it can be argued on two grounds:

  1. The formal ("a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon") definition is the most relevant.
    • This is the argument that I've seen supporters of the word "myth" use in the past (including myself) use.
    • Assuming this premise, it is fairly clear that Noah's Ark is a "myth" according to this definition.
  2. The informal ("an unfounded or false notion") definition is the most relevant.
    • This is the argument that I've seen opponents of the word "myth" use in the past.
    • However, even assuming this premise, the word "myth" only becomes inappropriate if it can be demonstrated that either the purported-myth under discussion is accepted as historically well-founded/true by a significant academic minority, or at least it can be demonstrated that the academic community considers the question of its historical truth to be an open issue. (This was the fork of the argument I was attempting to argue above.)

At the end of the day, I don't particularly mind which fork gets argued, but would point out where arguing the second fork leads (if you don't like where it leads, then don't go down that fork). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

2 should be taken off the table entirely. It has no usefulness here at all, and as you point out it often becomes the backbone for a NPOV argument against using myth, despite the clearly appropriate academic use of the term.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
How do we get opponents of "myth" to accept 'taking it off the table entirely'? It seems to be their main argument. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I just try to ignore it as much as possible. I think there is a point to the notion of not overusing the term "myth" either. Adequate mention and wiki-linking early on is preferable. Story works well after that. Of course in discussing it's place in the context of other such myths, the term is again quite useful.Griswaldo (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that all-myth-all-the-time is unnecessary -- but tend to find when no-myth is argued at me my argumentative side tends to drag me towards that (former) view. I'm not sure that 'trying to ignore' is a viable strategy, as it would tend to be viewed as either (i) admitting the point (by silence) or (ii) talking past the person making it. But then I'm a hard-wired if-strategy-a-doesn't-work-try-strategy-b kinda guy -- so tend to keep looking for new arguments-to-rebut a viewpoint rather than ignoring it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The people who want to remove the word myth, and who want to remove or minimalize discussion of expert opinions on related flood myths, are blatantly pushing a religious bias onto the article. It's reprehensible. Of course it's nothing new. This article used to be really good but a small group of very dedicated POV-pushers took it over years back to try to whitewash it and promote their own religious beliefs. DreamGuy (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No one wants to remove the word myth completely. We want to be inclusive. All non-fringe viewpoints need to be mentioned. rossnixon 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
"No one"? this and this would suggest that Til Eulenspiegel at least is seeking to remove it completely. And I think care needs to be taken when talking about "non-fringe viewpoints" -- as a viewpoint that is non-fringe in one context (e.g. theology) may well turn out to be fringe in others (e.g. science, archaeology or history -- and this article deals with all those frames of reference). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer might be to create a new section on the history and genre of the Genesis flood-story - there's a mention of the documentary hypothesis in there at the moment, but it sort of concentrates on the contribution of the flood story to the DH. Which is fair enough, but most scholars today don't actually follow the DH any more. So a new section might be an idea.PiCo (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pico -- you've been around long enough to know that you need to cite sources when adding new material. Also your addition did not explain why "the supposed contradictions would not have been seen as such by an ancient audience". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It was just meant as an illustration of what might be written - the kind of subject-matter it might address. Anyone is welcome to change it any way they wish - with RS of course.PiCo (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics box?

I'm missing a "General characteristics" box of the ark. What height, width did the ship have? How stable was it etc?

Starting the article of a ship with a drawing of it is quite silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.154.137.242 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Given (i) controversy over the meaning of cubits in its Biblical dimensions, (ii) a lack of discussion in the Bible of its stability & (iii) the general scientific/archaeological consensus that it never existed, I don't think that your suggestion would be practical. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. The truth length of a cubit in this context is relatively unimportant. Whether it is the normal cubit of about 18 inches (~6 hand spans) or a royal cubit of about 21 inches (~7 hand spans - only 17% longer) doesn't make much difference for the overall size of the vessel (450 - 525 feet, 145 to 170 meters). The vessel is BIG regardless the length of a cubit.
  2. It is really silly to expect the Bible to discuss the stability of the vessel. The ratios of width to depth to length speak for themselves. Naval engineers are the ones to consult about these ratios and vessel stability (anyone else's opinion is worthless).
  3. Likewise, what is at question here is not whether it actually existed, but if it had existed what size might it have been? and could a vessel with those ratios be stable at sea?
It seems to me that the dimensions, size and opinion of possible seaworthiness are just data. They don't prove anything, one way or another. AshforkAZ (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's unlikely that a naval architect could add much; the story in the bible lacks sufficient information to judge stability, as the account was told and retold by bronze-age pastoral storytellers whose understanding of the finer points of building of large seagoing vessels would be as flimsy as their understanding of cosmology or biology.
We can - and should - give whatever details are available in source texts, but it would be inappropriate to treat it as a real ship. bobrayner (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you prove that the account is the result of bronze-age pastoral storytellers? Or, is that an opinion. If naval engineers did discover that the ratios were seaworthy, what would that mean about what these bronze-age pastoral storytellers might know? Maybe its fabrication, maybe not, but only by comparison with real ships could one know one way or the other. Surely, one would want to consider facts rather than speculations. And it is such a simple thing to find out. There are computer programs designed to do just that, which any naval engineer can run in just seconds. AshforkAZ (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I rather doubt if the "computer programs" in question are designed to handle wooden boats of that size -- as they'd generally be regarded as impractical (and wood construction would be considerably more difficult to model than metal or fibreglass). No seaworthy boat of that size and construction has been attempted in modern history -- and I doubt if any will be any time soon. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that such a box would be inappropriate - the reasons are given above by other editors. Infoboxes are rarely if ever appropriate for anything disputed in any case, IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
AshforkAZ: I cannot prove it; but that is not how the burden of proof works. Personally, I'm not a naval engineer but I do have a BSc in physics, and I'm quite confident that the details given in the bible are insufficient to assess the stability of the supposed vessel. We can't meaningfully compare noah's ark to real ships because key pieces of information about real ships are simply not available for the ark. Detailed discussion of ballast and hull form are omitted, and we certainly don't read about the significant wave height during this immense but vaguely-imagined flood; the storytellers are more interested in repeating that noah was 600 years old and that rainbows have symbolic meaning. If you actually know of any "computer program" which can calculate the stability of the ark using only the details written in the bible, I would be very pleasantly surprised; please let us know what it is. Which bible verse mentions the metacentric height? Surely, one would want to consider facts rather than speculations. bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Seaworthiness (or stability characteristics) is a different thing from computations of stress and strain which concerns the materials from which the vessel may be constructed. Given the over all dimensions, assuming that its hull form was a typical barge, and that its draft was 15 cubits (1/2 hits height and the depth of the water over the mountains) one can compute stability fairly simply, with or without a computer. I just read the other day that Answers in Genesis is going to build a full sized ark designed by naval architects to be built entirely out of wood for a new theme park to be opening some time in 2014. That will be something to see. AshforkAZ (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The Answers in Genesis ark is going to be built in Kentucky, which is landlocked -- so seaworthiness is not going to be an issue. The "naval architects" claim therefore likewise seems unlikely -- though I suppose they may have hired some for spin purposes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In our article you'll find a section telling how the ark was constructed as a scale model of the Temple - though scaled up instead of down (the Temple is one-third the size of the Ark). Both the Temple and the Ark are in turn scale models of the universe - it's the House of God, which was conceived quite literally as a real house, with windows, a floor, etc (in Exodus Moses and the Elders are taken up to God's house to feast with Yahweh - well worth reading). PiCo (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup, improvement, and finesse

Because of the conflict between Creation and the theory of Evolution, this article and related articles have a very poor quality. At the moment, I will only concern myself with this article, however. First of all, this article is about Noah's Ark, which has been proven to not only be a workable design, but also the optimum design for a ship built for the purpose of riding out a storm. Therefore, the biblical account and any other major accounts should not be mentioned in the lead. Secondly, I have a revised text for the account of the Flood, which can be read on my user page, that fixes different problems, adds background info, and changes it to the past tense. What are your thoughts on all this? Arlen22 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the references that say the ark has been "proven to not only be a workable design, but also the optimum design for a ship built for the purpose of riding out a storm." and can you explain what on earth the theory of evolution has got to do with the biblical story of Noah's Ark? TeapotgeorgeTalk 17:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
To answer your second question, it has everything to do with it because Creation says that it must happen and evolution says that it cannot happen. As for references, see [3] and [4]. Arlen22 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
No, certain, literal, readings of the Book of Genesis says "that it must happen" -- other views of creation, for example Evolutionary creation, don't. Likewise, it is not evolutionary biology that says that the Flood could not have happened, but rather geology, geophysics, population genetics, biogeography, astrophysics, and a whole heap of other fields. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Compromise is no-man's-land! Creation says that it must happen, evolutionary creation tries to fit evolution into the Bible, which is ridiculous, therefore evolutionary creation is no different than evolution as far as this article is concerned. Furthermore, I didn't say evolutionary biology, I said evolution. Evolution is a world-view, a theory, and a belief, that does not change science, what it does do is heavily affect the theories of scientists because of bias. Arlen22 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
(i) Nobody but you is talking about "compromise". I can assure you that advocates of evolutionary creation don't see their viewpoint as a compromise -- particularly as there never was a requirement to read Genesis literally. (ii) "Creation says" Who is this creation fellow? (iii) "Evolution is a world-view, a theory, and a belief". Evolution is none of these things. Evolution is (a) a set of genetic, paleobiological, biogegraphical and comparative anatomical facts, & (b) the scientific theory that explains them (where creationism generally doesn't). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
By "references", I assume Teapotgeorge meant references to reliable sources, not references to a ludicrously unreliable, pseudoscientific WP:FRINGE source like Answers in Genesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We only have an article on this because of the biblical account. There is no question of it being removed from the lead. The discussion above this one is relevant to the claim that it's been proven to be a workable design - which isn't true in any case. Is the the LDS submarine version? And this evolution/creation question is off-topic here. - ah, so not the LDS version, but it doesn't matter because your sources are not reliable sources for proof, only for the fact that Creationists claim it would float.
I'm not convinced about the new version in any case, it would need discussion here first. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
To quote AIG: "The team of nine KRISO researchers was led by Dr. Hong, who is now director-general of the research center. The study confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 98 feet (30 m), and that the proportions of the biblical Ark are near optimal—an interesting admission from Dr. Hong, who believes evolutionary ideas, openly claiming “life came from the sea.” The study combined analysis, model wave testing, and ship standards, yet the concept was simple: compare the biblical Ark with 12 other vessels of the same volume but modified in length, width, or depth. Three qualities were measured—stability, hull strength, and comfort."
The "Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering" -- an organisation that, according to Google, appears to be known for nothing other than this 'study' -- real reliable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Try "Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering". Arlen22 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Still nothing of much substance. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why the design of Noah's ark would not have been a workable design. The dimensions are 450 ft x 75ft. This is a ratio of 6:1. Arlen22 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a nautical engineer, but the following should be blindingly obvious:

  1. Excessive size for crude materials and construction techniques;
  2. This would be aggravated by its long, thin shape -- I would expect it to 'break its back' in heavy seas.
  3. Lack of keel, meaning it is likely to capsize in heavy seas.
  4. Difficulty in steering -- making it difficult to keep its bow into the weather

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In response:
  1. I will just say "git 'er done".
  2. The length to width of 6:1 ratio is very common. I am compiling a list of ship lengths and widths on my userpage.
  3. I don't get the point. How do modern ships happen to have keels?
  4. Would you need to steer? Besides, as AIG has mentioned before, most ancient ships had an enormous "thing" in front, and this would catch the wind.
Arlen22 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, this isn't a forum. We should not be arguing about whether this would work or not. There's no question of this article saying it's been proven that this mythical boat would have worked. That would require mainstream sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Okay. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The largest wooden vessels reliably recorded: Caligula's Giant Ship (described as a "very large barge") and USS Dunderberg (1865) ("not particularly stable or seaworthy, even with her substantial metal components, and only made one voyage in the open ocean to reach her new owners" according to List of world's largest wooden ships) does not attest well to the seaworthiness of very large wooden vessels, even with the wealth and engineering skills of the Roman Empire and the United States backing their construction. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Down to business

Given all that has been said above, which mostly consists of Hrafn's 4 points and my response (the paradox of "saying a lot without saying anything"), the fact still remains that a lot of these articles are not very good. We could either accept everything as fact (not a good idea) or throw everything out as a myth (smells like POV). Neither of these would be good. I would think it would be better to just say what is known about it, arguments why it would or wouldn't work, and so forth, instead of worrying about whether it makes it sound like a myth or not. Does anyone not like this idea? Arlen22 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Or we could simply describe what the reliable sources say about the myth. None of these reliable sources seem particularly interested in "why it would or wouldn't work", so we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Right there is what I am talking about. You call it a myth. What is wrong with calling it a legend? That, at least, would not be a POV. Arlen22 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I call it a "myth" because that is the technically correct word for it. "Myth" more correctly evokes the religious aspect of the narrative than "legend" would. King Arthur, Robin Hood and William Tell are legends -- do you want Genesis reduced to their level? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I always consider a legend to be a (usually) historical account that has been passed down through generations, whereas a myth (as commonly used, I believe) means a story that is so outlandish it couldn't possibly be true. Is this the correct meaning? Arlen22 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Then you are misinformed. Myth: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" Legend: ": a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable" There is no evidence for the historicity of the Ark or the Flood, but it is clearly tightly wound with the beliefs and worldview of many Christians. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I find a lot more problems with the theory of evolution than I do with creation and the flood. Why should it not be historical if almost every culture has some legend about God destroying the earth with a flood as a punishment for some wrongdoing. Plate Tectonics makes some catastrophe involving oceanic plates in the earths past seem very probable. All this and more seems to point to a global flood. Especially since it is my understanding that evolution does not yet have an answer for some of these things. But this still isn't getting down to business. Arlen22 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Your understanding is misinformed. TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Day of the week?

Where on earth did the days of the week come from? Should this not be removed as there is no basis for what day of the week events happend only of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.16.122 (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Where on earth did the days of the week come from?" Not so. Please see the source (footnoted in the article). The basic thing you need to kow is that the Ark story isn't using the calendar we're familiar with - it's using a special one in which every month begins on the same day of the week. (It's called a Jubilees calendar). This makes it very easy to calculate which day of the week events take place on - if you have the day of the month ("17th day" or whatever), you also have the name of the day. Wenham (our source) doesn't explain why this is so, and you'll need to consult the expert on this question, Jaubert - try Google. PiCo (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
That makes no sence, The callendar used is unknown, however it was most likely a 360 day one, which means each year begins on a different day of a 7 day cycle. It wouldn't start on the same day of the week. Unless you interupt the week cycle, sun, mon, tue, wed, thu, fri, sat, sun, mon, tue, wed, thu, sun, mon... end the week cycle at the end of the month and start over, but that would not "respect the Sabbath". You could easily say that this event, and that event happend on the same day of the week, yes. but not what day of the week that day was.210.185.4.40 (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Other commentators I've read point out that the calendar was likely 360 days, w/12 30 day months (similar to others in Babylon and Assyria) And there is internal evidence that supports the 30daym/360dayy idea. The idea that the days of the week fall on the same day of the month is utter nonsense and is pure speculation by some author. Certainly not worthy of WP. Allenroyboy (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Who is the author again? Jaubert? I for one find the Jubilees calendar fascinating, Jubilees specifically states that the year shall be 364 days, no more, no less, neatly divisible by 7, but apparently there is also a Double Sabbath "day" in the year that is 48 hours long. Pico, can you please link the source where you read about this? I would be very interested, and just because everyone doesn't understand it or read the Book of Jubilees, doesn't mean we cannot cite it as someone else's published idea. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
If this calendar being spoken of is from the book of jubilees then it shouldn't be included in this article as it is not cannonical in any mainstream abrahamic denomination, any use of such a calendar should be in the article about that book, Not this, or in a section of it's own... perhaps titled "Book of Jubilees". The way it is makes it sound mainstream.210.185.8.88 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No, sweetheart, the calendar is not from the Book of Jubilees, and Gordon Wenham is as mainstream as they get. Til, I'll reply on your talk page, I'm tired of talking to the ignorant here on Wikipedia (you and I disagree on many things, but I'd never call you ignorant). PiCo (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I must say I do not like being called ignorant, I am far from such. Speaking of the book was based on Tils comment, But the point remains that There in no basis in the Genesis account or anywhere in the Tanakh to support the application of day names to the events, I say again you can say that curtain events happend on the same day of the week, but not what day they were.210.185.8.88 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

By saying Jubilees is not canonical in any mainstream denomination, you are revealing your abject ignorance and bias POV, because while your personal religion may not consider it canonical, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians and Ethiopian Jews do, and they are Abrahamic. The Orthodox Christians make up a majority in Ethiopia. The Constantinian Christians in the Roman Empire, and the Pharisee Sanhedrin both tried to do away with Jubilees, but wikipedia is neutral and does not subscribe to any POV in disputes like that, nor will it assist you in attemting to marginalize Ethiopians' religious beliefs. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
My "personal religion" doesn't consider any book canonical as I am an atheist. There is no bias. I am simply pointing out that the way it is in the article makes it sound as though there is a basis for it in the Genesis account as that is what people would assume unless the basis is stated in the article. Where the guy got his reason for his naming the days of the week should be noted and made clear.210.185.7.127 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No bias because you are an atheist? come, come, now.....
Might I point out that the table refrences Genesis. The day of the week does not appare there, so where they come from should be stated, as it is misleading.210.185.7.127 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No you might not point out that the table references Genesis. It doesn't. It references Gordon Wenham, a leading biblical scholar. Wenham in turn references Jaubert, and Jaubert's work is referenced by many other scholars. In other words, it uses reliable sources. PiCo (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"d.10, mth.2, year 600 (Gen.7:10) God announces that the flood will come in seven days Sunday" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.8.43 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Story of Manu in Hindu mythology

I want to suggest that Hindus also have a story of Manu having saved humanity and other creatures from an ancient flood. That story has great resemblance to the one of Noah. I feel that should be included in the main article for better information, as Hindu View, to the readers. Manu is also considered as the first ancestor of humans. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed this link. We can't link every specific unrelated flood myth. It is enough that both of these entries link to the parent article, Flood myth. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Necessary consequences

The concepts in the section is self evident, based purely on information available on Wikipedia itself and using information directly from the bible. There is no new, novel information presented in the section, merely an extrapolation and a conservative set of figures given. There was no 'edit war' and no unsubstantiated information was added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.212.196 (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Okely-dokely. Does this constitute http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm#how_much_water original research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.212.196 (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, great site, I like it. But unfortunately there's another problem, see WP:RS. I can find creationist books justifying the water, it's harder to find reliable sources giving geological rebuttals. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The article already makes it clear that the bible's flood story is a literary creation of the mid-1st millennium, and that its aim is to set out various theological truths rather than to record history (i.e., not even the original authors believed that this ever happened). Plus, of course, and as DougWeller says, the sources you're quoting aren't reliable (just a blog). So I'm deleting the section. PiCo (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

History: The Ark and science - Linguistics

There seems to be opposition to extending the discussion of the influence of the Noah's story on Linguistics, which claims to be a scientific discipline just like geology and archaeology. I wrote a far better referenced section, but it seems that its not "appropriate", and I'd like to discuss why that is in greater terms than edit summaries Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My 3RR warning says I need to talk and collaborate, so, the people who failed to do so until now

  • Noah's Ark‎; 16:13 . . (-5,926) . . User:DreamGuy (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 417710619 by Machine Elf 1735; really don't see the point to this new section in this article, sourcing is also poor. (TW))
Linguistics is a science. In its 'infancy' it sought to repudiate the commonly held belief that all European languages originated with Japheth, Noah's son. The section outlines how that repudiation proceeded within the intellectual currents of the late 18th to early 20th centuries.
User DreamGuy failed to suggest how the "sourcing is poor"
  • Noah's Ark‎; 08:44 . . (-5,926) . . User:Dougweller (talk | contribs) (this article is about the Ark, and a linguistics section is not appropriate - it doesn't discuss the Ark, for starters)
There is no actual article for the Noah's story to combine the Flood myth, Noah, Seven Laws of Noah, Noah's Ark, Sons of Noah, and Wives aboard Noah's Ark, so I would suppose that I need to go with the Sons of Noah, but no one suggested this while reverting my editing
  • Noah's Ark‎; 09:02 . . (-5,926) . . User:Teapotgeorge (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by Koakhtzvigad (talk); Influence on Linguistics section doesn't seem to fit...for a start there is NO mention of the ark in it? (TW))
But no suggestion of where it would seem to fit either...or willingness to do so? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You will see that on your talk page I say "I wonder if your contribution would be better suited to it's own article?"TeapotgeorgeTalk 10:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw. Any suggestions on where/how to integrate the section on linguistics into the article on the sons of Noah? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Narrative tense

should it be past or present?!Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would try to maintain the present tense. It already predominates in the narrative, and is appropriate; what is in the Torah can correctly be said to be there now. Some mixture is inevitable in the section because of the changing tenses of the scriptural quotations. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The tense used is the historical present, and is appropriate when discussing literature.PiCo (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I never knew it was called that. Thanks for teaching me. I found the linked article valuable. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Historical present may be appropriate for discussing literature where use of tense is insignificant. In the Torah this is not the case. Some changes in tense have exegetical significance Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Original structure of the article

The original structure of the article has a section called Narrative, which summarises the story in Genesis. This seems pretty logical and has been stable for a long time, so I've reverted to it.

The Jewish tradition section was originally with Christianity and Islam and a few others under "later traditions". This also was stable for a long time, and seems sensible - the talmud is later than Genesis, a lot later - in fact it's even later than Christianity.

The section on Jewish tradition has had some useful edits made, but they tend to assume a pretty high level of knowledge on the part of the reader regarding Jewish culture - I doubt that many non-Jews will know the meaning of words like Talmud or even rabbinic. So I've tried to explain these and simplified it a little, just to make it user-friendly.PiCo (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You've done a fine job of accomplishing these goals. Thanks! Hertz1888 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well PiCo, thats what an encyclopedia is for, to inform and educate. Just because you don't think that its a good reason to inform the reader doesn't mean its the Wikipedia policy, right?
For your information the Written and the Oral Torah are considered one in Judaism, and can not be separated in terms of how information is related. Much of the account in Noakh can not be understood without looking at the Oral Torah sources.
The previous article organisation had separated the two, which is a distinctly anti-Jewish, or secular academic approach which suggests the Oral Torah is unrelated to the Written Torah.
Moreover, the information in the Oral Torah is unrelated to either the Christian or the Islamic traditions because a) it predates them, and b) was conveyed in a different language.
Similarly, the referencing in the previous section was from the Christian Bible, with the wrong, so far as Judaism is concerned, translation ultimately derived from either the Septuagint or the Vulgate neither of which are used in Judaism.
You will be surprised how many people know that rabbinic is related to rabbi, the religious officiant in Judaism, and how many people are aware of the Talmud. If they don't, this article will lead them to the Talmud article in Wikipedia which will inform the readers further.
Also, please know that in the Torah the five (or seven) books are further divided into named chapters. The story of Noakh in the Torah only begins in what the Christians call Genesis. In Judaism this is significant, in Christianity it is not, yet another reason why the section is titled the way it is now. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Further to the above, the original account is given in Hebrew, and related in the Talmud way before other traditions emerged, and certainly way before the modern academics begun Torah text analysis. Many (most) of these were 19th century anti-Christian scholars that worked predominantly with the agenda of discrediting religion in general and Christianity in particular, but also Judaism due to the anti-semitic culture of 19th century "Enlightenment" Europe. Hence the "theories", that remain as such well over a century later. None of this is however material to the presentation of the original source. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Sorry if I hit a nerve. But if you can just calm down I'll explain:
  • The article is about a story in the bible. In order for the reader to understand what we say, we have to summarise that story: hence the section titled "narrative."
  • If you combine the summary of the story with the Jewish (talmudic) interpretation, you blur the fact that the story in Genesis came first, the talmud later. (And it did come later - it wasn't written down until 200 CE).
  • Apart from making that separation between summary and Talmud, I don't have a lot to complain about. Most of what you've done is simply replacing one summary with another. (Incidentally, the ruah in the Noah story is more accurately translated as "wind", since the spirit of God manifests itself as a great wind - but the real point is that this "wind" is the same one that we see at the very beginning of Genesis, at the Creation, because the Flood story is a sort of un-Creation story, in which god first destroys the world and then re-creates it, following the same methods and steps he used the first time).PiCo (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with PiCo. The summary of the story needs to be presented first and needs to be separated from interpretation. I have no opinion on the rest. I reverted back again to the version that does so. Koak can you please find a way to make improvements that does not mess with this basic structure. And please respect WP:BRD. You made changes and they were reverted. Now it is time to discuss what you'd like to change on the talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing to discuss, and WP:BRD does not apply, and here is why:
  • PiCo, you didn't hit a nerve. Worse.
  • You may think the article is "a story in the bible", but its not. It is a part of the Jewish cultural property called the Written Law that includes Tanakh written mostly in Hebrew, and is intricately intertwined with the text in the Oral Law, e.g. the Talmuds written mostly in Aramaic. The Bible is not used by Jews, and in Christianity is ultimately, via many revisions in several languages, derived from either the Vulgate or the Septuagint versions. The similarity ends with the 70 rabbis that produced the Septuagint original, the record of which comes from the Talmud.
  • While it may be treated as a "story narrative" in the Christian Bible, it is used in the derivation of religious practices and laws in Judaism's cultural context, and is therefore far more than a "story".
  • While as Griswaldo suggests I "mess with this basic structure", in fact in Judaism it is a widely known rule that there is no chronological order in the Torah, which is clearly not the case in Christianity.
  • The assertion that "the story in Genesis came first, the talmud later" is an academic one, literally and literary. It is inconsequential in its cultural context of Judaism. That a part of it was written down at some stage does not detract from its authenticity as being orally transmitted prior to that point in time, again in the cultural context of Judaism. Hence why I named the section "Relevance in Judaism". Are you saying that oral traditions are not valid as cultural property?
  • "Most of what you've done is simply replacing one summary with another." is a false statement. I replaced editing of something that is at its original source contextualised in one culture and language, Judaism, but was in Wikipedia re-contextualised in another culture and language, Christianity. So far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy to replace Jewish beliefs with those of Christians when it suits the editors, but you have done so.
  • It is for this reason that you are able to tell me, despite the provided reference, that "the ruah in the Noah story is more accurately translated as 'wind'", which is in fact the translation derived from a Christian source, though now unreferenced! Are you trying to tell me that the translation accepted in just about every Jewish denomination in the World is wrong?
  • For the above reasons your assertion that "In order for the reader to understand what we say, we have to summarise that story" is also false, because without reference to the Oral Law it is virtually impossible to understand even the summary version. Surely you noticed that in addition to providing Torah verse references I also added references for the supporting orally transmitted information?
I expect you to undo Griswaldo rather mundane reason for reverting that seems to completely ignore the cultural property and context of the section Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Koak, the story is not the "cultural property" of any one cultural or religious group. It is a narrative found in the Hebrew bible, the Christian bible(s) and in Islamic literature. I'm not entirely sure why the English Standard Version of the Christian bible is preferred here as a source, perhaps PiCo can explain that, and perhaps it doesn't have to be, perhaps we can use the TANAKH instead. It is probably something worth discussing. For the importance of the narrative in Judaism see Noah in rabbinic literature. If you think that this other entry doesn't cover the extent of the topic perhaps we need a larger entry simply called Noah in Judaism. However, this main entry, which is about a narrative shared by several groups, will not be dominated by any one of them. Sorry to say. You are making a big deal about "just about every Jewish denomination int he World", but that's not the type of argument you should be making. Of the people inhabiting this planet who tell this story as part of their traditions, Jews are now a very small minority. If we decided to go with majority opinion at this entry that certainly wouldn't be the opinion of "all the Jewish denominations" since they are in the minority. But thankfully we don't use such "majority opinions." In general we try to go with mainstream academic views on topics like this. That's pretty standard practice here. We also try to use the academic sources to present all the significant religious views ... in this case Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Gris...I'm sorry to say that what stated above is irrelevant.
The information presented to the reader has to be accurate, and in this case, the initial version comes from the Torah.
It is inconsequential how large the Jewish population was at the time, or is now. That its version of the text is sufficiently different is a fact, and this requires a different approach to its presentation in Wikipedia simply because it is a different cultural and interpretative approach in a context entirely different to others. Hence its encyclopedic value!
Its not a question of relativistic democracy of shared global information, but one of facts. Information about Noah is derived from Jewish texts, both written, and the written version of the orally transmitted information about him, and the events that surrounded his life. Its as simple as that. In Judaism, unlike other religions that adopted the former version, the two are not separable.
Mainstream academic views have nothing to do with this either. I am not presenting an analysis of the relevant information, only the fact of the information itself. Other views are presented in other section of the article (please read), including academic Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The version of the story found in the Torah is not the "initial" version, it is the "final" written version found in the Torah. The versions found in Christian scripture are yet other later versions, based on the Torah version, but as you say not identical. Same goes for Islam. None of these versions of the story are in any way superior or inferior to each other. They are simply different versions of the same story. Perhaps, as I already suggested, there is good reason to use the Torah version. If that is the case then lets rewrite the narrative section based on the Torah version. However, later Jewish commentary on the basic narrative should not be part of that rewrite. As PiCo stated, and as I agree, that's a necessity. So, do you want to suggest a rewrite based on the Torah? Please post it to talk so that editors can discuss the suggested change. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to use the Jewish Publication Society version. PiCo (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Gris, the version of the story found in the Torah is, in Judaism, considered the only version of the Torah. Your assertion that it is not, reflects the academic textual criticism argument, and you are welcome to say so in the relevant section.
Christian versions are not just "later" versions. They are derived from different languages, and with a different theological perspective. One of these is that Christianity had never accepted the Jewish orally transmitted tradition. It is one of the core differences between Judaism and Christianity.
Comparing the Jewish version of the story to other versions is impossible for these reasons. Your suggestion that "Jewish commentary on the basic narrative should not be part of that rewrite." represents both a Christian and an atheist bias in that what in Judaism is considered one body of knowledge separated into written and oral components, you are (on behalf of Wikipedia) seeking to divide into two. In this you are infringing on the human rights of the Jews who have a right to their cultural heritage.
PiCo, The JPS 1917 English translation of the Torah has been largely superseded in use by Jewish English-speaking communities, in part because of its use of late-19th century English. Its use in Wikipedia is also problematic because it is a primary source unlike the Mesorah Publication one which is a secondary source that comes with commentary and references.
However, I'm not sure why you are asking to use it in any case since you have been deleting other "old" sources from other articles, and now all of a sudden offer up a source that will turn 100 in six years.
And, how does this affect restoring the version of the section that I edited?! Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ The NIV Application Commentary by John H Walkton, page 325
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noah%27s_Ark/Archive_11&oldid=1136251133"