Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 13

Page move

I propose to move Noah's ark to Genesis flood because the ark narrative is an element or subpart of a main flood story. This move is not to be confused with Flood myth. Genesis flood's scope would be fleshed out so that the Great Deluge of Genesis is the main topic and the ark is a subtopic. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I am on board with User:PiCo. Let's move page to Genesis flood narrative. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the problems about around having to specify whether or the Ark is fictional/mythical/mythological/according to religion etc. all stem around the fact it is the subject of the article, if it was part of a larger article I think it would be much easier and tidier to make the origins of this information clear. Without having to jump through linguistic hoops 80.4.144.29 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This article currently contains information about Noah's Ark from a variety of sources - not just as in the Genesis Flood Narrative, but also as described in the Quranic Sura, the Bahai and Yezidi scriptures, Talmud, and other historiographic sources. An article named Genesis Flood Narrative would exclude the Quranic Sura etc. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe that the Quranic Sura would be excluded. Much of this page would remain in tack, however the scope will change to a narrative analysis of the Genesis flood, having the ark as a sub part. It shouldn't change or eliminate the other historiographic sources as you've mentioned. Additionally, they are minor sub articles and if anything, they do have a place on the Flood myth page as well. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is the most common search term people looking for information on the flood will use. If anything, "Genesis Flood" should be redirected here. JOJ ^Hutton 15:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Genesis flood should be redirected here, since I am standing with User:PiCo now. Jasonasosa (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If a Genesis flood or Genesis flood narrative article is wanted that's fine, but the scope of that article will be different than the scope of this article. This article should be about the ark itself, while the other article would be about the flood narrative. There would be overlap of course, but not enough to eliminate this article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what would happen, should we go through with this. Jasonasosa (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So if you just want a new article on the flood narrative, why not just create the new article? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, or why this page would have to be moved to get two articles. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are already too many flood/Noah articles, we don't need another one. The ark as a vessel should not be the focus of the Genesis flood narrative. The scope of this article is not necessarily all about the ark as a vessel... so it needs a new title essentially... Jasonasosa (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMON seems clear. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm ok with having 2 articles, Genesis flood and Noah's ark. Just need to be careful of overlap/duplication. First sentence of the Flood article might be something like: "The Genesis flood narrative is the Hebrew Bible's version of the worldwide flood myth." That would define the scope of the new article. PiCo (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Again... I agree with PiCo. I like that idea even better. It would also mean that good portions of this article would have to be transferred over to the new page.  — Jasonasosa 09:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I've created a stub for Genesis creation narrative]. It's pretty basic, but something to build on. PiCo (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

lol...You meant... Genesis flood narrative   — Jasonasosa 18:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose page merge. There is a lot of information regarding Noah's Ark that cannot be easily covered in the flood narratives. Whole books have been written about it, searches for it, and details of its construction. It deserves its own substantial article. Similarly, the flood narratives have a lot of information attached to the flood itself – including geological, historical, and archeological considerations – and deserve their own articles. Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Minor.

More viewpoints need to be represented

In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling." (ref) Robert Wexler, Ancient Near Eastern Mythology, 2001 (/ref) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: Both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition. Also, it is unlikely that anyone can prove which came from which. However, if there was a flood, and there was a boat (or more than one) on which people survived, it would make sense that they would be a source or the source of the telling of the story, to their children and grandchildren. Misty MH (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Added more. Misty MH (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly mention what conservative religious groups have to say, but we must avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints on the topic. The vast majority of sources indeed state that the Biblical myth of the flood came much later than the Mesopotamian ones. There's a systemic bias among many in the Western world to assume that Genesis predates other texts simply based upon the fact that Western religious leaders have said Genesis gives the original creation story. In actuality, biblical scholars generally say that the Old Testament is relatively new compared to other religious narratives. This is another example of where we need to present the consensus expert opinion instead of censoring the article to risk offending over sensitive religious types who don't want people to hear anything other than what they believe. DreamGuy (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrexler's view is not the majority one among scholars. As DreamGuy says, the vast majority of scholarly sources believe that the Genesis flood story is directly based on a late Babylonian version of the myth dating from the first half of the 1st millennium. The subject is complex, however, and there is certainly a strand of thought which holds that the Genesis flood is based on a native Palestinian version. We need, in any case, to stick to mainstream opinion while giving due weight to minority views where appropriate. (By the way, thank you Misty MH for being so polite and civilised - I'll try to return the compliment). PiCo (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletions

While I agree that flood-narrative topics mostly go under a related article, deletions are being made from this article without mention of moving such text here to some other article. If you are moving it, please indicate where. If not, and just deleting, note that some deletions from here without some Talk might be upsetting to a number of editors and readers.

Some Recent Deletions:

Although scholars cannot definitively date the origin of either flood story, some argue the Jahwist version modified the Babylonian text to make it conform to a monotheistic theology. The Christian Institute for Creation Research contends that the Genesis account predates the Babylonian flood story, and that the latter represents a corrupted account of the former.

===Dating the flood=== [SECTION REMOVED (from above See Also) This may not appear correctly here. I am simply pasting in the deleted text from a "Difference between revisions" page.]

The Ussher chronology, a literalist calculation of the dates of creation and other Biblical events published in 1650 by the Irish Archbishop James Ussher, places the Great Flood at 2348 BC. Using the Masoretic Text of the Bible shows the date to be 1656 years after creation. Ussher calculated that the creation occurred in 4004 BC; using the King James Bible, this creation date gives the date of the Flood as 2348 BC. Although the Ussher chronology remains highly influential among literalists, other theologians have given different dates for the creation; for example, Joseph Scaliger claimed it to have occurred in 3950 BC, while Petavius calculated the date as 3982 BC. Modern Biblical literalists have given numerous proposed dates for the Biblical flood.

Were these simply deleted or moved? If so, where?

Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not been following recent edits, as I gave up editing this article years back when some Christian apologists took it completely over to give their POV exclusively. I don't know what happened to the text you are asking about. As a general point, however, we should avoid too much focus on anything the Institute for Creation Research has to say, as they are an extremely WP:FRINGE source with an obvious political agenda. When we present those viewpoints we should try to find voices from religious leaders, and if we present viewpoints from political groups, that information must be obvious to the reader so they can understand the context. DreamGuy (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does one justify "fringe" here? Skepticism or cynicism? Statistics maybe? From what I can tell, the majority of Christians believe in "creation"; and the Institute for Creation Research (IfCR) is just a research body – composed of several people, some of whom have Doctorates – representing the "creation" viewpoint from a position of Scripture plus theory/hypothesis plus science. They don't seem to be "extremely" fringe, and don't appear to be "fringe" at all except in a one or more focuses. There are billions and billions of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, a huge percentage of which believe in "creation". Heck, the Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created", LOL. (The idea of "creation", btw, does NOT exclude the evolution hypothesis by default.) Gallup stated in 2009 that 4 in 10 believe in evolution; and in 2007, it said that the majority of Republicans doubt the "theory of evolution". As late as June 1, 2012, Gallup stated that, regarding Americans, "46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins". This is not fringe. Note that this is in a country that is not even close to having a majority of Muslims. In many countries, Muslims are a huge majority, believing in the creation of Allah. With maybe over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom adhere to its basic doctrines, it's not a fringe idea among them. (Many Muslims apparently accept the idea of "microevolution", but not the idea of "macroevolution".) Hinduism also has over 1 billion adherents. And Christianity, based on the Bible (supposedly), supposedly has over 2 billion adherents. (There are supposedly now over [7 billion people] on the planet.) So, a research group representing the viewpoints of a resulting percentage of people who believe in some form of "creation" – as large as that percentage undoubtedly is – is not fringe because of that theory, just because many skeptics of creation and many scientists prefer an evolutionary hypothesis. Therefore, if the group is "fringe", establish that; show that they are in the extreme minority. Regarding the basics of "creationism", that is not the case. Because they push the "new earth" view (last I heard, I think), this pushes them into a larger minority, but that point alone shouldn't disqualify them as "fringe", IMO. (Gallup SOURCES were found by searching their main site for evolution; all references above were found on Page 1 of the results, on 7/30/2012.) If we're going by numbers, even if every scientist believes in evolutionism, which is not the case, they'd still be in the minority, which, LOL, could make them look "fringe", LOL. Statistics.... Misty MH (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There are three reasons for removing material about dating the flood. The first and strongest is that there is now a separate article on the Genesis flood narrative, and this article needs to concentrate on the ark. The second is that the source is not a reliable one - the Institute for Creation Research is not a scholarly body. Finally, the flood is simply undateable - the biblical chronology is extremely confused for the period prior to Solomon, which is why there are literally hundreds of proposed dates, Ussher being only one of them.PiCo (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. To clarify, I was basically asking whether you moved the deleted material elsewhere, and if so, where? I think that would be a good idea vs. just deleting it. YW, btw. I do like to be civil, especially if other folks are being civil. ;) Misty MH (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (Added indentations.) Misty MH (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I simply deleted it. While the first reason I give above (this article is about the ark, another is about the flood) is enough for not having it here, the last is a reason for not having it anywhere. There's also an article on Biblical chronology if you're interested, but it isn't quite what I'd like it to be. According to mainstream biblical scholarship, the books of the Hebrew bible went through many revisions, and the last was around 164 BC. This was an extremely significant year for Judaism, as it marked the victory of the Maccabean revolt against the Greek kingdom of Syria: the Greeks had profaned the Temple, setting up a statue of Zeus, and the Maccabeans libe4rated Jerusalem and rededicated it to Jehovah/Yahweh in that year. Jewish intellectuals of the time seem to have seen in this event a sort of "end of time", the dawning of a new age in which Judea would be ruled by righteous priests. So 164 was a sort of Year Zero in their eyes. They seem to have gone through the holy books, carefully revising dates and years and so forth so that Creation occurred exactly 4000 years prior to 164. This would be 3836 BC by our modern reckoning, but that would have been as meaningless to them as it is to us: what was important was the number 4000, which represents earthly perfection: the rededication of the temple had perfected God's plan on earth, and now the age of heaven was to begin. The whole thing is very complicated, but I can give you some books on the subject if you're interested - I guess the central point is that numbers, for the ancients, were not just numbers, but held the secrets of God's plans for the universe. Some numbers in the bible seem to be genuinely historical - the years various kings reign in the last half of the Books of Kings, for example - but others are symbolic, especially the numbers 7, 12, 40, and 70, and multiples of them. So, the upshot is that it's impossible to calculate a date for the flood. PiCo (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanations of major edits

An editor has asked that I explain major edits. This is a very reasonable request and so I'll begin here, giving reasons only for the major deletions and additions.

There's always a danger on Wikipedia that an energetic editor will take over an article simply by reason of devoting more time to it than anyone else. I'll admit to the charge of being energetic, but please don't feel you have no right to question what I do, or that I won't welcome engagement.

Anyway, for today:

• I deleted the material dealing with the origins/composition of the flood story in the bible. This article is about the ark itself, and I want to focus on that.
• I'm adding a section on what modern scholarly commentaries say about the ark. I'm trying to restrict myself to the mechanics - the meaning of the word "ark" itself, possible mystical meanings encoded in the ark's shape and size, etc. If these are well sourced they shouldn't be controversial, and I think future readers will find it useful. I'm sorry that I can't think of any better title for this section than "the ark", which I must admit seems rather inadequate.PiCo (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Other editors (and readers) might have been counting on that text found under Noah's Ark, and may have deliberately not duplicated it at various flood articles. Since you are removing it from this article BECAUSE it's flood related, will you please put it into one or more flood articles rather than just deleting? Otherwise, the Wiki continuity regarding these related topics may be majorly diminished and harmed as a result. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When making large edits, can you please break them up into somewhat smaller chunks? I suggest doing deletions as a completely separate edit from additions. Doing both at once makes it hard to follow the edit history. Thanks. :) Misty MH (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:PiCo, you've been doing a good job with making proper edits to this article and the complementary article Genesis flood narrative. Keep up the good work.  — Jasonasosa 03:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

New layout PiCo 2.0

It seems that you wanted this content removed... I know you User:Pico... I know how deep you like to cut; Sections omitted were not located at the article you indicated.

(cur | prev) 06:54, 1 August 2012‎ PiCo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35,735 bytes) (-3,463)‎ . . (→‎Historicity: removed material not directly related to the ark - it's in the Genesis flood narrative article) (undo)

That new layout...sucks and is not even accurate with long titles that are ridiculous. Up to this point, the changes to this article have been good.

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Historicity and Young Earth Creationists

The subsections Species distribution and Species diversity' seem somewhat excessively detailed. Do the ideas that every two of every species of animal would not fit on the ark and that the species were widely distributed really need that much explanation? It seems like these two subsections could be condensed down into a short paragraph.

Agreed, but may take some time to sort through.   — Jasonasosa 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I may take a stab at condensing this further. It will take some study though, so as not to discard any important information. — MrX 21:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

On a different topic, the first paragraph under Searching for Noah's ark starts off "Some Young Earth creationists seek the physical remains of the vessel..." seems to give a lot of airplay to what would seem to be a fringe theory, and very little information about any scientific search for evidence of the ark's possible existence. It seems a little WP:POV and dismissive. — MrX 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, easy enough.   — Jasonasosa 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think a short section under Searching for Noah's ark would be useful, as well as a link to the main article. My biggest concern was that the original text seemed to conflate the idea of searching for Noah's ark with Young earth creationism. — MrX 21:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem bringing it back, but again... more editorial research will have to be done. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the whole section should come back as it was, but I do think a small rewrite might be good, if for no other reason that to introduce the more extensive article. Perhaps I will attempt a rewrite in the near future. — MrX 01:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Similar, non-Biblical stories

Should there be a mention of stories from other mythologies which are similar to this one? There is one, for example, in The Epic of Gilgamesh which should get at least a mention, and there might be other stories as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.67.77 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say definitely. I know there are lots out there, but I personally don't know enough about any of them to write anything though. Mmitchell10 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the same guy as before. I went through the archives using Ctrl+F to find all the mentions of "Gilgamesh" and the topic (not surprisingly) seems to have come up a lot. I should clarify that, issues of POV and scholarly consensus aside, my point was that the fact of there being similar stories in texts which pre-date Genesis deserves a mention. I see now that Atrahasis gets a paragraph in the "Origins" section, so I'm just going to make the name link to the relevant article and also add a link to the Gilgamesh article in parenthesis next to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.65.95 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just hold your horses there guys

Isnt Wikipedia meant to be about FACTS? Science has PROVED (FACT) that Noah's Ark was not plausible for many reasons. The boat was too big for the construction of that time period, the boat was also too small to hold ALL the species of animal, you need more than just one male and one female to repopulate a species, adequate food would also need to be provided on the boat, and there also was not enough water in the cloud formations to generate a flood of "worldwide" (or biblical) scales. THEREFORE, this ARK story is an epic lie and should NOT be on Wikipedia, a site about FACTS.

HOWEVER, this article would be fine if information was added about the FACT that it isnt true, and that Noah's Ark is part of certain religious beliefs (this is true). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.143.111 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 December 2012‎

It is merely your point of view that this is a lie, not wikipedia's, which takes a neutral point of view by describing impartially what all the various common viewpoints are that exist in the world. Nothing you have said above has ever proved convincing or compelling to all those who say it IS plausible to build a boat large enough to hold a large number of species, that might have diversified more since then, as well as all those who say the flood need only have all human-populated regions at the time, and presumably not the entire globe, for which there are not enough known water molecules to submerge. There hasn't suddenly been any new revelation compelling everyone to call it a lie, so that we may authoritatively declare what the "Truth" is... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Til, it's generally considered complete bollocks to think the actual Ark existed as described in literature; however, that's not the point. The point is that it is a fact that the Ark story is an important part of religious literature, as a cautionary tale. This is what grants it significance. Just as Harry Potter is not a factual person, yet is a notable character in modern youth fiction, and we have an article on him. Zeus was worshiped for many years, and yet so far as I know no one believes in him currently, yet he is still notable. Wikipedia is about facts, yes; the subject of the article may be about someone who is not generally recognised to be "real" by many or even most or even all people. KillerChihuahua 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Complete bollocks" may well be one of the common POVs, that we can mention, describe and attribute with references, but it is obviously not the only common POV. And the difference from Zeus' not being believed by anyone today is significant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not significant. The complaint was that it is "not factual" and my point is that we have articles on subjects based on their significance, not on their truth or factuality or what-have-you. It is completely beside the point whether this article is about a factual subject; that is entirely the point. KillerChihuahua 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, if your point is that the topic is too significant to delete, in contradiction of the OP who said Noah's Ark "should NOT be on Wikipedia", then obviously most reasonable editors would agree wit that point. I was just making a counterpoint, that if we're discussing something that has a current following, then drawing some analogy with something else that doesn't have any current following, sounds a bit like a red herring. But I guess this is all academic as long as we aren't discussing any specific proposed text changes. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we have no disagreement on the suitability of Noah's Ark for the subject of a Wikipedia article. My point was that we don't need to get bogged down in whether everyone or anyone believes in the "truth" of the subject, it is notability which determines whether we have an article. KillerChihuahua 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides which, of the 5 'facts' stated above as reasons why it could not have happened, 3 are unproveable, 1 is demonstrably false, and 1 misunderstands the proponents' view of what happened :-) Mmitchell10 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And again, we don't much care. Noah's Ark is very notable, and we will have an article regardless of arguments against it's veracity. KillerChihuahua 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When?

Is there any scholarly consensus that dates (or approximates) when the Ark was purportedly built?  If so, this should be included in the article. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

None at all; there have been all kinds of estimates anywhere before 2000 BC, not to mention those who do not think it was built at all. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the scientific consensus is that Noah's Ark was never built, there is obviously no scientific consensus about when it was built. SuperAtheist (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

From the Ussher Chronology, it was about 1250 years after the creation of the world 6K ya. That's probably what you're looking for and agree should be in the article. Note that according to in-Universe cannon, Noah lived 600 years. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly a "consensus"... Rev. Ussher's calculations may be mentionable as one of the more common answers, but certainly not as a "consensus" view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Till, this thread was opened with a query about "scholarly consensus" without specifying what kind of scholarship. Somewhat simplistically SuperAtheist gave the essential truth of the case wrt scientific, i.e. non-religious scholarship. There also of course isn't a general consensus agreement among modern religious scholars with the Ussher chronology, just the opposite I'm sure. Nonetheless this is I believe the answer to what the thread requests. If the wikipedia editorial position is that "Noah's Ark" is a completely ahistorical fiction, then the "when" question will be answered in terms of when the biblical content was authored, similiar myths in neighboring cultures, etc.76.180.168.166 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You means it's a "consensus" even though it's not a "consensus"? That doesn't even make sense! But if the thread was asking "What is one of the most prominent guesses?" then I suppose Ussher could be a correct answer. BTW wikipedia doesn't have "editorial positions", it has an WP:NPOV policy (qv) across all languages. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean that it is A/The Answer unless you aware of some other meaning of "purported" in ~E's opening statement of the thread. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's one answer to ~E's question then, a more complete answer would be Ussher based his calculations on the standard Masoretic Text, but there are others who have preferred the figures in the Greek Text or other early sources. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the ideal response, things being what they are, if not to ignore request, would be a "Chronology" § in Historicity with separate ¶s for the in-universe and the historiographical content mentioned above. I say being as they are for the obvious reason, namely that Wikipedia isn't going to become a debunker or deflater of a major religion, despite the possible public service therein. End of my contribution to this. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Inadequate

The article doesn't even give a basic account of the Biblical story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.248.243 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That´s what Genesis flood narrative is for, this is a sub-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention Islam in the lead?

Should the lead mention that Noah's Ark is also found in the Quran, or is that undue weight? Certainly, the story is best known for being in the Bible, and in the Quran there is no ark at all, only a ship. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Arabic word for it is given at the lede, what do you see is the difference between an ark and a ship? I agree we probably shouldn't do it the way it was reverted, mentioning the Sura Hud before the Bible. It would make more sense to add "as well as the Quran" somewhere in the intro, and we used to have it that way once. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was following the text in this article, "In contrast to the Jewish tradition..." The more I think about it though, the more I think that the lead should mention Islam in some way, since it has a prominent place in the article. Perhaps something like "Noah's Ark appears in the Quran as a ship" or something like that. StAnselm (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As Til says, the Quran was mentioned after the word "biblical", but i'm not sure what you meant by your edit summary. Pass a Method talk 20:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I support this edit by User:Pass a Method, but it renders this edit unnecessary. There is, in fact, no "Ark" in the Quran, only "Noah's Ship". StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I still didn't get your answer to this: "The Arabic word for it is given at the lede, what do you see is the difference between an ark and a ship?" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The imagery in the Hebrew Bible seems to be that of a coffin.[3] StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for a straight answer to my question, but this seems like beating around the bush. So I am still unclear on the answer: what do you see is the difference between an ark and a ship? The Arabic term like the Hebrew can be translated with either English term, right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be beating around the bush. (I was just about to sit down to Christmas lunch as I wrote that.) Anyway, the English "Ark" primarily refers to a box or chest as well. (Hence the "Ark of the Covenant", though in Hebrew that is a different word.) The OED had "chest, coffer, basket or similar receptacle" as the primary meaning for "ark". StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And so, No - the Arabic word can't be translated by either term, as far as I can tell. StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

StAnselm's reply is faulty since he obviously has a limitetd understanding of Islam or the Quran. In order to understand the meaning of the Quran one would have to look at the tafsir. It is obviously StAnselm has not done that. Pass a Method talk 08:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. Given the overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis flood narrative to keep that article and the wave of !votes in opposition here, I believe the consensus is clear that these articles should remain separate and independent of each other. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

---

I propose that Noah's Ark be merged with Genesis flood narrative. The two issues are so closely linked that I think it’s meaningless to discuss the two in isolation from each other. The two existing articles are both small enough that merging them will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Wdford (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a spin-off article from Genesis flood narrative per WP:SUMMARY, and is too long to fold back into the parent article. -- 101.119.28.200 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, the combined article will be only 56k on a straight merge, plus we will save a few thousand extra bytes by eliminating duplication. It will fit perfectly well. How can you spin Noah's Ark out of a flood article, or the flood out of a Noah's Ark article? Wdford (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Note- The anon has it backwards I think - this was the original article and GFN was the spin-off wasn't it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct - GFN was the daughter article. However there is no logical basis for this split - it would be a more complete, more readable and more neutral article if the flood and the ark were discussed properly in a single article, with the references from the other religions also mentioned in the same article. We already have satisfactory sibling-articles for Wives aboard Noah's Ark, the Searches for Noah's Ark etc, but this particular split does more harm than good to the presentation of the core topic. There is a fair amount of overlap, so once merged it can easily be trimmed down to under 50k. Wdford (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Genesis flood narrative is notable independently of Noah's ark. We wouldn't want to have all that stuff about the dimensions of the ark or the ark in other traditions in the flood narrative article nor would we want the stuff about the geology of the flood, the rainbow covenant, or the composition of the narrative in this article. The subjects are separate and should have separate articles.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per alf laylah wa laylah. There is considerable overlap, but also significant distinction between the topics, and the above examples are very good ones. StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject of Noah's Ark and the Genesis Flood, although linked, are not the same topic and merging them would not be wise. Both are capable of stand-alone articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis flood narrative should also shed some light on this: consensus appears to be WP:SNOW keep on the article deletion, so it stands to reason that conesnsus would not want to merge the article either. Something to think about.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Paul McDonald. There is some overlap, but as each article is fully developed independently there will be a significant amount of unique content. Ignocrates (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as proven by AfD discussion and by overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis flood narrative. IZAK (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, while the two topics are linked, they are independent and should remain as such --CyberXRef^☎ 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bill Nye's critique of Flood Geology

He's not a reliable source, in that he is too technically unqualified to speak as an expert on issues such as geology or biology. Also, this article is NOT about an indepth critique or analysis of flood geology. We have entire articles dedicated to that. This article is primarily focused on Noah's Ark itself. I did expand the section on Flood Geology, and simply saying that such views are rejected by the scientific community are all that's needed. The main flood geology article and other creationism pages are where in depth discussion, analysis and critique should go. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

--There is no scholarly consensus that the story is not literally true. The word scholar is vauge, and implies scholars of all disciplines, religious scholars believe the story is literally true; thus the statement is misleading and needs to be changed to scientific scholars, or a "scientific consensus"

I did this, but it was changed back, which was silly and childish. the statement is misleading and should be changed. it is academically dishonest to post something that is misleading and plainly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.117.161 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 13 March 2014

--There should be a discussion of the filling in of the Black Sea that inspired this fable.

As for Bill Nye, he is actually an expert in geology and biology. Flood geology is a story masquerading as remotely scientific. It is not related to science in any way. So Bill Nye shouldn't discuss what he thinks is non-scientific. Also, why differentiate scholars who focus on the words written in a book versus those who are talking about historical evidence? Everyone knows that the idea of the Ark is sophomoric and silly but its importance as early human folklore is evident in the fact it is still being told. But I don't show approriate sources for my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.253 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that there was ever a rapid filling of the Black sea. The flood geology section seems fine as it is now, we don't need Nye. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Although representing a relatively small proportion of religious believers overall, some adherents believe the Bible is inerrant and hold its passages and internal chronology to be historically accurate."

This sentence, given with no references, is immensely problematic. "Religious believers" is an extremely vague group. It is unclear whether "adherents" means "adherents to Christianity", "adherents to Biblical inerrancy", or "adherents to flood geology" (not to mention whether it even takes beliefs outside the United States into account at all). Finally, "relatively small proportion" is so vague as to be meaningless. We either need to remove this sentence or replace it with something that conveys meaningful information. Does anyone have any relevant sources or advice to offer before I start up my buzz saw? -- LWG ^talk 16:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be explained better. The sentence is confusing biblical inerrancy with willingness to believe in a flood, but these are not the same thing. Some of the latter do not necessarily subscribe to "biblical inerrancy" in all respects, but give consideration to the information about the flood. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And of course lots of people who affirm inerrancy reject the idea of a worldwide flood. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What's a cubit?

The cubit is an archaic unit of length based on the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Cubits of various lengths were employed in many parts of the world in antiquity, during the Middle Ages and as recently as Early Modern Times. The term is still used in hedge laying, the length of the forearm being frequently used to determine the interval between stakes placed within the hedge.

However, if Noah was 9 feet tall, then a cubit is about 36 inches from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. At that point, Noah's Ark was the size of a super tanker.

It depends on the cubit. The Egyptian "royal" cubit - used for sacred architecture etc - was 524mm. The "commercial" cubit - used for selling cloth and rope etc - was 449mm. The Sumerian cubit was 519mm, which was the same as the Hebrew royal cubit. The Hebrew commercial cubit was 445mm. Take your pick. See also Cubit and Biblical and Talmudic units of measurement Wdford (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Epic of Gilgamesh is **NOT** the oldest flood myth

Comparative Flood Myth section first paragraph needs revision....well actually just a few words of clarification.

A fix is needed for the sentence states that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest flood myth. This is not correct.

The source cited, ^2, on those pages only indicate the dating of the Epic fragments, but does not in any way compare it to any other flood myth.

The Hebrew flood myth dates to **before** the Babylonian captivity, and in fact several of the Dead Sea Scrolls date to before the Epic of Gilgamesh, including Genesis flood accounts.

This error is egregious. The source only dates the Epic of Gilgamesh parchments, but ****DOES NOT**** compare it to the dating of any other flood myth.

To fix this, the sentence needs only to qualify it as "one of the oldest flood myths"

That's it, just add the two words "one of"

The article doesn't say it's the oldest flood myth though? Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Babylonian captivity seems irrelevant as it occurred quite late. Portions of The Epic of Gilgamesh are thought to have existed before 2000BC, and the "standard version" is dated to before 1000BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh). Are there any references that indicate that we have written versions of the biblical flood story that predate this (among the Dead Sea Scrolls or otherwise)?Ff11 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a reference to the Pentateuch being delivered to the Samaritans before the Babylonian captivity, suggesting it was already around before then. But copies were made every so often because they didn't last long on the scrolls, so there are none that old and it's also a matter of speculation when the originals would have been composed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

title of this article?

When a reader searches for "Noah's Ark," what is it that they're usually looking for? I have my guess, but I'd like to know what the other editors say. Leadwind (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

historicity intro

Currently the Historicity section does not have an introduction that summarizes its subsections. It's starts right out with a subsection under the main header and no subheader for that subsection. I added an intro for the history section and a subheader for the paragraph about the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it was reverted as unsourced and unnecessary. The sources are listed in the respective subheaders, and if my attempt at an intro was unnecessary, then a different intro is necessary in its place. Would someone else like to suggest a good way to introduce the Historicity section, since my attempt was reverted? Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noah%27s_Ark&oldid=604821458&diff=prev. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific evidence

Regarding this. Thoughts? Let me mention that whether the clause goes or stays, this is not a reliable source for anything.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This source is garbage - it's not fringe, its just garbage. On the other hand there is lots of actual evidence that there was never a global flood in that time-period - including not least that there simply is not enough water on earth to accomplish this literally. One of my favorite possible explanations for the origin of these flood stories is that there was a meteorite impact in the Indian Ocean around 5000 years ago, which would have sent a tsunami up to the Persian Gulf and which would have definitely flooded those coastal lands to many dozens of miles inland - literally drowning the world as those people conceived the world to be. (See Burckle Crater) But clearly that was not a flood which covered the entire earth for 40 days. Wdford (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Source and edit are both unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Major changes without consensus reverted

I reverted the article to a prior version as a series of bold changes were made without seeking consensus here. I don't think the changes made will garner consensus support. I for one oppose them on the grounds they do not reflect the NPOV policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Source identification - Bottero

What is the cited reference Bottero (2001:21–22) ? Stermerkermer (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a number of missing sources similar to this. The statement "There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood." has no less than eight footnotes, only one of which leads to an actual source reference. The one reference seems quite weak to support such an unequivocal assertion; instead of a source to some consensus among experts in geology, it's a case study of the church's reaction to evidence pertaining to the flood.

The statement looks very emphatic and convincing with eight citations attached to it, to a reader that doesn't pursue those citations to find that seven of them are dead ends. This could have the effect of misleading the typical reader that there is overwhelming evidence to support that statement, when in fact, very little is supplied.

66.41.179.140 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. Well, I am close to give up on using Wikipedia for anything related to history. There is so much use of bad sources, missing sources, miss-quoted sources, unbalanced sources, unrelated sources cited as being related (but is not) etc. Too bad. Stermerkermer (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet studies disagree with you and I don't see you trying to correct any of these problems you see. What seems to have happened here is a careless copy and paste from another article. I'll try to get it sorted. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Stermerkermer, this was fixed on the 13th. Unfortunately an attempt to remove vandalism removed the sources once again. I've fixed that. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I have had numerous usernames over the years, most of which are lost. I had one user profile where I did quite some work on checking/correcting sources etc. but that is years ago now and I have lost the name. Sure I can find it though by some research but it (honestly) isn't important to me. Reason for multiple users are simply that I forget password or install new OS and "forget" to save all logins etc.

But, anyhow, I have used time on this. In my "worst" cases I used days at the library, ordering books, etc. to read up on references and found quite a few errant citations and references. I am sure there are a lot of well written, well sourced etc. articles on history – but I found it a bit exhausting having to check "every" ref. when reading an article. (From a user, not editor/contributor, point of view.) I also do not want to "correct" things if I do not know the subject very well, or have time to read up on it. I guess one also easily can be "unlucky" if one read on a specific topic where one "vandal" or misguided soul has edited article after article. I'll try to stay more positive ;) Stermerkermer (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stermerkermer: Sorry, I was too strident. It is exhausting - I do it quite a bit when I find something dubious, and you are right, sources to get misused. Thanks for your work in the past. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Repeated removal of sourced content is not in keeping with policy. This has been done today. Insertion of talk and POV pushing are also not in keeping with policy. Objection to content should occur on the talk page after a removal has been restored. Repeatedly removing the work of other editors is edit warring and is absolutely against policy. Reasoned policy based arguments can be presented here to support proposed changes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems an editor who was blocked for edit warring has resumed this activity once the block was over. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Repeated changes against consensus and repeating those changes after being reverted without discussion and consensus on talk is edit warring and a violation of policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This is a quite biased article. It outright denies that Noah's Ark ever existed. I find that a bit excessive. I think it should be more tolerant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.129.134 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

A list of evidences supporting the global flood rather than, "there is no scientific evidence to support the flood" which is a false claim. A large majority of fossils found in sedimentary rock (deposited by water) all across the globe Fast Fossilization (fossil teddy bears/hats/ect.) Similar stories of a global flood shared by people groups around the planet dinosaur "death pose" caused by drowning and more 24.110.42.240 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Fossil teddy bears?!" Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lordy lord. Dave Dial (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Assertion: "There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood."

I'll start off by saying that in my opinion, the Genesis flood narrative is a bunch of hooey. Having said that, I will also say that I am uncomfortable with the assertion, "There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood."

This assertion in the article is currently supported by eight cited sources. If there are no reliable sources asserting that there is scientific evidence supporting a global flood, then one supporting source ought to be sufficient.

It occurred to me to wonder how well the supporting sources cited do support the assertion. Taking the sources cited in their order of appearance in the footnote --

• Isaak 1998 is titled Problems with a Global Flood, and discusses a number of problems with the proposition that there was a global flood. It does not, however, appear to support an assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood. See [4].
• Young 1995 is titled The biblical Flood: a case study of the Church's response to extrabiblical evidence. It was linked in the article to [5]. I have changed that to link to [6] instead. This is a non-previewable book. The description by Google Books says, "Using the biblical flood as an example, Young contends that the church has not always handled evidence well in grappling with scientific matters and issues a call to biblical scholars to interpret the Genesis text more rigorously in light of current scientific knowledge." That does not suggest to me that the book supports an assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood.
• Isaak 2006 links to a list of Creationist claims about geology in an archived page on the talkorigins.org/ website. It doesn't seem to me that this supports an assertion that supports an assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood.
• Morton 2001 is an article titled The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood on that rigins.org website. That article is a detailed discussion of one young earth creationist claim. It does not appear to support an assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood.
• Isaak 2007 is an article titled Claim CD750: which discusses one young earth creationist claim. It does not appear to support an assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood.
• Stewart 2010 is a two volume book set titled Science and Religion in Dialogue. Page 123 is cited, but the 2010 edition is not previewable. The publisher's desccription says that it "shows how scientific and religious practices of inquiry can be viewed as logically compatible, complementary, and mutually supportive." My guess from that description would be that it does not support an assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood. See [7] and [8].
• Schadewald 1982 is an article titled Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer. It does not appear to support an assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood. See [9].
• Scott 2003 is an article titled My Favorite Pseudoscience. The article says, "I could not see any evidence for this at all, and much evidence against it." However, it seems to stop short of saying that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood. See [10].

I suggest changing the assertion that there is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood to an assertion that no scientific evidence has been found that a global flood has occurred, citing {Scott 2003) in support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs)

Your concern is warranted in view of the extensive research that has gone into hypotheses that Noah's flood is a cultural echo of the series of floods or basin fillings that resulted from rising sea levels after the latest glacial period. The Black Sea deluge hypothesis is the most prominent theory that reflects an event that any prehistoric or early historic culture might have seen as a flood engulfing the world. Flood myth has a number of other potential examples, including the filling of the Persian Gulf, though the Biblical account is attributed there to relatively localized flooding in Mesopotamia. As you note, the immersion of the entire globe is an event that requires one to wholly reject science, geology, archaeology and paleontology in favor of Biblical literalism, and that the attempts at "scientific" examples cited immediately above this section venture into pseudoscience, and bad pseudoscience at that. The paragraph immediately above the sentence in question mentions flood myths: perhaps the proposed text could be combined with that somehow? Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The story in Islam

There is no reference about (Abdallah ibn 'Umar al-Baidawi) Talk . and (Og, son of Anak) DOES NOT EXIST IN THE KORAN . In the Koran, Noah did not carry all the races of animals, only what he needs (cows Chicken) and the flood did not cover the planet and did not kill all organisms . Give me one reference from the Koran. This all talk in the Quran

﴿وَاصْنَعِ الْفُلْكَ بِأَعْيُنِنَا وَوَحْيِنَا وَلَا تُخَاطِبْنِي فِي الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا إِنَّهُمْ مُغْرَقُونَ﴾ [11:37]

﴿فَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْهِ أَنِ اصْنَعِ الْفُلْكَ بِأَعْيُنِنَا وَوَحْيِنَا فَإِذَا جَاءَ أَمْرُنَا وَفَارَ التَّنُّورُ فَاسْلُكْ فِيهَا مِنْ كُلٍّ زَوْجَيْنِ اثْنَيْنِ وَأَهْلَكَ إِلَّا مَنْ سَبَقَ عَلَيْهِ الْقَوْلُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَا تُخَاطِبْنِي فِي الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا إِنَّهُمْ مُغْرَقُونَ﴾ [23:27]

﴿فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ فِي الْفُلْكِ الْمَشْحُونِ﴾ [26:119]

﴿وَيَصْنَعُ الْفُلْكَ وَكُلَّمَا مَرَّ عَلَيْهِ مَلَأٌ مِنْ قَوْمِهِ سَخِرُوا مِنْهُ قَالَ إِنْ تَسْخَرُوا مِنَّا فَإِنَّا نَسْخَرُ مِنْكُمْ كَمَا تَسْخَرُونَ﴾ [11:38]

﴿إِنَّا لَمَّا طَغَى الْمَاءُ حَمَلْنَاكُمْ فِي الْجَارِيَةِ۝11لِنَجْعَلَهَا لَكُمْ تَذْكِرَةً وَتَعِيَهَا أُذُنٌ وَاعِيَةٌ۝12﴾ [69:11—12]

﴿فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَأَصْحَابَ السَّفِينَةِ وَجَعَلْنَاهَا آَيَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ﴾ [29:15]

﴿وَحَمَلْنَاهُ عَلَى ذَاتِ أَلْوَاحٍ وَدُسُرٍ۝13تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا جَزَاءً لِمَنْ كَانَ كُفِرَ۝14وَلَقَدْ تَرَكْنَاهَا آَيَةً فَهَلْ مِنْ مُدَّكِرٍ۝15فَكَيْفَ كَانَ عَذَابِي وَنُذُرِ۝16وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآَنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِنْ مُدَّكِرٍ۝17﴾ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benohamid (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Unconvincing assertion.

"Despite many expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found." The sources backing this statement up aren't convincing at all. Should be redacted or changed. BigEvilTurtle (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't going to accept well known academics such as Brian Fagan, Eric Cline and Kenneth Feder then we aren't going to convince you. Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What actual scientific evidence of the ark has been found? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethics

Well, I am disappointed.

The article talks about Noah's Ark from a religious and scientific point of view, but not from an ethical point of view. There isn't a word about the ethics of drowning millions of men women and children. Not to mention drowning animals. It seems a bit of a miss not to mention this.

I propose adding a section to the article titled "Ethics". Have fun with that one. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You can try. But unless you put in some cited content, it'll be deleted. Myrvin (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a very important ethical point which is referenced here and there but we need a serious citation rather than a few lines from TV and stand-up shows. Jimp 12:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly worth pointing out that the flood wouldn't have drowned millions of people (can't comment on the animals) - according to the genealogies in Genesis there were only a dozen or so people in the world at the time. PiCo (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The genealogies only concentrate on the lineage from Adam to Noah. They leave open the possibility of other lines, especially those descending from Cain, who are said to be the "wicked" lineage. These also supposedly had children by "fallen angels". The actual numbers probably weren't millions, but the bible leaves open the possibility of tens of thousands.FimusTauri (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My word, it seems all the Patriarchs had already died before the Flood. The sole exception is Lamech, Noah's father, who died in the year of the flood, aged 969 - I believe Jewish tradition holds that he died of old age. This was something of a surprise to me. PiCo (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've done some more research on this question, which it seems has never been addressed till now. What I'm looking for is the probable population of the earth in the year of the Flood. According to my sources, pre-modern demographic patterns produce a doubling of population every 1,000-1,500 years. Beginning with a global population of two (Adam and Eve), we can therefore expect global population to have doubled, but not quadrupled (i.e., a doubling doubled), by 1656 AM, the year of the Flood. (AM mean Anno Mundi, the count of years beginning from the Creation). In actual numbers this means a global population of between 4 an 8 - and as it happens, the Book of Genesis has 8 people on the Noah's ark (Noah, his three sons, and their wives). I'm impressed by the way this vindicates the Biblical story. PiCo (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow original research, and any additions or changes to the article must be supported by reliable, third-party sources. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to do that. PiCo (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A world-wide flood and the ark are facts, not religious myths

The first few paragraphs of this WIKI article, like those in most of WIKI, are reasonably accurate. But then the author lapses into a confusing series of statements apparently designed to insult Judeo-Christian readers, promote the theory of evolution, and elevate the importance of traditionally non-Western religions. This approach might be excusable if the world-wide flood and the ark had anything to do with mystical faith or irrational beliefs, but the facts prove otherwise. There are volumes of scientific research, done with no religious (or anti-religious) bias, that prove the flood phenomenon, beginning with obvious discoveries like datable oceanic shells found on inland mountaintops and uprooted petrified trees preserved in rock strata. There are also at least 25 different accounts of ark sightings over a 1500-year period, including some in the 21st century, despite the political turmoil and snow-capped conditions that accompany 10,000-foot Mt. Ararat. Of course, even if a huge wooden boat built 5000 years ago has disintegrated into splinters, a rational person would need convincing proof that it never existed at all - since no trace of Caesar's chariots nor the Mayflower exist either! I would hope that WIKI would avoid the temptation to inject propaganda into its articles, and let the truth speak for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.201.225 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple authors, and the article is based on a summary of professionally published mainstream academic sources, not personal interpretations of religious texts. If there are volumes of truly scientific research, then you need to WP:CITE them. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I object to lumping all Jews and Christians as though they all shared the same belief that the Bible is literally true. So far as I know, this is a minority view among Christians and Jews. Doug Weller (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotal, but: a friend of mine getting an M.Div from a school founded by Jerry freaking Falwell thinks the flood was just the "known world" (i.e. a huge chunk of Mesopotamia). Again, this is someone who sees no shame in being taught by a founding father of the ironically named "Moral Majority." The more mainline ministers I know would probably redirect it as an allegory for baptism and/or resurrection, maybe make it a part of Campbell's Monomyth. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the IP editor would benefit from reading some of the Jewish commentary linked in the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr.Thomson, please refrain from personal remarks and comment only on the article. For my part, a world-wide flood and the ark are myths to the secularist, but facts to the Christian. As for what the original person who started this discussion says, he should first find reliable sources before stating the flood as a fact, on Wikipedia at least. While what he says is quite true concerning resaerch, they do not come from academic sources, and Wikipedia only publishes academic sources.68.100.116.118 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

They're myths to the vast majority of modern Christians too, since the idea of a literal flood is more than a little silly in light of modern science, the boat could not be built and the scenario requires every animal and human be infested with every parasite in existence at the same time. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A rational person requires proof that something does exist, not proof that it doesn't. Otherwise, you can't prove you don't owe me ten thousand bucks, so you'd better pay up. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Christians believe that "with God all things are possible.". Hence, unless you are an atheist, you cannot say a literal flood is "silly". In any case the one who started this discussion has to reference academic sources, and since academic sources have no sense of the miraculous, there are none to provide. Hence, I am finished with this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you absolutely can say that and still believe in a creator. Christians do not have to be fundamentalist biblical literalists. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone involved that wikipedia talk pages do not exist to educate the ignorant or to challenge poorly grounded personal beliefs, but to discuss improvements to the article. Both sides of this debate are the same - frustrated with what they see as widespread but false beliefs on this topic. This is understandable: no matter which side is correct there is a large number of people who are incorrect and those people's ignorance is harmful to themselves and frustrating to others. However, Wikipedia does exist to solve that problem. If you want to have a discussion about what Christians/atheists/rationalists/fundamentists/whatever do believe or should believe you should take that to your personal talk pages, or better, to another web site. 68.4.201.225's original complaint is incorrect, but every comment after that of Ian.thomson was inappropriate because they give the wrong reasons for the complaint being incorrect. The correct response is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned it may very well be the case that the available sources are incorrect or even propaganda, but if so until the pool of available sources changes Wikipedia will also be incorrect or propagandistic, and this is an accepted limitation of the project. -- LWG ^talk 20:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Standard edit warring discussion

A recent IP editor is engaging in the standard YEC pov-pushing and has been reverted by two editors (User:Theroadislong and myself). The edits are unsourced, counter to sources, and generally violate WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

They were blocked while I was commenting on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The height of absurdity

It's one thing to note that searches have been unsuccessful, & that there's no evidence of the ark's existence. Calling it "impossible" is pointless. This is akin to explaining at Jonah's article that it was impossible for him to live in a fish, or using WP:MEDRS to refute the raising of Lazarus. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read the article by Moore (if you haven't already), and, also, recall that we rely on reliable sources, not your opinion of what is "pointless". Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? I have read it. Maybe you should read what I wrote on this page, and in summary. Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the tin-foil hats out in full force when the article has anything to do with religion. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Joefromrandb, that last comment is waaay the fuck out of line, and ironic given that you're the one removing something that would only upset young earth creationists. The comparisons you list in your first post here would be WP:OR, whereas the material you removed was supported by a scientific journal directly discussing the issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, enjoy the Kool-Aid then. Trying to have a rational conversation with a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-theist isn't much easier than having one with a biblical literalist. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA again and again until you realize what is wrong with your past two posts in this discussion. If you read those things and still can't figure it out, then you need to leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is a lot of space between YECers and anti-theists. Isambard Kingdom (to my knowledge) and I fall well toward the middle (I'm a Theistic evolutionist, not an anti-theist, not that that should matter). The only person here who has come close to foaming-at-the-mouth is you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible plans for Noah’s ark

Here plans how it is possible to build Noah’s ark: http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Noahs_Ark.html

I would like to add them as a link on top of the Ark subject. Is there some problem with this, or why it is not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.40.69 (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your blog does not show a link for correspondence.

You detail the creatures that may have been allowed on the raft but do not attempt to describe species. The term "Species" is itself a misnomer so perhaps there is good reason for your reticence.

There is likely no reason to make provision for amphibians nor for that matter a number of lizards.

With the length of time taken to build; the state of metalwork at the time allows for plenty of preparation, even without angelic help.

Storm-proofing may not have been needed until the time god sent the east wind. Even then, if he had been caught in the eye of a storm of a semi-permanent type such as the Aleutian or Icelandic low, the Ark will have been relatively safe.

It is best not to attempt to convert non-believers, there being room in the original account to allow considerate hearted ones to conclude in the positive if they wish and to continue disbelief should they wish for that.

The only way to find out the honest truth is to ask god himself. And only believers will do so, regardless of the fact non believers can access him with such questions as occur to them.

Good luck. Weatherlawyer (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a problem. There are thousands of books that have been written on Noah's Ark that aren't linked to, either. A random blog post just isn't important enough to mention barring some truly exceptional circumstances. SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"The challenges associated with housing all living animal types, and even plants, would have made building the ark a practical impossibility."

The discussion in the above section will go nowhere productive, however the recently-added text does require scrutiny. The source cited is not academic research but a publication of an advocacy organization that exists solely to oppose the promotion of creationist views. Quoting that organization's wiki article: "The center opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools through initiatives such as Project Steve, and is regarded as the United States' leading anti-creationist organization."

This source is thus on similar ideological grounds to information about evolution published by Answers In Genesis, and should not be presented in the article as undisputed fact. Moore's own citation list shows that lots of other writers who like Moore have the specific purpose of swaying public opinion on this controversy take a different view. -- LWG ^talk 16:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point too, but the main issue remains that it is ridiculous to attempt to use observable science to refute the argument, "God did it with magic". Arguing that it must stay there because "it's cited" is a non-starter. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that being verifiable by a reliable source does not mean information necessarily belongs in an article. My tone in the above section may not be the most pleasant, but it's quite frustrating trying to deal with the ubiquity of strawmen being built.Joefromrandb (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

LWG's point is the only fair one made thus far because it isn't based on original research. Also, he doesn't engage in strawman personal attacks rooted in an assumption of bad faith. Still, an advocacy group that pushes for mainstream scientific facts is not exactly on the same footing as groups that reject science completely. That said, attribution (e.g. "according to the National Center of Science Education...") would be an acceptable compromise. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest changing it to the sentence used at the start of the "Historicity" section: "The practical challenges associated with building an ark large enough to house all living animal types, and even plants, would have been very considerable." That would reflect the content of that section, which is what the lead paragraph is supposed to do, and would be both accurate and consistent with the whole range of reliable sources. -- LWG ^talk 16:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I wrote both sentences (lead and body) a few months ago. The present lead, a modification of a my first writing, accommodates another editors wishes for "impossibility", which is factual. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't currently have sufficient sourcing to prevent "impossibility" being undue weight, given that many authors have made various attempts to explain how it would be possible. The Moore article is not a statement of consensus, but a rebuttal to the opposing view, and the very fact that Moore found it necessary to write a rebuttal tells us that there are people out there who take the other view. For us to endorse Moore's position over theirs is undue weight rooted in a WP:TRUTH way of thinking. -- LWG ^talk 04:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, we have to be careful to distinguish between the historicity of the flood narrative and the feasibility of the construction of the supposed ark, which are two distinct questions. -- LWG ^talk 05:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Where was the original request for the "impossibility" phrasing discussed? If it was not discussed, it should have been, and if it was, reading that discussion would help me gain some perspective. -- LWG ^talk 05:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• That people take the opposing view that it was completely possible for all species of plants and animals to be stored in the ark really doesn't necessarily mean that we have to artificially give them equal validity. There are rebuttals of Young Earth creationism, and yet we outright say "Evidence from numerous scientific disciplines contradicts YEC" even if about half of Americans don't get that. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

But we do that by citing actual scientific articles, not their advocates. That is what we need to do here. The only thing that gives the current source greater weight than the people he is rebutting on whether ancient people could construct an ark and survive a flood in it is that he agrees with mainstream science on the related issue of whether geology provides any evidence that a flood actually occurred. That is not enough to justify stating Moore's position as fact, just as we don't cite Bill Nye on global warming even though he is correct. We cite the sources that actually support his correctness. If Moore is the only source out there for the claim that the ark would have been technically impossible, then it is undue weight to state that in the article, even if it not undue weight to state that regardless of its technical feasibility there is no evidence that the ark was actually constructed. -- LWG ^talk 15:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This complete argument is stupid. Since the clauses in the unknown word meanings allow for a series of cubical compartments of the sort the whole ship would have needed by design, in the first place - including with the term tsohar the possibility of stabilisers in the roof space as a reservoir would have been carried there and the roof-covering would thus not serve to shed water.

A ship of the lengths specified (although the eventual length quoted is unproven) could not possibly rely on a keel made of any tree, even assuming that the length of such prehistoric trees was greater than in these days.

Instead they architecture would have needed the style adapted in the time of Admiral He, who led a fleet of riverboats to Japan from China in the 15th century.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Noah's ark may have been an early Pre-Columbian connection to America. Flooding occurs regularly due to El Niño and could be the method of launching the ark. It could have contained an American zoo of plants and animals but no more than from one habitat. Noah recorded 40 days of rain and it rains heavily over the east Pacific during El Niño. He recorded that the form of the land changed and that the floods stopped. Also that everyone he ever knew before the event were effectively dead and his animals were the only ones around that were the same species. Even Christopher Columbus thought he had discovered the Idies south of China. Vclaar (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My opinion and it all makes sense

start off at animals in life all animals today has multiplied from the beginning of this kind Noah took one of every animal that's not as we know it today but as it would have been back in his time six thousand years ago they wouldn't have been as many animals as we know of today and it would make sense you could put all those animals on that Ark Exhile73 (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research. I'm not even going to all the other problems beyond that. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe in there was a great flood and at the same time of the great flood I believe in the North Pole and the South Pole frozen and made what we call are glaciers that we call, that are melting and during the great flood there was many tectonic plates shifting volcanic eruptions fires beneath the ocean floor, under the ocean was erosion, land moving, oceans recreating, new continents forming n mounting creating, water Deceit and we have the land as we see it ,then there was Great Lakes and that's broke away and cost greater erosion and even faster erosion then what we know of today. In it explain time . So this means, the ice was formed at the poles, all new mountain, new countenances, new oceans. After the ark rested, there was no trees or life except the ark n what was inside. So man used the wood from the ark to rebuild homes, make fire, n What ever, this means the ark was looking apart in used, the wood from the ark could be in object built by man. N only the fools are still looking for a ship, looking n the wrong way, it might be part of there home. Exhile73 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The ark was built during the dinosaur time. they was left behind to die with all other bad living things. Exhile73 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is mostly intended for suggesting improvements to the article. While you are welcome to publish your own personal opinions about the ark online, perhaps a better outlet would be to get a Wordpress blog or something like that. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy -- see WP:NOTFORUM. Alephb (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Exhile73: -- WP:No original research. In other words, we do not care at all what you believe, we only summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Professionally-published mainstream academic sources, by the way, present the Age of the Earth at around 4.5 billion years old and the extinction of the dinosaurs at around 66 million years ago. Not saying that to argue with you over what to believe, just further reinforcing that your opinions do not belong on this site's articles or talk pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Localized Flood

In the section labeled Flood Geology, it mentions that nearby civilizations of China and Egypt did not have similar deluge stories. I have often considered (original research) that in early times of mankind, the idea of "the whole earth" probably only encompassed known areas within reach; they likely did not have a global view of the world. Regardless, in the Biblical account, Noah's descendants become what will be known as Egypt: Noah -> Ham -> Mizraim (Genesis 10:6 & 13), which would make the Biblically endorsed argument that there were no contemporary civilizations at that time. It is possible, like with Egypt, we have some inaccuracies with the timeline.
One last thing to add, The Great Pyramid of Cholula and supposed builder Xelhua are from South America. They also have a Great Flood story it would seem. Is this precolumbian, or did the Europeans influence these stories? More research is needed. Wcichello (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Flood Geology section does not mention that Egypt and China lacked similar deluge stories. What the section is saying, although it does not say it very well, is that the civilizations of Egypt and China lasted right through the time when the Bible places the Flood. The argument then is that, if Egypt and China had a continuous civilization right through the relevant time (say 2300 BC), then there's no space for a global flood.

Regardless of how broad the concept of "the whole earth" was for the writer of Genesis, the Genesis account puts the water above the peak of the mountains of Ararat, i.e., above 16,000 feet above sea level. If you have a flood with water that high, it's not a local flood. It's a global flood. Alephb (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentary, AlephB. I see what you are saying about the JJ Dyken quote; This assumes Young Earth. I see that China has a Flood Myth. The Torah is supposedly of Mosaic authorship, which, even if true, puts the writing something close to 900 years after the flood according to the biblical timeline. Genesis 7:20 says, "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of fifteen cubits." Genesis 8:4 says, "[A]nd on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat." You have made the assumption (as many others) that the text is referring to Greater Ararat, the [singular] mountain in modern-day Turkey, but the text clearly states a mountain range, and which mountain in that range has been speculated over for quite some time (see Mountains of Ararat). Being that Mount Sinai and the Red Sea's actual locations are debated, both of which are landmarks in Moses' own time, I don't see why Ararat mountain should be set in stone, especially given the time difference and location of the assumed Author (Moses). Wcichello (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Historicity

Some scholars have expressed skepticism that the story took place as described in the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.147.106 (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The article already states "There is no scientific evidence for a global flood, and despite many expeditions, no evidence of the ark has been found," with several references following that statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ron wyatt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7704:2D30:B8ED:78CB:2A4D:D4FF (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean Ron Wyatt, read his article. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The USA in the lead

Apparently 60% of less than 5% of the world's population believe in the Ark story (i.e. less than 3%). And that "fact" takes up around a quarter of the lead. No other country is mentioned. That's pure US centrism. It should be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. HiLo48, don't know if you've seen Moses#Legacy? One step further, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Hadn't seen that before. Extraordinary. American exceptionalism clearly lives on. One of its unwritten features seems to be that religious obsessed Americans don't even look at Talk pages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Myth vs account or story controversy

Not Neutral, and bullying...

Honestly, I think just report the user to WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3 they are warring and are not here to build an encyclopedia but to push their agenda. NZFC^(talk) 04:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson WP:GEVAL states, We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Apparently 60% of Americans believe the Noah's Ark story to be true, and, although that's not the whole world, we are talking about a wider world, whose beliefs need to be respected in balance with established scholarship. Has that balance been attempted to be reached? Thinker78 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "the wider world"? Why should the unverifiable beliefs of less than 3% of the world's population be of any significance in the creation of this global, reliable source based encyclopaedia? Please note that I am making no criticism of those beliefs. Just saying I can't see their relevance here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Plus there's WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A comic on a youtube video is hardly a reliable source.

The original 2003 ABC News Primetime poll is here: https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/947a1ViewsoftheBible.pdf

If you want an answer from an up-to-date and reliable source, go to this 2017 poll from Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

24% believe that the Bible is literal word of God, the lowest in Gallup's 40-year trend. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Putting on my Maths teacher hat again (and waiting to be abused again for using non-American English), that's around 1% of the world's population. My earlier question now reads "Why should the unverifiable beliefs of around 1% of the world's population be of any significance in the creation of this global, reliable source based encyclopaedia?" HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. It appears that you have made a mistake in your math. A poll of Americans tells you nothing about the rest of the world. 50% of the two people in the room where I am typing this had eggs for breakfast. Does that imply that only 0.000000013% of the world's population had eggs? No, because a poll of the room where I am sitting tells you nothing about the rest of the world. You assumed that 0% of the rest of the world holds the belief, which I can easily falsify.[12] Try recalculating with the (also wrong) assumption that all of the rest of the world does. (It's still a fringe theory, but the 1% number is not supported by the citation). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Noah in Islam is an interesting starting point for estimating the percentage of people worldwide who believe the Noah's Ark story to be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was deliberately and pointedly pushing the extremes there. What we do have is a very loud cohort of fundamentalist Christians in the USA insisting that their beliefs should feed into this article. What we don't have is any similar push from Muslims, or any other faith, from anywhere in the world. (There are plenty of Muslim people edit here.) I know many people who call themselves Muslim. Just like Christians outside the USA (and many within), most don't go around pushing fundamental views on the Noah story on the rest of the world. Just as we can never get truly precise numbers of the adherents to any religion, we can never know how many take their old holy texts absolutely literally in the face of modern scientific evidence to the contrary. So yes, ignore my maths. I was making the point that all such figures are fairly pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

With "wider world" I mean the same as the policy means. And actually, a poll of Americans may tell you something about the rest of the world. It is called a statistical sample. It's accuracy to measure the wider world would depend on a number of factors. Although it is a number taken from a comedian, Bill Maher is a special kind of comedian, not just any comedian that shows up at the karaoke or at a bar. He is a nationally syndicated political commentator who uses comedy to make his points. I take that the information he uses to make his points is reliable because if he gets to use false information he would soon get in hot water, lose audience, and credibility. So because context matters, I believe the 60% number taken from Bill Maher is reliable.

About 54% of the world population is a believer in an Abrahamic religion. Now, regarding that Gallup poll that says that only 24% believe the Bible is literal word of God, I have to say that does not mean that those 24% does not believe in the Bible or in any story within it. If you go to the Gallup website that is referenced, you can even see that the 24% is compared to a 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." The Catholic Church itself for example believe the Bible is an allegorical in diverse degrees representation of the word of God, and the Church liberally interprets it, with the end result of evangelicals often claiming that the Catholic Church does not follow what the Bible says. But that does not mean of course that the Catholic Church does not believe in the Bible.

So I think that if we extrapolate the 60% number to include all believers in an Abrahamic religion, we get to have an educated guess of about 32% of the total world population who believe the story of Noah's Ark to be true. That's almost 2.5 billion people. That's a lot of people that you guys want to ignore. I think we should not make this an advocacy platform for atheistic disbeliefs or theistic beliefs but simply find a balance between what academic scholarship say and respecting the beliefs of millions of people as WP:GEVALS says and follow what neutral point of view states, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Is the word "myth" according to significant views that have been published by reliable sources? Is the word "myth" used with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world? Thinker78 (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia demands reliable sources. Neither a comedian nor holy texts qualify. Nor does you guesswork on what the rest of the world thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't attempt to answer my questions though. I explained why I think Maher may be a reliable source in some contexts but I will work on finding more sources. If you don't like my guesswork then I will just remind you of a referenced higher number than my guesswork, "About 54% of the world population is a believer in an Abrahamic religion". About 7% of the adult population of the world is atheist. Regarding the Bible, it actually seems to be a reliable source in Wikipedia depending the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I submit that any claim about the "number of believers" in the world is unreliable. Firstly, there is no agreed definition of "believer". Secondly, there is no uniform way of collecting the figures. In my country, the ONLY figures available on this front would come from the five yearly, national census. There, respondents can answer an OPTIONAL question which asks "What is the person's religion?" It lists a number of common ones, and allows a choice of "Other", asking for a written response there. So, it's optional, and does NOT ask if someone actually believes. Many people simply choose the church their family traditionally attended, maybe a generation or two ago. Given that regular church attendance is now very low (around 7%), that's no indication of belief. Obviously other countries do different things. So, how can anyone possibly come up with a global number of believers? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, 20% of Christians don't believe in God but 17% of people without a religion do. Thinker78 (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Weird. I always prefer to see the questions asked, and the actual numerical results, but those results are fascinating. Just one observation- those figures apply to Americans, not the whole world. I would describe a lot of the people of my country as apatheists. Simply not interested in whether or not God is real. It's certainly not a big part of most people's lives. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Effectively, you are saying that "some people who believe the story is literally true, claim that many other people also believe the story is literally true". If you have a reference for that, it could work, but I don't know if it would add value to the article? Wdford (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

RfC on the word "myth" usage with the Genesis flood

The consensus is that the word "myth" should be written immediately next to "Genesis flood".

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the word "myth" be written immediately next to "Genesis flood"? Thinker78 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Please read the background in the section above. I think if anything the word myth is choking the paragraph because it is repeated too many times, so I propose this, "The Genesis flood is similar to numerous flood myths from a variety of cultures." Thinker78 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In terms of folklore genres, the Genesis flood narrative firmly falls into the genre of myth, and there's likely more data we should draw from about the specific motifs (Motif (folkloristics)) relevant scholars, such as folklorists, have noted here. This should really be more up front than it currently is, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Reducing the use of the word "myth" explicitly in relation to this particular ancient story, when compared with other similar legends, would give an unbalanced coverage. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by that, but this is a flood myth narrative just like any other. And that’s how we treat it on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It perfectly fits the definition. You are welcome to believe, along with J. R. R. Tolkien, that it is a myth that is also true; this is not a contradiction. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe "a myth that is also true" was specifically C.S. Lewis with the story of Jesus, but that only reinforces the point. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. For once this is an appropriate use of the word: legend central to religio-social doctrine, and which cannot be demonstrated to be historical fact (Robin Hood is a legend but not a myth). PS: The whole "myth that happens to be true" thing is a different meaning of "myth"; it's not really salient here; it's akin to the usage of the word in "urban myth", an imprecise bending of the word's meaning to mean something like "popular story people re-tell", and it's not what mythographers, folklorists, anthropologists, historians, hagiographers, etc. mean by the word).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes as per ....Alan Dundes (1988). The Flood Myth. University of California Press. pp. 427–. ISBN 978-0-520-06353-2..--Moxy (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Not only is it the topic of numerous books such as The Great Flood: A Handbook of World Flood Myths by Sir James G. Frazer, even the young-earth creationists call them "flood myths" (while of course claiming that their flood myth really happened): https://arkencounter.com/flood/myths/ --Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, in line with the many reasons given above. Jzsj (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a myth by any reasonable definition of the word and it would do to get it out of the way and then clean up the rest of the reading. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for a very simple reason: the article is at Genesis flood narrative, not "Genesis flood myth", so either we open a move discussion there, or we use it without change, but we can not change it here if there it is "narrative". Debresser (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that myth is a form of narrative, correct? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"While some scholars have tried to offer possible explanations for the origins of the flood myth including a legendary retelling of a possible Black Sea deluge, the general mythological exaggeration and implausibility of the story are widely recognized by relevant academic fields. The acknowledgement of this follows closely the development of understanding of the natural history and especially the geology and paleontology of the planet." Source: Genesis flood narrative#Historicity   --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Also yes it says narrative, then in that same sentence it says myth. The Genesis flood narrative (chapters 6–9 in the Book of Genesis) is the Hebrew flood myth.. NZFC^(talk) 22:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That first sentence sounds like whoever added it lost a move to "Genesis flood myth". Thinker78 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Still, it has its place in that sentence just like myth has its place in this article as well.NZFC^(talk) 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes For all the same reasons listed above. Seanbonner (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - It is one of the flood myths. Moreover, myth is not only used to mean that it is only a mythological story, but also a traditional narrative (as in origin myth, flood myth, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 08:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes It's considered a major example of a flood myth, probably the major example, and several editors have explained what the word means. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Snow, at this point. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Essential version of the flood myth. Dimadick (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Of course a myth can have a kernel of historical truth and of course myths often embody bigger 'metaphorical' truths, but nonetheless it's a myth. BTW, despite all the ingeneous maths above, I grew up in an almost wholly Christian community - I never asked them all personally, but I doubt very much if a single one of them believed in the historical truth of the Ark story - certainly none believed in the literal truth of the 7 days of creation, nor did they feel any need to, they viewed the Bible as a work of profound religious revelation, not as a piece of objective history nor as a scientific treatise. However even if the maths were less tortured and s/he could show that XX% of the world believed something to be true - that would still be a belief, not a verified historical truth. The proper place for NPOV on this is treating with respect what some christians believe about Noah, but respectfully representing those beliefs is not the same as endorsing them nor whitewashing by pretending that a story handed down to us represents established historical facts. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes If Dictionaries count for anything, the Oxford Dictionary at [13] defines a myth as: "(A) A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events"; or (B) "A widely held but false belief or idea." That seems to fit perfectly here, in every respect. Other dictionaries have very similar definitions. Wdford (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Existence of the ark

I rephrased an asssertion that the ark did not exist. The source never says that modern science says so. It is the opinion of one author. Rephrased to more accurately reflect the source, which is a biased one so this assertion might have npov issues. The NCSE was founded against creationism. More and unbiased sources are needed to support the argument that the ark didn't exist, which may have existed in some capacity different than how it is portrayed in the Bible. Thinker78 (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Edit 18:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller Did you revert according to your personal opinion or based on reliable sources? Thinker78 (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Unbiased science says the ark could never have existed. We don't "balance" science with ancient fables. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but care to verify the source states that modern science says that the ark did not exist and verify that with other, unbiased scholarly sources? Thinker78 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No. This is just so obvious. Science generally doesn't bother itself with specific impossible things. All science points to many realities that tell us an ark is impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY states, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Thinker78 (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the ball is in your court. Provide verification the ark existed. That's a positive demand. Should be easy. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: how about defining what you mean by "unbiased", what sort of sources you'd accept. And I've read many scientific sources on the ark. You say it might have had a different capacity than the Bible says it does (which would seem to make it not "the Ark". Do you mean " the total amount that can be contained or produced, or (especially of a person or organization) the ability to do a particular thing? Doug Weller talk 08:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"the source, which is a biased one so this assertion might have npov issues" Wikipedia does not discount biased sources. See: Biased or opinionated sources:

• "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48. The thing is that I am not claiming that it existed but that the source does not say that modern science says it did not exist. The closest I can find regarding that says, "It has by now become abundantly clear that the case for the ark utterly and completely fails. Despite the clever ingenuity of its proponents, nothing, from the trickiest problems to the tiniest details, can be salvaged without an unending resort to the supernatural". Thinker78 (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Per Dimadick above I withdraw the issue about bias but I still maintain that the citation does not verify the claim that "Noah's Ark did not exist, according to modern science". Thinker78 (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thinker78, if you do a search for scien in the source, it occurs 27 times. Right now the onus is on you to find a reliable, non-creationist modern scientific source that says the ark does exist. That would be needed to refute the comprehensive source which does rely on modern science and a lengthy bibliography for its conclusions. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I just read the source, and it most certainly does verify the claim that "Noah's Ark did not exist, according to modern science".

Just read the section about every inherited trait being coded for by one or more genes with each gene locus having a substantial number of variants (alleles), which accounts for the great variety observed in a given population. And about the fact that a single breeding pair only has one or two alleles per locus. It goes on to say

"Speaking of a hypothetical group of six or eight animals stranded on an island, King says, 'Such a small number could not possibly reflect the actual allelic frequencies found in the large mainland population' (p. 107). What, then, of the single pair on the ark?"

"King" is of course James C. King, author of "The Biology of Race".[14]

If you really want to learn about the science behind all of this, please read DNA variation of the mammalian major histocompatibility complex reflects genomic diversity and population history and search on the word "Lion". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, according to Google Chrome the word "science" occurs 18 times. Only 11 times within the article itself and mostly criticising the supernatural aspect of the story, not denying the possibility that the ark (the vessel) existed without supernatural elements. Thinker78 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, what has inherited traits to do with the possibility that the ark (the vessel existed), which could have without the supernatural elements and in some other context? Thinker78 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, Not going to answer stupid questions THAT ARE EASILY ANSWERED BY READING THE SOURCE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

It's a 20,000-word detailed analysis of all of the specifics of the ark story, making very little reference to the supernatural and focussing instead on facts, details, and science. Your assertion that it allows for the possible existence of the ark is mistaken; it does not. You can try to dismiss the article, but it is an analysis of the feasibility of the ark's existence from a modern scientific standpoint, with a bibliography of 106 references. So unless you find a reliable, non-creationist modern scientific source that says the ark does exist, this article with its dozens of citations is certainly not an anomaly and represents current modern, non-creationist science on the matter. You can always take your question to WP:RSN if you feel the source is being misused. Right now you have no WP:CONSENSUS for your change or your argument. Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Guy Macon, what has inherited traits to do with the possibility that the ark (the vessel existed), which could have without the supernatural elements and in some other context?" The ark is part of a flood myth, where only a small number of individuals from various species survive the genocidal wrath of a malevolent deity. Population bottlenecks such as this do exist in the real world, but they "reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population". Due to the smaller genetic diversity, "the robustness of the population is reduced and its ability to adapt to and survive selecting environmental changes, such as climate change or a shift in available resources, is reduced."

So the descendants of anyone present in the ark would likely have less of a chance to survive in the long-term. Dimadick (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And, more to the point, we would be able to detect the genetic aftermath of a population bottleneck, as we have been able to do with the Cheetah. Most species do not have the genetic markings of a species that experience a population bottleneck, and therefore most species are not descendants of either one pair (unclean animals) or seven pairs (clean animals), and therefore the events described in the Noah's Ark myth never happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Guy Macon, please maintain a civil and respectful debate. I think telling other editors that you are not going to answer "stupid questions" runs against WP:CIVILITY, which states, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates". Thinker78 (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78 - it seems to me you are not looking for the possibility that science disproves the existence of the ark. Of course it does. That may be a challenge to your beliefs, but Wikipedia cannot be based on them. It has be based on mainstream science. Whether our particular source disproves the existence of the ark to your satisfaction is not really important. We don't change the article for that reason. Science does not go out of its way to disprove particular Biblical stories. Their absence of reality is self-evident to most scientists, so why would it bother? You are welcome to your beliefs, but don't ask science to be something it isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, just try to explain to him/her the historicity concerns. Accusations concerning Thinker78's personal beliefs are more likely to cause anger, rather than resolve any debate. By the way, Thinker is asking for additional sources, he/she has not stated anything concerning personal opinions. Dimadick (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I chose my words very carefully in my comment. Please be careful with your accusations about what I have written. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48: Lol. Glad you chose your words very carefully. If your assumptions about the source are as inaccurate as your assumptions about my beliefs then.... I don't know what to say! Except that I think that the one being driven by his beliefs is you. If you happen to believe that science says that Noah's ark didn't exist, that is just fine but you should be analysing the source to verify the information presented in the article instead. What is important is if the source verifies the information presented not if the source proves the inexistence of something.Thinker78 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You have not understood my comment. And I'm getting annoyed. This happens far too often when religion crashes into reality. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, my friend, scholastic debates can last hours and you are getting annoyed after a couple of written comments. If you still have will left to continue the debate, tell me what was the intended meaning of your comment and the new comment, "this happens ...when religion crashes into reality". Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"HiLo48, my friend, scholastic debates can last hours and you are getting annoyed after a couple of written comments." That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what has happened so far on this page. Misrepresentation in another thing that happens far too often when religion crashes into reality. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to debate on the existence of the Ark, we use reliable sources for that. This talk page is also not a WP:FORUM for debating that or to discuss the topic itself, so should be used to directly improve the article. If you have mainstream scholarly sources which contradict the others used in the current article, please provide them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Howdy folks! I am responding to a call for comment on this discussion from WikiProject History. I agree with the above mentions that whatever is said on the issue must be WP:NPOV, and I question if it is currently NPOV. As with any article discussing religion and science, debates can get pretty heated (remember to stay cool folks, don't want your keyboards melting!). I am of the opinion that the Historicity section needs additional sources and perhaps a rewrite. I question why the section discusses encyclopedias from 1771? I believe the section should cite more modern sources, and be very careful about wording - such as the article on the Historicity of Jesus (rated B class). I think the beginning of the section should attempt to, as the aforementioned article says, "establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances." Unfortunately we have no first hand documents from the ark, and Noah wasn't kind enough to email us his diary :) That leaves us with a classic problem: we can neither confirm nor deny its existence with absolute certainty (edit: nor do we have to here on WP). Clearly we have not found the ark in modern times, and the source from the NCSE does pretty clearly lay out their conclusion that the ark did not exist. But! The mere fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that there is still controversy surrounding that claim. Regarding the NCSE: its not hiding what it is. It is firmly against creation "science ". However it seems well written and I believe it is verifiable, and that there appears to be no reason to doubt its claims. However more citations from other neutral sources would shore up their claim (perhaps some folks could find some from the NCSE bibliography, which is pretty long). As asked on WProject History, I believe that the source from NCSE written by Robert Moore supports fully the claim that modern science discounts the ark. However I think that this could be written more tactfully in the article. Bottom line: I think that the intro paragraph for the historicity section needs rewriting, although I'm not sure what that new writing should be. It should definitely focus more on modern sources, and not give undue WP:WEIGHT to creationist and premodern sources - but it should still address them, at least insofar as they exist. I also think that the third paragraph in the lead section ought be expanded/copyedited (it doesn't make sense: how can the historicity contradict modern science if its historicity is based on modern science?)Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"The mere fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that there is still controversy surrounding that claim." Not in most of the world nor among most educated people. "...this could be written more tactfully in the article" Why should it be? Wikipedia has no policy of not offending creationists, or anyone else with fringe views. Any softening of our position of basing what we write on modern science will probably lead to the creationists wanting Noah's rainfall event added to the List of weather records article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Just because something has controversy doesn't make it untrue, for example there is controversy surrounding climate change, but myself, scientists and Wikipedia all agree that it is real. Notably, that article does mention the controversy, and is careful yet deliberate in its wording. I agree that we should definitely not compromise: we should continue to clearly state the modern scientific consensus. Also thanks for giving me a good chuckle with that quip about Noah's flood.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances" Hard to do here. The entire Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth written at some point between the 6th century BCE and the 4th century BCE. It seems to rework material from a number of older flood myth narratives, found in Mesopotamian sources. The origin of these narratives is unclear. Archaeologists have found evidence of localized floods in Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BCE that damaged a number of city-states, including Shuruppak (the city most associated with the flood myths). Whether the real floods inspired mythical narratives is unclear, though plausible. Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78, you said you ... rephrased an asssertion that the ark did not exist but I am not sure which edit you refer to. Please link the to the url which contains the edit.

I am afraid this article has fallen prone to conflicts among creationists and mainstream scientists. The article seems to have suffered from these conflicts. For example, the last section deals with the historicity of the flood mythology—it is not very relevant for the subject of the article, but more relevant for the article about flood myth. As a general rule, no content should be added from sources that are not directly about the subject of the article, as doing so is usually a form of OR.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

On a similar note, the sentence although the historicity of Noah's Ark contradicts the established modern scientific consensus is not supported by the source cited. There maybe more original research in the article (on both sides of the debate), and the article should be checked for this thoroughly. Personally, I think it is more relevant to discuss the mythological and cultural aspects of the Ark, rather than focusing on the issue of historicity. I would argue that historicity of the Ark is not a subject discussed in reliable sources about this subject, just in politically-motivated, less reliable sources from mostly the US (on both sides of the debate). It is a discussion that is moot and not interesting for nearly everyone in the world except for a few communities in the US. Propose removing all content referring to historicity, or move to creationism instead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think there is any mainstream historian who would take the idea of a literal, historical global flood lasting for forty days before subsiding seriously, mainly because it is geologically impossible. Nonetheless, I do think something needs to be said in this article about the historicity of the ark. The only poll I could find specifically dealing with belief in Noah's ark is this one from ABC News in 2004, mentioned by The Washington Times (a very conservative newspaper), which claims that, at that time, fully 60% of Americans believed in a literal Great Flood. According to Pew Research Center in 2017, 34% of people in the United States reject evolution (a number which is surprisingly much lower than it had been for several decades) and the percentage of people who reject evolution in Latin America and the Middle East are even higher. My best guess is that probably slightly less than half of the people reading this article are going to be people who believe the story, which makes explaining why the ark could not have existed an inherent issue.

I also notice a lot of other problems with this article, including many errors concerning the Mesopotamian deluge stories. Apparently someone thinks that the Sumerian deluge story is an epic. Just for reference this is the text we are talking about, a fragmentary poem which could be printed on a single page in its entirety; it is preserved on a single clay tablet with only six columns and, of those, only the lower third of the tablet is legible. That is an epic now? We seem to have lowered our standards. Also, someone seems to have made the rather bizarre mistake of thinking that, because the Epic of Gilgamesh contains a flood story, that must mean Gilgamesh is the hero of it. In the actual epic, however, Gilgamesh is not the hero of the flood story; he only meets the hero: Utnapishtim. I have corrected all these errors that I have mentioned, but there may be other, less obvious ones that I have not noticed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate If you read the top of this thread that I started you would realize that the debate is about whether the source verifies the text. Not really sure why do you bring about WP:FORUM. Thinker78 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Genesis flood myth was written probably in the late 5th century, although there's a body of opinion that dates it later. It's a Jewish re-write of a Babylonian original. The Babylonian myth came into existence about 2000 BC as a version of the existing genre of city-destruction myth. The sources are in the bibiography.PiCo (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78 - the intro to the section on historicity didn't originally say that the ark never existed - it sauid something along the lines of how we can trace the change from acceptance to non-acceptance of a real ark through the various editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. WHich is why it then goes on to discuss the EB at length.PiCo (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The young-earth creationists claim that all ancient/non-historic volcanoes were created during Noah's flood.[15][16][17]. But Mount Ararat is a dormant volcano sitting on top of layers of ancient sediment that the young-earth creationists insist were laid down during Noah's flood. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"But Mount Ararat is a dormant volcano" The main article mentions volcanic activity as recent as the 19th century: "The chronology of Holocene volcanic activity associated with Mount Ararat is poorly documented. However, either archaeological excavations, oral history, historical records, or a combination of these data provide evidence that volcanic eruptions of Mount Ararat occurred in 2500–2400 BC, 550 BC, possibly in 1450 AD and 1783 AD, and definitely in 1840 AD. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that explosive eruptions and pyroclastic flows from the northwest flank of Mount Ararat destroyed and buried at least one Kura–Araxes culture settlement and caused numerous fatalities in 2500–2400 BC. Oral histories indicated that a significant eruption of uncertain magnitude occurred in 550 BC and minor eruptions of uncertain nature might have occurred in 1450 AD and 1783 AD." Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• All true...... we found it beside Atlantis. 😅 --Moxy (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

♠Also following the Milhist talk page link.

♠The "rephrasing" appears to me as if it's meant to reduce the evidence in the paper to mere opinion, which can then be easily dismissed. That's POV. As for the larger issue, the existence of the Ark as described in the Bible is so impossible, it doesn't deserve refutation. As a mythical or poetic extension of a real thing, it may deserve WP coverage, but that coverage must be in line with reality, just as coverage of Thor does (as opposed to this guy or this guy).

♠On the flood myth issue, & its historicity, it seems there was a major Black Sea flood (the breaching of an ice dam, IIRC) around 5-6KYA, that could account for all of them: it predates the earliest recorded instance.

♠"found it beside Atlantis" Really? Does Dr. Weir know? ;p Dr. Daniel Jackson ^{zat me} 15:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the claim that "there was a major Black Sea flood (the breaching of an ice dam, IIRC) around 5-6KYA". See Black Sea deluge hypothesis. And what's with the ♠ characters? ಠ_ಠ --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Era

A recent edit summary said "Although CE and BCE are more accurate, most Wikipedia users are not familiar with them, and Wikipedia thus uses BC and AD."[18] This is incorrect. MOS:ERA says:

• BC and AD are the traditional ways of designating eras. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas. Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles.

• Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. Exception: do not change direct quotations, titles, etc.

• Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I was the user who wrote that summary, I agree with Guy Macon that I was in error. We discussed it on my talk page too and ironed it all out. I misread the article diffs, that was my fault. Moral: I reverted the right edits with the wrong reasoning, and will read more carefully in the future and not edit before I've had my morning coffee :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Good article? Featured article?

The volume of discussion on this talk page suggest that the article is of considerable interest to many. So ought we to consider trying to get the article to a "good" a "featured" status? I note that it was "featured" a decade or more ago, but lost that rating. What might need to be done to restore it to such a status? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

To become a good article I believe the biggest obstacles may be:

• Point 4 of the good article critera: Neutral POV, and giving due weight i.e. working to fix the historicity section to better address the sheer improbability of its existence and giving less weight to historical (100+ years) discussion of its existence. I suspect this will take a fair bit of workshopping and talk page discussion to work through contention.
• Also at issue would be point 3 of GAC: appropriate coverage. I feel like some sections may go into too much depth/get into the weeds. Conversely there are clearly some sections that need expansion, like the section on composition of the myth. Perhaps that section should just be incorporated into the paragraph above if more sources can't be found.
• Sources and pictures need checking too
• I am fairly new to this article, but there are editors who've been here a while and know this article's ropes. Are there some editors who are more experienced with this article and can/would like to start pushing this towards a GA review? I bet with some work this could pass a GA on the first go.

Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Flood Myths

I really don't see how the fact that so many other people's told the same story is somehow supposed to discredit the Biblical story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC5:E000:7409:96B0:1820:3D0F (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that other people told the story before the Bible did is not intended to prove/disprove or discredit the Biblical story. It is instead there to try to provide historical context and decipher the true origins of the flood myth.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible

https://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA63

"written by members of the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion"

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: It's published by Mercer University Press. Wouldn't use it for claims that are rejected by mainstream academia but "The same preoccupation with the number sixty characterises the vessel of the Babylonian flood-hero" doesn't seem strike me as Bible thumping. It also goes on to say "There is not, then, any reason to believe that the remains of Noah's ark are to be found anywhere in the world." While beyond that it is a bit more silent on the ahistoricity of the ark than one might like, it does not affirm that the ark was historical and is not cited for any such claim at any rate.

Page 55 affirms that the world is more than 6000 years old. The entry on Apocryphal Gospels gives a brief overview of the contents of the better known ones, and while dismissing any prospect of them reflecting teachings of the historical Jesus (unusually noting the Gospel of Thomas as an exception), they are invaluable for understanding popular Christianity of those eras (without dismissing the authors as mere heretics totally unrelated to the True Church^tm). The entry on Abortion admits "The Bible is silent on the subject" and even says that "Abortion is not murder."

The author of the Ark entry is an associate professor of Hebrew Bible at the Divinity School, Duke University. Flipping through what I can on Amazon of Bailey's book about Creationism, he appears to be trying to explain Theistic evolution as reasonable to an audience that is totally certain that the words "Wedge strategy" and "Intelligent Design" appear in their modern contexts in the Bible ("we just haven't found the verse yet"). He does not appear to be a crackpot like Ken Ham but a moderate following the sadly neglected Baptist tradition of compiling all views and letting the individual believer sort shit out for themselves.

While the insane members of the Baptist denomination are a lot more vocal than other members, the denomination is not inherently insane (*raises hand*). This work does not appear to be by the former group. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"While the insane members of the Baptist denomination are a lot more vocal than other members, the denomination is not inherently insane"

Our article on Baptists, notes that during the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy (and resulting schism) of the 20th century, certain groups of the Baptists embraced Fundamentalism while others embraced Modernism. Resulting in the term "Baptist" being used as a self-description by religious groups which are otherwise extremely divergent in their theological perspective.Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, "insanity" is not quite the right word for "being unable to tell good reasoning from bad reasoning and therefore ending up with worldviews at odds with reality". That has been, is, and will continue to be a very common property of humans, especially when they are still children and absorb the ideas of their parents and peers. But I guess "insanity" is OK for rhetorical purposes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Mercer University publications are academically respectable and quite mainstream. Baptists are no more loopy that the general run of humanity.PiCo (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that the National Associates of Baptist Professors of Religion is, oddly enough, not only composed of Baptists. In the US, pretty much all Protestant associations have sorted themselves into one of two camps, which we might simplistically call "left team" and "right team". NABPR is very recognizably "left team", for whatever that is or isn't worth.

Take for example the beginning of their "Chronology" article: "The goal of chronology is to determine the correct order of events and, if possible, their absolute date. Given the conflicting historical data in the Bible and the disagreement between the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman sources, this goal is not easily achieved. … we are beginning to understand, at least in part, the elaborate chronological system worked out by those who compiled the biblical tradition. Theirs was a theological agenda, not an historical one in the modern sense." Alephb (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

In the original Noah's Ark story, there were two of every kind of animal and the animals went inside, two by two. 217.44.242.17 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Luke Chapter 17

I think the write-up should identify that Luke 17, 26-27 states: [Jesus says] As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

134.228.48.94 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? To prove that god is a pretty mean bastard? HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@134.228.48.94: Howdy hello! We tend not to use direct biblical quotes unless there is a compelling reason. I'm afraid I don't see a compelling reason to include it? Such information is not exactly encyclopedic unless we have a reliable source that discusses the quote in context. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"Arca di Noè" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arca di Noè. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

An opinion statement in the opening intro is incorrect and should be removed. It is the last sentence in the intro paragraph: "nor is there evidence in the geologic record for the biblical global flood." Many geologic references prove this did occur. 1. Science and The Bible. Morris. 2. https://biologos.org/articles/flood-geology-and-the-grand-canyon-what-does-the-evidence-really-say 3. https://www.icr.org/article/geology-flood/ 4. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/ 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology Reiz45 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, for obvious reasons. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The source for the impracticality of the ark is low quality. At least there should be a reference to https://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway - an article from Dr Seok Hong, who is definitely a solid researcher in the relevant field: https://www.isope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CV-HONG-SW-2018.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.104.176 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not reliably published: " This paper was originally published in Korean and English in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creation Research, Korea Association of Creation Research, Taejon, 1993, pp. 105–137. This English translation is published with the permission of the Korea Association of Creation Research and the authors." Doug Weller talk 09:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)