Talk:Deluge (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive to Dec 17 2004

Contents 1 commentary 2 looks great. 3 new criticism of flood geology. 4 picking on genesis. 5 Lack of Neutrality 6 Flood plains argument 7 NPOV again 8 plato 8.1 regarding ad hominem 8.2 regarding substance 9 This article has lost its way again 9.1 accumulation of memories 9.2 memories of specific floods 9.3 Allegory 10 External links 11 Fossils as an inspiration 12 In Islam 13 Lack of Neutrality II 14 Polynesian 15 Proposal to Move section on Noah 16 References template 17 Proposed move 17.1 Survey 17.2 Discussion 18 Why? 19 "Chaldean" Section Removed

[edit] commentary

the commentary is genesis-specific, and therefore belongs on a genesis-specific page. if you want to have critical commentary on all the stories, do that. Ungtss 23:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

we would like to have commentary on the other myths, too. maybe you can research it? the non-Near-Eastern subsections are miserably naked, at this stage. And nobody said the article was finished. dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'd love to ... sadly i'm in beijing at the moment, so all i have available is the internet:). Ungtss 01:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the recent additions (by 64.95.33.82)to the "Hebrew (Genesis)" and the "Theories of origin" sections add unnecessary length to the article without providing additional useful information. I suggest reversion. SMesser 17:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i disagree. the edits corrected errors (for instance, 7 of each animal instead of 7 pairs of each animal), and added the fact that orthodox jews DO take it as historical (as do many orthodox christians and muslims, a fact which has been consistently suppressed in that paragraph). the added detail is an improvement to the account. feel free to add detail to the other counts, but please don't remove detail from one particular account ... much less revert to an earlier, erroneous version. Ungtss 17:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that some of the additions are unnecessary, and some go beyond what the Genesis record actually says. But others are warranted, so some selective pruning may be in order, but not wholesale reversion.

I haven't made a deal of this before, but as Ungtss has explicitly mentioned it, it's time I did. Genesis is not clear on whether there were seven or seven pairs of each clean animal. The Authorised Version (KJV for yanks) says "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female", which could be read either way. I haven't checked every version, but the NIV says "Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate", with footnote [a] being "or seven pairs". The NASB is similar to the AV: "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female", whilst the Amplified Bible says "Of every clean beast you shall receive and take with you seven pairs, the male and his mate". I have heard arguments for both points of view, and don't find any of them to be conclusive. I possibly lean towards seven pairs, but I'm not totally convinced and in a Wikipedia article I believe that it's appropriate to allow for either.

Philip J. Rayment 13:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

point well taken -- the versions do differ so both should be included. i think what makes people think it's 7 pairs is that it says, "7 of each animal, the male and his female." but npov definitely requires both:). Ungtss 13:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to provide us with the Hebrew? KJV is a notoriously imprecise translation, after all. Zagloba 04:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

According to "The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament" by John R. Kohlenberger, a literal word-by-word translation of Genesis 7:2-3 is "From-every-of the-animal the-clean you-take with-you seven seven male and-mate-of-him ..." "Seven seven" is a Hebrew ideom meaning "seven pairs". Hence Noah is to take seven mated pairs of each kind of clean animal which is a total of 14 of each kind of clean animal. Remember "clean animals" means animals that are acceptable as temple offerings. Deuteronomy 14:4-5 lists 10 kinds of clean animals. Hence Noah is to take 140 clean animals total. Those who read millions of species into this are not reading what the text actually says.

Also, the fact that it says "by sevens", not "seven of", itself leans toward seven pairs. Besides, it doesn't make sense to have an odd number if you're trying to rebreed them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.178.70 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] looks great.

Good work:). Ungtss 19:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glad we could come up with something all of us are hapy with. DreamGuy 22:41, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'd add a link to Epic of Gilgamesh, except I figure it's been left out on purpose. The way there's no mention of Gilgamesh in the opening of an article entitled Deluge (mythology). Perhaps Gilgamesh is very obscure to the writing team. As long as you're all happy with it, that's what counts. --Wetman 01:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is actually a link there, in the caption to the photograph adjacent to the section on the Epic. Perhaps there should be a more prominent link, but still in that section (e.g. just under the "Babylonian (Gilgamesh Epic)" heading. Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] new criticism of flood geology.

um ... we now have criticism of flood geology without any criticism of any of the other theories of origins, and the criticism ignores the flood geology view that the mountains were lower and the seabeds were higher before the flood, and that in that scenario, there is MORE than enough water on earth. i don't want this article to be about flood geology, and this addition has brought it in that direction, rather inappropriately, i think. i suggest we either delete the criticism, or allow flood geology to adequately represent itself, my preference being the former. suggestions? Ungtss 04:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I've been saying all along, I think the origins section should just mention the various theories as succintly as possible and link to other articles if there's any in depth discussion. While I personally think the new criticism has a point, the debate over flood geology belongs on that page, not here. DreamGuy 06:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism is not appropriate on this page, so I have removed it to here "for easy reference", as BerserkerBen put it in the edit comment. It did not need to stay in the article for that. Also, it was POV and was criticising a straw-man argument. For that latter reason, I also don't agree with DreamGuy that "the new criticism has a point".

Critics of such belief note that there is not enough water on earth to cover all of earth’s landmass nor is there any evidence in the geological record of a global flood, etc.

Well then perhaps you would like to allow the criticism to be placed in "Flood geology", until then I think some reference to criticism and it nature should be made or NPOV is not provided.

(clarifying that the above comment was made by phillip rayment) -- you're more than WELCOME to put the criticism on the flood geology page -- but THIS page is not about flood geology -- it's about myths! if we criticize the flood, then we have to criticize the black sea theory (and how it ignores the fact that the myths claim the WHOLE WORLD was flooded and a few people were saved because they built a boat in ADVANCE, and were left to populate the whole earth ... a common theme that isn't adequately explained by the black sea theory ... and fails to explain the native american myths, who should have been far, far away from the black sea by then). it's not npov to criticize one theory without criticizing the others. Ungtss 15:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] picking on genesis.

why do you think it's npov to single out one theory for criticism without criticizing any of the others, or allowing facts to support the theory you want to criticize? Ungtss 01:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because he's a bigot, that's why! Evolutionists are always criticizing Creationist theories and fiercly defending their own, because they don't want to believe in God so they don't have to be accountable to Him so they can do whatever they darn well please! Scorpionman 20:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is no one alive that cares if we say the Aztec story is BS or not! If close-minded sheep happen to keep editing the article to portray the genesis flood as factual or possibly factual despite the huge amount of evidence against it; thus make non-NPOV edits, then that’s the one that going to get picked on to re-neutralize the article. Also belief in evolution does not contradict belief in a god, nor does evolution contradict morality, in fact their not even related concepts.--BerserkerBen 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are related at least - in order to justify lack of morality, you have to claim no God, and in order to justify no God, you have to claim evolution. Evolution does not necessarily lead to Atheism or amoralness - but they require evolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.178.70 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lack of Neutrality

After reviewing the myth stories presented on this article I have found many of the stories to be distorted to appear more similar to the genesis deluge myth, and have also found many of the stories to lack credible sources. I have come to the suspicions that some who edit this article are trying induce the conclusion that a particular myth or some of the events in the myths are factually true.

To resolve this:

• 1. Sources for each story individually should be cited.
• 2. More then one source and composite versions of the stories should be generated that describes differences in the telling and reference sources claims for each story.
• 3. Sources and references should be reviewed for biasness and credibility. (Anon.)

Excellent! Such a perceptive comment, however, is bound to elicit howls of rage. --Wetman 22:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

howls of rage? no, i'll leave those to the conventional pseudoscientists who desperately try to explain these away as myths and consistently censor any textual interpretation to the contrary, even when cited to phds in biblical scholarship. personally, i'm just interested in the truth. anon: if you don't like it, fix it. but take your "sneaking suspicions" and shove them. Ungtss 23:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::any factual basis or proposed edits for these perceived issues, or just more efforts at censorship, ad hominem, and "tag vandalism?" Ungtss 23:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taking into account that truth is relative, any article here should portray the many truths that people believe in, rather then distorting the information presented to fit one “truth”. Second what I'm asking for is not a fallacy nor censorship(I'm asking for more information not less!), I'm asking for sources and citations and comparisons of different source versions of these stories. Also questioning the reliability of a source is not necessarily a circumstantial ad hominem, it is valid as long as the evidence produced from that questioning is used in argument rather then the question it’s self. So in conclusion: suck it, suck it hard! --BerserkerBen 23:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I'm asking for sources>>

this is wikipedia, man. don't ask, do. i came in here late and didn't change anything substantial except adding a summary of the genesis account (which was completely absent in favor of some pseudoscientific analysis) and adding the last sentence of the article (over a great deal of resistence). if you don't like the other accounts or think they're unreliable, fix 'em. and no, i won't suck it. Ungtss 23:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did "do" awhile ago, but that was edited out. --BerserkerBen 00:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't get this tag at all, NPOV or especially the new stronger one. What, EXACTLY do you have a factual or point of view problem with. The myths are the myths, I never caught anyone trying to make them look more Genesis-like. Give an example. The bias went away when I (and others) removed pro-Creationism statements. Please give a detailed example or two of what you mean by bias or factual errors or I'm taking the tag off. Your only complaint so far seems to be that negatives to flood geology aren't provided here, and they don;t belong here, they belong in the flood geology article. This article only very briefly mentions each theory in an unbiased way. These tags are not only overreacting but completely bogus, in my mind. DreamGuy 02:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I laid that out above? I question the sources for these stories, I compared some of these stories to a variety of different references I found on the net, in comparison I came upon the suspicion that these stories where greatly truncated in specific details and even distorted in accuracy in such a way as to purport the belief that all these stories have a common source. I made some corrections and cited the sources for those corrections, but they were deleted by Ungtss. If you want details check the history. I don’t see why they were deleted, it adds to my suspicions though. Now I believe citing the sources of each story individually and comparing different sources can fix this problem. --BerserkerBen 06:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

let's return to reality, shall we, berzerker?

1) <<I made some corrections and cited the sources for those corrections, but they were deleted by Ungtss.>>

i'd appreciate a link to the history on this, because i don't recall any such thing.

2) you've stated conclusions, but no facts -- what is WRONG with the myth accounts above? we still don't know.

3) you and i only had beef over that last paragraph and your insistence on criticizing one theory without allowing criticism of other theories are facts to support the theory you wanted to criticize. you never proposed nor made any changes to the myths themselves -- and that's what you're talking about now.

so hit the library, find your sources, change the stories, cite it, do whatever you think best. but again, your "suspicions" are bogus -- if you see similarities between the other stories and genesis, it's because the similarities are THERE, not because somebody put them there falsely. Ungtss 12:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deluge_%28mythology%29&diff=9493264&oldid=9491188 2) Their accuracy. What assurance do we have that they are accurate? I want individual links to their sources, is that too hard to ask for? I would also like comparison of different sources. 3) No that not what I'm talking about (refer to 1) --BerserkerBen 15:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i apologize. the edit history shows that we were in a war over that last sentence, and i overlooked substantive changes made elsewhere. feel free to put them back in if you like -- however, i question the eridu one, as it draws its material from another source instead of from the "fragmented tablets," and infers a link where none is explicit. if you want to draw the link, please cite the assertion to that scholar, and please limit the story to material from the tablet itself. Ungtss 15:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<After reviewing the myth stories presented on this article I have found many of the stories to be distorted to appear more similar to the genesis deluge myth, ...>>
I'm with Ungtss that I suspect your "findings" to be based on a view that similarity must be artificial, and I'm not aware of any of the stories being included by people trying to demonstrate anything, but I agree with citing sources and checking to make sure that they are fair and accurate versions.
Philip J. Rayment 13:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's how this works, Ben. If you say the information is biased or factually incorrect enough to put a tag up, then you list EXACT REASONS so people can change them. Instead you are doing this on your IMPRESSION that you haven't actually given any concrete examples of. We can't fix it because you refuse to give details. That's not how disputes work. You are just asserting bias and errors and asking us to prove there aren;t any when you should be proving there are some. Since you can't or refuse to back up your statements, I am removing the tags -- and remember, I am doing this as someone who has made frequent edits to put this on the track of mythology and removing religious bias. Your complaint that the whole article is full of religious bias and errors is incorrect in my my experience and education in the matters, so the tag goes unless you can prove your side. Don't put the tag back without more than one concrete example of what you are complaining about. DreamGuy 01:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

---

--BerserkerBen 05:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did give a example in the history link up there, but you want me to re-write it and re-explain in detail so be it. Let me start by restating what is needed.

1. Sources for each story individually referenced.

2. Comparison of sources. Comparison of details.

3. Have questioning of the validity of the sources (with evidence of course)

Lets start with minor bias example: the original story on the article for the Greeks was:

The wrath of Zeus is ignited against the Pelasgians, the original inhabitants of Greece. Deucalion has been forewarned by his father to build an ark and provision it. He and his wife Pyrrha are the surviving pair of humans when the waters recede. Accounts differ on which mountain they landed on (Mount Parnassus, or Mount Etna, or Mount Athos, or perhaps Mount Othrys in Thessaly). After the flood has subsided, Deucalion and Pyrrha give thanks to Zeus. However, the repopulation of the world is the work of Thetis, who advises the new primal pair, "Cover your heads and throw the bones of your mother behind you." With the stones of Gaia thrown over their shoulders, the primal pair repopulate the land. There is no mention of the plight of animals in this flood myth.

Note no source, also note some of the wording I'll compare, next this version from: Apollodorus. The Library, Sir James G. Frazer (transl.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1921, 1976.]

Zeus sent a flood to destroy the men of the Bronze Age. Prometheus advised his son Deucalion to build a chest. All other men perished except for a few who escaped to high mountains. The mountains in Thessaly were parted, and all the world beyond the Isthmus and Peloponnese was overwhelmed. Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha (daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora), after floating in the chest for nine days and nights, landed on Parnassus. When the rains ceased, he sacrificed to Zeus, the God of Escape. At the bidding of Zeus, he threw stones over his head; they became men, and the stones which Pyrrha threw became women. That is why people are called laoi, from laas, "a stone."

Note some of the wording here: in the original an "ark" is assumed to be built, in the sourced version it’s specified as a "chest". A chest is not an ark, it nothing more then a small box that floats. Note in the sourced version other men survived and the waters did not cover all land, in the original Deucalion and Pyrrha are the only survivors.

Now you might say that does not look like much to cry about, mere translation errors and the effects of truncation, so I’ll move on to a much more disturbing case: the Aztec story version here says:

A pious man named Tapi lived in the valley of Mexico. The Creator told him to build a boat and to take his wife and a pair of every animal that existed into the boat. His neighbors mocked him for his foolishness. After he finished the boat, it began to rain, flooding the valley; men and animals tried to escape in the mountains, but the flood reached to the mountains and drowned them. The rain ended, and the waters receded. Tapi sent out a dove, and rejoiced to find that it did not return, meaning that the ground had dried and he, his wife, and the animals could leave the boat

There is no sited source, though a goggle search revealed similar stories but they to are also missing a source.

Here is one that is cited: http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/research/centralamerica.shtml

When the Sun Age came, there had passed 400 years. Then came 200 years, then 76. Then all mankind was lost and drowned and turned to fishes. The water and the sky drew near each other. In a single day all was lost, and Four Flower consumed all that there was of our flesh. The very mountains were swallowed up in the flood, and the waters remained, lying tranquil during fifty and two springs. But before the flood began, Titlachahuan had warned the man Nota and his wife Nena, saying, 'Make no more pulque, but hollow a great cypress, into which you shall enter the month Tozoztli. The waters shall near the sky.' They entered, and when Titlacahuan had shut them in he said to the man, 'Thou shalt eat but a single ear of maize, and thy wife but one also'. And when they had each eaten one ear of maize, they prepared to go forth, for the water was tranquil." Ancient Aztec document Codex Chimalpopoca, translated by Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg.

And here is a counter argument to that story: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood20.htm

The story of Coxcox is the one and only flood legend with possibly biblical elements for which there seems to be pre-missionary documentation in the form of pictographs. Or is there? According to Andree.... none of the early writers concerned with Mexican mythology, who could have heard the tale at the time of the Conquistadores or shortly after, ever mentioned a Bible-like flood legend, and he doubted that the interpretation of the pictographs was the correct one. In this he followed Don Jose Fernando Ramirez, conservator of the National Museum in Mexico City, who showed that the descriptions of the pictographs as given by Clavigero, Humboldt, Kingsborough, and others were all based on the same source, a picture map published by Gemilli Careri in Churchill's A Collection of Voyages and Travels, volume 4 [written in 1732]. Gemelli Careri had read into this picture the story of the Flood, and Humboldt and all the rest followed suit and accepted his interpretation. But according to Ramirez the "dove" was intended to be the bird known as the Tihuitochan, which calls "Ti-hui," and the picture actually represented the story of the migration of the Aztecs to the Valley of Mexico. The Aztecs are believed to have come into Mexico from farther to the north. Their traditions told how a little bird kept repeating "Ti-hui, ti-hui," which in their language meant "Let's go!" and their priests interpreted this as a divine command to seek a new home. Seven subtribes set out, six of whom established themselves more or less quickly in various parts of Mexico, while the seventh wandered for some time, looking for a sign in the form of an eagle sitting on a rock holding a serpent in its mouth. The promised sign was encountered at Lake Texcoco, and accordingly the city now known as Mexico City was founded on its shores in 1325. This, then, is the tradition historians believe is embodied in the picture writing in question; it was Gemilli Careri alone who decided that the bird in the picture was the dove giving out tongues. He himself admitted that the chronology was "not so exact as it should be, there being too few years allow'd between the flood and the founding of Mexico".... -- for the picture includes symbols telling the number of years spent in various places during the wanderings. Gemilli Careri heard the story of Coxcox during his sojourn in Mexico in 1667, well over a hundred years after the first missionaries had arrived with Cortez and ample time for biblical details to have become superposed on indigenous Aztec myths and traditions. Other Mexican flood stories are quite obviously the Bible story transplanted to a more familiar local setting.

Now do you see why I question these stories accuracy and authenticity? Even after I edit in what data I have collected I feel the tag should be left as I neither have the time nor patients to search for sources for every story here, compare each and edit it all. Hopefully the tag will get others here to help out. --BerserkerBen 05:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<in the original an "ark" is assumed to be built, in the sourced version it’s specified as a "chest". A chest is not an ark, it nothing more then a small box that floats. >>

On the contrary. The story makes clear that the chest was big enough to contain two people for over a week, so it wasn't a "small box". And the word used for "ark" in Genesis actually means a box, so "chest" and "ark" could be just two different translations of the same story.

indeed. ark is just a box. ever heard of the Ark of the Covenant, Berzerker?

<<(Quote from BerserkerBen's source):Other Mexican flood stories are quite obviously the Bible story transplanted to a more familiar local setting.>>

What makes the flood stories "quite obviously the Bible story transplanted"? How would one distinguish a "Bible story transplanted" from a genuine historical memory of the same flood? I'm not suggesting that it is impossible, but I would want to be sure that it wasn't based on an atheistic belief that it could not be the latter.

Philip J. Rayment 09:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Even after I edit in what data I have collected I feel the tag should be left as I neither have the time nor patients to search for sources for every story here, compare each and edit it all. Hopefully the tag will get others here to help out. >>

translation: "i'm too lazy to improve the page, but not too busy to repeatedly tag-vandalize it." Ungtss 13:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip J. Rayment, I think I mentioned the first one was not much to complain about, second if you want a obvious sign of bible transplants just look at the names, in the Aztec version its "Nota" in genesis its "Noah", at least the other version of the story makes up a new name (Tapi) so it not a dead give away!. Ungtss, lazy sure, but how does a tag vandalize? --BerserkerBen 14:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<if you want a obvious sign of bible transplants just look at the names, in the Aztec version its "Nota" in genesis its "Noah", ...>>

How does that prove anything? If there was a real flood and a real Noah, and if the Aztec story is their handed-down history of that real event, there is a reasonable chance that Noah's name would be preserved intact (there is also a reasonable chance of it being corrupted or changed into an equivalent name of a different culture). Therefore similarity of names is not necessarily evidence of missionary influence. It is this kind of "logic" that annoys me. If the stories were of the same real event, we would expect similarities. However, some people, who have an a priori assumption that the event was fictional, use similarities to "prove" missionary influence! Philip J. Rayment 05:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware of occam's razor?. If the story has no pre-missionary evidence (no validated evidence that is) of existence and happens to resemble the missionary version relatively well, then occam's razor suggest its far more likely the result of a transplanted story from the missionaries then it being a result of Noah ark being true, which has little evidence to support it and a whole lot of evidence against it. It’s logic like yours that cause people to scream out “aliens!” when they see a strange light in the sky, or to think the moon landing were a hoax, or to believe in homeopathy, ect. --BerserkerBen 18:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of Occam's razor, thank you. Your argument, however, is reliant on your claim that Noah's Ark/Flood has little evidence to support it and a lot of evidence against it, which is of course itself disputed. It is not valid to use a POV (that Noah's ark is untrue) to argue against evidence. Occam's razor actually works in favour of the stories being true, as it better accounts for such a large number of flood stories from so many places that have specific details the same, than claims such as "they all have flood legends because they all have (local) floods in their history", and when many of the stories can not reasonably be attributed to missionary influence (even if some can and some others are uncertain). "Missionary influence" is simply a cop-out that, in many cases, does not stand up to scrutiny. Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, now that the aztec problem is addressed, and the "ark" issue is minor/non-existent, why the tag? they just make pages look ugly, berzerker. wikipedia is an evolving medium -- tags are a sorry substitute for doing what you think needs to be done. what else needs to be done? Ungtss 16:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The tag is needed to warn everyone that more is needed, that every story here needs to be source and its authenticity reviewed. The factual accuracy of these stories is disputed, we have no proof they are authentic, proof of their authenticity needs to be placed, and the few I did review on my own revealed many and even major problems with their accuarcy and authenticity. If you want to call me lazy so be it but I'm not going to source every story here, rewrite and added what is needed. I don't have the time. As such others should be warned of these problems until they are addressed, either by me (very slowly) or by others (much preferred). --BerserkerBen 17:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

now you're asking for article improvement, a goal we all share. wouldn't a "peer review" tag on the talkpage better serve that purpose, since you cannot identify specific factual inaccuracies or instances of bias which could be repaired? Ungtss 17:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But I did note specific factual inaccuracies. Repair them and I will agree with removing the tag until then viewers of the page should be warned that the contents are less then accurate or trust worthy.--BerserkerBen 19:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i'm only aware of 2 factual inaccuracies you mentioned. you fixed one, and the other is de minimus. what's left? Ungtss 20:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think that a whole dubious un-cited story counts as only 1 factual inaccuracy? Technically it would be every claim it makes is inaccurate if the story turns out to be a lie. I did not think that a truncated version of another story that leaves out a few details, that just happens to make it sit with genesis a little better as just one other factual inaccuracy. I still have the sourced version of the Sumerian and Babylonian story I guess you want me to complain about that one too?, but you specifically disagreed with it, citing… well nothing there is no evidence for your version, for all we know it was made up out of thin air. I’m not saying that version is wrong rather I’m saying how can we trust it? You cite and source it: problem solved, why is that so hard? I review a few on my own and find gross errors. So I ask for citations, I ask for reviews, until then the factual accuracy is disputed, because there is no proof of accuracy or authenticity and errors if not blatant lies have been found. --BerserkerBen 21:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

all i know about these myths i learned on the internet:). anybody have primary sources to satisfy our comrade here? Ungtss 03:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this whole dispute is still connected with the fact that, after all these edit wars, the 'smaller' myths (Americas) are still largely untouched, and still a copyvio (copied off some website, which may or may not have been guilty of styling them after genesis). Somebody should remove all unverifiable myths, I agree they are worthless without references. In spite of this, I think Ben's NPOV tag is out of place: You are supposed to put that up if you try to make improvements, and meet resistance. Nobody is keeping you from properly researching these myths, but you seem to prefer letting others do the work. For cases where you think the article is sub-par but can't be bothered to work on it yourself, we have the 'verify' boilerplate. dab (ᛏ) 14:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the "verify" tag is a far better tag for this problem then the NPOV one, thank you Dbachmann, I was not aware of it existence. Still a tag does not solve the problem it only makes it public.

[edit] Flood plains argument

The article contains the following:

This appears to me to be a case of weasel words. What scholars of mythology, and how many? How many is "many deluge myths"? How much less likely is "less likely" in the last sentence? How not-often is "often do not have flood myths of their own"?

The problem is that, as written, it is almost certainly true, but meaningless. Perhaps many other deluge myths original among people who lived other than in flood-prone areas? Perhaps the majority of ancient communities lived in flood-prone areas, so the greater number of flood myths from there is a function of the greater numbers rather than a history of flood. (For example, say 50% of all people groups had a flood legend, and 75% of all groups came from flood prone areas, then if 75% of all people groups had a flood legend it means that people from a flood-prone area are no more likely to have a flood legend that people not from flood-prone areas, which leaves the hypothesis without support.)

For that matter, is it really likely, as suggested, that people from flood-prone areas would have developed mythologies surrounding floods? Surely in places like the Nile valley the people would not bother with a legend about a regular occurrence, whereas somewhere like Fiji (which I seem to recall has a flood legend) would be more likely to have one recalling the exceptional time in the past when a tsunami swept over their coastal lands. So flood legends in places where floods were normal would, if anything, tend to speak of an unusually large flood (which point does get a mention, admittedly).

Philip J. Rayment 02:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What can you come up with that is better? What is it about this paragraph that upsets you so? Take out the "Scholars of mythology". Just look for yourself where many of them came from. Yellow and Yanzee River valleys, Sumeria, Egypt...this just takes a glance. The "flooding is less likely" line was already in the article before I did anything to it. If you want to quantify things exactly, then go for it. From general experience and extensive reading, I can say that's probably a good summation. Why, anyway, would someone who lives in the mountains or a desert with no large bodies of water around need a flood myth anyway? It's not within the experience of their civilization because it doesn't flood there. This stuff is pretty simple. Other people here have also made comments that I'll refer you to regarding quantifying every detail. I believe Tsunamis are mentioned in the article. If you know of myths from these areas, mention them.--DanielCD 01:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What can you come up with that is better?

I'm not sure yet. I was wondering if the whole bit should be removed, but perhaps it can be altered to be better.

The "flooding is less likely" line was already in the article before I did anything to it.

I wasn't criticising your changes; I realised that much of it was already there.

Why, anyway, would someone who lives in the mountains or a desert with no large bodies of water around need a flood myth anyway?

Why would anyone even in flood-prone areas need a flood myth? That's academic; the point is they exist, and not just from obviously flood-prone areas.

It's not within the experience of their civilization because it doesn't flood there.

That presupposes that the flood as recorded in Genesis is fiction, which is a POV I don't share.

Philip J. Rayment 02:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well if you really want to get down to it since we don't have a verified count of how many floods myths there are, who has them, from where, or how related they; then any judgment of quantity in this article is simply just the guess of the writer.--BerserkerBen 03:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know why we have people here whose obvious, undisguised sole intent is to try to take this article about mythology and convert it into a pro-Creationist piece. You, Philip J. Rayment, may not understand what mythologists say and believe, but you arguing about it here is pointless, because mythologists say what they say regardless of whether you in your religious-motivated mind want to believe it or not. Arguing against what the mythologists say as if it should be taken out of the article is like not understanding math and wanting what mathematicians say taken out of an article on math. Complain all you want, but it's not going to change. As BerserkerBen points out, these terms have to be listed subjectively because this isn't a field where you can quantify things to some exact, precise detail. It's not like we have 48 pounds of flood myths versus 2 pounds of myths without floods. You are demanding something that simply isn;t possible in the field in question, which is what this article is dedicated to. And you may believe that cultures living on flood plains would be less likely to have flood myths, or at least use it as your argument to try to downplay part of an article that isn't sufficiently pro-Creationism as you'd like, but then you'd be 100% completely wrong. Ancient Egypt did, in fact, have several flood stories. The flooding of the Nile was an extensive feature of their religion. Ra on his sun barge, Sekhmet destroying people and crops until the land was flooded with wine and her wrath was sated, and so forth. The Mesopotamia area had extensive flooding on a regular basis, and the main flood myth that later Jewish myths were built on originated there. To sum up, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and it's obvious. You should leave articles about mythology to the people who know the topic. DreamGuy 06:16, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know why we have people here whose obvious, undisguised sole intent is to try to take this article about mythology and convert it into a pro-Creationist piece.

Please withdraw that accusation or back it up. What makes you assume that I wish to convert it into a pro-Creationist piece? That is not my intention. But neither do I want it to be an anti-creationist piece.

You, Philip J. Rayment, may not understand what mythologists say and believe,...

On the other hand, maybe I do?

...because mythologists say what they say regardless of whether you in your religious-motivated mind want to believe it or not.

What has my religion (compared to your religion or the mythologists' religion) got to do with it?

Arguing against what the mythologists say as if it should be taken out of the article is like not understanding math and wanting what mathematicians say taken out of an article on math.

I was actually asking what mythologists say it. If we can quote some, then fine. Also, if we can quantify some of the claims, that's fine too. I was questioning whether the paragraph was adequate as it stood. Perhaps if you would address my concerns rather than question my motives, we might get somewhere.

As BerserkerBen points out, these terms have to be listed subjectively because this isn't a field where you can quantify things to some exact, precise detail. It's not like we have 48 pounds of flood myths versus 2 pounds of myths without floods. You are demanding something that simply isn;t possible in the field in question, which is what this article is dedicated to.

Did I ask for "exact, precise detail"? No, I asked for some idea of how many, how much, etc. And why can't one—in theory—come up with some numbers on this sort of thing? Why can't some researcher compile a list of flood legends and do some analysis of how many come from flood-plain areas, for example? Sure, it may not be the last word on the subject (more legends may get discovered, other researchers could come to slightly different conclusions because they classify some grey areas differently, etc. etc.), but if the best we can say is that we have no idea of numbers and never will, then you have no facts on which to build a case, and that is what the paragraph is trying to do—build a case on the possibility of legends deriving from regular floods in flood-plain areas.

And you may believe that cultures living on flood plains would be less likely to have flood myths, or at least use it as your argument to try to downplay part of an article that isn't sufficiently pro-Creationism as you'd like, but then you'd be 100% completely wrong. Ancient Egypt did, in fact, have several flood stories.

Unless there is more to that than you said in that last sentence and the following ones I didn't quote, then you are begging the question. I wasn't saying that Egypt didn't have flood stories. I was suggesting that they may have no reason to have flood stories for something so common unless there was an exceptional one such as Noah's flood. If that line of argument is correct, then the existence of Egyptian flood legends actually speaks in favour of Noah's flood. Now, I may well be wrong on all that; but your counter argument assumed no Noahic flood, then used the existence of Egyptian flood legends as evidence that my line of argument was wrong.

...the main flood myth that later Jewish myths were built on originated there.

Now who's asserting their own POV?

To sum up, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and it's obvious.

I was simply asking question and making suggestions. Is that not allowed? Why do you react so strongly? Some bigotry against creationists, perhaps?

You should leave articles about mythology to the people who know the topic.

Do you tell all the evolutionists to leave the creation-type articles alone on the same basis? Anyway, the flood of Noah is something that I know something about. How much do you know about it and the evidence for it?

Philip J. Rayment 02:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your edit history is more than enough to back up the accusation that you fully and knowingly intend to make this a pro-Creationism piece. Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith, but it doesn't expect us to ignore repeated and blatant examples of bad faith. No, I don't expect evolutionists to leave creationist articles alone, as long as they know something about the topic. You are suggesting that I argued that people of opposing viewpoints shouldn't be on the same article, when I am actually arguing that people shouldn't be contributing to an article about a topic they know nothing about, except in a way that they can contribute, like spellchecking or formatting. People who don't understand thelaw shouldn't be trying to write the articles on libel and copyright, people who don';t understand physics shouldn't be trying to write about the second law of thermodynamics, and people who don't understand mythology have no business trying to take things out of an article about mythology, especially when it's done with the clear motive of advancing an agenda. DreamGuy 10:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Your edit history is more than enough to back up the accusation that you fully and knowingly intend to make this a pro-Creationism piece.

That broad sweeping claim does not qualify as substantiation for your accusation. Provide clear specifics or withdraw the accusation.

Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith, but it doesn't expect us to ignore repeated and blatant examples of bad faith.

If there are "repeated and blatant examples", then you should have no problem quoting some of those examples, should you?

No, I don't expect evolutionists to leave creationist articles alone, as long as they know something about the topic.

The point is, most of them don't. But they act like they do.

You are suggesting that I argued that people of opposing viewpoints shouldn't be on the same article, when I am actually arguing that people shouldn't be contributing to an article about a topic they know nothing about,...

No, I was suggesting that, like you accuse me of with this topic, evolutionists generally know very little about creationism, yet they act like they know it well.

...people who don';t understand physics shouldn't be trying to write about the second law of thermodynamics,...

Fair enough in principle, but like here, I have been accused of not understanding thermodynamics simply because, as a creationist, I have a different view of it than my accusers, not because I don't understand it. In fact I often think that it is them that don't understand it. For example, one "answer" given to creationist use of thermodynamics is that creationists don't realise that the Earth is an open system, and therefore it doesn't apply. This is ridiculous, because the laws of thermodynamics were formulated based on observations made right here on Earth. Yes, it is formulated as applying to a closed system, which Earth is not, but that in and of itself doesn't make it null and void on Earth, as suggested by many anti-creationists. So when people tell me I don't understand something, unless they can explain exactly how I am wrong, I'm more inclined to believe that it is merely that their POV doesn't agree with mine, so they try to dismiss my POV without refuting it. Obviously this is not a good form of argument. Yet this is to a fair extent what has happened here. Instead of refuting what I have suggested (and that's all I did; I asked questions and made suggestions), my motives and methods have been attacked. This of course suggests that it is not that my arguments are weak, but that my critics don't have a good argument to make, so instead attack me. In the post that you are responding to, I asked a number of questions that you have not attempted to answer. Why not?

Philip J. Rayment 14:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

points all well made, Mr. Rayment. i find the comment "I don't even know why we have people here whose obvious, undisguised sole intent is to try to take this article about mythology and convert it into a pro-Creationist piece." to be particularly telling.

Dreamguy, perhaps you should consider educating yourself further about mythology. there are two definitions of myth -- one (the "POPULAR" definition -- typically used by the UNeducated) is that myths are imaginary stories possibly based on some semblence of historical events but by no means historically accurate. by another definition (the ACADEMIC definition), myths may be absolutely historically accurate, and be myths simply by virtue of the MEANING they convey. your "obvious, undisguised intent" is to have this page reflect only the first definition. that is intellectually dishonest. this page must reflect BOTH definitions of mythology -- your definition, that these are all exaggerated stories, and therefore ALL of them are wrong in their assertion that they ENTIRE world was covered ... and the other definition ... that these stories might very well be telling the TRUTH. Ungtss 14:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Ungtss, I am using the academic definition of mythology. I am a scholar in the field, a published author of articles and books, member of the American Folklore Association, and so forth and so on. It's fairly absurd that someone with your demonstrated lack of knowledge on the topic is trying to lecture me. DreamGuy 10:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

your demonstrated ignorance and profound arrogance are the primary reason i never EVER take an academic at his word. by DEFINITION, the fact that genesis is a myth does NOT preclude the possibility that it is true. it's fairly absurd for you to think that your ability to spit back what you're taught means you can hijack any page on the topic and force the rest of the world into your horseblinders, without giving any rationale whatsoever, or at the very least allowing for other povs. Going to school only means you can repeat what you're told. if you're RIGHT, you'll have REASONING and EVIDENCE. where is it? Ungtss 13:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

now mr. rayment is absolutely right about the weasel words -- that entire section is pretty sorry. do you have any academics to back up your "academic" opinion? Ungtss 14:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine any one in a "academic" that would accept you definition of mythology Ungtss... well maybe a theologian, as theology and mythology are only separated by popularity of its claims. --BerserkerBen 21:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One Oxford + Cambridge medeival literature professor who did so. - Ungtss

Like I said: theologian. Only a theologian would be so delusional, now a mythologist on the other hand accepts myths for what they are and that any theory to explain them must remain within the limits of science, not faith. Let me explain a problem with faith based interpretations: what’s to say your god was behind this myth? Why not Buddha, Vishnu, Zeus, ect, or perhaps some long dead god(s) of the Babylonians or Samarians from whom it is likely the myth of Noah’s Ark originated?, what’s to say their version of the myth are not more accurate?, and thus why should we give your version more credence over the rest? --BerserkerBen 14:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Only a theologian would be so delusional, now a mythologist on the other hand accepts myths for what they are and that any theory to explain them must remain within the limits of science, not faith.>>

He was NOT a theologian. He was a trained LITERATURE professor at a world-renowned SECULAR college, and never taught a theology class in his life. Myth and literature were his BUSINESS. He just happened to be Christian -- and it took 30-odd years of studying Myth as an atheist before he finally came to his senses.

<<Let me explain a problem with faith based interpretations: what’s to say your god was behind this myth? >>

That is indeed a problem with faith-based interpretations. but your interpretation faces the same problem: "What's to say NO god was behind the myth?" Clearly there's room for ambiguity, and that's why we have multiple povs. but you prefer your religion to have primacy over others, and that is totally unacceptable in an npov environment. Ungtss 14:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are not saying “no god” was behind it, We are only proposing scientific answers such a local events, flood plain civilizations, ect if a god was behind that, its not our problem, science is agnostic not atheistic and science can never disprove god(s). The scientific explanations also provides a theory that more broadly covers all these myths and give each equal (and neutral) converage, rather then a belief that only explains one and considers the rest corruptions or all out false. And your literature professor did not exactly make his argument on facts; rather it was based on his faith, which puts it as a theological argument and not a philosophical or scientific one, so forgive me for finding nothing to do with academic outside of theology in his statements. --BerserkerBen 15:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<science is agnostic not atheistic and science can never disprove god(s).>>

i agree with you. and that's why science has to leave open the possibility that God actually does things.

and science does, the problem is when science finds evidence against a divine claim made but believers of a god, its at that point that believers seem to think science is attacking the existence of their god, which is not true. There are a variety of other answers that can both remain ture to scientific evidence and theories and retain the existence of a deity. --BerserkerBen 16:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<The scientific explanations also provides a theory that more broadly covers all these myths and give each equal (and neutral) converage, rather then a belief that only explains one and considers the rest corruptions or all out false.>>

on the contrary, your assertion requires me to believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the myths is false, because they ALL say that the Gods got angry and sent a flood to cover the WHOLE WORLD leaving only a few to repopulate, whereas you're requiring me to believe there was no God, and the flood did not cover the whole world, whereas i'm allowed to believe that they're all PARTIALLY TRUE, and one is truer than the rest. Ungtss 15:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it, when does my assertions require that every single myth be false? the assertion only explain a mechanisum for those myths, the assertions do not say that god(s) did not do it, only how a god may have done it. The assertions do not require you to believe the was no god! Also not all the myths say the whole world was coverd by a flood. --BerserkerBen 16:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

every single one of the myths holds that the world was COMPLETELY covered in water, leaving only a few to repopulate the earth. you're saying it was local, and there were therefore others left to repopulate. most of the myths holds that a boat was built in advance on warning by the gods to avoid the flood. you're saying there was no advance warning from the gods, and therefore probably no boat. you're requiring me to believe that they're ALL WRONG on those points, and innumerable others. Ungtss 16:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No this is not true, the Greek myths for example specify areas that were not covered by water. Some myths do not specify a boat, or animals, or advanced warning by a deity. Also the accuracy of the myths presented is in question: most of the myths have no source and I my self found inaccuracies and even blatant bias in the few myths that I reviewed.--BerserkerBen 22:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<And your literature professor did not exactly make his argument on facts; rather it was based on his faith,>>

what are you talking about? his argument is simply that myths are not true or false simply by virtue of being a myth -- but are myths by virtue of the effect they have on people. REAL MEN (like, say, Muhammed Ali) can become myths not based on fictionalization of their lives, but on the effects their ACTUAL lives have on people. this is a strictly literary point of view, and the MAJORITY view among mythologists (except, of course, in the context of the bible, in which a belief in historicity to ANY significant extent is unacceptable, because it is absolutely imperative that we free our society from the bonds of religion). who do you think you're kidding? Myths are not by definition fictional. they CAN be true. Just read myth if you refuse to believe me. Particularly "Myths as depictions of historical events." it is therefore a LEGITIMATE point of view to consider Genesis the True Myth from a mythological standpoint -- the question of whether it's ACTUALLY true comes down to geology, not mythology. Ungtss 15:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A myth is true with evidence, a myth cannot be stated as true with faith! Genesis would be true if evidence supported it with little contradiction, unfortunately the opposite is true in this case. You can either:

• A) Drop all belief in your religion because of it, an overblown decision but not illogical.
• B) Fight fanatically against the evidence, proclaim conspiracy theories over it, ect, what ever steps of illogic it requires to protect your belief personally.
• C)Incorporate the evidence without disavowing your belief in a creator or the meaning of its teachings you beleive in: for example come to believe that genesis and the bible in general was not meant for literal interpretation, or that god was behind all events within scientific reasoning, say “pulling the sting of fate”. --BerserkerBen 16:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

if your premise were true, your conclusion would follow. however, given the FACT that there is OVERWHELMING evidence for a global flood in the recent past, my preferred option is to: "belief that it is very reasonable that the flood actually happened." Ungtss 16:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I seriously question you claim to overwhelming evidence for a global flood, this discussion page though is not to discuses how little evidence flood geology presents and how easily it is discredited. For the least part you can accept that scientifc concesus is against flood geology --BerserkerBen 16:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you're absolutely right. this page is not the place to discuss it. this page is only the place to say "some people think these myths are historical, due to these TEXTUAL ELEMENTS (mention of and citations to which i've found repeatedly deleted without justification)." it doesn't violate the nature of a myth to say it's true. a myth can be true OR false and still be a myth. the question then is for Flood geology -- "is this myth true?" Ungtss 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't distort the information or presentation of that information on this page to make a persuasive argument for a religious theory explaining a myth, arguments for such theories should be cited and moved to another article. Scientific theories of a myth though are allowed as they are neutral by nature: they do not disprove that god(s) were not involved in the events that made that myth, nor do they back any one god or religion, they only provided a explanation for how the events occurred in that myth.--BerserkerBen 19:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scientific theories of a myth though are allowed as they are neutral by nature: ...

They're not, actually, as they exclude God. Whether that's because of an anti-God bias on the basis of the scientist, or a recognition that science can only study the natural and not the supernatural, it fails (or is unable) to consider God as a factor, so is not neutral. Philip J. Rayment 13:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<which puts it as a theological argument and not a philosophical or scientific one,>>

it would be very convenient for your to draw a strict dichotomy there, wouldn't it? and what basis do you have for holding that theology can have no basis in philosophy or science? only your own ANTItheological arguments, i'm afraid. Ungtss 15:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"If it lacks valid evidence" is my basis, it thus is faith. My argument is not against god, it not anti-theological either. It is only against the use of theology to intrude on provability: you cannot present theories based on faith, you need evidence. You cannot present one myth as true above others unless you have evidence. --BerserkerBen 16:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<you cannot present theories based on faith, you need evidence>>

epistemological error. assumes that the evidence supports your view (a point of contention) and flatly ignores the possibility that faith can be based on evidence. Ungtss 16:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying faith cannot have evidence or is not based on evidence, but if it has no evidence and you believe it anyway then by definition it is a faith.--BerserkerBen 16:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

if you have no evidence and you believe it anyway it's not faith -- it's wishful thinking. Faith was articulated by St. Paul as "Now I see through the glass dimly -- then I will see clearly." Faith is partial sight -- not full sight, and not wishful thinking, but partial sight, and the pursuit of True Sight. Ungtss 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and how is that evidence? Sorry but that is not a counter argument againts my denfintion of faith, I don't care for philosphical meanings I'm asking for empirical meanings.--BerserkerBen 19:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"epistemological error. assumes that the evidence supports your view (a point of contention) and flatly ignores the possibility that faith can be based on evidence."

This is taking relativism a bit far. What I see from the arguments on the Creation side is a desire to erode all standards and institute a situation where anything goes. Then they can assert any position they desire, and with their highly developed whining skills, they might just then have a chance at "taking over". But there is a standard, it's called reality. Evidence based faith is an oxymoron. These two-bit labeling of every statement as a "epid. error" or "non sequitor" don't mean much when dissecting casual language since 90% (yes I pulled this figure out of my ass) of the time the statements don't mean what you try to say they do. --DanielCD 19:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<This is taking relativism a bit far.>>

it takes relativism only as far as npov requires. Ungtss 21:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<But there is a standard, it's called reality.>>

indeed there is, and it involves an enormous flood in which only a few people were saved on a boat, because God warned them it was coming. Ungtss 21:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I see from the arguments on the Creation side is a desire to erode all standards and institute a situation where anything goes. Then they can assert any position they desire, and with their highly developed whining skills, they might just then have a chance at "taking over".

That's nothing but unsubstantiated creationist vilification.

Evidence based faith is an oxymoron.

Dead wrong. Faith is based on evidence. You are getting confused with "blind faith", the sort of thing that says that "first there was nothing, then it exploded" (i.e. the Big Bang).

Philip J. Rayment 13:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eactly what POV is. Not everyone believes that. You have NO proof at all. It's classic relativism, because it requires no proof and can't be measured against any standard other than people's whims. --DanielCD 21:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the point is that npov REQUIRES that this viewpoint be represented, and not simply swept under the rug. your bald assertion that there's no evidence for the flood falls absolutely flat. there is an enormous amount of objectively verifiable evidence for the flood. the fact that you choose to ignore it does not change anything. Ungtss 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not say there was no evidence, I said there is no verified evidence, there is some rather dubious and highly unpopular evidence to support a global flood, What has no evidence all together is that is that Noah ark is correct: even if there was a global flood, there is no evidence that events happened as genesis describes it. Also on the nature of evidenced in faith, my argument does not require that our proposed scientific version of the story be right, it just requires that you need to bring evidence that proclaims your religious version of the story right above all others, until then its just your faith that keeps that story as true above others, and that not fair to the other religious explanations of other myths. --BerserkerBen 22:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It IS represented in there. Have you even read the article. It is mentioned. It's not swept under any rug. And as for evidence, I have seen nothing that cannot be dismissed almost out of hand. None of this "evidence" is ever brought out for open debate. Why? Whenever the "evidence" is brought out, it is under highly controlled circumstances, such as radio or TV shows or tent revivals where showmanship and the audience's clapping decides stuff, not true analysis in the light. People do have to agree on a common standard, which is science. Anything else is just personal. I don't ignore any evidence as you claim, most of it is so retarded that a glance brings a giggle, and refutation involves reteaching kindergarden facts (which are really known, but ignored for convenience) like the alphabet.

Anyway I'm done here. This is getting too long and has little to do with the article. --DanielCD 22:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<even if there was a global flood, there is no evidence that events happened as genesis describes it.>>

so historical accounts are not evidence? perhaps our historical accounts of things that occured in the 19th century, before any of us were alive, are not evidence that the events occurred as reported? Ungtss 23:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me butt in here: Technically no it’s not evidence, let me explain: lets say accounts exist of some mass Indian killing event in the Midwest (USA), this is not proof that the event happened, if say bodies of people were dug up in the area the accounts claims the event happened and the bodies date to that time, then that is evidence. A account is really worth nothing without empirical evidence, if not then there would not be any myths and every account would be taken as true, hum … although the idea of forest nymphs are arousing I’m not going to run naked into a forest for several days just because there have been many accounts of them throughout history.--BerserkerBen 23:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Technically no it’s not evidence,

On the contrary, it is evidence, albeit not scientific evidence. Many court cases are decided on the testimony of eye-witnesses. Documentary evidence by eyewitnesses is essentially the same thing. If an account of an event 200 years ago was discovered, written by a reliable witness, it would in most circumstances be accepted as true regardless of any empirical evidence supporting it. And in some cases (such as a record of a sale of property), that can be sufficient evidence alone to even decide a court case.

Philip J. Rayment 13:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<it just requires that you need to bring evidence that proclaims your religious version of the story right above all others, until then its just your faith that keeps that story as true above others, and that not fair to the other religious explanations of other myths.>>

that is what i'm trying to do by adding the unique TEXTUAL elements of the genesis account -- genesis is absolutely unique among the myths in its level of detail (SPECIFIC DATES!), measurements and design of the ark, genealogies, etc. the others read like fiction. THIS one reads like history. but of course those facts are not permitted on the page:(. Ungtss 23:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes but that is not empirical evidence, and is worth (don't make me say a prophanity) in science. --BerserkerBen 23:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<I don't ignore any evidence as you claim, most of it is so retarded that a glance brings a giggle, and refutation involves reteaching kindergarden facts (which are really known, but ignored for convenience) like the alphabet.>>

good evasion, empty proof by assertion, and ad hominem ... and somehow you still managed to ignore the fact that OIL is evidence for the flood that hasn't been explained any other way. Ungtss 23:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

aaah you mean oil that was laid down during the from the beginning of the Cambrian to Triassic period from remaining organics of the biosphere at the time? The oil that laid down in a rather well understood process that does not involve flooding? --BerserkerBen 23:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV again

I will keep that sentence:

The near-universality of the flood myth in most cultures leads some people to believe that one or more such events actually occurred.

As

The commonality of flood myths in many cultures leads some people to believe that one or more such events actually occurred.

Until evidence of a census that makes for “near universality “ and “most” be used as descriptors. Since most of the myths have no primary or even secondary source there is no proof of accuracy in a census based on the article as it is now. --BerserkerBen 22:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i understand that, and i don't contest your edit. however, since we are in the business of npoving, i think it's appropriate to add myth-related reasoning to the creationist position, and i don't think it's appropriate for npoving to go only one direction. Ungtss 22:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't have a link to flood geology, directing further information on the issue there, beside that I don't see what more you could add that would be fair to all the other myths that don't run in alignment with genesis. --BerserkerBen 22:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

we've got a great deal of information here about the other theories, even tho they are already covered on pages of their own. it's only fair to have a brief sentence about the TEXTUAL elements of the genesis-first interpretation here, i think. it certainly does no harm. Ungtss 22:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Technically we have only one article for another theory is linked and its size does not compare to flood geology. Also I don’t think Genealogies of Genesis is the right evidence to cite, “relatively objective character of the narrative”, “high degree of detail” are not evidence for validity, remember evidence needs to be empirical, that and don’t get me started on how little sense Genealogies of Genesis makes in anthropological genetics. I think the edit I made is more NPOV and provides adequate reference to further information.

--BerserkerBen 22:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...don’t get me started on how little sense Genealogies of Genesis makes in anthropological genetics.

If you don't want to get started on it, don't mention it, as others might feel compelled to disagree to avoid allowing you to get away with such an unsubstantiated assertion. Philip J. Rayment 13:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get started on it... here, if you want to we can go argue about it on a more appropriate article, hence I mentioned it. If not then just ignore it, rather then wasting space here to critique the etiquette of others, when if you really had to you could have done so in private. --BerserkerBen 18:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You made the claim publicly; it deserved to be challenged publicly. Philip J. Rayment 01:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well then challenge it, just not here, your wasting space here as well as putting up unrelated topics to the article which was the reason why I was not going to argue over it here. :P --BerserkerBen 02:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey! You are the one that raised it here, so if it is a waste of space, you started wasting it. And so I challenged it here, where you raised it. How would you like it if I started making pro-Biblical claims on this page and told you to go somewhere else to challenge them? Philip J. Rayment 04:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I raised it to state a reason for objection to the proposed factuality of the claim and if anyone did want to argue about it I made it clear that here was not the place. At present you guys have already been making pro-biblical claims, and through much arguing and edit waring you guys have managed to loop hole in many of your claims, so I don't see what the difference would be. BerserkerBen 05:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You raised it here, so the appropriate place for a response is here. I don't understand most of the rest of what you said, but I deny that "us guys" have been making pro-biblical claims any more than "you guys" have been making anti-biblical claims. Philip J. Rayment 02:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see my self and DreamGay making neutral claims, with no care for the bible one way or another, while you and Ungtss seem to make pro-biblical claims and seem to want to twist this article to fit your beliefs. And no Genealogies of Genesis is a article of it own: any argument about it should be there, not here.--BerserkerBen 03:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may see it that way, I don't. And you haven't demonstrated it. If any arguments about genealogies should be there, why did you raise it here? You didn't follow your own rules, and are criticising me for not following your rules. Philip J. Rayment 15:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

whether YOU think they're good evidence or not is a matter of pov -- but the fact that they are PRESENTED as evidence is npov ... it's just facts, fellas. if they're wrong, they're wrong, but don't hide the facts.

Again it is not empirical evidence: it’s a matter of opinion if the account in genesis is very neutral and highly detailed, because of this it is not FACT, and as a statement of opinion it is not a NPOV either. --BerserkerBen 23:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

excellent critique. i will attribute that pov to creationists, rather than state it as fact. Ungtss 23:31, 25 Feb 2005 (

very well, I notice that loop hole earlier when reviewing that we had already began describing creationist reason with objective evidence, even so I would refrain from words like "uniqilly".--BerserkerBen 23:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks for being so reasonable and fair:). i appreciate it:). Ungtss 23:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] plato

dreamguy, why are you removing references to the great flood in the dialogues of plato in the section on the greek flood myth? Ungtss 04:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I already explained in the edit comments. which you read, so why are you bothering with yet another talk page comment when you know the answer? You phrased the section so it claimed there was a global flood, which is not what he said, by any stretch of the imaagination. You clearly said "global flood" so you could try to use it to support your theory that there really was one, once agin forcing your bias onto this article... which is especially troubling because you claimed you would no longer make edits to this page or several others like it to solve the problems you had with your POV getting in the way and to avoid disciplinary actions. You've now violated that, making your excuses for why the RfC complaints against you were invalid totally bogus.

Regarding Plato specifically, I'll also have to check the full ccontext of what he says in those references later, because he's talking about Atlantis in the quote there, and Atlantis was something he used for an allegory, not for a history lesson or discussion of myths. It could be the whole section is something he said for his philosophy lesson and not based in any way on actual myths. If that's what's going on in the sections quoted he should be removed as a source completely. I don't have time to go through that right now, though. I kept what you put in about his other comments since the most DreamGuy 12:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] regarding ad hominem

<<you claimed you would no longer make edits to this page or several others like it to solve the problems you had with your POV getting in the way and to avoid disciplinary actions.>>

i never said that. please refrain from reinventing history. i boycotted due to neverending nonsense ... such as the nonsense with which i am currently ... rather patiently ... dealing. Ungtss 13:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<You've now violated that, making your excuses for why the RfC complaints against you were invalid totally bogus.>>

schroeder's rfc was totally bogus all by itself. it didn't need the help of any excuses on my part. Ungtss 13:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you specifically called it bogus because you claimed the problem of your highly POV edits was resolved by you not making edits to the pages in question anymore. That was your only solid counter-argument and the main reason nobody signed it. Now that you are editing the pages again, that excuse is completely worthless. You also claimed that you weren;t going to edit them unless a policy for NPOV could be created, but then you set up a stealth group of like minded Creationists in a Wikiproject falsely called FACTS to create fork pages and declare whatever you came up with as a group to automatically be NPOV when it was really just your way of pushing your agenda on the pages. That's against the policies. I supposed your agenda-based editing is unavoidable when strong factions exist on some topics, but you brought all of that in to an article covering a topic that has nothing to do with it so you could push your agenda here too. DreamGuy 00:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] regarding substance

<<Atlantis was something he used for an allegory, not for a history lesson or discussion of myths.>>

that's your pov. a lot of other people think he did it either in reference to a classical myth, or as a history. your pov must come in concert with others. Ungtss 13:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

let's just link to atlantis. no point in repeating the material there. there is, of course, no reference to a global flood in the Atlantis story. dab (ᛏ) 16:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is, however, reference to "destruction of Deucalion" and the "great flood of all."

The question of whether that's POV or not should be argued on the Atlantis page, we don't need highly disputed sources here without a thorough explanation of that dispute, and going into it detracts from the article (going wayyyy off topic again). It's better to just remove it and then let the article about that topic argue about it instead of having every argument in the world fought on this article. DreamGuy 00:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article has lost its way again

I'm looking at the External links, and what do we have? The vast majority of them aren;t about mythology but arguing about whether the great flood was real or not. That's not hat this article is about. This is the mythology article. Flood geology, Noah's Flood, and Deluge (perhistoric) and etc. are about supposed real life floods. This one is supposed to be about the myths.

A while back we decided to remove all speculation on explaining the myths. Then we said we'd only have a short sentence or two for each theory, mainly to serve as a frame of explanation to link to a more appropriate article for each. Since then people kept adding and adding and adding until we have a huge section again arguing about what was or was not real. I think we need to trim this back again. People from the outside what to argue about true/false, etc., but I think that's more appropriate in articles devoted to that topic.

If you look at the history of this article, you'll see that without a doubt most of the additions made have been not about mythology at all. That has to change. DreamGuy 12:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

myths are not true or false simply by virtue of being myths. many people still believe that this myth is historical. a discussion of HISTORICAL views of this myth is indispensible to the article. Ungtss 13:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no it isn't (except for a link to deluge (prehistoric)). Understand that historicity is outside the scope of mythology. Yeah, there were historical floods. Yes, they may have influenced myths. Why don't you run off and write an article about a historical flood somewhere else. dab (ᛏ) 16:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the historicity of the myths is beyond the scope of the article, i suggest we delete the origins section entirely, because much of it strongly suggests that genesis is ahistorical. i don't care which we do. we can either do the origins section and do it RIGHT (with all povs, including those who believe one of the myths is history), or we don't do origins at all, and just report the content of the myths. but you'd like the inclusion of "genesis is not true" origins, without the inclusion of "genesis is true" origins. that's pov. so why don't you quit telling me where i should run off to and help write npov articles? Ungtss 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"genesis is true" makes about as much sense as "the New York Times is true", or "Wikipedia is true". It's 'true' in the sense that it exists. An account will always be different from the events it describes, and opinions may vary on how much factuality made it into the account, but it really needs a bible thumper to confuse the account with the events themselves.

"one of the myths is history" — that's not a pov, that's a self-contradiction. we outline possible origins of the myths, including possible historical floods, which would not be myths themselves, being historical, linking to those with their own articles. A flood can not be historical and mythological at the same time. a mythological flood can correspond to a historical flood, but that's as far as it goes. dab (ᛏ) 16:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<"genesis is true" makes about as much sense as "the New York Times is true", or "Wikipedia is true". >>

false analogy. if i wrote an account of the events of last week, that account may be true, untrue, or partially true. the mainstream interpretations hold that the noah account is almost entirely false. no noah, no boat, no animals, no covering the earth, no timeframe, no genealogies. your views require me to reject whole chapters of genesis as either stilted allegory or outright fraud. Ungtss 17:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<one of the myths is history" — that's not a pov, that's a self-contradiction.>>

once again, you are basing your conclusion on a false definition of myth. myth MAY be historical -- it is myth because of its use and importance in a culture, NOT its historical inaccuracy. Ungtss 17:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<it really needs a bible thumper to confuse the account with the events themselves.>>

please refrain from personal attacks. i have never thumped a bible in my life. On the contrary, i find myself repeatedly thumped with it by those with no respect for its contents. Ungtss 17:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you are free to argue the historicity of genesis on genesis. if we treat genesis as myth, the question doesn't arise. I'm not asking you to reject anything, for the purposes of this article, it is enough to say, "genesis says such and such, see genesis". It is, of course, out of the question, that genesis contains accounts even, remotely resembling the modern notion of accuracy or factuality, because they did not exist, 2700 years ago, and I would emphatically say so on talk:genesis if I ever went there, but luckily, that doesn't matter in the least for us here. dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

so then would you suggest deleting the origins section entirely, so "the question of historicity does not arise?" Ungtss 17:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I certainly some of it should be cut. Its purpose is to discuss possible origins for the myths, not the myth's historicity. That the myths are based on historical events is one such possibility, and it should be briefly mentioned. There are others. The point of this section is certainly not to discuss the historicity of Genesis. Let's see. most importantly, we should not conflate the issue. we have (a) the myths may be just an accumulation of ancient flood memories that aggregated around a single story. (b) the myths may be due to a specific flood each, and (c) they are allegorical from the start. there would be other categories, such as archetypes, but this is what we have so far. the "ethnological" version should be separate from the "flood geologist", and yet again separate from the "theological".

---

[edit] accumulation of memories

Most scholars of mythology believe that the Genesis myth is based on earlier Mesopotamian myths. Since arly civilized cultures lived in the fertile flood plains along river basins such as the Nile in Egypt and the Tigris-Euphrates river basin of Mesopotamia (in present day Iraq), it is not unusual that such peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods as it was an integral part of their lives. The scholars point out that cultures that most cultures that lived in areas where flooding is less likely to occur did not have any flood myths of their own. These facts, added to the natural human tendency to make stories more dramatic than they originally started as, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying cataclysmatic floods evolved.

Other scholars challenge this view, holding that the myths share many details that cannot be reconciled with a vague accumulation of flood memories, including the common theme of a single man being warned in advance of the coming flood in order to prepare a boat.

[edit] memories of specific floods

Some geologists believe that quite dramatic, greater than normal flooding of these rivers in the distant past might have influenced the myths. One of the latest, and quite controversial, theories of this type is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BC from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. Many other prehistoric geologic events, including tsunamis, have also been advanced as possible foundations for these myths. For example, some have asserted that the original versions of the Greek myth of Deukalion's flood likely originated from the effects of the megatsunami created by the eruption of Thera in the 18th-15th BC [1]. More speculatively, some have suggested that flood myths could have arisen from folk stories of the huge rise in sea levels that accompanied the end of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago, passed down the generations as an oral history.

Most traditional orthodox Jews and Muslims, as well as many Christians, regard the Genesis account as historical fact, see Genesis as the most historically accurate account of that event, and see the other accounts as memories of the same event which became corrupted and distorted by time. (see Noah's ark).

[edit] Allegory

Most biblical archeologists consider the story of Noah's flood to be legend or myth. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews accept the deluge story as an allegory intended to convey meaning, not historical fact.

Some biblical scholars reject this view with respect to the Genesis account, holding that the text does not lend itself to an allegorical interpretation, given its degree of detail, historical tone, and Genealogies of Genesis.

---

in general, if one point has its own article, keep it brief. (no point in summarizing flood geology here, when we can link to it) dab (ᛏ) 18:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with this, but the additions Ungtss adds to your outline above without signing them miss the point entirely. Instead of being brief, it drags it out again. IT starts up the whole POV part that people fight about and makes them want to add more and more and more about their side (pro or con on everything) instead of being about mythology--- In a mythology article, we discuss myths, and what mythologists have to say about them, and if someone wnts to discuss some other topic (which the whole it's true, people believe it, etc. is) then link, don't put it here. Ungtss seems incapable of not allowing the fact that these theories exist without demanding that they be contradicted in the same article by what the religionists say. That's what those other articles are for. Deluge (mythology). Mythology. Not Deluge (mythology and debate over historicity and religion and yadda yadda yadda). What part of that is so hard to understand? DreamGuy 00:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

<<Ungtss seems incapable of not allowing the fact that these theories exist without demanding that they be contradicted in the same article by what the religionists say.>>

translation: "Ungtss will not permit my viewpoint on these myths to stand uncontradicted by other scholars who think differently than i do, and i don't like it." Ungtss 00:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, not my viewpoint... the topic of the freaking article. You just don't get it. What you are doing is the equivalent of hopping onto the imaginary numbers page and claiming that imaginary numbers don;t exist because God would never allow such tragedy. That's a page about math, not about religion. This is not an article about religious debate. Those debnates belong elsewhere. Bringing them here is pointless, off-topicm highly biased, and defeats the entire purpose of this page. DreamGuy 00:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

look. months now you've been evading these simple facts. deal with them:

1) myths are not false just by virtue of being myths. they may be historical, and still be myths.

2) if you want a section on the "origin of the myths," you have to allow for the various views on the origins of the myths -- the "collective memory," the "historical flood," and the "allegory."

3) in the process of describing these three categories, you need facts and cites pro and con on each.

4) that is precisely what i've done.

now quit with the ad hominem and empty conclusions, and deal with my argument please. Ungtss 00:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silence again. Any wonder we creationists still believe what we believe? You can never answer our questions. You just make assertions without backing them up, and then attack us. Not persuasive. Antipersuasive. Ungtss 01:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the last section, I decided to replace "boat" with "ark," because I believe that people can get the wrong interpretation if they think that a "boat" of that size was capable of floatation. The sheer dimensions of the ark which were recorded in Genesis would have been much too great for a hull of such a craft to maintain its integrity. However, a barge type of vessel would have been extremely more likely to stay sealed because of its squared-off design as opposed to a curve design. Salva 02:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

About one of the external links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp This article begins with an ad hominem attack, proceeds to use a series of non-sequitors to "prove" that the Genesis account is the older one, repeatedly pauses to attack "liberals," and makes some nearly indefensible statements. I'm not trying to attack Creationism or Flood Geology; I'm just wondering why anyone included this article, since it doesn't seem to have any redeeming qualities.

I'd remove it but the folks who want to trun this article about mythology into religious propoganda delivery device would start a war over it I'm sure. It clearly does need a description that more accurately describes what it is, though. DreamGuy 02:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

and what would such a description look like to you? Ungtss 05:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well I'm sure you guys can come up with a nicer link that proports your beliefs, one that does not resort to fallacies. --BerserkerBen 13:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've heard generalized accusations of fallacies, but i haven't heard any particulars. personally, the few fallacies i see on the page don't appear to be significant, so i'm not ashamed to have that page represent the creationist viewpoint -- if the reader reads it and finds it to be fundamentalist zealot nonsense, so be it. The link is, however, directly relevent to this page as it discusses the creationist perspective on the origin of the the flood myths worldwide ... Ungtss 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss: I've added a disclaimer to the article. Is that acceptable? (For the record, my complaint wasn't about "fallacies," it was about "indefensible statements." The article flatly asserts some things-- such as, "the Assyrio-Babylonian ark was a cube!"-- which there is no scholarly consensus on. Most of the Atrahasis Epic exists in fragmentary form, and there is no authoritative version of the epic. I'm only an undergraduate religion major, but everything I've read so far indicates that the only thing we know about the ark was that it had at least one window. Everything else is conjecture.)

Well i don't think it's good, or standard, to dispute the neutrality of an external link, and i don't see how this source is any more biased or indefensible than talk.origins, but it's not a big deal, 'cause the pages speak for themselves anyway. So i'll consent. Ungtss 20:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can go to the British Museum, only half an hour away, and look at a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, carved into stone, unchanged, not subject to the whims and biases of translators and scribes over the centuries, or the chinese whispers of story tellers in the days before paper, written, as it always was, all those years ago, that is older than any existing copy of the bible, or any part of the bible, written in a script that is older than Hebrew. I know which I think came first.

Non sequitur. The oldest extant bible is not necessarily the oldest text. Ancient texts are sometimes lost. Short answer, we don't know which came first, because we don't know if the oldest bible we have is the oldest one that ever existed. Gilgamesh may be older or it may not, but your argument based on the oldest extant copy of genesis proves nothing. Ungtss 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you, Dreamguy. I really appreciate it:). Ungtss 23:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dang, that was fast. You replied before I could explain... What I mean by tagging links is just to very briefly summarize the contents and the viewpoint expressed on them, not to attack them. Calling a site linked to as being not neutral makes no sense, as none of them try to show both sides fairly, they are showing their side of the argument. As long as the viewer here has a rough idea of what to expect before they click, then I think we've done all we really should do in that regard. In fact, arguing against a site in the External links section probably violates NPOV. At the very least it looks odd. The other links might need more clear labels as well. DreamGuy 23:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. definitely helpful to know what you're in for before you go there:). Ungtss 23:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I have added a link to my own essay, 'The House of the Sky', which explores ancient atronomy and flood myths to provide a mythological account of mankind's past. - Bruce

[edit] Fossils as an inspiration

Are there any scholars that can contribute commentary based upon the following ideal? Is it possible that ancient peoples all over the world were familiar with seeing fossils, and in an attempt to explain why rocks containing sea shells would appear in areas that were obviously great distances from any oceans, the only way to explain their existence would be some sort of myth describing a great flood? Has there been any scholarly writing along this line of thinking?

Please email me if you respond. info@charliemorriss.com Thank You, Charlie Morriss, Tucson, Arizona USA

[edit] In Islam

If you wanna add any part of the following in the document, feel free :)

It's the 54th Sure; (The Moon); between 9 to 13 says:

9. Before them the People of Noah rejected (their messenger): they rejected Our servant, and said, "Here is one possessed!", and he was driven out.
10. Then he called on his Lord: "I am one overcome: do Thou then help (me)!"
11. So We opened the gates of heaven, with water pouring forth.
12. And We caused the earth to gush forth with springs, so the waters met (and rose) to the extent decreed.
13. But We bore him on an (Ark) made of broad planks and caulked with palm- fiber:

(To see the whole (chapter) : http://kuran.gen.tr/?x=s_main&y=s_middle&kid=1&sid=54 )

Cheers; --Nerval 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Neutrality II

This article is not biased toward catastrophists, as you liberal evolutionists think, but it is biased toward uniformitarianism! You're trying to say that the flood did not happen and that it was just a myth! Well, I'll tell you this: evolution and uniformiarianism and mega-annums are also myths! They're just beliefs without any way to prove them! I know I'm going to get shouted at and cussed at and raged at, but it won't change the truth! The Flood as presented in the Bible was not a myth! Question the validity of this statement? Look at the Grand Canyon! Think it was formed over billions and gzillions of years? Look at the giant canyons and gorges around Mt. St. Helens! Those were formed in a matter of hours and days! Why do you think it would be different with the Grand Canyon? Because it's bigger? That makes precious little difference; a worldwide flood could have easily formed that in forty days and nights! The Great Flood as presented in the Book of Genesis should be removed from the mythology article. Scorpionman 20:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

...Hmm. A month has passed, so I'm not sure if the above really needs a response, but: the Grand Canyon contains many delicate features (produced by millions of years of erosion by windblown sand) that couldn't have survived the violence of a global flood. I suggest you go to TalkOrigins and search on "Grand Canyon" for more problems with the creationist view. And, of course, there's all the OTHER evidence that contradicts a recent global flood, such as over 100,000 years of ice layers in polar regions, and the fact that various ancient civilizations (not known to possess submarines) "survived the Flood". --Robert Stevens 15:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

None of this "evidence against" is provable or verifiable. Scorpionman 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a damned sight more provable than than the contradictory nonsense in the Bible. --Centauri 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster changed all the scientfic results and observations to make it look like a global flood didn't happen? :P Philosophically nothing is provable without doubt or the possibility of tampering (In this case by his noodliness, “May red sauce be upon him!”) But the scientific argument does have much more evidence then the religious one. --BerserkerBen 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Centauri, what do you mean by "contradictory nonsense"? Explain yourself! Scorpionman 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Google "contradictory bible quotes", I like the one that says in times of famine you can eat your children! --BerserkerBen 02:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the non-contradictory one that says "A fool says in his heart, "There is no God"? I like that one best. And yes, Ben, you are pretty Berserk to list such a "quote". Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can eat your children; the Bible strictly forbids eating human flesh. Now, if you want to see some cannibalism why don't you watch The Two Towers. Scorpionman 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Scorpionman 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The contradictions are numbered as the sands upon the shore: try this for starters. --Centauri 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And the answers to said "contradictions" are often numbered just as many: try this for starters :) Homestarmy 04:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We must be looking at different sites. I don't see any "answers" there - merely convoluted, unconvincing rationalisations. --Centauri 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 28:53 says: "Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." so if I become a christen I can eat my children when I'm under seige.--BerserkerBen 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That verse says that they (the jewish people) would eat them, not that they should eat them, come on man. And Centauri, considering infidel.org claims that calling verses out of context is wrong because the page author finds the objection "amusing" and that "Christians do it too", then i'm afraid neither of us is going to be convinced of anything :). Homestarmy 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t say god forced them, I said he allows it, and wait if the old testament only qualifies for Jews, then why do Christian have some much of it? And how about John 6: 53-59, what was Jesus a masochist? and when did I say I never beleived in god? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BerserkerBen (talk • contribs).

No, you said if you became a Christian, then God has given us permission to eat our children in times of seige. Saying something will happen is quite different than giving someone permission. And besides, the verse is talking about what will befall the Jewish people specifically, but of course, I suppose for infidel.org this idea would be too "amusing" to be valid. I'm also not User:Scorpionman, so I haven't accused you implicitly of atheism. Verse 51 of John 6 reveals Jesus saying "I am the living bread that came down from heaven.", im thinking symbolism much. Homestarmy 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that verse is symbolic, How do you know other verses are not? --BerserkerBen 23:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's symbolic because a symbol represents something, I would say that referring to oneself as bread is sort of representative there. Homestarmy 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Homestarmy, God was not telling the Jews they could eat their children, he said that that's what would happen as the result of the seige. They would get so hungry they would resort to cannibalism. God didn't approve of that but it was a punishment for their disobedience. Jesus certainly was using symbolism when He said that He is "the living bread come down from heaven". I don't see why you take that literally, Berserker. Scorpionman 14:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polynesian

I removed a reference to the Polynesian 'deluge' traditions (so-called) being memories of volcanic subsidences. There is no justification for such a view. For one thing Polynesians were familiar with volcanic activity and would not have confused them in this way. Nor can the fishing up of islands be reinterpreted as memories of volcanoes rising out of the sea. The islands the traditions refer to predate human arrival by thousands of years(at least). In the case of the North Island of New Zealand, by millions. Kahuroa 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to Move section on Noah

Should the section on the Genesis flood be moved to the section on Noah's Ark instead? Then there will not be the creationist disputes on a mythology page. JBogdan 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If it your desire to focus on flood mythology as literature and folklore to the exclusion of efforts to seek evidence for actual floods, I do not think you will succeed, for several reasons. Many flood myths are mixed with possibly-true folklore and factual archaeological evidence. It would not be possible to separate them. People are attracted to flood myths, just as people are attracted to the fictional stories about King Arthur, because Arthur may have actually existed. Flood myths are attractive because of the possibility that some of the myths may contain reports of actual events. For example the Deukalion flood myth may be partly legend dating from the explosion of Thera/Santorini about 1600 BC that caused a large tsunami in the Mediterranian Sea.

Because myth and legend are mixed together, I think the title "Deluge (mythology)" is a misleading title. How about renaming it "Deluge and Flood Myths from around the World" that would retain the brief descriptions and analysis of dozens of flood myths, but also link to specialized pages such as the Noah's Ark page, which is mostly Biblical. Greensburger 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References template

The section indicated does not cite sources. Although a reference list is included, various statements are made without reference to any author who said it. For example:

Many biblical archeologists, as well as laypeople, consider the story of Noah's flood to be a non-historical myth. Many traditional orthodox Jews and Muslims, as well as many Christians, regard it as historical fact.

References to support this statement?

Other scholars of mythology believe that the Genesis myth is actually a later version of the story, which was based upon earlier Mesopotamian myths (including the Epic of Ziusudra, the Epic of Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh flood myth

Which scholars? References are needed to support such statements. BenC7 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What "vast majority" (as it reads this date) and how was this statistically compiled? I'm changing it back to "many," since, in the view of this radical right-winger, it's pretty clearly creationist bias attempting persuasion through popularity.209.43.9.73 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I added 2 references to a scholarly journal article written by an archaeologist and to a book written by Biblical scholars. Greensburger 06:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, but statements such as those above still need references. BenC7 10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

It explains in an interesting way why the legends in the Middle East are so similar, but not at all why there are such striking similarities between legends there and in the New World! 70.16.16.247 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

...Which had numerous Christian missionaries spreading their legend among the natives before any detailed studies of the "uncontaminated" legends could begin. --Robert Stevens 09:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Chaldean" Section Removed

I removed the "Chaldean" section.

It seemed to be using the Biblical name "Chaldea" for Sumeria, and giving a confused telling of the Sumerian myth with Siusudra spelled Xisuthrus and Chronos (the Greek god) making an appearance.

Quoted here as removed:

Chaldean

The god Chronos warned Xisuthrus of a coming flood, and Chronos ordered Xisuthrus to write a history and to build a boat measuring 5 stadia by 2 stadia to carry his relations, friends, and two of every kind of animal. The flood came, rose, and killed everyone except those in the boat. After the floodwaters subsided, Xisuthrus sent birds out from the boat, and all of them returned. He sent them out a second time, and they returned with their feet covered in mud. He sent them out a third time, and the birds did not return. The people left the boat and offered sacrifices to the gods. Xisuthrus, his wife, daughter, and the pilot of the boat were transported to live with the gods.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.3.189 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)