Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Documentary Hypothesis etc.

I don't think this article should carry the burden of having to describe and defend the documentary hypothesis - that should be the topic of another article. This article should simply have a table identifying the doublets.

Number of clean animals

The dispute isn't limited to whether it was one pair (two animals) or seven pairs (fourteen animals), but also seven animals. See e.g. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2180 Schizombie 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the KJV. I believe it says, 7 pairs of every clean and one pair of every unclean (including dinosaurs of that time). It was a long hard ride in the flood. Could Genesis 6:21 be a hint that the 8 people on the Ark, had to be vegetarians during the year long flood ride? But, if it wasn't expected of them, the extra clean animals would've probably have been desired. During that time, of being in the flood waters, there were probably quite a few animal births, since they were in the Ark for more than a year. So, I don't think there was a problem with immediate extinction of any species. Slash Gordon 10:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Noah wasn't given dispensation by God to eat meat until after he came out of the ark. This was true for Adam and all generations until then. This means that he never ate any of the animals while he was in the ark. Additionally, none of the animals had babies in the ark as they were forbidden from procreation for the duration, although the Talmud does mention a couple of species that defied the ban. Benjy613 18.35, 4 April 2006
What are you debating? There are two versions in of the flood story running simultaneously in Genesis. See our previous discussions on the issue. They might be in the archives. Jim62sch 10:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. The article notes the two versions. The problem is there is a debate about one of those versions, whether it's seven animals or fourteen. The article doesn't address that directly, so the scattered references to the fact that could be confusing: Noah's Ark#Textual analysis "seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)" versus "(seven of each clean animal)" (latter repeated twice). Noah's Ark#Biblical literalism and the Ark "seven [...] of each clean animal" versus "seven pairs of clean animals" Noah's Ark#In Rabbinic tradition "admitting seven of the first". Шизомби 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably predictably I can't find the reference I need to answer your question, but here's what I recall from memory: You're quite right that there's debate about the meaning of the Jahwist account, the one that gives us either 7 animals or 7 pairs, depending on taste (most translations find the idea of 14 clean animals a bit too much and settle for just 7 individuals). In fact the original Hebrew is ambiguous: it says (and here's where I regret not being able to find my source) something like "seven-seven". The King James is perhaps the most faithful here, in that it carries the ambiguity over into English. Sorry I can't give you the source for this, but I'm pretty sure it was an article in the online Jewish Encyclopedia. PiCo 09:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"Animals by pairs and seven pairs:
"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth. For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground." And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him. [7:2-5]" [1]. The Septuagent shows 'επτα 'επτα or seven pairs. Jim62sch 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
But what does the Hebrew Torah say? And what's the state of Jewish thought? PiCo 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
But see the apologetics link posted above. Шизомби 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The Hebrew says"mikol(from all)habhema hat.hora(the clean cow)tiqach(take)Shiv'a shiv'a(seven each or seven and seven)ish vishto(man and woman). A vague understanding of Hebrew is all it takes to understand that "shiv'a shiv'a, ish vishto", means one shiva represents man cow and the other represents woman. An alternate reading could be "sheva sheva" but it would still mean the same thing. Exegetical Rabbis are constantly involved in head games and should be ignored unless you are writing an article about what they think. They are involved in either trying to make the contradictions make sense or find some mystical reason, such head games do not belong in the main part of the article. The text is clear, not ambiguous. Also, and I just thought of this, you are not talking about what the Rabbis think, because this comes under the subject heading "Documentary Hypothesis". In that case, there is no relevance of the Rabbinical interpretation. Another important note is that though p is ineloquent, his language throughout the pentateuch account not too consistent that his language usage cannot be considered ambiguous. p is the clearest of the writes, because he uses little world play and is dependably straight forward. For instance a few lines down "ki yamim od shiv'a" because/for another seven days" - here, it is obviously just "seven more days".
I'd be happy for you to do an edit referencing that article and stating that there is uncertainty. Perhaps you could put it in a footnote. PiCo 00:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to find a good spot to mention it. I think it belongs in the article proper and not a footnote since the article itself alternates between stating seven and seven pairs. Шизомби 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason the confusion between either 7 pairs of clean animals or 1 pair of unclean animals seemed to bother the writer of the article is that he wasn’t sure about the meaning of the word “clean.” Clean animals were edible animals, not washed. According to the Levitical diet for an animal to be clean it had to do 2 things: chew the cud and have a cloven hoof. Cows, goats, and lambs are clean, but camels, horses, dogs, and cats are unclean.

You're not even close. Read the arhives (and I don't think a lecture on "clean" was needed). •Jim62sch• 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. However, there is no confusion in the biblical text about the fact that God ordered Noah to collect of the clean animals 7 pairs and of the unclean animals only 1 pair. Where is the contradiction to which the main article is alluding? Certainly not in the verses quoted.

First, please sign your contributions - it's good to know to whom one is talking. (To do this, type four tildes - the squiggle that looks like ~ a worm). Second, there were two separate confusions. The first came when we were writing the article, and we weren't sure whether the bible said seven animals or seven pairs of animals. That got cleared up - it turned out that we'd been using the King James version, and it wasn't reliable on this point. The second confusion is the one mentioned under the Documentary Hypothesis section, and it refers to the confusions that scholars saw, or thought they saw, in the 18th and 19th centuries, and which led to the formulation of the hypothesis. These confusions are found throughout the bible, not just in the Noah story - a particularly famous one is the question of when Saul first met David, for which there are two accounts, and which can only be reconciled by supposing that Saul had a shockingly bad memory. Anyway, the confusions were behind the hypothesis, and the section here is explaining why the hypothesis was invented. It's not appropriate to tell the scholars they were wrong, even if you think they were - we just describe their thinking. Incidentally, the documentary hypothesis is today accepted by almost all mainsrteam biblical scholars - the point of view which holds that there are no conrtadictions is very much in the minority. PiCo 01:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I read recently that the "Documentary Hypothesis" was now largely discredited. If I can find more about this I will note it here; but will put the details in the DH article. rossnixon 02:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that any such discrediting occured in the minds of certain apologists, and not among anyone else (if it had been larger, it would have been big news). JoshuaZ 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"The twentieth century has essentially seen the downfall of the Documentary Hypothesis in scholarly circles" - see http://www.souldevice.org/writings_dochyp.html rossnixon 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ross, I know you're sincere in what you say and do, but believe me, that source is not a reliable one. For example, it says (in another section, talking about Islam): "the Quran is believed to be the actual words God used...and written down by Allah himself." I lived six years in the Middle East, and this simply isn't true. The belief of every Muslim I met was that the Koran was dictated by Allah to Mohammad, who then recited it to others, and was these others - not Allah and not Mohammad - who wrote it down. The website isn't accurate on Islam, and I doubt therefore that it's accurate elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge, the documentary hypothesis is still the accpeted scholarly hypothesis regarding the origin of the Hebrew bible. PiCo 06:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, an no religious studies course I've ever taken has mentioned this fact because? Or for that matter, why there is still so much apologetics written attacking the DH? JoshuaZ 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Search, and modern allusions

Actually, I think muslims are involved in the search too. I don't know arabic, though, so if there are books on the subject in arabic they probably wouldn't come up. Also, there have got to be many more modern allusions? Schizombie 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather have a section called "Cultural references" (or similar), dealing with the influsence of the Ark story in Western culture (and any other). It would deal with art (tracing evolving depictions of the ark over the centuries - it started out being shown as a grave, of all things, and only later turned into a boat), in literature (Medieval mystery plays), music (Britten's "Noah's Fludde" or however he spelled it based on the old play), and the literary efforts of Julian Barnes and others of his calibre. Pop culture, i.e. space-opera and so on, and maybe the bit about children's toys, could go as bullet-points in a single short entry. But I don't have the resources to write all that. You're welcome to try your hand. PiCo 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Did Someone Mention Dinosaurs?

Did someone mention dinosaurs? Oh, I think, I did. Noah didn't have to take the biggest, but instead took the younger/smaller of each species. Also, who is to say, that the most ferocious dinosaurs, such as the T-Rex or Allosaurus, weren't already extinct from being hunted for their hides, before the flood arrived? Maybe, those specific dinosaurs never existed anyway. We know how paleontologists love to take a big tooth, and then draw a huge, honkin', mean looking dinosaur around it, on a piece of paper, and then say, "Here's your proof"! I think that there were dinosaurs that were on the Ark, but, they were very manageable, perhaps many were vegetarians, instead of being carnivorous. And probably, many of those species, never entered the minds of the paleontologists today... and many of the dinosaurs that entered the minds of paleontologists today, never entered the Ark, because they never existed. The Brontosaurus, for instance, only existed in the minds of over zealous paleontologists, who took the head of one dinosaur, and stuck it on the body of another dinosaur. This lie existed for almost 100 years. From reading these horror stories, of paleontologists connecting bones, jaws, teeth, and vertabrae, from dinosaurs, that are located many miles apart from each other, and then tag some million year age on the species, would be humorous, if it wasn't so disturbing. So, it's more likely that many paleontologists mixed and matched bones with the wrong bones, and created something that never existed. These guys are pseudo-scientists, in the purest form, that live, only to discredit the Great Flood and the Bible. Remember the Ice Age (the answer to the Great Flood) that killed off the dinosaurs? Now, it's the comet that did it. Slash Gordon 10:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, If we are going to discuss Dinosaurs, I think we should very well discuss the existence of "Evil Ducks" I mean there clearly has to be a load of evil ducks running around. Noah would have been like there is a big flood coming, but all of a sudden the ducks are like we float now, we will float then. Makes Sense if you think about it.

It's possible some animals were extinct, but fossils only form when they are buried rapidly in flood-like situations, so we can assume that no remains of already extinct animals will ever be found. Check the size of dinosaur eggs - and discover that all dinosaurs start out small (no need to take large ones). Oh, and recent evidence shows that T-rex was a slow vegetarian type. rossnixon 10:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean like creationists who eat vegetables? 70.137.148.216 07:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the dinosaurs that were buried alive, and quickly during the flood. They were piled up together in under water pockets where they died. What a mess for the paleontologist, trying to connect the bones of those dinosaurs. I wonder what the paleontologists reasoning is, for the pile up of dinosaur bones in one place: "A T-Rex must've tossed the bones in a neat pile after every meal". Slash Gordon 11:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to to discuss standard flood geology claim and the evidence for them, I suggest you go to the usenet group [2] (which you can acesss from google groups, among other ways). This is not the proper location. Howeve, I will briefly note that a) fossilization can take place under many different circumstances and the types and nature of the fossils will reflect under what circumstances they formed. b) the claim that t rex was a vegetarian is simply ridiculous. It had sharp teeth and powerful jaw muscles to be a vegetarian? The other claims made here are similarly wrong, but this is really not the place to discuss it. JoshuaZ 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Big teeth and powerful jaw muscles like the (vegetarian) gorilla?
Ross, again, this is not the proper forum for this. However, if you must know I said "sharp teeth and powerful jaw muscles." While gorillas have somewhat sharp canines(well, at least the males, the females are duller), they have almost perfectly flat molars. I strongly recommend that we continue this conversation on talk.origins or some other forum. This is not the proper location. JoshuaZ

Why is this discussion, about dinosaurs in the wrong place, when the subject is still Noah's Ark and whether or not dinosaurs could have been on the Ark ? If this subject is put over in 'Origins', someone would complain about " the Noah's Ark subject shouldn't be here in 'Origins' "... even though the subject also includes dinosaurs. By the way, are you sure those sharp teeth, that the paleontologists matched up with the T-Rex, were found with a T-Rex remains, and not found 20 miles away, laying right next to some huge carnivore? My faith in some over zealous paleontologists is slim to none. Now back to the subject of Noah's Ark and the Dinosaurs... I've heard one theory, why many of the animals, even dinosaurs would be easily handled by those on the Ark, is that the animals went into a state of hibernation. Slash Gordon 08:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've an idea -- go to the AiG website and bathe in its wisdom. Jim62sch 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Slash, in general wiki talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Even if we did arrive at a consensus as to the plausibility of dinosaurs being on the ark, anything derived on this talk page would be by defintion OR. Therefore, this is the wrong forum for such discussions. And actually, talk.origins discusses global flood related issues all the time, and has a very flexible charter about topic discussions. In an effort to get this to stop, I will refrain from replying to your snide remarks about hard working paleontologists and hand waving about hibernation. Take it to talk.origins. JoshuaZ 00:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great! JoshuaZ... and your remarks belong here more than mine? Hey, Jim62sch... actually, I bathe there a lot .... Slash Gordon 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Methinks Slash is missing the point regarding the purpose of the talk page. As for bathing at AiG, why am I not surprised? Jim62sch 10:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Slash, first please indent your comments. It makes conversation threads easier to follow. Second, the point is very simple: this is not the forum for discussing whether or not the flood occured and related issues. Which is why I did not give a long response above detailing just how incorrect your above accusations are. It wouldn't belong on the talk page either. If you want to discuss this, feel free to take it to talk.origins. This is my last message here on the topic and I strongly encouraged everyone, including Jim, to not respond to any further comments by Slash on this topic that occur on this talk page. JoshuaZ 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Allusions section

I removed this small section. It contained very little - a comment to the effect that there are toy arks for children, a reference to a novel, and to the use of an ark theme in science fiction. I think that we should leave this out until we have more "meat" to put in it. PiCo 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Suggest is it time to archive this talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone give a reference for the Baidawi . I have never heard of Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, being carried in the Ark.

Baidawi gives the dimensions of the Ark as 300 cubits by 50 by 30, and explains that in the first of the three levels wild and domesticated animals were lodged, in the second the human beings, and in the third the birds. On every plank was the name of a prophet. Three missing planks, symbolising three prophets, were brought from Egypt by Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants permitted to survive the Flood. The body of Adam was carried in the middle to divide the men from the women.

At footnote 22 you will find links to two articles from the online Jewish Encyclopedia, "Noah" and "Ark of Noah". These were the sources for the information as it appears in the Wikipedia article. JE's own sources for Baidawi and others are given only in the Noah article. The Baidawi appears to be his Commentary on the Koran. (Please sign your comments with four tildes, the tilde being this squiggly symbol ~ ). PiCo 06:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

POV concern

The article says "misapplied etymology" under "Gopher wood" in the section "Biblical literalism and the Ark". Who says it's misapplied? I assume that the bible translators who call it cypress would disagree that it's "misapplied". —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As the article says, the word "gofer" is not known in any other Hebrew text. Possibly the text is corrupt and some other word was meant, or possibly the word is simply not Hebrew. Whatever the reason, the lak of any other instances makes comparison and translation impossible - hence the decision of the King James editors to leave it untranslated. If the word is not Hebrew, then Assyrian "giparu", meaning reeds, seems plausible, given the fact that the Mesopotamian flood-hero made his boat from his reed house (these southern Iraqi reed-houses were still being built until fairly recently, and photos can be found in, for example, the travel books of Wilfred Thesiger and Gavin Maxwell, together with photos of boats made from the same reeds). Nevertheless, this is merely speculation. "Kofer", pitch, is also a plausible candidate if we accept that the word is a corrupted error for something in Hebrew. A derivation from Hebrew "gushere", cypress, seems less likely - "kofer" could give rise to "gofer", but it's difficult to see a mistake that could lead from "gushere" to "gofer". Pine and cedar are even less likely. The bible translators who call it cypress are presumably motivated by a modern tradition, but it would be better to leave it untranslated. PiCo 09:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Cudi or Judi?

In the second paragraph under "The search for Noah's Ark", it says "local authorities have renamed a nearby mountain "Mount Cudi," making it one of at least five Mount Judis in the Middle East". Is it Mount Cudi or Mount Judi? Jwillbur 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's both - Cudi is the Turkish spelling of Judi, but same pronunciation. PiCo 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sheer impossibility of the concept

Nowhere in the article does it discuss the sheer impossibility of fitting multiples of every living animal in a boat made of wood with millennia-old technology. There have been scientific papers showing that the concept of Noah's Ark is utterly absurd. So why isn't this mentioned? --Cyde Weys 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Not sure. Was it included when this article originally became featured? Otherwise it probably shouldn't have been made featured. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:47
  • If you want to add a section, you might start with Google Scholar results. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:49
I suggest you re-read the Literalism section very carefully. PiCo 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like Ark apologia. What is this? The numerous literalist websites give varying answers, but are in general agreement that none of these problems are insurmountable. Of course they're going to say the problems are not insurmountable, if they were, they weren't literalists! And the article doesn't go into enough depth about why the Ark is utterly impossible. It says that no wooden boat could possibly be that big, but ends on the note that the apologists say it's possible (LOL). Then it says it couldn't possibly hold all the animals, but again, the apologists say it's possible. The article needs to show more of the real science (see this) and a lot less of the Ark apologetics saying everything is possible, because of course they're going to say it's possible, and second, they don't offer any proof of this, just hand-waving. Do you know how many people it takes to build a boat 450 feet long? It takes thousands of people (including the people in the factory needed to manufacture the parts). To say that it could be done by a dozen people without the benefit of modern construction techniques is absurd. --Cyde Weys 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
So on one side we have literalist editors who feel the article makes those who believe in the truth of the Ark look like fools, and on the other we have people like yourself who believe it reads like a literalist apologia. Must be doing something right. PiCo 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That still doesn't address the substantive concerns that I brought up. Just because some other random people think something mean that I'm not right. --Cyde Weys 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
A study of the science of the Ark would turn into an article even longer than this one, which is long enough already. If you want to create such an article, be my guest, but I think you'd get tired of the effort. What I think is realy going on in yuor mind is a desire to prove to the believers that're comprehensively wrong. But believe me, if you start stacking up facts from science about why the Ark is impossible, the believers will match you fact for fact (or factoid for factoid), and at the end of the day there'll be no clear winner. Look at it this way: Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum, and the aim is to describe beliefs, not to win converts. PiCo 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cyco, there is far too little criticism of the entire concept. So what if the literalists feel like fools, they ARE fools. Mackan 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Where did Noah keep the woodworms?160.84.253.241 07:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Julian Barnes's "History of the World in Ten and a Half Chapters" is based on this very question. PiCo 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The fools who shout that the ark story is a "sheer impossibility" have probably not looked into the explanations given on many websites. I assume we have at least one of these linked to. rossnixon 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, calling people fools is much easier than presenting evidence. Well done. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 14:35
My Opinion is; the person who stated above that the believers of this embarrassingly ludicrous and utterly preposterous myth are fools, does not take the time to gather, collate and present the mountain of evidence that would show without a doubt the impossibility of the claims Noah's myth makes as to assume such a task would be an exercise in time wasting on par with going to a psychiatric ward and explaining to patient x why he/she is not Napoleon I.
Let's face it, this is an argument that's never going to get anywhere. The impossible is perfectly possible if God wills it. God is the ultimate trump card. When God walks in the door logic flies out the window.

When discussing a belief you have to take all of the belief into consideration, rather than picking at just one or two points. For example, Christians and Hebrews believe that before Noah began the carnivorous age (back when everyone was a vegetarian) people lived to be 800 to 900 years old and also were about three times taller than today’s men are. Although Adam didn’t live long enough to enter the ark, Adam knew Noah and even knew Noah’s son Shem. Starting from this premise we can deduct that their cubit measure was probably then taken from Adam who was probably an 18-foot-tall dude. If to us today a cubit is about 18-inches, to Noah a cubit (from Adam’s arm) had to be about 54-inches or three times as long. With that information in mind, we would have to burry our 450-foot ark and resurrect it as 1,350-foot ship. Wow! Jason Livanos

References

Why is this article using the old style of references? Those make it very hard to add new ones. The newer style using <ref>, </ref>, and <references /> is generally much preferred. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • For your recent addition, I suggest finding published sources, rather than Talkorigins, just to avoid complaints. The talkorigins pages cite their sources, so you should start there. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:58
The reason this article is using old-style references is because neither I nor, apparently, anyone else knew about the new ones. PiCo 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Most articles these days are being written with the new ones. They're much nicer. Ben Domenech is an example of an article that uses them. They're much, much easier to keep up-to-date, and adding a new reference is as simple as adding the information inline. You don't need to separately edit the References section. --Cyde Weys 01:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Tada, all done, and much nicer now.  :-D Cyde Weys 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde. I added another ref while you were doing it, fortunately right at the end - I'll have a try at fixing it up in line with this new system. PiCo 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The best part of this is you don't need to worry about making sure if refs numerically match up with what they're supposed to, because it's all done automatically. And adding a ref is as simple as putting it right behind the sentence it refers to; you don't need to put in a ref pointer and then add a ref anchor at the bottom with the rest of the ref information. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the reference updates. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:15
More like updating references while under fire. There were penis pictures being posted in between ref edits and everything. It's like that old joke ... "Why do the Swiss have wine openers on their army knives? So they can quickly open up bottles of wine while under enemy fire." --Cyde Weys 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert to pre-28 March version by user Rossnixon

Now that this article is FA it's inevitably attracting a lot of edits, and inevitably they're going to be controversial, no matter what they say, and in no time at all it's going to turn 9into something quite unlike the article that was selected as an FA. So I'm trying to keep the article as it was prior to today. Rossnixon was simply the last to edit prior to today. PiCo

  • This is exactly what happened with Christmas. By the time it was suggested to be on the main page on December 25, 2005, it looked nothing like its original form, and even contained sections of copyvio. I wouldn't suggest mass reversions in such a case (it had been an FA for a year), just a demotion. In this article, as long as new additions aren't random factoids, or completely unsourced, I would allow them to stay, provided that they are productive additions. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 00:53
  • I'll try to follow your suggestion, if only because I'll be running into the 3-revert rule by the time I finish a cup of coffee at this rate. The problem is going to be deciding what's productive and what's POV-pushing. Should be a fun day. PiCo 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're not allowed to do what you're trying to do. If the edits are good and add information that the article was previously lacking, you can't just delete them. This is especially concerning because the article lacks a lot of critical analysis on the Ark (basically the whole scientific angle). --Cyde Weys 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While that would be true for normal articles, the bar for quality edits is set much higher for featured articles, which have been identified as being of the highest quality in their current state (although I disagree for Noah's Ark, given what you have cited above). With Christmas, most of the edits were "good" and "added information". Individually, they didn't harm the article, but when they added up to hundreds of major edits, the final product was just horrible (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Christmas). So, I suggest only allowing major additions which are well sourced and relevant. Minor additions, especially pop culture references and random phrases added to sentences, should be reverted with a careful explanation. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 01:02
Sorry, all, but Cyde is correct. Whether the article is featured or not, the points he made should not have been left out to begin with. And that's as much as I wish to say on this topic. •Jim62sch• 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can't make such sweeping generalizations. The edits have to be considered individually. If 1,000 people add a minor sentence in random spots (as happened with Christmas) this article will turn to crap, just as Christmas did. Reversion is allowed, especially for unsourced additions, especially for featured articles. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:11
  • Does that mean we can still revert people who insist that it's a historical event, like 4.157.5.222 did?--205.188.116.66 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh nevermind, he's moved onto blatent vandalism now, so I guess it's a bit of a moot point--205.188.116.66 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, if they don't cite reliable sources. Citing no sources for such a change = instant reversion. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:08

In Search of the Ark

This sentence was added today: "To this day no evidence has emerged to support the claim that Noah's Ark has been located on top of Mount Ararat[33]. The shape identified in satellite photos turned out to be merely an oddly-shaped rock face (like the Face on Mars) [34]." I have a few problems with it. First, the subject is already covered in the two final paragraphs of the section, and at a greater level of detail. Scond, the references given at [33] are given in greater detail in other sources in the References section. Third, the reference given in [34] doesn't support the claim made in the sentence (i.e., that the shape shown in satellite photos has been proven to be a rock-face). Can you improve it please? PiCo 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - I've exchanged the new para for a single sentence that I think gets across the point you want to make, namely that the "artifact" has been declared a natural formation by the scientific community. Ok? PiCo 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd've left Cyde's edit as it was. •Jim62sch• 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added in a single sentence summary that points out that, despite many and various repeated claims of Ark sightings, none of them turned out to be real. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The biggest problem is thats difficult to know. None of them have been proven would be a better wording. Because, its not easy to access the region, and many claims are still controversial. I'm not suggesting it does exist, simply i think that is better wording. 12.220.94.199 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually the biggest problem is that there is no real evidence whatsoever. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the refuter. There's no evidence that any of these "sightings" are real. The best "sighting", and I mean that ironically, turned out to be a section of wood that ended up being recent after it was carbon dated. There's absolutely no evidence for any of this stuff. It's just scam artists making money off of the gullible, like Bigfoot and Nessie. --Cyde Weys 16:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1.) there is evidence in the form of many, many ancient (sp?) documents and historys. ( I mean WAAY ancient) 2.) just because you dont beleive in bigfoot and nessie, doesn't mean that everybody that thinks they saw something is gullible! - Jedi of redwall

      • Thats POINT. Anyway, no evidence has been shown to prove the claims other than eye witness testimony and since there is no evidence, then you say none of the claims have been proven or none evidence has been shown to back up the claims. Not, the claims have been proven to be false, cause thats incorrect. Just because something isn't proven doesn't make if false. 12.220.94.199 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey y'all, remember that whole 'objectivity' thing? Calling your opponents in a discussion names is childish. That's what four-year-olds do. Let's be grown-ups, eh? Turridu 17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This ain't rocket science -- none of the claims were legit. Did people claim to see something? Yes. Just like UFO's, Sasquatch, Nessie, the Grays, Big Foot, the Yeti, unicorns, dragons and pink elephants. •Jim62sch• 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
well, if you're going to say their not legit, they most well known should be in the article, and why they aren't. Life I said before, the best way to do this, is say they have yet to be substantiated or no evidence has been presented to substantiate these claims or something like that. Not, these claims are false. Thats not neutral policy. I imagine the administrators on Wikipedia would agree with me on this. If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. I'm no religious fanatic, I just want to see neutral wording. 12.220.94.199 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Either/or

The article comes across as proposing thing in either/or terms. There are those who believe in the JEPD explanation, and there are biblical literalists. Speaking for myself, I have doubts about JEPD, at least as it applies to this story, but I don't take the story literally, and I certainly don't think Moses wrote it, and I think that the Pentateuch clearly has more than one source. I think a lot of people are neither enamored of source criticism, nor are they literalists. Could this article possibly be a bit more nuanced? Carlo 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Your opinions are fine, but not in articles. If you add "some believe X", then you have to have a reliable source cited for this. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:12

Deletion

This article is reccomended for deletion as there is no factual evidence proving its truth or that it ever happened.--KazMat32 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And since when is that a reason to delete an article? We have articles on Star Wars and that probably didn't happen. JoshuaZ 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. However, Star Wars is movies which is intended to make a profit as opposed to Noahs Arc being a religious story made up by some guys many years ago. Its purpose was not money or entertainment but to get people to actually believe that, that did happen and follow by that. Why anyone would believe that? Honestly, I could not tell you. Oh and look at the two articles Lost (game) and The Game(game) for info on things made up.--KazMat32 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then, that is all the more reason why we should have it as an FA. Maybe it will help people understand why others believe what they do. In any event, I'm not sure how a story's original motivation matters for whether or not it is important )and I think quite a few might argue that the original point of many biblical stories was for entertainment anyways). By the way, you can sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end and your username will appear at the end. JoshuaZ 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see how people can believe in such random stories created by the bible since it is a way of life in some areas, but to make a fiction story like this one (as kazmat pointed out, there is no proof) it shouldn't be a featured article. I find it a bit controversial since there are so many aetheist or non-religious people who find these stories overrated.

The article is about the story of Noah's Ark. It is unquestioned fact that such a story exists and is important. The question of if the story is literally true or not is totally irrelevant to the need for an article on the subject. Compare luminiferous ether or Saint Valentine. The first doesn't exist and the second may not have. Nevertheless, they are still important enough to merit articles in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Vonspringer 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether a topic is stupid or controversial shouldn't effect whether the article about it is good enough to deserve FA. A far more potentially offensive topic was featured a few weeks ago, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In fact, I would argue that controversial topics are in fact the best examples for featured articles. If Wikipedia can make good articles about controversial topics, then it should be able to make good articles about almost anything.JoshuaZ 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Please don't feed the trolls. Of course the Noah's Ark story isn't factual, and of course it deserves an article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:18

Why anyone would want to believe you become nothing when you die is beyond me. I wonder how these people can enjoy life? I myself have seen plenty of proof of the existence of God, and no proof that atheists are right. CalgaryWikifan 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Ignoring the fact that proof in the physical world is impossible, either way, article talk pages are not the place to list your personal beliefs and convictions. How does your remark relate to improving the article? Have you considered the possibility that there are religions without the Noah story? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 13:27
    • Fortunately, to avoid being a hypocrite, you added the same comment to people who on this discussion page insist their is no God, and therefore air their belief system. *searches page* Wait a minute. I guess you ARE a hypocrite, Brian0918. CalgaryWikifan 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All myths are true in their connotation. Just as all religions are true in the same way. Pasado 06:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Noah's Ark story. It's just that there are different interpretations of the evidence. And please do not abuse the word "true". Saying that all religions are true leads to logical impossibilities. It is fairer to say that all religions contain some truth. rossnixon 11:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the Ark story. Unless you're hiding something from the rest of us. --Cyde Weys 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if no evidence exists? It's still interesting to study it even if it might be wrong. Unknown man 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As one of the primary editors of this article, I (an agnostic) felt that the factuality of the story did not truly matter. What mattered was not that I personally think that there was no flood, no ark, no Noah, but that we presented an NPOV article on the subject. Period. As for eveyone's religios beliefs, I really don't give a damn. If you're happy with your beliefs I'm happy for you, but don't try to foist them on others, or assume that everyone who disagrees with your spercific religion is an atheist. •Jim62sch• 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Painting -- Featured Picture?

The picture of the painting at the top of this article looks really good. I do not know much about Featured Pictures, but could this be a candidate for it? -EdGl 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You could try, but it's not very large. Recently most new featured pictures have been over 1000px wide. If you want to nominate it, see WP:FPC. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 03:41

I don't see what's so good about the painting myself. --Cyde Weys 04:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like it, Cyde. I nominated it, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Noah's Ark, but an administrator needs to add {{FPC}} to Image:Noahs Ark.jpg. -EdGl 04:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic Tradition"?

Can someone check the source in the "In Islamic tradition" section of this article? Coming from a muslim, the section does not sound factual at all. I especially feel a lot of bias from the source, which is the Jewish Encyclopedia and contains such quotes as "Mohammed's conception of the Ark of Noah" rather than "Islam's conception" and random comments such as a mentioning of "Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants who was permitted to survive the Flood", which is wrong from what I have read since I have never seen any mention of giants in the Quran. -Zer0fighta 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the section can be improved, feel free. Just be sure to quote your sources. PiCo 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats the problem. I know the source is wrong/biased but I dont really have the time right now to find a source and fix it. I suggest just removing biased/doubtful information for now. Any objections anyone? -Zer0fighta 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd leave it for now, since it is at least a source. Personally I have no way of judging whether it's biased - but more to the point, it's getting on for a hundred years old, and I think scholarship has moved on. But by all means come back when you have the time and references and re-edit it. PiCo 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read the article from Jewish Encyclopedia. The "—In Mohammedan Literature:" uses Baidawi as a source. I have found Baidawi's name used predominantly on an "answering islam" web site sourced to substatiate clearly biased claims. I can only come to the opinion that Baidawi is an obscure source. As stated below, stories in the Quran and Sunnah are focus on worhship, forgiveness, patience, and other universal concepts. The stories tend not to contain extraneous information (names, dates, and locations). Good examples of this is Surat Nuh (71). Also, the article on the Jewish Encylopedia site is rated 2.68. I'm not sure how that fits into all of this, but it is certainly worth a mention. --gh☼st 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I just say that in the Ouran (and the Sunnah) the Ark story is somewhat abstract and contains very few details (emphasis is given to the consequences of disobeying God's orders). There is, for example, no mention of the size of the Ark or the three levels mentioned in the article or the time the journey has taken. The whereabout of the Mount Judi is unknown and saying that the Ark has started the journey from Kufa (which was built at the time of khalifa Umar), circling the Kaaba (built by prophet Ibrahim) is simply considered by serious Muslim scholars as ridiculous (see book "Prophets' Stories" by Afif Tabara for instance). Same thing can be said about the raven and the dove and the formation of seas stories.

You're welcome to revise it any way you like. Just keep it no longer than the current length (this is just a matter of balance - don't want one section becoming markedly longer than the rest, and don't want the average to keep creeeping upwards), and cite your sources. PiCo 06:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Myth box

I think the box that has been added to the bottom of the article needs some discussion. (I will paste it here.)

NOTE: Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only. The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false.

Sure, it sounds neutral enough, but is this permissible and necessary as a self-reference? Wikipedia doesn't, as a practice, preemptively guard against offending readers this way, at least not in the main namespace. Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.

Also, as the box itself says, the statement it gives is pretty much implied in the definition of the word myth; if certain readers choose to ignore that fact and get ticked off over an NPOV treatment of the Bible, do we really need a special, self-referential message to placate them? (If so, we'd need them in a whole lot of other places too.) Thanks for your input. –Sommers (Talk) 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, someone has removed the box. If any disagreement arises, your opinions are welcome. Thanks. –Sommers (Talk) 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I really wish that people would take the time to read the archives. Were they to do so, they might find out that the box was not preemptive, but the result of a long dispute. Before going ape and editing an article, it might be best to check into the background. •Jim62sch• 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the archives were more about whether or not to categorize Noah's Ark as a myth that the actual text of the disclaimer; the points raised by Sommers were not addressed (or I missed them and their resolution). mdf 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This box should be hidden in comment tags in the source, not displayed prominently on the article itself. If people remove the category ignoring the established consensus, they can simply be reverted. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Mdf is right, and I haven't heard or found any reason why the box is compatible with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, so I'm going to be bold (or "go ape", if you insist) and follow Christopher Parham's suggestion, changing the box to a comment. This way it ought to still serve its intended purpose of communicating its points to anyone inclined to change the categorization. Thanks for your input, everyone. –Sommers (Talk) 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What about the possibility of the word legend? I'm not saying I'm right in this case, but am offering a suggestion. In my usage, I try to have one meaning each for three words: myth, an untrue story represented as true; legend, a story that may or may not be true and may or may not be represented as true; and fable, an untrue story that may or may not be true but is represented more for the "moral" that it teaches than for its possible factual correctness. (All three involve stories that are often, but not always, old.) I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but thought I'd mention what may be an option. President Lethe 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
See the archives, Abrahamic myth is appropriate. We've been through this already. Look up the definition of myth. •Jim62sch• 01:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One Modern Jewish Take

This article is taking an allegory too far. Most Rabbis acknowledge the Gilgamesh as the original source material and value the science that says a global flood is pure bunk. Has the fact that a global flood would kill all life in the oceans been explored? This article lacks the WikiPedia NPOV and emphasis on science. I am sad that this is singled out as the article of the day. People need to understand that for centuries Noah's Ark has been used as an obvious attack on science. Today it is religious fundamentalists' favorite method of attack upon evolution. And that many then neolithic cultures remembered the last Ice Age melts which caused gigantic local floods can not be taken as proof that the myth of the ark is true. - Sparky 18:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a story. •Jim62sch• 21:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Great article

This is a really great article! I'd never seen so much ballanced information about Noah's Ark in one place! I think the people who say Wikipedia is unreliable are really closed-minded. Sarah crane 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Questions Answered"

The whole section titled "Questions Answered" seems to be inconsistent with the otherwise balanced and scholarly tone of this article. Does anyone else think it should be cut?

It was not in the original. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


I thought much the same and am glad you have removed it. However, I think it is quite important that the "questions answered" should be re-inserted in the section about the literalists, although phrased in appropriate language this time.
Oops, forgot my signature. Polocrunch 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


I haven't even seen it. I'll have to go look through older edits to find it. •Jim62sch• 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

God never wrote anything. Writing is an invention of man. silly people. (unsigned comment by 208.200.248.31)

- keep taking the tablets ;) ...dave souza, talk 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish View

The article says in the second paragraph:

Many Orthodox Jews and traditional Christians and Muslims reject this analysis, holding that the Ark story is true, that it has a single author (Moses), and that any perceived inadequacies can be rationally explained.

According to the Orthodox Jewish view, the auther of the Bible is not Moses, but God. This has to be changed somehow.--aishel 13:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way of removing the 'Moses' reference on the main page? I removed it from the article.--aishel 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

you chould change it to "(dictated to moses by god)" that's what I've heard happened anyway - jedi of redwall

The Orthodox Jewish view is but one view, and it seems that your take is different from that of some orthodox Jews I grew up with. For many people, the Pentateuch is considered/assumed/alleged to have been written (trabscribed?) by Moses (that's why in the Germanic and Scandanavian countries, the books of the Pentateuch are rendered as "First Book of Moses, Second Book of Moses, etc. -- in their own specific language of course). Personally, I think it was written by several people, although that does not matter to the article or to anything else. •Jim62sch• 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that it was dictated by God to Moses, however, the way it is written now only shows that Moses was the one to write it. By leaving it as a 'single author' that lets the reader decide who that author was.--aishel 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll tell you what, we'll leave Moses out (personally, I don't care either way), but if there's a backlash, it's going to go back in. Remember, you need to reach consensus (especially on potentially contentious changes) before making the edit. •Jim62sch• 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
An article on Noah's Ark isn't the place for people to be deciding whether or not Moses wrote this or that, or whether God told Moses to write it, or if, in fact, the Easter Bunny was behind it all. Simply state the facts, which are as Jim62sch says: Moses is traditionally given credit for these works. Further questions can be referred to documentary hypothesis or similar. mdf 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Something strange in the neighbourhood

Quote: The Ark that Noah built was at the time the fastest ship known to man. He was the first man to ever break the sound barrier, and his ship was perfect for catching the pirates that plagued the Mediterranean at the time. Noah was also famous for catching the white whale in Jules Verne's classic, Moby Dick. Someone want to remove that?

LOve it! Some of our vandals are really funny! Nevertheless they must all be caught and hung from the yardarm. PiCo 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

HEAD'S UP

I have reverted the article to the last good featured article version. Most of the edits of the past 24 hours have been POV edits that have destroyed the article. While neither PiCo nor I feel that we WP:OWN the article, we did put too damned much time into it to see it ripped apart by a pack of rabid editors with their own POV's to stuff into an encyclopedic article. Additionally, no care was taken with the format and the last version before the revert looked like a 5th grade school project. •Jim62sch• 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty new around here, so others have probably already discussed this, but... it seems like it would be a good idea to do a 24 hour freeze of featured articles while they are on the main page, especially for something so controversial. Presumably what made this article noteworthy in the first place was the ability to give a fair treatment to a subject that can arouse such passions and name-calling. Would it be a violation of Wikiology if at the end of today one of the folks who turned this into a feature article reverted to eliminate today's madness? - Bert 171.159.64.10 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That was why I reverted, and I think a few other people are keeping an eye on the page. Personally, I think you bring up a really good point -- lock-down featured articles for the 24-hour period they are on the front page.
Perhaps you might want to go to this page, [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)], and make the suggestion and see where it goes. It might be a good way to get used to the craziness in the Wiki-world. :) •Jim62sch• 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's annoying to have people vandalize featured articles but the ability to edit them is still a good showcasing of Wikipedia's features for those who come here for the first time. I've seen featured articles improved heavily under the scrutiny of others. Of course, if a majority of the edits are just vandalism, we might try a semi-protection (only lets users with accounts edit, cuts down on anonymous drive-by vandalism). --Fastfission 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The point of Wikipedia is to allow people to easily create, expand, and improve articles to high quality, not turn high quality articles into crap. While there is always room for improvement, that rarely occurs for featured articles (even if it could easily occur; people are more likely to turn it back into crap than to take the steps to actually improve it). The point of Wikipedia is not to show off the wiki software; it's to create a useful encyclopedia. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 23:21

Of course it happened.

All these poeple saying Noah's ark isn't real are just being stupid. Of course it happened. The Bible says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookwood (talk • contribs)

While some people take the Bible literally, the Bible is possibly only a collection of metaphorical stories, not to be taken literally. Take, for example, the story of Adam and Eve. This story could not have happened in the literal sense, as material evidence supports evolution and not the sudden creation of man from dust. The story is meant to represent many things, such as the stages of growing, the tendency of Man to lie or cheat, &c. Likewise, the story of Noah's Ark could or could not have happened. It could have a basis in fact, but, again, the lack of evidence proves otherwise. The silt deposited by a worldwide flood has not been found. The flood, if it ever occurred, would probably have been limited only to the Middle East. Mahk Twen 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Does it matter for the purposes of this article? •Jim62sch• 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Rookwood, your faith m ay require you to believe the literal truth of the Bible in its every word. Mine does not. There are sufficient different translations and interpretations that to take any word of the Bible as literal received truth is the route to madness as you try to reconcile the irreconcilable. It is quite possible that there wa s agreat flood, and that a man took his animals on a boat and survived, but the idea of the entire Earth being purged is neither plausible nor an essential plank of Christianity - many other stories are interpreted as allegorical, after all. Did it really happen? Maybe. Did it happen in the literal sense of the whole of life on Earth being wiped out with that one family saved? Well, you can believe that if you like, but don't expect many others, Christian or not, to agree. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Math

Uh, these conversions canot both be right. "1413 cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement nearly equal to that of the Titanic, and total floor space of around 96,000 ft² (8,900 m²)" •Jim62sch• 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW: displacement is measured in tons of water, not usually (if ever) volume. •Jim62sch• 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Doing sums was never my strong point. I think the cubic metres measurement was the original here, and I used an on-line converter to produce an Imperial equivalent. The comparison of the Ark to the Titanic (without actual figures) was in my original source, which will be linked via the footnotes. I'll check this out. PiCo 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I just fixed this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, at sea level, one cubic meter of water is one metric ton of water. President Lethe 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Distilled water. Seawater is denser. Added: Besides, the original didn't give a figure. It gave volume (which is never the same as displacement) and asserted a comparison with the Titanic, which happened to be incorrect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't have a large interest in this. I only felt like making a point about the easy conversion of masses and volumes of fresh water at sea level in the metric system. :-) I considered salt water before posting, and decided to leave it out. Also, if these supposed floodwaters were somehow separate from the seas (I'm not saying they were; I'm just getting into little technicalities), and the floodwaters came from rain, then they would not have been salt water. Also, the volume contained by a submarine vessel with infinitely thin skin is the same as the volume of water displaced by that sub when it's submerged. Anyway, maybe I should be quiet, since I'm not deeply interested. President Lethe 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, the water of Noah's flood was all fresh water. The "fountains of the deep" were a fresh-water ocean that the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians believed underlay the earth and gave rise to rivers etc. They may have believed this partly because of the obvious evidence of springs and so on, but also (presumably) because off Bahrain, which was their Dilmun, or earthly paradise, there were and still are springs of fresh water bubbling up from the sea floor. And if the bird of paradise was indeed forever in flight inside the ark, lacking legs to perch with, should its weight be counted or not? PiCo 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been said, but I don't believe it's true. I don't recall any mention of the "fountains of the deep" in either the Babylonian or the Sumerian flood stories. Even if there were, I don't recall the Abzu ever being characterized as fresh or salt water. But even if it were true, a worldwide flood would necessarily connect with the oceans. The water, while more dilute, would certainly not be fresh even not counting the added dissolved minerals from all the drowned land. Either way, it's more dense than pure water.
President Lethe, yes it's an easy conversion, but displacement is always given as a weight because 1) it's independent of whether the water is fresh or salt and 2) it's really a measure of force, not volume. (Typically given in metric tons in SI since mass units are conventionally used as weight units.) You're right about submarines, but surface ships typically prefer the waterline to be below the weather deck. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple stories alone prove nothing...

The last sentence of the Chinese flood legend says...

"This story, along with the many other flood stories from cultures around the world, proves that the flood with Noah's ark really did take place."

Apparently the author is trying to make the point that the multiplicity and synergy of similar stories makes it more likely that the story is true. This needs to be better integrated into the article. Khatores 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is not substantiated by erputable scholarship and will be removed. Eventually. PiCo 00:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

POV renderings of Biblical inerrancy

The rendering of Biblical inerrancy in the article (..."[the Bible] does not deliberately mislead..."} is in sharp contrast to all, or virtually all, of the official positions of denominations which hold inerrancy as a belief. Kindly refrain from inserting subtle theological distinctions which are fundamentally misleading and at odds with the public statements of these denominations...Kenosis 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on what the major denominations actually say. The conservative Protestant/Evangelical position in the US was set out in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). It says that, while the bible is without error, primacy must be given to seeking the intention of each text. Thus when the bible says, "And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands" (Isaiah 55:12), we are not asked to believe that the trees had hands - in other words, the churches recognised that the bible uses poetic and other figurative language. The position of the Roman Catholic church is that the megesterium of the Church, appointed by Christ (i.e., the pope and bishops) have authority to interprept scripture in order to guide faith and morals - in other words, while the bible is without error, it must be interpretted in order to be understood correctly. The Orthodox churches take a similar view, but without according special authority to the Roman pope (a word which, in the Eastern churches, simply means priest).
In short, the attempted insertion that the bible "is without error" is a gross oversimplification, and does not reflect the views of any of the mainstream denominations.
Of course, you're welcome to produce evidence to the contrary. PiCo 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I see no citation or evidence whatsoever for that very arbirary POV, which renders the term "inerrancy" meaningless. It is the equivalent of saying "it could be wrong, but if so [the writers] didn't do it on purpose." That is not by the wildest stretch of imagination what major denominations today hold publicly, nor is it the position of the Chicago statement. What is typical is for a denomination today to make distinctions between matters of importance on redemption, faith and salvation as distinguished from issues of literal historical fact.. You already clarified translation issues to some extent in the clause that follows the phrase at issue here...Kenosis 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You say my wording implies that the bible might be wrong but not on purpose. Not quite. What it's meant to mean is that the confusions and uncertainties which are undeniably in the bible, including the Ark story, are interpreted by those who believe in biblical literalism as being matters capable of eluciadation, and not as evidence that the bible is mistaken. To say that biblical inerrantists believe that the bible is without error (totally, absolutely, no qualifications) is a misrepersentatoin of their position - point out to them that there seem to be two versoins of how many animals were on the Ark, and they'll be quite unfazed, and simply tell you that the text needs interpretation. Your version sets up a strawman definition that they can easily knock down. PiCo 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I see not one citation or source for this POV, and even if there were, it is not the representative position of major denominations today. If you mean to say " the bible is without error, but it must be interpreted in order to be understood correctly," then say it...Kenosis 01:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That is what I want to say, but that's too many words. My "not deliberately misleading" is intended to get that meaning across. PiCo
Kenosis's wording seems better even if it is a bit longer. "not deliberately misleading" is too easily misinterpreted. JoshuaZ 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
PiCo, please go ahead and say what you mean in order to summarize the dominant position today. It is actually a few less words, because it can be woven directly into the interpretation clause that follows, if brevity is your objective. Take care...Kenosis 01:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to work Kenosis's suggestion into the text. Please feel free to revert if you don't think it's useful and clear - I'll accept the consensus here, which seems to be that I'm making a theological mountain out of linguistic molehill. PiCo 01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On mentioning that Ararat was once in Armenia

I'm certainly not one to pick a fight, but PiCo, I find it interesting that you find it so out of place to mention that Ararat was once located in Armenia proper. You may not realize that the notion of the Armenia is already mentioned twice in the article as it stands; unfortunately, given that there is nothing to set the stage for these mentions, the unfamiliar reader will likely not understand why they even exist. I am not going to make an addition to the article in this vein because apparently such an addition is not doing me credit, but I still firmly believe that in other contexts when the subject is what has become the national symbol of a nation, that fact is at the very least worthy of a mention. --DanielNuyu 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I simply take it for granted that everyone shares my knowledge of historical geography. (If you'd like a brief description of the changing borders of Angevin France and the resulting regional variations in the pronunciation of the phoneme /ch/, I'm your man). But put it in the main body of the article, not in the summary section, ok? PiCo 07:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh what the hell, put it in the intro. PiCo 07:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. --DanielNuyu 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well Nationalism sure never caused a war or fifty. ;) •Jim62sch• 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Genesis and the Hebrew Bible

While it is certainly true that the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible corresponds exactly to the book named "Bereshit" in the Hebrew Bible, I think it is incorrect to say that the story of the Ark is "contained in the Hebrew Bible's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9." If you are going to reference the Hebrew Bible, call it "Bereshit," but because that name is lesser-known, I think it is better to say it is "contained in the Christian Bible's book of Genesis," or better still, "contained in the Bible's book of Genesis," since it is in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. I'd change it myself, but I'd rather not have to fight down the objections, so I'm explaining it instead. --Cromwellt|Talk 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. I'll change it to "the biblical book of Genesis". PiCo 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone's already done it. PiCo 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Length of Flood

There is no discrepancy in the Bible as to the length of the flood. Genesis 7:17 tells how long the water kept rising (40 days). Genesis 7:24 tells how long the water stayed at its peak level, no longer rising, before it receded (150 days). Nicholasjc2000 16:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And where does the article say there was? •Jim62sch• 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
At the point where these two verses are referenced, the article is explaining the thinking behind the documentary hypothesis - 19th century scholars say a confusion between these two verses (and others), and based the hypothesis on their attempts to explain this. Please be clear that the article isn't saying the confusion is there - it's just saying that the scholars believed it was. Other explanatoins are of course possible, such as the one you give here. But the article isn't trying to reconcile these two verses, or even saying that the confusion is real: it's just explaining the thinking behind the documentary hypothesis. (I changed your edit back to something like the original because what you put here made nonsense of the point the paragraph is making). PiCo 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I didn't understand it either. •Jim62sch• 01:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Contradictions

"The 87 verses of the Ark narrative leave an impression of occasional confusion"

I changed this to "Some of the 87 verses of the Ark narrative contradict each other". This was reverted apparently to maintain a neutral point of view. While they most definately do leave an impression of occasional confusion, it is far more accurate to say that they contradict each other.

  • One pair of animals directly contradicts seven pairs.
  • Forty days directly contradicts 150 days.

These are by definition contradictions, they cannot both be true. The current phrase, "leave an impression of occasional confusion", is far less neutral. It infers that these are not serious contradictions. They don't just leave an impression of occasional confusion, they are occasional confusion, or more preceisly, occasional contradiction. Kernow 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many apologists will tell you otherwise about these sorts of issues. For example, they will claim that it rained for 40 days and the water stuck around for 150, which is in fact textually consistent. It might therefore be best to say something like "Modern Biblical scholars see the text as full of contradictions" (that's a bit wordy, can someone else give a better wording?) or something like that. However, to say there are contradictoins straight out would seem to violate NPOV. JoshuaZ 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ has it pretty much right. But when writing this I had in mind 19th century scholars rather than modern ones - I was trying to explain why those early scholars felt that something needed explaining. To say that early scholars saw contradictions is perfectly NPOV, especially if citations can me given. Maybe someone else could word something. PiCo 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive

If no one objects, this talk page is about due for another archiving. JoshuaZ 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. Its not due; its over-due. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)