Talk:Wives aboard the Ark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sibyls

What is the source for the "ancient tradition" of the wives being sibyls? What shrine did they supposedly serve at? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The source for the ancient tradition, is the Sibylline Oracles. There, the Sibyl (not Sybil) author clearly states that she was a wife aboard the ark, and even names her relatives who lived before the flood. Even if the Oracles are forgeries, as the modern theory goes, they are undeniably ancient, and this was all properly mentioned in the part you deleted, so if you don't mind, I'm going to revert. The article is full of sources, in fact that's what it mostly is, but if it would help, I can summarize them in a bibliography section. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An acknowledged forgery is hardly a decent reference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, Killer, first of all, not everyone has always "acknowledged" it as a forgery -- but even if it is a forgery, it's still an ancient tradition, and the paragraph mentions that it is widely considered a forgery, and there is no reason to suppress this critical source of ancient tradition, as long as that is all clearly expressed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to work on the phrasing, so it is clear it is apocryphal, a forgery. The content as it was written was presenting it as "tradtion", which is misleading. If the sotry came from the forgery, then say so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, at least you didn't cut any of it out this time, I'm all for greater clarity. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks, IMHO it helps to have all the S.O. references in one paragraph, as well.

BTW, if I mispell a word, just go ahead and fix it - I know I'm one of those people who habitually misspell words. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Note that revisionist history does not automatically imply "new", as in contemporary, only that an item of history was revised for a specific purpose long after it had been recorded. The purposes for revisionist history range from politics to religion to national pride. Jim62sch 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I added material from the Sibylline oracles page and did some editing to make clear that the Sib. Books that mention the daughters of Noah are from Jewish/Christian sources. PiCo 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some more editing after the above, mostly to improve the fluency (ie. the ease of reading), but I also left notes in the text suggesting additions needed to strengthen the article. In general I think this is quite a useful article, but it needs to be well referenced - simply citing something as an ancient text isn't going to be enough. PiCo 03:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In future, when you leave notes in the text, could you please enclose them in these symbols: <!-- and -->. That way, they don't show up in the article, except to other editors. I can address most of these notes and will try to get to it today. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that - thanks for the pointer :) PiCo 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion of of why this article is disputed except that one individual did not want to include a source because he disagreed with it. The user who added it commented that the article does not mention that the entire story of the Ark could be made up. This is not needed, because this article is about people involved in the story of the Ark. Whether those people actually existed is a matter for the actual article on Noah's Ark. I'm removing the dispute tag until someone provides a better reason why it should be there. - 24.7.186.22 18:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Jasher

Naamah was not a Cainite, that was misinturpited. Naamah, Noah's wife was Noah's great-aunt, it says she was the daughter of Enoch of the line of Seth. Enoch's son was Methuselah, Noah's grandfather. Arnie Gov 21:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)