Q: Why does this page refer to The Flood as a "myth"?
A: The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false".
Q: Why doesn't this page focus more on the creationist point of view?
A: On topics of theology and mythology, Wikipedia is largely focused on what can be demonstrated based on a consensus of peer-reviewed academic papers. As this article notes, many mainstream scholars dispute that The Flood actually occurred. Wikipedia is neutral, but we also believe in "not giv[ing] minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects," where minority views refers to views found in a minority of reliable sources.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
I definitely see where you are coming from. This portion relies upon one expert that has some interesting things to say about the textual construction, but I see how that comes across as presumptuous when you can go and read the text and easily reconcile the alleged contradictions. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources rather than the opinions and synthesis of its editors. If you can find a reliable source to balance Cline's contribution, then go for it, and we can discuss how to properly integrate that into the article while maintaining due weight between opposing views. TNstingray (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is not presumptious. It is the scholarly consensus. The fact that this passage is an amalgamation of two sources is one of those things that you could easily not notice, but once you've seen them, they are so obvious that you can never unsee them. You will find whole libraries full of devotional texts that ignore this, but modern scholarly ones, not so much. Doric Loon (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Our goal should be to guide the reader to that point. If the average reader finds the current structure confusing, we should take note of that because it means we are not conveying something clearly. The answer is not reverting the talk page when a legitimate question is asked. Many of the editors here go too far in personally attacking people who have been taught something different than scholarly consensus. You don't win anybody over by calling requests "pointless" or stooping to the level of ad hominem as you see so often with neckbearded Internet trolls on both extremes. TNstingray (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TNstingray Totally with you about ad hominem remarks and dissing of honest questions.
The text is fine at this point, but I'll grant you we need to cite a better source than a National Geographic article. The International Critical Commentary (ICC) on Genesis, or von Rad's commentary (SCM Press), would be the obvious sources to quote. Doric Loon (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It’s not a myth. There’s geological evidence all around fish world, on every continent, that proves there was a global flood. One that was able to deposit the mega-sequences of sediment and mass erosion we see today. Be better. Tell the truth, instead of repeating a lie. ArizonaJ711 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We rejected the idea its not a myth recently, and to make your case you will need to bring forth some very good rs. This is not gonna happen.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion
In Genesis 8:21, I read: "and the Lord said in his heart ... neither will I again smite every thing living" (emphasis added). In original Hebrew, I read: "va-yomer Yehova el-libo," i.e. "Jehovah said to his heart." I see no promise and no "covenant with Noah." God DECIDED to never destroy life again. This is different from promising -- decisions are in no way binding and can be reversed unilaterally. I suggest editing the article accordingly:
1. "God made a covenant with Noah that man would be allowed to eat every living thing but not its blood, and God decided to never again destroy all life."
The purpose of this article, as its name conveys, is to represent the narrative in the Book of Genesis accurately. I cited that very narrative, in the original language and in an English translation. The original source supersedes any "scholarly perspective" or interpretation. The table already cites the source (Genesis 8:21). The same source can be cited elsewhere if necessary. DenisProf (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree, since the Bible can be interpreted in thousands of ways. As Bart Ehrman argued, if you seek to find the Trinity in Genesis chapter 1, you will find it there. But that says more about you than about the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for referring me to the policy. As long as the policy is in place, you are correct that, as sources, scholarly texts trump scriptural texts. However, it strikes me as bad policy that, for summarizing scriptural narratives, any secondary sources should be privileged over the original. My suggestion is to switch from interpretation to the uninterpreted original (not to offer a self-researched interpretation.) This must be a switch toward a more reliable source. DenisProf (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The Hebrew text does not speak of a global flood, it speaks of "the ground" (הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה)(6:7) and "the land" (הָאָֽרֶץ)(6:13,17; 7:3,4,10). In the context, the most that can be said is that this indicates the world known to Noah, which most likely would have been confined to the Mesopotamian basin.
All my reference works are in storage, so I can't provide citations as I would like, but I suggest that the section be rewritten because "global" is an inference, not something drawn from the text. Dismalscholar (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's very strongly believed. In popular culture, every mention of Noah's flood seems to automatically include the word "global". Logically it would obviously have only been the world known to Noah, but it's grown and is now part of dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
While we value your insight, this would currently be an example of original research, which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia mainspace. If you find reliable sourcing, it would be worth mentioning as one of many scholarly perspectives on the text. TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "The Genesis flood narrative (chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis) is a Hebrew flood myth.", as for many, the Genesis flood is not a myth. This applies to all statements regarding the Genesis "myth" as a myth. SHAFdfdsoi (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done: see faq Cannolis (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)