Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 5

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

Where did Noah get the kangaroos?

Should that be discussed in the article?--Steven X 05:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that the problem of gathering the animals was noticed in ancient times (although not with specific reference to kangaroos); the subsection "Rabbinic tradition" gives a representative overview of Jewish traditions on this and related topics. Christian and Muslim commentators don't seem to have addressed it at all. (It's also frequently overlooked that that the authors of Genesis themselves noticed and dealt with a few practical implications of what modern writers would call "plot holes" - notably, the question of how the carnivores were prevented from eating the herbivores was solved by stating that all animals ate plants from the time of Creation up to the moment they exited the Ark). PiCo 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's for the heads-up. Well it was kinda addressed somewhere above.--Steven X 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to explain and without wanting to start a debate on it, some "Christian commentators"—specifically creationists—have addressed this, and in brief the answer from these creationists is as follows:
  • Noah didn't have to gather the animals. The Bible specifically says that God brought them to Noah.
  • The pre-flood world was not the same as the post-flood world, even to the extent of a rearrangement of the continents. On this basis, there is no reason to think that the kangaroos (etc.) had to come from the place now known as Australia anyway.
I'm sure that might raise some more questions in your mind, and I'd be happy to answer them, but I spend too much time arguing these things on these talk pages, so unless your further questions are directly relevant to the content of the article, please continue any further discussion with me by e-mail or on my talk page. Philip J. Rayment 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Philip. Notwithstanding your pointing out that Christians have in fact addressed this question, I'd still prefer not to add it to the article - that section is already quite long enough, and the Christian answers seem broadly in line with the Rabbinic ones. (Except for the idea of a different arrangement of continents - but I'd regard that as pertaining to the Flood rather than directly to the ARK). PiCo 11:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't answering with any intention of anything going in the article, but now that you mention it...
I don't necessarily see a need for it to go in the article, unless there is already something there to the contrary. And with a quick scan through the article I noticed that it says that defenders of the flood (characterised as "literalists") have varying explanations of how the animals travelled the globe to get to the ark, which presupposes that they had to travel the globe. Surely taking the narrative at face value and not reading it in the light of secular history, there is no grounds for this presupposition? I believe that ought to be changed.
Philip J. Rayment 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to improve it, PiCo, but I obviously didn't make myself clear. The article still presumes that, one way or another, the animals had to come from around the globe (from where they now live), instead of allowing for their pre-flood habitats to be much closer to the point of embarkation. Philip J. Rayment 09:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This really belongs in Flood Geology. You're talking about a curious view of plate tectonics that really has no place in this article, unless one were to simply note that the Bible is mute as to whence the animals. •Jim62sch• 11:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's all I was suggesting, that this article should not presume that the animals had to come from the far reaches of the globe. (Although to describe it as "a curious view" seems odd when it's actually the view of one of the leading plate tectonic researchers.) Philip J. Rayment 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And who, pray tell, might that be? With whom is he affiliated? From whom does he draw a salary? What is his education? By whose definition is he a "leading" researcher? Without that info you might as well tell me that Robert Wagner supports reverse mortgages. •Jim62sch• 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're not aware of him? No, I guess not; he's a creationist, after all, and they probably don't count, as far as you're concerned?
  1. Dr. John Baumgardner.
  2. Until fairly recently, he worked for the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  3. Being a U.S. Government institution, presumably the government paid his salary.
  4. B.S. (electrical engineering), M.S. (x 2) (electrical engineering; geophysics and space physics), Ph.D (UCLA) (geophysics and space physics).
  5. U.S.News & World Report, 16 June 1997 . Also, New Scientist apparently spoke highly of his computer model of plate tectonics in an article in its 16 January 1993 issue. (On-line secondary sources for both of these are [1] and [2] respectively.)
Philip J. Rayment 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that he hasn't published any of his creationist ideas on plate tectonics in the scientific press is why we haven't heard of him. He appears otherwise active scientifically, but one would struggle to interpret his published output as being supportive of creationism (at least from the abstracts I've read). He might well be able to square science with creationism in his own head, but he appears unable to persuade any scientific journal (New Scientist doesn't really count) to take his ideas seriously. Annoyingly, I can't quite see what these ideas are, since my university doesn't have online access to New Scientist (an interview with him was published there on 9 December 2006). Now, can I be bothered to track down a paper copy ... Anyway, I think we've drifted quite far from kangeroos, so I'll stop. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"The fact that he hasn't published any of his creationist ideas on plate tectonics in the scientific press is why we haven't heard of him.". Well, that's not very different to what I said! What you are also implying, of course, is that you also have no interest in learning about creationism, particularly from first-hand sources. Which is fine if you don't go around arguing that it's wrong, but a bit close-minded if you pretend to know enough about it to dismiss it.
And of course I wasn't suggesting that he had published his creationist views in journals that are known to be anti-creationist (!). I was simply making the point that one of the leading plate tectonics researchers has the view that Jim62sch described as a "curious view". I wasn't making anything more of it than that.
Philip J. Rayment 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. To be more explicit, I would be interested in creationism were it to say anything of scientific value. I'd have to be interested in it then, as it would become part of my job. As for "first-hand sources" on the scientific validity of creationism, the only sources worth perusing are scientific journals. If information lies outside of these, it's really not worth expending effort on (there's enough to read inside them as it stands). That might sound philistine or gauche, but if some ostensibly scientific idea can't cut the mustard and survive the peer-review of scientific journals, then it's almost certainly not up to much. And creationism is so far from satisfying even the most minimal requirements of science (avoiding flatly contradicting data would be a good start) that it's hard to see why anyone takes it seriously. Regarding "closed minds" (and paraphrasing shamelessly), it's good to have an open mind, but just not so open that one's brains fall out. Anyway, kangaroos seem far in the distance now ... --Plumbago 14:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's hard to take it seriously if you are refusing to actually find out what they say. Perhaps there's a valid reason that they don't publish in the journals you read, but because you've already set a criteria for them to meet, you have blocked yourself from finding out why they don't meet that criteria. Of course, there's also peer-reviewed scientific journals put out by creationists, but you'll find some reason to reject them, because the real problem is not a lack of peer-reviewed papers, but an ideological opposition to creation. Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I knew we'd bump into "science as conspiracy theory" sooner or later. Anyway, I certainly don't have an ideological opposition to creation, what I have is an antipathy to creationism's ideological opposition to reality. A system of thought that begins with the answer and then works backwards to unearth evidence to support it (while ignoring evidence that doesn't) is quite simply not science. Hence, not publishable in scientific journals. Creationism (of the Flood Geology variety) was perfectly defensible several centuries ago: very little was known about the world, and some of what was known even looked like it might support the Flood. Creationism today is more or less indefensible: simply too much is known about the world to support it. That it persists, and even publishes its own "peer-reviewed scientific" journals, is a testament to the power of wishful thinking, wilful self-delusion and a stubborn refusal to accept the results of the scientific method. (This is becoming more like talk.origins; I think we need to wrap it up and agree to disagree.) --Plumbago 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is an example of closing your mind to what creationists actually say, because I didn't mention any conspiracy theory and creationists don't claim that there's a conspiracy. And they are most definitely not opposed to reality. You've made up your own mind about what creationism is instead of actually finding out what it is from the source. And you appear to have contradicted yourself. You claim that it is inherently unscientific, yet admit that centuries ago it was legitimate! If it is inherently unscientific, how could it ever have been legitimate? The rest is little more than a pathetic attempt to malign creationism with your unsubstantiated opinions. Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reseting indent) I think it's way passed time to knock this one on the head. Once upon a time kangaroos were involved; we're now waaaay off base for improving this article. I started a reply to your last post (it's here). Anyway, it's been fun. --Plumbago 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). Philip, the paragraph at the end of the Literalism section is trying to say that literalist websites go to great lengths to address questions raised by those who point to apparent weaknesses in the story in the light of modern knowledge. In other words, the websites don't answer their critics by saying simply "It is written!" - they take the criticism seriously, and try to find reasonable (in their eyes) answers. The idea that Noah's geography was not modern geography is an example - the answer is based on the biblical text, but the question springs from a discordance between the text and what is known today about geography and the distribution of species. PiCo 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article makes it as clear as you do in that paragraph that they don't simply answer "it is written", but that's a separate issue.
Being hypothetical, it is possible that the animals had to come from around the world. It is also possible that they didn't. If they did, then how they did is a problem to be addressed. If they didn't, it's not even a real problem. Even though the article mentions that "literalists" have produced various answers to problems about the flood, the wording still presumes that this particular problem is a real problem that needs addressing.
Philip J. Rayment 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting though that the Bible makes no reference to Kangaroos or any marsupials, or creatures from the Americas. You would have thought one of them at least would have been worthy of note in the Bible? Candy 08:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Has no one yet read the update

to Project Vonbora? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.36.20.66 (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Can't see any update; other than that a presentation was made in Dec 2006. rossnixon 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

68.106.234.100's edits

I thought this needed reversion. A number of typos were uncorrected, a POV was introduced ([3], for instance), the only wikilink added was essentially a self-link, and the new section headers left the "Scrutiny" section in an incoherent state. The sources cited were very obsolete, dating from no later than 1959. Biblical archaeology has changed drastically over the past 48 years, and the consensus in it now represents a very different view of the data than was presented here. See the quote from Dever at the end of the Biblical archaeology article, for example. We really need more recent cites to be truly representative of the consensus in a rapidly changing field. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark in Yemen?

I've heard in a TV documentary that there is a place in Yemen where Noah's ark is believed to came to rest. Could someone verify this? CG 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. Orangemarlin 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a tourist trap. There's actually several supposed ark locations, created as mediaeval tourist traps, of which one or two survive. Adam Cuerden talk 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To Codex and PiCo

STOP!!! The revert war is annoying. There are few times I will support Codex on any point, but this is one of them. Those statements in the main article do need citations. I personally believe them to be true, but they need citations. PiCo, if you believe them to be true, might I suggest a few minute search to find them. Orangemarlin 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Added para on biblical minimalism and the Ark

Some time ago we had a discussion on these pages about academic challenges to the documentary hypothesis. It was fascinating to read into the references that were given at the time (I owe thanks to rossnixon for providing the starting point), and as a result I've become converted to the idea that the DH isn't quite the be-all and end-all of contemporary bibilical scholarship. I've therefore renamed the section from "Documentary Hypothesis" to "Biblical scholarship" and added a paragrpah about the minimalist school and their findings on the Ark. (I've also added a brief sentence about the traditional Mosaic view, but without much detail). I've found it very hard to work out which of these two schools, the DH and the minimalists, actually represents the majority school in contemporary biblical scholarship - sources from both camps claim that they have the numbers, and I suspect that this means the game is a draw, but I have no way of reaching a definitive conclusion. Certainly both DH and minimalism are taught in all the best universities and seminaries. And equally certainly the minimalsts are far more controversial than ever the DH was, especially in Israel and within Orthodoxy, largely for political rather than scholarly reasons (they deny that the bible can be treated as a useful guide to history, a belief which is dynamite in the Middle East). Anyway, I welcome comments on this addition, which I regard as provisional at this stage. PiCo 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional ships

We have either to put in it Noah's Ark or to exclude from it Skíðblaðnir and Argo, or to create category "Ships in sacred texts". Otherwise, why is the Norse/Greek religion considered fiction and Abrahamic is not? 217.198.224.13 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of undue weight. Belief in the Norse / Greek religion today is insignificant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Is that a reason for violating NPOV? By the way, in fr.wiki NA is in category "Bateau de fiction".217.198.224.13 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the NPOV policy that governs the English wikipedia, see WP:WEIGHT. We do consider numerically significant viewpoints in the world today, but not discarded ones like Norse / Greek mythology. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The low popularity of N/G religions could be an argument against 2nd offered variant, but it doesn't solve the whole problem: NA must be under Category:Ships, and there are different significant views about among real or fictional ones (wide-accepted science vs. literalists of Abr. religions).
WP:WEIGHT (and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion too) speaks of representation of viewpoints in articles, but the question of categories presses to choose (other variants are contradictive - contrary categories, - or shameful - no categories). So I offer either to count all theses ships as fictional until the mainstream science doubts it or to create category for ships in religion (better than "in sacred texts", because some of the sources could not be such) or ships, the real existence of which is disputed. Naturally significant viewpoint of Abr. religions should be taken into account, but not accepted as now. 217.198.224.13 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) + 217.198.224.13 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest Category:Mythical ships, "myth" being used in the technical sense that does not denote unreality. This could contain Noah's Ark and the two examples given above, as well as some others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate "mythical ships" because of the ambiguity of the various senses of myth, some of which are pov... we can find a more neutral phrase, the original poster's suggestion of "ships in religion" should suit the purpose well enough. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think "mythical ships" is the best compromise here. The WP:WEIGHT argument for excluding Noah's Ark is specious, as the majority of Christians today do not view the Old Testament as literal history; it is merely an insignificant minority who do. --Gene_poole 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That is far from the truth. It's not an insignificant minority at all as we have been through many times before. Mythical ships is just as pov as anything else trying to push the pov that it is mythical. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless the "truth" can be verified by multiple reliable third party sources it has no bearing on this or any other Wikipedia content discussion. There is, to date, no evidence that Noah's Ark has ever existed outside its mythical context, so that is how it should properly be categorised. --Gene_poole 00:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can show that something has changed since the last time we had this near-identical conversation on this talkpage, it remains an unacceptable POV-pushing to abuse the category system in this way. Have a look through the archives. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can show that Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and NPOV have changed, it remains an unacceptably POV-pushing abuse of the category system to attempt to make an exception to the rule on the basis that a myth is of Judeao-Christian origins, as opposed to originating in some other cultural context. --Gene_poole 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, that's a new angle... Actually, it has been amply demonstrated numerous times already that the Judaeo-Christian viewpoint is not insignificant, and that it is regarded as canonical rather than mythical by every significant Church creed, perhaps you have not been following this page for long... You are attempting to call this view "insignificant" because you are pushing an agenda here... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice red herring. Wikipedia exists to document and classify all knowledge in a values-neutral manner (or as close to it as is practically achievable) - which by definition excludes the teachings of particular churches, cults, religions and belief systems. These may be noted within the article, but they simply cannot form any sort of categorisation benchmark. --Gene_poole 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And following your definition, the viewpoint of all atheists and scholars are excluded also. (To believe that there is no God is a belief system) There is no one who is values-neutral. The only thing that makes sense is to present a well rounded expose which outlines the positions of the major points of view (and even some minor points of view like atheism and scholarly review). Allenroyboy 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And also following his definition, all viewpoints that don't take this story literally are ipso facto not "Judaeo-Christian", regardless of the fact that most Jews and most Christians do not read it that way.
If "mythical" is POV despite being technically correct, then any category that assumes the ark really existed is POV as well. Even moreso because there's no external evidence of it, so there's no neutral sense in which that's a valid viewpoint. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Mythical" is most certainly POV, it is only tchnically correct according to one opinion, and iti s incorrect according to another opinion which is well represented in the published sources relevant to the topic that are impossible to dismiss or call insignificant. I agree with you that if there is a category that assumes the ark existed, it is equally POV and should be removed. For example, if there were a cat "historical ships" it would have to go, for the same reason. But wikipedia does not exist to be a vehicle for anti-religious bigots to attempt to further their aims of labelling what vast numbers of peopel around the world see God's Word, as "mythology", "Mythical", etc. That has historically been used (eg in Communist nations) as POLEMIC language because it is inteneded to serve only to weaken one belief system when attempting to substitute another belief system. Wikipedia does not do that; it is strictly NEUTRAL and anti-religious bigotry is forbidden by policy. If you want to cite your published sources that hold the opinion that it is mythology, you may do so, and I will also cite those who say it is not mythology. That's playing by the rules. But using categories to influence readers and make it appear that the "neutral" encyclopedia officially endorses such a view of the canon as "myths", it not going to fly this month any more than it did last month, because it is cutting below the belt, and is inherently POV-pushing. This has all been patiently explained here many, many times before, but it seems we now have some new accounts who seem oblivious of everything that has been explained on this page to the point of tedium, about how the churches' view of their own scripture is still highly significant today, and their canon has not yet been re-written by the bigots who seek to attack it even on this neutral ground ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no trouble with the fact that many Christians also think the Ark is mythology. But I do think that the only way to tell what numbers believe this or that is to go to the many polls {in the US} that have been done over the last decades. They generally indicate that about 1/2 of Christians believe the Ark real [~ 40% of the population]. About 1/2 who think it myth[~40% of the population]. And Atheists who think it's a myth (~20% of the population). My proposal was that all major positions be presented. And even minor positions such as atheism and non-christian positions. I understand that the US distribution of positions is different from the world distribution, so that ought to be factored in. Allenroyboy 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the griping and sniping and general arguments over this?

  • It belongs in the category fictional ships because it is generally believed to be a purely fictional vessel. Excluding it from this category would not be NPOV. Please look at the category regarding hoaxes, which includes many things which some people believe are real but many believe are hoaxes.
  • It belongs in the category mythological ships (if it exists) because it is in a work of mythology and is derived from other works of mythology (namely Mesopotamian flood myths).

Quit arguing over whether or not it insults your values, because that's silly. Wikipedia cares about NPOV, and we can find dozens of sources that classify Noah's Ark as fictional. Therefore, it belongs in the category fictional ships, regardless of your personal point of view on whether or not it was real. It also probably belongs in the category ancient ships (if it exists) for the exact same reason. So please stop arguing semantics. Titanium Dragon 15:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Category: Mythological Ships

Because mythological ships are (arguably) somewhat distinct from fictional ships (because some people believe they are real due to their religious beliefs), I think this category should be created; generally, when people are looking for fictional ships, they're going to be looking for Captain Hook's ship, not Noah's Ark, and as such this category is a much more intuitive (and less controversial) classification - if people want to go and compare mythological vessels it makes sense for this category to exist. Of course, all this assumes there are enough ships for such a category; I'm not aware of any others offhand though I'd be willing to go look for other such articles if we agree to make this category. Titanium Dragon 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat this as many times as necessary until it finally starts to sink in. Labelling Noah's Ark a "fictional ship" or a "mythological ship" or any other synonym is an underhanded method of pushing a POV in violation of wikipedia's cornerstone NPOV policy. Yes, there are many who believe it was fictional. There are also many who believe it is not fictional. Wikipedia must be neutral without ttaking sides, and it will not endorse either of these views as long as I am around. With the mentality of the people who want wikipedia to endorse this view and proclaim the Bible to be fiction, I would expect their next step to be trying to somehow eliminate their opposition, so they can then claim their opposition doesn't exist -- that has always been their mentality throughout history. But history also shows that persecution never works, it almost always backfires and it is all the more disgusting when a supposedly neutral platform like wikipedia is utilized by these types for fighting wars against people's freedom of belief, and telling them what they are "supposed" to believe, instead of simply letting them make up their own minds. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I am going to repeat this as many times as necessary until it finally starts to sink in Please, do not. There is too much text here already. Labelling Noah's Ark a (..) "mythological ship" or (..) is an underhanded method of pushing a POV. What is NPOV violation in any way, it's different attitude to fictionality of Greek/Norse and Abrahamic religions. Is marking NA as fictional so? That's questionable, since considerable minority claims it to be real, but mainstream science doesn't. To be neutral is deeply connected with to be verifiable, and verifiability is in favour of fictionality. To leave NA outside of Fictional ships as it is now would be definitely NPOV violation in favour of Biblical literalists, so I suggest to create a category for ships in religion and mythology (originally thought to be real, but not proved anyhow). Probably we could let NA be also somewhere in "marginal researches". With the mentality of the people who want wikipedia to endorse this view and proclaim the Bible to be fiction, I would expect their next step to be trying to somehow eliminate their opposition Is that thought to be a personal attack? And are those French-speaking wikipedians, who placed NA (featured article) in fiction, such monsters? 217.198.224.13 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
But obviously the issue has not gone away and neither has the plot to have wikipedia endorse the view that categorizes Judaeo-Christian scripture as "fiction", so obviously I am going to have to keep pointing out that this is the most blatant POV pushing for as long as it continues. Come one, people. It is not endorsing the literalist position, by NOT labelling the Bible as fiction, someone here is not playing with a full deck in the logic department. What would be endorsing the literalist position, would be if we added a category like, say, "Historical ships". That would be every bit as much a POV violation, and I would protest that category for the same reason. What NEUTRALITY means is that we do not misuse categories in this way at all, and we do not add it to ANY POV categories that make a judgement for the reader about canonical texts. Play by the rules, that means go ahead and cite your sources who say it is fictional within the article itslf, just as other can cite their sources saying otherwise, and let the reader decide for themself what cited arguments he finds stronger. If you cannot play by the rules, don't try to bend them with biased categorizing that express objectionable and offensive POV's like "Fictional". That is an attack against all the religious creeds that proclaim scripture not to be fiction, and wikipedia cannot enter the business of telling people what books to trust and what books not to trust. "Fiction" should only be applied to those works that were clearly intended as fiction and that nobody disputes were intended as fiction. This is another category from fiction. Basic neutrality means simply the project does not take any position whatsoever on whether it is fact or fiction. If you still do not seem to understand, I will be more than happy to explain this principle at much greater length. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I rarely offer compromises in this type of discussion because I absolutely think that Noah's Ark is a myth, but I do have one for this intense discussion. Check out this article List of world's largest wooden ships. In the article, we defined Noah's Ark as "unconfirmed." It really is NPOV, and we can toss it in with other unconfirmed (but probably mythical) ships like the Chinese Treasure ships. Orangemarlin 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
CS, I'm tired of hearing you whine. Quite simply put, you've demonstrated time and again you don't know what Mythology is, and want every article written biased towards Creationism. Enough is enough. Every time I see you in an article like this, you're POV pushing. Every time. Maybe that's just because I only remember it when you do it, but its getting tired and boring. Mythology is a well-known, often used term. My high school had a class called mythology. My university has numerous classes on mythology. The article about Arbrahmic Mythology uses the word. Quite simply put, no.
It is a mytholgical ship because it shows up in mythology. Troy is a mythological city for the exact same reason. Atlantis is a mythological city for the same reason. Calling it anything else is stupid because that's what they are, even if they're real places. Titanium Dragon 10:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter a bit if you are "tired" of my pointing out the WP:NPOV policy, but I am going to remind you of it every time you try to violate it, every time, every time. If you aren't used to it by now, you probably never will be. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you aren't; what you're saying is that something which does not violate the WP:NPOV policy does violate the WP:NPOV policy because you don't understand what the word "Mythology" means, and for some bizzare reason feel that Judeo-Christian mythology should not be grouped with every other religious mythology, in spite of RSs doing exactly that. There's no reason to expect special treatment for your religion. Titanium Dragon 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Codex, don't be throwing Judeo into your argument. Truly, right wing Christian Fundamentalists are probably the only group that thinks the Bible isn't fiction. Well maybe fiction is harsh, I'd call it metaphor. Most Jews, save for a few way out there Orthodox (and I don't mean Orthodox in the meaning of one of the three branches of US Judaism, I mean the Jewish version of right wing fundamentalists), consider the context of what is being written in the Torah rather than the literal story. Noah's Ark is a metaphor for a whole number of moral codes. It's simply a myth, and to classify it otherwise is POV pushing. Orangemarlin 11:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bring up this category over in the wikiproject on ships. Titanium Dragon 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you bring it up. It is still an underhanded attempt to do an end-run around the cornerstone WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, and WP:VER policies, as well as several other policies, through the use of disputed, polemical "attack" categories. This proposed action is and will continue to be disputed, because it is unnecessarily pushing a POV, solely for the sake of pushing a POV, and attempting to force wikipedia into officially endorsing the school of thought that Holy Scripture is false. Cite your opinions if you can, but if you can't, do not use polemic and objectionable POV-expressing categories that cannot be cited. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be obvious at this point I'm ignoring you, because this has been gone over with you ad infinitum. I'm bringing it up with the relevant people, because A) this category should exist anyway and B) you're the only person who argues against any use of the word mythology every single time. I'm not using wikipedia to endorse my views, I'm improving wikipedia by categorizing things appropriately, using correct language, linking properly to other topics, and the like. I am not attempting to POV push, and as far as I can tell, it is you, who have consistantly argued with other editors by yourself on this topic, who is the problem. I gave notice here because I felt it would be "sneaky" not to inform the users of this page that I brought it up elsewhere. Titanium Dragon 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You aren't just ignoring me, you are ignoring and totally brushing off the significant viewpoint out there of many groups that the Ark is NOT mythological, and you are ignoring WP:NPOV and a great many other official policies. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, because no one holds that the Ark was not mythological. Read mythology. You simply don't know what the word means apparently. Titanium Dragon 16:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Codex, to flip it around, you're ignoring and totally brushing off objective evidence out there of many different sorts that point to the Ark BEING mythological. For the Ark story to be completely literally true, it's necessary to entirely overturn contemporary science, and to negate all other "Holy Scriptures" that happen to describe a different history. That seems rather a lot for one interpretation of a written record. Anyway, as Titanium Dragon has pointed out several times already, myth ≠ fiction. --Plumbago 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
From the mythology article:
A mythology is any body or cycle of myths – a narrative, oral tradition, or a popular belief or assumption, based on the legendary heroes of a culture. [1] Mythology sometimes involves supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.
I'm pretty certain that no worthwhile biblical scholar will say that this is not what the Bible is. Titanium Dragon 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It is most definitely disputed by significant groups, including the Pope and many others, whether "mythology" is an appropriate label for any part of Holy Scripture. Historically, it has been used as an attack word eg. in former Communism in an attempt to weaken people's beliefs, which should not be the role of Wikipedia. That it is synonymous with "fictional" according to every English dictionary and in the minds of nearly all English speakers is self-evident from this talk page, since only a few days ago the very same POV-pushers were trying to tag this as FICTIONAL SHIPS (see above). It has never been proven whether or not it is fictional, and it is still wideluy believed, do not fight your wars on NEUTRAL ground. I am not arguing for any cat abuse or POV pushing, like putting this in Category:Historical ships for instance. I am insisting that Wikipedia NOT endorse one viewpoint and attack the other viewpoint in violation of WP:NPOV. This is a most serious matter, I know I have repeated all these same points repeatedly but they do not go away just because you are tired of hearing them. You are just going to have to learn to make peace with that bee in your bonnet that ceaselessly drives you to attack other peoples' firm beliefs every chance you get. That approach isn't doing any good, and has never ever produced any good results. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What dictionaries, exactly, have mythology as a synonym for fictional? I'm looking in my dictionaries, and none of them have that meaning. Myth is a synonym for it, but not mythology, which is used exclusively to refer to what the Wikipedia article's intro states. There's a difference between the two words, and while all mythology involves not all myths, not all myths are mythology. For instance, the urban legend abbout the guy who strapped a JATO rocket to his car is a myth, but its not mythology. And the primary definition of myth most places I look is something along the lines of "a traditional or legendary story, especially ones involving deities". Noah's Ark would go in Mythological Ships along with the Argo and a number of other ships from various mythologies. You may be a fundamentalist Christian, and I don't care. That's irrelevant and immaterial. Your lack of understanding of what NPOV is, what the word mythology means, and apparent lack of desire to increase your knowledge is what is relevant. Saying "it has never been proved to be fictional" is silly, because the Flood has been proven to have never occured. That you don't accept that is irrelevant; however, I don't think putting it in Category: Fictional Ships is useful because that's not where I'd go to look up the Argo or Noah's Ark; I'd look in Category: Mythological Ships because they are from mythology, not from what is conventionally regarded as fiction. Titanium Dragon 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mythological" ≠ "Fictional", Pure and simple. CS, you need to get over your hypersensitivity on the subject. You're ranting.

Even fervent Christians such as J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis would agree that myth is in many ways even more true, and more powerful, than literal history. It's one of Tolkien's theses; his influential essay "On Fairy-Stories" is about precisely that. The fact that the Christian myth is also historically true is exactly what made Lewis a Christian in the first place. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All dictionaries have the definition of mythological = fictional. That is the whole point of your attempting to put this category here. You are explicitly trying to suggest that it is fictional. You really aren't kidding anyone here but yourselves about that. Find a less ambiguous and offensive term to express what you are trying to say if it isn't that it is fictional, 'mythological' has a history of polemic usage and should not be applied to any of the world's existing major belief systems including CHristianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc..., only to discarded ones, as with any neutral encyclopedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You're simply incorrect. Yes, all dictionaries give "fictional" as a second definition, but never as the first. That's just not its primary meaning. This is therefore a matter of you selecting which definition is most offensive to you and running with it. I suggest you assume good faith instead. I might as well read your word "neutral" above as meaning a pH of 7 and complain vociferously that you're making no sense. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the definition 'fictional' is the original significance of 'mythology' in the history of English, and still the way it is used commonly. It has been used often to attack religion. It is not neutral. If you are trying to suggest something about the Ark besides 'fictional' now, please find a more neutral (and less ambiguous) alternative that gets the same point across, like Ships in Religious Narratives. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"Myth" is not an English word in origin, but Ancient Greek, where it simply means "story". Its English sense as "fictional" did not appear until 1840. Earlier use of "mythology" in the sense of a body of myth is attested well before that. See [4].
But that's irrelevant. We're speaking modern English here, not the English of 160 years ago. I might as well complain that the original meaning of "fact" connoted an evil deed, so you shouldn't use it as you did in your post. Applying words only in their historical senses (even where you're correct about them) is absurd. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I refer you to the text at the top of Category:Mythology. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
We are speaking modern English. It has been shown that most of the usages of myth or mythological on wikipedia are contrasted with 'historical' in the context of 'unhistorical'. There is no other implication in this context. The academic usage you speak of came about recently according to the history of the word in English. Myth has always meant fable, a story that didn't happen. Why try to deny that this is the POV you are trying to push, when its 'unhistoricity' has never been proven to the satisfaction of significant numbers of groups you are brushing off. Texts like the Quran, Hindu sacred texts etc. should also not be categorized as "mythology"; this cannot be done neutrally, because these are still adhered by large numbers in the world today, and noone has a right to discount a significant view of the world or insist that only theirs is the only correct one. I guess I will have to appeal by requesting further comments on the neutrality concerns of this categorisation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Your claim about the definition of "myth" is untrue, and I challenge you to provide a reference for it. I have already provided a reference for my opposite claim.
And yes, "myth" is contrasted with "history", but not in the same sense that "fictional" would be. A myth is the story told about an event as distinct from the bare facts about it. (One of those facts may be that the story is entirely fictional, but this is at least as often not the case.) All of its content may or may not be historical. For example, an oral transmission of an otherwise unrecorded conversation between two of the people involved is of necessity not historical, but it may well have actually happened and in more or less the terms received. The conversation then becomes part of the mythology of the event. That does not mean it's untrue -- although oral transmission being what it is, it may well be. The point is that "myth" applies to either case, because it's more about the story than the event as such, and is therefore about the meaning people find in it. To claim that a story is not mythological is therefore tantamount to claiming it has no meaning. That is surely not your intent. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


My intent is to make very clear to you that no matter what your semantics, this is "loaded" terminology that is very blatantly being used solely to push a POV and attack against a major world-view on the part of another world-view, and this is an unacceptable violation of neutrality. It is making wikipedia officially endorse the very same POV terminology that was enforced in Marxist countries. This 'consensus' was achieved by junta, and I am disputing this gross POV travesty and requesting further comment for a wider consensus. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Codex. Avoid loaded terms. Stick to common english usage for the benefit of the majority of readers who do not know the subtle academic usage. rossnixon 01:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
CS, our point is that you don't know what you're talking about. You simply repeat over and over again "this breaks NPOV", then proceed to make the same argument every single time. Its a mantra. You don't understand the NPOV policy, you don't understand what the words mean, or you deliberately misinterpret them. I'm not sure why, maybe its just that you're insecure, but you seem to have this severe problem with coming to grips with it. Quite simply put, you are paranoid and seem to think we're Communists (yes, with a capital C) or Evil Atheists or what have you. We're Wikipedia editors. You aren't asking for wider consensus; you simply argue against anything that doesn't fit your very narrow viewpoint and keep on insisting until others give up in frustration or eventually someone gets an admin involved and you get bannned from editing an article. I'm too lazy to be put off by someone like you though, and will eventually just deal with it via the adminstrative route if I get fed up enough with it.
Also, quit making references to communism. Reductio ad Hilterum is not a valid argument, and any intelligent individual should know it. Either you think it is a valid argument, or you are trying to manipulate people. Titanium Dragon 01:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This is only the beginning. By the very same process you have railroade this POV in here, you could proceed to tag the Quran as "mythology", and every creed that anyone believes in, because that is basically what wikipedia is to you. A place where you think you can push your own POV on the world, and nobody else's matters, and you can try to make an example out of anyone who opposes you. I think the comparison to Marxist tactics is very apt, and this is the most disturbing trend that threatens the entire project. I plan to bring this to the attention of everyone down the line up to the very top until justice and neutrality are restored and Wikipedia can again claim to be a neutral place. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no one would tag the Quran that way. As I said -- and which you still do not seem to grasp -- what makes a mythology is the story. The Quran has very little in the way of story, as you'd discover if you'd actually read the thing. (I encourage you to. It's not very long, and no Christian's faith is thereby endangered as there's nothing particularly compelling about it. But it's best to be informed.) And you're wrong about Marxism. They didn't speak English, and did not denigrate religion in English terms.
Let's be honest though. When you say "neutral" what you really mean is that you want your POV to be hewn to everywhere. Is your POV truly neutral? Prove it. Tell me what would compel a person who had no reason to believe the Bible was sacred or factual in any way to believe that the Flood happened and that a man build a boat so he and breeding pairs of all the world's animals could escape it. Not one person who believed this story literally, of whom I've asked this, has answered me, ever. If taking it literally, or even giving any credence to taking it literally, reflects a neutral POV then it should be easy. So why has no one done it? And why won't you be able to? (You'll obviously have to appeal to authority, since I don't expect you to have the expertise on your own to give an answer. Just ensure that those you cite can be weighed equally with the very well supported consensus of mainstream sciences such as geology.)
By the way, go ahead and knock yourself out to get wider commentary. Just so long as you do it only at WP:RFC and not with spamming the user talk pages or project pages of those you know agree with you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Another guideline that has not yet been mentioned is WP:CAT. 'Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.' rossnixon 02:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It is self-evident. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No it is not, it is purely contentious and actively being disputed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have, in fact, read WP: CAT, and did so before I made my proposal, because unlike some people I actually familiarize myself with Wikipedia standards and guidelines.

Noah’s Ark is by its very definition a mythological ship. Why? First off, by the defintion of the word it is mythological. Second, it appears in Jewish mythology. It is a part of Abrahamic mythology. The fact that these categories already exist, the fact that you don’t know what the word mythology means, the fact that many, many, many RSs call it such… well, frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You just don’t. You have not bothered to look into Wikipedia’s preexisting standards for this, you haven’t bothered to read what the word mythology means, and you frankly are just being stubborn.

Quite simply put, your opinion is irrelevant because you’re wrong. It isn’t a violation of the NPOV policy, and there is massive precedent set on the issue of mythology not being a loaded word. The end. Titanium Dragon 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has yet shown that this categorization is uncontroversial. There are many user discussions that prove otherwise. Therefore, according to WP:CAT this category does not apply. rossnixon 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has shown this is categorization is controversial; reverted. Seriously, read mythology and abrahamic mythology. This has been dealt with elsewhere previously on Wikipedia, and the fact that categories such as this exist indicate they are quite acceptable. Titanium Dragon 04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Look through this talk pages archives. It is obviously controversial. rossnixon 04:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That a number of editors objects on fallacious grounds doesn't constitute a controversy. Can you provide a valid source for your point? Can you source your claim that mythological means fictional? Can you source your claim that there is a controversy?
And for the record, looking through this Talk page suggests that even the notion that the Ark is a ship is controversial. We cannot simply allow mistaken editors to decide that something is controversial, as that would give individual editors far too great powers. -- Ec5618 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a more pertinent point, which is that the editors who complain about it have always been the same handful, and they simply repeat the same thing over and over. They don't show why it is considered controversial, nor why it is acceptable to have categories such as abrahamic mythology or jewish mythology, or why the greek gods can be referred to as being in mythology but not their god. Titanium Dragon 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories should be uncontroversial. Any controversy that exists should be documented in articles only. I had a similar dispute last year. I wanted to add Cat:Causes_of_Death to the Abortion article. I backed down when I was persuaded that WP:CAT meant that it had to be an uncontroversial categorization. See [[5]] rossnixon 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The category causes of death IS uncontroversial, and if you actually looked at what is in that category, you'd find (shockingly!) that murder isn't a cause of death :P The reason is fairly obvious, as the "causes of death" are things like liver failure. Titanium Dragon 10:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The ark is not a ship

The ancient document that defines the ark does not describe or label it as a ship. Those who have not read the description might assume it is described as a ship based on the rumors of others who have a POV or who have not taken the time to read the defining document themselves. Even if one does not read the account of Moses, they can check the dictionary. A ship has a means of propulsion (sails, an engine) and is meant for transport. An ark is a box or chest and is a place of protection, security, or refuge.

Interesting, looks like the Hebrew/Egyptian word used "tbh" means something more like "life preserver" see http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/what_shape/ark_box.htm rossnixon 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing like trying to split hairs. The Ark has often been called a barge by Creationists. It is its size that makes it comparable with ships, not its propulsion or lack there of. The structural design will be nearly the same whether you make a barge or ship of the Ark's dimensions. The URL mentioned above also discusses reasons for the dimension ratios of the Ark. Allenroyboy 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone reformatted my comments. I pointed out the Ark is, by the very definition, not a ship, in response to the attempt to categorize the Ark as a “mythical ship”. While it is true that the Ark shares size in common with a ship, or even a grand barge, it is not the lack of propulsion that makes the Ark distinctive. Obviously it is the nature of “refuge”, as distinct from “transport”, as in the case of a barge or ship. The refuge, according to the historical record, was necessary to save Noah from the wrath that was poured out on the earth--the wrath that the skeptics reject.
Clearly, to redefine (and hence reject or obscure) an object’s defining characteristic (namely “refuge”) by renaming or reclassifying it (as a transport vessel) is the ultimate coup. If everyone accepts “ship” then there is no “refuge”, which helps them set aside the whole proposition of wrath, which is the real reason this topic is of rabid interest to atheist and skeptics in the first place.
I'll agree with that. Allenroyboy 04:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (how did you post without your name attached???)
If the defining feature of a ship is purpose, and that purpose is transportation, then the USS Kitty Hawk isn't a ship either. (Being an aircraft carrier, its primary purpose is to fight - does this put it in the same category with Madison Square?)PiCo 07:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (Why did you post without your name attached?)

Wikipedia's definitions: "A ship is a large watercraft capable of deep water navigation" + "A watercraft is a vehicle, vessel or craft designed to move across (or through) water for pleasure, recreation, physical exercise, commerce, transport of people and goods, and military missions", so Noah's Ark should be counted as ship (and, by the way, it doesn't contradict purpose of transportation. Not known whereto, but transportation is obvious). 217.198.224.13 10:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is all incumbent upon an accurate definition, let me pull out my trusty Oxford English Dictionary, which is the most definitive work on the English language. Let's remember, that ark probably was a commonly used word in the 1500-1600's when English translations of the Bible were written, so the OED will be best at the etymology of a word. So, they define ark as: 3. The large covered floating vessel in which Noah was saved at the Deluge; hence fig. a place of refuge. This definition of the word, of course, was meant literally for Noah's Ark. It's usage in this form arose in around 1200 in England. However, by 1475 the word came to mean 4. transf. A ship, boat, or similar floating vessel. Although Ark's originally meaning was 1. A chest, box, coffer, close basket, or similar receptacle. I think we can conclusively argue that at the time the bible was translated into English, the translators were using the word as it was being used in the 15/16th centuries as a ship. Orangemarlin 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The word in question is not the English word that came thousands of years after Moses wrote of the two differently sized objects that saved Noah, and Moses as a baby. (Gen 6 and Ex 2)
Conclusively deciding that Moses knew that the future English word “ark” would mean “ship” thousands of years after he wrote in Hebrew (and that he fully approved of the future meaning) humorously proposes that Moses intended to write about the "ship of baby Moses" (that was the size of a basket) and the ship of the covenant (that held the ten commandments). Talk about a waste of materials! Since, as you seem to argue, Moses knew that the word "ark" would one day mean "ship" in English, he should have just used the Hebrew word for "ship" and the Hebrew word for "basket" instead, to eliminate this humorous disparity in the sizes of these ships!! (Or maybe we could just read the text and realize that Moses did not use the term in question to describe the size of two objects of greatly different size--he used other terms for that--but instead he used the same term to describe the same function and purpose that each had in common.)Katherin 04:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Not Moses dear, Yahweh - Moses merely took dictation. And naturally, Yahweh knew exactly what the meanings of future words in future languages would be. 05:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating! You just threw Orangemarlin under the bus and ended his 25 year streak.Katherin 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
OM is a streaker?PiCo 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't streak. That would probably have me thrown in jail or cause massive strokes by anyone who saw me. Second, 25 year streak of what? Third, since I wasn't there, how do I presume to know what Moses meant to write, accidentally wrote, or didn't even write. All I have are the facts that my Hebrew is a bit rusty, I can only read the English version of the Torah which uses Ark as a place of refuge that floats on the water (a ship), and this discussion is a bit silly. Of course, if we take the literal meaning of ark, then maybe he built an mythical huge house on stilts to stay above the mythical (and physically impossible) flood. Orangemarlin 11:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This picture of streaking approaches vandalism.
You might actually sorta be close. Taking the literal meaning of the Hebrew word for ark (Gen 6, Ex 2), we could indeed propose a house on stilts, until we consult the terms of the text that describes the sizes of the objects, more akin to a ship or barge and a basket, but extraordinarily distinct (so much so that it required a distinct word, though “ship” and “basket” were available.) Understanding the terms precisely seems sorta reasonable, rather than silly.
The 25 year streak was in reference to your introductory statement in your email to Dr. Gillespie. I think you intimated (something along these lines) that you contacted him via your edu email (for credibility to a fellow scientists) and you assured the good Dr. Gillespie that you had not made a mistake in 25 years. But as a REAL scientist, you were interested to know if 1) Dr. Donbaz and he were also REAL scientists, and 2) as such, if they were aware of the public allegations that they had some part in Project Von Bora, and 3) if they would publicly deny having anything to do with it. By now we have a pretty good handle on the answers to your questions.Katherin 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)



Ark defined by purpose

If we assume a priori that the ark is a ship then we will conclude that it is a ship and should be defined in like manner to a ship. The defining feature of a ship is not purpose. On the other hand the defining feature of the Ark is the purpose.

A ship has means of propulsion, means of both effecting navigation (such as a rudder) and evaluating progress (such as a compass), and is obviously for the purpose of transporting (for instance, aircraft to a location where they themselves cannot effectively reach, as in the Kitty Hawk.).

But the ark is not a ship and is not defined in the same manner as a ship. All attempts to define the ark by means other than the authoritative document, or by definitions or words that are contrary to the same, are simply intellectually dishonest.

There are two objects that are labeled as an “ark” by the authoritative document. One is very large (the ark of Noah) and one is very small (the ark of bulrushes for Moses). In both cases, there was a death sentence, and in both cases water was the means in which the death sentence would be carried out. Neither the ark of Noah or the Ark of Moses possessed a means of propulsion, or a means of navigation. Neither was for the purpose of transport.

In both cases, Noah and Moses deserved to be a part of the death that everyone else suffered, but they obtained mercy by being inside a place of refuge.

The word ark is devoid of size, propulsion, navigation, and transport. It is full of refuge, protection from a death sentence, and mercy.

Perhaps one can reject the idea of the wrath of God and of Pharaoh, and consider the two arks to only be props in a good story, but any attempt to change the definitions of the words used would leave someone exposed to the accusation of manipulating the story to set up a straw man. Just call it bunk if you like. But at least be intellectually diligent and honest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.170.143 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

We speak about specific Noah's Ark here, not about arks at all, which of course are not obliged to be ships. However the NA according to Bible was large, it was capable of deep water navigation and it was watercraft ( floating construction, used for water transporting)... The definition of ship which Wiki uses is given above; NA matches it. So NA has to be called (along with "ark") a ship. If NA wasn't for purpose of transport, then whatfor? It had to bring Noah (+...) somewhere. 217.198.224.13 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
To define the meaning of the word for "ark", we can not ascribe to it our preconceived definition. To be intellectually honest, we must consult the text. The word for ark is used only two times. Noah’s ark and Moses ark. The only reason we understand the size of these two objects is because there is a fuller description of their dimensions. It is not the work “ark” that reveals size to us. But in contrast, the size of an object called a ship is understood by the sole word of “ship” to be very large.
Not only does the word “ark” fail to provide an understanding of its size, “ark” also does not allow navigation, transportation, or propulsion to be part of the description. Indeed all of these characteristics are conspicuously absent from the ark. In other words, all of the defining characteristics of a ship (size, transportation, navigation, and propulsion) are NOT defining elements of the word ark.
Neither Noah’s ark or Moses ark had any characteristics in common with a ship, on account of the nature of being an ark. The characteristics that they had by reason of being an ark are: they were a place of refuge from the sentence of death that each of them were subject to. Both of them received undeserved mercy and were sparred the death that fell to others.
A ship is a ship. An ark is an ark. They are unquestionably completely different. A careful reader will not make the mistake of using the terms interchangeably. An honest reader will not attempt to obscure the distinction.
Fascinating. Should just like to mention that there are not two but three arks mentioned in the Torah, the third being the Ark of the Covenant, which didn't even attempt to go seafaring. The Hebrew word means a chest, a box, a container. Getting back to Noah's chest, box or container, the word used to describe it (i.e., ark) and the directions given for its construction (x cubits long, y wide, z high), suggest that it was an elongated cube - that is, it had no hull, despite the painting by Mr Hicks at the top of the article. Such a shape is, of course, quite un-seaworthy, even un-riverworthy, (poor Moses!), hence the convention that it had a ship-shaped hull. I don't blame Mr Hi9cks at all for his un-Biblical hull. Perhaps we should regard the Ark as a composite creature, ship from the waist down, holy relic-box from the deck up. PiCo 04:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Not so. The easy mistake of "discovering" three arks is owed to the limits of translation. In English, the "ark" of the covenant appears to be the same word. It is not. In the original language it is a different word. Only two objects (the arks of Noah and Moses) are called an "ark", using the particular Hebrew word. It is of note that the Hebrew word for "ship" was not used and is not a synonym, for reasons that should be obvious.
Even the online Thesaurus "gets it" and does not list "ship" among the synonyms: adytum, ark, asylum, blowout center, cell, cloister, convent, cover, covert, defense, den, habitat, harbor, haunt, haven, hermitage, hideaway, hiding place, hole, hole up, ivory tower*, port, privacy, refuge, resort, retirement, safe house, safe place, sanctuary, seclusion, security, shelter, solitude [6]
Ark doesn't need to be a synonym for ship in order for Noah's Ark to be a ship. Here's the other possibility: ships and arks are two sets having Noah's Ark as common element. It is in the intersection of these sets, see intersection (set theory). P.S. Wiki community has already decided that NA is a vessel (see at the top of this FEATURED article), and NA as vessel in this sense is obviously ship (too big for a boat). 217.198.224.13 13:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So that's settled then: the OED says Noah's Ark was a ship, and set theory says so too - tho it seems we could settle on calling the Ark a vessel, just like USS Kitty Hawk (whose prime purpose is, of course, to protect these great United States and all freedom-loving persons, of whatever beliefs, who sail in her). PiCo 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). I gather that all this kerfuffle over the nautical identity of the Ark is over which internal link should be made from the opening sentence of the article. The sentence defines the NA as a "vessel", which no one seems to object to. But there's a wikilink attached, and the question is, where should it point? Until I amended it just now, it pointed to boat, which is a bit ridiculous - go to that page and you see photos of little dinghies. I've redirected it to ship, which seems more appropriate in view of the "vessel"'s size. And the general feeling of this discussion has been that the Ark is not, after all, defined by its religious identity. So please, let's just leave it at "ship" now, ok? PiCo 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder on Talk Page Guidelines

I just deleted two sections from the talk page - please see Talk Page Guidelines, espcially:

  • Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. (My emphasis).

Thanks folks.

PiCo 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, I consider your denial to be your highest compliment. Regrets, my love to Orangemarlin. Katherin 07:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Love to me eh? Aw shucks. I am actually refusing to contribute to these articles any more. I have no patience for the POV pushing of certain individuals (you are not included, at least right now), so I'm sitting all of these discussions out. However, I saw my name, so let me reply. Never heard from the dear doctor in Seattle. He probably thought I was a nutjob!!!!!! Orangemarlin 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Dispute

Are any editors other than User:Codex Sinaiticus disputing the neutrality of this article? For the purposes of clarity, it would appropriate for CS not to reply much in this section and other editors to not incite him with personal attacks--ZayZayEM 02:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute the article as such, but do dispute the same Category that Codex disputes. The categories are not in the main "body" of the article, but arguably may be regarded as part of the article. rossnixon 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is your dispute on the basis of neutrality (not say, accuracy - valid dispute, but distinct from POV)--ZayZayEM 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to other deluge myths

The focus in the section Noah's_Ark#Other_deluge_accounts should be on the comparisons and contrasts as recorded by reliable sources (we don't want OR) between the Noah myth and these other myths. To me it seems there is too much msicelleneous repeating of what those myths said without tying itback tothe topic at hand: Noah's myth. There is an article on deluge (mythology), we don't need to summarise that entire article here--ZayZayEM 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I could do this:
  • Move the "Ark in later Abrahamic traditions" section up to number 2 positionk, immediately following the Narrative section - this would give a chronological flow from the actual Genesis story through the later elaborations/commentaries etc.
  • Roll the three sections "Biblical scholarship," "The ark under scrutiny," and "Other flood accounts" into one, possibly headed "The Ark under scrutiny", and dealing with post-17th century scholarship surrounding the Ark. The "flood accounts" subsection of that would be drastically shortened, and linked to some ercent theories advanced by the contemporary (i.e. currently alive and writing) scholars.
  • That would leave the two sections on Biblical literalism and the modern-day search for the Ark as the final two sections of the article, possibly giving the overall article a better shape.
But, as all existing editors know, this article deals with a highly sensitive subject, any any major (and most minor) alterations tend to result in major battles. So I won't do anything without the ok of the overwhelming majority of editors. PiCo 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This sounds like a more rational way of organizing the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a more sensical way to organize the article. Titanium Dragon 10:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. However, let's not give too much undue weight to the modern-day search for the Ark. Talk about pseudo archeology or something. Orangemarlin 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you explain how there is (or can be) undue weight in the modern-day search for the Ark? Perhaps figures could be supplied to show the size/scope of organisations involved.--ZayZayEM 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Word choice is VERY important!

Word choice is very important.

When Csernica created this Category:Mythological ships, expressly contrived just for the purpose of getting the word "mythology" on the Noah's Ark page, he was trying to make a point that the word is somehow innocent. In order to do this, he also added the following articles to "Mythological ships": Mayflower Marie Celeste U.S.S. Constitution S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald. This attempt backfired, because the mythological cat was just as speedily removed from these articles by editors who protested that this category was erroneous as these ships were certainly NOT mythological (again, betokening the common dictionary understanding that English speakers have of the definition of 'mythology'. The category being applied to these historical ships undoubtedly must have seemed to them like a joke.)

Outside the specialised jargon employed by some schools of thought, to say something is "mythological" "mythical" or "a myth" in English as actually spoken by real people is to say it is pure B.S. that never existed. Every dictionary will back this up as one of the major definitions of the word in English, using words like 'fictitious, fictional), etc..

I would submit that the word 'Legendary' is a far more neutral compromise for what you are really trying to say. I would not object at all to a category 'Legendary ships' that included all of the above articles, as these are all truly legendary ships, including Noah's Ark.

Here's an example of how word choice is so crucially important in English writing to establish the exact nuance of what you are suggesting. Contrast the following:

1. "B.B. King is a legendary blues artist. The man became a legend in his own time."

This is normal English, nobody has any doubts about what is being expressed here.

Now, try this: 2. "B.B. King is a mythological blues artist. The man became a myth in his own time."

Anyone reading this will go HUH??? Did they just actually say that??? This is because the nuance of "myth" carries so much negative and offensive baggage that it is saying something far removed from what was intended. One of the first recorded usages of the word "myth" according to the OED dates to the 1840s, when a man was actually described as "becoming a myth in his own lifetime". This is because the man never came out of his own basement or appeared in public, so people joked that he was a "myth". It would not be accurate to say this about B.B. King. But it would be more accurate to call him a legend, or legendary. This term makes no judgement about whether the subject is historical or imaginary. So please, avoid using these words that seem calculated solely for their offensiveness-potential, and choose something more acceptable to everyone. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your example is incorrect. In the context of 1, you're using legendary as meaning famous. Mythological has no such definition, so 2 has an entirely different meaning than 1. The only conclusion I can make from your example is that English isn't your first language.
Using the category Legendary Ships instead of Mythological Ships is confusing; we mean the latter, so calling it the former is silly. All but the Mayflower in your list of examples are obviously inappropriate; none of those ships are mythological. The Mayflower, conversely, IS mythological, especially among Christians who grew up believing in the whole fleeing from religious persecution schtick (which, while technically true, paints them as far more heroic than they are - there's a reason no one liked the Puritans, they weren't very nice people). Legendary is going to make people think the category is for FAMOUS ships, rather than ships in mythology. Titanium Dragon 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame you can't seem to make your point without smearing another entire group of people or pointing the finger at them, calling them "not very nice people". Also known as "demonizing". Let us all try to resist any attempt or opportunity we can find to push our POV on the world. I know this is especially hard for some of you who cannot sit still if they are not trying to convince others, but just let it be. You are not going to change anyone's firm beliefs. Smugly telling someone that everything they believe in is "mythology", and only to followers of certain selected beliefs at that, only makes wikipedia, a supposedly "neutral" project, look partisan and petty. It's not really accomplishing your goal though. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Quit avoiding the issue. You completely failed to address my point that legendary and mythological are not synonyms in your example and failed to adress why it wouldn't cause confusion. And I'm well aware I'm not going to convince a fundamentalist Christian that everything they know is wrong, and that wasn't my intention anyway. If I wanted to start a flame war with fundies, I'd probably go to Bible and put it into Category:Fictional Books. I'm not going to convince a fundamentalist Christian of anything useful regarding religion, because they are fundamentalists and by their very nature I'm not going to convince them. Especially not by using mere language; the whole similarity of deluge myths is likely far more damaging to their faith than any word choice.
My goal in this category is not to denegrade people's beliefs but to provide a useful category in which the Argo, the solar barge, and Noah's Ark can all happily reside. If I want to go looking for similar things, that's the category I'd look in/click on. Titanium Dragon 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
So are we keeping the NPOV tag? I know that only one editor is in favor of that tag, so it should be removed. Orangemarlin 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Naglfar in that category is a ship that was said in Norse mythology to be built from the toenails of the dead. I don't know if anyone actually seriously believes this today, but I kind of doubt it could be too many. I haven't heard of any significant numbers who do. Same with everything else now in that category, they are all unquestionably mythological ships -- the only one that could be said to have anyone today maintaining its existence is Noah's Ark, making it distinct from those others. The only other one of those other ships that could have even feasibly existed in some form is Argo, the others aren't even concrete ships. I am of course aware that legendary has connotations of famous in my BB King example, but it is also the approprate term conventionally used for figures who may or may not have existed in some form, such as the "Legendary King Arthur". That avoids stating that he was pure myth, or that he was historical, either way he was legendary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to my trusty Oxford English Dictionary, you have support and you don't have support. The main meaning is "Pertaining to or of the nature of a legend; connected or concerned with legends; celebrated or related in legend. legendary period, age: one of which the accounts are mostly of the nature of legends." Using this definition, I could support the change (although who's going to change all of the ships in the category). Unfortunately, one the new modern meanings of legendary is "Hence legendarily adv., according to legend or popular report; famously." Legendary, in my mind, means famous. In other words, it solves your issue, makes our issue worse. Orangemarlin 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Since category pages can't redirect like other pages, changing it would have to be done by bot after requesting the change, it's not a cat with many members anyway, so that's not a real issue. It sounds like I do have support from your dictionary for the meaning of legendary, but I don't quite follow the other part about also not having support. Do you mean because of its definition for the adverb 'legendarily'? What definition does it give for 'legend'? None of the definitions given for 'legendary' are independent of the definition of 'legend'. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
So now you're insulting Norse mythology? Tsk. Of course, I expected no better. And claiming Noah's Ark is more feasible than Naglfar is comical. In fact, I'd say I'd have an easier time building Naglfar than flooding the entire surface of the planet. And you'd be surprised at how many people think the Trojan War happened as per Greek mythology. In any event, though, the veracity of these tales is totally irrelevant; what is relevant is that they're all a part of various mythologies. It is also worth noting that King Arthur's page refers to him as a mythological king, not a legendary one. And I was pointing out your example was a horrible one precisely because it was blatently wrong. Fundamentally, you don't know what mythological means, and you don't know what legendary means, so I'm not sure why you're even arguing other than to argue. Titanium Dragon 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Because what you are doing is not only POV pushing, but you are trying to get the Wikipedia project involved in the game of declaring what religious texts are "mythology" and what ones aren't, which is a very dangerous game that I'm not sure is intended to be part of Wikipedia's scope. It seems to me that the very point of having all of these NPOV and neutrality policies in the first place is to prevent just this sort of POV attack on one set of religious doctrines. Norse mythology is not followed in the world anymore, or at least not in the significant numbers that Christianity is. You're just going to have to accept that reality. The two are not comparable. The NPOV policy bid us to take all significant views into account, but it does not require us to consider POVs that were significant in the year 1000 and no longer are. All major encyclopedias entries for "mythology" discuss dead religions like Norse and Greek and Roman, ones that are no longer dominant anywhere on Earth. Note they generally do not discuss any of today's world religions, that large numbers of people believe now, under "mythology", because that would be blatantly partisan. That is the realm of Comparative Religion, not mythology. I actually took a College course on Comparative Religion in the 80s, practically the first thing they covered was what are the major religions practised in the world today, and how we should not call any of them "mythologies" just because we don't believe in them, because that is insulting or patronizing. These religions are: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. You and others here may have a personal bone to pick with one of these that cause you to fling attacks at it continually, and its not hard to guess which one, because that is what attracts you to this article. But calling it "mythology" is calling it by a name that has signified for centuries "a dead religion that is not widely believed anymore". And its definitely premature to make that call on any of the world religions of today, much as you might like to push. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
So obviously every other wikipedia editor is wrong. Obviously Abrahamic Mythology needs to be renamed. Quite frankly, it seems like this issue has been addressed before, and it seems like the definition used by Wikipedia is not your definition, and indeed, that this debate has played out before and they decided to use the word. No, mythology does NOT imply a dead religion. And WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not politically correct anyway; we use correct terminology. Mythological is correct and accurate in describing Noah's Ark. Moreover, your claims of that class are suspect as you've already insulted the poor, innocent toenail ship. What would the few thousand members of that religion say?
Quite simply put, I don't see any valid reason for an objection to this category. Mythology is a well-known, often-used term, and is quite accurate. It is used for other articles on Wikipedia, including other articles about the same religion. It seems unlikely to me that there's a massive conspiracy on Wikipedia against Christianity, as a fairly large number of editors on Wikipedia are, in fact, Christian. If this was such a problem, these articles would not use the words, and it'd be avoided. Titanium Dragon 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Since word choice matters, back to my OED (no I don't have the $6000 leather bound, gold embossed set on my desk, but I do have the $300 annual subscription). The current definition of legend is "An unauthentic or non-historical story, esp. one handed down by tradition from early times and popularly regarded as historical." Now this might work, but I can't believe you'd actually agree Codex. By the way, a newer definition of the word is: "famous or notorious only for a short period of time, within a limited social circle, or in one's own estimation." The Legend of Noah's Ark might work for me, but I don't see where this is any different than the Myth of Noah's Ark. Orangemarlin 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Titanium, if you want people to believe that your intent ISN'T to attack religion, you probably should refrain from attacking "fundies" on the talk page. Frankly, you're convincing me that Codex has a point. And what's wrong with "legendary"? Carlo 01:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Several of us are not very happy with fundies. It doesn't mean we can't think, be neutral or write well. There isn't one iota of evidence of a global flood. Whether there was a small boat that sailed out to the Black Sea or another big body of water with a couple of dogs and cats is of no interest to me. But when we try to make Noah's Ark out to be a real ship with a real flood--I draw the line. As a discussion of a biblical myth, this article does not bother me. It's actually a well written and researched article. Orangemarlin 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we ought to make it out to be a real flood either - note that I am in no wise arguing that we should. But part of my anxiety is because of a certain user I recall in 2005 who stirred up a much bigger uproar attempting to add "mythology" cats to a wide range of articles including not just Noah, but also even Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Virgin birth, and Transubstantiation. I think we should draw the line at texts that are believed by significant numbers of people today, but I'm honestly not sure if 1000 people who seriously believe in the Eddas is comparably significant, since I haven't seen much information on how organized their community is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I edit the Jesus as a myth article, since I think he's a myth too. But let's not go there!!!! Orangemarlin 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jesus as myth is an article about a controversial opinion, not wikipedia endorsing that opinion. The implication of "myth" in that case seems to be referring to the idea of some that Jesus did not actually exist. This is rejected by all those who hold that Jesus did exist. The controversy over whether Noah existed means there are also a variety of opinions on this question. Remember that Islam regards him as a real prophet. There are even those who believe he appears in Hinduism as Manu, who is regarded as a real prophet in that faith. There are many significant groups holding Noah to have been a real person who built a ship, just as there are also many who regard him as a myth and a fairy story. This is why it just seems opinionated to favor one side of the question and decide that what various peoples actively believe today is now in the realm of "mythology", so we have to inform them accordingly. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't care for fundamentalists, either. But when somebody drags an attack on fundies into a discussion about the wording of an article, it makes me wonder if their need for a certain wording isn't connected to such an attack - since they seem to have such a connection in their own head, at least judging from their mode of argument. Carlo 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The antichristian bias of Orangemarlin, and Titanim Dragon just oozes out of their words and drips down the screen. And they think they are neutral! Stalin was more neutral. I have no problem with their antichristain bais, but they should at least acknowledge their bias and stop pretending. No one is unbiased. And the redefining of mythology by wikipaedia is a joke. Neutral! Role over Hitler. Allenroyboy 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I take offense at those remarks! Hitler was, after all, a Christian. You guys need to take credit for your genocidal maniacs; much as I want him, he's all yours.
More seriously, no. Quite simply put, yes, I don't like religion. Blah blah blah. That's irrelevant, as I've pointed out many times before. My goal is not to excise all religious articles or people from Wikipedia. In any event, Codex is a fundamentalist Christian who has done this numerous times before, and his original post in this section he shows his lack of grip over the English language. I'm not really sure why you feel like censuring me.
I made the category because it was very strange that something of the sort didn't exist. Someone tried putting Noah's Ark in fictional ships, which, while accurate, is probably not the best category for it and the Argo and everyone's favorite ship made out of toenails. Naming the category Legendary Ships is intentionally obsfucating; Mythological Ships means the same thing, excludes famous ships, and is clearer about what it is. Titanium Dragon 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, out of curiousity, do you really think erasing people from photographs after executing them, committing the Haulocaust, and sending 20,000,000 to the gulags is comparable to the creation of Category:Mythological Ships? Because I'm fairly certain most reasonable people would agree they aren't at all on the same scale. Titanium Dragon 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Allenroyboy, I would suggest you take a long, hard read of WP:CIVIL. Orangemarlin 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise: Mythological → Legendary

This seems to be appropriate with wiki-standards. C.f Category:Legendary_creatures. This eventually leads back to categories such as Categories: Folklore | Traditions | Mythography | Oral tradition--ZayZayEM 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC) SEE BACKFLIP

I disagree with the suggestion of legendary. To me it means the same as mythological, despite it's additional modern "famous" meaning. My suggestion would be to have a category something like Famous ships in literature or something similar. That way there is no pro or anti historicity POV implied. rossnixon 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[[I disagree with the suggestion of legendary. To me it means the same as mythological, ]]
So then why not change it? If it's the same thing to you, and NOT the same thing to those objecting, why not change it? Carlo 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Repeat Carlo's comment. If it means the same, what is the problem with changing it. I've given a valid reason for changing it (removes dispute; brings in line with other categories). --ZayZayEM 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Legendary and mythical are not the same. Legendary stories could have been true, but there is no strong evidence to support them. For example, King Arthur could have been a real person, but maybe not. Mythical stories have supernatural elements such as gods intervening in human activities and people having super human strength or knowledge or size or abilities. For example, the Santa Claus myth which is loosely based on the legend of Saint Nicholas of Myra Turkey. Greensburger 05:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
The deluge (mythology) is common enough that a Noahic figure is as likely as King Arthur. Some might suggest more so due to widespread mythology.--ZayZayEM 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Literature" is not appropriate. Noah persisted for a significant period in oral tradition.--ZayZayEM 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Aaargh. I'm Backflipping. Please see Category:Mythology:

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.

"Mythology" in wikipedia is being used to refer to "stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious or belief system." Noah's myth is certainly of a highly religious nature. Perhaps Mythological Ships could be made a subcat of Legendary ships (of which I thing The Flying Dutchman might be better placed). --ZayZayEM 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; some of us actually went through and looked at this stuff. :\ I don't mind Category:Legendary Ships but I think Category:Mythological Ships is clearer and less likely to confuse people as to what belongs in the category. Either is fine with me in the end, and having Mythological Ships as a subcategory of legendary ships is fine, I just prefer the latter as apparently the person who came up with the idea of changing the names of the categories in the first place doesn't understand what legendary and mythological mean, and has consistantly fought to keep the word mythology off the page irrationally. Titanium Dragon 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

24th Century BC

Granted that there may be a date that can be ascertained for this from various traditions, to place it in the 24th Century BC is to ignore most of them in favor of only one, and one of rather late coinage at that. James Ussher, who calculated the 4004 BC date for the Creation, was a 17th Century Anglican bishop. If his date is well-known, it's primarily because an edition of the KJV used it to annotate Gen. 1. However, there are numerous other traditions as to the year of Creation that long predate Ussher's estimate. See Anno Mundi for a summary. There is no NPOV reason to favor this date over the others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Most calculations are within the range 2300 to 2500 BC. There is discussion of the error in the traditional (2nd century AD) Jewish dating of the Flood (2105 BC) here [7] rossnixon 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Site's broken apparently, so I couldn't get to the page. But here's yet another theory supporting the earlier Byzantine date: [8]. Big, fat, hairy deal. These are all exercises in eisegesis, and it would be absurd to take any of them as absolutely correct. We'd be better off saying 30th Century BC, which is when the Mesopotamian river flood that likely inspired the Ark story probably happened. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I checked your site, an exercise in fantasy, self-described as "which probably is wrong as well". I would rather trust an organisation that has studied this more than anyone else. rossnixon 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If that's your standard, then your average university geology or anthropology department has the answersingenesis folks beat any day of the week. But this isn't an issue of whom you personally trust. That's your POV. We can't use you as a basis for categorizing this article. I'm not advocating any century. I'm saying it shouldn't be put into one of those categories at all.TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll expand. I trust them because they are a WP:RS on this subject. rossnixon 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The date appears disputed amongst various WP:RS. Please be wary of placing undue weight on a POV.--ZayZayEM 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll go further than that and say that any such organization is not a reliable source by its very nature. It's an opinion rather than a fact anyway, and should not be used as a basis for categorization. It's really not even worth a discussion in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

CS, these threats are tiresome, and I have trouble believing that ArbCom would involve itself in a content dispute where there has been no serious wrongdoing on any side. Regardless, this is very premature until the RfC has run its course. The article will still be here next week should the comments elicited tend your way. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this just a run-of-the mill content dispute of a sort that happens all the time. Suggest trying to resolve this civilly. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be nice, but not likely given Codex' militancy. •Jim62sch• 13:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

revised doc hyp. section as biblical scholarship (new title)

I've ervised the documentary hypothesis section and renamed it biblical scholarship, as it includes biblical minimalist idea. I don't regard this as final, and would be grateful for ideas and help. (This re-write is the result of a discussion which appears above on this talk page, headed, I think, Other Deuluge Stories - I'll get around to revising the Deluge section later, but right now I'm tierd and need a coffee). PiCo 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I believe that per WP:A and WP:NPOV, the different points of view need to be clearly attributed. The phrase "documentary hypothesis" clearly identifies and neutrally describes a particular theory and POV, and hence represents a clear attribution. However, the phrase "Biblical scholarship", appears to have highly positive connotations without actually having any particularity of description. It could just as well be applied to religiously-based scholarship as much as any other kind of scholarship. Using the phrase "Biblical Scholars" to describe only the academic point of view would be a bit like using the word "educators" to refer only to supporters of phonics as distinct from Whole language or using the word "statesmen" to refer only to members of the United States Democratic Party as distinct from the Republican Party. Such language would appear to represent endorsement rather than a description of the point of view involved. The fact that group insiders may use such terminology -- members of the the Democratic party may in fact consider only themselves to be "statesmen" and might use the term to refer to Democrats as a matter of course -- does not make it a neutral term of attribution so far as the general public is concerned. This is an encyclopedia for the general public and needs to use language accordingly. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Shirahadasha. The terms "biblical scholarship" and "biblical scholars" aren't meant to describe only the DH. In fact the section moves from the DH to describe recent Minimalist theories, which reject key Wellhausian points. I'll try to re-draft the section to make this clearer. As for a religious vs. academic approach to scripture, this isn't really the aim of this section, which is meant to describe the academic challenge to religion which developed in Europe from the Renaissance onward. The religious world-view belongs in the next section, on Biblical literalism - the title of that section could perhaps be changed to something like "The Ark and Tradition" to take that in. PiCo 05:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Let the games based on the misuse of semantics begin. Shirahadasha, nothing was implied by either term, why then do you infer? •Jim62sch• 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems we have a problem of specificity here. On the one hand,PiCo very reasonably points out that "Documentary Hypothesis" is too specific -- it encompasseses only a single approach within a range of scholarship, and an appropriate term should be more inclusive. On the other hand, "Biblical Scholarship" doesn't seem to be specific enough -- the term denotes any kind of scholarship from whatever point of view, but a specific type of scholarship and POV is being described. Something in between seems to be called for. "Critical scholarship" comes to mind, although I have no investment in any particular term. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, "critical" has its own potential negative connotations, at least in the vernacular. Academically, critical is absolutely correct, but like biblical it runs afoul of the superficial comprehension skills of the hoi polloi. •Jim62sch• 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "academic scholarship"? I understand it would be desirable to avoid coining a neoligism. By all means, propose something else if there is a better alternative. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Just "Scholarship"? But looking over what I wrote above, I see I mis-stated one point: the aim of the part of the article encompassing "The Ark under scrutiny" and "Scholarship (with whatever adjective attached) and the Ark" is to describe the secular (not necessarily academic) challenge to a literal belief in the Ark, a challenge which began with the Enlightenment and carried on through the 19th century into the present day. What Shiradahasha is talking about, if I understand correctly, is the modern erligious reaction to this challenge - specifically religious scholars who hold that the Torah was indeed written by Moses under divine inspiration. Shira, could you confirm that this is what you mean? In the overall structure of the article, that point belongs in the final section of the article, which at the moment is devoted to technical questions of building and sailing the vessel, but room could be made. PiCo 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Connotations of the word mythology

It does seem odd that the battle is not being waged with other attempts to classify indisputably real ships as "mythological." Also, the word mythological does have connotations, regardless of the intended denotation. Is there no other word beside mythological or legendary that could be used on not only Noah's ark, but also for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article, and the likes?

Couldn't the battle to have this category be waged on an article of a ship that are almost universally accepted as being real first, and then taken to the Noah's Ark article, which is clearly a more emotionally charged (to some) issue? E.g., get the SS Edmund Fitzgerald classified in this category first, and then bring the battle to this page. This would certainly make the case that the classification is not a POV push easier to digest (not that my digesting it matters). ImprobabilityDrive 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Maybe "Ships in folklore"? One could quite feasibly make the case that these are all ships in folklore, from Mayflower to Noah's Ark to Naglfar. And I would have no problem with it, after all the word "folklore" is originally a good native equivalent to the Latinate "popular science". Folklore can be true or false, historical or unhistorical. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? •Jim62sch• 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think he is saying that if "mythological" is as uncontroversial as its proponents claim, and truly does not imply unhistoricity, then he is challenging you to get the cat successfully added to the article of a ship whose existence is not in question beforehand, before trying to add it here where the existence of the ship is more controversial. He suggests the SS Edmind Fizgerald article, although Mayflower might actually be your strongest case - and even there, you'd probably need some awfully persuasive arguments to convince its editors that the Mayflower is mythological, by wikipedia's definition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
But Noah's Ark *isn't* indisputably real, as you imply. That's kind of the point. Now, if you wanted to argue about, say, ships mentioned in Herodotus' account of the Persian War, a mixture of history and myth, you might have a point. Adam Cuerden talk 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some kind of disconnect between what I actually wrote above, and what you thought you read. I didn't just say or imply that Noah's Ark is "indisputably real"; on the contrary, I meant this article when I said "here where the existence of the ship is more controversial". That was also my point, and I think the point of the original poster: since this definitely *isn't* indisputably real, first why don't you try "mythological" on another ship that is indisputably real, like SS Edmund Fitzgerald, or the Mayflower and see how far that gets... So, are we all reading this the same way yet? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was replying to the original poster, and should have unindented. My point is that few real ships are significantly central to myths. The Ark is central to the ark myth in a way the Mayflower is not central to the pseudohistrorical American myth of the Pilgrims. Also, the Mayflower is not necessarily part of a myth, because theres completely factual, non mythical things that could be said about it. The myths are unlikely to even be a primary focus of it.
In short, the whole thing boils down to ridiculousness along the lines of "Since you can't get the mthological ships category applied to things that have a very slight mythological component, how dare you apply it to an unambiguously mythological one. Adam Cuerden talk 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Frankly, I think the real issue is that Christianity is the major religion of Wikipedia editors, and the only notable ship which appears in Christian mythology is Noah's Ark. While a few others appear, they aren't notable in the way the Ark is, and are simply used as a part of the narrative; Job had a boat but it wasn't notable, several saints were associated with boats but the boats aren't worthy of their own articles. As such, it is only other religions' ships which would have their own articles, and many religions simply aren't as fleshed out as Christianity due to the large number of Christian editors. So only a small number of mythological ships have Wikipedia articles. There are probably more which deserve them but haven't gotten them for one reason or another.
The real problem may fundamentally stem from the fact that ships aren't often notable in and of themselves, so historical ships which have mostly passed into mythology simply don't have articles at all because there isn't enough information on them. There's also the people distinguishing between the legendary ships (which are mythological, but have their own category and consists mostly of ghost ships) and the mythological ships. Not a bad thing, but it does make the category smaller and also eliminates a lot of ships that would go in this category from it. Titanium Dragon 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of you understand what I meant. The existence of Noah's Ark is far from indisputable. I agree that the Mayflower would be a more well-known example of a ship whose historicity is beyond dispute to most, (unlike Noah's ark, which, I think, reasonable people can form their own opinions, and its actually existence is not established beyond a reasonable doubt.) Whether or not it is intended, I think mythological has connotations of "fictional." And I have read that this is not what is intended. But even though the implication of fictional is not intended, I think it would be a hard sell on ships which have more well established historicity. However, if the classification were successfully applied to other ships, say the Mayflower, SS Edmund Fitzgerald, and so on, this would bolster the case. NOTE: I have not read much on the historicity of Noah's Ark. If there is some evidence that it existed outside of religious accounts, I am unaware. My comments are only on the point that mythological is not intended to imply fictional, and if this is true, I think that if the classification is successfully applied to ships whose existence is more well established would strengthen the argument.

Another note, the argument that Noah's Ark would be difficult or impossible to build has some merit, but if we did not still have the Egyptian pyramids, I think some reasonable people would also doubt that they ever existed. Fortunately, they were made from Stone and not, as alleged, wood and pitch. ImprobabilityDrive 00:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, any religious text or folk tale counts as myth. The tale of Noah's Ark has no independent existance outside of these. Hence it is unambiguously mythological. Your arguement is that things that have only a very slight and vague mythological component (one would be hard pressed to identify actual mythical stories about the Mayflower, or to demonstrate the poetry about the Edmund Fitzgerald actually counted as myth), while also having a very strong, unambiguous, and undisputed historical component.
In short, your proposed test is unreasonable. Now, Paul Revere as myth, or The Boston Massacre as myth might be supportable, and possibly should have a myths tag.
However, this doesn't matter, really, because Noah's Ark is unambiguously myth. What definition of myth would exclude it? Adam Cuerden talk 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Opps, was this already resolved? (I have not done any editing of the article regarding [[Category:Mythological Ships]]). I wouldn't care if it were placed in [[Category:ships]], to answer ZayZayEM question in his edit comment. But I suppose that this would imply that it were real (so, since I don't have evidence of this, I won't put it in [[Category:ships]]). The hisoricity of Noah's Ark is clearly in dispute, so I am not sure what to do. I won't revert just yet (maybe never), but I do think the fact that the category [[Category:Mythological Ships]] implies that Noah's Ark is indisputably fictional. Is this what is intended? Maybe a category for ships whose historicity is disputed would be a better category. Not sure how many ships would qualify, perhaps if there are articles on "ships mentioned in Herodotus' account," they would qualify. ImprobabilityDrive 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I concur with Adam, after consulting with a dictionary. I suppose I should have done that before starting this thread. My apologies. Anyway, to make clear, I have not done any editing of the article regarding [[Category:Mythological Ships]]. ImprobabilityDrive 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I still like Famous ships in literature or something similar, as a possible solution. I think only ZayzayEM commented on this so far. Any other thoughts are welcome! rossnixon 02:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the alternative category name, Famous ships in literature, too--but what I like probably doesn't carry much weight. Upon further investigation, I think the discussion needs to be taken somewhere else, specifically, Category_talk:Mythological_ships, or perhaps someone needs to research how to dispute the existence of the category itself. I tried a search for how to do this, but came up empty. Since I am now convinced that it probably does apply to this article, I won't put any more effort into it. The [[Category:Mythological Ships]] category exists, and even though there might be a perception that [[Category:Mythological Ships]] is unintentionally POV by implying fictionalized, the dictionary really doesn't support this. Even so, you might be able to make your case on the Mythological ships talk page, or by raising the point through some administrative process. Based on Adam's prompting, I have to agree that if the category exists, Noah's Ark belongs to it, at least with my level of understanding. It doesn't appear as though the category was created to attack this article, either, I must say. ImprobabilityDrive 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with renaming the category, as long as a reasonable alternative phrasing could be found. Or, alternatively, simply populating the category with other ships mentioned in religious texts - I'm sure that there's a few in Shinto, Hinduism, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As a Christian I have no problem with describing this as part of Christian mythology. The fact that some people assume that myth = false is not our problem; actually as part of our mission to inform we should help them find out what the correct meaning actually is. Regardless, Wikipedia does not exist to fix external problems and is not censored to avoid offending minorities within any particular religious denomination. Category:Mythical ships fits precisely, and unquestionably applies to the Ark as much as to the Argo. We could propose renaming the category to mythological ships, but I don't think that changes anything. We could also propose deleting the category, since it has very few potential members. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. See Category_talk:Mythological_ships rossnixon 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic

Please discuss the connotations of the "Mythological" categories with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mythology. Please do not use this article as a test. To me that really violates WP:POINT. As the Mythology categorisation stands, the Ark belongs in it both as an Abrahamic myth and a mythological ship (the adjective mythological appears to stand favour to mythic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Re the vernacular use of myth to mean false: if the vulgus wish to perceive the word solely in that particular definition, we can try to educate them, but if they refuse to be educated it is their problem, not ours. If this sounds elitist, so be it. Everyone has the capacity to learn the meanings of words, the shades of difference, the semantics of certain discplines and so forth; failure to learn these distinctions speaks more to unwillingness than to ability. •Jim62sch• 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of the term mythology in the context of Noah's Ark. Codex appears to have a wilful intent to interpret this as some kind of backhanded insult to religion by academics. This is not new and we have been through this whole issue before, over a year ago (Talk:Mythology/archive2#False claims about sources and Talk:Mythology/archive3#Article_is_now_locked). This interpretation of mythology=false is far more POV than the academic usage which is backed up by the primary definition in the OED. David D. (Talk) 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by Jim62sch

Jim62sch, you reverted to what I think is less accurate wording, and I'll try to explain why here.

The story is contained in the Hebrew Torah, Christian Old Testament's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9 and in the Quran.

versus

Religious accounts are contained in the Hebrew Torah, Christian Old Testament's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9 and in the Quran.

In your revert, you asked, in your comment, "religious accounts as opposed to what?" Answer: Religious accounts as opposed to secular accounts. All of the accounts listed are religious accounts.

Next, you reverted my changing of the following:

Indeed, the deluge myth is one of the most common folk stories throughout the world.

to

Similar deluge myths are the subject of folk stories throughout the world.

Unless you can establish that sundry deluge myths are referring to the same event, or have common historical origin, I do not think it is accurate to say "the deluge myth." But if you can establish it, I think a reference to a reliable source is called for, since this would be an extraordinary claim. I hope you don't mind, but I undid your revert. ImprobabilityDrive 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of The deluge myth is applicable. That article refers to "The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution". These myths have a very high correlation to a similar story with a similar setting and a similar plot. "deluge myth" is generic enough to not eb implicitly say these are the exact same story.--ZayZayEM 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, the article content can indicate that various scholars believe that the narrative is related to other stories and the group form a certain pattern. No-one's questioning that article content should say this in appropriate sections if well-sourced. But what we believe ourselves about the matter is irrelevant -- we're simply not in the business of establishing whether claims of correlations etc. are true, so it just doesn't matter whether we believe they are or not. Mythologists say that "Similar deluge myths are the subject of folk stories throughout the world." So far as we're concerned, this is simply one of the stories that mythologists tell. Their story is relevant to the article content so it deserves to be put in the article, but so far as we're concerned it's just a story. We certainly can't endorse this story as true. To reflect this approach, the WP:NPOV and attribution policies lead to the sentence saying something like "According to (insert name of well-known mythologist here), similar narratives are the subject of folk stories throughout the world, and are called deluge myths. And the sentence should be followed by a footnote referencing a work by (well-known mythologist). This use of language accurately tells and attributes mythologists' story as it relates to the article content, without any claim that Wikipedia regards it as true. And lose that "indeed".It's a smoking gun and a dead giveaway of a WP:NPOV violation, Wikipedia simply shouldn't contain language endorsing a truth claim like that, especially in the presence of a POV dispute. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying the deluge myth is misleading; current scholarship suggests that while Noah's Ark and many of the other mesopotamian flood myths have a common origin, deluge myths in general do not and are simply common because many humans live near rivers which flood fairly often into the fertile floodplains. Titanium Dragon 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing ZayZayEm's point: "the" is very much applicable and does not specifically refer to this particular version of the myth. See the Deluge (mythology) article.
Also, I'm changing "religious accounts" to "religious accounts of this story". •Jim62sch• 13:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pico's version of my additions

Please do not go over my edits with a fine-toothed comb to try to hold them to a much higher standard than you even hold yourself to. I have already gone over my own edits with a fine toothed comb. Your changes are simply inaccurate; please do not invent yet another neologism like "quasi-Abrahamic", this is getting past the point of ridiculous now. The "Sabian" religions are pre-Abrahamic, they do not even acknowledge Abraham as legitimate, and are in no wise to be decribed as "Abrahamic" or even "quasi". They are not to be lumped with Bahai, which is unreservedly Abrahamic. Please try to educate yourselves just a little before treading into deep waters. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

These religions in Kurdistan are so old, they trace themselves to Noah, but not to Abraham. They have supposedly broken off the branch before you even get to Abraham. Now, for the past ~4000 years, people who study such things have generally agreed that Noah was BEFORE Abraham. But perhaps now, some of these schools of thought that were literally born yesterday and think they just suddenly invented Comparative Religion, can inform us differently. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, although I don't hold out much hope that the block will bring about any significant change in his tendentious behaviour. •Jim62sch• 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please explain the basis for a block here? There appears to have been a legitimate edit dispute and the {{Totallydisputed}} is a legitimate maintenance tag for indicating the presence of a dispute. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(Pardon the interposting): This is the incorrect place to ask that question...you should go to WP:AN/I or contact Guy on his page. Sorry for interrupting. •Jim62sch• 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, Codex is a one-man wrecking crew with this article. I think he's intelligent, and I think he brings a lot to this article. But his responses and lack of building consensus needs rehabilitation if he's going to be productive. The tag he threw on the article is not helpful to building consensus and is not going to help all of us make this article better. He needs to be civil and his edits where he makes claims that we're attacking his writing is a violation of the WP:OWN guidelines. He needs to be blocked in the hope that he can modify his behavior. Orangemarlin 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex believes I'm out to get him. I'm not. I think the notes about the Yezidi et.al. are a valuable addition to the article. But I wanted to tighten them up a bit, and also neutralise Codex's pov - which is that the Yezidi account of Noah is independent of the Abrahamic tradition. I lived in Iraq once upon a time (1990 and again 1997-98), and read up a little on the subject, as one does (there was a shop owned by Yezidis down the street from my house, and I got to meet leaders of both them and the Mandaean communities as part of my job, and even visited the Jebel Sinjar). Anyway, the experts are not with Codex on this one. PiCo 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to defend Codex's lack of decorum, or sticking my nose where it does not belong, the ban was for the totally disputed tag according to the comment, which may have been legitimate useage in his mind. Perhaps actions should have been taken for not being civil instead? ImprobabilityDrive 04:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of the history of his participation of this article: whenever Codex doesn't get his way, he consistently resorts to olacing spurious tags on the article page, or adding tags to the talk page (WikiProject Religion for one) which he knows to be innacurate. Codex' world-view in re religion is "unique" and unsupported by sources, and thus his edits, which reflect that world-view, are frequently deleted or modified substantially.
Both PiCo and I, in shepherding this article to and through the FA process, have dealt with Codex for some time and are well aware of his behaviour. Guy, who has checked in from time to time is also well aware of the history. •Jim62sch• 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sabians?

Sabians are mentioned in the intro sentence and then never again. Was there something lost in recent edit wars? --Pjacobi 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think what was lost was the plot, and we know who it was lost by :-) Guy (Help!) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
By now I've guessed that Sabians and Mandaeans are related, but as our two articles on thse are in violent disagreement, it's still guesswork for the non-expert reader. --Pjacobi 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
They're two names for the same group. PiCo 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Then boldly placing {{Merge}} tags at our articles Sabians and Mandaeans would be OK? --Pjacobi 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should be. •Jim62sch• 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WorldWideFlood link

This website shows that Naval Architects can and have designed a wood ship the size of Noah's Ark that is structurally sound. No other web site has ever bothered to talk to a single Naval Architect. All claims that it is impossible to build a wood ship the size of Noah's Ark are baseless and factless. Allenroyboy 05:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'm convinced. Orangemarlin 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I looked at the website. Why don't you post the exact link where what you're mentioning actually exists, because I don't see where any US Navy Architects have designed a wood ship. Orangemarlin 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is who: http://www.worldwideflood.com/general/about_us.htm And who said anything about US Navy Architects? Naval Architects design ships, not government Navys.
Go through the pages listed under the "Ark Structure" menu to see the design elements, data, and proposed design Allenroyboy 14:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Plumbago's right, but I can't resist. The bio page does say that their Naval Architect works for the US Navy. It also says he actually designed exactly one ship over 20 years ago. This one apparently. It obviously wasn't designed by one person alone, so exactly what work he did on it open to question. Since he only has a Bachelor degree in Naval Architecture/Marine Engineering and his Masters is in Systems Engineering, he probably worked personally on something other than hull design. But even if he did, I don't see how that qualifies him to evaluate a wooden hull, which is very much outside his experience. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I long ago gave up on logic with some of the Creationist group. It's a website that puts in a lot of "facts", most of them spurious and of doubtful verifiability, in the attempt to "prove" what they believe. I read the bio page, and that's why commented in the way I did. But I appreciate your trying to be logical, but trust me, it's a waste of time. Orangemarlin 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And being a physician makes you qualified to determine which engineering data, strengths of materials data, bending moment data, wave stress analysis data, etc, is "spurious and doubtful"? Get a real Naval Architect, you got nothing to bring to the table. Allenroyboy 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
More than you can believe. Hey I was an officer in the real US Navy, so doesn't that qualify me? LOL. See List of world's largest wooden ships. Orangemarlin 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Just come up with a Naval Architect who can point out flaws in his design. His 20 years of experience and education in Naval Architecture far out qualifies him to evaluate a wooden hull compared to you as software engineer. You can disagree with him if you like, but compared to him you know next to nothing about Naval Architecture and therefore are in no position to criticise him. I dare you to find a real Naval Architect, especially one who has experience with wood, to weigh in on this. Until then, your comments are simply, and typically, ad homenim. (Plumbago: I'll try not to comment further) Allenroyboy 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And when someone points a flaw in your logic, you resort to the "ad hominem" attack. That's why I laughed at the article. Orangemarlin 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It is TCC, who as a software engineer is unqualified to know, that claims that a Naval Architect is not qualified to design wooden hulls. That is not a flaw in my logic, but pure speculation and conjecture by TCC. TCC's unqualification and conjecture reduces his argument to ad hominem. Get a real Naval Architect....... Allenroyboy 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah, I'm convinced. ROFLMAO. Orangemarlin 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite the certifiability of the people involved, it seems a reasonable addition to me (reasonable in that special creationist sense). So I'm OK with it remaining. You've just got to admire such misplaced dedication; I'd have thought checking that the Flood actually occurred would a sensible first step before expending great effort designing something to float on it ... --Plumbago 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That was my point. And the fact that the "naval architects" drew the ark on a piece of paper, there is some doubt if it would float or remain afloat. And some of the verifiable fact-checking in the article is a bit below the standards of MAD Magazine. No, I quit deleting it, because sites like this one proves the special nature of a typical creationist--they believe what they believe despite overwhelming facts against them. And the lack of proof of a worldwide flood, what does it matter if they could build a 200 cubit wood ark. I'm still LMAO about the site. Orangemarlin 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What you both seem to miss is that creationists and flood catastrophists KNOW that the Flood happened and that there really was an ark. They know this because they know the God of the Bible, and they believe he tells the truth. Obviously, you think they are crazy, but that is irrelevant.
They have already checked to see if the Flood actually occurred because God has said it happened. The geologic record is scientifically studied and interpreted by creationists within the FACTs given by the Bible. Evolutionary scientists do EXACTLY the same as they scientifically study and interpret geology within FACTs of the religious paradigm Naturalism. Science is an excellent method to study nature by, but it cannot be done outside of some paradigm (as science philosopher Kuhn has made clear). The difference between evolutionists and creationists is not science, but the paradigms they do science within.
The fact that you thought Naval Architects were architects that worked for the US Navy illustrates the typical low level of knowledge and intellect creationists are continually faced with. These men on the web site are real Naval Architects who have designed real ships, just like other real architects who design real houses, real sky-scrapers, real bridges, etc. These men are experts in their education and profession. You may doubt them if you wish, but unless you have equal education and experience in desiging ships, you have NOTHING worth saying or listening to.
If you want to debunk these Naval Architects, get other Naval Architects to weigh in. If you are correct, that ought to be easy to do. Let experts show where their design is flawed, otherwise you are pissin against the wind.
One of the segments in this article against the Ark is "Seaworthiness:" where non-Naval architects display their religious fervor and 'Mad Magazine' level of knowledge. The "worldwideflood" site answers with real scientific data these scientifically ignorant arguments.
Is this site going to make believers of skeptics? Of course not. But it does utterly remove one of the imaginary arguments against the Ark. Allenroyboy 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm utterly convinced. BTW, I'm not a skeptic, I know that wood timbers cannot be made seaworthy at that size without modern materials, and even then, it doesn't work. I know that the flood did not happen on a worldwide basis, because 1) there's no geological, archeological, or biological evidence, 2) there isn't enough water, but what do I care, 3) the bible does not speak in facts, it speaks in allegory and myth, and 4) a website by a bunch of religious zealots who couldn't for the life of them utilize practical scientific methods is easily debunked. You amuse me Allenroyboy, but then again, I'm amused quite about by all of your Creationist theories. I believe in facts, data, and testable hypotheses, and you should be glad I do so, because when one of you come to me to have their heart disease treated, know that all of my work is completely dependent upon science, not on myth, miracles, or the hand of some supernatural god. Orangemarlin 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I DO believe that the US Navy could build a wooden ship (with the amount of money wasted on the Armed Forces...) but I don't believe an old man and his family members could... Henners91 07:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"There isn't enough water"... you think... have you proved it? All the water that comes down in rain is in a liquid state, but it was in a gaseous state before that, there is more than enough H2O within the atmosphere if you combine the frozen, liquid and gaseous states and converted it all to liquid, to make one big ocean. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That is beyond easy to refute--if it were in a gaseous state, then the air pressure at "sea level" would be equivalent of a column of vapor 9000 meters high. The pressure would be unlivable. The heat required to make that much water vapor would be past the boiling point. So, Noah would have lived in pressure cooker. Cool. Glad your simple god couldn't figure out a better way to do that. He must have flunked physics at an online University. Orangemarlin 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn;t say what if it were all in a gaseous state, I said what if it were all in a liquid state, or at least enough of it to make a huge global ocean... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, your god flunked out of physics. To get to a liquid state, it doesn't miraculous appear out of nowhere--it either precipitates as rain or snow (from a gaseous state), or it just shows up. Oh that's right, in lieu of science, we jump to the supernatural. This isn't going anywhere. The fundamental problem with your logic is that you try to bend the laws of nature and physics to meet this mythical biblical story. Why would any god need to do that? My G_d feels no need to bend the laws that HE created. That's why most Jews know and understand that the Torah is merely a set of myths, allegories, and metaphors. Orangemarlin 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If your G_d feels no need to perform miracles, that's fine for you to trust that G_d to save you... but what you said about water getting to a liquid state is exactly the same thing I said - some of it comes from a gaseous state, some of it comes from a solid (frozen) state, and some of it is already in a liquid state, but the only question I'm really asking here is "is there enough water" between all three states combined, to imagine an ocean as large as the surface of the planet. Sure there is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't need saving. You shouldn't feel it necessary to mock how I spell that name. And no there is not enough water to do what you ask, see below. And no, it is not possible for all that water to fall out of the air onto the planet without creating tremendous pressures and temperatures (once again physics). This conversation is done, you lose. I win. Bring me the finest meats and cheeses in the land. Orangemarlin 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but I just want you to know I was not mocking your spelling, I thought you might have also got mad if I had spelled it differently from you! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
After 2000 years of you Christians throwing us Jews into a variety of problematic situations, we have evolved a certain level of thin skins towards comments like that. I rarely get mad, most get sarcastic. Back to the water. TCC has much more patience in describing this stuff than I do. I'd give you links to origins.talk, but you'd dismiss them out of hand. I'll let him explain it. Orangemarlin 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there enough water where? On Earth? Maybe -- if the mountains were completely levelled and all land now above water were spread evenly all over the surface of the globe, we wouldn't have to invoke anything supernatural to posit a historical Flood. Everything would be underwater already. But if the question is whether there's enough water to raise the sea to cover all the lands now above water to a depth of 15 cubits or roughly 30 feet above the mountaintops per Gen 7:19-20 -- plainly no.
I suppose God could simply have made the water ex nihilo just for the occasion and then gradually annihilated it at the end of the Flood. And then removed all signs from the Earth that the Flood had ever happened, which to me is on the same order of credibility as the omphalos hypothesis. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This is all aside from the wording of the article of course, but it is still an interesting question... I'm not so sure there isn't enough H20, between the polar caps, all the clouds, plus the oceans already there, to raise the sea level 30 feet above Everest... out of curiosity do you know if has anyone ever tried to prove there isn't enough? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not that hard. If the northern ice cap were to melt, it wouldn't raise sea levels at all. That's because it's floating, and is already displacing a volume of water equal to what it would have in a liquid state. (Recall that water is less dense as a solid than it is as a liquid.) If the ice over Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, it would raise sea levels by 220 ft. ([10]) According to our own Wikipedia article on the Earth's atmosphere, the total mean mass of water vapor it contains is about 1.27e16 kg. Liquid water's maximum density is 1g/cc by definition, which is 1000 kg/cubic meter, so this much liquid water takes up 1.27e13 cubic meters or 1.27e4 cubic kilometers. The total surface area of the Earth's oceans is about 3.6e8 square kilometers.[11] Spread evenly that would have a height of 3.53e-5 km, or about 1.4 inches, which is negligible compared to rounding errors for the water in the icecaps. So 220 feet is our answer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the first link was interesting - question, it also said something like the reason the sea level has risen 8 inches in the past 100 years is not ice melting, so much as it is the oceans being a few degrees warmer, causing them to be less dense and expand to occupy more space. So by that logic it seems wrong in saying that the arctic ice melting would not affect the sea level at all, because if it were much warmer it would not only melt, but be less dense? I'm thinking of an ice cube floating in a cup of water, when it melts the level seems higher than before. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Note my corrections above; I slipped a few decimal places accidentally.
It's true that water is less dense as it gets warmer; I used the easy number there to simplify the calculations. But let's suppose that the water was at 100C, just before its phase change to a gas. This isn't realistic of course, but liquid water is at its least dense then so it's our worst case. Under those conditions, pure water has a density of 958.097 kg/cubic meter according to the calculator here [12]. This is again worst-case, since salt water is denser than distilled. So in that case we'd arrive at an answer that's 1000/958.097 = 104.37% of that we obtained, or 229 feet. (That site perhaps gave the impression that the water density change had a larger effect than it actually does. I see it only includes this as one factor in the sea level rise.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And actually the opposite is true; the water level doesn't change when the ice cube melts. Note that it's important that the ice is floating. A cup packed so full of ice that it's sitting on the bottom of the cup, such as you sometimes get in restaurants, will give you a misleading result. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. True, someone's belief in a miracle of this extent in the first place, would not be much more of a stretch than their belief in similar miracles like the Lord parting the waters of the Red Sea, perhaps like diverting the surface water onto all the inhabited areas for a brief time... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much incredulity over the possibility of a miracle on this scale as such. If you believe that God created the universe, a flood like this isn't a stretch at all. But did he do this in history? What evidence could you point to that would convince an atheist that this happened? Or even suggest the possibility? We should see signs of it all over the place, and we simply don't.
I don't know. I just don't see why the possibility that this is a parable is so troubling to some Christians. As we believe it, God has a well-established track record of teaching us by parable. It seems to me that to focus on the literal truth of a parable is to miss the point of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well my old headmaster always used to say "You pays yer money, you takes yer choice"... Some people may find that troubling, some people may find the literal belief more troubling, but in the end people believe what they want, but I definitely see evidence that the modern races had a small number of ancestors that spread from a certain area within a certain timeframe, and that there were once other kinds of races or species before then that all suddenly became extinct! I have an idea, maybe we had better transfer this discussion to v:, I hear it is a MediaWiki project where we can actually make original statements!ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, that's what has always bothered me about these discussions. Is your faith so weak that if we finally prove once and for all that Noah's Ark is a myth and the flood never happened that you become an atheist? I would hope not. What is wrong with parable and metaphor? Let's take the context of when Genesis was written, let's say 500 BCE. Most people couldn't read, wouldn't understand science and didn't understand the world outside of maybe 10 km around their homes. Parable and metaphor may have been the best way to tell the story of the beauty of the world. That doesn't damage my faith. That doesn't make me want to worship trees or the moon. Why could not a god (whichever one) created the natural laws and said, "OK, I'm done, let's see what happens." It doesn't make me or the world around me any less special, and it does not obviate the belief in a higher being. Orangemarlin 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually to address all of those philosophical questions would require going even further outside the scope of this project, but if you can suggest any more appropriate forum I could consider giving it a try... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that this is all that philosophical. Science, as is commonly stated, doesn't "prove" anything. That's the realm of formal logic and mathematics. What it does do is to collect evidence and formulate generalizations from it that can be used to model physical phenomena. For that purpose it works very well, better than any other systematic treatment of data humanity has ever devised, and we've done astonishing things with it. So we'll never be able to say that we've proved once and for all that the Biblical Flood didn't really happen in an absolute ontological sense. What we can say, and what we do say, is that the evidence we would expect to see if such a thing had happened, based on very well-tested and well-understood generalizations from smaller-scale floods, simply isn't there. Barring the removal of evidence by Divine fiat -- something God has not been recorded to have done IIRC -- we can only conclude that it didn't happen.
The point of this is that there's no reason for Orangemarlin to use a hypothetical here. It has been proved that no worldwide flood happened, using "prove" in the loose sense that the physical facts contradict it. So it's not the literal belief that's troubling, it's the literal belief in the face of the unambiguous evidence. To counter it, literalists have to invoke all kinds of contorted readings of the geological record and un-Biblical Divine acts or otherwise unknown alterations of physical laws, invoked solely to preserve the literal truth of the Biblical account. When really, as both Orangemarlin and I have pointed out, the fact that it's not literally true shouldn't disturb a person of deep faith at all.
Psychology perhaps, but not philosophy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We are agreed that for this deluge to happen, would have required one of the largest divine miracles of all time. Nobody has really said anything new here, in fact everyone has agreed on that much for thousands of years, and that dynamic probably won't change now either, it all comes down to the possibility of divine miracles, that some people will always accept, and some will always doubt. But whether you rather call it philosophy or psychology, since this discussion is not actually about the wording of the encyclopedic article or the literary sources, etc. if we are going to continue it we should transfer it to somewhere else, like a different wiki, blog, mailing list or whatever. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In a way it is about the article content, because it affects how much weight to allocate to the literalist viewpoint. But I feel like I'm not communicating here. The question isn't about Divine miracles in general. Neither Orangemarlin nor myself have denied them, and I've see at least two with my own eyes. It's about whether this miracle happened as some insist. When a miracle affecting the physical world happens, those physical effects persist. If this one happened, it's very strange that none of the effects we would expect can be found. On balance, the overwhelming probability is that the story is instead a parable. That being the case, a literalist reading should be given very little to no weight. It's held by only a tiny minority in any event. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well according to talk page guidelines, what we keep doing is exactly what we're not supposed to be doing - trying to decide the matter here with our own research... our sources are still going to be the same even if we could determine an answer... and the polls I have seen have actualy suggested otherwise about a tiny minority, what's with the pov pushing now? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Polls? Polls taken where? America? Most Christians don't live in America, most Christians are not Biblical literalists, and most people worldwide are not Christians. I confess I don't know what Muslims generally believe about it, so I admit "tiny minority" may not be absolutely correct.
With any subject involving scientific claims (and claims the the Flood occurred do, since it must say something about geology if nothing else) we have to make a value judgment about what constitutes good science and what does not. For example, we can dismiss fringe theories about electromagnetism being the dominant force over long distances instead of gravity; it's pseudoscience. The same in this case. I know this is uncomfortable, but scientific consensus based on what can be seen and measured doesn't inherently reflect any POV at all. It comes out the same whether the scientists are a believer or not, as long as he's honest in his treatment of the data. It's true that they don't assume Divine intervention in any phenomena they study. That's not primarily because anyone wants to deny such things happen, but because such an assumption is not useful for the task. It doesn't help us understand the physical laws under which nature typically operates.
There are some subjects in which a consensus has not yet been reached, and we must report accordingly in our treatment of them. This is not one of those cases. The research has been done, by others and not ourselves, and the evidence is overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous. The Flood did not happen.
On the other hand, a literal reading of the Bible, particularly the earlier parts of Genesis, does reflect a POV. We can report on the existence of the POV, but we cannot present it with the same weight as we do on conclusions based on research into natural history.
The question you have to ask yourself is, Is there anything about this that can convince an atheist it really happened? If the answer is no, then you're probably looking at it from a religious POV. The atheist isn't neutral of course, and if he could be convinced that the event occurred he'd look for some explanation other than God, but he would be convinced by actual physical evidence, if it existed. Otherwise you're asking him to believe something for which there's no proof outside a religious context. That's plainly unreasonable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We've had this discussion a million times, and the bottom line is that there are at least two, probably more, substantial and significant POV's here, and the article is not going to take sides or endorse one view, but remain neutral. It should be easy enough to say "According to so-and-so, x = y+z" when attibuting any controversial or disputed opinion, and infinitely preferable to saying simply "x = y+z" as if the opinion were undisputed. Those are the kind of concerns that come up in neutrality cases. Plus, saying "According to so-and-so" tells us exactly who the authority is who is making this claim, which may make the claim weightier for some people, so it is always considered essential to use this kind of formula for multiple reasons. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Any opinion can be made controversial or disputed by anyone. There are people who will argue that the world is flat, after all. Just because a POV is held by some group is no reason to give their opinions equal weight with that of a truly neutral POV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway ... It sounds like we're all happy for the site to remain in the article. Obviously we won't be agreeing on the deeper issues it raises, but that doesn't matter here (despite my earlier cheekiness, this isn't talk.origins). So we can move on to other possible improvements to the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I've been an advocate of letting most of the material in the article stay, as it adds to the historical record of Ark research and narrative analysis. However, this link qualifies as neither. It's a modern website that tries to be an authority on the subject without critical analysis. I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. JPotter 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Building a ship the size of the Ark is meaningless in the first place. Sure we can build a wooden ship the size of the Ark today. However, the question is whether they could build it whenever the Ark supposedly existed, and the answer is "probably not". Not that it or the flood occured in the first place. Titanium Dragon 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
TD, I missed that special way you put things. Orangemarlin 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping that link in there, but I would prefer to balance this sort of blatant nonsense with some links that dispute the conclusion of this tiny group of religious zealots, extremists and people in basic denial of reality. And what I see described above as science is not anywhere close to science. And I speak with the authority of someone who is a scientist and worked as a scientist my entire career. This worldwideflood website is just pure comedy, and completely unprofessional and embarassing to those involved.--Filll 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it is fringe group that's advocating pseudoscience, don't you think it weakens the article by advocating fringe theories? JPotter 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No I do not think it weakens the article. As a person anxious to debunk the incoherent rantings of these marginal groups. it is important to have access to their best claims and explanations underlying their beliefs. As long as we are clear that these are not at all scientific, and are complete nonsense, I see no problem with including them. The value of Wikipedia is that it offers a ready reference for people looking for information. Many will come to this article wanting to know about evidence for and against the existence of Noah's Ark. We do them a disservice by not making this sort of stuff available. I do NOT advocate presenting this website as having any reliability or credence, however.--Filll 19:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv from "Ark under scrituny" section

I reverted a recent addition to this section - the reverted material was:

Various comentator's have found other holes in the story, including Joe Rogan, who points out that if the ark took only Noah's family, African and Asian people would not exist today. Other obvious logical flaws in the story include the fact that Noah could not have had access to Australian or American fauna, and that one pair of each of hundreds of millions of species could not fit in a boat of the perported dimensions of the Ark.

The reason for reverting is that this section is a survey of the historical divergence between faith and science, specific to the Ark story, during the European Enlightenment. It stops at about the year 1700 because after that date (roughly) the scientific world-view had become independent of the religious, and scientists no longer felt any need to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Ark story with their investigations in the natural world. It's not intended as an arena for polemics.PiCo 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is understandable that the polemics should be removed, but shouldn't a section entitled "the ark under scrutiny" include simple common-sense arguments against the plausibility of all of the literal story? This section covers only the natural history part. There are obvious reasons of anthropology aluded to in the removed portion that could be found in more tasteful sources. Furthermore the literal version of the story includes impossible feats of engineering and construction. The size of the ark as indicated in the bible, as well as the time it took to build with a tiny amount of manpower... these are easily dismissed as fiction by science. Is there any reason, other than to avoid offending literalists, that these facts should be omitted?Maxanova 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The biblical literalism section combines modern arguments for and against the reality of the ark, It doesn't go into a lot of detail because the the mass of material is overwhelming and the arguments endless and inconclusive - you'll never convince the literalist editors on this article that the ark wasn't big enough to hold all the species, or that the koalas would have run out of fresh gum-tips on day 2. I suggest you read that section closely, and also read it in tandem with the sections on traditional views of the ark, especially the Jewish ones. The medieval Jewish rabbis were addressing the same problems as modern literalists, and coming up with remarkably similar answers. For example, the question of how four men could have built a wooden vessel bigger than the Titanic was anticipated by the rabbis, who took the verse in Genesis (just before the Noah story) in which has God say he will set "the days of man" at 120 years, and interpreted this to mean that Noah had 120 years in which to grow trees, cut and cure the wood, and build the vessel. But I guess the real difference between your point of view and mine is that I regard questions like these as interesting but peripheral; for me, not being an American, there's no need to enter into dispute with the literalists, they're just too insignificant in my country to matter; for me, the interesting and central theme of the ark story is how it serves as an example of the emergence of our modern civilisation. From what I hear coming out of America, I somewhat doubt that the US fully shares in that civilisation, but that's a separate issue. PiCo 10:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not cater to significant opinion within only one country, it seeks to have a global perspective and take all points-of-view into account. Now I would like to address the erroneous and ignorant assumption we repeatedly see in here that it is mainly people in the United States who subscribe the Bible as the Word of God, that they so not consider the Word of God to be described as "myths". Associating this view with the United States is in itself painting a false picture. I don't know what country you are in but this is a very ancient and traditional view. The purpose of encyclopedias is best served when you can learn things about the world of reality outside your own little corner of the world. I suggest you read up about all the smaller religious sects such as Sabians, Yazdânism, Bahá'í Faith, etc. etc. all of which hold the prophet Noah (and the Ark) to be a central, historical figure. He is also held to be a central figure by a number of Eastern and Oriental Christian Churches that hold the book of Genesis to be canonical and the word of God, some of these religions are currently the official religion of rule in sovereign countries such as Greece. These religions do not say "the word of God is mythology". That is what is called a Point-of-View, and will be contested as such for as long as necessary, because the Bible is a firm belief, and not one restricted to the United States. And then we have Islam, which holds Noah to have been historical (not mythological) according to the Quran, and is the official religion of rule in a large array of sovereign countries. Let us please stop these word games and foolishness and return to having a truly NEUTRAL Encyclopedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
A religious book is taken to contain the "word of god" by subscribers of the religion the book represents; and then only to the extent these subsribers wish to so take them. To the rest of the world they are mythology. In other words, that you elect to consider the bible as the (literal) word of god is a matter of conscious choice, but do not expect everyone else to view the bible in that light. •Jim62sch• 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
But I don't expect anyone else to view the Bible in that light. I only expect Wikipedia to remain NEUTRAL between all the SIGNIFICANT points of view, and not to declare ANY of the said points of view to be either True, False, Historical or Mythological. We must let individual readers work it out for themselves, according to their own beliefs or research. Exactly as I have said repeatedly, all along. I cannot believe after I have stated this so many times as I have, you are still twisting my argument and telling me "do not expect everyone else to view the bible in that light". Are you really that thick that you haven't even been paying a bit of attention to what I have been saying all along? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not the role of NPOV. NPOV should not place WP:UNDUE weight on the Bible viewpoint. You are trying to push the Bible view to create a standard of verifiability and reliability that it simply does not meet on this matter.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That is an assessment I would definitely dispute, it is unquestionably a significant viewpoint of many diverse groups as outlined above and deserves commensurate weight, not to be antagonized with pejoratives like "mythological". NPOV calls for balance between all the significant viewpoints, not totally ignoring many views while endorsing only one view that is not accepted by many. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEM, the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh are the *only* ancient records on Noah's Ark. Of these two, the vast majority of belief is based on the Bible. The Qur'an story is similar. It is not undue weight using the Bible as the majority source for this article. rossnixon 03:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV should not place WP:UNDUE weight on the Bible viewpoint. You are trying to push the Bible view to create a standard of verifiability and reliability that it simply does not meet on this matter.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC) I am not saying don't use the Bible as a source. That is really unavoidable. I'm saying don't bring its bias into the article. You are using the Bible's POV to argue against its mythological status.--ZayZayEM 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty strained argument. I am using the Bible's POV only to argue that this is an article about a Biblical story, and that the views of those belief-systems that include the Bible, with many millions of followers around the world, do (believe it or not) actually have some relevance here... therefore it is what we call a "significant" view, and we cannot assert or imply that any of the significant views are either true or false, historical or fictional. Is that not clear enough? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If people use Wikipedia for "research" they don't really want a biased article.... I would imagine the reason this article is so frightfully unbalanced (in my mind I see scales, and they're currently waaaay over the Christian side as opposed to what *I* believe to be facts) is the fact that the majority of users on English Wikipedia are American, and the majority of them are Christians, the minority cannot control what the majority choose to edit; sadly.Henners91 07:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How did four men build a ship the size of the titanic out of wood in so little time?

Shouldn't that be discussed in the articleMaxanova 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that it was built ONLY by Noah and family. To be sure, they built it, but they may have also hired workers who need not be mentioned. No large building that has ever been built lists all the workers who ever worked on its construction, only those most responsible for it's existence. Allenroyboy 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Noah hired workers and then left them to drown; that's very Christian... I prefer to think that he was helped by birdies and butterflies! Henners91 07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If eight Jews got on the Ark, and everybody else on earth died, where do asians and blacks come from

Shouldn't that be discussed in the articleMaxanova 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no such things as Jews until over 1000 years later. Allenroyboy 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)#

Middle Easterners are Caucasians so I assume Noah was too. Henners91 07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lumping together Bahá'í Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc.

I predict that sooner or later, in the article's most ideal form, Bahá'í Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other organizations that have almost zero in common with these, will eventually get their own section headers, instead of getting somewhat condescendingly lumped into "Other religions" with the "Undue weight" policy being offered up as some kind of misguided rationale for doing this. So, the question now is, will they be getting their own section headers in 2007, 2008, or 2009? Til Eulenspiegel 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If we have to do this with every religion, does this not become an unwieldy article? I know this question will open a can of worms, but isn't the LDS religion just a subset of Christianity? Orangemarlin 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case there is a reference to mention in a separate set of scriptures, so the views are distinct. I don't see any alternative (per WP:NPOV to including the various religions. If the article becomes too long, there can always be break-outs into subarticles. --Shirahadasha 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If someone has a special interest in another faith's beliefs about Noah's Ark that they feel is not adequately covered in this article, they are free to write another article. However, it is ludicrous for us to envisage covering the dozens and dozens of belief variants that exist in this article. An upper bound might include 1000s of different accounts and variations. --Filll 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I imagine long before things got that far there'd be a breakout into subarticles and a list-form subarticle serving as a table of contents for the ones on the various religious traditions. There are ways of managing the complexity involved while still keeping the main article readable. --Shirahadasha 03:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The note on the Ark in Mormon religion simply says it's "mentioned in the Bok of Mormon" - the rest of what it says in that sentence isn't strictly relevant to the Ark (it makes some mention of an "evil King Noah"). It hardly seems worth telling the reader that the Book of Mormon "mentions" the Ark, and if the mention turns out to be simply what's already in Genesis it hardly seems worth mentioing at all. So I'm removing the LDS unless and until the editor comes up with something distinctive to say about the Ark in Mormon tradition. PiCo 08:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Titanium Dragon 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

World religions

To clarify, as there seems to be some issue regarding whether my edit summary "makes sense"[13] "World religions" is far too inclusive, and inaccurate. Hence, Abrahamic religions. "World religions" is vague and has no delineations; Major world relgions, although also without a clearly defined boundry agreed upon by all do include by all accounts Hindu and Buddhist, neither of which have the Ark as part of their mythology and/or beliefs. Abrahamic is accurate. World religions is not. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some highly POV editor added an edit that seems to indicate that all members of Christianity, Orthodox judaism, etc. believe the ark is part of "human history" and the article is being "followed by WP:RELIGION." I don't care who tracks it, the edit was highly POV and plainly wrong. Orangemarlin 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the personal attack. Some kind of statement is absolutely needed somewhere in the article to indicate that there exists another POV beside the view that the Ark was fictional. I don't care how it is worded as long as it is accurate. Don't fool yourself: The Quran states that the ark existed and Muslims to this day refer to Noah (Nuh) as a Prophet and always write (PBUH) after his name out of deepest respect. This is a significant viewpoint. The Bible states that the ark existed and many Christian denominations do follow the Bible, though perhaps not all. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is only one organization that follows the Bible and declares the Ark to be real, they have so much respect for Noah that they declare him to be the angel Gabriel, unlike any other groups. All of this information is being suppressed, and you are saying I have the POV??? This dispute is going to become much worse if you refuse to even acknowledge the fact that there are huge religious organizations that do not subscribe to your personal opinions about the historicity of the Ark, and if for your own POV-pushing purposes, you will not allow the Noah's Ark article to reflect the reality of what people actually believe, instead of attempting to dictate to them what you think they "should" believe about the Ark. Til Eulenspiegel 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Pardon me, but I see no personal attack. Maybe you do not understand English very well and do not know what a personal attack is. If you need a good example, I would be glad to oblige you but in the interests of civility and comity, this sort of behavior is discouraged on WP. Some small minority of Christian sects subscribe to biblical inerrancy. Most do not. Only a few of those who believe in biblical inerrancy insist that the Ark story documents some historical event, accurate in all particulars. Many believe that the story is allegorical, or should not even be included in the canon. You are free to believe whatever you like. And if this belief is held by some segment of the Abrahamic faith community, this should be noted in the article. However, this is an encyclopedia, and the truth or falsehood of something is not determined by majority vote or a popularity contest. If an obscure minority extremist religion like the "Mormons" venerates the Ark story and declares it to be "true", this proves nothing, and some might take it as a very serious strike against its veracity, given the Mormon track record on many other issues. An encyclopedia is about what is true and what is verifiable. It is verifiable that some Abrahamic sects subscribe to the belief that the Ark was real. It is also verifiable that many Abrahamic sects do not subscribe to this belief. I suspect that since the Ark story relies on biblical inerrancy beliefs, and since biblical inerrancy is a minority viewpoint, that most Christians and Muslims probably do not believe that the Ark was literally true as described in the Koran or in Genesis. This can be described, depending on our sources. However, it has been well known for centuries that the Ark story is completely at odds with reality and all the evidence that exists. So therefore, it is part of mythology. It is a fable. A made up story. Like the Easter Bunny. Like Santa Claus. Like the Tooth Fairy. As Galileo said, "I refuse to believe that the God who gave humans reason did not intend for us to use it." You are free to reject reason if you want, but it is a bit much to insist that everyone else reject reason as well to make you feel better. Sorry. --Filll 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There was no personal attack. I did not mention your name, first of all, second of all, I attacked the edit, which was incorrect, and highly POV. And no, there are not "huge" religious organizations that believe in the ark story as a "part of human history." Only some parts of Orthodox Judaism do. The Roman Catholic Church does not ascribe to an inerrant POV on the Bible. In fact, I would posit that Noah's Ark is considered factual by a small minority of religions. Moreover, your invicility is unacceptable, especially since no one here is attempting to dictate what anyone believes, we are merely making certain that the a fair and balanced presentation is made. Orangemarlin 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of "positing" this and that without a source, I would advise you to stick with the verifiable facts. There is not a religious dichotomy in the world between Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism; other religions do exist as well. Til Eulenspiegel 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is too bad that you are incomprehensible. Oh well. I guess I did not expect much else.--Filll 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I can post whatever I want on the discussion section. Second, it is not my job to "prove" the negative. You edited the article to state that Orthodox Judaism and every single Christian in the world believes in the ark as part of human history. Verify it, and I'll shut my freaking mouth about it. Otherwise, I'll say whatever I want, whenever I want in this discussion section. If you choose to not believe it that's fine, but when it comes to the article, I only write what I can verify. Right now, as opposed to creating arguments where there are none, I have work to do, not tracking down verification or lack thereof for your edits. By the way, I note your current edits to the article are NPOV and accurate. So, why are we having this discussion anyways? Orangemarlin 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
None of my edits were ever intended to imply that every single Orthodox Jew and professed Christian believes the Ark story is historical. But on the other hand, all references to the Muslims, Bahai, Mormons, and other Christian churches (that continually speak of the Ark as history to this day in their writings) do not need to be hidden and suppressed. Do you need references to the numerous contemporary Muslim and Bahai writings that explicitly state that the Quranic account of Noah and the Ark are factual? They are numerous and not hard to find. In contrast, I challenge you to find even one single Muslim or Bahai author anywhere who states his belief that the Quranic account of Noah's ark is not factual. You can "posit" what they believe all you want, but that is useless to the project. It would be better not to "posit" beliefs onto them for which there is no source anywhere but yourself. Til Eulenspiegel 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the Koran is that it includes a statement that large parts of the Koran are allegorical, including statements about heaven and hell [14]. I also understand that the entire story of Noah and the Ark appearing in "Yunus" in the Koran is allegorical. Oops...[15]. I have found copious references to this in the literature. I guess you do not know very much about Islam, otherwise you would know this, wouldnt you?--Filll 20:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That first website states the opinion that Heaven and Hell are allegorical, that is a far cry from stating that the Prophet Nuh is allegorical. As for your second website, it appears to be a non-Muslim, non-religious (secular) analysis of the Quran that states the prophet Nuh is an "allegory", and presumably has zero authority to speak for any Muslim's beliefs. 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have found dozens of references to the allegorical nature of much of the Koran. I will decline to write some sort of huge treatise on the matter here. I am not going to do your homework for you. I have seen enough to convince me that just as in Christianity, large swaths of Islam believe in the allegorical nature of much of the sacred texts. Which makes them seem far more reasonable and rational than they are usually presented in the media or by religious extremists of various stripes. --Filll 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is supressing references to those Abrahamic sects that believe the Ark was real? No one. It should be made clear that some do, and it is made clear. There is no contest here about that. However, it is also clear that the evidence for the Ark is exceedingly weak. This has been known since at least the encyclopedia entry of Denis Diderot some centuries ago in which the complete impossibility of the story was documented in great detail. And the weakness of the evidence should also be included. Which is only fair. It would be the height of irresponsibility to do otherwise.--Filll 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you were not paying attention, but every single reference in the article that stated those "Abrahamic" religions that explicitly consider the Ark to be historical was repeatedly removed within the past 24 hrs. Perhaps this will not continue to happen, since you apparently just conceded now that we should indeed make mention of the ones that do. Til Eulenspiegel 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


If it states in the article that no Abrahamic sect believes that Noah's Ark was a real historical vessel as described in Genesis and the Koran, then this is incorrect and should be corrected. However, I doubt if it says anything like that. However, if it does, rest assured that I, and OrangeMarlin as well I am sure, as well as many others would be among the first to correct such a blatant inaccuracy.--Filll 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, on a discussion page, I could posit anything I want, up to and including the fact that this is a whole big myth, which it is. And I really don't concern myself with Bahai or Muslim beliefs, because I have never studied nor have been interested in their beliefs. I am a scientist, and frankly, if it isn't testable by science, it's a myth. Orangemarlin 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If by science you [OM] mean evolution, you are just as much a believer in a myth as everyone else you condemn. Science does not mean evolution. Evolutionism (and it is an "ism) is a corrolary to the myth of Naturalism. Science does not even enter into the picture. Science is just a methodology, not a philosophy of life and cannot even be a philosophy of life. Indeed, it is impossible to even do science without first accepting some philosophcal paradigm. I suspect that you are scratching your head at this point, because you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. That is typical among evolutionists. They know next to nothing about the foundations of science. And they blindly believe their teachers and "high priests" such as Gould, Sagan, Dawkins, etc. or such bastions of "truth" as Talk.Origins [ROFL!!!]. And just for the record, I'm studying Paleontology at a University in the USA, so I know what science is about. Allenroyboy 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Who said anything about evolution? You seem to be itching for a fight. If you want to fight about evolution, maybe you should go to another website. This sort of thing is not appropriate here, especially on a page about Noah's Ark. I will note that there is some remote connection between evolution and the Noah's Ark story. And that is great that you can spew philosophical nonsense to muddy the waters, but I will decline to take the bait. If philosophy was so valuable for scientific study, then it might actually be a required course at major schools for those majoring in science. However, this is not the case. For obvious reasons. Philosophy is widely derided by scientists and even mocked for its pointless tail-chasing. But you are free to cavort around spewing it and feel as superior as you like. Especially since you are studying "at a University in the USA" so you know what science is about. Wow I can really tell.--Filll 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You [OM]are entitled to your own opinion, if your POV is that all the field of Religion should henceforth be abolished and considered a subset of the field of mythology. But, you are not entitled to go across a multitude of articles about religion and theology, the Quran and the Bible, etc. and write that you have now declared them to be "mythology" just because they are articles about a living "religion" -- because that is the very meaning of pushing a POV, and making a tragic error by imposing your personal point of view that anyone who is offended by this behaviour "doesn't count" and should be silenced. Those are the tactics that are generally found disgusting. Get used to it, people in this world are usually going to speak up for what they believe in, rather than remain silent, and are not going to let the likes of you tell them this false "No Christians or Churches believe the Bible any more, and besides, the ones that do believe the Bible, don't count for anything" psy-op spiel. Lies do not really become the truth. If you could do this without anyone noticing or objecting, it would be one thing. But there is perhaps some wisdom to the saying, "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird" (Prov. 1:17). Til Eulenspiegel 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


If you are offended by the fact that not everyone subscribes to your narrow religious viewpoint, then I am sorry for you. This of course is how religious wars start. It has been like this for thousands of years, and gallons and gallons of blood have been spilt by people with your kind of viewpoint. Wow isnt religion wonderful and uplifting? --Filll 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is certainly an ad hominem Personal attack against my person, as well as a slanderous lie, and will be reported as such an incident. Spitting on me does not make me go away. Maybe some would, but not me. Til Eulenspiegel 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Slanderous lie? How do you think religious wars start then, if not by doctrinaire insistence that no one is allowed to believe differently than oneself? Go on tell me where religious wars come from. And how did I slander you? And what is the ad hominem personal attack? And how on earth were you spat on? Please tell me. I am sure we all want to know.--Filll 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And don't forget the evolutionary religion of Stalin who killed more than any other religion Allenroyboy 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice nonsequitur. Nothing like a little irrationality in the afternoon.--20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
religion is religion, look it up...[it doesn't just mean belief in a God. Dictionary.com--"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." or Am. Heritage Dict.--"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."] Stalin's zeal is evident by the millions dead. Go Communism!!!! Go Evolutionism!!! Allenroyboy 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please go someplace else to vandalize and inflict your graffiti and half-formed regurgitated half-truths on the naive. I have heard it all before, and I do not need to hear it again. All you will do by this exercise is convince me more of your capabilities.--Filll 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Burning of Latimer and Ridley, from John Foxe's book (1563)
Burning of Latimer and Ridley, from John Foxe's book (1563)
Filll, above you ask about how do you think religious wars start. Remember, it is not just religious wars but sect rivalries that led to the Three Blind Mice. And of course this sectarian violence continues to this day in N.Ireland and Scotland. David D. (Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Did I not already say the same thing? Maybe you were not paying attention or maybe I was not clear enough. Oh well.--Filll 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you are ASSUMING that I have any religion, and that you know what it is. Secondly, maybe you are hearing little voices in your head telling you that "noone is allowed to believe different;y", but you aren't hearing any such thing fom me. Til Eulenspiegel 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem well acquainted with "little voices in the head". Hmm...And I guess that assuming you subscribe to a religion is some sort of terrible slander against you, equivalent to spitting on you. In such case, it is best that I leave you alone in your reveries and fantasies.--Filll 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone notice how these POV pushers jump at first chance to drop some sort of reporting incident. LOL. How pathetic, especially when Filll made no attack on you whatsoever. Eulenspiegel, you are quite amusing--oops, is than an attack? Oh no. Orangemarlin 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Fill, I've enjoyed my morning engaging in this discussion with Playful Owl. He assumes I want to "abolish religion", yet if I push back on his POV, he gets all irrational. Oh well. It's amusing that their faith is so weak that any challenge to their view of the universe, obviously means their faith has no meaning. Well, obviously their faith was weak to begin with. Orangemarlin 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


The reason your statements are being reported is because Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids you from making these attacks on another's beliefs. I try to respect everybody's belief, even if it is different from mine, and everyone's right to choose for himself what to believe. This is a private decision, and I have not elected to share my decision on what to believe with you. However it is a pity that you do not respect beliefs that are different from your own. What we need is MORE respect for different beliefs, not less. The recent edits seem to be driven by a sort of Machievellian sense of neutrality, that says since "Christians cannot tell us what to believe", therefore we have to go to the opposite extreme to compensate, and state that we should tell them their beliefs are fictional. I'm not sure "Machievellian neutrality" is the kind of neutrality we want here on Wikipedia. We should avoid either extreme here, it isn't so hard to do. Til Eulenspiegel 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Til, no one has attacked anyone's beliefs. Believers of all kinds and types are welcome here; however, we must strive to attain a neutral point of view. Editors who "push" or promote a particular view are not helping achieve that, and are referred to as "POV pushers" or similar handles. Read Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy for a good essay on how to improve your ability to work towards NPOV. Remember, if a view is held to be too small to warrent inclusion in an article, it is not an attack on that view. For example, Mormons are a tiny fraction of people for whom the Noah's Ark story holds significance; this does not disparage them in any way but it does affect whether their particular view in this article is a brief mention, a full section, or not included at all. This is in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. My personal beliefs are irrelevant, as are yours - not in the larger context of our lives, of course, but in editing Wikipedia. I may believe whatever I choose - but I may not attempt to promote that belief here on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific religions

Recently Til has stated his view, here as well as elsewhere[16] that omitting specific reference to the LDS and Baha'i religions constitutes supression or censorship. I offer these figures for consideration by editors wishing to ensure we do not violate either NPOV or its sub-clause of Undue weight:

Number of adherents (figures from adherents.com, with the exception of LDS which I could not find a total figure for there)
  • Christianity: 2,100,000,000
  • Islam: 1,300,000,000
  • Judaism: 14,000,000
  • TOTAL of above three religions: 3,414,000,000
Specifics on LDS and Baha'i
  • LDS: 10,000,000[17]
  • Baha'i: 7,000,000

LDS is a sub-category of Christianity. All of the religions listed are Abrahamic. Please offer comments as appropriate. Also, please note that Til has combined his concerns for accuracy with an unwarranted and completely unacceptable personal attack, accusing editors who disagree with his desire to include a specific paragraph about the LDS of "hostility to all forms of faith." Til, I remind you again, please comment on the content, not the contributor. If you feel an edit is inappropriate, address the edit, not the editor. Consider this a NPA warning. I also note that others here have been, if not so blatant, at least not limiting their comments to content. Keep to the subject, people. If Til or anyone else believes in the absolute veracity of Noah's Ark, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or indeed anything else, that is not germane to whether his desired edits are appropriate for this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I did respond to this, but my lengthy response was removed from this page, to my own talkpage (qv) by User:KillerChihuahua. See: User talk:Til Eulenspiegel 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I do not care if Til or Roy or anyone else subscribes to any particular belief or none at all. But using the argument that the Mormons claim that Noah is the same as the angel Gabriel does not mean that all Christians and Muslims believe that Noah's Ark was an actual sea going vessel and that the Koranic and Biblical accounts of the Flood are literal descriptions of actual events, true in every detail (for one thing, they disagree with each other). There are similar chains of reasoning and illogic all the way through the arguments above. If we allowed this sort of material into the article, it would rapidly devolve into a religious tract written from a very narrow religious point of view, and be replete with inaccuracies, drastically reducing the value of the article.--Filll 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I am glad if your specialty is science, but I daresay it isn't logic. That is what's called a complete "strawman" fallacy because nobody has even dreamed of making the argument here that Mormon beliefs in Gabriel as Noah building the Ark have any import at all for what other Christians and Muslims believe. For the question of what Muslims and other Christians and Christian Churches believe about the Ark, their own writings amply speak for themselves and we should not put any words into their mouths. Til Eulenspiegel 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Except for one thing. We are writing an encyclopedia here. Remember?--Filll 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel it is unencyclopedic to mention that groups today believe in Noah, and to explain what it is they believe? Remember, nobody is telling the reader what religion to follow, we simply want to explain what beliefs are actually out there, just like all other encyclopedia articles do. Til Eulenspiegel 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. If you want to compile an extensive list of which sects believe what with regards to the Flood and Noah's Ark, I would strongly encourage you to do so. I would even be glad to help. I am not sure there is room for it in the present article, but you could write a daughter article to this one on that topic and I am sure it would be welcomed by all and sundry. The best way to do this is to start it in a sandbox (maybe KillerChihuahua can show you; if not I can hook you up if you need help). Then when you have enough material, get a few friends to comment on the format, and when it seems ok, then launch it as a separate article. It will be a lot of work, but I think it would make an interesting article, in my opinion.--Filll 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds encouraging... In fact, we pretty much have that already right now, and the article does not look like a "religious tract", does it?... the only conspicuous absence, among all the sundry scriptures that do specifically mention the Ark, is the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Moses... Til Eulenspiegel 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


The present article does not really describe all the variants that exist. For example, one might want to investigate
  • Catholic beliefs, currently and in the past (Roman Catholic and other catholic churches)
  • various orthodox Christian beliefs
  • Some of the Protestant variants, such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness, Assorted Anabaptists, Millerites, Mormon, Anglican, Lutheran, and so on, and how these beliefs have evolved with time
  • The main Jewish varieties, such as Orthodox, Chabad, Reform, Conservative, Haredi, Hasidic, Modern Orthodox, Karaite, Reconstructionist, etc and their beliefs in Noah's Ark
  • Similarly the main Islamic sects, such as Sunni, Shiite and Sufi, and maybe some of the other prominent varieties such as Alewite etc.
  • Some syncretic religious varieties such as Ba'hai and Druze and their Noachide beliefs
  • Other religions with flood traditions

Even this tiny subset of the literally thousands of possibilities would make for a very complicated article, but it would be very interesting nonetheless.--Filll 00:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To which I would add:
  • arguments debunking the flood story
  • arguments rationalizing the flood story
  • history of what book writers have been writing about the flood story for thousands of years
  • Noah's Ark art
none of which belong in the main article but do belong in separate daughter articles. Greensburger 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Greensburger, this article's NPOV is just to state what it is, a Biblical story or myth, there is no value judgement on whether it existed or not (considering the total lack of proof). Articles such as Flood geology a POV fork from here, clearly state it's junk science. The search for a Noah's ark would be the same. Orangemarlin 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Since many books have been written expressing theories about Noah's Ark that expand on and often conflict with the Genesis version, these POV's can be expressed in daughter articles that are not advocates of their POVs. Rather the articles would summarize what others have written, in a neutral encyclopedic style. Greensburger 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I know nothing about Mormon beliefs about Noah's ark, and it is news to me that they include a belief that Noah was the Angel Gabriel, but if this belief can be reliably sourced I believe it should be included, although we'll need to discuss how to separate the basic narrative of Noah's Ark from various other religious beliefs and traditions about it. It might be appropriate to have a subsection or subarticle about religious traditions about the identity of Noah, for example. However, I am inclined to take the view that given our neutral point of view policy and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper, there's simply no basis in policy for excluding LDS beliefs about Noah's ark based on some sort of editorial judgment on Wikipedia's part that LDS is an unimportant religion. I don't think it's Wikipedia's business to make such judgments. If there are a variety of religious traditions about Noah, I believe it's perfectly possible to make a network of subarticles to include these traditions in the encyclopedia in a way that doesn't sacrifice the readibility of the main article. These problems strike me as managable. However, I believe that policy supports including content on specific religions' beliefs and tradions regarding Noah's Ark -- once again, if reliably sourced -- and we need to come up with a way to make this work. Putting this material in subarticles (with a mention that religious traditions about Noah's Ark are found in Article X) would be appropriate. It's worth pointing out some specific examples of bad arguments for deciding notability and whether to include material such as WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:GHITS, we shouldn't decide whether to include material solely based on how many subscribers a publication has or how many ghits it gets. Judging the notability and importance of religions solely by their number of adherents strikes me as a similarly inappropriate practice. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include or mention arguments about the historicity of the flood narrative. I also agree that if the question is only whether material should be put in daughter articles whose contents are summarized briefly in the main article, there's no basis for complaint if not everything goes in the main article. Putting things in daughter articles (or not) is a matter of convenience and readability, not a question of basic includability. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


As I said before, I have no problem with LDS beliefs being documented on WP. However, If you document LDS beliefs, you better include a full range of other beliefs about Noah and the Ark by various sects as a function of time and place, as well as the beliefs of various organizations. And there really is not room in the present article for so much. It needs one or more daughter articles.--Filll 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the intent of ANYONE here is to create an anti-mormon article. I'm guessing that's easy to find on Wikipedia. But the fact is that of the 6 billion or so people on the planet, Mormons are notable for less 0.2% of the world. It is only notable to one state in the US (that being Utah) and maybe because of Mitt Romney, but not to discuss its view on Noah's Ark. Yes, I understand all the Wiki-rules about number, but to have an article discussing every single Christian sect's attitude about Noah's Ark would go on forever and a day. By the way, the LDS religion has no opinion on Noah's Ark, and, in fact, does not believe that science and faith should be in conflict. This has always been thought of as a tacit agreement that the LDS leadership does not oppose thoughts like Evolution and such. In fact, BYU's paleontology department is one of the premier ones in the US. Given the lack of conflict between science and faith for members of the LDS hierarchy, I doubt they would subscribe to a global flood, and, therefore, Noah's Ark becomes a nice story (as it should be). I believe my evolution class in college was taught by a member of the LDS hierarchy. Orangemarlin 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant. So now we have wikipedians using their own intuitions to lay down what official LDS doctrine is. Til Eulenspiegel 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your rudeness is incredible. How about reading WP:CIVIL, and then after reading that, spend some time with this, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
  • The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,
  • Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ... .
  • Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].
Just so you know I do not use my intuition. Orangemarlin 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that, er, really proved your point... I certainly will try to follow your notable example of Civility, you are truly a master at it and teach a valuable lesson to be studied with your every post. Til Eulenspiegel 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Till Eulenspiegel, what are you on about? Such an as Jolly Joker. •Jim62sch• 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What is going on around here? This guy needs to chill out. Orangemarlin 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Once he climbs down off the Tau-shaped gopher wood, perhaps. •Jim62sch• 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hi! What are the sources for the specific LDS beliefs involved (that the Angel Gabriel was Noah etc.?) Coming from a religion with lots of particulars and in which generalities tend to have exceptions, I tend to agree that inferring particulars about religious matters based on general statements may create a risk of WP:OR, and perhaps this may be a concern here. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh???? •Jim62sch• 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is relevant is whether the LDS stance is –significant-. If it mostly constitutes “me too”, then it is completely irrelevant. Is this significant enough to be worth mentioning in this article? I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Wikipedia is supposed to record notable information, and I don’t think it is necessarily notable. Remember the principle of undue weight. There are many, many sects larger than the LDS. Titanium Dragon 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the real issue is that this is the wrong article for that information; if the LDS think Noah is secretly the angel Daniel, and it is actually significant enough to be worth mentioning, it belongs in the Noah article, NOT this one. Titanium Dragon 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In the most recent edit reverted, the only difference in belief was a belief that Noah was the angel Gabriel. Is this is the only issue of concern? If so I'd agree the Noah article would be a better fit. If there are other elements to the LDS POV, would it be possible to provide proposed language on this talk page? Thanks. --Shirahadasha 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to restate my position: I have no objection to including material on LDS beliefs abt the Ark, provided they're distinctive. I also have some qualms about devoting too much space to LDS beliefs, as the LDS are definitely a small denomination (10 million really is pretty small, within a total Christian demographic of over a billion). PiCo 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning of Johan's Ark

Should there be a mentioning of Johan's Ark in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can-o-Mark (talk • contribs) 05:18, May 2, 2007

No, it's not notable, and it's highly POV. Please learn to sign your name. Orangemarlin 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How is it POV? Can-o-Mark 9:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference for tourist traps. That page should certainly link here, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to this topic. Titanium Dragon 09:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure it's not POV to somehow cite Johan's Ark in an article on the object it's based upon. As for notability, well, a 70 m scale model of the aforementioned mythological ship seems fairly notable to me (it has its own article too). Were it a 1 m model made of matchsticks on display in a creationist museum, I'd certainly question its notability. Anyway, its construction may be completely misguided, and it may operate as a source of deliberate misinformation in the Netherlands, but it's still a bit of a publicity coup. Adding a (single) cite to it in, for instance, the "See also" section does not seem unreasonable to me. --Plumbago 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's really a besides-the-point type reference. Whee-hee, someone made a scale model. Big whoop. •Jim62sch• 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I cant see how a 70 meter long replica of the Ark of Noah could be of any interest to people looking for information about the Ark of Noah. Can-o-Mark 0:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm does not come off well in writing. -- Ec5618 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. As should the new Almighty... movie that has Noah references--ZayZayEM 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

See [18]for an interesting screed. @@ •Jim62sch• 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. If I say anything, the editor might go "bat feces" again. Orangemarlin 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, bat guano is a good fertilizer. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Although the edit war may have calmed down in recent days, I have protected the article in the hopes this can be solved once and for all, thereby preventing a further deluge of reverts. The May 10 date is not rigid; if everything looks settled before then, the article can, of course, be unprotected. Just post to WP:RFPP and someone will get around to it. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You realise of course that your reasoning doesn't support your action. The time to protect is not when the "edit war" has calmed down. •Jim62sch• 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
hehe. "deluge" ... Mateo LeFou 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know there was an edit war. Apparently, my standard is set by real edit wars like at Intelligent design. Orangemarlin 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, real wars dagnabbit! •Jim62sch• 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Human DNA questions

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If taken literally, which is a pretty absurd notion, how did the human race for the second time spring up from such limited DNA stock? (The first time being with the Adam and Eve myth.) Our survival as a species depends continued introduction of a diverse gene pool. Shouldn't this question be a part of the article? Michaelh2001 17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right... Everyone knows there must have been lots of Diversity right from the very beginning of everything... otherwise, how would we have been able to survive without any Diversity?

Hi! Just wanted to remind folks of our talk page guidelines. This is a place to discuss what should be in the article, which needs to contain a variety of views on the subject, including views many people disagree with (See our neutral point of view policy). But it's not a good place to debate whether those views are true or not. Wikipedia has separate articles on e.g. the Evolution-creation debate which discuss questions of these sorts. Even there, we can only include published opinions by notable spokespeople for each side of these debates. Thanks! Best, --Shirahadasha 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In short, its well known there is absolutely no support for Noah's Ark having actually happened. It might be worth covering in some objections to the literal interpretation (as the genetic argument is a great objection to it), and perhaps if it isn't covered there and you can find an RS for it it might be worthwhile. Titanium Dragon 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What a silly argument. Diversity increases over time. Haven't you heard of evolution? rossnixon 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
While sort of true, the problem is that a very small population doesn't have the depth necessary to necessarily keep the species going. There is the 50/500 rule, for instance. Titanium Dragon 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ross is taking the mickey. But as an interesting illustration of what actually happens when you get real-life small populations, there's the case of Kangaroo Island off the coast of South Australia. Aout 8,000 years ago, at thend of the last Ice Age, the global sea level rose and the people on the island ere cut off from the mainland - totally cut off, as neither they nor their kith and kin had boats capable of crossing over. There must have been some interesting mythologies developed on both sides about what lay across the water, as they could see the smoke of each others fires but couldn't communicate. Anyway, the Kangaroo Islanders eventually died out, and the theory is that they were too few to keep a biologically viable population. Something rather similar was underway in Tasmania, which became isolated at the same time. The people there survived, but their cultural 'tool kit' became increasingly impoverished over the millenia - they lost the knowledge of how to make fish-hooks, even the knowledge of how to make fire, the only human population to have done so. (They coped by keeping embers with them as they travelled around). So it seems that being a small population is indeed bad for you, both biologically and culturally. Not that this applies to Noah, who belongs to a different plane of existence. PiCo 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
TD, it's not a matter of "depth" in this case. The 50/500 rule assumes that there are significant harmful mutations to begin with. When you look at the lifespans around Noah's time, this suggests some sort of genetic superiority compared to today. rossnixon 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Lifespans around Noah's lifetime were on average about 40 years; that's not very long at all, and would indicate genetic inferiority if anything. It is, of course, probably slight prediliction for living shorter periods of time, but mostly the difference is due to nutrition, health care, and similar modern inventions which make life a lot less hard on people.
Also, the 50/500 rule doesn't rely on deletorious traits existing prior to the population bottleneck; the reality is that in a very small population deletorious traits are not selected against as strongly, so genetic drift can cause even a deletorious trait to become fixed, which is bad in the long term for the species. Whether the trait is preexisting or a new mutation is irrelevant. Titanium Dragon 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you. 71.253.132.235 12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anonymous editor who's incapable of spending 2 minutes to get a real name. And second, we don't care, since TD is stating verified facts, not a pejorative statement like yours. Orangemarlin 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Pejorative? Hey yeah, that might work! I no longer have a right to choose what to believe or state my belief, because it hurts your feelings... Well luckily I live under the US constitution where we have the first and second amendments, so my rights not to believe your "verified facts", and to say so, are guaranteed. 71.253.132.235 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Now this is definitely pejorative. My feelings aren't hurt. And you can say whatever you want, but if they lack verification, they can't be used in an article. And if you don't believe us, well, once again, none of us will be hurt. Orangemarlin 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that anonymous editor meant to write "I don't understand you"? David D. (Talk) 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why wouldn't the anonymous editor write that? That's a big difference in language. Orangemarlin 20:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if you don't believe me, its well known and well documented. You can prove it mathematically and computationally very easily. See genetic drift and similar articles on the subject, or take a course in evolution. Titanium Dragon 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(ri) The 2nd Amendment? Raising a militia, or making an oblique threat? Either way, utterly pointless. •Jim62sch• 21:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I know! You could just get the Bill of Rights declared as "hate speech"... because you find it "threatening"...! 71.253.132.235 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Titanium Dragon 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't feed trolls. I like teasing them. However, this one is threatening us with the 2nd amendment, which apparently has a secret clause (right after the secret clause that allows Americans to shoot each other at will, and to kill deer with AK-47's) that allows one to ask very silly questions. Orangemarlin 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Except that I wasn't asking you anything, I was telling you something. 71.253.132.235 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

POV dispute and Featured article

Is that possible in one article? I suspect one has to be removed. 213.175.125.22 11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it needs to be unfeatured, be my guest to propose it for being removed from FA status. Titanium Dragon 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the POV tag that needs to be removed - it's ridiculous to tag a whole article because of a category dispute!PiCo 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I and other editors dispute the POV-pushing, opinionated nature of this controversial "mythology" category on this article about a religious teaching. I don't know of any more appropriate way or place to indicate that there is an active dispute with the article's point-of-view and taking sides. Also, if an article is featured, and then is actually altered in a manner calculated solely to endorse one POV and, incredulously, play the other POV off as 'insignificant' (I think that alone is what's provoking the comparisons to Stalinism) - does this mean editors are not allowed to dispute it at all, just because the article has a "featured" button on it? I would say remove the featured button at a minimum, if you are not going to NPOV the article. An NPOV article is one that is not openly antagonistic, one that does not proclaim one POV correct and all others (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) lying, when nothing has been proven to everyone's satisfaction, nor is likely to ever be. To take again your "Jesus as Myth" example, that is an article about a theory or POV, and it is made clear that it is only a POV or theory. This is a very similar situation because Noah and the Ark were very real acccording to many traditions that see him as a prophet, all over the Middle East but also all over the world. Of course we can't endorse any of those traditions either, but not endorsing any of them does not -logically- mean that we do have to attack them in the article. What the article should do is accurately explain what everyone's viewpoint of Noah is, all the significant groups, and not give one viewpoint or school of thought the seal of approval while belittling all the others. Calling Noah a myth is definitely POV, every bit as much as calling Jesus a myth. So maybe the solution would be to have a dedicated, separate article similar to "Jesus as myth", describing the ideas and views of some that Noah's Ark is a myth, you could even call it "Noah's Ark as myth" on the basis of the title "Jesus as myth". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No other editor aside from CS has "dispute[d] the POV-pushing, opinionated nature of this controversial "mythology" category". My emphasis. This tag has been removed. CS has continually shown to misunderstand what the Category:Mythology is for. If he has a problem with that category, he should argue against it ther and not prove a point using this article.

I have removed the NPOV tag. Reinsertion without a valid argument should be considered vanadalism.--ZayZayEM 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a falsehood to state that I am the only person disputing the mythology category. Please stop telling falsehoods. Be honest and tell the truth. A number of other editors on this page besides me have disputed this POV. This category is controversial and I am not giving up the dispute, I will get arbcom in on it if I have to because this is blatantly pushing a POV that wikipedia cannot push and remain credible as a neutral source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the disputed Category. That way the NPOV tag is not required. Discussion on the Category should be continued off the article itself. What is next? An RFC? rossnixon
You have it exactly backward. Representing this minority religious opinion as fact, or possibly factual, is POV-pushing. Representing a scientific consensus as fact is not. Yes, I know you and a few others personally take the religious opinion as fact. The thing is, there are many religions, and unless you're prepared for all of them to be able to present their mythologies about the world's origin as fact as well, we can't privilege yours. (Doing that across the board would be a sea change in Wikipedia's stated mission, which clearly no one is going to agree to.) But science is science no matter what your religion, as long as you approach it honestly.
Comparing this to "Jesus as myth" creates a false analogy. (I acknowledge the article's title is misleading, since it describes a POV where Jesus is entirely mythical; that is, entirely a product of allegorical or symbolic story with no historical foundation. That this is not necessarily true I have already explained.) For a broader perspective, see Historicity of Jesus. Noah's Ark is, even in the most optimistic view, prehistoric. No one says that Noah himself ever wrote anything down, and Scripture doesn't even hint at the existence of writing at the time. This is the very definition of prehistory. And even Scripture is silent on the cultural context in which Noah lived. There's nothing there to grasp onto.
Jesus, however, lived during history. He is placed in a specific cultural context that we can identify and which seems in most details we can examine via archaeology to be accurate. We can't say exactly what he did from the historical record, but that's true of nearly all people from that period. Scripture says he lived right about the time we would have expected him to have based on the available evidence (e.g. stylistic analysis of the New Testament). We have little reason to doubt he actually existed even from an atheist POV. Some do, but in contrast to the situation with Noah, it is those who think Jesus is ahistorical who are in the minority. To state it in the most minimal possible terms, the historical existence of Jesus is credible.
Again, this does not mean he is not also mythological at the same time. "Mythology" simply means a body of stories in which people find meaning and some form of truth. This obviously has little bearing on whether or not the story is literally true. The fact that most mythologies are not is what has led to the word's connotation of "fictional". But at least some professional Christian mythologists knew differently, in examples I have already provided.
I really don't know why I'm bothering though. You have not bothered to meaningfully engage any of the other arguments presented; I have no reason to expect you will engage this one. But unless you do present some kind of valid argument, and don't simply continue to beat the same old drum, how can we possibly take this "dispute" seriously? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
But TCC, who is trying to represent it as fact? Clearly you still haven't grasped what I am saying if you still think that's it. I guess I will have to keep explaining some more. Not callingit fact doesn't mean going to the opposite extreme or calling it a myth. It means total neutrality, which is not taking any position, and not taking any side. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No. I understand you perfectly. It's you who have still not grasped what is meant by "myth" even though it's been explained numerous times.
But there are two facets to this discussion. The meaning of "myth" is only one of them. The other is that we have no reason to leave the door open to a factual literal interpretation at all, so even words that out-and-out denote "fictional" are not out of place -- or would not be, if such words didn't always fail to express that the very purpose of such a story is to convey a truth. This isn't "taking sides". It's a perfectly neutral statement of the available evidence impartially considered.
This is now the third time I've asked this on this page. It is yet unanswered. Unless you can answer it I must conclude that there is no serious dispute to be made. What evidence is there, when impartially considered by someone ignorant of the Scriptural account, that would compel that person to conclude that a worldwide flood had occurred in the relatively recent past? Please give evidence that would not be contradicted by the 99% of geologists, astronomers, and physicists who do not share your religious views. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That is actully a total red herring, it doesn't matter a whit if there is any evidence or none for policy purposes, what matters is that we stay neutral between the SIGNIFICANT viewpoints. So it matters more that a significant number of followers of a significant number of creeds do have this viewpoint, not whether or not it can be proven. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No one would not describe the Ark as mythological. Maybe they'd use that word and maybe they wouldn't, but they'd agree it fits the defintion given in mythology. Its fairly clear at this point that you are disagreeing to disagree, because you have yet to produce any RS which would contest the mythology description. Titanium Dragon 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
CS, this is most disappointing, because I've much appreciated the good work you've done elsewhere. You're avoiding the issues presented yet again. I really wish you wouldn't. Far from a red herring, these are genuine concerns. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It is Not a faslehood that CS is the only one claiming a POV dispute. I have requested clarification. Talk:Noah's_Ark#Is_there_a_Dispute Noone else has come forward saying they dispute it from a basis of neutrality. One other editor has disputed its usage on the basis of accuracy.
I was also originally disputing on the basis of accuracy, upon looking at wikipedia's guidelines for mythological categorisation - I have found and argued why this page belongs in mythology. Please confront your arguments against Wikipedia's usage of "Mythological" that is clearly used to classify events, people and objects pertaining to "a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people" on the pages pertaining to Category:Mythology. I put quite a bit of effort into cleaning out Category:Mythological ships and creating Category:Legendary ships to clear up this matter of POV. There is a disclaimer on the Mythological category page explicitly explaining that such categorisation does not aim to push any POV as towards the inherent truthfulness or falsity of such narratives.

Please remain Cool and do not threaten other editors with arbcom.--ZayZayEM 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From RfC

  • Just saw the RfC. I recommend we stick with Category:Mythological ships. Noah's Ark is a mythological story, and, as previously stated, that is not a statement regarding its factuality. Unfortunately, it seems a number of people have derailed the issue by discussing such irrelevant topics as the believed factuality of other mythological stories and the (un)popularity of Fundamentalist Christians. If anyone cares to question my POV, note that I am a Christian with a moderate amount of religious higher education behind me (this isn't about my credentials, though). Legendary is not the same thing, either. Sxeptomaniac 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone give an example of another historical ship which has been tagged with Category:Mythological ships? This example would need to be one that a large minority of people believe to be factual. If there are no other examples, then this Cat does not belong to Noah's Ark.rossnixon 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Several ships that have now been classified as Category:Ghost ships were in the Mythological ships category, along with some historical ships such as the Mayflower if I am reading previous discussions correctly. I have totally cleaned up these categories so that such ambiguity about the nature of the mythological category has been rectified. Articles/Categories that are inititially created poorly should not be dismissed on that basis if tehy are subsequently cleaned up--ZayZayEM 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I created Category:Mythological ships with the intention of including historical ships about which a significant mythology has accumulated, such as the SS Edmund Fitzgerald, the Mayflower, the USS Constitution, the HMS Victory, the RMS Titanic, etc., as well as entirely fictional ships like the Argo, the solar barge, etc. I added a number of the historical ships to begin with, but they were summarily removed by the regular editors of those articles, and I had no intention of getting involved in a fight over it everywhere. I suppose I ought to have included the note from Category:Mythology, but I don't know that any of those editors even looked at the category before removing their articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Those ships are better suited to Category:Legendary ships if anything. Mythology requires a religious perspective.--ZayZayEM 02:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
According to some definitions, but that's an oversimplification. Myths are stories that express the worldview of a culture, and they're religious only to the extent that the culture is. The word means simply "story" in Greek, with no connotation of religion to it. See the definition at [19]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see above discussions, especially wikipedia's classification of "mythological" at Category:Mythological as discussed here - Talk:Noah's_Ark#Compromise:_Mythological_.E2.86.92_Legendary. Please discuss the sue of mythological in wikipedia at that portal, and don't use this page to prove a point.--ZayZayEM 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


The question of whether the account given in the Bible is true or not would appear to be the matter in dispute, and the essence of WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia can't have an opinion on such a matter. Historians, archeologists, etc. tend to have one opinion, certain religious scholars another. Wikipedia can only discuss the narrative as described in the text, then identify the different opinions. Different approaches use different methods to make sense of reality and attempt to ascertain what is true. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia can't tell the reader which one to believe. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
True, unfortunately Codex has appropriated and misapplied your comments.
BTW, sorry about the edit summary refering to you as an unknown -- Codex' spelling showed nothing on Interiots's tool, but the correct spelling did (of course). •Jim62sch• 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just read the RfC, and a good deal of this Talk page. Noah's Ark plainly fits within Category:Mythology per the boxed clarification above. Not sure why there should be a category specifically for mythological ships; suspect that is a red herring. It is unfortunate that "unreadable username" does not agree with the usage of the term Mythology as used academically and on Wikipedia; that is no excuse for tendentious editing. SheffieldSteel 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't intend the category to be a red herring or to make any kind of point. The idea was to collect articles about ships, fictional or not, around which a significant body of mythology had developed. But it has been widely rejected by the editors of most articles on historical ships where this was the case, so if it gets deleted I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I assumed exactly that, TCC :-) Despite your good intentions, issues like "what is a ship?" are distracting editors from other issues (you couldn't make it up, could you?) All I really meant is that we should try to focus on what "mythology" means, and hence whether it's an appropriate term. SheffieldSteel 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Someone added a POV tag to the article but gave no reason on the talk page. So I removed it. PiCo 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he did, but you have to wade through the "Category:Mythological Ships" thread to find it. However, it should be gone anyway as someone else has since removed the category. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The POV tag was removed, and the category was restored. This is silly. Orangemarlin 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. I have no interest in categories, any categories. Codex, your quarrel is with the category, not the article - take your POV tag over there, but leave it off the article, please. PiCo 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Codex, you are getting no support in your edit war. I have placed WP:3RR warning on your talk page. You have actually exceeded three, but I think as a long-time editor you deserve some compassion. Your placing the POV tag is a one-man war, so relax and try to find consensus. And if you can't get consensus, is it possible that maybe you might be a bit off-base? Orangemarlin 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You are not the Judge here who decides who is entitled to your "compassion" and who isn't, who in utter arrogance seeks to dictate what doctrines are to be declared "mythology" and what doctrines meet your approval. These things were already decided by other bodies for significant numbers of followers, NOT BY WIKIPEDIA. This is a violation of NPOV, I have every RIGHT as an editor to dispute the article, and you have no RIGHT to declare the dispute over when it is still being disputed. This dispute will continue and will not stop until some sanity is restored here. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DECLARE ONE WORLD RELIGION'S DOCTRINES "MYTHOLOGY" WHILE STATIMG THAT ANOTHER RELIGION'S DOCTRINES ARE NOT "MYTHOLOGY" BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT THINK SO. I WILL POINT OUT THIS BLATANT POV VIOLATION TO VERYONE AND ALL MEDIA INCLUDING JIMBO WALES. THIS IS THE MOST CLASSIC VIOLATION OF THE CONCEPT OF "POV" ANYONE COULD IMAGINE, I COULD NOT DESIGN A MORE TEXTBOOK CASE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO TRAMPLE ALL OVER "NEUTRALITY". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I can be as compassionate as I choose to be, that is an essential human right. But I'm not getting into that philosophical discussion. By every definition of the word mythology, this is one. Let's refer to the trusty Oxford English Dictionary, which states that mythology is a body or collection of myths, esp. those relating to a particular person or thing, or belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. It is a completely neutral description of this story. The reason it is a myth is that lacking scientific proof of all that would be necessary for this ship to have ever existed (for example, a global flood), it could not, in fact, ever existed. And to call me "anti-religious" is amusing. I'm anti-pseudoscience, but we're not placing that tag on this story. Orangemarlin 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

CS has been a problem on numereous articles, and pretty much every time I've run into him he's shown the same lack of understanding of precendent, the NPOV policy, and the word mythology, not to mention the idea that fundamentalist Christianity is not the only viewpoint. I brought up the category because I thought fictional ships was not an intuitive category for the Ark, but it incontrovertibly belongs in Category: Mythological Ships. I proposed its creation here and elsewhere, where people who actually deal with ship categories tend to watch. Titanium Dragon 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never once argued that Fundamentalist Christianity is the only viewpoint. I suppose it is one among several viewpoints. Neutrality means not endorsing any viewpoint, such as the ones that call this mythology when other viewpoints dispute the accuracy of that label and they are not insignificant. I would also oppose labelling the Quran mythology, having read it, because it is a sacred text of a world religion followed today, not because I agree or disagree with it or simply because it contains many religious stories that some would call historical and others would not call historical. "Mythology" is a loaded word that has always been used to express a POV. It hasn't suddenly acquired some new innocence just now. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Codex has been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. I wish it wasn't necessary but the reverts were becoming disruptive. Categorizing the ship as "mythological" does not make the article POV, in my opinion. However, without the disruptive and argumentative element, I would suggest we come to a viable consensus with CALM opinions from all of the editors. I'm willing to support the consensus, but right now, my belief is that this ship is mythological. What say ye? Orangemarlin 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how the Noah's Ark story could NOT be mythology, under any of dozens of definitions. We have no physical ark to study. We have no reasonable evidence that an ark ever existed, aside from a few stories from a few different traditions that do not agree with each other. Everything we know about the ark and the description of the flood screams that it is an allegorical story at best, and certainly does not approach "fact" at all. This has been known for centuries, and if any one disputes it, frankly it casts a very negative light on their ability to reason and make judgements. Fundamentalist Christians that believe in biblical inerrancy constitute a teeny tiny fraction of the population, and for their own twisted and vile hatemongering reasons they want to push this agenda aggressively to spew their hatred and illogic on Wikipedia. I would suggest strongly that this be resisted, and that Noah's Ark be definitely categorized as mythology. To categorize it as anything else is the height of inanity, and dishonest and misleading. There are plenty of right wing religious sites on the internet. Let them spew their nonsense there. --Filll 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Mythology says, "As discussed above, the status of a story as myth is unrelated to whether it is based on historical events." That seems to me to cover the objections of those that believe that the story is an historical event. Seems like a rather silly category, though. But that's another discussion. Carlo 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The agenda of those who want to declare the story of Noah's Ark a mythology is absolutely clear to anyone who follows this talk page. These are the same parties who seem to spend all their time on this talk page trying to engage any editors they can in a continual discussion not about actual article content, but about whether or not wikipedia can do some research to decide or declare the story fictional. Mythological is a synonym of fictional, compare the conversation in the vry similar talk section "Fictional ships". It may have other more ambiguous meanings to some academicians, but everyone knows how most English speakers use the term, in the same sense that they are always arguing. I would like to see Wikipedia remain neutral and not declare any of the great religious texts or any of the significant world views that are practised in the world today to be either true or false. However they seem to be operating on behalf of a particular world view that seeks to have all others declared either false or mythological. This is very poor word choice, calling someone else's firm beliefs "mythology" is polemical at best, and if it is as innocent as they claim, they should find a more neutral word to express what they are really trying to say. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Uh, what word would you prefer? Noah's Ark is every bit as mythological as the story of Ulysses' escape from the cyclops. That people choose to believe it as fact is a separate issue. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah's ark is not mythology. Pieces of the wood from the ark were Carbon 14 dated in 1953 to the correct period by two universities. The ark has been seen, flown over, photographed, sampled, stood on, etc. since 1840 by about 150 people from various nations. It is currently under many feet of ice (being at an altitude of 13,000 feet) and is to the best of my understanding is in an area controlled by Russian airspace so it can not be easily gotten to. If global warming experts are right, the ice will melt again soon some day and we will be able to view it again. Jbdm 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your other comments to a new section below, in case you lost it. You'll need to provide a lot of peer-reviewed references before any of us buy it. And if all of the ice melted again, it would be a catastrophe for low-lying cities, but sorry, still not enough water to cover the world. It would raise the water level in the ocean by 64 m, or maybe 200 feet. The shoreline would move in a long way, but not enough to qualify as a global flood. And of course, not all of the ice could melt in global warming, unless we're talking seriously bad global warming, meaning the average temperature in the poles goes up by 20-40 degrees C. Orangemarlin 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot Archiving?

Should we move to bot archiving? Set the timer for no posts for 14 days, or 30 days, say? This page is always a bit of a pain to archive. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be for that. Set it for 30 days, and if it doesn't help, we can change. I want to watch how you do this, because I've always been curious. Orangemarlin 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else? Pro, Con, Questions? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. :) TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who is NOT making a joke? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
By which I mean, of course, that bot archiving is a good idea. The page is unwieldy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Great, no objections? Fine, doing it. Please note I did not set up incremental right now, we'll have to advance the archiving manually or decide how big is too big an archive. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What Year did Noahs Ark happen?

I ask because I am sure that Some thing else was happening in this world at the same time.

The Global Flood happened somewhere between 2300 and 2500 BC. Yes, something else was happening - vegetation was being compressed into future coal and oil deposits. rossnixon 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The section "Biblical literalism and the Ark" gives a brief overview of the subject. As for what else might have been happening at a moment when the entire world was under 20 feet and more of water, one can only speculate - but I imagine it involved a lot of holding of breath. PiCo 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It didn't. The historical event on which it was based happened about 2900 BC, when there was a catastrophic river flood at Shuruppak, Sumer. See Ziusudra. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That would have been a different flood. You don't need an ark to save humans and animals from local floods - you just move to higher ground. rossnixon 01:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that so? We can tell that a local river flood happened c. 2900 BC, but apparently not a worldwide flood c. 2400 BC! Imagine that!
The details of what happened are unknown since by the time we have any documentary evidence a few hundred years later, a considerable amount of legendary material had already accumulated around the historical event. My own experience with sudden floods convinces me that one does not necessarily have time to get to higher ground; a nearby barge may have been the only choice. Regardless, the flood at Shuruppak and the almost immediate rise of Kish afterward, both of which are archaeologically attested, correlate with the sequence presented in the myth and the traditional Sumerian King List. Every other flood myth recorded in the Fertile Crescent is for all intents and purposes identical to the story of Ziusudra as we first see it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist adding this link PiCo 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The time the flood supposedly occured ancient Egypt was doing quite well and there was a lot of activity in Mesopotamia, as well as in China. It "should have" happened during recorded history, but is conspiciously absent from all written records from the time period. Titanium Dragon 04:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting intro to Other flood stories/Mesopotamian flood myths

I deleted the intro to this section - anyone interested in seeing it can look it up in the history section - because in my view it took up too much space (this is already a very long article) and said too little. The relevance of Mesopotamian flood myths to the Noah's Ark story is contained in the remaining section. Comment welcome. PiCo 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus or compelling reason to suppress this information, so I am restoring it. Til Eulenspiegel 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with PiCo. Reverting. Orangemarlin 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverted again. Til is still as disruptive as ever, I see. •Jim62sch• 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem. Til Eulenspiegel 12:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You reverted twice, on the basis that you didn't see consensus. That's disruptive. -- Ec5618 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That's also not what ad hominem means. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem means taking the argument away from the facts and "to the man", ie trying to argue about the person making the argument, a classic tactic common in politics of the last 15 years that is also logical fallacy. For example, making comments like "Til, you're living up to the meaning of your moniker..." as we saw earlier today, is an ad hominem. What does my "moniker" mean to you anyway? Was it the story of a simple man who exposed pretentiousness with his wit and made the haughty high and mighty self-styled "authorities" perpetually cringe? Or do you see it as having something to do with owls and mirrors? Either way, it's an ad hominem because it is irrelevant. Til Eulenspiegel 05:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


(Reducing indent). Here's the deleted intro to the "Other flood stories" section. Repeating what I said above, my reason for deleting was that it's very long and doesn't actually say much - not much of direct relevance to Noah's Ark, anyway. I'm not saying that any of it is untrue - flood myths are indeed widespread - but they aren't Noah's flood. The crunch for Til comes in the first sentence of the second para - "Biblical literalists point to these stories as evidence that the biblical deluge, and the Ark, represent real history" - this is true, but do we need all these words to make that point? PiCo 13:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Flood stories are widespread in world mythology, with examples available from practically every society. Noah's counterpart in Greek mythology was Deucalion; in Hindu texts, a terrible flood was supposed to have left only one survivor, a saint named Manu (reputed author of the Manu Smriti law code), who was saved by Vishnu in the form of a fish; and in the Zoroastrian Avesta the figure of Yima saves a remnant of mankind from destruction by ice in an "enclosure" (vara). Flood stories have been found also in the mythologies and religions of many preliterate peoples, from areas distant from Mesopotamia and the Eurasian continent; the Chippewa Indians' legend is but one example.[22]

Biblical literalists point to these stories as evidence that the biblical deluge, and the Ark, represent real history; ethnologists and mythologists suggest that legends such as the Chippewa have to be treated with great caution due to the possibility of syncretism from contact with Christianity (and the desire to shape traditional material to fit the newly adopted religion), as well as a common need to explain common natural disasters over which early societies had no control.[citation needed]

I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself, PiCo. Don't write things like "The crunch for Til comes blah blah blah" because you cannot read my mind. In fact, you are wrong. The part I particularly want to keep is the mention of the Avesta, Yima and Vara. This is fair to mention in the article as a parallel to the Flood story (Vara being a parallel to the Ark), it is easily referenced as such, and it is not fair to delete or suppress it. Please put it back. It isn;t there to prove anything or make any point, it is only there simply because it is entirely encyclopedic to trace these parallel developments that one would find in any book on the subject, and it's unencyclopedic to leave it out with no very good reason. Til Eulenspiegel 20:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't get to draw those parallels yourself. That would be original research. You need to find a reliable source that does. But they don't sound all that similar to me anyway. (No boat or rescued animals in the Manu story, and the Zoroastrian story isn't about a flood.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not drawing any paralells myself, nor am I engaging in original research. Finding a source shouldn;t be too hard. As I said above already, if you were actually to do some research, practically any book on the subject of Noah's Ark you might pick up is going to pick up on the parallels with the Zoroastrian Yima and the Vara. And vice versa. Til Eulenspiegel 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
How about this book? If that's not enough there are lots more [20]

Til Eulenspiegel 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read it? Do you know what it says? Can you reference a specific page?
Also, someone wrote an entire book on the Zoroastrian Yima? Must have been quite the best-seller. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice, the "a sort of"? •Jim62sch• 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And here it is in Britannica. [21] But I guess here, it's "original research", just because you don't like it. Til Eulenspiegel 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Iranian religion also had a variant of the Noah's Ark myth. In this myth, Yama appears as the first herdsman and leader of humankind. After a long rule during which he has to enlarge the earth three times owing to overcrowding, Ahura Mazda tells him that a great winter is coming and advises him to prepare for it by building a gigantic three-story barnlike structure (vara) to hold pairs of animals and seeds of plants."

Til Eulenspiegel 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when EB says "gigantic", it is understating. The dimensions of the Vara were said to be two miles to a side. Another interesting, encyclopedic tidbit you may want to consider adding. Til Eulenspiegel 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Now was that so hard? Please -- don't add unreferenced material to a featured article. It brings down the quality. Of course, a secondary source would be better than the Britannica, but the one you cited from Google Books is one of those Indo-centric weirdness that we're better off leaving out entirely. The overall thesis is that all modern monotheistic religions are based on the Vedas. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Some scholars do say the Vedas inspired the other religions, but that is of course much more contentious. But any source you can find that even mentions the Vara, is also going to mention the Ark. I admit I know nothing about the google book, I found it in one minute google search, so it may not be worthy, but for that one that isn;t, there are scores more that surely are. Til Eulenspiegel 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, old Ganga gets 300+ hits on "Ganga Prasad"+religion. Whoo-hoo! •Jim62sch• 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I must be missing the part about the flood and the boat. •Jim62sch• 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus of scholars who actually study such thungs as "Comparative religion" is that there are parallels between the Avestan Yima story, the Vedic Manu story, and the Biblical Noah story, regardless of whether there is an actual boat and a flood, or a "vara". If you can find a source disputing this connection, I would like to see it. There may be some disagreement over whether one of these stories directly inspired the others, and if so, in what order, but no scholars disputes the paralells between the Ark and the Vara AFAIK. Til Eulenspiegel 21:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I see you still don't get it. It's the other way around. We cite things we want to include, not things we want to leave out. If it's an overwhelming consensus that these stories are parallel is should be easy to reference. And from a mainstream source, not one on the fringes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean, not like the Encyclopedia Britannica? Til Eulenspiegel 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Britannica is acceptable, even if secondary sources are to be preferred. My point was just that we need something other than a sweeping assertion and a demand for contrary evidence. "You can't prove me wrong!" is insufficient for inclusion in the article. You have to prove yourself right. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Britannica is a tertiary source. A secondary source would be preferable. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure who wrote that bit, but calling it a "variant of" is utter nonsense. Is causation proved (as in, Noah's ark was borrowed to create the other myth)? Are the parallels really all that close, or are they really tangents (like David v Goliath, and Odysseus v the Cyclops)? •Jim62sch• 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, moral of the story, Jim62sch is the authority, and the Britannica is Original research. Amazing. Til Eulenspiegel 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How about Professor Darmesteter, the scholar who translated the Zend Avesta (whom the other source was quoting)? [22] Til Eulenspiegel 21:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Did Darmesteter make the correlation in a published work? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm taking sides here, but an online source is suddenly not good enough? This is an online version of a work published in 1880. In any event, this citation actually undermines Til's thesis. See this footnote [23] It seems the connection to the Hebrew Noah was made deliberately, even to the point of using the Hebrew word for "rain". This is therefore an a posteriori parallel, and isn't a good example of what this section is about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't see the footnote, thanks. Ok, we now have a comment in a footnote of a published work dating to 1880, correct? And the comment states the translator made the parallel and not the original work? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I think the footnote is from the original. It's the translator's saying that the Zoroastrian mythographer was trying to make that connection, and borrowed a Hebrew word for the purpose that was later misunderstood. Added: He was quoting a commentary there, but I can't tell if it was a traditional ancient commentary or not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, stop saying these things like "undermines Til's thesis"... I have not actually made any kind of "thesis" here whatsoever, unless simply to point out that practically every scholar in the field who has ever had anything to say about the Vara, has made some kind of connection with the Ark - granted, some a stronger connection than others, but at a minimum, drawing similarities between the two. We should strictly leave our own "theses" out of it, and let the readers infer what they will, right? Til Eulenspiegel 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indent). Til is actually correct, there is an established scholarly link between the biblical Ark and the Zoroastrian myth. Not only the Ark, either: scholars see Iranian influence in the Genesis creation account, in the conceptualisation of angels and demons, (the Zoroastrian Ahriman is described as "the prototype of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic Satan), in the post-Exilic development of the idea of the messiah, and many other areas. The Jews seem to have come into contact with Iranian religion at the end of the Exile, through the Persians - thus just in time to be included in the composition of the first chapters of Genesis. If Til really feels this is important, I'd be willing to put a sentence in saying that the Noah's Ark story was influenced by the Zoroastrian myth. PiCo

Once again, that would be drawing too much of an original inference that is disputed and not supported by any of the refs we have dug up. Just suffice it to say that scholars have noticed similarities between Noah's Ark and Yima's Vara. Something like: "Scholars have pointed out similarities between the Ark story and an account in the Avesta where Yima constructs a Vara - a three level structure, two miles square - to protect mankind from an ice age". This is more neutral - remember, there are also the POVs that the Zoroastrian story was influenced by Noah, or that both were dervied from the Vedas, etc., rather than the other way around, so we don't have to take any of these POVs, just state that they have been connected. Til Eulenspiegel 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Except that the section under discussion is about parallels in other mythologies which are used by literalists to bolster their claim that the deluge was a historic event. If the Persian myth was deliberately connected with the Biblical one at some point, as that one source says, then this is less meaningful than might otherwise be the case. It seems to me there are better parallels that might be drawn with other mythologies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well we've got several different pictures of the Ark from several different sources. We've got those who say it was shaped like a cube, those who say it was shaped like a pyramid, etc., we've got all the various dimensions and floorplans, etc. Then we've got the description of the Vara, which is considered relevant to the Ark by those who publish books about Comparative Religion, other encyclopedias, etc. Note that I am not trying to argue that any one of these contradictory descriptions is "correct" or "incorrect", I merely find them all "encyclopedic" -- and the opposition to including this encyclopedic material, for the silliest pretexts, just seems to be a rabid knee-jerk assumption that I am using them to try to "convince" you of something, or building some kind of "thesis". You've got me all wrong, I just want to list them all, not synthesize them in any way, but what all this says about the way this article is edited isn't a very pretty picture, I'm afraid. Til Eulenspiegel 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Til, we have to have some mechanism for deciding what goes in and what doesn't, otherwise we end up with a book instead of an article. PiCo 05:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputing Neutrality

This article is not at all neutral and with one sided editors summarily deleting all cited, verified information that does not pass the litmus test of their agenda (they don't like it and wish it weren;t true, so they don;t want readers to access it) it is getting less and less neutral all the time. Til Eulenspiegel 12:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You can go back into the archive and see that the POV debate has a long history. Until every knee bows and every tongue confesses the same thing, frankly there will remain arguments about POV. But they make interesting reading and reveal a lot...Katherin 05:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV policy requires us to present EVERYTHING that is relevant to the topic, not only the things that support a certain POV. Til Eulenspiegel 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop making grand claims, and try to make points regarding the text. Why should this be covered in the 'scientific and critical scholarship'-section? -- Ec5618 12:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Til, you sound a bit paranoid. There is no "agenda" here other than to maintain an FA article. And no, NPOV makes no such claim re "relevance" as relevance is a vague and often disputed concept.
For the rest, I agree with Ec -- explain why the material belongs in the 'scientific and critical scholarship' section. •Jim62sch• 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The section proposed was POV: It listed any myth that had a flood willy-nilly, without making any effort to show how, say, a legend of being turned into a fish related to Noah's Ark. It was unreferenced, avoided mentioning any criticism of the idea, and so on. Adam Cuerden talk 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is actually very POV towards the religious aspects of Noah's Ark. There is barely a reference to the undisputed facts that there was never a worldwide flood, that it's impossible for a ship that large to stay afloat, and that a few hundred animals stuffed on a boat wouldn't account for the diversity of species today. So, if anything, I'd throw an NPOV tag on it for being an unbalanced article to religious POV. However, we don't do that, but at least we're going to keep the religious aspects accurate and reference. Orangemarlin 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Orange, Your comments always make for a good read. Did you not notice the categories of “Abrahamic mythology” and “Mythological ships”? But since you asked Dr. Gillespie (and maybe Dr. Donbaz) for a denial of their involvement, then I actually have a special level of respect for you.
If you honestly had a desire to make it more scientific then by now you would have included the Ahora Covenant inscription published in National Geographic research and Exploration article from 1994 [24]. You would also have included in the article the only latitude and longitude location ever published in a notice of discovery about the Ark.[25] Since there has never been a worldwide flood, then you certainly would have recognized the value of including the only scientifically testable announcement of the Ark’s location. To disprove it would settle the score for generations to come, since there never has been a scientifically testable announcement of discovery before; How many years would it take for a new scientific opportunity to come along.. I mean since the hope is to make the article more scientific. Hugs. Katherin 06:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Since there is a content dispute, there needs to be a NPOV tag until all NPOV issues are resolved. Pretending there is no dispute because I do not "count" and only certain editors do, is arrogant, insulting, and at the centre of what this content dispute is about. Please do not unilaterally remove dipute tags again, I have every bit as much right here as anyone else. Til Eulenspiegel 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No one is saying you don't "count". You have yet to provide anything but your assertion that these things are POV in any way. Other editors are attempting to discuss this with you. Please take the time to discuss this rationally. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit; this is not the encyclopedia anyone can disrupt. Work in good faith with your fellow editors. I assure you, the world will not end tomorrow. We can afford to take our time to discuss this politely, rather than rushing into accusations and edit warring. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is a Featured article, and as such, changes are more carefully considered, and consensus must be gained on the talk page prior to making them. If you make an edit and it is reverted, do not revert again, discuss on talk. Work with other editors to gain consensus. Be aware that edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Please ask me if you have any questions at all about this. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: wasn't the bit about the parallels in the "featured" version, and was consensus achieved prior to PiCo's removing it? Or does the above prescription only apply to certain editors here, while certain others are exempt? Til Eulenspiegel 00:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Provide a diff. Don't make unsubstantiated claims. Orangemarlin 04:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's no answer to my question, is it? Is the question too hard for you? Til Eulenspiegel 05:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I will remind the Til Eulenspiegel to be aware of uncivil comments to other editors. Once again, you have made an accusation regarding PiCo's editing, but you have not substantiated it. I am not going to look for the edits, because I did not make the accusation. Please provide the diff. Orangemarlin 05:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was not even talking to you, but since you bothered to say please this time instead of issue me an imperative, I will tell you it was the edit in which PiCo suddenly removed the section without any agreement to do so whjatsoever, and this section was in there since long before this was ever a Featured Article. So I see a double standard here, with two classes of editors - those to whom "extra rules" apply, and those who have free reign to do as they wish without fear of breaking any rules. In other words some people are using the "featured article" thing as an excuse to dismantle the version that was featured, not preserve it, while giving the opposite impression, very clever.. Til Eulenspiegel 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the portion I removed was in the FA. But I put a note here on the Talk page and asked other editors for comments - in other words, I sought concensus. That's what the discussion is about. (Incidentally, I was the one who put it in the FA version in the first place.) PiCo 05:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs?

Perhaps we should mention this somewhere in the article. http://www.yahoo.com/s/589907 I didn't do it. 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If anywhere, it would belong in the last sentenec of the last paragraph of the Literalism section - but that sentence is already overburdened IMO. Somewhere in the wonderful world of Wiki there's an article on dinos and the flood, or dinos and the ark, and you could consider adding a "see also" link to that in the appropriate section. PiCo 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am now officially nauseous. Those people couldn't have used $25 million to, well I don't know, help the poor? Feed the starving? Something Christian? What a waste. Orangemarlin 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, what the hell is that interviewer doing? About Adam living with dinosaurs he says: "Scientists .. A lot of scientists .. Secular scientists say that's not true." -- Ec5618 07:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
99.6% of the scientists in the US would say not only is it not true, but Adam never existed, and dinosaurs died out 64.5 million years ago. Typical right-wing press pandering to the Christian right. The Right Wing press gave us Bush, now this waste of good money. I'm still nauseous. Orangemarlin 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The upshot of the discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:NPOV is that while Wikipedia indeed requires neutrality between religious and scientific points of view when a controversy between the two is claimed, and it cannot endorse one or the other to the reader, nonetheless scientists are in charge of saying what is correct science just as theologians are in charge of saying what is correct religious doctrine. A representation that a particular point of view is scientific or is supported by scientists has to come from credible scientific sources (just as a claim that a particular statement is correct religious doctrine has to come from credible theologians of the religious denomination involved), and recognized experts in the respective field are to be prefered over general media. Once again, per WP:NPOV, While Wikipedia can say whether something is science or supported by scientists, it cannot endorse a particular worldview of method of making sense of reality and hence it cannot say whether what scientists say is true. --Shirahadasha 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shira is essentially correct pursuant to the pseudoscience arbitration and the undue weight clause of NPOV. The second is relevant not just due to the opinions of science in this case but also because most major religious denominations do not believe in a literal genesis story. JoshuaZ 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I would urge keeping this discussion civil and on topic. Statements pushing political or religious (or anti-religious) positions as such are particularly inflammatory and inappropriate to this talk page under the talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then archive the Dinosaur section. I still think it's not so far off-topic, that it didn't warrant a humorous discussion or two. Orangemarlin 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Duh

Before I get deluged (get it?) by dozens of comments, I know that Armenia is a country. I was half-asleep, and really meant to say that Ararat is in Turkey, and I don't think that Wikipedia is a placed to discuss what may be historical Armenia or not. I'm tired. Lots of POV reversions today. Orangemarlin 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mythological ships category

Hi! A proposal was made on Category talk:Mythological ships to delete the catrgory. Since the proper place to discuss category deletions is WP:CfD, I've transfered the deletion discussion there as a procedural matter. Please join this discussion. Here's a repeat of the standard notice with link to the discussion:

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Best, --Shirahadasha 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the proposal over there. I am going to delete the category from this article on the grounds that Noah's ark (real or mythical) was not clearly a ship. It is called a "vessel" in the opening sentence. There is no reason to think it could be propelled or steered as a ship must be. Steve Dufour 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It was propelled and steered and guided by God. You are deying the might and power of God by not calling it His ship through he saved all life for us! PiCo 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If it was propelled and steered by God then it was a barge, not a ship. Steve Dufour 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "ship" as "any large seagoing vessel". The category stays. --Gene_poole 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we discussed this previously, and the conversation was settled. I love this habit of bringing up stuff over and over and over and over and over and over...oops...again. It's a ship. It was mythical. The category definitely will stay. Orangemarlin 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I only came across this discussion yesterday. To me it seems that every large object that floats on water is not a ship. That is why we have words like "barge" "pontoon" and so forth. I would think that to most English speakers a ship has to have some way of getting to where it is going. From the story in the Bible (and I do believe it is a story BTW) the Ark seems to float passively on the water. It is not "seagoing". Steve Dufour 04:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note:While WP:CONSENSUS makes clear that consensus is not permanent and new editors with new opinions entering the picture can result in consensus changing, nonetheless it's not a good idea to change something that's been heavily discussed without talking about it. I also want to remind editors of the three revert rule and strongly discourage editing in a back-and-forth fashion. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I love our rules, but the fact is the discussion was settled a month ago, maybe more. We got down to the fine points of OED definitions of everything. It was concluded it was a ship and again, before we repeat ourselves over and over, why can't others read what was written, especially when the editor obviously isn't at the level of an anonymous vandal, but appears to be an intelligent, well-informed editor? Orangemarlin 06:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I got a little carried away. However the Ark, although in my opinion mythical, was not a "seagoing vessel." It did not have the power to go anywhere. Steve Dufour 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's where I am troubled by Biblical inerrancy. You can't have a shifting target, that the Bible says one thing or another as a defense against what is another interpretation. Where does it say it did not have the power to go anywhere? Are you "interpreting" that it does not? If you are making that interpretation, why can you not "interpret" that this whole story is a metaphor (taking my logic to an extreme). Anyways, a seagoing vessel does not presume power. Trying to prove that the ark existed by disputing every little thing that is written here is the wrong way to go about it (especially dealing with definition of words). You lack positive written or physical proof, so therefore it is mythical. Orangemarlin 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I personally believe that the story of Noah is an myth, allegory, or something of the kind. If you read the story you will see that there is no mention of sails, nor have I ever seen a picture of Noah's Ark with sails. I also don't think that the eight people on board would be very effective at rowing it. I guess they could have harnessed whales to it and pulled it that way, however in that case it would be considered a "barge" not a "ship". At least in all my years living near one of the world's major seaports I have never heard of a ship that can not travel over the water. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 01:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the argument being made here, it's being claimed that the term "ship", somewhat like the term "myth", has a technical meaning that's somewhat different from its popular meaning, and it is being argued that if one term should be understood in a technical sense, then both should be. What is the evidence that the term "ship" used in a technical sense refers only to a vessel that can proceed under its own power and excludes a seagoing barge? Which dictionary/ies are you using to reach this result? In all candor, given the amount of dispute this issue has had, if the only evidence is "I think most English speakers..." etc., this proposal is probably a non-starter. Note that an editor has found an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, a very well-recognized dictionary, that suggests otherwise. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

wWhat an odd discussion? Is the debate over "ship" or over "mythical?" Noah's ark - historical reality or literary invention - was obviously a sea-going vessel, but it is essential to the Biblical narrative that it was neither self-propelled nor self-navigating (steering), that is why it is called an ark. But what does that have to do with the discussion over deleting "mythical ships?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I must confess. I am a theologically liberal, universalist Christian. I would personally like to see fundamentalist Christians develop a more open-minded view of the Bible. I don't think that insulting and offending them will be very helpful towards that goal. With that in mind I am trying to get the story of Noah's Ark out the category "mythical ships". The Ark's non-ship status, although I am perfectly sincere in my opinion that it was not one, is a technicality I am using to try to end the "controversy", not very effectively it seems. :-) - Steve Dufour 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty to say about this, but I was reverted by some anonymous lurker. Let me just say that I strongly oppose deleting the category or removing Noah's Ark from the category. And why should anyone be offended? Should that be our only criterion on WP? We would remove all of science and a lot more if that was our criterion here.--Filll 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying change the article, however the category doesn't seem to me to add very much to our understanding of the topic and it does seem to have the effect of hurting some people's feelings. Steve Dufour 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The existence of any science or any discussion of politics or religion whatsoever will hurt people's feelings. So you are arguing to remove 90% of WP to avoid hurting people's feelings.--Filll 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not advocating removing any information or opinions from the articles. I think that categories are intended to be non-controversial however. Besides that I can not imagine someone changing his or her opinion about the reality of the Ark (for example) because its article was put in a category. It would be much better to engage them in the articles themselves and the discussion pages. Anyway I am not planning on doing any more editing on this article. Wishing everyone well. Steve Dufour 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"Evelyn (held a) brooding sense that the barbarians were not at the gate but inside the citadel, indulged by the apostles of moral equivalence in the name of a vapid tolerance. His foreboding has been all too cruelly vindicated." I don't think Evelyn would have had much time for people who hold the avoidance of hurt feelings to be the highest moral good. (Evelyn being, of course, Evelyn Waugh). PiCo 05:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I usually find myself more inclined to listen to, and sometimes change my mind and agree with, people who are polite to me than otherwise. Steve Dufour 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in Wikipedia talk:NPOV#Scientific v. Religious POVs: What exactly do we mean by pseudoscience regarding the applicability and manner of application of the Neutral Point of View policy. Vapid or not, immoral or not, neutrality among worldviews is Wikipedia policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Duhhh

-- Nigel Barristoat 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an intersting point. Nesting a Noah's Ark category in Category:Mythological ships (where it appropriately belongs) might actually be a useful idea.--ZayZayEM 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Nesting it is a fake way to hide what some people think is a POV, and some, like myself, think is NPOV. Let's decide (for the third time I believe). It will show up again in a few weeks/months, so why waste the time creating something that is not necessary. It should be in the open or not. Orangemarlin 09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. So, while creating a Noah's Ark category might be the most logical and customary manner of handling all of the related articles, it now transpires that it will not be "allowed", because it would "defeat the purpose", by not being contentious enough. This is getting more interesting all the time! Nigel Barristoat 11:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that in order for it to be acceptably neutral and fair to everyone, the category would then have to be named Category:Mythological Noah's Ark (which must be understood to be a myth)... ! Til Eulenspiegel 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an article being in multiple categories. Some categories will be compelling to some people, and not to others. The purpose of the categories is to make these articles easier to find, and not to pass some sort of universal judgement on the subjects involved. To some appreciably large segment of the editors, Noah's Ark is accurately described as a myth. It is inappropriate for some other segment of editors to dictate how others classify or think of Noah's Ark or where they will look to find it in a tree of categories. That is why there are categories like

  • 24th century BC (does anyone with a rational scientific outlook believe that this is a reasonable category? Give me a break)
  • Biblical phrases (in some bibles, but perhaps not all, and certainly not in all other religious texts)
  • Noahides (a doubtful category and only vaguely related)
  • Old Testament topics (Jews and others might object to the phrase "Old Testament" and it is not really a topic but an object)
  • Torah events (again, the word "Torah" might offend some Christians and Muslims and those of other faiths. The word "event" seems to confer a reality on Noah's Ark that some might disagree with)
  • Abrahamic mythology (some might claim that this is more broad than the Abrahamic faiths, or that this account is more closely associated with the Christian version rather than the Jewish or Muslim versions and so might object to this category)

Therefore, it is clear that if one wants to find a single category that everyone agrees on, this will be exceedingly difficult and in fact not useful to anyone.--Filll 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If one is looking for articles on various ships discussed in the literature of ancient cultures what category would make sense other than "mythological ships"? JoshuaZ 15:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This article, the main article on Noah's Ark, is currently in seven categories (not counting those produced by citation requests).
What normally happens in a case like this is that all seven categories would be replaced by a single category, Category:Noah's Ark, then all of the bickering about which of those other seven categories to make it a subcategory of could take place at the Category talk:Noah's Ark page, instead of here. There are possibly a few articles besides the ones listed above that could be put in the category of Noah's Ark, like Noah, Johan's Ark, etc. The only objection we have seen so far is that this wouldn't hurt enough people's feelings, or be 'in your face' enough, or whatever... Nigel Barristoat 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The claim that "the only objection we have seen so far is that this wouldn't hurt enough people's feelings, or be 'in your face' enough, or whatever" is not true see my comment above. Furthermore, to list some \ships from religious texts in the category but not others is a massive NPOV problem. JoshuaZ 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? The category I am proposing would be called Category:Noah's Ark. It would contain all of the several articles pertaining to Noah's Ark. Since this is the main article, this would probably only need one category, Noah's Ark. All of the bickering about what categories are appropriate to Noah's Ark would then become an issue of subcategories at the category talk page. I've seen this solution implemented umpteen times before. The only problem is, apparently then all the contention would not not prominent enough for some people. Nigel Barristoat 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, if it's too hard for you to understand, I guess I will be bold and demonstrate the arrangement. Then if anyone doesn't like it, they can explain at CfD why they don't think there should be a category for Noah's Ark. Nigel Barristoat 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Failing to gain consensus, and then stating, and actually carrying out, the unsupported suggestion could be viewed as a violation of WP:POINT and is certainly a violation of WP:CON. Rather than taking the attitude "I don't care if you don't like it, I'm doing it anyway", which is not condusive to harmonious editing, try working with other editors, and abiding by consensus. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've observed a number of outside editors come in with various concerns and proposals, some of whom have proceeded to implement them without realizing the extent of other editors' objections. My perception is that the concerns and efforts involved are honest attempts to improve a perceived problem. Whether or not their actions are appropriate or have consensus, I'd hesitate to bite these individuals or to perceive their behavior as disruptive. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the post at the top of this section is that it makes two proposals, which should not be confused.
  1. Create a category "Noah's Ark" to contain all related articles.
  2. Nest this category within "Legendary Ships" (i.e. not within "Mythological Ships").
I have no problem with the first proposal. The second might be seen as an attempt to circumvent the debate about whether this article belongs in "Mythological Ships", "Legendary Ships", etc. by choosing the category the author deems most appropriate. I believe it was this proposal that Orangemarlin objected to.
As I've said above, I think the word mythological, as used academically and in wikipedia, is exactly the right term to describe Noah's Ark. Therefore, if there is to be a category "Noah's Ark" it should be created within "Mythological Ships". I would urge editors who feel unhappy about this to review the short introductory paragraph to the mythology section, and repeat that its use does not imply anything about veracity or falsehood. SheffieldSteel 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind the "Noah's Ark" category, because there are a lot of good articles in that category. But I do have a problem eliminating the Mythological Ships category. Here is what I wrote elsewhere today: This ship is a myth using the following definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost dictionary in the English Language: A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing. We do not mean myth in the form of something of supernatural origin. This ship is a myth, because it is a widespread story with no supporting documentation, save for a biblical account. There has been no archeological or historical proof of its existence. Hence it is mythological. Orangemarlin 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If the dictionary definition of the term "mythological" is "untrue or erroneous story or belief", then I must conclude that the use of that that term raises serious WP:NPOV issues when applied to religious doctrines. Wikipedia cannot express an opinion on the truth of religious claims and doctrines. It can state that they are contradicted by scientific claims and doctrines when this occurs, but it cannot say that either are erroneous. It had been previously claimed that the term "mythology" implies no opinion on the truth or falsity of a narrative, and this claim was the basis of the previous consensus. If this claim is being abandoned, then I would agree that that consensus may need to be rethought. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not using the dicdef as given by OM. We are using the academic def as is appropriate for an encyclopedia, which makes no judgment about truth at all. See extensive discussions on Tak:Myth and related pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


  • Re: Orangmarlin -- I definitely wasn't supporting nesting to hide. I thought this was silly. A Noah's Ark category would go exactly where the Noah's Ark article goes (i.e. Mythological ships, Abrahamic mythology, Torah events etc.) - but the interesting pointv here is that perhaps a group of articles is sufficiently related enough to warrant a category for Noah's Ark itself. I think this should be discussed, I'm a bit abivalent as to the result. Do Noah's Ark, Noahides and Searches for Noah's Ark share enough for a category to be made for them?--ZayZayEM 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark category

with the creation of the new category, aren't all the other categories now redundant?--ZayZayEM 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No why would you think that?--Filll 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm posing a question. I'm ambivalent either way. I notice wikipedia has an irregular practice of letting epynomous articles exist in both their *private* category and it's immediate parents (If taht makes sense)--ZayZayEM 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is at WP:SUBCAT. It enumerates all the appropriate circumstances for making such exceptions and listing any article (main or not) within a category and its parents. I'm not clear on which of those circumstances might possibly be applied here. The only rationale I have seen offered so far is that we have to do it just to prove we aren't afraid to be controversial and to hurt certain readers' feelings, but I can't find that one listed on the guideline page. Nigel Barristoat 18:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed category warning

It is clear from the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27#Category:Mythological ships that some people dispute whether Noah's Ark should be in Category:Mythological ships. I have therefore placed a warning in the article. Please do not remove it until the issue is fully resolved. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. If you want to discuss it again, let's go for it. But don't throw on tags because you want to. If we go through this again, and another consensus is formed, I will be the first to tag it or remove the category. Orangemarlin 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above under Proposed deletion of Mythological ships category and at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27#Category:Mythological ships does not show that people have reached a consensus on placing this article in Category:Mythological ships. It really looks like this issue should be discussed further, and it really looks like the warning tag should stay in the article.
However, I am just an outsider who encountered this problem at WP:CFD, and I am not too strongly interested in pursuing a debate on this myself, so I will leave this article and this debate alone. I just thought that the warning was appropriate based on the lack of consensus regarding the issue. Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
We all believe consensus was reached once in the face of a uncivil and belligerent editor. This is what is so frustrating, that it had been brought up again. I'm kind of used to it with these articles, however. Unfortunately, you got caught in the crossfire. If you truly have a neutral opinion here, you really should stay and participate. But please read the previous discussions, so that you know that we pretty much covered this from head to toe. If you see something we failed to do, please please, give your thoughts. Orangemarlin 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There were two who opposed it, one who had been involved in a lot of POV disputes because of his fundamentalist Christian idealogy (and who has subsequently seem to have left the article). Fundamentally, it was more or less them thinking mythology = false and/or them not wanting Christianity lumped in with other religions. Titanium Dragon 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Flood itself has no article

This article is quite good. However I noticed that the Biblical Flood itself does not have its own article. That seems kind of odd to me. Is there a reason for it? Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to look a bit harder. For example, see Deluge (mythology).--Filll 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Dufour 02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
And Flood geology Orangemarlin 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's an interesting article. Steve Dufour 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the Deluge (mythology) article is or can be an adequate article on the Biblical Flood (meaning the flood described in the Bible.) It's an article on the claim made by certain Western academics that there is a general pattern of flood stories which the flood narrative described in the Bible is claimed to fit. Assuming the claim to be true, it would be a bit like saying that the Culture Hero article adequately covers Jesus of Nazareth or Politician adequately covers William Jefferson Clinton. Perhaps a better analogy that captures questions about the appropriateness of the POV would be to attempt to cover Geology in the Narrative article. Many scientists, even those who agree that rhetoricians can fruitfully study scientific discourse as a kind of narrative, would disagree with the idea that studying scientific discourse solely from a rhetorician's POV adequately captures what science has to offer: an adequate article has to include an "inside" view that includes what scientists themselves have to say on their subject. Many religious folks would say similar things about too "outside" a view of religion. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Deluge (mythology) article seems quite adequate for the subject it covers, which is mythological deluges in general - the biblical flood gets a subsection, which, since the article deals with the entire world and all its cultures, is probably about right. But it also directs eraders to "see main article - Noah's Ark", which is not correct - this article is about the Ark, not the Flood, and not Noah. Yes, I know it's hard to disentangle the three, but it's been done for two - Noah and the Ark - and there's no reason why there shouldn't be a separate article on the Flood. Opportunity awaits. PiCo 04:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know what more needs to be said about it. The Biblical account doesn't take much space to summarize adequately. Theological ideas based on it, perhaps? Not Creationist rationalizations of it; there's already an article on Flood geology that covers that subject thoroughly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The "theological ideas" aspect of biblical stories is one of the most fascinating aspects - for the Ark, for example, the way the Jewish wrtiters concentrated on practical questions such as how Noah which animals were 'clean' at a time before sacrifices, and therefore before 'clean' and 'unclean', were known, and the way Christian and Muslim writers tried to appropriate the Ark for their own theologies, the Christian Hippolytus making it sail in the sign of a cross and the Muslims making it circle the Kaaba. For the Flood, there should be a couple of paragraphs in the battle early geologists must have had in putting forward ideas so at odds with accepted traditions - this would have been largely in the 18th century I imagine. Yoiu coulkd even bring in Leonardo, musing about how seashells got into the Alps. It could make a very good article - but concentrating on geology, just as this article concentrates on biology and related fields. PiCo 08:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Later:P Have a look at this article.PiCo 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the Flood (which IMO did not really happen the way it says in the Bible) also brings up important ethical issues. Like, was it really fair for God to kill all those people, and the innocent animals besides? I'm sure this kind of thing has been written about over the years. The Flood has also been the inspiration for many works of art. Lots of things far less important have their own WP articles. Steve Dufour 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to take a look at Biblical literalism. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That article makes the point that very few (if any) Christians really believe everything in the Bible literally. Yet most of WP's coverage of the story of Noah seems to focus on the question of its literalness or nonliteralness. Even as fiction it is very important. Steve Dufour 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to write a flood article, Steve. There's a bit of a paucity of info in the bible, but I'm sure there's much exegesis you can pull info from. •Jim62sch• 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Deluge_(mythology)#Hebrew Directs readers to

Main article: Noah's Ark
- Genesis Flood or The Genesis Flood I think is a notable enough topic to warrant it's own article, which may result in some information being merged out of here, and more focus on the Ark itself. However some editors may feel the two topics too closely intertwined to tear apart.--ZayZayEM 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a seperate article, as it and Noah's Ark have a great deal of overlap. Titanium Dragon 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

biblical proportion

In the ark under scrutiny section, I unsuccessfully tried to restore this line:

There was also the problem of an ever-expanding number of known species: for Kircher and earlier natural historians, there was little problem finding room for all known animals in the Ark, but by the time John Ray (1627–1705) was working, just several decades after Kircher, the number of known animals had expanded beyond biblical proportions.

The line now reads:

There was also the problem of an ever-expanding number of known species: for Kircher and earlier natural historians, there was little problem finding room for all known animal species in the Ark, but by the time John Ray (1627–1705) was working, just several decades after Kircher, their number had increased dramatically.

The "beyond biblical proportions" version is both literally and figurative more precise than "increased dramatically", and I don't find it any less neutral or encyclopedic.--ragesoss 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you define biblical proportions? I don't think there is a definition. If you mean, "the number increased beyond what could logically be held in an ark that can't float anyways" I could accept that. Orangemarlin 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"Beyond biblical proportions" has the advantage of being more concise, and having the meaning of both a reference to the literal proportions of the ark and a better figurative description of the degree of increase in known species... not just a dramatic increase, but an increase to a previously unimaginable level. There may not be a fixed definition, but context is quite sufficient to convey "increased dramatically" at the bare minimum, and most readers will be able to pick up on the relevance of the description.--ragesoss 04:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What wording does the source use? If this phrase is in the source, it would be reasonable to reflect that. If the phrase is an editor's own invention, an editor's own attempt to extrapolate an inference might be original research. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The phrase doesn't come from the source (I think it might be PiCo's), but it's not an extrapolation or original research: it's pretty straightforward. The source says the number of known animals increased dramatically, so that all known animals could no longer fit in the biblical ark, and so that naturalists had to reformulate their ideas about classification and the relationships between organisms. The phrase "beyond biblical proportions" is just an exceptionally elegant way of saying this.--ragesoss 05:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
On further investigation, it looks like I added that line... which is really weird, since I remember being surprised when I first noticed it, during this article's Featured Article candidacy, and thinking "wow, whoever took the information I added and reworded it like that is a much better writer than me." I guess it was some sort of self-delusional hallucination. I have no objection to the new wording; I thought I was defending someone else's prose.--ragesoss 05:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"biblical proportion" doesn't add anything but immature sarcasm to the matter. "increased dramatically" is much more conscise than "expanded beyond biblical proportions".--ZayZayEM 10:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The "beyond biblical proportions" is a bit confusing, as it can be read to imply that species classifications existed in biblical times. When the sentence ends in "increased dramatically" it's clear that it increased from the time of Kircher. Sxeptomaniac 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I once edited that line to remove the phrase. It comes from the movie "Ghostbusters" and was intended there to be humorous. Whatever the intentions of the editor who placed it there, it's more likely to elicit a laugh than convey useful information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*slaps forehead* I knew that sounded familiar. Sxeptomaniac 16:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph comes from me, and the phrase 'biblical proportions' was indeed intended to raise a smile - it doesn't actually mean anything precise, it's just a humorous use of a stock phrase (and has nothing to do with Ghostbusters, even if it was in the movie). PiCo 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

St Hippolytus of Rome (recent addition to the article)

An editor has just added this paragraph to the section on the ark in Chritian tradition:

St. Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) recounted a number of early traditions specific to the Ark. He stated that it was built in three storeys: the lowest for wild beasts, the middle for birds and domestic animals, and the top level for humans; he adds that the male animals were separated from the females by sharp stakes, to help maintain the prohibition against cohabitation aboard the vessel. According to him, a door was built on the east side, the bones of Adam were brought aboard with gold, frankincense and myrrh, and the Ark floated to and fro in the four directions on the waters, making the sign of the cross, and eventually landing on Mount Kardu "in the east, in the land of the sons of Raban, and the Orientals call it Mount Godash; the Arabians and Persians call it Ararat"[8].

I have no inherent objection to it, but I do wonder whether it actually adds anything to the article - the fact is that there's probably no end to what could be said of the Ark in early and medieval Christian traditions, and we have to limit, somehow, what goes into the article. I'd like to hear what others think about this addition. (Also, the reference isn't quite complete - references should enable readers to look up the source, but this one doesn't - I suggest the editor give a reference to the secondary source where he found this quote, rather than to Hipploytus's primary materials, which I suspect might be a little difficult for the common reader to get hold of). PiCo 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, there are very similar traditions, recorded by much later authors than Hippolytus, in both the Judaism and Islam sections. Your reaction above (which was not unexpected), questioning whether the inclusion of the early Christian author is 'relevant', only furnishes still more evidence, that will eventually be used to make the case that there is indeed an inherent systemic bias, specifically against Christianity, among the "proprietors" of this article. Til Eulenspiegel 11:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Til, if you read the archives, every significant addition to this article is examined. There is a plethora of Ark-related commentary and data out there, and as this is an article, not a comprehensively exhaustive book, we must be selective. Please stop accusing others of bias; your constant attacks on fellow editors is not helpful. Instead, focus on the article - do you feel the Hippolytus content is worth including? Why or why not? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is b;atant bias and favoritism. Moreover, this discussion is strictly about the article content and nothing else, so your criticisms here seem to show your customary favoritism (which is all in the permanent record, and I stand by every word I have said). The Hippolytus content is worth including. His comments were echoed by Baidawi a 13th century Muslim writer, and Mediaeval Rabbinic writers, but noone is contesting their inclusion tooth and nail. Note that Hipp. who lived in the first century, before Christianity was even legalized in Rome, mentions "Mount Ararat" by name. According to the article Searches for Noah's Ark, the first author to mention a "Mount Ararat" by name lived in the 5th century. So yes, this is highly significant, and only an extreme systemic bias would consider cutting it out of bigotry. Til Eulenspiegel 11:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Til, I'm really tired of your constant attacks on me. Stop beating that horse. Either post on AN/I, file an Rfc, or drop it.
Ok, I've looked at the content of the exigis.[26][27], and in addition to the three stories bit, H. also gave the names of the wives on the Ark, and recounted a story about Noah and his sons going into a cave where they found a lot of dead bodies of significant ancestors: "And on their first approach, indeed, they happily found the bodies of the fathers, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kainan, Mahaliel, Jared, Mathusalach, and Lamech. Those eight bodies were in the place of deposits, viz., those of Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kainan, Mahaliel, Jared, Mathusalach, and Lamech." He recounts that Noah took the body of Adam on the Ark. Other than that, he doesn't say anything particularly interesting. As a side note, H. also recounts how to make a skull talk.[28]
Til, do you have a source for Baidawi? Right now I'm not seeing anything in particular about the H. content except the three stories bit, is that expanded on anywhere? Is it relevant? Right now the only reason you have given for inclusion is that H. was supported by B., which IMO isn't much help if we don't have the B. text to look at; and that he was the first to mention Ararat. If H. was the first to mention Ararat, that is indeed highly significant, but we need a source saying specifically that H. was the first - we cannot state it of our own knowledge, that is OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The Islam section of this article quotes Baidawi as saying there were 3 levels in the Ark, but puts them in a different order, and that males and females were separated by Adam's body. If that 13th century account was added to the article without any objection or litmus-test for certain agendas, why would there a problem with a patristic account that is 1000 yeras older?
I do not have any idea who was "the first" to mention a Mount Ararat (as opposed to "mountains of Ararat". But I am certain that your Wikipedia article Searches for Noah's Ark that claims a certain "Faustus of Byzantium" of the fifth century, as supposedly being the first author to ever speak of a single Mount Ararat, is both mistaken AND original research. Til Eulenspiegel 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Then that needs to be removed, or at the very least citeneeded added. Sorry to say, the Searches article tends to get cluttered with original research on a regular basis, as well as POV edits.
Does anyone on this talk page know who was the first to mention Ararat? That should be included in the article, if we can source it adequately.
Baidawi is dated from around (1226-60) to about 1286. That puts him about a thousand years after Hippolytus, yes? Its a logical assumption that Baidawi got his data from, if not Hippolytus, then from a source which used Hippolytus, although it seems unclear where Hippolytus got his info - although given the dreck he wrote about other things he probably swallowed a lot of rumours and hearsay. Is there a source which states that Baidawi used H. as a source? If there is, I see three possible places for the info:
  1. In the H. para
  2. In the B. para, as a possibly parenthetical bit
  3. Both
IMO, its either 2 or 3. I welcome feedback. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be a "logical assumption", but it is still an assumption, and one I do not know anyone to have ever published. I would not make that assumption myself. Hipp. and Baid. were both students of Syrian traditions, and my guess would be that both were reporting on the same thing, not that Baid. had access to Hipp. But we don't have to engage in any original conjecture here at all. Hipp is at least one of the first Christian authors to give a Christian viewpoint on the Ark, so he belongs in the Christianity section. Baid. is a Muslim author, so he belongs in the Islam section. I don't know of any published source specifially connecting the two. Til Eulenspiegel 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Too true, which is why I asked if you had a source. If you do happen to come across a good source for the source of H and B's info, please post it, and unless someone objects we'll add it to the article. I don't know that anything goes back further than H at this date, but then I'm not an expert. Same for first person to mention Mount Ararat - my money is on H, as he recounted so much urban legend and crap, but that's mere speculation on my part, no sources at all.
Nice fix on the ref, btw - this being Wikipedia, if there is an online version of a source, it is always good to add it. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Now puppy, you aren't actually saying that someone actually saw this mythical ark? You're just asking the first claim to seeing the mythical ark, right? Orangemarlin 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea where you think you see I'm saying anyone saw a thing. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Besides, what does it matter? We aren't here to argue what we believe. If a person makes good, NPOV, sourced edits, I don't care if they believe the earth is flat. There are a lot of sites for arguing whose beliefs are right, and this isn't one. Sxeptomaniac 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a description of the Ark would be appropriate, and if this is one of the early sources for it, so be it. We should take care not to duplicate material, though; however, a description of the ark would be good, I think. Conversely, though, this is pretty obviously Christian mysticism, and a lot of it doesn’t seem all that notable (floated in the sign of the cross? Pure comedy gold). It looks like someone trying to tie the Ark to Jesus to me, and I don’t care that he lived in the second century. I think stating there were three storeys to the ark would be useful, but I don’t think the rest is at all relevant to the article or notable enough for inclusion. Titanium Dragon 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Til, stop being paranoid - I said I had no inherent objection to your addition, but wondered whether it added any points that weren't already present in the material from Origen, Jerome and Augustine, who are far better known figures. Titanium, there's nothing wrong with quoting Christian mysticism, if the Ark has some appearance there - but in fact Hippolytus was a translator and interpreter of Jewish texts. So this is scholarship (of it's time), not mysticism. Inidentally, back to Til: you seem to thuink Hippolytus is earlier than the Jewish traditions, but the earliest of those traditions date from at least the time of Christ, and probably a few centuries before that even - Hippolytus was adapting those traditions to Christianity, not simply reporting them. And as for Hippolytus getting in first with the identification of Ararat as a single mountain where the Ark came to rest, yes indeed, Searches for Noah's Ark seems to be wrong on that point - feel free to edit it.
Whoops - meant to add an explanation of my recent edits to the Christian traditions section. What I tried to do was to arrange the various bits of information by subject matter and, more roughly, by the date at which they appeared. Early Christian authors approached the Ark with two objectives in mind, namely allegory (and Hippolytus falls into this area - he wasn't just recording facts for the sake of it, he was trying to link the Ark story to the theological meaning of Christ's coming), PiCo and apologetics, which was what Origen was doing in giving practical answers to problems raised by scoffing pagans on such matters as whether the Ark was big enough for all the animals. Til does make a good case for keeping Hippolytus, but I still wonder whether he's prominant enough - the general reader, faced with Hipp's name, is likely to say, "so who's he?" PiCo 06:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So you're arguing that Hippolytus may be "unencyclopedic", becuase the average reader is unlikely to have ever heard of him?
Now I've heard everything!
At any rate, it may well be that Judaic sources had recounted these same legends that he did, before he did. But we as yet don't have any published source that makes this case, or any hard evidence. So stating this is Original Synthesis. The earliest Jewish documents stating anything similar (ie that the Ark had 3 stories) only appear in the Middle Ages. Now you might have a strong case that the Jewish legends really are older, and that Hippolytus directly borrowed from them, and you might even convince me, and you might be correct, but unless someone other than a wikipedian has ever actually argued this point, it's still Original Research. Til Eulenspiegel 11:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that H. is unencyclopeadiac because he's obscure, but that we should quote well-known writers in preference to little-known ones - we're trying to reflect what the Church believed, not what individuals believed, and Jerome, Origen and Augustine are far more representative of the Church as a whole than is H. As for H. and the Jewish traditions, he was quite consciously quoting those traditions - that's why he was known as "Translator of the Targum". PiCo 05:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In this case, the "Targum" is a Syriac version used by Syrian Christians. I suspect you are probably right that St. Hippolytus was quoting an as-yet unattested earlier Jewish tradition, but I feel strongly that we should strictly stick to stating what we can source, without adding any of our own conjectures. In this case, the relevance comes from the fact that it is a very early source or evidence we have for these Syrian traditions existing, it's not about the actual person who is quoting the traditions. Til Eulenspiegel 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've deleted the sentences which say H. was basing himself on the Jewish traditions. Please bear in mind that I have no objection in principle to including H. in the article, I just want to keep it manageable - if H. says what Jerome and others say, there's no need to add him. My focus is on the theological meaning which early Christians gave to the Ark (reinterpreting it in a Christian framework) - I find it fascinating that whereas the Jewish writers seem to have had largely practical concerns ("how did Noah get light inside the Ark? ... well, he had these stones that shone as bright as midday..."), the early Christians were almost as preoccupied with allegorical meanings. Neither are exclusive, of course - the Jewish writers were very concerned with the question of righteousness, and the Christians had to find answers to literal-minded pagans who questioned how Noah managed to fit all those animals on board. But the distinction is important - the old traditions were not simply catalogues of facts, they were facts plus meanings. PiCo 06:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That could be one interpretation I suppose, but H's info is certainly presented in the form of extra, concrete details that are not found in Jerome or the other later patristic writers, as far as I know. The entire fragment on Noah's Ark in Hippolytus has many fascinating details beside what he says was on the Ark, such as the names of the three daughters-in-law according to the Peshitta, the story of Noah being told to destroy the first person who said the flood is comng, then when it turned out to be Ham's wife, he is told not to destroy her, but instead the bread in the oven was destroyed, etc. If these things were meant to be "allegorical", he does not make this clear, but rather leaves it to the reader to deduce any 'between the lines' meaning if there is one. I didn't mention all this in the paragraph, because this is the article specifically about the Ark, so I tried to keep the entry to his physical, tangible description of the Ark, but his little gem about demons who throw visitors off of Mount Ararat to stop them from finding the Ark should be a fitting entry over at Searches for Noah's Ark, I would think. (And NO, I am not trying to argue that this is true! Only interesting, and encyclopedic, for tracing the development of the story through the ages! Especially seeing as we haven't yet unearthed anyone else who lived earlier than 200 AD, to whom these kind of views have been attributed...) Til Eulenspiegel 06:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple of elements contained in Hippolytus I recognize from the Syrica Cave of Treasures. Str1977 (smile back) 09:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Science and Noah's Ark

The article has this in its first part: "By the beginning of the 19th century, the growth of geology and biogeography as sciences meant that few natural historians felt able to justify a literal interpretation of the Ark story." If one tries to examine if the story about Noah and his ark really happened you are going to come to a quick conclusion. According to our understanding of many many scientific fields that deal with the different aspects of the story, it could absolutely never have happened. So I think it is fair to change this part into: "By the beginning of the 19th century, the growth of geology and biogeography as sciences has allowed for the conclusion that the story of Noah never have happened and that the story should be recognised as being mythology." There are many fair scientific reasons to adopt this phrase or something similar. The phrase that is currently part of the article is just not accurate or efficient and it clearly shows a motivation to cover up the evidence in an attempt to prevent to offend some people. This does not help to educate people, the ultimate goal of an encyclopedia. And according to the NPOV policy it is perfectly NPOV and acceptable to have bias towards science as long as there are scientific reasons to do so. And there are, as everyone probable knows.--80.56.36.253 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I say anything, if you look at my edit history, you know I don't give any credence to Noah's Ark or anything like it. It is a myth. However, this article isn't about the science of Noah's Ark (you might want to look at Flood geology to discuss that particular issue), it's about Noah's Ark as a story. The NPOV would be that we neutrally describe the story, since it is a religious one essentially. If this article were called Proof of Noah's Ark, then the NPOV would be ever stronger than what you suggested. But as a religious article, the historical discussion of natural science and Noah's Ark is acceptable. Orangemarlin 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You are right. This is the article about the story of Noah. So it should say that this story is a mythological story. What it does now is present this story as historical event with making a disclaimer that few natural historians feel like they are able to justify a literal interpretation. That phrase is like sugar coated 5 times. That phrase just doesn't do if you ask me. The amount of evidence against this story is absolutely tremendous.--80.56.36.253 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's also more correct as phrased. This was a conclusion that was reached reluctantly, and against considerable effort to justify it with the available evidence. It was more a realization that this was no longer a worthwhile exercise than a declaration of the story as fictional -- although that was a natural consequence of that realization.
But be careful with phrases like, "it is perfectly NPOV and acceptable to have bias towards science". You'd be surprised by how many people have a problem with that idea. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what the NPOV policy page says.--80.56.36.253 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I know. But we've had admins enforce something else on this subject. If you get the impression that he/she is saying that the scientific view is just one more opinion and can't be presented as anything but that, you're right. I asked for some valid reason why this should be so, and -- much as I expected -- got no answer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I just went and looked at WP:NPOV, and it says something else. Oh, well. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
"Scientific Bias-favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason."--80.56.36.253 14:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
One final comment to bury this suggestion: It's also not true that scientists in general believe it "never happened", as some scientists have argued that the myth is based on a real event (see Flood (mythology)#Theories of origin), even if they don't believe the Noah's Ark myth should be taken literally. Sxeptomaniac 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? •Jim62sch• 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What Jim said. Huh? Orangemarlin 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So you want the wikipedia page to suggest that the story about Noah and his ark is true because it may be based on stories that are based on events, though of a totally different nature as those in the story, that did happen? Are you sure you know the story we are talking about?--80.56.36.253 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should address the fact that there are a number of different ways scientists and historians have attempted to look at the mythology of the ark and the flood. It "never happened" does not do a good job of taking the variety of viewpoints into account. Sxeptomaniac 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that mainstream scientists and historians considered the question of Noah's Ark at least semi-seriously at one time. However, those days are long gone, by hundreds of years. Some historial material describing past scholarship is noted in the article. To have a more extensive historical exploration of who believed what about the Ark and when is beyond the scope of this article. There just is not room for it. But you are free to start a new article, like History of Noah's Ark scholarship and to write it. Good luck.--Filll 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I was saying, but it doesn't matter at this point. This argument has gone on too long and doesn't serve much of a purpose. I'm done. Sxeptomaniac 19:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That is the problem with having to do real work, right? Oh well...--Filll 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


It's the difference between "it never happened" and "it didn't happen that way". There have been several attempts to tie the flood myth to the evidence of actual cataclysmic floods found in the geologic record. Sxeptomaniac 23:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Surely one can interpret the bible in different ways. But are you truly suggesting that literal interpretations of the bible can be vastly different? Surely no one reading the story of Noah in a literal manner, considering it to be the inerrant word of god, will claim that the story says that there never was a global flood in which Noah saved human and animal life, using an ark. The story of Noah is based on the Sumerian flood myth. And that one may very well be based on a local flood that seemed global to the people in the region because they had absolutely no idea about the world they lived in. But that doesn't mean one could consider the story of Noah to have literally happened based on these facts. Seems you are trying to use some equivocation to get your way: "A flood happened, so one can consider the story of Noah to be literal." A flood is not the same as the story of Noah and his ark.
We are talking about the story of Noah in the bible. There is only one story. It either happened or it didn't happen. If it didn't happen the way the bible tells the story then that story just never happened.--80.56.36.253 14:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 This is not a forum for general discussion of Noah's Ark/Archive 5.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Depends on what you mean by cataclysmic floods. Locals ones sure. The Lake Missoula flood is a perfect example. But a worldwide one. No way. It never happened, and it didn't happen that way. Orangemarlin 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My "reliable source" says otherwise. ;-) It depends how you interpret the evidence. rossnixon 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please show us the source. There is no scientific evidence of worldwide flood, and if you mean by interpretation that 99% of scientists interpret fossils and other evidence as conclusively supporting the hypothesis that there was no general flood, then sure, it was interpreted. But science doesn't exactly interpret things. Orangemarlin 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I linked to exactly what I meant by cataclysmic floods, Flood (mythology)#Theories of origin. Be sure you aren't stopping at the first paragraph of the section. Sxeptomaniac 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is important to keep those quotes around your "reliable source". There is no way that any religious tract is a reliable source, particularly in matters of science and often in matters of history. You are free to personally and privately interpret the evidence whatever way you want. However, when it comes to the mainstream and science and teaching children and an encyclopedia, it really is not appropriate or possible for you to impose some sort of unsubstantiated myth as the truth on anyone else. Sorry.--Filll 04:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious tracts are (or at least can be) reliable sources on matters of religion, and Noah's Ark is a religious subject. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, at least for some religious topics. However, if you present something as science or fact, then a religious tract is not a reliable source. Nice try though.--Filll 05:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the view of science should be properly included. However, it shouldn't be done as "reject literal interpretation" as this doesn't say what a "literal interpretation" is supposed to be. If science rejects a global flood, then say so. Str1977 (smile back) 07:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't often agree with you, but I do here. This is a religious article, and it should stay like that. Flood geology is the article that covers the "science" or "pseudoscience" of the so-called flood. This article is about Noah's Ark, whether some of us consider it a myth or some of us consider it real. I think both sides know what the story is, and that's what this article should strive to present. It can even include searches for the ark, if it makes sense. But if a POV is going to be entered as "science" or "biblical" the article is going to end up being a giant mishmash of conflicting POV's. The NPOV of the article should be it's a biblical story, and leave the interpretation of whether it is real or not to POV forks, such as Flood geology. Orangemarlin 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Though that was not actually what I had in mind, Orange, I cannot disagree with you.
What I objected to specifically was the subsumation of anything under "literalist" interpretation. Sure there are those insisting on a global flood insisting that their interpretation is what the Bible literally says - missing the limited scope of the Biblical author, but if we refer to such a position we should accurately say what it says and not refer to some label.
I also have a problem with the passage beginning "Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians are believers in Biblical inerrancy ..."
That is quite true and it is also true that they hold "that the Bible, as the word of God, is without error, but must be interpreted properly in order to be understood correctly."
However, I can't see where anyone would not hold that the Bible must be properly interpreted (except maybe really extreme literalists that oppose any form of exegeis).
But I cannot see where this has anything to do with literalism.
Sure, literalists hold these views too but they are hardly special to them. Str1977 (smile back) 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What I have found is that it is quite clear that EVERYONE "interprets" the bible in different ways, even those who claim that they take the "literal meaning" of the text. Some discussion rapidly demonstrates that it is often impossible for two people to agree on what the "literal meaning" of the text is, even if they claim otherwise. This is because:

  • whether Biblical literalists admit it or not, there are way too many versions of the bible that exist. --Filll 11:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My comments have repeatedly been edited by an anon engaging in ad hominem attacks and illogical nonsense. I object strenuously but I will not get in an edit war with someone like this.--Filll 11:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that corrections of your own comments on a page that's supposed to be a record of a conversation isn't on the same level as edit-warring over content. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think it is stretching the truth to refer that the anon's actions as "correcting Filll's comments" when the actual diff shows 90% of the comment being simply deleted. More importantly, though, Both edit warring and editing other user's comments are actions which are against WP guidelines. Surely there are exceptions in both cases, but it's quite debatable whether Filll's contribution merited being deleted wholesale. I found at least some of the deleted material to be quite relevant to the article. Should I then partially revert the anon's edit based on my opinion of Filll's text? Of course not. That approach would lead to talkpage chaos. The best approach to this kind of situation is to discuss it here. Comments can always be withdrawn using strikethrough. SheffieldSteel 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to call me a liar, then the least you could do is to at least fake AGF first, or perhaps just read more carefully. When I said "corrections of your own comments" in a reply to Filll, the most reasonable way to read that is that I was referring to Filll's consideration of reverting the vandalism, not the vandalism itself. I was not commenting on the appropriateness of the deleted material, although I agree that it's out of place here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you were not referring to the anon's actions, you were not stretching the truth. I have withdrawn my contentious statements and invite you to do likewise. The issue here should not be your post or my misinterpretation of it, but Filll's post and the other editor's deletion of most of it. SheffieldSteel 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that a discussion of biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy and similar topics is inappropriate here. The entire reason that this article exists, and that its writing and maintenance is contentious is because of a blind insistence on biblical inerrancy by a certain tiny anti-rational, anti-intellectual and anti-science minority. I have no problem with their belief in biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism or the alleged and purported historical accuracy of the Noah's Ark account. What I have a problem with is the lack of acknowledgement that others do not share the same view, and even insistence that others acquiesce to their own mythical ruminations in public venues, like public schools or secular encyclopediae like Wikipedia. If one wants to write a religious tract, there are many religious schools and religious websites and religious encyclopediae and religious wikis in which one can do this. But someplace that is meant to be a mainstream guardian of mainstream information cannot be subverted to extremist and nonsensical views in this manner. And I will stand up for reason and science and evidence. Sorry if this offends anyone.--Filll 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say this article exists for no reason other than Biblical literalism. It's a very well-known story with a considerable history preceding it, it inspired a great deal of commentary and art, is very significant within a purely religious context, whether informed by Biblical literalism or not (which isn't inappropriate as long as its identified as such and not presented as fact), and was a crucial factor in early scientific geology. However, I do believe it contains a bit more literalist material than it otherwise would if no literalists were involved. And yes, Biblical literalism is irrational for many reasons. However, the substance of what you were saying didn't address article content at all, and that's what this page is supposed to be for. You didn't use it to argue for any changes to the article that I could see. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I think you are confused and misunderstand me. Of course the Noah's Ark story is well-known and has been for many years. But there are many many stories from mythology, other religions and even the bible that are not so well known and are not so celebrated, and which are not the subject of so much attention on Wikipedia. Jonah and the Whale? Tower of Babel? Joshua's Long Day? Changing water into wine? The story of the Fishes and the loaves? Why are these less celebrated and the subject of less attention than Noah's Ark? It is probably because of the agenda of biblical literalists and creationsits, rather any romance associated with sea voyages and cleaning dung piles out of animal cages or any deep Christian message about the nature of God and how humans should behave, care for each other and the earth. It is a story that biblical literalists can use as a weapon against scientific explanations of nature. Some of the material on the talk page is about improvements to the article, and some of it is a dialogue with conversations ongoing with other editors. Some of these will lead to new material for inclusion in the article, and some of these conversations are basically defenses of the current status of the article, to discourage assorted agenda holders from wantonly attacking articles.--Filll 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, by Fill's logic, we shouldn't have articles on Zeus, the Bull of Heaven, Mímir, etc. The article reached WP:FA status by doing a good job of documenting various viewpoints. Biblical literalism is also a significant movement, and their viewpoints should be documented. Sxeptomaniac 19:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent> We are missing plenty of other articles about bible stories and mythological figures. Instead of trolling for rationalists and scientists to attack, and trying to turn Wikipedia into a religious tract, why not try to write some new articles that are missing?--Filll 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack? I'm sorry you've gotten that impression, as it's not remotely my intent. I guess that must come from some of my comments above, but I think my meaning was misunderstood. Perhaps you have misinterpreted what I was saying to be arguing for biblical literalists and creation "science"? I'd explain further, but I don't believe that's appropriate at this point in time.
I also think accusing me of trolling is quite unfair. I intentionally cut off my involvement in the above debate because it was running too long and not serving a purpose. I will do the same with this part, if necessary.
As far as other articles, I work on articles and issues as I have time and the inclination. If you feel the need to look at my contributions, you'll see that I don't spend all, or even a majority, of my time on this page. Sxeptomaniac 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since everyone seems to agree that the Noah's Ark story is a religious story then let's make the article reflect this. Sure, this article should mention that there are people that believe this story actually happened, just as wikipedia should mention that there are still people resisting the idea that the earth is not flat and not the center of the universe. But surely this article sows too much doubt about if this religious story may also be a historical event. It is so obvious to see that this story could never have happened that the statement I already referred to just doesn't cut it. And on top of that there is the utter lack of evidence. This is a mythological story with many absurdities and concepts that contradict everything we know. When you try to fit the story into reality things go horribly wrong. But the phrase I quoted from this article clearly suggests otherwise. Surely no one doubts this? Also, no one denies that there were never any floods. This story is about Noah's Ark, not about floods. Floods happen all the time.--80.56.36.253 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Noah's Ark/Archive 5.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

"This is a religious article, and it should stay like that."

Orangemarlin, I am not certain exactly what you meant by “a religious article” and I am not sure the article should be viewed primarily as "religious"--at least not to the exclusion of "science" or other disciplines, as if the topic can only be written about one way.

As one who greatly appreciates the logic and rea<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">son inherent to science I think our article should be judicious in the manner in which we may describe Noah’s Ark as religious. The ancient text does not give a “religious” description of the dimensions, materials, contents, purpose, or resting location of the Ark. Indeed it is these literal descriptions of the Ark’s alleged natural attributes that lend the Ark to a legitimate scientific evaluation by natural scientists. As mentioned in the article, the seemingly unlimited and continuing discovery of new animals was the genesis of scientifically rejecting the literal possibility of all the animals actually being contained within the Ark. Also the literal attributes of the alleged flood (that gave rise to the alleged purpose of the Ark and also gave rise to the alleged landing site, no pun intended) are what provide the natural scientist with criteria to do a scientific evaluation. If there were nothing but “religious descriptions” then scientists would have no comment.

In other words, mainstream scientists have no doubt that a wooden structure of the described size could have been built, but a majority of experts conclude that a wooden structure of that size could not be sea worthy, so if it existed it surely wasn’t used as described. Biologists conclude there are too many animals to fit, so they certainly could not have all been saved. Geologists find no evidence for a world wide flood, so there was no need for the Ark, neither was there a means for it to have been floated high to a mountain top. Surely there are additional disciplines of science that share the same view, i.e. some of the literal aspects of the Ark narrative are outside the possibility of natural causes while other aspects are within the possibility of natural causes.

My opinion is that “Noah’s Ark” does not have to be solely a “religious” article. I would acknowledge there are at least four views of the Ark narrative that can be reasonable, well cited, and appropriately included within the Noah’s Ark article. Those four views being:

  • An evaluation of the literal claims of the narrative find several aspects completely outside the possibility of natural causes and it is therefore patently false in it entirety.
  • The narrative is merely allegorical in nature, rather than literal or historical.
  • The narrative is historically true in its entirety, while acknowledging, that some literal attributes of the narrative are indeed beyond the possibility of natural causes.
  • The narrative is an amalgamation of several other more ancient narratives of previous lost cultures and texts, and its real meaning is therefore essentially unknowable.

Most of these views are not “religious” and some of them explain the Noah’s Ark narrative without even havening to debate whether or not it is “religious” or “scientific”. Indeed, there may be still more views that should be considered for inclusion in the artilce.

For this reason, Orangemarlin, I am not comfortable with your claim "this is a religious article and should stay that way.” There are several disciplines that hold different views that are well cited and widely accepted (even if they are fully at odds with what might be called a “religious” view). Lets not propose excluding them from the article just because they aren’t “religious”.Katherin 17:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Katherin. I do enjoy when you show up, because you do bring new perspective to this article. I actually like your idea of establishing four views for article. However, #3 is going to be a killer, because it's going to cause an NPOV battle that will never end. What I mean when I say "religious article" is that Noah's Ark should stick with a recanting of the biblical myth. You move into anything else, and it's going to cause a battle that you can't believe. A few months ago, when I first encountered this article, I wrote a whole section debunking the possibility of this article. It was well-written and referenced (if I say so myself...LOL), but it was reverted and I was reprimanded by an admin whom I consider to be fairly anti-creationist. He told me that the NPOV of this article (if I can say it that way) is that it should be about the religious POV of Noah's Ark, not if it existed or not. What you are suggesting would be a whole can of worms. The POV forks such as Flood geology allow us to discuss whether it happened or not. Orangemarlin 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Orangemarlin: I wrote a whole section debunking the possibility of this article.
Actually, I wrote too fast. I meant debunking the possibility of the subject of this article.Orangemarlin 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That was kinda silly wasn’t it. It seems obvious the article is possible since the article exists. (sorry I couldn’t resist, but loose use of terms is what often makes this article so contentious.) Obviously the four views that I previously acknowledged are mutually incompatible in many respects. However, it should not be the purpose of an “encyclopedic” article to choose which is correct, but it should rather acknowledge the different points of view and allow them to be represented in their own terms to the extent that they are well cited. The article should not care if it is true of not. Readers are free to choose who is correct and who is wrong. It should be the responsibility of the editors to acknowledge each position honestly. The “religious” view obviously accepts “super-natural” causes and finds the narrative to be historical. The “natural science” view rejects “super-natural” causes and finds too many dependencies in the narrative on “super-natural” causes and therefore finds the story must be 1)false, 2)allegorical, or 3) unknowable because Moses didn’t understand or preserve the meaning that the original more ancient writers intended. To deny the “scientific” views or to deny science the right to evaluate the attributes within the narrative that can be evaluated by scientists would simply be inexcusable prejudice. And while it may be true that the article should not choose which view is correct, it certainly must not suppress an honest representation of each point of view, when well cited.
In fact, rather than saying this is a “religious” issue, I would go so far as to say that Noah’s Ark is now, more emphatically than ever before, very much a scientific issue rather than “religious”, for reasons of which you of course are very familiar. In fact for scientists or folks who love science (even Orangemarlin) to deny that it is now, more than ever, an issue for science to evaluate would border on being “religious”. Katherin 19:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly confused. There really is no room in this article to include any scientific evaluation. And there would be very few if any real scientists that would find much of the Noah's Ark/great flood story compelling or plausible, especially if one accepts the details that are claimed by religious proponents.--Filll 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While lengthy scientific evaluation might not fit in the scope of this article, there certainly is room in the article to have scientific conclusions. The sentence that states “..the growth of geology and biogeography as sciences meant that few natural historians felt able to justify a literal interpretation of the Ark story.” is a perfect example of how scientific evaluations can appropriately be cited and included in the article.
Why do you raise the point that few scientists would find much of the Noah’s Ark story compelling? That is not a problem. The article can't require scientists to be constrained to one opinion or the other. My point wasn’t that scientists conclude the details are compelling, but rather that they are uniquely qualified to make, (and have made, and will continue to make) scientific evaluations of those details.
And lastly, the details of the ancient text are its own details. They are not details claimed by religious proponents of today, but rather are details written by the ancient author, to what ever purpose he (or they) originally had. The author(s) wrote the details long ago, nevertheless, all of those details lend themselves to evaluation by scientists today. It would be inexcusable to deny that they are qualified today to speak intelligently to those ancient details, for which their particular disciplines suit them.Katherin 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
But once again, there is absolutely no referenced scientific sources that back the Ark story. Let's stick with the religious story, and let POV forks deal with the various issues. Orangemarlin 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, Why do you keep insisting that science should not be included unless it “backs the Ark story.” Science is very relevant when addressing the details of the Arc story and it is inexcusable to deny that science has much to say about it. It is incorrect to label it a “religious story” as if only religious people have the right to comment on it. There is no right of exclusion. Scientists and Religious people alike are entitled to comment and evaluate the details. Indeed both have. As one who thinks we should not be prejudiced against science having their legitimate say, I take offense to any insinuation that science can have no bearing on it. There are many proofs of science that give strong credence to the belief that the Ark never existed, and we should not exclude them.Katherin 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there is NO referenced science that backs the Ark Story. If you want science in this article, and that's not what I'd want, there would be nothing left of this article. So, once again let's stick to religion. Orangemarlin 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to remind ourselves that there is no necessity for science to comment on the details of the Ark story only if scientists agree and back the Ark story? The seemingly continual assertion that the article is exclusively “religious” and should be treated that way is terribly prejudiced. There are many highly qualified scientists from many disciplines that can be (and sometimes are) cited in the article. There are many details within the narrative that are neither inherently religious nor scientific and are also included in the text.

For instance, how is “300 cubits long” a “religious” detail or a “scientific” detail? And even if it is one or the other, who can argue that it should be excluded? But frankly, science has a lot more expertise when dealing with many of the details recorded in the ancient text and this article. The fact that there is disagreement of whether or not the details in the ancient text are true in no way excludes qualified scientific conclusions from being included. Or how can someone religious say, “This is a religious article, and even if there are details about the narrative that science has expertise in, they cannot comment, because it is “religious”? That is preposterous. Or how can a scientist say, “That is a religious issue. We cannot bring any science to bare on the questions that are raised according to the details within the text.”?

Both answers would be prejudiced, ignorant, calculating, or a copout. None of which are acceptable.Katherin 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a mythological event/object of high significance to Abrahamic traditions. Its relation to creation science and natural history, and the history of both of this inquisitive entities is also significant enough to merit attention.
I would love to see accurate, well referenced, NPOV articles on Jonah and the Whale, Hades and Persephone, Argonauts and other significant world myths -- in as much as we have well developed articles on The Battle of Helm's Deep, Tears of the Prophets and Podracing (I think I'm gonna cry...)
Bottom line: Noah's Ark is mythical. The article should definitely make no support, even through omission, towards the idea that the concept of Noah's Ark is anything other than entirely mythological entity according to any and dare-I-say all available reliable sources. This article should also make it clear that the ark is a very significant part of certain mythologies and cultures in order to accurately reflect its notability.--ZayZayEM 14:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My view is that it is not unreasonable to discuss evidence and argument for and against Noah's Ark's occurrence, although I have no opinion on whether to do this in this article or elsewhere. Once again, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia cannot tell people whether to believe theologians or scientists: (The "reliability" question is whether a source reliably represents a particular point of view, not whether we think it's true or not. Note that many organized religions, particularly traditional ones, have formal or informal processes to determine whether a theological statement is consistent with a particular denominational view, as well as professorships at theological seminaries, societies that determine which books get published, etc. These are peer review processes.). Best, --Shirahadasha 14:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as this article talks about literalist interpretations of the flood, it absolutely must state that ONLY literalists believe it. Every single modern scientific field rejects the flood as never having happened out of hand. Every single modern scientific field says no. Geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, archeology... the list goes on. It just didn't happen and no one who isn't a fundamentalist believes otherwise, and not even all of -them- are willing to stick up for the flood story because it is so completely implausible. The Bible is not a reliable source, and the Flood is fictional. Whether or not it was inspired by a real local flood is completely irrelevant; that is in the Deluge article, and rightly so. What is discussed by this article is the Biblical Flood and Noah's Ark, and that is completely rejected by all but the fundies. That should be made very clear. It should not take over the article; it should be a couple sentences, maybe a paragraph at most, because the article is primarily about the myth. But as long as it mentions literalist interpretations of the Flood and has entire sections on it, it needs to be clear who believes this and why it is a fringe viewpoint. Titanium Dragon 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. The article absolutely must address the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists completely reject the possibility of Noah’s Ark being real. And it is advisable that the article doesn’t simply state these conclusions in general terms, but as you have done, it should be clear which disciplines of science reject the story and briefly why. In doing so it then becomes evident that the story is not rejected by scientists out of hand because it is “religious” (ie. in a prejudiced manner) but rather because the specific details within the ancient text have been meticulously considered by the appropriate disciplines and were found to simply fail the test of scrutiny from multiple disciplines across many years of research and publishing in peer reviewed works.
Not only would this help scientists avoid being seen as prejudiced now, it would also protect scientists by setting aside any accusations that they are unwilling to do research on any future alleged evidence that might be viewed by some to support the literal truth of the ancient text. Recounting to some degree the vast amount of study that has occurred already, would demonstrate an acknowledgement and assurance that future study would also be conducted if any evidence came to light that might call into question earlier, long established findings.Katherin 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Palistrophe

I reverted this recent addition to the lead: "...in its present form, the Ark story may be a palistrophe with notable parallels to Babylonian flood stories which are not present in reconstructed sources[2]." I did this because the new material is incomprehensible - what's a palistrophe, and what are these parallels? To be added to the article, the information needs to be made comprehensible, and should presumably go in the modern biblical scholarship section. (So I'm not against the addition per se, just its brevity and obscurity). PiCo 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the palistrophe comment to balance out a piece in the introduction that referred to the Hebrew ark story in source criticism. I didn't want to remove this piece (though it seemed a tad out of place), so extended it as best I could. The palistrophic form and significance of ANE flood story parallels should indeed be referenced in the modern biblical scholarship section, and "palistrophe" itself should be explained in a separate article.Cvtosh 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Having read that, I just now took about 25 seconds to find out what 'palistrophe' is, and learned that it is a term used ib some Biblical scholarship as a synonym for chiasm. So the appropritate article to explain palistrophe would be chiastic structure. Til Eulenspiegel 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already redirected palistrophe to the chiastic structure article - but palistrophe is a specific type of extended chiasm rather than simply a synonym, and would benefit from a (brief) explanation in said article.Cvtosh 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll have a try (tomorrow, not tonight) at re-writing the section on scholarly views to take this into account. Thanks for your contribution. PiCo 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I generally believe that in religion articles, it is better for the intro to be relatively brief and present common bare facts that both religious and academic scholars would agree on -- in this case things like the narrative's plot, and its commonly-agreed cultural importance, and similar -- and leave it to later sections to discuss its origin, interpretation, religious perspectives, relationship to other cultures, historical perspectives, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a similar sense of uneasiness about the intro for some time, and so I've taken this opportunity to draft a new version. For comment please. PiCo 07:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems a little early to be going into detail about the various ways people have interpreted and analyzed the story. Isn't the whole issue of the scientific analysis of the Ark better placed after the story itself has been discussed, in its original location? Shirahadasha listed the basic plot and cultural importance as the most important part of the lead, and I'm inclined to agree. Sxeptomaniac 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think recent changes are moving in the right direction - i.e. towards a concise (brief) summary of the article. Good work folks. SheffieldSteel 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythical ships...again

If a ship has been seen by many eye witnesses, it clearly is not mythical. On June 2nd, 1840 a terrific earthquake shook the highest mountain of the Armenian plains, located north of Lake Van in Turkey. The name of the shattered mountain was Aghri Dagh, better known as Mount Ararat. The earthquake wiped out ther town of Ahora and the monastery of St. Jacob. Since the earthquake, a number of sightings of an ark like structure of hand tooled timber have been made on treeless Mt. Ararat. Here is a brief summary of several eye witnesses accounts of the Ark. This material is from Willmington's Guide to the Bible, p 31. "A summary of the eye witness reports since 1840 proves facinating reading indeed. Their tesimonies bear striking similarities. a. the ship is half buried in a partly melted lake. b. The altitude is around 13,000 feet. c. The inside of the ark is filled with wooden separators (like bars inside a cage). d. The outside and inside are covered with a heavy varnish or lacquer. e. the wood is extremely hard, almost petrified. f. the main door is missing." Mr. Willmington continues citing more than 12 people and the dates of their ark sightings. The first few names and sighting dates are as follows: (1) Haji Yearman (date of sighting 1865) He was an Armenian who lived at the base of Mt. Ararat. He died in Oakland Ca in 1916. (2) John Joseph The Archbishop of Babylon and head of the Christian Nestorian Church, Joseph reported his experience at the World's Fair in Chicago in 1893. (3) W. Roskovitsky A Russian airman. The sighting was in 1915 during WW I. Later in 1917, a Russian expedition numbering 150 men saw it. (4) Carveth Wells A popular radio commentator over KFI in Los Angeles reported seeing wood from the ark while at the site in 1933. (5) The ark was also sighted by various airmen both Russian and American during WW II. Mount Ararat was on a direct flight between the allied base in Tunisia and the Russian base at Brivan. One of the Russians claiming to have seen it was Major Jasper Maskelyn, wartime chief of Camouflage (1941 - 1945). Sighting number (6) was by Resit, a Kurdish farmer, his experience was published in an Istanbul newspaper on November 13, 1948. On to sighting (7) by Dr. Donald M Liedman Dr. Liedman is a Jewish scientist and medical doctor. He has given sworn testimony that he was shown actual snapshots of the Ark on two occasions while in Hamburg, Germany, by a Russian air force major who had personally taken the pictures during WW II. (8) George Jefferson Greene, Greene was on a helicopter research mission for his company in 1953. While flying over Mt Ararat he spotted a strange object and took pictures from ninety feet. When developed they showed a large wooden object. These pictures were seen by many. (9) Bernard Navarra, this French explorer visited Mt Ararat and later wrote a book on the subject entitled "Noah's Ark, I Touched It" Navarra cut some wood from an object on Mt Ararat and subjected it to C-14 testings at two universities. The Univeristy of Bordeaux issued an official statement that "the fossilized wood was derived from an epoch of great antiquity." The Forest Institute of Madrid results were "Our analysis estimated the age of the fragment at 5000 years." Ark sightings have been clearly documented, analyzed, and reported else where. They have not however been widely made known. The Ark is not a myth. It is not the case that scientists stopped trying to justify the literal existence of the Ark. It was many eye witness reports that stopped the need for saying it was a myth. Jbdm 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I move Jbdm's comments here, because it was lost back there. Couple of things. First, this conversation was resolved a month ago. Second, until you can give us peer-reviewed references, not second-hand, and really old, descriptions, none of us are going to be convinced. By the way, I could find a piece of wood that is easily carbon dated to 5000 years ago. Furthermore, I can give you radiometric dated stuff from 200 million years ago, which kind of defeats the whole Noah's Ark story anyways. Orangemarlin 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Jbdm, while it makes for interesting reading that many have seen the Ark, and that people have brought back potions of it for carbon dating, it still begs the question, and does not provide scientific proof of its presence on the mountain. Orangemarlin is correct and is not alone in this understanding. The scientific standards, and the pitfalls that are easy to fall into, are clearly demonstrated in the opening paragraphs of Project Vonbora (www. vonbora.net)
While those who are inclined to believe in the Ark may be convinced by eye witness accounts and may accept that alleged wood came from the Ark, there is a stringent scientific process of validation that is necessary. There are many scientists who are working on the subject who understand the necessary methods and are employing them.
If someone claims to have found old wood, there is no doubt that it can be tested and shown to indeed be old wood, but unless it is independently verified en site, and properly cataloged and removed for testing, then there is no valid correlation, because the “sample” cannot be verified to be from the object claimed.
Orangemarlin understands this well (better than most who believe the Ark is there). He often repeats the stringent necessities of science, and well he should. He also has personal knowledge of the involvement of some scientists who are approaching it correctly, though he of course does not think they will find anything.Katherin 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


And just to clarify, when Orangemarlin says "us", he is speaking on behalf of himself and the other select editors who have been granted executive authority over this article -- which ain't you, so, seeya... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.143.177 (talk • contribs).
To to the cowardly anonymous editor, oh well, whatever.. Back to Katherin. Thanks, and yes, you are right. Hey, I'm not so closed minded that I wouldn't read up on something that was verified. I still have stated that their might have been a big ship that dealt with some 5th Century BCE localized flood. But unless someone carried it up to a mountainside, it didn't float more than 10-20 meters above sea level for a couple of days. Orangemarlin 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if the world's leading professional archaeological society verified the existence of the remains (or intact) of a sea-worthy vessel capable of transporting large quantities of paired animals of various size for a long period o0f time (and had evidence of having done so) and dated it to a time period roughly equivalent with biblical estimates - this page would still rightly belong in Mythological Ships category, as it is a ship contained in a very powerful and developed mythological narrative with elements of religious and supernatural nature that cannot be simply confirmed by just saying "well the ship existed, Ha!". Think of this way, if I told you a story that I bought a hot dog, it talked to me and then I ate it: I could show you there was definitely a hot dog, I have a receipt and a wrapper; I definitely ate, let's analyse my "byproduct"; but I still can't definitively show that it actually talked to me and said the world was going to end tomorrow so you should sell me your car.--ZayZayEM 01:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
ZZ, I appreciate your two examples and the contrasts and similarities you provided. It makes for a great object lesson. You neglected some important details that would make your proposed scenarios scientifically valid. As to the “leading professional archaeological society” verifying the existence of a sea-worthy vessel, you must include the detail of “location, and dimension” as described in the ancient literary source, otherwise their comments are useless and without scientific basis. If the location and dimensions of a sea-worthy vessel happen to be the same as described in the ancient source, then in order to deny that it is the ark as described (and had arrived there as described) scientists would have to explain by what engineering and logistic marvel such a construction site was suitable for such a structure (especially if it were on top of a mountain inside a glacier). And if so, why would such a colossal effort be expended in order to build a useless structure? And as to your hot dog that talked. There is no historical record of facts proposing that there is something that can be scientifically observed today regarding the “talking” of your hot dog, and since you already ate it there is no possibility of observing it speaking again (and even if it did speak today it would not prove that it had talked before).
Both your scenarios are useless from a scientific perspective. You prevented your “professional archaeological scientists” from being scientific (since you neglected to include the testable and necessary observable facts of “location and dimensions” according to a historical record); and you proposed a scenario that cannot be scientifically tested when you proposed that your “hot dog” talked. But your most obvious leap of faith you asked us to take was when you expected us to draw the conclusion that a silenced voice or yore has any scientific commonality with a structure of specified location and dimension that can be observed today.Katherin 06:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My main point was that even if a leading body confirmed a discovery of a vessel/part of a vessel resembling the ark from an expected time period in an expected location, the ship would still have a mythological aspect. It would not be proven that it had done what it had been said to have done (carried all the animals for x days), by who it was said to have been done (Noah son of Lamech, especially considering competing historical record of ark builders), and for what purpose (God said to because he flooded the entire world). Existence of one small part, or evidence of one small part of a myth does not prove a myth, especially when that evidence is simultaneously evidence for competing myths/interpretations--ZayZayEM 08:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If a structure of the described location and dimensions is proved to exist according to the description in the ancient record of Moses I (and by the way none of the competing records to Moses I have the specificity necessary to scientifically locate or identify) then scientist are free to propose 1) a reason for the structure’s existence on top of a mountain underneath a glacier, 2) a description of how it came to be at that location, and 3) a purpose for which the structure was built---all necessary elements of a valid hypothesis if such a structure was verified. And then they could set out to prove it. Otherwise their prejudices would make them out to be more akin to a religious cult belief group than scientist.Katherin 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But it would still be mythical, it's part of a very well developed mythology. This is where it is important to understand the usage of "mythology" in context. Moreso than Noah's Ark, the existence of the Ark of the Covenant is rather historically sound - whether it pertained to the exact Mythos contained within sacred texts or certain films is an entirely different matter, and as such it is a mythological entity.--ZayZayEM 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It would still be mythical. I see. A mythical-scientifically verified discovery? That sounds like an oxymoron. LOL.
Now ZZ, you should read your argument closer. Do you argue that such a scientifically verified discovery would still be “mythical” because it fits the description of an “ancient myth”? or is it that the scientists that verify such a discovery could not possibly come up with a more credible or plausible explanation than the text that led to its discovery? and would thus resort to citing “mythology” to explain it?Katherin 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry mythological not mythical.--ZayZayEM 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi! I opened up a thread Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Scientific v. Religious POVs: What exactly do we mean by pseudoscience using some of the difficulties we've been having on this page as an example. Perhaps some of the editors here might wish to comment. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! There had been a proposal and discussion in Category talk:Mythological ships to delete the category. I've transferred that discussion to the proper forum for these things, WP:CfD, as a procedural matter. Please see the notice at the top of this page for the link to reach that discussion. Please join it. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • NB: The category is "Mythological ships" not "Mythical ships". Please do not stuff straw men--ZayZayEM 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

24th century BC category

Surely this is a somewhat doubtful category for this article. For one thing, even if we accept this as a historical event, how do we know if it was 23rd or 24th or 25th century? Then, if anyone wants to assert this as a historical event, there will be an immense battle here again, as everyone knows. Someone looking for Noah's Ark will be looking in this category? I doubt that, frankly. This seems to be someone who just wants to pick a fight or make some sort of point.--Filll 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem: it is not history. The only place it could go is "24th century BC in fiction and mythology" within the 24th century BC article, and even that is shaky as the actual dating (even given all of Ussher's hard work) is really only a guess. •Jim62sch• 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we can safely remove it without further comment whenever it's re-inserted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The category has few entries; and true, it can't be pinned down to that exact century, so I accept this deletion. rossnixon 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

References

OK, this shouldn't be too controversial. I'm cleaning up the references to standardize them per WP:CITET. What I've found is that when the references are clean and easy-to-use, it makes it a better and more academic article. I do this with total NPOV, meaning, I don't care what the reference says, unless it's a dead link, or absolutely does not say anything that would support the statement in the article. If i really think something is off-base, I'll post here. This takes time, so be patient. And I'll be pretty uncivil to anyone who adds a reference that doesn't adhere to the CITET standard. Grrrrrrrrr. Orangemarlin 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd Millennium BC

It can't be pinned down to that millennium either. It can't be pinned down to any particular time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Sorry, does third millennium bc refer to the date the story was thought to have been compiled or the when the flood was supposed to have occured? ornis 05:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Bible, if you work the dates backwards, you'll find that the flood would have occured in the 24th century BCE. Obviously it didn't (Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China all writing well before then, and many other cultures beside) but that's when the Bible says it did. I'm not sure it is inappropriate to place fictional/mythological events in those categories, as they supposedly happened at that time. Titanium Dragon 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. In that case, I'm removing the cat. If someone can point out a reliable source placing the origins, or at least redaction of the myth then perhaps there article can go in that era's cat. ornis 07:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TD, The oldest verifiable Chinese dates are from the Xia_Dynasty 2070-1600 BC. The dates were revised downward following new scholarship in recent years. Slightly OT: The oldest living organism is a Bristlecone Pine (4650 years old). Anyway, there are at least 5 ways that this category is acceptable.

  • The Bible is a reliable source
  • Much lower standards of verifiablity are accepted in other articles
  • The "story" is set in that millennium
  • This is not a science article or science encyclopedia
  • The majority of people accept the historicity of this event. rossnixon 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Bible is a reliable source. No it ain't.
  • Much lower standards of verifiablity are accepted in other articles. That's not really an excuse, given that only 1 in 756 articles are considered 'Good Articles'.
  • The "story" is set in that millennium. Fair enough.
  • This is not a science article or science encyclopedia. No arguments here.
  • The majority of people accept the historicity of this event. Only if you assume that all muslims, jews and christians accept its historicity and then it's only just a bare majority.
Anyway, I won't remove it from the category again, based on the 'setting' rationale. ornis 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Records of the Xia Dynasty are no older than 3rd century BC, based on older legends. Although archaeology has discovered urban sites from around it's supposed time that may well be the culture described, but we have no contemporaneous records from then. Since the Chinese were well able to predict the motions of the planets, any recorded astronomcal indicator of Xia Dynasty times could easily be a product of computation by later chroniclers. So this proves nothing.
  • The Bible is not an entirely reliable historical source.
  • Much lower standards of verifiability exist in other articles, but are not accepted if challenged.
  • The story is not "set" in any particular time that can be positively identified. It certainly doesn't give any date internally. You have to use extra-Biblical computations to arrive at a date, so even assuming it's literally correct as history this is a matter of opinion. Ussher's date isn't the only one, after all. His epoch is over 1,000 years more recent than that in my (much older) tradition, and there's no NPOV reason to assert one tradition over another.
  • Scientific or not, we cannot place a firm date on an event that cannot otherwise have been shown to happen.
  • The majority of people do not accept the historicity of this event. You'd have to assume that every single Christian, Jew and Muslim in the world did, but that's not true. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If you study up, you will find that the genealogies in the Torah matched up with known secular dates such as the building of Solomon's Temple[29], do place the 'setting of the Noah's Flood "story" smack in the middle of the 3rd Millennium BC. rossnixon 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you read that page carefully, and not with the idea that it proves your opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt, you'd see how much guesswork went into that calculation, and that the accounts in Genesis were intended to be read as literally true, which cannot be concluded. There is furthermore no reason to put "story" in quotes. An account can be true or not without changing its story-like character. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Biblical chronology is a fascinating subject. Ross, I think your source is wrong on a few points. He says that Japhet was born before Shem, but the birth-order given in Genesis is Shem-Japhet-Ham: "The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan." This is important, because one of the themes of the entier series of biblical books from there to Samuel is to establish a direct line of descent from Noah (and hence Adam) to David, either as first-born (as in the case of Shem here), or as receiver of the birthright (on those occassions when a younger son is given priority over the first-born). The point being made is that the kings of the Davidic line are the first-born, favoured sons of the entire human race. (And one of the equally interesting spin-offs of this is that are two competing accounts of just who got the birthright of Jacob, either Judah, according to one account, or Ephraim, according to another - Ephraim being the tribe of the first kings of Israel after Solomon, and Judah the tribe of the Davidic kings). Anyway, all that aside, there's a problem with the way numbers are used in the OT. Far too many things happen in units of 40Today we interpret 40 as meaning 40, but in Hebrew it had two meanings: a single generation, and "many" (because the words for "forty" and "many" sound very similar). So Solomkon and David reign 40 years, and the Israelites wander in the wilderness for 40 years, and 480 years elapse between the Exodus and the building of the Temple (480=40x12, twelve being the highest number you can count to on the fingers of one hand, hence, like our Indo-European 10, a number signifying completion, fulness). The upshot is that the numbers, let alone the computation of numbers, in the bible can't always be taken literally, and weren't always meant literally. PiCo 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It was precisely the numbers that I had in mind in my post just before yours, but you expressed the idea with far more clarity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythological Ship

You know, it's totally irrelevant whether or not the ark actually exists in any form. The one this article focuses on is still mythological, because it's a feature of a very well-known Judeo-Christian myth.

To put this in perspective, I would consider the City of Troy to be a mythological city, even though archeologists have unearthed the city that the myth was based on. There was a real city of Troy, yes. But that doesn't make Homer's stories about gods and goddesses true. The Troy of his poems is a mythological version which mirrors whatever city actually existed.

In the same way, I don't care if a ship is actually found on Mt. Ararat. That doesn't prove the existence of the ancient Hebrew storm god Yahweh, it doesn't mean snakes can talk or people can walk on water, or any other mythical aspect of the Bible, and the mythological ark in Genesis would still just be a fantastical story at best partly inspired by some real life events.

If an actual ark were found, it would not make Christian fairy tales true any more than it would prove any other flood and ark myth true, like the ones featured in Greek or Babylonian mythology.Rglong 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum 172.145.222.35 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning supposed discovery of ark someone keeps adding

Yeshua2000 keeps adding information saying that the ark was discovered in Turkey in 1987. See his edit [[30]]. Here is a picture of the supposed ark he says was found [[31]] which is obviously fake. I'd recommend someone revert his edits due to the sources being unreliable and apparent fraud. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Yeshua2000 that this IS Noah's Ark. But the photo itself is not a fake. The object is real. Someone in the field put tape on the object to outline supposed structural components then took the photo. I'm certain that this has not been Photoshopped.
I believe that Wyatt actually believed all the stuff he said, but the poor man was ignorant and self-deluded. The problem is that he was an effective communicator especially to people who knew even less than he, such as Yeshua2000
It might be useful to have reference to Wyatt in the to show how ignorance can lead to deluding one's self and others. Allenroyboy 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Surely it is our duty to make personal judgements and pronouncements on what we consider fake and ignorant, in order to enlighten all the deluded masses out there to our most correct way of thinking. 172.133.94.242 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record. I personally believe that there was a global cataclysm and that there was an Ark. And I'd love to see the Ark found. However, so far, other than reported sightings, there is no hard evidence that it may still exist. Wyatt's claims were [he died several years ago] made out of ignorance. I believe he may have been well intentioned, but simply self-deluded. Allenroyboy 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
IF it's a photo of a boat, It's not on Mt.Ararat. If it's on Mt.Ararat then it's not a photo of a boat. If it is a photo of a boat and it is on Mt. Ararat then someone manually put it there recently for tourism purposes. Either way you cut it, It's a fake in that it's not what it's pictured as being. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The object is real, but it is not a boat. It only superficially resembles a boat. It is a geologic structure composed solely of rock and soil. Wyatt's claim is that it is petrified. But the rock is igneous, not the type of rock that forms in the mineralization of a fossil.
It is not on Mount Ararat, but in some mountains just south of Ararat and the town of Dogubayazit. Allenroyboy 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know for sure. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See the Ron Wyatt article for an assessment of Ron, whether con-man,charlatan, sincere seeker of truth, or whatever. See also Durupinar for an assessment of his version of Noah's Ark.PiCo 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one Christian view of the flood and Ark?

The article almost uniformly presents the 'literalist' view of the flood and Ark, without any reference to the views of Christians who believe the Genesis account to be historical but who do not believe in a global flood or a 450-600 foot Ark. I'd like to see this corrected, and I've added a little material to get this going. --Taiwan boi 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the information I added to the article on this has also been removed. Is there a reason why only one Christian interpretation is to be presented in this article? --Taiwan boi 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical evidence for similarly large timber ships

The section on the physical practicality of the Ark described the standard skeptical arguments whilst only mentioning in passing Christian apologetic responses. The only response listed was that of Christian 'literalists' who apparently believe that 'Noah must have built the Ark using advanced post-19th century techniques such as space frame construction'. No reference was made to Christian apologetics who advance different arguments, using historical evidence of similarly pre-modern timber ships, so I have added material which reflects this particular Christian argument. I endeavoured to be thorough, but people might think it's too detailed or too long. Let me know. --Taiwan boi 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the information I added was promptly removed without any explanation. That was unexpected. --Taiwan boi 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
While I think your concerns may be valid, for the moment I've reverted them so we can get a bit of consensus first. For one thing you've put them in the wrong section, and for another, they're largely a copyright violation, since it seems you've cut and paste large blocks of text from your source. Anyway here's the diff. ornis (t) 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The section I placed them in was a section comparing the Ark to historical timber ships, discussing Christian responses to criticisms regarding the size of the Ark. The material I added also compared the Ark to historical timber ships, discussing Christian responses to criticisms regarding the size of the Ark. I'm uncertain as to why this was the wrong section. With regard to copyright, a reference was made to the source of the material which was added, a direct link being provided, and since I have permission to use the material on that site in this Wikipedia article, I fail to see how copyright was breached. --Taiwan boi 09:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Among other things, couldn't you just summarise the material in a sentence or two then put a link to your source? We're an encylopedia here, whose role is to summarise knowledge. Reproducing material, writ large, defeats this objective somewhat. And, regardless of having permission to reproduce material, if it does become necessary to reproduce material here, at least mark it up as such by placing it in quotes. If nothing else, such lifting of material may otherwise be mistaken for plagiarism (or the work of neutral Wikipedia editors!). --Plumbago 09:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen on Wikipedia, the standard practice is to use text directly from various articles (sometimes word for word, sometimes slightly paraphrased), with a link to the source article (sometimes with a note saying 'This article uses text from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica', or 'This article uses text from the Encyclopedia of Judaism'), without placing material in quotes. The MacTutor Mathematicians Archive is one source commonly used in this way (without even saying 'This article uses text from...', simply placing a link at the end of the article). But I'm happy to use quotes instead. I'm also happy to rewrite the information in summary form. --Taiwan boi 09:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The 1911 Encyc. Brit. is in the public domain. It's also considered a reliable source. Your source is neither. ornis (t) 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe you've missed the point of what I wrote. The fact that the 1911 Britannica is in the public domanin doesn't mean that people can use its words without quotation marks as if those words were their own. As far as my source goes, if you have information that it is unreliable please do present it. It cites Robert Seppings on the issue of 19th century ships over 200 feet in length, it cites Memnon as a source for one ancient Greek warship and Plutarch as a source for the Tessarakonteres, it cites Egyptian inscriptions and a work on Egyptology as a source for the details of the obelisk barges, and it cites recognized scholarship and archaeological finds as sources for the details of Caligula's 'Giant Ship' and 'Nemi ships'. --Taiwan boi 10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? ornis (t) 10:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 'Oh really'. The fact that a work is in the public domain does not mean you can use its words and pretend that they're your own. That is plagiarism, regardless of the fact that the work is out of copyright. The article you quoted (and let's remember 'Wiki is not a reliable source' according to ConfuciusOrnis), does not say anything of that kind. It does say 'The eleventh edition has become a commonly quoted source'. That is why Wiki articles using it carry a statement saying something like 'Information in this article has been taken from the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica'. --Taiwan boi 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the section I linked to shows that Project Gutenburg is in the preocess of re-titling and redistributing the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as "The Gutenburg Encyclopeadia"... looks a lot to me like using "its words without quotation marks as if those words were their own". ornis (t) 10:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you actually read the introduction of 'The Gutenberg Encycloaedia', which makes it very clear that these are not their own words: 'The Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia is a reproduction of a 1911 edition of a famous encyclopedia. The text has not been updated. Although the text is in the public domain in the United States, the original publisher still has a valid trademark in the original title of the encyclopedia.' --Taiwan boi 11:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The section is meant to be an overview of literalist ideas, not an in-depth review of them - in other words, we don't have the space to add all that material. Far better to give links to any websites you feel are relevant, either through the footnotes or through the external links section. --PiCo 09:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't expect this section to be an in-depth review of literalist ideas. I do expect it to include relevant material from a range of different views, including those of Christians who do not believe in a 450-600 foot Ark. I also expect the material concerning the physical practicality of the Ark to be factually accurate. --Taiwan boi 09:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The section you placed them in was discussing literalist interpretations, and I was under the impression your objection was that the article didn't give a voice to non-literalist christian apologetics. And really, how am I supposed to know you have permission, I couldn't find anywhere on the site where the author gives permission to reproduce the material in whole or part. Also I should point out that blogs are generally not regarded here as terribly good sources. ornis (t) 09:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do object that the article doesn't give sufficient voice to 'non-literalist christian apologetics', but the information I included in that section was not included in order to provide voice to 'non-literalist christian apologetics'. It was included to balance the claims made regarding the practicality of timber ships over a certain size. I know you couldn't find 'anywhere on the site where the author gives permission to reproduce the material in whole or part'. That doesn't change the fact that I have such permission. Furthermore, whilst 'blogs are generally not regarded here as terribly good sources', that particular blog provides appropriate references and verifiable information (some of it from Wiki in fact). --Taiwan boi 09:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. If the blog provides other good sources, then you should go to those instead. The fact that you have permission is neither here nor there, if the author has made no clear disclaimer of copyright over the material. Anyway, as others have said, it's better to use short quotes and summaries, over wholesale cutting and pasting. ornis (t) 10:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well that's quotable, 'Wikipedia is also not a reliable source'. I get that all the time. The fact is that Wiki is reliable where it is correctly referenced. I don't believe that particular blog uses any information from Wiki which is not correctly referenced. As for linking to 'other good sources', you've missed the point of the link I included. The link I included was to provide an example of Christian apologetic arguments for the practicality of Noah's Ark on the basis of historically large ships of similar dimensions. Linking to an archaeological article does not constitute an example of Christian apologetic arguments for the practicality of Noah's Ark on the basis of historically large ships of similar dimensions. Furthermore, I fail to understand why the author's permission to use their material is 'neither here nor there' simply because no explicit disclaimer of copyright has been made. I'll rewrite the information in summary form. --Taiwan boi 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In other news, here's the copyright notice of the source under question: 'Material from this site may be quoted, paraphrased, or cited on the basis of 'Attribution' and 'Non-Commercial' Creative Common licenses. This means that material can be used as described on the basis that the author is credited for the material (by a link to the article or by crediting 'J Burke' and the article name), for non-commercial purposes.' --Taiwan boi 10:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not that you have permission to reproduce copyright material, but rather that the material is copyright. That means that there is an implied protection against modification. So once you place the copyright material here, any other editor can alter it. The authors credit then becomes problamatic. The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica is out of copyright, so no such problems exist. Much better to summarise and reference. --Michael Johnson 10:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, and your points are valid. However, in this case the material in question is usable under the 'Attribution' and 'Non-commercial' Creative Commons licenses. If it is paraphrased and a link is provided, then there's no problem with anyone changing the paraphrase, since it is not being represented as the exact text of the article. If on the other hand it is quoted directly in quotation marks and a link is provided, then I doubt anyone is going to change the text in the quotation marks, so copyright issues will not arise. --Taiwan boi 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the copyright, nor the lack thereof, but the poor quality of the material itself. Here's some notes on the ships mentioned in Taiwanboi's proposed addition to the article. I've compared each of his four ancient ships to the Wyoming, the largest all-wooden ship ever built, by hull-length (we cite this in the article). As you see, these ships were all either the same length as the Wyoming, or shorter, and none of them were sea-going:

  • Tessarakonteres, 100 meters, same length as the "Wyoming": built for show, not use, could be moved "only with danger".
  • Egyptian bronze-age barge, 63 metres: shorter than the "Wyoming".
  • Hatshepsut's bronze-age barge, 95-140 metres est.: the shorter end of the estimate is about the same as the "Wyoming", and the experience of the Tessarakonteres and the Wyoming suggests that the shorter end is more accurate.
  • Roman Nemi ships, 75 metres: shorter than the Wyoming.
  • Caligula's giant ship, 104 metres: not much different from the Wyoming.

On this basis, I don't think we can accept the proposed addition. PiCo 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you have provided there indicates that the quality of the information is 'poor'. You are instead contesting its relevance in the context of this particular section. The issue under discussion in that section is not whether timber ships larger than the Wyoming could be built, but whether it was practical for ships of a size comparable to the dimensions suggested for Noah's Ark to be built (the title of this section is 'Seaworthiness', but the actual issue of seaworthiness is not specifically addressed in this section, which as it stands should read 'Practicality'). The Tessarakonteres was the same length as the Wyoming (the fact that it wasn't very navigable doesn't change the fact that it was built), you've chosen to ignore the longer posited length of Hatshepsut's barge (whereas even the shorter length is around the same as the Wyoming), and you're misinformed on Caligula's giant ship (the Nemi ships were lakebound floating palaces, but the giant ship was a seagoing transport barge). These vessels are relevant to the issue of whether or not a ship of dimensions similar to the Ark could be built. Comparisons with the Wyoming are only slightly relevant given that the Ark was a barge like these other ships, whereas the Wyoming was not a barge and was subject to stresses from which these other ships were free. Comparing them to the Wyoming is comparing apples to oranges. --Taiwan boi 11:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've realised my error about the Giant Ship and have corrected myself. As for your main point: the section on literalism doesn't deny that ships the size of the Wyoming could have been built in ancient times, it suggests that they wouldn't have been seaworthy. The Ptolemaic ship certainly wasn't sea-worthy (moving it was deemed "dangerous"), Caligula's pleasure-barges floated in a lake, and the Egyptian barges were used on a river. The problem that huge wooden ships face is hogging, which is caused by waves - so the lake and river bqarges are irrelevant. The only one that could be relevant is the giant ship, but did it ever go to sea? I see no evidence that was ever used as anything more than the foundation for a lighthouse - a giant caisson to be filled with rocks. We need something better than this. PiCo 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
PiCo, I've realised that we are in fact discussing the merits of the arguments raised by Christian apologists, which is not the purpose of this talk page. Whether or not you or I agree with the merits of the arguments raised by Christian apologists on this subject, the purpose of citing this blog is as an example of arguments used by Christian apologetics on this subject. I will endeavour to correct this in my next revision. By the way, you'll find that the river barges that the Egyptians used overcame hogging problems by using hogging trusses, that Caligula's giant ship is recorded as having moved an obelisk from Egypt, and you'll also find that the blog argues that the Ark was a landlocked barge experiencing a local flood, which is why comparisons with analogous barges are relevant. Comparisons with multi-masted, heavily rigged, ironclad sea-going Western vessels with steam powered bilge pumps constructed on entirely different design principles, are not relevant. --Taiwan boi 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Blogs almost never meet WP:RS, a policy on Wikipedia. The blog being used as a source does not. If someone has a reason why that blog should be considered as a source, please let me know, because otherwise this whole discussion is rather off-point, as it seems to be discussing the merits of content from the blog. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The blog cites Robert Seppings on the issue of 19th century ships over 200 feet in length, it cites Memnon as a source for one ancient Greek warship and Plutarch as a source for the Tessarakonteres, it cites Egyptian inscriptions and a work on Egyptology as a source for the details of the obelisk barges, and it cites recognized scholarship and archaeological finds as sources for the details of Caligula's 'Giant Ship' and 'Nemi ships'. If that means it's not a reliable source, then I would have to wonder what is. But you are correct, the merits of content from the blog should not be discussed here. It should not be cited as a reliable source if people are going to argue about it. But it should be cited in the main article as an example of Christian apologetics in the relevant section, because it is an example of Christian apologetics on this subject. Whether or not you, or I, or anyone else agrees with the content of the blog, that is how it should be cited in the article. The problem was that neither the criticism nor the apologetic material was really presented with NPOV. I will rewrite later today. --Taiwan boi 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No, we should not use a blog which does not meet RS as an "example", or for any other purpose - it does not meet RS. Find another source for Seppings, Memmon, and Plutarch. In your proposed rewrite, use those cites. Avoid weasely "Some Christians" or "Some apologists" in favor of "Seppings states" etc. Attribution needs to be specific, not to some undefined "some". We do not give "examples" from unreliable sources; we may use an article or other reliable source which does comment on a blog or its contents, but to do so ourselves is original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary, not a primary, source. And finally, remember that this is a featured article and any proposed changes must meet consensus as being considered an improvement; please work with other editors on the talk page on your desired changes. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I am talking about using the blog as an example of what Christian apologetics say about the Ark. If we want examples of what Christian apologetics say about the Ark, we do not look to Seppings. Seppings is not an example of what Christian apologists say about the Ark. Seppings did not write a Christian apologetic on the Ark. Seppings may or may not have even been a Christian. This is irrelevant. If we want examples of what Christian apologetics say about the Ark, we do not say 'Seppings states'. We say 'Some Christian apologists say', and then link to the blog as an example of what 'Some Christian apologists say'. That is not using 'weasel words', it is stating a fact unless you can demonstrate that the site is not saying what is attributed to it, or you can demonstrate that the site is not a Christian apologetic. Is this clear yet? On the subject of what is and what is not a reliable source, if a direct quote from Seppings does not constitute a reliable source for what Seppings said then what does? --Taiwan boi 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with making any citation from a blog is really a combination of two factors:

  • Our guidelines specifically state that self-published sources such as blogs can only be counted as a reliable source for what the author says and not for any other subject.
  • The author of this particular blog is not notable (unless you intend to show evidence to the contrary).

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to cite this blog because it would just be stating one person's opinion. You would need to present further evidence, again from a reliable source, that that author's opinion was typical or representative of some larger group. I hope this sheds some light on the problem. The best solution I can suggest is to find a website (or a published position document) from a group which states their position. SheffieldSteel 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you've misread my proposal also. I am not suggesting that the blog be cited as a 'reliable source'. I am suggesting that it be cited as an example of an argument raised by Christian apologists. I originally wanted to cite it as a 'reliable source', but later agreed this was inappropriate and suggested it be cited as an example of an argument raised by Christian apologists. KillerChihuahua kept thinking I wanted to cite it as a 'reliable source'. Currently the article makes numerous claims about what 'literalists' say without actually providing any information as to who these 'literalists' are, and without providing any evidence that this is what they say. Instead we have vague handwaving references to 'many websites'. I wasn't aware that this was the correct way to support statements in a Wiki article. What I am suggesting is the kind of reference which already does exist in the article. In the article we have the statement 'While some literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species', and a single website is provided as evidence that this is 'a more common position today'. I am suggesting the same kind of thing, a statement that 'Christian counter-arguments include', or 'Christian apologists reply' or something similar, and then a link to the blog as an example of how 'Christian apologists reply'. Is this valid or not? --Taiwan boi 14:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What SheffieldSteel says! I didn't misunderstand Tawian boi, but it seems I was less than clear in my post. If you still don't see the problem after reading SS's post, let us know. But you cannot use a blog as an example, that's Original research, just like using an interview you did yourself is Original research. We're not a primary source, and OR is not allowed. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Online text of Genesis

The article used to link to the UNi of Virigina online etxt of Genesis in the Revised Standard Version. The National Council of Churches of Christ, which holds the copyright to the RSV in America, has now withdrawn permission for its publication in favour of the King James, to which they also hold copyright. I've found a different online source for the RSV, but it seems to be hosted by the Uni of Michigan, so might also be forced off.

And why does the NCC want to ban the RSV? The RSV has been controversial with fundamentalists ever since its publication, not least because of Isaiah which they take as a prophecy of Chrit's birth - "a virgin shall conceive", or words to that effect. The Hebrew word the fundamentalists want to translate as "virgin" is more accurately translated "young woman", and this is what the RSV has. That's one of their most important objections, but there others, all to do with the RSV preferring accuracy over theology. I don't know why it's taken them so long to ban the thing, but at last they have. I'll keep an eye out for further events. PiCo 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The KJV is public domain in the US, and the NCC owns none of the copyrights to any of the recent versions that incorporate "King James" in their names.
But why link to a particular translation at all, when we can use {{bibleverse}} to let the reader choose? If you don't specify a translation, you get a list: {{bibleverse||Genesis|6-9}} yields Genesis 6-9. Or you can pick one and go there directly: {{bibleverse||Genesis|6-9|50}} gives Genesis 6-9.
The RSV has been controversial for more than just fundamentalists, but the NRSV is even worse. That is really the version they want to promote, but my church has specifically forbidden its use for liturgy and spiritual reading. (Not academic study for the purpose of analysis, of course.) Well, the NCC might want to push the NRSV, but I don't see any sign on their website that they've banned the RSV. They may well have withdrawn permission for online access, but that's not really shocking. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at your recent edits I started to wonder why you were so wedded to the RSV, but then I re-read your comment above more attentively. The problem isn't really that the RSV "prefer[s] accuracy over theology", but that they not uncommonly use a minority witness in the ancient sources to put forward their preferred meaning. This is more a problem in the NT, where they rely on the Alexandrian texts more than is really warranted.
In any event, the "virgin" reading in Isaiah is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some like to make out these days. It obviously has an ambiguous meaning: The 3rd century BC translators of the Septuagint used the Greek word for "virgin" there, which must reflect their understanding of it at the time and which must necessarily be free of any Christian theological bias.
That's of secondary importance anyway. When Matthew quotes it, he clearly thinks it means "virgin", but he says flat-out that Mary was a virgin anyway. More problematic is the obscuring of Messianic prophecy in many OT verses. In both Greek and Hebrew the words for "annointed one" would be the same in either the context of, say, the Psalms and in NT use -- if the NT were translated from Greek to Hebrew -- making the connection stand out if that's what you're looking for. But in the RSV they deliberately chose to use "annointed one" or similar everywhere in the OT, while retaining "Christ" in the NT. Greek has "christos" in both places; Hebrew would similarly use "moshiach". A translation concerned primarily with accuracy would have found a way to show this in English.
Never mind that the English is just plain ugly in places. And the way they use the archaic second-person pronoun is absurd. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the KJV for the poetry - perhaps it's just a matter of childhood memories, plus the way it's so intertwined with English literature right up to the early 20th century. I like the RSV for attempting to get closer to the Hebrew, which unfortunately but inevitably has meant moving well away from the KJV. What many in the US don't like about the RSV is, as you say, the obscuring of what they take to be Messianic prophecies. Whether you believe those prophecies are there depends very much on whether you already believe in the Messiah. (Outside the US the question doesn't really arise, as so few people read the bible in any edition).PiCo 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's intended to be a Christian translation, isn't it? So it should be written to meet the needs of Christians. I know of no Christian denomination that doesn't see these prophecies as important. And again, it's an obscurity that simply would not exist in either Hebrew or Greek. To that extent it's artificial.
It's not clear that a direct translation from the Masoretic is really desirable anyway. The differences between it and the LXX were once thought to be errors, but if the Dead Sea Scrolls have showed nothing else it's that the two simply represent different textual traditions, both of which were current in the 1st century. The NT quotes from the LXX far more than it does from the tradition now represented by the Masoretic. (The LXX as a translation predates the addition of vowel points to the Hebrew Scriptures by at least 1000 years.) One might therefore be justified in thinking of the LXX as the "Christian Old Testament". TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"It's intended to be a Christian translation, isn't it?" I'd prefer an English translation. "So it should be written to meet the needs of Christians." If those Christians merely want their existing beliefs reinforced, yes. But their beliefs are extraordinary - an incarnate god who dies and is resurrected, descended from a man (David) who died a thousand years beforehand, and so on. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs, as someone once said. The bible itself is the only proof these claims can have, and so they (Christians) really shouldn't be looking for a translation which merely reinforces their beliefs - they need to be sure they're right. PiCo 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Then why is is so important to hide things that are actually in the text? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Water

Why is there no mention of the fact that there is not enough water on earth to be able to completely cover it? Ian 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason is, that when similar scientific criticisms were suggested, they were shot down as being inappropriate for an article that had already reached FA status. A proposal to write a separate article dealing with criticism, or history of criticism was considered, but the effort has not progressed very far yet.--Filll 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already being addressed at Flood geology#Source of flood waters, which is more appropriate. Perhaps we need a "See also" link at the head of the section to redirect those seeking information related to Creationist arguments regarding the flood itself. Sxeptomaniac 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is abt the Ark rather than the Flood. Yes, I know, no flood, no ark. But we try to disentangle them, just to keep the thing manageable. PiCo 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with PiCo and Filll. I would like to know if the separate article dealing with the history of criticism has actually been started. --Taiwan boi 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well-reminded Sxeptomaniac - the Flood geology article covers the point that Ian is asking about. While, yes, the Flood and the Ark are separate subjects, jointly criticising their historicity over at Flood geology seems most sensible. Unless, that is, one would like to see specific criticism of whether, for instance, the Ark would float in principle, etc. A detailed engineering critique of wooden shipbuilding seems a little redundant when one considers the sheer weight of biological, geological and physical evidence stacked up against the elevated sealevel a particularly literal reading of religious texts implies. --Plumbago 12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit: cubit

I would like to propose the following edit:

Many different cubits were in use in the ancient world, and various commentators differ in their opinions as to which should be used to interpret the Ark's dimensions. However, 8th century BC Siloam inscription indicates a Hebrew cubit length of around 17 inches, which is 431.8mm (making the Ark about 410-425 feet long), and is the earliest written evidence for the cubit length used in Israel before the Babylonian exile.[1][2][3] This is the nearest written Hebrew source to the composition of the flood narrative in Genesis, and so this is the most likely length of the cubit used by Noah. Literalist websites seem prefer to use a larger cubit, possibly in order to maximize the available space within the Ark in order to contain all the animals a literalist reading of the text requires, and seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) in length.

The sources cited are an article from the Atlantic Baptist University, an article from the Harper Bible Dictionary and an article from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary. These may or may not be considered 'original research' or a 'reliable source'. All three say exactly what the article in the blog says, all three citing the Siloam inscription as the relevant proximate literary evidence for the length of the Old Testament cubit, as the blog did. Please comment. --Taiwan boi 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That much info would be fine in the Cubit article, but far more than we have room for in this one! PiCo 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have only added two sentences. We don't have room for two sentences? Remember, that paragraph in italics is a proposed edit which incorporates existing text. It's not a new paragraph to be added. --Taiwan boi 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the sources as being reliable. Why do they think the 8th century BC is close in date to the composition of Genesis? Van Seters and Schmid place J in the Exilic period, the Copenhagen School puts it even later, and almost everyone except Friedman dates P to the Exile or later. In other words, all of them put the Noah story several centuries later than the 8th. That's among the Americans: in Europe, Rendtorff and Blum see Noah and the entire primeval history as a post-Exilic addition, the very last part of Genesis to be written - again long after the 8th century. The only contemporary scholar who would agree with your 8th century date for the Noah story is Erich Zenger - he gives the primeval history a date in the 7th to early 6th centuries. Your sources seem unaware of any of this. (To put this another way, there's no point in looking for a pre-Exilic cubit when the majority of biblical scholars give the primeval history and Noah a post-Exilic date). PiCo 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If you read what I actually wrote, you will see that I did not cite them as sources saying that the 8th century Siloam inscription was the closest proximate literary source to the Genesis narrative for the cubit. I cited them as sources saying that the Siloam inscription is the earliest written evidence for the cubit used in Israel before the Babylonian exile. I understand that you're saying that you want this part of the article to reflect a certain POV (secular Higher Criticism), though I don't agree with the decision (when you refer to 'the majority of biblical scholars', you refer of course to the majority of secular biblical scholars). But from a quick review of the other comments on the Talk page today, I can see that this is the general aim of the editors here. I'll make another attempt at suggesting an edit:

Many different cubits were in use in the ancient world, and various commentators differ in their opinions as to which should be used to interpret the Ark's dimensions. Literalist websites seem prefer to use a larger cubit, possibly in order to maximize the available space within the Ark in order to contain all the animals a literalist reading of the text requires, and seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) in length. Other Christian websites suggest a shorter cubit of around 17 inches, making the Ark 410-425 feet long (125-129 metres). --Taiwan boi 23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Moses - a prince of Egypt - wrote the book of Genesis in circa 1560-1520 BC, one should look for a definition of cubit in ancient Egyptian records. Looks like a 20.6 inch cubit is likely (see [32]rossnixon 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice guesswork, but that has nothing to do with article content. Taiwan boi wants to include information that some literalist groups use a different standard for the cubit than the conventional "royal cubit". To establish that he only has to cite sources from those groups. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Moses didn't write the book of Genesis; it was ascribed to Moses to lend it credence, but it was written long after Moses (assuming he even existed, which we don't really have evidence for) died. Titanium Dragon 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That depends if you looked for evidence or not.[33][34] rossnixon 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The sole purpose of this talkpage is to discuss changes to the article, not to endlessly seize every available opportunity to push your own minimalist POV. 70.105.57.17 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
in ref to titanium d. - let alone saying the exact same of your own statment what sources do you have to say otherwise? as the editor above said this isnt' the point of article talk pages. it seems to be about your personal pov. So never mind. --Xiahou 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
See documentary hypothesis for sources. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
existance not writing. anyway back on topic how to improve the article particularly "Proposed edit: cubit " which this section is not did Moses exist. --Xiahou 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Narrative

The narrative presents one intepretation of the Genesis account as if this is exactly what the Genesis account is saying. Several different POVs of the Genesis account exist. The only one represented in the narrative is the 'globalist' view (note I will not say 'literalist', since 'literal' in this article is being misused). I suggest that the narrative section needs to be edited in order to identify the fact that it can be, and is, read from different POVs. --Taiwan boi 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article was written in any POV rather than describing the biblical account. Interpretations, whether scientific or otherwise, probably are better placed in POV forks to this article. For example, see Flood geology where I believe there are any number of different accounts of event. Orangemarlin 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's presenting a POV. It's presenting what is called the 'literalist' POV, which it presents as 'according to chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis'. It assumes a global interpretation of the language used to describe the flood, which is not necessarily global in its meaning. --Taiwan boi 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Gen.7:19:"And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." I think the POV might be yours. PiCo 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, you have just quoted to me one English interpretation of the Hebrew text. That is one POV. That is not a representation of what the Hebrew text necessarily says, that is one English interpretation of what the Hebrew text says. What you have quoted is itself POV, the KJV POV. --Taiwan boi 05:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a translation, not interpretation. Do you have scholarly support for a radically different translation? rossnixon 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not a translation, it is a paraphrase of the English text of the KJV. I am not suggesting replacing it with a 'radically different translation'. I am suggesting replacing it with an NPOV paraphrase. --Taiwan boi 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tb, while some of your complaints are valid, this one is way off base. This is the English Wikipedia; we can't give the text in Hebrew and expect that most readers could derive any information from it. The purpose of the "Narrative" section is to convey what the text says. To that end it gives a paraphrase of the scriptural story. The whole section begins with, "according to chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis," clearly indicating that it's only presenting the story as its given. There's no interpretation whatoever.

Yes, it would be good if the very sketchy "in Christian tradition" section was expanded to be commensurate with the wholly out-of-proportion section on literalism. However, you can't expect an article about a text to avoid any mention of what the text says. That's just unreasonable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting giving the text in Hebrew. I am suggesting replacing it with an NPOV paraphrase. You cannot say that there's 'no interpretation whatsoever' whilst at the same time acknowledging it's a paraphrase. It's not even a translation. A translation would be a rendering of the Hebrew text into English. The narrative does not do this. It is a paraphrase of the English text of the KJV, and as such it is an interpretation.I am not suggesting avoiding any mention of what the text says. I am suggesting replacing the current narrative with an NPOV paraphrase. I will write up an example of what I mean. I will also look at writing up an expansion of the 'in Christian tradition' section. --Taiwan boi 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"All the high mountains under heaven were covered" seems to be the universal translation. I'd be interested to see where you find a translation that says something different. Here's a Jewish translation that seems to stick very close to the Hebrew: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered." - not much room there for inferring anything less than a global flood. (Sorry about the Hebrew - I can't seem to make it cut and paste properly). PiCo 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I am not suggesting replacing it with a 'radically different translation'. I am suggesting replacing it with an NPOV paraphrase. See my suggested edit below. Your interpretation of the text as 'not much room there for inferring anything less than a global flood' is a classic case of 'exegeting the English'. The phrases used in the Genesis flood narrative and elsewhere which appear to indicate a global scope (such as 'all... under heaven', 'every living thing', 'under the whole heaven', 'all flesh', 'every... on the face of the earth', and '‘The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground’), are regularly used in the Old and New Testament in a non-literal sense. They are usually translated as they read in the Hebrew, because that is how they should be translated, just as 'raining cats and dogs' in an English text should be translated 'raining cats and dogs' in a French rendering of the English text. But that does not mean that the meaning of the phrases is necessarily what they appear literally to mean, any more than 'raining cats and dogs' means what it seems literally to mean in English. --Taiwan boi 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
However, that section is not about interpretation. The text says the waters rose to cover the tops of the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits (~20 feet), and that's simply what the paraphrase is reporting. It doesn't even say the flood was global. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that section is not about interpretation. I am not suggesting changing ANY of the text in the paraphrase. Please read my suggested rewrite. I am simply suggesting identifying those parts of the text which are subject to a range of interpretations, and have traditionally been interpreted in a range of different ways. It should be noted that the paraphrase as it stands is not a direct quote, and is not an interpretation. --Taiwan boi 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be pretty much all of it. We have at least 3,000 years' worth of exegesis here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No it wouldn't be 'pretty much all of it'. If you read my suggested rewrite below, you'll see I suggest placing in inverted commas (or whatever you want to call ' '), those specific details of the narrative which have been subject to a wide variety of interpretations. That is not 'pretty much all of it'. --Taiwan boi 09:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, every specific detail of the narrative, from the dimensions of the ark to the summoning of the animals, to the kind of wood used, to the order in which the different birds were sent out to find dry land, to the ark landing and the covenant established with the rainbow, to the duration of the rain and of the flood in total, to the age of Noah when all this happened, and everything in between, has been subject to one interpretation or another. When you speak of "a wide variety of interpretations" you're talking about far more than just a literal or nonliteral reading. But why should we do this anyway? You really haven't established a good reason for it. All this section is supposed to do is summarize the story. If we're going to write about different interpretive traditions, fine -- but why single out the interpretations of certain features for special treatment? And according to which traditions? And why flag them in the narrative? TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it would only be the phrases I have highlighted. Remember (or just read what I wrote), I am not suggesting REPLACING the narrative as it stands. I am suggesting an ANNOTATION of the narrative, with an indication of the key BIBLICAL PHRASES which are subject to a range of interpretations. The narrative as it stands does not say anything about the size of the Ark, so that wouldn't have to be referred to. The narrative as it stands does not say anything about Noah's age, so that wouldn't have to be referred to. The narrative as it stands does not say anything about the kind of wood used, so that wouldn't have to be referred to. It's clear you still haven't read what I wrote. Why do this anyway? Because it results in a narrative which is NPOV. The narrative given is not NPOV. It's from one specific POV, which is the 'literalist' POV, which is clearly the only POV which the majority of the editors of this article want represented here. The 'literalist' POV is being presented here as the POV of the text which was intended by the original author of the Genesis account. I agree the purpose of this section is merely to summarize the story. That is why I am suggesting KEEPING the text of the narrative as it currently stands. What I am opposed to is your insistence that this summary be written in such as way as leads the reader to think that the 'literalist' POV of the Hebrew text is the original meaning of the Hebrew text. --Taiwan boi 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Claims without references

In the article as it stands, we are told 'Literalists explain...', 'literalist websites seem to agree', 'literalist scholars who accept these objections believe that Noah must have...', and 'numerous literalist websites...', all without a single link or reference to prove that this is what 'literalists' actually say (even though I know from experience that this is indeed what they say). I'd just like to check that this constitutes acceptable Wiki practice, so I can include a few choice claims of what 'skeptics say' without providing any evidence. We're talking about a Featured Article here, after all, so I'm assuming such a practice is A-OK. --Taiwan boi 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's more often just the way things happen. Sections tend to get added based on someone's general knowledge, then, as it gets reworked later, citations are gradually added. Citations most often get added when something comes under dispute, as the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to add text. {{fact}} tags are an excellent way to mark statements you believe are in need of citation. Sxeptomaniac 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll tag them. --Taiwan boi 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Make sure you add a date. If it gets old, I feel we have every right to delete the section. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Although if no date is added, a bot will usually come along and add one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • {{who}} is more specific for when a weasel entity is used to push a "fact"--ZayZayEM 10:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a very valid criticism of the article. Whiole it is practically standard practice on Wikipedia, I am surprised it exists in a FA-class article.--ZayZayEM 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Durupinar, Judi, and Islamic tradition

I just cut this for the second time: "There is also a taller mountain in the east of Turkey, near to Iran border, which is called Mount Judi or (Cudi), 17 miles south of mount Ararat, this "Mount Judi" hosts the Durupinar site, which is believed by many to be the resting place of the Ark of Noah or Nuhun Gemisi as called in the local Turkish language." For the ercord and for the benefit of the editor who keeps adding it, Islamic tradition very clearly links Mt Judi with the one near Mosul; the "tradition" of the so-called Judi near Durupinar can't be traced back further than the 1980s, and is very firmly lnked to Doug Fasold, Ron Wyatt, and their group. PiCo 06:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaboelela insists on reinserting this material abt Durupinar after being repeatedly told why it's not appropriate. Can someone with admin status issue a warning, or something? PiCo 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Troubling questions?

Caution: Early scholars pondered such troubling questions as Just how did kangaroos get to Noah's Ark? and Why weren't such unusual creatures mentioned in the flood story?
Caution: Early scholars pondered such troubling questions as Just how did kangaroos get to Noah's Ark? and Why weren't such unusual creatures mentioned in the flood story?

Why are questions troubling and kangaroos unusual creatures? Is there a reference to the scholars’ pondering in the article that I missed? Chesdovi 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain, since you seem to be new here. The editing of this article is strictly controlled by a tiny unofficial "board" of highly opinionated POV editors and sympathetic administrators who will pull out ANY stops to attempt to selectively restrict what facts the public are "allowed" to read about, ie. only the ones favourable to their militant atheist POV. There are quite a few articles like this on wikipedia, but this is notorious as being one of the worst travesties. Many editors have been permanently banned, just for trying to bring balance and neutral wording here. It does not matter to them what the belief-systems and religions around the world say, "neutrality" to them means militating against these beliefs in the most overtly hostile manner imaginable, at every opportunity. Also, rules that apply to everyone else, like WP:CIVILITY, do not apply to them; hence they will label YOU the "pov warrior" and si,milar discourtesies in their edit summaries. If you can manage to change things here, you will have done more than most.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.51.163 (talk • contribs) 14:47 15 August 2007
This is pretty funny, considering that several pro-science efforts to introduce a more pro-science article ended in abandonment. They felt that this article was protected by a group of pro-Christian fantatics. So...interesting, isnt it?--Filll 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Temper, temper. Chesdovi added a line to the photo of the kangaroo to the effect that rabbis had an explanation for how exotic animals got to the ark (they "gravitated" - I don't think that's quite right). But this is already in the article, in the section on Jewish tradition - so no-one's trying to suppress Chesdovi's point, it's just a matter of not inserting it in an inappropriate place: this is the section on early scientific views on the Ark, that is the section on traditional Rabbinic views. A place for everything, and everything in its whatsit. If Chesdovi had asked whether any early 17th century scuientists had ever considered the kangaroo, he would have had a very good point - as I say below, they never did, as they had no idea kangaroos existed. They considred rattlesnakes, and legless birds of paradise, but not kangas. PiCo 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The photo of a kangaroo-sign is a bit cute, I must admit - so far as I know no scholars ever questioned why kangas weren't on the Ark. The reason for this was simple: by the time they appeared in the European consciousness - the very late 18th century, when European settlement of Australia began - the academic debate had been over for a hundred years. As the section which the roo-pic illustrates makes clear, it was a debate of the 17th century, not the 18th, and involved the creatures of the Americas, not the Antipodes. Nevertheless, the photo does illustrate the general idea, even if Sir Thomas was asking about rattlesnakes rather than marsupials. PiCo 14:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you indeed condone such fabrications? Chesdovi 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Condone such fabrications"? I don't follow. PiCo 15:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
To me this jocular image and accompanying false assertion of "Early scholars" which according to you never made such comments, doesn’t belong on wikipedia. It is unencylopeadic – it is made up. It is a phoney embellishment. I would rather add something which was actually said by a scholar. “Nevertheless, the photo does illustrate the general idea” is lame in the extreme. Chesdovi 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
How early "early" is, is made clear by the section in which the illustration appears: it's about the development of one specific branch of the biological sciences from the Renaissance to the about 1700, at the end of which period it had abandoned the religious worldview which had informed all earlier speculation, whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic, and become wholly secular. That's a pretty important development, and one to which Noah's Ark was central. The question of exotic animals was indeed an important one - viz. the brief account of early puzzling over the position of the bird of paradise, which was really, and really was believed to have no legs, and also the question of how animals not found in Europe got to the Americas - these, rather than kangaroos, were the creatures that scientists pondered; but they certainly did ponder them. As for the "fabrication" of the jocular cautionary kangaroo, Wiki can be edited by everyone, including you - b ut the illustratoin in this section should be appropraite to the section. If you can find a picture of the bird of paradise to put here instead of the kanga, I certainly wouldn't object. PiCo 15:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[Decrease indent] Taking a different track, can someone remind me why we need a photo of a kangaroo warning sign in the article? While I like the comedy reference it's making, it doesn't seem terribly relevant, nor befitting an encyclopedia. Also, its caption refers to "early scholars", but what "early" means here is rather ambiguous. To me, "early" suggests the first millennium (or earlier), not scholars from the enlightenment (as the neighbouring text seems to imply). Anyway, I know my point has little to do with Chesdovi's question, but I'm just wondering why we need the sign at all. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised the kanga has lasted this long (I didn't put him there, honest); I quite agree that he's more funny than relevant, and I wouldn't fight his deletion. PiCo 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I would favor removing it frankly. It is funny, but it is irrelevant, unfortunately.--Filll 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Bye-bye roo, but why does Rashi have to go? He's more relevant to the Rabbinic traditions section than that paintintg of Moses coming down off Mt Ararat. PiCo 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I would favor putting the kangaroo sign picture someplace else, but I am not sure where. It certainly is an important question for current advocates of a biblical literalist interpretation of Noah's Ark.--Filll 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You will find it here. Chesdovi 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any precedent for such a synthesis outside of wikipedia? 70.105.51.163 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding right? There are literally thousands of WP:V and WP:RS sources that raise this question, both in the creationist community and in the science community and skeptic community. You claim you have never seen one? That is a ludicrous comment, frankly. But that is how these articles end up heavily over-cited and unreadable, because of such ridiculous challenges.--Filll 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So there is a verifiable, reliable source that uses a kangaroo crossing roadsign to illustrate a pov about the Noah's Ark story? Sorry, I had thought that was a wikipedian original. 70.105.51.163 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is nothing if not original.PiCo 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yet another stunning example of how "cornerstone policies" are only applied selectively, in one direction, but aren't applied in the other direction. Til Eulenspiegel 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that wikipedia has a policy stipulating that images must have been used by a reliable source in order to be acceptable as illustrations. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am amazed. You all claim that this is somehow novel, only ever been seen here on Wikipedia? You claim you have never seen it before? You claim that this is such an imaginative question that it has never been published before in any source? Primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc? You do not think this has been used in debates and polemics, by both sides? You do not think this has been the topic of consternation on the part of creationists? You think no one ever noticed this before? If you claim all those things, I will humbly submit that perhaps you should not be editing Wikipedia, or at least this article. Anyone care to make a wager that such citations do not exist? My goodness.--Filll 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If they do we can use them as such, but my question is, where is a RS that uses a kangaroo road-crossing sign to ilustrate this? Has this ever been done? 70.105.51.163 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear heart, the kangaroo road sign is gone. Go to bed. PiCo 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[Reset indent; edit conflict] Enough already. I think we've now completely satisfied Chesdovi's original query by removing the roo image from the page. And it sounds like we're more or less all agreed that it shouldn't have been there (even, and I want to make myself perfectly clear here, even if some of us did find it amusing). Can we please get on with the rest of our lives? --Plumbago 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; I think that it belonged there. It was funny AND relevant, something few images are. I think that one key to a good article is humor if it is possible, and this sign was humorous but illustrated the point eloquently. Titanium Dragon 11:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I must repeat my question yet again: where is a RS that uses a kangaroo road-crossing sign to ilustrate this? Has this ever been done? (Note that when I asked this last time, I was told to "go to bed" because the picture is gone and "nobody" wants to put it back, but clearly that answer was mistaken). Can I please get a correct answer this time? 70.105.36.251 11:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not restrict us to images that have previously been used by a reliable source, and I cannot see any reason why we would want to adopt such a policy. Improvements to the article are welcome, as is discussion of improvements; disruption of the discussion is not. I would suggest therefore that you do not need to repeat your question yet again. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
So, you're saying that it is not covered by WP:SYNT. Again, more open display of the double standard here, because images are indeed covered by SYNT, when you want them to be. 70.105.36.251 15:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, no. I have not mentioned synthesis in this debate. Things that I have said include:
  1. calls for reliable sources are bizarre
  2. wikipedia is unlikely to ever have a policy calling for photos to be used by a RS
  3. continuing to argue the point is disruptive.
I don't think there is much more to say on the matter. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Prose of "The Ark under scrutiny" section

This section seems to be written like an essay opposed to an encyclopedic article. I've never read an encyclopedic article that asks questions and then answers them as an essay might do. For instance: "And might the Sirens, which by their nature lure sailors to their doom, have been permitted on board? (The answer was no; they swam outside.)" If this is some sort of middle age riddle then it should probably be said so, or if it's referencing someone else it should contain a citation. Who asked whether or not the Sirens were on the ark? Who said they swam outside? Does reference 10 contain this information? Does it reference the entire paragraph? Wikidudeman (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Beginning at the end: Yep, ref.10 is the source for the information in the entire paragraph. And yep, I write flowery prose. And who else asks questions and then answers them? Don Rumsfeld? Feel free to re-write the whole paragraph if you want, even the whole article, I won't stop you.PiCo 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Really big ships

Since I think the historical accuracy of big wooden floating things is the crux of part of Taiwan boi's arguments, I didn't see a link to a couple of good articles on this projects: List of world's largest wooden ships and Wyoming (Schooner). Both articles debunk the ability of large wooden ships to float, and that most historical big wood boats were more mythical than actual. I think everyone has more or less discussed ad nauseum the rest of your points. Orangemarlin 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither article debunks the ability of large wooden ships to float. Neither Caligula's giant ship, nor Hatshepsut's barge were mythical, and they floated just fine. What they do is demonstrate that certain designs of timber ship aren't very stable in the open sea when scaled to certain large proportions. Your comparison of ocean going 19th century multimasted Western designed ships with heavy rigging, and/or cannon, iron cladding/bracing and steam engines/pumps, with pre-modern inland use 'shell first' designed barges with hogging trusses, lateral and transverse strength beams, is like telling me that you can't build a yacht more than 200 feet long, because you can't build a canoe more than 200 feet long. But this is beside the point. As I have said twice previously, I want to include a reference to this information as an example of what some Christian apologists argue. You may disagree with what they argue, but I see no valid reason why the argument should not be presented. What I am seeing is resistance to any reference to Christian interpretations other than the 'literalist' interpretation, which is presented throughout the article, sometimes without any supporting references at all. We are told 'Literalists explain...', 'literalist websites seem to agree', 'literalist scholars who accept these objections believe that Noah must have...', and 'numerous literalist websites...', all without a single link or reference to prove that this is what 'literalists' actually say. If it's ok to do this, then I fail to see why it's not ok to present what some Christian 'non-literalists' say, providing actual evidence that they say it. --Taiwan boi 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
To be fair to Taiwanboi, what he's saying is that some believers in a literal Ark don't accept the length of the cubit most often accepted, with the result that their version of the Ark is about the same length as attested ancient ships/barges (which happens also to be the length of the Wyoming). So the crux of our argument shouldn't be whether such ships could float, but whether this is a viewpoint sufficiently important to merit inclusion.PiCo 00:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you PiCo, that is indeed what I am saying. I agree that the key here is whether or not this viewpoint is sufficiently important to merit inclusion. I believe it is. I find it amazing that the article implies that doubts concerning the 'literalist' interpretation of the Genesis flood narrative arose as a result of 'natural historians' being unable to reconcile it with increased scientific knowledge. No mention is made of Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Genesis flood narrative which understood it to refer to a local flood. As early as the 1st century Josephus referred to people who had survived the flood by gaining high ground, and you can be certain he wasn't interpreting the flood as local on the basis of scientific advancement. Rashi and Maimonides said the same, and they certainly didn't say so on the basis of a Renaissance paradigm. Sir Thomas Browne, quoted in the main article, made mention of the Christians who in his day believed the flood was local ('some conceiving it needlesse to be universal, have made the deluge particular, and about those parts where Noah built his Arke'). By the late 19th century, the local flood position was already common among Christians, and accepted as within orthodoxy by the majority. It just so happened that the Fundamentalists became the most vocal and their position the most well known. The article on the other hand gives the false impression that by the 19th century secular scientists no longer gave the global flood interpretation credence, but that this was still the standard view among Christians. --Taiwan boi 06:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty in this instance, as in many other topics such as creationism etc, is that the biblical literalists seem to garner the lion's share of the attention. Partly this is because they are vocal. Partly because this is because they claim that all other Christians believe as they do, which is patently false; the vast majority of Christians disagree with them in most instances. Partly this is because they often use subscription to biblical literalism as a litmus test for deciding if a given person is Christian or not. Partly this is because their extreme positions are more easy to dismiss, and most at odds with standard scientific thought. However, it is probably worthwhile on all of these articles which discuss literalist beliefs to make it clear how much of a minority position biblical literalism truly is. Even among Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, anonymous surveys demonstrate that only about half of the congregations subscribe to biblical literalism. Among mainstream Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc, only about 10% claim to believe the bible is literally true (and even this might be an overestimate, depending on how the survey is done). This is like the story of the "Emperor who wasnt wearing any clothes". People are sometimes reluctant to state the obvious; any careful scholarship or understanding of the bible makes it very difficult to maintain a belief in biblical literalism. I do not know what the corresponding figures are for Koranic literalism, but I suspect they might not be too different, if done by anonymous surveys among literate, educated people.--Filll 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Fill, I quite agree. The very fact that the term 'literalists believe' is used throughout the article demonstrates that the contributors to the article are well aware that views exist among Christians which are different to the views of the 'literalists'. I see no reason why these other views should not be here. If people can just come out directly and say whether or not one Christian viewpoint is to be presented here, it will save us all a lot of time. --Taiwan boi 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see where in this article are there significant literal interpretations of the bible. Mostly, the article states what the story is. Other forks do the interpretation. Orangemarlin 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the entire narrative section, which presents a 'literalist' interpretation of the text (it's not even a quote from the Biblical text, it's an interpretation of the text). Secondly, we are repeatedly presented with the 'literalist' interpretation of the Ark narrative, using such phrases as 'Biblical literalists today continue to take the Ark as test-case for their understanding of the Bible', 'literalists rely on interpretation', 'Literalists explain...', 'Literalists see nothing puzzling', 'literalists devote much attention', 'literalist websites seem to agree', 'literalist scholars who accept these objections believe that Noah must have...', 'a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between literalists and their opponents', 'While some literalists hold', and 'numerous literalist websites...'. The 'literalist' interpretation is presented throughout the entire article, and not contained in a fork. No other Christian interpretation is presented. The very fact that the term 'literalists believe' is used throughout the article demonstrates that the contributors to the article are well aware that views exist among Christians which are different to the views of the 'literalists'. I see no reason why these other views should not be here. --Taiwan boi 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The narrative section is a paraphrase of the text, not an "interpretation". We have to present the story, but quoting three chapters of the Bible verbatim is inappropriate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The narrative is a paraphrase, and that's what makes it an interpretation. I am not suggesting three chapters of the Bible verbatim be quoted. I am suggesting an NPOV paraphrase. --Taiwan boi 00:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggested rewrite of the narrative section:

The story of Noah's Ark in chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis[2] has been interpreted in a number of different ways within Abrahamic religions, with a range of interpretations being found within rabbinic, Christian, and Islamic traditions. In the narrative which follows the general outline of the story as found in standard English translations of the Book of Genesis is described (direct quotes are from the King James Version of the English Bible). Details of the story which are interpreted differently by different traditions have been placed in italics. They are represent what the text appears to say, but not what it necessarily means:
'The Genesis flood story begins with God observing man's evil behaviour and deciding to flood the earth and destroy all life. However, God found one good man, Noah, "a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time," and decided that he would carry forth the lineage of man. God told Noah to make an ark, and to bring with him his wife, and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives. Additionally, he was told to bring examples of all animals and birds, male and female. In order to provide sustenance, he was told to bring and store food. Noah and his family and the animals entered the Ark, and "the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." The flood covered even the highest mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet, and all creatures on Earth died; only Noah and those with him on the Ark were left alive. After 150 days, the Ark came to rest among the mountains of Ararat.' --Taiwan boi 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Make it more clearly a story please, especially when using quotes. Eg. Genesis says that the flood covered even the highest mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet, and all creatures on Earth died; only Noah and those with him on the Ark were left alive. --ZayZayEM 04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Erm, all I've done is keep the existing narrative as it already stands in the article at present, add a short introduction, and placed some parts of the text in italics. The parts in italics are not intended to be quotes, they are intended to be details of the story which are interpreted differently by different traditions. They are not intended to be quotes ('examples of all animals and birds, male and female', for example is not a quote from anywhere in Genesis), and they are supposed to be identified as other than quotes. Direct quotes have already been placed - unsurprisingly - in quotation marks. It seems you have a problem with the narrative as it stands in the article at present, in which case I propose you suggest a rewrite of the narrative. I don't know how it could be more obviously 'a story', when it opens with 'The Genesis flood story begins with'. --Taiwan boi 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear from context what the italics mean; it's not a standard use for them. But I disagree, and strongly. There's no interpretation at all going on in that section, just a synopsis of the plot, if you will. That is what it is independent of any interpretive filters. Those come after the story is laid down. There's no getting around the actual content of the text, no matter how this group or that chooses to read it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the use of the italics is introduced by the words 'Details of the story which are interpreted differently by different traditions have been placed in italics', I find it difficult to understand why you would think that it's not clear from context what the italics mean'. But I would be happy to use single inverted commas instead, as a recognised convention for this purpose. If you don't believe there's any interpretation going on in that section, then I suggest you're not familiar with the process of translation. The text in the narrative is most certainly not what the text is independent of any interpretative filters. It's not even a direct quote of the Biblical text. What is going on there is an interpretation. If the text consisted of a direct quote from an English translation, and it was presented as such, then I would have less of a problem. But when the Biblical text is paraphrased, it is interpreted in the process. The narrative purports to inform the reader of what the Biblical text actually means. That is interpretation. I agree there's no 'getting around the actual content of the text', but you misunderstand my objection. I am not suggesting trying to 'get around the actual content of the text'. I am suggesting an NPOV presentation of the text, whereas you are insisting on a POV interpretation of the text. I am suggesting a presentation of the text which takes into account the fact that it is possible to read in a variety of ways. You wish to convince the reader that there is only one possible way to read the text, and that the literal meaning of the English words in standard English translations accurately represents what the original Hebrew author meant by the Hebrew he used. I question your authority to determine so conclusively what the original Hebrew author meant. I'm sure you didn't know him. --Taiwan boi 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Your premise is just wrong. The section purports to inform of that the narrative says, not what it means, and I can detect no interpretation whatsoever going on. It's perfectly possible to summarize or make a synopsis of a story without interpreting the events in it. It's only possible to read the story in a number of ways once you start applying interpretive filters. Absent those, bare of any allegorical or symbolic analysis, the story is all there is, and it's perfectly NPOV to tell the reader about it. I just don't understand your objections to summarizing the story, and you haven't stated them in any cogent way. The actual text must be the ground from which any discussion of it must proceed, but it sounds as if you'd accept nothing but the literal Hebrew text for this. You denied it earlier, but that's exactly what you're saying here. Either that, or you're demanding that we start in the middle of the article rather than at the beginning, and start interpreting before we have even said anything about the contents of the text. That's a very poor way to present the subject.
The text presented here is a paraphrase of the KJV text. That text is a translation and an interpretation. If this narrative was introduced by a statement that it is a paraphrase of the KJV text, the text could stand as is. But it doesn't do that. It purports to tell us the Hebrew flood story, but does so without any reference to the actual Hebrew flood text. You think that when you're reading the English translation you're reading the original story - just as the Hebrews originally penned it (in English, of course!). You don't think that there's any interpretation involved, because you think that this paraphrase of the KJV English text represents exactly what the Hebrew text says, not only word for word but meaning for meaning. This demonstrates that you're not actually familiar with the field of translation, and you're not familiar with the difference between a translation and a paraphrase. --Taiwan boi 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, you're complaint here is practically incoherent. Even when I take the time to re-read it, it makes no sense. Whatever other meaning is in there, whatever allegory might be present, whatever symbols are employed or perceived by whatever religious groups, the narrative as it stands comprises a story. All this section is supposed to do -- what it "purports" to do, is to tell that story in its essential "plot points". That is all, and there's nothing wrong with doing that by any standard. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you have still not read my suggested edit, since you are still saying you think I want the literal Hebrew here. I am not saying that. I am suggesting we keep the narrative as it stands, and simply indicate that it is a paraphrase of one particular English translation, indicating the various phrases which are subject to a range of interpretations. This means that we indicate that these phrases are subject to a range of interpretations, but without actually suggesting any interpretations of them at all - thus NPOV. You think this paraphrase of an English translation of the Hebrew text actually tells the story of what the Hebrew text really says, because you think that a paraphrase of an English translation of a Hebrew text necessarily constitutes an accurate depiction of what the Hebrew text says. But even a cursory search of an English Bible reveals that phrases such as 'all flesh' and 'all the X under heaven' are not necessarily to be understood as literal. But you want them to be represented as literal in this paraphrase, without giving any explanation as to why. You think my complaint is incoherent because you still haven't read it. Nor have you read my suggested edit. It would be useful if you just came out and told me why you don't want this article edited. That would save us both a lot of time. You're not the only one here who doesn't want it changed in any way, after all. --Taiwan boi 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
First, stop with the personal attacks. I never said I didn't want the article changed in any way. In the other thread I started by saying I agreed with most of your complaints about the article.
Clearly I have read your suggested edit. I know very well that you aren't asking for the Hebrew; I'm saying that it appears the only version of this narrative that you think is NPOV is the Hebrew. I can't see how you could possibly disagree with that based on your apparent objection to the use of any single existing English translation.
The rest of what you're saying is frank nonsense. This is a valid paraphrase for any of the two dozen or so English translations of the text I have seen. Whether or not a particular translation chose to render certain Semitic idioms literally or according to their sense is utterly beside the point. Any acceptably accurate translation will do here; it doesn't matter which as long as (for consistency's sake) we pick one and stick with it. If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, every quotation on Wikipedia originating in any language other than English should be flagged like this for every word that differs among all existing English translations for any idiom of the original language. I cannot think of a more pointless exercise, even if we were to restrict it to Biblical quotations only. No one does that. You're the only person I've ever met who thinks it might even be necessary.
If I had trouble understanding what you were saying, it's because you hadn't bothered to explain your context. "Interpretation", when applied to a Biblical text, means exegesis, or a symbolic or allegorical analysis of it, not a decision about how to phrase a dynamically equivalent translation. A person whose approach it is "literal" or who is a "literalist" isn't someone favoring a word-for-word literal or formally equivalent translation, but someone who believes the sense of the story literally. In this case, it's someone who believes and that a man named Noah really did, on instructions from God he really received, build a large, watertight, wooden structure; really did load multiple specimens of every kind of animal there was into it to assure their survival of a worldwide flood he had been told would happen by God; and that this worldwide flood really happened. Most, but not all, of these people are Young Earth creationists. They have to provide entirely novel versions of a number of sciences in order to justify this view; see Flood geology. Many of them use the KJV. Many don't. They are a minority faction of Christians but an extremely vocal one, which is why the article devotes so many words to an explanation of how they understand the text.
So the problem isn't that I don't understand translation. It's that you don't understand the words you're using. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've spent a few days away from here deliberately. Firstly I am not confusing interpretation with translation. Having spent a good several years on a professional Bible translation list, I'm aware of the difference. When referring to the KJV I distinguished between translation and interpretation, saying that the KJV rendering is both a translation and an interpretation. Secondly, translation certainly does involve interpretation (in the sense of 'exegesis'), at times, which is what makes it so difficult. Take the word SARX ('flesh'), for example. In numerous New Testament passages an exegesis of the text is necessary to determine whether the word should be translated 'flesh', or translated as an idiom, metaphor, or synonym, or metonym. In other cases the idiom is known to have one specific meaning, not a range of meanings. Thus when we are told God has a 'long nose', it is understood to mean 'patient' or 'longsuffering', and is rendered as such. In most cases there are contextual indicators which identify the meaning of the idiom. Thus when such terms as 'all flesh' are found in apocalyptic judgment oracles, it is most likely that they are to be understood in a non-literal sense, and ditto when Luke says that 'all the world' was taxed by Augustus it is understood that he uses OIKOUMENH in its restricted sense referring to the Roman empire (this, despite the fact that the KJV renders it 'world'). Now you wouldn't go over to the 'Census of Quirinius' article and insist that the article say that Luke claimed Augustus taxed the entire planet would you? And yet the KJV plainly says Augustus taxed 'the entire world'.
In cases where the term is ambiguous and there are no obvious contextual markers (such as in the case of 'all flesh' in the Genesis flood account), the usual practice of modern translations is to render it literally and let the reader interpret it. That is why I have no problem with the KJV (or any other translation), being quoted in the narrative section of the article, as long as the key phrases are placed in quotation marks. But paraphrasing the KJV (or any other translation), purports to represent the meaning of the text.
As I have said before, I have absolutely no problem with placing these terms in " " marks and identifying them as direct quotes from the KJV. It simply untrue that I view the Hebrew as the only non-POV account, since I have provided several examples of how the existing English paragraph in this section could be rendered non-POV, without even changing a single word and without changing it into another language. Thirdly, I understand that 'literalist' in this article does not refer to a 'word for word' translation of the Bible, but to someone who reads the English text in a literal sense. I don't know why you thought I had confused the two. Fourthly, whatever is done with this article has no necessary consequences for other articles, and certainly not the changes I'm suggesting. There's no need for the kind of changes you're claiming would be necessary. People manage to understand that Luke didn't claim Augustus taxed the entire planet, so when they paraphrase Luke they don't say that Luke claimed Augustus taxed the entire planet. If they did, they would be wrong. --Taiwan boi 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(reducing indent and overwriting an earlier post) I've dealt with most of your {cite} tags - one of them already has all the references, grouped at the end of the section, for another I simply deleted the sentence as it wasn't essential, and a third refered to the totality of literalist websites and thus was/is inherently unreferenceable.

I still am not convinced that the summary does violence to the account in Genesis, or needs quote marks. Incidentally, it was based on the RSV, not the KJV: you can see my discussion with TCC on another thread about "Christian" vs. "English" translations, and I prefer English. "Christian" ones tend to do violence to the Hebrew, "correcting" the opening of Deuteronomy, for example, to put Moses on the wrong side of the Jordan - a change which isn't even specifically Christian; but I'm not aware of any such problems with the Ark story.

I'm sure you're not convinced that the summary does violence to the account in Genesis, because you're convinced that a loose paraphrase of the English RSV translation is an accurate depiction of the true meaning and POV of the original Hebrew text. I am disputing that you can be sure of that, especially without providing any evidence that it is true. Can you explain to me why you believe that this loose paraphras eof the English RSV tnraslation is an accurate depiction of the true meaning and POV of the original Hebrew text? --Taiwan boi 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I gather your core problem with the article is your feeling that it gives undue weight to the literalist position - global flood, huge Ark - and you'd like room for less extreme views - local flood, small Ark (and even no flood, Ark-stolen-from-Babylonian-myth?) I have no idea how many people do believe in a literal Ark, and I suspect most people get through the day without thinking about such things. I have no idea how many hold the other positions, either. PiCo 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My core problem with the article is certainly that it provides extensive detail of the 'literalist' position. But not only that, it obscures the fact that alternative positions exist. Why does it not contain any details of alternative positions, especially when the 'non-literalist' positions are among the earliest expositions of the passage on record, starting with Josephus in the 1st century? Is there a a valid reason to exclude these from the article? If not, would you object to me including a description of them? --Taiwan boi 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"Christian" ones tend to do violence to the Hebrew, "correcting" the opening of Deuteronomy, for example, to put Moses on the wrong side of the Jordan -- This is simply false. The verse that follows makes it plain which side of the Jordan Moses was on. All translation requires a decision in how to phrase a passage for clarity. In this case, we're obviously looking at something written from the point of view of someone west of the Jordan. But since the text had not earlier recorded the crossing into Canaan, it's confusing if you're anywhere else in the world. It hardly does "violence to the Hebrew" if, however phrased, the reader arrives at a correct understanding of what side of the Jordan Moses is said to be on. The fact is that all translations made from the Hebrew, Christian or not, have been made with every intention of an accurate rendering. If some have failed -- the state of Hebrew scholarship in the non-Jewish world was not as well developed in 1611 as it is now -- it's not because of deliberate mistranslation.
You never really acknowledged the basic point of what I meant by "Christian" translation, and if you're going to keep talking like this I really wish you would. That is -- Why should any translation obscure possible connections between the Old and New Testaments that would be readily apparent in either Hebrew (where "anointed one" is "mochiach" for both OT monarchs and Jesus) or Greek (where the word is "christos" in both cases)? To translate them differently in each section may not do violence to the original languages, but it most certainly does to the English. And don't you want an "English translation"? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to add that your basic premise is wrong too. The only English translations that say "this side of the Jordan" are those based more or less directly on the KJV. Others say "beyond" or "across" Jordan. Most modern translations avoid any ambiguity in Moses' location at all and say "east of Jordan" -- which isn't what the Hebrew says of course, but it's the side of the river the Hebrew is trying to convey.
If anything, you more often find the NT mistranslated to support a particular denomination's POV. 2 Thess 2:15 is a notorious example. (Compare the Greek with the accurately rendered KJV and then the NIV, which is aimed at an Evangelical audience. The correct translation is relegated to a footnote -- but only partially, since the verb should be different too. The NLT doesn't even bother with a footnote. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
But to respond to Taiwan boi directly -- I would think that after all this time, since you insist that the narrative section violates NPOV, that you would have some specific example of how this is so. Why did I think you'd gotten the meaning of "literalist" wrong? Because your complaint about the narrative section is that it reflects a "literalist" POV, and when pressed as to how, you started talking about translations, and the parts you want highlighted are strictly those . So now please state the problem directly: In what way does the "Narrative" section misrepresent the tale as told in the Hebrew? How would the story be different if a Hebrew-speaker told it without reference to a literalist POV? (Absent any exegetical analysis, since that's explicitly not what that section is about.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been extremely specific about why I believe this narrative section violates NPOV. I have not said that it necessarily misreprsents the Hebrew. What I have said is that it claims to convey the correct meaning of the Hebrew. Remember, I am speaking here of the paraphrases, not the direct quotes. The parts of the narrative which paraphrase the English translation, and represent this parapharase as the true meaning of what the original Hebrew writer had in mind. How do you know what the original Hebrew writer had in mind? Just give me your reasons. As I have made clear, I have no problems with a reasonable translation being quoted as an indication of what the Hebrew says. What I object to is a loose paraphrase of the English translation being represented as what the Hebrew actually means. I am not arguing that the Hebrew writer intended it to be taken literally, and I am not arguing that the Hebrew writer intended it to be taken non-literally, so your question is irrelevant to me. I am arguing that the reader should be left to make up their own mind, since the Hebrew writer wrote the original narrative in such a way as leaves the interpretation up to the reader. What objection do you have to replacing the key phrases with direct quotes from an English translation, and placing them in quotation marks? --Taiwan boi 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you see as questionable about the summary. Take just one verse: how does this passage, parts of which you've italicised as shown in your proposed edit:

  • "The story of Noah's Ark, according to chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis, begins with God observing man's evil behaviour and deciding to flood the earth and destroy all life."

misrepresent this?:

  • "God said, 'I will obliterate humanity that I have created from the face of the earth - man, livestock, land animals, and birds of the sky. I regret that I created them.'" (English with notes.)
  • "And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'" (Hebrew/English.

PiCo 12:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explained this before. The translations you have provided are accurate renderings of what the Hebrew says. The reader can decide for themselves what these phrases mean. The paraphrase in the narrative which you have quoted is different. It purports to tell the reader what the text means. I have no objection to any particular Bible translation being quoted here, in quote marks, and the reader being left to decide the meaning for themselves (this is, after all, what the original Hebrew writer did). I do have an objection to a narrative paraphrase which purports to dictate what the original Hebrew writer meant, where the meaning of the text is debatable. Imposing one meaning on this text and representing it as the only meaning, is necessarily writing POV. --Taiwan boi 07:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

TB: The trouble is that you've been mixing levels of meaning, or at least it looks as if you are, which is why no one knows what you're talking about. On the one hand, there's interpretation on the level of semantics. A translation should be semantically equivalent to the original if it's any good, so a high-level paraphrase should come out to about the same whether it's made from the original language or a good (or even merely adequate) translation. If it's on this level you have a problem, you're going to have to say what it is because you haven't yet. You need to because it would be entirely novel: I have never heard of any claim, from a Jew or anyone else, that any of the standard English translations of the story seriously misrepresents it on this level.

The other level of meaning is the theological/symbolic/allegorical level, and it's here where controversy generally resides. If this is what you're complaining about -- as you would be if, for example, if you want to take "the earth" and "all life" to mean something other than what they convey semantically because one interpretation or another puts the phrases into some context where they're understood differently -- then this is something the narrative section is not intended to address.

So please give an example of an "interpretation" on the semantic level where something is amiss. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with this above. As I have said repeatedly, I have no objection to any of the standard translations of the text. The translations render what the text says. The reader is left to determine what they mean. The phrase 'all flesh', for example, is overwhelmingly used in a non-literal sense in the Bible, yet the paraphrase in the narrative here informs the reader that it is to be taken literally in the flood account. I do not believe it is correct to interpret the text for the reader. The text can be quoted (and placed in quote marks), as I have suggested, and the reader can be informed that it is up to them to interpret the text. You talk about me wanting to take 'the earth' and 'all life' to mean 'something other than what they convey semantically', and that's just the problem - you think that the only semantic meaning they have is a literal meaning. That's simply not the case, not in Hebrew or in English. I am not saying that the narrative section should say that these phrases as used in the Genesis flood account refer literally in a global sense, or hyperbolically in a local sense. I am arguing that the narrative section should not represent the text as having either meaning. The text should be quoted, and the meaning interpreted by the reader. That eliminates the possibility of POV. --Taiwan boi 07:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Who says? Give a reference. I know very well the story is based on a local flood, but I have never seen this text read in such a way as to be talking on a small scale. The language is unambiguous in Hebrew, Greek, or English, and there is no significant body of exegesis anywhere that uses one of these alternate readings. So give a reliable source for it. I tend to think you don't have one, because you could have short-circuited this a long time ago if you'd just cited it, but it's never too late. If you have one, let's see it. (And please don't expect us to take some tiny group's idiosyncratic reading as a reliable source. It just isn't.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Who says what? That the various terms used to describe the flood can be understood in either a local or a global sense? I can provide you with examples of such language used in the Bible itself in a non-local sense, or would you prefer another source? If you are telling the truth when you say you have 'have never seen this text read in such a way as to be talking on a small scale', then I suggest you read this very Talk page, in which I mentioned local flood interpretations as early as the 1st century (Josephus). See my reply below. The language is not 'unambiguous in Hebrew, Greek, or English'. Let me ask you this. If you were paraphrasing Luke's account of the census in Luke 2:1, would you say that Luke records a decree by Augustus to tax the entire planet? Remember, the phrase under question is 'all the world should be taxed', and it is translated in this way by every English language Bible up to the 20th century (and in fact up to the first half of the 20th century if I'm not mistaken), and is still translated 'all the world' in a number of standard modern English translations. --Taiwan boi 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that because the language is so unambiguous that this is an exegetical issue anyway. So your source had better support the notion that a local flood is a possible reading of what the text is trying to express as written, not by some higher-level interpretive scheme. To be really reliable it needs to address the problem of why no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now. (There is no traditional exegesis that reads the text that way.) Otherwise it stands a good chance of being someone's pet theory with no outside recognition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I am amazed that you think 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now', and that there is 'no traditional exegesis that reads the text that way'. You clearly haven't read what I wrote earlier in this very Talk page. Let me quote my earlier words, written here over a week ago (bold added):
As early as the 1st century Josephus referred to people who had survived the flood by gaining high ground, and you can be certain he wasn't interpreting the flood as local on the basis of scientific advancement. Rashi and Maimonides said the same, and they certainly didn't say so on the basis of a Renaissance paradigm. Sir Thomas Browne, quoted in the main article, made mention of the Christians who in his day believed the flood was local ('some conceiving it needlesse to be universal, have made the deluge particular, and about those parts where Noah built his Arke'). By the late 19th century, the local flood position was already common among Christians, and accepted as within orthodoxy by the majority.
I'll add to Josephus the 1st century witness of Philo, who defines the flood as local, saying it 'almost flowed out beyond the Pillars of Heracles [the Straits of Gibraltar] and the Great Sea'. Josephus and Philo are two of the earliest extant commentaries on the flood, and they both speak of it as local. Both Rashi (11th century), and Maimonides (12th century), were firmly within Jewish orthodoxy, and even helped define it. Browne's witness is important becuase it shows that the local flood interpretation had become established within Christian orthodoxy by at least the 17th century (though he himself thought this interpretation was wrong). I fail to see how you could possibly defend your statment that 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now'.
Writing in 1890, Aldous Huxley says 'I have been unable to discover that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left', and whilst the universal interpretation certainly did still have its defenders, his statement is nevertheless a pertinent comment on the extent to which the view had declined to become the minority position. Yet you say claim 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now'. On what basis do you make this claim? Do you simply disbelieve that these other historical interpretations even exist, or were you just unaware of them? --Taiwan boi 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Disappointing. You insist over and over again that the story in text can be read as describing a local and not a global flood, but when you finally get down to cases you have less than nothing. None of these sources are talking about that at all. These are all clearly not direct readings, but exegetical (or scientific per Huxley) which is what I've been expecting all along. The Narrative section is not for exegesis. It's for relating the story as told. Period. If you want to include this kind of material, fine. Make a place in the article for it. I already said the literalist stuff takes up far more space proportionately than it should.
In any event, representing to us what sources say, and actually citing them are two different things. The latter allows for verification, which is the point of giving sources. So you need to say where you got these from. I suppose for Josephus you mean Antiquities of the Jews, and I did find the place you evidently have in mind in it. But here I find you have misrepresented him. He says not that the flood was local, but very unambiguously that it covered the whole earth and rose 15 cubits over the tops of the mountains. When he tells of people escaping to higher ground, he is quoting someone else, Nicolaus of Damascus, not stating it as his own opinion. Even then, Nicolaus describes people finding refuge only at the top of a single mountain, which that writer supposes is the same mountain the ark landed on. It does not say that this was done in more than one place, or that the flood was anything but global. [35].
I don't know which work of Philo you have in mind either. His second book of Questions and Answers on Genesis deals with the flood at considerable length. Although he gives an allegorical interpretation every step of the way, he also affirms belief in the literal truth of each passage before he launches into allegory on it. [36] He also states its literal truth in On Abraham [37]. "Every part of the earth was under water" doesn't agree with what you claim he said. I'm not the only one who reads Philo this way. [38] is a Creationist site and has all the usual disadvantages of that kind, but he does present a handy summary. But even if Philo said what you claim, that's still a global flood for him. As far as anyone knew at the time, there were no inhabited lands west of Gibraltar.
So I'm not going to trouble myself look up Rashi and Maimonides on the subject. You've misrepresented two sources, one outright and the other by at best carefully cherry-picking a quote. There is no reason to believe you about the other two. But that's beside the point I made earlier, that what you represent as a valid direct reading of the text is in fact exegesis. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Was it just too much to admit that your statements 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now', and that there is 'no traditional exegesis that reads the text that way' were simply wrong? No, you have not found the reference from Josephus to which I alluded. I was referring specifically to Josephus' own words in Antiquities 1:108-109, where Shem, Japhet, and Ham 'persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the floods and so were very loth to come down from the higher place, to venture to follow their examples'. You would have found this if you had read Josephus for yourself. By the way, you completely misquoted Josephus. He did not say that the water 'rose 15 cubits over the tops of the mountains'. He says that the water 'became fifteen cubits higher than the earth' (Antiquities 1:89). Nothing whatever about 15 cubits 'over the tops of the mountains'. Just read the text for yourself instead of Googling frantically for 3 minutes and snatching at the first paraphrase you find.
Not only that, but you likewise failed to read Philo. In Questions and Answers on Genesis (2:28), he speaks of the flood 'extending almost beyond the pillars of Hercules and the great Mediterranean Sea', as I said. That is not allegory, and it is perfectly clear that Philo is saying that the floodwaters did not reach beyond a certain point. How could you possibly question wheher or not those words I cited were in Philo? Did you actually read Philo for yourself? The passage is right there. Even that very Creationist site to which you link makes specific mention of those words, and quotes the very phrase to which I referred. Did you even read that page? And while we're on the subject of that site, I note you failed to quote the part where the author says of Philo 'some of the phrases he uses are regarding the extent of the Flood are ambiguous', and 'Philo was emphatic that the Flood was anthropologically universal'. I have no problems with the idea that Philo believed the flood to have been anthropologically universal, but that is not the same as being geographically universal. So I did not misrepresent Josephus, and the words I attributed to Philo are indeed right there in the very text of his which you claimed to have read (but clearly didn't). Let me guess, you did a quick word search in Philo for 'Heracles', and didn't find it, not aware of the alternative spelling 'Hercules', which some translations use?
While we're on the subject of creationist sites, here's [39] one for you from a site which argues for a global flood, but acknowledges the ambiguity of the language used:
'In the original Hebrew, unlike English translations, the Genesis Flood account is ambiguous about whether the flood was universal. It states that "the land was covered" and "life died." But nowhere in the Hebrew is it explicitly stated that the flood covered the whole Earth, nor that all life died in the flood.'
I can provide quotes from standard Bible dictionaries which agree that the apparently universal language in the account is in fact ambiguous (Smith's, Tyndale's, . Examples of such language used in a non-universal sense include ‘all flesh’ (Psalm 145:21, Isaiah 40:5; 66:23, Jeremiah 45:5, Ezekiel 20:48; 21:4, Joel 2:28), ‘the face of the earth’ (Genesis 4:14; 41:56, Exodus 10:5, Numbers 11:31; 22:5, 11, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Ezekiel 34:5; 38:20), and ‘The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground’ (Ezekiel 38:20).
Equivalent phrases also used in a non-literal sense include:
• Deuteronomy 2:25, ‘all people under heaven’
• 1 Kings 18:20, ‘every nation and kingdom’
• Ezekiel 38:20, ‘The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth’
• Daniel 4:1; 5:19; 6:24, ‘all peoples, nations, and language groups’
In fact in the LXX it appears that the translators attempted to clarify this by amplifying the language used so that the Greek presents a flood of greater proportions than the Hebrew. In Genesis 7:20 the LXX has 'high mountains' where the Hebrew has just 'hills', in Genesis 7:23 the LXX has 'upon all the earth' instead of upon the earth', and in Genesis 8:9 the LXX has 'upon all the face of all the earth', instead of 'upon the face of all the earth'. We also find 'all flesh' instead of the Hebrew 'from all flesh'. This is a tacit acknowledgment that the language of the Hebrew text was not unambiguously universal.
You completely ignored my direct quote from Browne, so here it is again. Sir Thomas Browne (17th century), quoted in the main article, made mention of the Christians who in his day believed the flood was local ('some conceiving it needlesse to be universal, have made the deluge particular, and about those parts where Noah built his Arke'). Are you still going to claim that 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now', and that there is 'no traditional exegesis that reads the text that way'? You either didn't read, or completely misread, my use of Huxley. I did not refer to Huxley's interpretation of the flood at all. I specifically quoted him as saying, at the end of the 19th century, that 'I have been unable to discover that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left', supporting my point that contrary to your claim 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now', this had in fact become the majority position by the end of the 19th century.
I am going to ask this yet again. If you were paraphrasing Luke's account of the census in Luke 2:1, would you say that Luke records a decree by Augustus to tax the entire planet? Remember, the phrase under question is 'all the world should be taxed', and it is translated in this way by every English language Bible up to the 20th century (and in fact up to the first half of the 20th century if I'm not mistaken), and is still translated 'all the world' in a number of standard modern English translations. Remember, that's the phrase 'all the world' we're talking about.
As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem at all with any modern Bible translation of these verses being quoted directly in the narrative section, and the exegesis being left up to the reader. What I object to is your refusal to allow the actual translated text in the narrative, in quote marks, with the exegesis left up to the reader. I object to you filling the narrative with an exegetical paraphrase from one POV. But I'm glad to see you're at least prepared to see interpretations of the text represented in the article other than the 'literalist view'. Unfortunately I'm not sure that others feel the same way. I suppose I'll have to try putting something in, and then waiting for the next atheist to delete it without warning or explanation. --Taiwan boi 18:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did read Philo, and Josephus. You cherry-picked quotes to give the wrong impression about the preponderance of what they say, and saying exactly where you cherry-picked the quotes from doesn't help. Yes, Josephus appears to accept Nicholaus' account that others were on the mountain where Noah landed. (I didn't misquote. I didn't say I was quoting at all. But that's what happens when you work from memory.) He records a number of traditions not drawn directly from the text. He does not say the flood was purely local. (3:2, "Now God loved this man for his righteousness: yet he not only condemned those [who had persecuted Noah] for their wickedness, but determined to destroy the whole race of mankind, and to make another race that should be pure from wickedness," 3:5, "...the water poured down forty entire days, till it became fifteen cubits higher than the earth; which was the reason why there was no greater number preserved, since they had no place to fly to..." As for Philo, I will admit to skimming the book quickly (I am well aware of the spelling variations for Heracles) but your out-of-context quote is still no help to you with a more representative quote: "Since the deluge of that time was no trifling infliction of water, but an immense and boundless overflow, extending almost beyond the pillars of Hercules and the great Mediterranean Sea, since the whole earth and all the spaces of the mountains were covered with water...." You're trying to call this a description of a local flood? Did you really expect to be taken seriously? That Philo believed that all human life but those on the ark was destroyed is readily apparent from the preceding paragraphs (which were the ones that had actually caught my eye earlier.)
The example from Luke is entirely different from the Ark account. No, I would not paraphrase Luke 2:1 as you say here, because that's not what οἰκουμένην means semantically and it never has. "All the world" is a straightforward (but poetic) mistranslation. In the Noah's Ark story, when it says the water covered the mountaintops to a depth of 15 cubits, that's exactly the sense the text intends to convey. Contra your triumphal assertions, I have not admitted that anyone has ever thought those words were trying to convey something else, and you haven't shown anything to prove they have. Of course the passage has been interpreted differently in exegesis; I have never said otherwise.
You're wrong about the LXX in two ways. Your thesis that it "amplified" the Hebrew may have been believable 50 years ago, but we now know that it represents a distinct textual tradition of the Hebrew that was not retained following the Jewish Diaspora. We don't have the entirety of the Hebrew tradition it represents, and AFAIK we don't know exactly what it said in Genesis 7. The LXX is furthermore the single most quoted version of the OT in the NT. Any Christian is obligated to lend it credence on that basis alone. In any event, assuming it translated a Hebrew text substantially the same as the modern, it actually shows the exact opposite of what you tried to make it. That the translators rendered it using universal language indicates that they understood it in that way, not that it's ambiguous.
But I do have to check you at every step, don't I? The Hebrew does not say "hills" because uses the same word for both "hill" and "mountain".[40] If it definitely says "hill" here, then we also have to conclude that Mt. Sinai is a hill. [41] Most translation, including Jewish ones, use "mountain" here. (e.g. [42], [43]) The LXX has "high mountains" (ὄρη τὰ ὑψηλά) to clarify possible ambiguity in the Greek,[44] not the Hebrew.
I didn't ignore any of your quotes. It was simply unnecessary to address those that plainly didn't have anything to say about the question. Browne was saying that no one believed the flood was universal any longer. That has no bearing whatsoever on what everyone of his time thought the text was saying, and it's not something he addresses. Similarly with Huxley -- He wasn't saying that the text was widely understood to mean the flood wasn't universal -- he was in fact not talking about the text itself at all -- just saying that most people no longer believed it was literally true.
Why, even now, when you give sources that may well directly support you, can you give nothing that does? Figurative language is indicated by context. It doesn't matter how universal terms are used elsewhere: are they figurative here, in this context? That's the question, and that's what you are still not able to support.
You don't have to be an atheist to question an edit that seems useless. I'm not, and I did. Clever shot though. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You skim read Philo, missed the section I cited, and then falsely accused me of misrepresnting him. You skim read Josephus, missed the section I cited, claimed Josephus said something he never even said and then falsely accused me of misrepresenting him, when I had in fact given the facts of what he wrote and you were completely wrong. You Googled for a couple of minutes, found a Creationist site which agreed with you, quoted selectively from it and totally failed to realize that it not only quoted the very section of Philo you doubted even existed, but also made the very point I had about Philo's language being not geographically universal. And yet people like you are allowed to edit Wikipedia? I can't help wondering how many other articles you've 'contributed' to by simply Googling for a few minutes, skim reading, imagining yourself an expert on something, happily writing all sorts of nonsense, and then falsely accusing those who know better. I did not give the wrong impression of what either Josephus or Philo said. What they said is compatible only with a geographically local flood, and I'm not the only one to have observed this. As I have said, that Philo believed it was anthropologically universl does not mean that he believed it was geographically universal, and the very Website to which you linked previously made exactly that point (did you even read it?).
Your claims that 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now', and that there is 'no traditional exegesis that reads the text that way' have been completely disproven, not only by my quotes from Philo and Josephus but also by my citations of Rashi and Maimonidies, as well as my quotes from Browne and Huxley. You're still not even reading them properly. Browne did not say that no one believed the flood was universal anymore. He simply said that now there were people who believed the flood to have been local. You had previously denied that such historical exegesis existed. You cannot possibly tell me that he's not saying anything about what people believed the text was saying. Of course he is, he's telling us that they believed the text was saying it was local not universal. Likewise, you're still completely misreading Huxley. You cannot tell me that 'He wasn't saying that the text was widely understood to mean the flood wasn't universal', when he explicitly states 'I have been unable to discover that THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE has any defender left'. He is not saying that no one believes in the flood anymore, he is saying explicitly that they just don't believe it was universal anymore. If you had actually read Huxley's article (which clearly you have not), you would see that he goes on to list a number of Chrisitan expositors who believe in the flood but do not believe the language is universal. He cites the Anglican 'Speaker's Bible', Kitto's 'Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature', Herzog's 'Real-Encyclopädia', Riehm's 'Handwörterbuch', and Diestel's 'Die Sintflut'. In particular he quotes Diestel dealing specifically with the language:
'The narrative speaks of "the whole earth." But what is the meaning of this expression? Surely not the whole surface of [221] the earth according to the ideas of modern geographers, but, at most, according to the conceptions of the Biblical author.'
It's no surprise that this is what I have already said, what I have found in standard current Bible dictionaries, and what two Creationist Websites (one provided by you, one provided by me), have already acknowledged, despite the fact that both of them were written by people who believed in a univeral flood. I'm glad you understand the comparison with Luke. Now you just need to understand that the semantic range of the phrases under question in the Genesis narrative is broader than you thought. I have already given examples from Scripture, and cited two Bible dictionaries saying the same. It is wrong for you to impose one meaning on these phrases when their semantic range is broader. Let the reader do their own exegesis, it's not your job to interpret the text for them.
I'm sorry, but the Hebrew textual tradition of the LXX did survive the Diaspora, in the form of the Samarian Pentateuch and the Qumran texts. You seem to be confusing the Masoretic tradition with the older Hebrew tradition. I first read of the amplification of the flood texts by the LXX in a work actually published in 1997, certainly not 50 years ago, and a well recognised work at that. You're also offbase with the Hebrew word for 'hills'. The Hebrew word (as you may or may not have noticed), is translated both 'hills' and 'mountains', and did you miss the fact that the KJV in Genesis 7:19 says 'the high hills'? Targum Pseudo-Jonathan also says 'high hills' in Genesis 7:19, so don't imply I'm making things up. There is no need to interpret Mount Sinai as a hill on the basis of this fact.
You say 'when it says the water covered the mountaintops to a depth of 15 cubits, that's exactly the sense the text intends to convey', but I'm afraid that's simply your own personal interpretation. That's your exegesis, and it is not your position to impose your exegesis on this article. That is blatant POV. Yes, figurative language is sometimes indicated by context. At other times it is not. We have to turn to other sources of evidence, such as other passages of Scripture or the historical record itself. Certain judgment oracles use language which may be figurative or literal (sun and mooon darkened, etc). We have no way of determining from the immediate context whether or not the language is to be read literally or figuratively. But that is a judgment for the reader, not a judgment for you to make on the reader's behalf. I've already given you one Creationist 'universal flood' site which acknowledges the language is ambiguous, I've given you examples that the language used is not necessarily universal (which you've had to acknowledge), I've cited two standard Bible dictionaries saying the same, and now I am saying that what you have to do is leave the exegesis up to the reader, and not try and impose your exegesis on the text. Surely you can have no objection to the translated text itself being quoted (in quote marks), in the narrative, and its interpretation left up to the reader without anyone's POV being interpolated? And I wasn't referring to you when I spoke of atheists, especially since you weren't the one who deleted what I wrote without warning or explanation. I was referring to Ornis [45] who is an atheist with a track record of deleting without warning or explanation things he doesn't like (especially if they're religious), which is exactly what he did to me. He makes no apology for doing this either. --Taiwan boi 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[undent]The above is total crock. Despite your protests, you did misrepresent both Josephus and Philo by cherry-picking quotes that aren't representative of the overall sense of what they wrote; and to which your misleading description of "local" certainly cannot be applied. I understand that it angers you to have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but that doesn't make me trust you any more.

You still want to insert exegesis into the story. No traditional exegesis has ever been based on the reading of the text that you want to allow. People have said, "We don't believe that the flood was global". They have not said, "We believe that the text says the flood was not global". until the 20th century or a shade earlier even accepting your representations. Browne doesn't say that. Huxley doesn't say that in the bit you actually quoted, nor does the writer he quotes say that. ("According to modern geographers" isn't a throwaway phrase. The writer is acknowledging that the Biblical writer thought he was describing a universal flood, and is trying to salvage the accuracy of the story by citing the limited geographical knowledge of the time, since a modern geographical and geological understanding absolutely precludes it.) Since I have no particular reason to care about Huxley and haven't read him, I have no idea where you got this from and you haven't bothered to say, so no, I haven't consulted him. The rest of your complaints are nitpicky distinctions without differences; don't be so sophomoric. Despite all this logorrhea, you still have not given any sources to prove your point (I'll emphasize it again) about the text itself. Please, no more tomes like the above until you do.

No, the Hebrew of the LXX did not survive. If you're going to say it survived in the Samaritan Pentateuch -- well, where that disagrees with the Masoretic, it only agrees with the LXX 1/3 of the time, so at best this "survival" is only partial. To say that it survived in the Dead Sea Scrolls is ludicrous: fragments mostly, and they were lost for 1900 years. And no I have not confused the modern Masoretic with historical Hebrew scripture, but surely you're not trying to claim the Masoretic was an entirely new invention. The DSS actually show that the proto-Masoretic recension "was copied with remarkable accuracy" into the Medieval Masoretic (Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures, p. 130)

I told you above that the Hebrew used the same word for "hill" and "mountain", so don't try to pretend that's news to me. The point is that a consensus of more recent Biblical translations -- including those made by Jewish authorities -- says "mountains" there. (You said 7:20 earlier but must have meant 7:19. Don't worry; I'm not the kind of person to hit someone over the head with a meaningless error like that.)

Well, enough of this crap. No more tomes. You can settle the argument in a few lines if you can just give a source that directly reads the Hebrew to say something other than what the words mean, without reference to exegesis or modern geography or anything like that. We know that Luke 2 was talking about the Roman Empire because we can look in the dictionary and find it as a valid sense of the word.[46] We are not speaking on the same level in Genesis 6-9 unless you can show the words had an idiomatic meaning other than their ordinary meaning. Anything else is above the level of semantics, which is not what the section is about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So briefly:
  • You falsely accused me of misrepresenting Philo and Josephus, when in fact the problem was that you hadn't even read them properly - the words I cited which you claimed I was dishonestly fabricating actually did exist, and you had to admit you had only 'skimmed' Philo. This, despite the fact that the very words I quoted from Philo were in an article to which you yourself linked (but had clearly not read). You also made a claim that Josephus said the water extended 15 cubits above the mountains, when he said no such thing. When I provided Josephu's own words, you were forced to admit you had simply cited him 'from memory' - yet you had done so dogmatically, using your 'memory' to argue that I was being dishonest. This is a very clear indication of what you consider to be 'research' - a Google, a quick skim, and then false statements and false accusations. Yet you accuse me of dishonesty and inaccuracy? You shouldn't even be editing this article, with such 'standards' of research. You don't even stop to check your own work, whilst wrongly accusing others of falsehood. You go on 'memory' rather than check the source you're supposed to be citing accurately.
  • I haven't misrepresented either Philo or Josephus, since both clearly believed in a localized flood. You accuse me of 'cherry-picking', but that would only be the case if I dismissed or ignored everything else they wrote, which I don't, or if the other things they wrote contradicted the statements I quoted, which they don't. I have said clearly that I acknowledge Philo believe the flood was anthropologically universal, though this does not mean he thought it was geographically universal - the very article to which you linked made exactly the same point, but you either overlooked it or chose not to mention it (talk about cherry picking). It's clear that these older exegetes did believe the language wasn't necessarily universal in the sense you claim, since they gave an interpretation of the text which restricted the extent of the flood. They didn't do so on the basis of geology, archaeology, or superior geographic knowledge. Whatever universality they attributed to the language of the text (anthropological, it appears in the case of Philo), they didn't interpret it as a flood covering the entire planet.
  • You claimed 'the Hebrew does not say hills', when in fact as I pointed out the Hebrew here can mean hills, and the KJV itself translates 'hills' in the verse under question. This is yet another example of a case in which you make a dogmatic statement without even checking the facts.
  • I have given you several sources which demonstrate that the phrases used here are not necessarily universal. I've given a string of passages from the Bible itself, and I've cited two standard Bible dictionaries. I also showed you a Creationist Website which argues for a global flood, but acknowledges that the language used is 'ambiguous'. Thus far you've ignored all this. I have made the point that just as we know the semantic range of OIKOUMENH does not necessarily mean 'the entire planet', so the phrases such as 'all... under heaven' do not necessarily refer to the entire planet. I have shown that these phrases had an idiomatic meaning other than the literal meaning. You're still not reading the quote from Huxley properly, as he makes the point that the very language was being understood as not necessarily universal.
  • You've helpfully acknowledged that the Hebrew underlying the LXX did survive, though of course not in complete form any more than the Hebrew underlying the MT has survived in complete form. No, I am not trying to claim that the MT is a new invention.
  • To date you have failed to give any reason why the text should not be quoted from a modern Bible translation as I have suggested, and the exegesis left up to the reader. I am not the one arguing that my personal POV should be represented in the narrative. I am happy for the text itself to be there and for the exegesis to be left up to the reader. But you refuse to have the text quoted, and you want a paraphrase which supports your interpretation of the text. That is POV.
That last point is the one you really have to answer. But I'll be checking your edits of this article carefully, because you clearly need to be watched. Your method of 'Google, skim read, guess and go from memory' is not what quality articles are made of. --Taiwan boi 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The entirety of the above inaccurate both in terms of what I actually said and the points I actually made, but since this is readily discernable from the preceding essays there's no need to restate everything yet again. Just to summarize: I have left nothing unanswered where you say I have.
You were being dishonest in your cites, and gave an entirely false impression of the general tenor what Philo and Josephus said in favor of singular quotes that seemed to support you. That I came away from this from only having skimmed Philo actually proves the point: you have to read very carefully indeed to find the bit you quoted. What he says overall -- that is, exactly what you'd get from skimming him -- is the exact opposite of what you tried to make him say. (If you think he was only speaking "anthropologically", you have utterly failed to appreciate the limited geographical knowledge of the time.) My error in Josephus was entirely meaningless as you similarly misrepresented him just as I said, as anyone who consults the text can tell.
Of course, the reason why I had to quickly skim a writer with whom I was relatively unfamiliar in order to verify your quote is that you didn't bother to say where you got it from. The reason we cite and not merely quote sources is so that others can [{WP:V|verify]] them. If you were so confident in what they had to say, why couldn't you do that?
If I am "still not reading the quote from Huxley properly" it's because you have not yet bothered to say where you got that from either. Of course I haven't read his article; I said that already. Unlike the other writers I have no interest in Huxley whatsoever, so I was less motivated than usual to look him up. (Nor do I regard unfamiliarity with Huxley as a gap of any kind in a theological education. In that area he's utterly insignificant.) Given your record here, I'm not about to take you at your word for the context. On its face it simply does not say what you claim.
The only authority you give for "hills" instead of "mountains" is the KJV, a very dubious source, contra the majority of modern translations made with far superior Hebrew scholarship. And "the point I really have to answer" I already have answered, repeatedly and at length. I'm not going to do so yet again.
With regard to your last bullet, I suggest you review WP:NPA. I never said the text should not be quoted, as anyone who feels like slogging through all the foregoing can discover for himself. I object to the peculiar emphases you want to make. I cannot quite call your assertion about my usual editorial methods a baldfaced lie, since you have the benefit of ignorance, and a lie must be a deliberate untruth. But you are making it up out of nothing, for no better reason than to make a personal attack. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You may remember this:
'Your contention that you were unable to find a major section of the article listed in the table of contents on a "quick skim" is disingenuous in the extreme. Please don't insult my intelligence. Either you're making this up, or you didn't find it because you didn't want to find it, neither of which is a fault in the article.'
Yes, that's right, those are your own words. You here chastise someone (and accuse them of being disingenuous), because they were unable to find a reference in an article after a 'quick skim'. It's ironic that you've been caught doing exactly this yourself, and not only that but falsely accusing me of being dishonest after I've presented the facts. I haven't made any personal attacks on you. I've identified your research methodology as inept and identified a number of errors you've made as a result, but I haven't once accused you of being dishonest, as you've accused me.
I am certainly not making up out of nothing the assertion that your research methodology relies on mere 'skimming' as opposed to careful reading. You've given several clear examples of it:
  • Reading the very sections of both Philo and Josephus from which I provided quotes, and failing to find either quote because you didn't look properly, you merely 'skimmed' by your own admission.
  • Reading the quote from Browne and claiming 'Browne was saying that NO ONE [my emphasis] believed the flood was universal any longer', when in fact he said the opposite ('SOME conceiving it needlesse to be universal, 'have made the deluge particular, and about those parts where Noah built his Arke'). This is a case of you completely misreading a quote you've been given.
  • Reading the quote from Huxley and claiming he 'wasn't saying that the text was widely understood to mean the flood wasn't universal', when in fact he said cited several commentators who understood the Hebrew to be speaking locally rather than globally (one of whom he quoted specifically).
  • Reading Josephus and claiming that he said the flood 'covered the whole earth and rose 15 cubits over the tops of the mountains', when in fact he said no such thing ('became fifteen cubits higher than the earth'). You later tried to claim that this misrepresentation of Josephus was 'insignificant' because you were working 'from memory', but this contradicts completely the fact that when you originally made this claim you stated explicitly that you had read it in the text ('I did find the place you evidently have in mind in it. But here I find you have misrepresented him', 'He says not that the flood was local, but very unambiguously that it covered the whole earth and rose 15 cubits over the tops of the mountains'), and even gave me a link to the very text you had read. So it wasn't that you were working from memory, it was that you had simply failed to read Josephus properly and had attributed to him something he never said. You even told me that Josephus said 'very unambiguously that it covered the whole earth', and yet this phrase appears nowhere in Josephus.
  • Reading an article and failing to notice that it quoted directly the very passage from Philo which I had quoted, and which you had claimed wasn't there. Clearly you only 'skimmed' this article as well, you certainly didn't 'read very carefully indeed'.
But most telling of all, you have given the game away completely with this statement:
'That I came away from this from only having skimmed Philo actually proves the point: you have to read very carefully indeed to find the bit you quoted. What he says overall -- that is, exactly what you'd get from skimming him -- is the exact opposite of what you tried to make him say.'
Yes, that's right, you came away with your impression of Philo because you had only 'skimmed' him, and your impression is indeed 'exactly what you'd get from skimming him', that is to say, a completely false impression. Yes, that's right, 'you have to read very carefully indeed' to find the bit I quoted. That's exactly the point. When we do proper research, we have to read very carefully indeed. Thta's what proper research is about. Yet you try to represent my careful reading as a fault, and your 'skimming him' as a virtue, the correct way Philo should be read. You couldn't have been more clear that you believe 'skimming' is an appropriate way to do research, whilst reading 'very carefully indeed' is wrong.
Yes, I should have given the specific references to the quotes I provided from Philo and Josephus, but as it happened that wasn't necessary because you were able to find the very chapters from which I had quoted, so you were in a position to verify the quotes. But because you only 'skimmed' both Philo and Josephus, instead of reading carefully, you completely missed both the quotes I had provided from them. Having then failed to find them because of your poor research methodology ('skimming', as opposed to 'read very carefully'), you then claimed falsely that I had made them up, which was completely untrue. I never did receive an apology for your false accusation of dishonesty.
I haven't claimed that 'har' in the text should be read 'hills', only that it can be. You originally tried to claim it only meant 'mountains', which isn't true. I am not using the KJV as an authority to prove that it should mean 'hills', I was simply correcting your claim that it couldn't be read that way.
I haven't misrepresented either Philo or Josephus, becuase both made it clear that the flood was local. Philo identifies it as anthropologically universal, specifically not geographically universal, and the very article from which you quoted said exactly that. You failed to mention that the article you quoted said what I had said. Is this because you only 'skimmed' the article? By the way, people were well aware by Philo's day of the land west of the Straits of Gibraltar - Roman trade routes went through the Straits, up the coast of western Europe, and all the way to England and Ireland, the very land west of the Straits of Gibraltar which you claimed they didn't know even existed. Contrary to your false claim that Josephus said 'very unambiguously that it covered the whole earth and rose 15 cubits over the tops of the mountains', he said no such thing. He never says that it 'covered the whole earth', and he says that it 'became fifteen cubits higher than the earth'. He also said (as I quoted earlier), that some had 'survived the flood by gaining high ground'. You claimed this quote didn't exist, and accused me falsely of misrepresenting Josephus, but it does exist, you just didn't 'read very carefully'. That's what happens when you use a research methodology which relies on 'skimming'.
Now you tell me, when Josephus says that the water 'became fifteen cubits higher than the earth', what is he saying? If he said that a bird was flying 'fifteen cubits higher than the earth', what would you understand him to be saying? Can you find me any passage from Jopsephus in which he says that the flood 'covered the whole earth'? Can you explain to me why he says that some had survived the flood by gaining high ground if he believed that all the ground all over the earth was underwater?
On the subject of 'skimming', I'm going to provide an example of how bad a research methodology it is (though you've helpfully done this very well yourself) . When we read Antiquities 1.74, we find God 'determined to destroy the whole race of mankind'. So apparently every single human being was going to be destroyed. But wait, Josephus later clarifies that 'Noah alone was saved'. So now we have Josephus telling us that every single human being other than Noah was destroyed. Yet still later, Josephus tells us Noah 'entered into that ark, and his wife and sons, and their wives', and 'thus was Noah, with his family, preserved'. So now we have Josephus telling us that it wasn't just Noah who survived, but himself, his wife, his sons, and their wives.
We've already come a long way from the original apparently universal statement that God was going to 'destroy the whole race of mankind'. If we had only been 'skimming', we might have missed the reference to Noah, and believed that Josephus thought every single human being was killed in the flood, and that God simply made new humans afterwards. This certainly does seem indicated by a quick glance at Josephus' statement that God 'determined to destroy the whole race of mankind, and to make another race that should be pure from wickedness'. Yet we can see by reading more carefully that this was a false impression. Likwise, we could have come way with the impression that only Noah survived, if we hadn't read carefully and noted the reference to the salvation of his family. And again, unless we read right into the next chapter, we would miss completely the fact that Josephus refers to some who had survived the flood by gaining high ground, showing that he believed that there were even those outside the Ark who had survived the flood. This is what we find when we 'ready very carefully indeed'. That's what proper research is about, not 'skimming'.
I didn't provide the name of Huxley's article, but you could have found it very easily with Google (there are plenty of unique phrases in the section I quoted). But as we've seen, even when you do find the very articles from which I quoted directly (whereas you allegedly go 'from memory', though this is contradicted by your claim to have read the actual text), you don't even find the very quotes I've taken from them, because you only 'skim'. I am not quoting Huxley as a theological authority, so that objection is meaningless.
I have given you several sources which demonstrate that the phrases used here are not necessarily universal. I've given a string of passages from the Bible itself, and I've cited two standard Bible dictionaries. I also showed you a Creationist Website which argues for a global flood, but acknowledges that the language used is 'ambiguous'. Thus far you've ignored all this. I have made the point that just as we know the semantic range of OIKOUMENH does not necessarily mean 'the entire planet', so the phrases such as 'all... under heaven' do not necessarily refer to the entire planet. I have shown that these phrases had an idiomatic meaning other than the literal meaning. You have not answered this at all. You haven't dealt either with the Biblical texts I've provided, or the two Bible dictionaries, or the Creationist Website which makes the case for a global flood whilst acknowledging the language is 'ambiguous'.
I'm going to suggest a new edit to the narrative, and we'll see if you're actually prepared to have the text quoted there, as opposed to a paraphrase. --Taiwan boi 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"That I came away from this from only having skimmed Philo actually proves the point: you have to read very carefully indeed to find the bit you quoted." Now this is rich: someone should really frame this quote and mount it on the wall; it singularly illustrates the attitude toward scholarship exhibited by the wolf pack that dominates this article. As for WP:NPA, Taiwan Boi, please remember, the rules here do not apply equally to you, because you're not part of the pack. That's why it is perfectly "polite" to write things to you like "The above is total crock. Despite your protests, you did misrepresent [...] I understand that it angers you to have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but that doesn't make me trust you any more... enough of this crap"... because your betters are allowed to speak to you this way, and therefore it's NOT a personal attack. But, do not even bat an eyelash when responding to them, because it will surely be considered an attack, and the wolf pack is looking for any excuse they possibly can to drive yet another scholarly editor away from this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.21.222 (talk)
"Now this is rich: someone should really frame this quote and mount it on the wall; it singularly illustrates the attitude toward scholarship exhibited by the wolf pack that dominates this article." No, it demonstrates the lack of scholarship on Taiwan boi's part. Otherwise he would have properly cited the source so that the quote he gave could be found without having to read through the whole thing. Sorry, but I don't have the time for that when all I'm trying to do is to verify a quote. And when a quick read conveys exactly the opposite impression of what I'm told a writer is trying to say, the conclusion is obvious. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

convenience break

This section seems to have a very high ratio of words to article improvements. At the risk of seeming impolite, please either propose some improvements, which can be verified by reliable sources, or take this elsewhere, perhaps to one of your User pages. Thanks! Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You think I want this nonsense on my user page? The entire conversation is about Taiwan boi's proposed edit, and me trying to get him to explain why he thinks they're necessary and to provide some sources for them. The sticking point is disagreement over exactly what the sources have been saying when they understood the text a certain way: Are they reading the story itself one way or another, or are they applying different interpretations to a story understood essentially the same way by all? Tb says the former, I say the latter. If you have an opinion, chime in. Another, possibly saner, voice would be welcome. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree that it should be moved. As long as it's about an addition to the article, and doesn't become repetitious, I see no reason why the debate should be cut off. Frankly, I think the suggestion that we should have a low "ratio of words to article improvements" smacks of WP:Editcountitis. Last I checked, quantity is not the only goal here.
I'll also chime in on TCC's request for further comment: I'm in agreement with TCC on this one. Taiwan Boi's suggestions are vague, confuse text and exegesis, and frequently nonsensical. In addition, he has yet to demonstrate any source that would support his edits. Sxeptomaniac 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why suggesting that the narrative section of the article contain direct quotes from a modern Bible translation, rather than a paraphrase, is 'vague', confuses 'text and exegesis' and is 'nonsensical'? Thus far, TCC has failed to provide a single argument as to why direct quotes should not be used in the way that I have suggested. He has, on the other hand, defended placing a paraphrase of the text in the narrative rather than the text itself. He has also resisted the idea that the text should be provided and the reader left to exegete it themselves. I see no reason for this, and to date he has not given any. --Taiwan boi 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of places that a person can read the text online, if they desire. That is not Wikipedia's purpose, and TCC was right to say that it would be inappropriate to quote large sections of the narrative. This is an encyclopedia, not a Bible study aid, and we are to explain the ways it has been exegeted, not help the reader do so. The purpose of the section is to give a quick summary of the story itself, and the following section is for working through the various ways that story has been interpreted. Sxeptomaniac 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have made it clear several times that I am not intending to 'quote large sections of the narrative'. Look at my narrative proposal. It's about the same size as the original narrative. It simply replaces paraphrases with direct quotes. For some reason, this seems threatening to some people here. The narrative I have provided is nothing like a 'Bible study aid', and it gives 'a quick summary of the story itself'. It doesn't even refer to any specific interpretations of any of the phrases in quotes. Can you explain your objection to the new narrative proposal? --Taiwan boi 06:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I gave the wrong impression. I really just wanted to encourage the contributors to focus in on the proposed changes and how wikipedia's principles and guidelines apply to their discussion. Asking for fewer words does not necessarily imply attention deficit disorder etc.; sometimes concise summaries are better thought out or more elegant than longer posts. This isn't meant as a criticism of any editor. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You're not wrong. It was refreshing to restate the basic dispute in concise terms. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for misunderstanding your meaning. I agree that content disputes can often get unnecessarily wordy, so a reminder to be concise is certainly a reasonable request. Sxeptomaniac 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New Narrative Proposal

I propose the following edit to the narrative section:

The story of Noah's Ark in chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis[4] has been interpreted in a number of different ways within Abrahamic religions, with a range of interpretations being found within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. In the narrative which follows the general outline of the story as found in standard English translations of the Book of Genesis is described. Details of the story which are interpreted differently by different traditions have been quoted directly from the text. These are details which have historically been interpreted in a range of ways within the Jewish and Christian traditions, including literally, non-literally, and allegorically.
'The Genesis flood story begins with God observing man's evil behaviour and deciding to "wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - everything from humankind to animals". However, God found one good man, Noah, "a godly man; he was blameless among his contemporaries," and decided that he would carry forth the lineage of man. God told Noah to make an ark, and to bring with him his wife, and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives. Additionally, he was told to "bring into the ark two of every kind of living creature from all flesh, male and female". In order to provide sustenance, he was told to bring and store food. Noah and his family and the animals entered the Ark, and "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." The flood "completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered", and "all living things that moved on the earth died", and "Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark survived". After 150 days, the Ark came to rest among the mountains of Ararat.'
If anyone is unhappy with that, please give reasons why. --Taiwan boi 07:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My response:

  • You haven't yet produced evidence that anyone interprets 6:13 (your "wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - everything from humankind to animals") as refering to anything other than a universal extinction of life. The three chapters making up the Ark story are peppered with phrases all saying the same thing - 7:4, "every living thing I will obliterate"; 7:21-22, "all flesh perished that moved upon the earth...and every man and all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, all died"; and more in chapter 8. If you have evidence that a considerable body of people read this other than literally, please show us.
  • Are you sure that it's really the narrative section you want to change? I ask this because in past posts I got the understanding that you felt the article gave undue weight to the most extreme literalist interpretation, and wanted to include mention of the belief that the flood was local and the ark smaller than the literalists believe. If that's so, the proper place to address that concern is the Literalism section. But my research on literalist websites didn't turn up this belief, and I was left with the impression that the division is between those who believe in a world-wide flood and 450-foot ark, and those who believe in no flood or ark at all. So if this is your concern, then you need to show us some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation.

(I might add that you'd probably get a lot of support for a proposal to amend the Literalism section - it's a vestige of the Ur-text of the article, which was entirely literalist. My own position would be that it should be kept but drastically shortened, and all the details spun off into linked articles of their own). PiCo 09:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have certainly produced evidence that some interpret the flood as 'anything but a universal extinction of life', starting with Josephus in Antiquities 1:108-109, where Shem, Japhet, and Ham 'persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the floods and so were very loth to come down from the higher place, to venture to follow their examples'. I can certainly provide more, but I'll save that for the final point.
  • Yes, I want to change the narrative section, for the reasons given. This does not mean I'm happy with the rest of the article. I'll certainly be providing some balance in the article to offset the literalist bias. What is important is that when the flood narrative is introduced, the reader does not receive the impression that what they read in the quoted text is necessarily the only way the text can be interpreted, or has been. Neither is true.
  • It is greatly surprising to me that you have the impression that 'the division is between those who believe in a world-wide flood and 450-foot ark, and those who believe in no flood or ark at all'. It's not as if this is anything new. As early as the 17th century Sir Thomas Browne, quoted in the main article, made mention of the Christians who in his day believed the flood was local ('some conceiving it needlesse to be universal, have made the deluge particular, and about those parts where Noah built his Arke'). Huxley, in 'Lights Of The Church And Science' (1890), lists a number of Chrisitan expositors who believe in the flood but do not believe the language is universal. He cites the Anglican 'Speaker's Bible', Kitto's 'Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature', Herzog's 'Real-Encyclopädia', Riehm's 'Handwörterbuch', and Diestel's 'Die Sintflut'. In the late 19th century White wrote 'in vain did others, like Bishop Croft and Bishop Stillingfleet, and the nonconformist Matthew Poole, show that the Deluge might not have been and probably was not universal', and 'even so eminent a churchman and geologist as Dean Buckland, soon acknowledged that facts obliged them to give up the theory that the fossils of the coal measures were deposited at the Deluge of Noah, and to deny that the Deluge was universal'. He quotes also 'Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible' and 'Dr. Samuel Turner' as both arguing for a historical flood which was not geographically universal.
  • Importantly, he also says:
'two divines among the most eminent for piety and learning in the Methodist Episcopal Church inserted in the Biblical Cyclopaedia, published under their supervision, a candid summary of the proofs from geology, astronomy, and zoology that the Deluge of Noah was not universal, or even widely extended, and this without protest from any man of note in any branch of the American Church.'
Among those who believe the flood to have been a historical event, there is the 'literalist' view that it was both anthropologically universal and geographically universal (AUGU), there is the view that it was anthropologically universal but geographically local (AUGL), and there is the view that it was both anthropologically and geographically local (ALGL). You will find all three represented on the Internet. I'll add a few important links:
  • This one is from a universal perspective, but acknowledges 'Many Christians today claim that the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood'
  • This one is from an AUGL perspective, and says 'There is a significant opinion that insists that the flood was local, meaning it was limited to Mesopotamia', and 'First, it is important to note that the global flood viewpoint did not achieve its current popularity until the second half of the Twentieth Century'.
  • This one is from an AUGU perspective, but notes 'Belief in the traditional biblical account of the flood changed radically during the period from 1800 to 1850', and By about mid-century, the flood had been reduced to a local event that affected only humans. By the end of the century, it was even doubted that the flood affected all of humanity, and was restricted to the Mesopotamian Valley'. Note that the historicity of the flood was not denied, its extent was simply interpreted differently. This, as early as the end of the 19th century.
  • This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, and says:
'The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth'
  • Confining myself to those who hold the AUGL view (with perhaps a handful of ALGL), which you would describe as the 'minimalist-literalist interpretation', I quickly compiled the following list of links:
Looking through my collection of theological journals, I find a number of references to Christians presenting an AUGL or even ALGL view in the reviews of Christian books and articles:
  • 'Dr. Ramm is very definite in his belief that science demands the acceptance of a local flood and that it cannot be considered universal even in the sense that all of mankind except Noah and his family were destroyed'
Bibliotheca Sacra  : A quarterly published by Dallas Theological Seminary. 1996, c1955-1995 (458). Dallas TX: Dallas Theological Seminary.
  • 'In contrast to the nihilists, the men who have espoused the local Flood view have been men who desired to harmonize or reconcile uniformitarian geology with the biblical account, found primarily in Genesis and Job'
Dallas Theological Seminary. (1971; 2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 128 (128:39). Dallas Theological Seminary.
  • 'In the most concise statement of his position, he writes, “Doesn’t the fact that the [biblical] text suggests that Mesopotamian geography was not rearranged by the flood nor the topsoil displaced suggest that it was not a globally catastrophic event?'
Dallas Theological Seminary. (1996; 2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 153 (153:242). Dallas Theological Seminary.
  • 'He understands the flood of Noah as one of the many local floods of antiquity'
Grace Seminary. (1972; 2002). Grace Journal Volume 13 (vnp.13.2.33). Grace Seminary.
  • 'He chooses the human view of “sons of God” in Genesis 6 and opts for a local flood'
The Master's Seminary. (1993; 2002). Master's Seminary Journal Volume 4 (4:75). Master's Seminary.
  • 'Young categorically rejects the notion of a “universal flood,” interpreting Genesis 6—9 instead as “language to describe an event that devastated or disrupted Mesopotamian civilization” (312), i.e., a local flood'.
The Master's Seminary. (1996; 2002). Master's Seminary Journal Volume 7 (7:145). Master's Seminary.
  • Does that help? --Taiwan boi 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It helps to clarify your thoughts. To clarify mine, when I asked for evidence that people held this view I meant not Sir Thomas but the present day. But yes, you've clarified what you meant. And on that basis it seems to me that your concern is, indeed, with the literalism section, as I honestly believe, though I can't quantify, that very few people these days actually believe in a flodd of any description. Perhaps my own assumptions are at work here: I have no position either way on the question, not in the sense that I haven't made up my mind, but in the sense that I just don't care. Honest, I don't. Noah's Ark interests me as a cultural artefact, nothing more. It's an idea, not a thing. In other words, you and I just don't share the same mental universe - you care, I don't. For that matter, Filll and Orange Marlin care, though from a different vantage point to yours. That's why I wrote the article as an essay rather than as an encyclopedia article - I don't care about the belief, only about the people who believe in the belief. Anyway. I still think you should be looking at revising the Literalism section rather than the Summary. If it misrepresents the gamut of ark-blievers, it should be corrected. If it wanders off into detailed exAmination of the natuer of gopher wood instead the nature of beliefs, that should be corrected. But you need to be aware that you might strike opposition - Fill and Orange are at one end of the spectrum (the anti-literalist end), but we do have our resident literalists - and I'll be prepared to defend their right to be heard. PiCo 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that a rather bizarre response. I gave you plenty of evidence that people hold this view today. As I have demonstrated, three different views of the flood as a historical event are held within Christian orthodoxy, and they are held widely. Yes, plenty of Christians believe that the flood actually took place, and hold what you would call a 'minimalist-literalist interpretation' despite your skepticism that anyone holds this view. I've given you pages of evidence for this. I don't know how you managed to search the Internet and fail to find any. Whether or not you care about this is not the issue. The issue is that you challenged me to provide evidence for this, and provide it I did. I have given reasons why I want the summary revised, and I haven't seen any objections yet to my suggestion. I have also given reasons why I want the rest of the article balanced. I am not talking about revising the literalist section. I don't intend to revise 'the literalist section'. I intend to balance the article by providing information on what you would call the 'minimalist-literalist interpretation', as I said ('I'll certainly be providing some balance in the article to offset the literalist bias'). You know, start an entirely new section, as I've already said several times. I'm glad you defend the right of the literalists to be heard. So do I. I have no intention of infringing on their right to be heard. They've been heard a lot in the article so far, and I'm perfectly happy for that to be the case. What's your point? --Taiwan boi 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"Plenty of Christians". Yes, but what about the vast majority of us, who are not Christian? All this has no more meaning for us than do the arguments of the local branch of Socialist International as to who's the best Marxist. Anyway, as I said, I'm not persuaded by your proposed redrafting of the Summary. I think you might have something valuable to contribute to the Literalist section, which you say is unbalanced - a contention I'm prepared to see you test with a new draft. Go ahead with that, but not with your idea on the new Summary. PiCo 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What about the 'vast majority' who are not Christian? Your views aren't relevant to the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion was whether or not it was accurate to say that the flood narrative 'has been interpreted in a number of different ways within Abrahamic religions, with a range of interpretations being found within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions'. I was challenged to support this claim, and challenged to support the claim that there is significant contemporary support of what you called the 'minimalist-literalist interpretation'. I provided that support. That was the close of that particular objection to the narrative edit. If you want to start a section on 'The vast majority of us who are not Christians and don't believe in a flood of any description', go right ahead and make a proposal for it (though I would argue it isn't really necessary in the article). That's where your comments belong. But even after I answered your objection to the new summary, you're still saying you don't want it changed. But you haven't said why. May I ask why? You are also still saying that I am claiming the 'Literalist section' is unbalanced, when I have said absolutely no such thing. It is the article itself which I have said is unbalanced. I said very clearly 'I'll certainly be providing some balance in the article to offset the literalist bias'. You also still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I want to edit the 'Literalist section'. This, despite the fact that I have said very clearly I don't intend to revise 'the literalist section'. What I intend to do is include within the article a new section which addresses what you call the 'minimalist-literalist interpretation'. It would be useful also to introduce the different interpretations of the flood narrative earlier in the article. --Taiwan boi 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
"Your views aren't relevant to the issue under discussion." There could be no clearer illustration that what we are talking about here isn't the sense of the text, but exegesis, and that Taiwan boi knows it. If a text is ambiguous, it doesn't matter in the least what the religious background of the reader is. That's only important when you're interpreting a text within a religious framework, not trying to understand the story it's telling. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems you're not reading what I write. I haven't even mentioned the ambiguity of the text in my proposed narrative revision. I've simply mentioned the fact that it has been historically interpreted in a range of different ways within the Abrahamic traditions. Just read it and see. But of course, even if a text is ambiguous it does certainly matter what the background of the reader is (though that background need not be religious). Without a background understanding of the Greek use of OIKOUMENH, the average English reader would be fooled into thinking Luke recorded Augustus' sent out a decree to tax the entire planet. That's precisely why certain modern translations either render OIKOUMENH there as 'the Roman empire', or contain an explanatory footnote. I was perfectly correct to say that PiCo's views of the text aren't relevant to the issue under discussion, because the issue under discussion was whether or not the text has historically been interpreted in a range of different ways within the Abrahmic tradition, and whether or not it still is. I provided evidence that this is true. --Taiwan boi 03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I re-read it several times. You don't have to be Greek Orthodox to understand "oikumene" properly; you don't have to be Christian of any kind to understand what this story says; and you certainly don't need to be any kind of religious person at all to understand references describing how a story has been understood. All the "interpretation" you're talking about here is exegetical. To claim that those who say otherwise are "literalist" is to use that word in a sense very different from it's normal meaning. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course you don't need to be Greek Orthodox to understand OIKOUMENH properly. But you do have to know that the Greek word is there, and what it means. If you show people the English word 'world', do you really think they'll understand you to be referring to the Roman empire? As I've already shown, standard modern translations either render OIKOUMENH there as 'the Roman empire', or contain an explanatory footnote, because the English word 'world' does not naturally convey to the modern English reader the meaning 'Roman empire'. Feel free to dispute this if you have any evidence otherwise.
No you don't have to be any kind of religious person at all to understand references describing how a story has been understood. I said that myself. No, the interpretation I am talking about here is not simply exegetical. It is textual. As I've shown (using many quotes from the Bible itself, as well as using two standard Bible dictionaries), the apparently 'universal' terms in the Bible are not necessarily universal in the sense of being utterly global. Reading them as speaking necessarily and in every case in an absolute universal sense encompassing the entire planet is most certainly a 'literalist' reading in the very sense that 'literalist' is being used in the article (someone who reads the text in a literal sense). --Taiwan boi 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, your remark to Pico was entirely out of line and you owe him an apology. And if you think you're using "literalist" in its usual sense then no, you don't properly understand it. And no, this isn't textual. At all. You've still, after all this crap, not provided one single reference that clearly says it is, and I've explained why. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No my remark to PiCo was not out of line, and I do not owe him an apology. . The issue under discussion was whether or not it was accurate to say that the flood narrative 'has been interpreted in a number of different ways within Abrahamic religions, with a range of interpretations being found within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions'. I was challenged to support this claim, and challenged to support the claim that there is significant contemporary support of what you called the 'minimalist-literalist interpretation'. I provided that support. That was the close of that particular objection to the narrative edit. He then started talking about a completely different subject. I pointed out that this was a completely different subject, and suggested that if he wanted to talk about it he should start a new section. --Taiwan boi 06:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I see what Taiwan boi is getting at now, but it still makes no sense in the narrative summary. Another possibility is that it might belong in The Ark under scrutiny section. Sxeptomaniac 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't it make sense in the narrative summary? To what specifically are you referring? The use of Biblical quotes, or the statement of fact that the text has been interpreted in a range of different ways within the Abrahamic traditions? --Taiwan boi 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur. The issue has never been whether or not this material belongs in the article. Of course it does; just not in the summary of the story. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue has certainly been whether or not this material belongs in the article. You argued vociferously that this material doesn't belong in the article, because you claimed this material wasn't even accurate. But I'm interested in why you don't want a mention in the narrative section of the fact that the text has been interpreted in a range of different ways within the Abrahamic traditions. --Taiwan boi 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is becoming difficult for me to accept that you are arguing in good faith. Either you deliberately misrepresent what I've been saying, or there's some kind of language barrier (as suggested by your nick) and you do not properly understand either me or the sources. Considering the apparent breadth of your reading, the latter is difficult to accept; but on the other hand your misunderstanding of how simple words like "literalist" are used tends to support it.
What I said was inaccurate, which I believe I made perfectly clear, is the idea that certain writers read the text itself to say that the flood was not universal. That they may have believed the flood was not universal is a different question: obviously many people have, and for a long time. I also believed you to have misunderstood at least one writer to have described the flood as local, when according to the geographical knowledge of the time he was clearly saying it universal.
I really do think your AUGL/AUGU is a distinction without a difference. I cannot see how the writer of the story could have even had that distinction in mind if the people of his time had such limited geographical knowledge that the flood did cover the whole Earth as far as they knew. Biblical commentary per se from the Babylonian Talmud all the way to the 20th century never read it any differently even if it was not always literally believed, which you have amply illustrated. But that's not in question.
As a side issue, I do not believe that the Narrative section as it stands describes the flood unambiguously as global, except possibly for one place which I'll go fix now.
As for your references above, most of them are not to the point of what the story says, but argue that the flood was not universal based on the physical evidence. Some of them at least discuss the meaning of the text. But even then their approach is exegetical, approaching the question from usage elsewhere in the Bible (as if it were a single document composed at the same time and linguistically uniform) and not from Hebrew scholarship; and plainly inspired more from a need to reconcile the Biblical account in some way with modern science than a sudden realization that everyone has been reading the Hebrew wrong for the past 3,600 years. And they are, again, all 20th century or later, reflecting the views of only a very narrow group of Christians, not "Abrahamic tradition".
Not to mention those that are truly off the wall. There's that one guy who wants to relocate the flood to the Tarim Basin, as far as I can tell for no better reason than that it's a large area that really was under water fairly recently. I think we can safely discount all such fringe theories. It's moderately alarming, though, that one of your other sources seems to take the possibility seriously. For that matter I'm very surprised you chose to cite it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that was predictable. Yes, English is my first language. Yes, I have understood perfectly your argument that the actual text (terms such as 'all flesh', etc), has never been read as referring to anything but a universal flood. I've provided evidence otherwise, from at least the 19th century (and that's me playing devil's advocate). I'm glad you finally agree that many 'have believed the flood was not universal', and have done so 'for a long time'. That is the point I have been establishing. That is the point I needed to establish in order to support the statement that the Genesis flood narrative has been historically interpreted in a wide range of ways within the Abrahamic tradition, including literally, non-literally, metaphorically, and allegorically, etc. This has included (as I have pointed out), what some here would call a 'minimalist-literalist interpretation'.
Liar. I never said anything contrary to what you claim I'm "finally admitting". You have never had a need to "establish" these points. This is entirely about how the story -- not how the story was interpreted theologically, but what it says as a story -- has been understood REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS BELIEVED ABOUT IT. I have said this repeatedly, so I know you're lying, especially now that you've refuted the only possible excuse for your behavior.
Of course you have. Previously you claimed that 'no one, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has noticed this until now', and that there is no traditional EXEGESIS that reads the text that way'. Later you changed this to the argument that the actual text itself has never been read in that way (which was also incorrect). --Taiwan boi 06:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, the "plot" of the story cannot take into account allegory, metaphor, or other non-literal hermeneutics because once you start with that you're no longer looking at it as a narrative but are applying exactly the kind of interpretive filters that are not what this section is about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain how, by simply quoting the text directly in the narrative section, I am 'applying exactly the kind of interpretive filters that are not what this section is about'? Thanks. --Taiwan boi 06:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I dealt with your claim that no one in Philo's day knew of any land west of the Straits of Gibraltar - the Romans had trade routes which not only went through the Straits, but further west, up the western coast of Europe, to Ireland and England. Remember, even the very Website you quoted made the point that Philo probably believed the flood was anthropologically universal, though not geographically universal. This is not something I made up, it's something identified by one of your own sources (which unfortunately you didn't read properly - more of that 'skimming' going on there).
If you think you successfully "dealt with" anything, you're gravely mistaken. One might almost think you'd never bothered to look into the subject. I am rather better informed than you are about Roman trading contacts. I am also better informed than you are on the state of various considerations such as the computation of latitude and the meaning the Straits of Gibraltar had to ancient geographers. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If you had been better informed than myself, you would never have claimed that no one in Philo's day believed there was any land west of the Straits of Gibraltar. Of course they did. They sailed west of the Straits of Gibraltar to get to Ireland and England. --Taiwan boi 06:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This brings me to the next point, which is that the AUGU/AUGL/ALGL distinction is perfectly valid, and it has been made by far more people than just myself down through the centuries. Of course, the original Biblical author may not have been making any such distinction, and I'm certain he believed it was AUGU in the sense that he believed it covered the earth as then known, and the covenant community as identified geographically. But that isn't the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is not what the original author had in mind but what later interpretations have been. I argued that later interpretations have been AUGU/AUGL/ALGL, and when I was invited to demonstrate this I gave evidence to demonstrate it.
I note that you want to change the narrative section so that it unambiguously describes the flood from the 'literalist' perspective. Thanks for making your intentional POV edit known.
Liar. I said exactly the opposite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have re-read what you wrote, and I apologize. I was wrong and I stand corrected. I read your double negative incorrectly. --Taiwan boi 07:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You object to the sources I cited above on the basis that most 'argue that the flood was not universal based on the physical evidence', that only some 'discuss the meaning of the text', and that 'their approach is exegetical'. Sorry, but my response to that is 'So what?'. You seem to have completely misunderstood why I provided those sources. They weren't provided in response to you. They weren't provided in an attempt to list sources interpreting the terms in the text such as 'all flesh' as non-universal. They were provided in response to the request made directly to me by PiCo, which was 'you need to show us some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation'. Did you get that? His request was 'show us some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation'. He asked me to 'show us some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation', and I did so. I showed you 'some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation'. Is that clear now?
Gee, why don't you find a way to say "minimalist-literalist interpretation" again? The point, which you seem determined to miss (don't think it's fooling anyone) is that none of these sources are people who just picked up the story one day and realized that the Hebrew had been entirely misunderstood and the story wasn't about a universal flood (anthropological or otherwise) at all. They all arrived at that via exegesis. Not even honest exegesis, because it's transparently an attempt to reconcile their literalist dogma with modern geology -- which they're at least honest enough to accept. When analyzing the Hebrew they didn't appeal to Hebrew scholarship but to other Bible verses. WHICH IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Not that most of the sites that are literalist in any reasonable sense of the word were all that minimalist. Most of them plonked at least for a literal ark, and all mankind except for the ark dwellers drowning. That's pretty damn maximalist to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the point which you are missing is that I did not cite them as examples of people who 'just picked up the story one day and realized that the Hebrew had been entirely misunderstood and the story wasn't about a universal flood'. I said no such thing, and that is not the reason why I cited them. Please read what I wrote. By the way, a number of them did in fact appeal to Hebrew scholarship. If you have a problem with the term 'minimalist-literalist', then take it to PiCo. It isn't my term, and I'm perfectly happy calling them 'maximalists'. --Taiwan boi 06:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You also seem to misunderstand what 'Abrahamic tradition' means (you can go here to find out). It doesn't mean 'a lengthy tradition dating from the time of Abraham', or whatever you think it means. It is a term 'commonly used to designate the three prevalent monotheistic religions'. When I speak of certain interpretations existing within the Abrahamic tradition, I am speaking of interpretations which exist within either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The statement has absolutely no reference to the length of time in which those interpretations have existed.
I at no point said anything to even remotely indicate that this is what I thought "Abrahamic" meant. Only a very malicious misreading of my post could have possibly arrived at that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And I will make the point - yet again - that most of the sources I provided are 21st century sources (not 20th), because the specific request made by PiCo was that I 'show us some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation', and clarified that 'when I asked for evidence that people held this view I meant not Sir Thomas but the present day'. The present day just happens to be within the 21st century. He asked for 'some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation' which are in 'the present day', and that's what I showed him. Did you even read the correspondence between us?
I NEVER SAID THAT THESE WERE ALL 20TH CENTURY QUOTES, YOU PINHEAD. I SAID THEY WERE FROM NO EARLIER THAN THE 20TH CENTURY. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is absurd to claim that those Websites represent 'a very narrow group of Christians', since the sources I provide (14 Website in all, plus books reviewed in theological journals), encompass the 'official' Catholic position (insofar as anything is 'official' in their religion), as well as a broad range of Protestant denominations. This is anything but 'a very narrow group of Christians'. It's clear that you didn't even bother to read through all the links. Sure, some of the people might have 'fringe' ideas about how the flood took place, but that's not the point. The point is that I was asked for 'some websites supporting a minimalist-literalist interpretation' which are in 'the present day', and that's what I showed. It really does seem that you're not reading the correspondence.
Well, I must be dense, so you'll have to spell it out for me. Contrary to your lying assertion, I read every single one of those links and noticed nothing that said it was reflecting the official Roman Catholic tradition -- which is not vague as you seem to think for some demented reason, but is very clearly spelled out in most particulars. They consisted mostly of conservative Protestants -- yes, this is a very narrow selection of Christians. The majority of them accepted that the flood indeed wiped out all humanity except for those on the ark. Did you read them, or was this just a "Google and skim" approach? (Which, contrary to another one of your lying assertions, I have never done. I have skimmed a work I knew exactly where to find because I'm not very familiar with it and you didn't trouble yourself to say where you got a quote.)
If you didn't notice the one reflecting the 'official' Catholic position (insofar as anything in that religion can be called 'official', as I said - I did not say anything about the official Roman Catholic tradition being 'vague'), then you must not have realised that the Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted bears both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. It says very plainly that the flood could have been AUGU or ALGU. Catholics are at liberty to believe either view, according to the RCC. Likewise, if you think that the list I provided 'consisted mostly of conservative Protestants', you can't have read them. Neither Best nor Ross are 'conservative Protestants' (Best seems not even to be a Christian, and Ross is a liberal Christian who believes in an old earth, a local flood, and 'progressive creationism'), Cline is a non-Christian 'associate professor of ancient history and archaeology at George Washington University', Hochner is a Christian who is so liberal he believes that Christ isn't coming back, Custance was so liberal he didn't even believe the flood was geographically universal and believed in an old earth, Weisman believes the flood was neither geographically or anthropologically universal and also believes in evolution, Neyman believes in a flood which was both anthropologically and geographically local, an old earth, and says that Christians can believe in evolution without any difficulty, whilst the IBSS site promotes an old earth, evolution, and a flood which was both anthropologically and geographically local. None of these sites were written by 'conservative Protestants', and two of the men cited aren't even Christians. That's eight out of fourteen, a little over 50% of the total number in the list. Clearly the list does not consist 'mostly of conservative Protestants'. It is representative of a wide range of different Christian groups.
Yes I do know that 'The majority of them accepted that the flood indeed wiped out all humanity except for those on the ark'. Not only did I read this, I even said it myself when I introduced the list. I said very clearly 'Confining myself TO THOSE WHO HOLD THE AUGL VIEW (with perhaps a handful of ALGL)', making it explicit that the list which followed consisted almost entirely of those who accept that the flood indeed wiped out all humanity except for those on the ark. It appears you didn't read what I wrote. More of that 'skimming' of yours, I see. --Taiwan boi 06:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course you did cite a Catholic source. It wasn't among the 14 -- anyone reading your critique here might be mislead into thinking it was, and that you weren't lying when you said I didn't read them all -- and it's a reference to an obsolete edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Way to go. Try reading something more recent the Catholics have written. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This is very strange. You appear to have completely misread what I wrote. The reason why the Catholic source wasn't in the list of 14 Websites was that in the list of Websites I confined myself to 'those who hold the AUGL view (with perhaps a handful of ALGL)', whereas the Catholic site said the flood could be AUGU or AUGL, and didn't specify either. I had it in a separate list of sites which I said demonstrated that the AUGU, AUGL and ALGL views were all represented on the Internet ('You will find all three represented on the Internet. I'll add a few important links').
Secondly, do you have any evidence at all that the Catholic Encyclopedia is 'obsolete'? It bears the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat, neither of which have been revoked from the 1997 Internet edition I used, which is actually used currently by a range of Catholic priests, seminarians, scholars, and laypersons. Until you have any evidence that the Catholic Encyclopedia has had either its Imprimatur or its Nihil Obstat revoked, or has been dismissed as 'obsolete', I can hardly take this objection seriously. --Taiwan boi 06:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So after all that, do you have any actual valid objection to my latest suggestion for the introduction and narrative section? --Taiwan boi 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No. I already have, but you can't or won't listen to what you're being told. And I've had enough of your shit, so I'm bowing out of this one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any reason from you as to why the narrative shouldn't include more direct quotes than it does. --Taiwan boi 06:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of that word: "interpreted". We've already explained why interpretation doesn't belong in the narrative section. There is abundant room in the article for explaining various types of interpretations, but you're trying to force it into the wrong section. Sxeptomaniac 15:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The new narrative proposal contains absolutely no interpretation at all. It simply states that the narrative has been interpreted in a range of different ways within Abrahamic religions, with a range of interpretations being found within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions It does not provide any details of these interpretations. If people still object to the new narrative proposal (without specific reasons), might I suggest this new narrative proposal:
'The Genesis flood story begins with God observing man's evil behaviour and deciding to "wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - everything from humankind to animals". However, God found one good man, Noah, "a godly man; he was blameless among his contemporaries," and decided that he would carry forth the lineage of man. God told Noah to make an ark, and to bring with him his wife, and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives. Additionally, he was told to "bring into the ark two of every kind of living creature from all flesh, male and female". In order to provide sustenance, he was told to bring and store food. Noah and his family and the animals entered the Ark, and "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." The flood "completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered", and "all living things that moved on the earth died", and "Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark survived". After 150 days, the Ark came to rest among the mountains of Ararat.'
I would then precede the narrative section with the following, at the end of the current introduction section:
The story of Noah's Ark in chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis[5] has been interpreted in a number of different ways within Abrahamic religions, with a range of interpretations being found within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. In the narrative which follows the general outline of the story as found in standard English translations of the Book of Genesis is described. Details of the story which are interpreted differently by different traditions have been quoted directly from the text. These are details which have historically been interpreted in a range of ways within the Jewish and Christian traditions, including literally, non-literally, and allegorically.
Surely this should satisfy those of you who want the narrative section to be biased in favour of the 'literalist' POV. --Taiwan boi 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Bump. --Taiwan boi 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Bumping is pretty meaningless outside a BBS that moves threads with recent posts to the top of the list. And no one's replying because 1) no, they're not satisfied that you'd rather dick with the narrative section indirectly instead of being upfront about it, and 2) If they're anything like me they deeply resent being called "literalist" when they're not and have no interest pushing that POV anywhere. But they're more restrained than I am because they haven't been interacting with you as much.
As I said, I'm bowing out of this discussion and am taking this article off my watchlist. As I have finally lost my temper, I apologize to the other participants in this discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence that including more direct quotes in the narrative section is 'dicking with the narrative section indirectly instead of being upfront about it'? Previously you assured me that you had no objection to direct quotes being in the narrative section. Now it appears you do. --Taiwan boi 07:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Undent)Why would adding that stuff to the Narrative section satisfy anything? It's exactly the kind of edit we've been telling you is completely unnecessary, and has nothing to do with literalism, if you'd been paying attention. It's about knowing the difference between the text and its interpretation. The lead already explains that the story has been interpreted in various ways:

The story told in Genesis has been subject to extensive elaborations in the various Abrahamic traditions, mingling theoretical solutions to practical problems (e.g. how Noah might have disposed of animal waste) with allegorical interpretations (e.g. the Ark as a precursor of the Church, offering salvation to mankind).

I think TCC has the right idea at this point. I'm not unwatching this page, but I am done telling you what's been said numerous times already. When you're ready to start talking about adding edits to the correct sections, let us know. (also, don't bump. It's unnecessary, and will probably end up getting you in trouble for adding trivial edits.) Sxeptomaniac 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why add it? As I've said, because a direct quote is preferable to a paraphrase. The original narrative already includes direct quotes, so I fail to underestand the objection to including direct quotes in the narrative. The lead says that the story ahs been 'subject to extensive elaborations in the various Abrahamic traditions', but elaborations are extra-Biblical additions to the story, not interpretations. If you're happy with the lead being explicit about the narrative being interpreted in a range of different ways within the various Abrahamic traditions, then I'll put it in. I find it interesting that I can get into trouble for bumping, but TCC can't get into trouble for comments such as 'all this crap', 'Liar', 'you're lying', 'Liar', and 'YOU PINHEAD'. Right now you are objecting to replacing paraphrase with more direct quotes in the narrative section, without actually explaining why. Why do you object to replacing paraphrase with more direct quotes in the narrative section? --Taiwan boi 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
TCC has already admitted wrongdoing and left, so I'm not beating a dead horse. The intro also says that there "theoretical solutions to practical problems" were developed (the next paragraph brings up non-literal interpretations as well), which I believe includes the local flood theory. However, if you want to start a new talk page section about changing some wording in the lead, I'm willing to discuss it. Sxeptomaniac 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
TCC has apologized to you for losing his temper. He has not admitted to anything else. He hasn't admitted to abusing me, and he hasn't apologized for it either. Of course I realize it's unnecessary for him to apologize for that, since no one expressed the slightest objection to his abusing me (including you), and since this is Wikipedia rather than a moderated forum with enforced standards of behaviour, that's pretty much what I expected. I've already suggested some new text for the lead (please read it). I still want to know what the objection is to including more Bible quotes in the narrative. --Taiwan boi 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've seen enough of TCC's consistently good work to be willing to cut him/her a bit of slack. On the other hand, your insistence on messing with narrative section after being repeatedly told what you're proposing is inappropriate is a sign of tendentious editing.
I guess some people are special enough to break the rules. I have had this narrative edit suggestion up for days, and not one person raised any objection to my placing more Biblical quotes in the text. I asked repeatedly if anyone objected, and no one said anything. At least putting it in the narrative meant someone actually started paying attention. I also want an explanation for how adding more Bible quotes to the narrative section constitutes POV, bias, or skewing. The same goes for the narrative edit. How does that constitute 'tendentious editing'? --Taiwan boi 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
TCC is not "special." However, they have proven themselves a good editor over time. The way you focus exclusively on a small section of the article and argue endlessly about it is a bad sign.
On your recent edits, I saw a few different problems. One is that you quoted only Genesis 6:19-21, ignoring 7:2-3. Another is the duplicate addition of where the original text is found in the lead. Once is plenty. Sxeptomaniac 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the edit, you'll see that I restricted myself to passages of the text which were already being cited by the existing narrative. The intention was to change as little as possible. So if you have a problem with 'only Genesis 6:19-21' being quoted, 'ignoring 7:2-3', then you have a problem with the original narrative, not with my edit. The same goes for the duplicate addition of original text found in the lead. --Taiwan boi 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's false. The current wording is that he brought "examples of all animals and birds", allowing for the two different verses in Genesis 6:19-21 and 7:2-3 on the subject. Your version removed that and only quoted 6:19. So, you removed an unspecific summary and replaced it with an incomplete quote. The goal here is to summarize, not cover every detail of the story. Sxeptomaniac 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not false, because as you've just acknowledged the original narrative section did not quote Genesis 7:2-3. The vague phrase 'examples of all animals and birds' doesn't cover either passage, because it doesn't address the difference between the two passages (Genesis 7:2-3 is more precise than Genesis 6:19-21).

(undent)The difference between the two passages is addressed, just not in the narrative section. Have you even read the rest of the article? Allow me to repeat: The goal here is to summarize, not cover every detail of the story. Sxeptomaniac 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it added a bunch of words and not much information. I haven't even attempted to cover 'every detail of the story', I've simply restricted myself to quoting representative passages of certain paraphrased sections in the original narrative. But if this is a matter of life and death to you, then I'm happy to keep the vague 'examples of all animals and birds'. Now are there any other objections? --Taiwan boi 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It didn't add 'a bunch of words', it replaced paraphrases of the text with direct quotes of the very verses they were paraphrasing. What is wrong with that? --Taiwan boi 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Quotes should be used sparingly. Paraphrasing is preferable whenever possible, in order to make efficient use of space in the article and make it easily readable. The narrative itself is supposed to be one of the least important parts of the article. It's only there to give someone a quick rundown of the story, so that the article can use more space to discuss its importance and the ways it has been interpreted and elaborated on. Sxeptomaniac 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I'm willing to recommend (with the possible changes italicized):

The story told in Genesis has been subject to extensive interpretations and elaborations in the various Abrahamic traditions, mingling theoretical solutions to practical problems (e.g. if the flood only covered a local area or how Noah might have disposed of animal waste) with allegorical interpretations (e.g. the Ark as a precursor of the Church, offering salvation to mankind).

I'd like to see what others have to say about this before we attempt to insert anything in the lead, though. Sxeptomaniac 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask what objections you have to the lead edit I wrote? --Taiwan boi 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's extremely redundant, the location the narrative is found in the Bible is already stated in the narrative section, then it repeats that it's interpreted multiple ways. The lead of an article should be short and to the point, not waste the reader's time by stating what was just said two paragraphs back. Sxeptomaniac 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
So when you say 'It's extremely redundant', you really mean 'it contains one redundant phrase' (ok, so lose it). It does not 'repeat that it's interpreted multiple ways'. As I pointed out, the lead did not originally say this. You have acknowledged that by suggesting that this information be inserted into the lead yourself. So again, what is the real problem? Or isn't there one? --Taiwan boi 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I guess the "real problem" is that you are utterly oblivious to what you are writing, then. Your version of the lead repeated that the text is interpreted in different ways three times. That is extremely redundant in my book. Sxeptomaniac 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm late to this discussion, but... "direct quotes" of what? The Bible? Sure, it already includes those... what's the argument here? "Direct quotes" of apologetic "local flood" re-interpretations... of course not! That's not what the Bible says. The story is about a worldwide flood. Period. That is why (for instance) Noah had to build a vast Ark and fill it with specimens of all the animals, rather than simply walking out of the region with just his own livestock. I will revert any attempt to mix apologetics into the Biblical narrative itself (I have no aversion to them being covered elsewhere in the article). --Robert Stevens 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotes of the Bible. Yes it already includes some. The suggestion being made is that it include more. Some people here are against any more Bible quotes in the narrative section. No reasons have been given yet as to why. No one has suggested direct quotes of 'apologetic "local flood" re-interpretations'. You may have come late to the discussion, but you could at least have tried to read it before asking these questions, which the discussion already answers. You didn't even have to read any more than the actual proposal being made, which is a single paragraph. No, the story is not necessarily about 'a worldwide flood'. That is simply one of a number of interpretations which have been given of the text from the 1st century to the present day. No one is attempting to 'mix apologetics into the Biblical narrative itself'. You, like at least three others here, are not actually reading what is being proposed. --Taiwan boi 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Durupinar - Who disagrees that this is correct?

"the nearby heights have also been claimed to be Mount Cudi (or Judi), however there is no record of this tradition existing before ca. 1985"

As I understand it, PiCo does not deny that this is correct - he himself has stated several times the same thing in his edit summaries, if you've been paying attention. There has been no valid objection yet to the inclusion of this fact. This is quickly turning into yet another mindless partisan revert battle, and I am just sick of this. If it is a fact and everyone agrees, why do you go to such extreme lengths to prevent anyone from accessing these facts, that are easily accessible elsewhere? This is the reputation Wikipedia has in a nutshell. Some people here unfortunately think it's all about information control, and it's all being done in an isolated box, outside of which the truth is still getting out. Kind of like the old Soviet Union. There ends up being a major gap between the information easily available elsewhere, and the strictly controlled information people are "allowed" to see here. Hence Wikipedia's reputation. Til Eulenspiegel 23:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We're like the Soviet Union because we don't want some stupid factoid in an article? What an asinine thing to say.
No, we don't want it in the article because information on searches for the Ark is found in detail in Searches for Noah's Ark, including this little tidbit. Inserting a claim that no one takes seriously (not even the locals do; they made it up just to attract tourist trade) gives it a lot more attention than it deserves. The other claimants to "Mt. Judi" are much more worthwhile -- but only one of them is mentioned in the article, as its apparently a majority opinion in Islam. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, how I enjoy Noah's Wiki for a good laugh once in awhile. With all these alleged scientist that are guarding the fort, I would have expected at least one of them to point out that "Searches for Noah's Ark" is not a propper title, seeing that they are in fact "claims of discovery", which of course happen as a result of searches. But I suppose to treat them scientifically as the hype that they are would be too dangerous. It would be problematic to use science to evaluate quack claims of discovery since a testable notice of discovery actually exists. Be more circumspect than OrangeMarlin (by the way I like his new dramatic colors)Katherin 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems more like a subjective opinion that is disputed by other editors. Unfortunately disputes are not "allowed" on this article either, under penalty of blocking -- unless of course they originate from someone in the "approved" clique that asserts "special authority" over this article. But, I shudder to think what would happen to me if I dared describe one of your statements with the word "asinine". We all know that you will be held to a much lower standard than you hold others to. Til Eulenspiegel 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that when no one agrees with you that you feel like there's some cabal exercising absolute control over everything you want to touch. But you need to allow for the possibility that people might instead disagree with you because you're wrong.
No need to shudder. I've been called far worse things. "Soviet", for example. It's particularly offensive for someone in my position. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Saying other editors don't agree with me would be utterly false, because some other editors DO agree with me... like the editor who originally added this factual information, for instance... but in your contempt for everyone who does not agree with your views, you consider us all collectively to be "no one". In order to be "someone" here, we basically have to agree with you, or else we can be labeled "asinine" and it's all "neutral". And therein lies the whole problem with this travesty. Til Eulenspiegel 22:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
So I'm the gatekeeper now? Thanks for the promotion. Point is, I'm not the only one who has reverted this change; many others have as well, and you're still missing the point. Why mention this one newly-minted tourist trap here, and not the other places that have been called "Mt. Judi" for centuries? The reason we don't mention the others is that it would lengthen the article beyond its scope, covering a subject that's already addressed in another article -- including this tourist trap.
It was your "Soviet Union" comparison that was asinine, not anything directly to do with article content. I know people who were dissenters there, who circulated samizdat, who had their citizenships stripped from them and became stateless persons -- Not to mention those I never met who were imprisoned and made to suffer many hardships there for their political views. Yes, comparing anything that goes on here to something like that is asinine. In spades. If you don't want to be called that, then stop behaving in a way that merits it. It's deeply, morally offensive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The similarity I see is that only one POV seems to be tolerated in this discussion page, any editors not sharing that POV are routinely bullied, belittled and attacked, and I have seen many others who disagreed and have been driven away, some even banned or blocked just for dissenting or even disputing the lack of neutrality of the article. Til Eulenspiegel 23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well of course that is true. But when I was a kid with my hand in the cooky jar I was in no position to admit the obvious. I am not bothered by such behavior. The truth is always self-evident. Frankly I appreciate that PiCo and others have demonstrated that Islam's book is proved in error by the Ark being shown to reside on Arrarat. It would be far too far away to be in accord with Mt. Judi, Cudi, hootchy. But I remain amused that the scientists are so averse to actually applying science, yet keep pretending they do---I've even included some very well soucred science edits that prove Naoh's Ark never happened, and they get deleted--- LOL. But what do you expect from a mob? And what do suits, silk ties, and lamb skins have to do with it? LOL. Katherin 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The question isn't whether or not the Islamic tradition is a valid one. Of course it is, as a tradition per se; no one ever said it wasn't. It's not about whether or not the Ark actually existed either. The question is whether this newly devised "tradition" about the location of Mt. Judi deserves a prominent mention in one article, where a different article would be more suitable for it, and where it is in fact already discussed. The genuine Islamic tradition on the location of Mt. Judi is covered (surprise!) in the section on Islamic tradition.
To Til: So what you're really saying is that there's no similarity whatsoever. It's not possible to "bully" someone where there's no power. You can try to grab the moral high ground when you don't get your way by labeling everyone else, but you do exactly the opposite when you end up belittling those with genuine courage who faced genuine consequences for fighting an unjust system. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That is what is called an "unjustified reproach", because I have done no such thing, and I certainly don't need you to reproach me. I have my own conscience, don't need yours, thanks, not today, not ever. Why don't you spend less of your editing time on these fruitless personal attacks against anyone (not just me) who disagrees with you on what "deserves" mention"??? At the end of the day, what "deserves" mention is a subjective question, and you have not only asserted complete, uncompromising primacy for your own POV on this question, but also, belittling, attacking and attempting to drive away editors with any dissenting views is the order of the day here. It is very saddening indeed to recognise that this is the way your project works. Til Eulenspiegel 12:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) When you compare this to the Soviet Union and cast yourself as the victim, then yes -- you'd better make damn sure you do it in such a way that you're not putting yourself in the place of those genuine heroes, not just when you're around me, but when you're in front of anyone else who knows any of them. They are, each of them, remarkably unconcerned about the minor annoyances of life in a free society -- such as, for example, when a Wikipedia article isn't being edited quite as one might like.

But no, this is nowhere near as subjective as you'd like to make out. I've done nothing more than to make use of the cited source, and drew a reasonable conclusion (as one may do in a talk page, after all.) Traditions don't just appear out of thin air 1300 years (post-Mohammed) or 3200+ years (post-Moses) after the fact. When they do, there's always something else going on, and it's not belittling you to say so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally and utterly *reject* every bit of the pretended authority which you falsely claim to have over me, informing me what I'd "better make damn sure" I do... I don't answer to you, TCC, and never will... I'm not your slave, I am a free man, so please -- do not address me as if I were a slave, sir... Just so you know... Til Eulenspiegel 11:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The question isn't whether or not the Islamic tradition is a valid one. I fully appreciate the question at hand. Wiki never concerns itself with what is true. A point I find humorous since every inclination of the human conscience is to evaluate every proposition for its truth (Your own reaction to reading my last proposition is case in point enough. LOL) And I have no problem with wherever and whoever wants to record the Islamic proposition regarding the residence of Noah's Ark. You make some fine points about where the Islamic proposition should be recorded in Wiki, and also point out well the NPOV and sources that are within wiki standards. I just appreciated that PiCo eloquently demonstrated that the Moses I account (which proposes Noah's Ark resides at least within the bounds of "the mountains of Urartu" is entirely at odds to the Islamic account, a small detail that we scientists notice and remember for any evaluation of notices of discovery. Cheers. Katherin 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) No doubt. The only thing I had in mind on the subject was that the tradition, whatever it might be, ought to be represented fairly. One notes, however, that even the traditional Mt. Judi of Islam is still in Urartu, if only just, so I'm not sure I agree with "entirely at odds". For Islam, the Koran trumps any other scripture anyway. Not at all my POV, but my POV isn't really my focus here. (I fully appreciate how ironic that may sound.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For Islam, the Koran trumps any other scripture anyway. Absolutely agree, they subscribe to the idea that their book is correct, as any religion worth its salt does. Yet, none can dispute that the Koran doesn’t identify the same location as Moses I. They can both be wrong, but they cannot both be correct. One could also say that Mainstream Science is a bit “religious” (in similar manner to the faithful of Islam?) in their view of Noah’s Ark and their science books trump all other “scriptures”. LOL. And once again, National Geographic and Moses I logically can both be wrong, but they can’t both be correct. Cheers! Katherin 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Og on the Ark?

What's this edit supposed to be about?

'The giant Og, king of Bashan, was among those saved—as he must have been, as his descendants are mentioned in later books of the Torah—but owing to his size had to remain outside, Noah passing him food through a hole cut into the wall of the Ark.[4][5][6]'

Whoever inserted 'as he must have been, as his descendants are mentioned in later books of the Torah', clearly isn't familiar with the Torah. Og is not mentioned at all in the entire book of Genesis. He isn't recorded as living until centuries after Noah's Ark. It's not even possible that he could have been in or on the Ark. I have no objection to the article citing or quoting bizarre rabbinical interpretations which place Og in or on the Ark, but adding a comment claiming that they were correct is simply ludicrous. Insert non-formatted text here

This sentence is in the "rabbinic interpretations" section. In other words, it's reporting the opinions of the Talmudic rabbis: the "as he must have been" phrase explains the reasoning given there. The material is referenced via a footnote. PiCo 01:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see 'as he clearly must have been, as his descendants are mentioned in later books of the Torah' identified there as a view of the rabbis. If that was the intention, then it is very badly phrased. Not only that, but it is entirely unreferenced. I checked all three links. The first two go to the same information about Og in two articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Neither article says absolutely nothing about the rabbis saying that Og must have been on board the Ark because 'his descendants are mentioned in later books of the Torah'. The third link goes to another article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which says absolutely zero about Og, let alone his descendants. --Taiwan boi 12:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So do we just leave it there, is that the idea? We're not allowed to edit it? --Taiwan boi 01:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's the information about Og from the first link:
'Noah had also to feed Og, who, being unable to enter the ark, sat upon it, taking hold of one of its timbers. Noah made a hole in the side of the ark through which he passed food to Og; the latter thereupon swore to be Noah's servant eternally (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.).'
Nothing there about the rabbis saying anything concerning Og's descendants. Here's the information about Og from the second link:
'Besides the regular occupants, the Ark supported Og, king of Bashan, and the immense animal "Reëm," neither of whom, owing to their enormous size, could get into the Ark, but held fast to it, remaining alongside (Pirḳe R. El. xxiii.; Gen. R. xxxi. 13).'
Nothing there about the rabbis saying anything concerning Og's descendants. Here's the information about Og from the third link:
'...'
Yes, that's right, there's nothing at all about Og in the third link. There is in the third link a link to yet another page (the article 'Giants'), in which Og is mentioned, but that article says nothing about the rabbis believing Og must have been saved from the flood because his descendants were 'mentioned in later books of the Torah'. --Taiwan boi 04:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
So while there are untold volumes of well sourced, credible, and authoritative evidence and research enumerating the emphatic positions of the scientific tradition, the article seems (to a significant measure) exclude them in any meaningful way, in preference to.. a novel, fringe, and perhaps suspect anecdotal narrative postulation? And with a straight face too!Katherin 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Novel? The Talmud is novel? Fringe? The rabbis, fringe? Suspect? The Jewish Encyclopedia, suspect? Tsk tsk. PiCo 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Tsk. Tsk. LOL.. Your assertion that I somehow disparaged your long list of notable and refined people and ancient texts is without merit. It is uncharacteristic for you to make such a simple error.
It is obvious that my characterization was on the "anecdotal narrative postulation," not on the honor of those who made it or on the text that they may have allegedly based their hypothesis upon. Is this representative of your normal reading observations? I don't think so! I have much more regard for you.
Alas, these mentions of Og hitching a ride by hanging onto the gunwales, the kangaroo crossing sign, and the single phoenix paradox (the bird who legend has it emerges from fire but somehow needs a ride during a flood. LOL).. these anecdotal mentions are nothing more than an amusing distraction from the real issue of the Arc.
Its location and dimensions is the real issue. Nothing is determinative apart from the prescribed location and dimensions as described in an ancient text that is by its own argument, historical. (It is amusing that scientists, who ostensibly are so skilled at unbiased reason, seem so eager to discuss everything but the heart of the issue.) Even the conscience of our good friend Orangemarlin concurs. But he is in such a quandry as to how he can assist.
He would do well to contemplate the story of a widower in the news not too long ago. His wife was murdered a number of years back. The husband was suspected in his wife's murder but the police couldn't quite seem to get enough evidence so he remained free--not even accused. However the years passed and technology improved. The husband became nervous that the police were closing in on him so he traveled from his home town to Las Vegas in order to send in a "confession letter" from the "real killer" (who of course exonerated the husband). Trouble is, the police determined that the "confession letter" was written by the husband and that he was in Vegas when it was mailed. So much for his obfuscation. His every effort actually tended to accomplish the opposite of his intentions. Tsk. Tsk? Congratulations? Ah.. My deepest sympathies.. especially to Orangemarlin. Katherin 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I noted my name being bandied about herein, and I can't for the life of me figure out why? I'm in a quandary? Huh? And what does the story have to with...anything? I'm really confused. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Orange, always a pleasure. Love your new colors.Katherin 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Katherin, I guess my humour doesn't come across well in Wiki - the tsk tsk was meant to amuse you. But that aside, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you when you say the location and dimensions of the Ark are the real issue. Today maybe, but not always. The rabbis and the early Church fathers simply took that for granted - the Bible said it was 300 cubits long and on Mt Ararat, and they didn't discuss the matter. What they did discuss were theological and practical issues - for the rabbis, the question of how the offspring of the unions of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" managed to exist after the Flood (hence their decision that Og was their father and had been saved by Noah), or matters such as Noah's righteousness or, for the Christians, the prefiguration of Christ as the Ark sailed in the sign of the cross (and almost identically for the Muslims, as it sailed to Mecca and back). Then in the Enlightenment, similar concerns, but with a scientific slant - what about the Bird of Paradise, what about Classical beasties like the Siren? And so we come to our own age, when, as you say, the dimensions and location of the Ark are the thing discussed. In short, the article takes a long-term view of the Ark, from earliest times to the present. If you want to change the orientation and make it entirely about the present, go ahead, but at least be aware of what it is you're changing. PiCo 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don’t understand why you deny I am amused (or the reason for my amusement) seeing I plainly stated both.
Ever since the ancient text postulated the location and the dimensions of Noah’s Ark, all subsequent hypothesis, anecdotal adaptations, evaluations, extrapolations, and propositions are by the nature of postulations, evaluated in the light of it (regardless if they necessarily accept, explicitly deny, or simply omit the details of it.) Cheers Katherin 05:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Deleted vandalism, 'noah said i love you god', added to the 'Mesopotamian Flood Stories' section. --Taiwan boi 00:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Josephus

I strongly belive that the people of Nuah did not believe him about the truth taht Allah was the one and only god in this universe so Allah Made a flood that then the earth swollowed and killed everyone


I gather Josephus supposedly wrote about Noah's Ark. Should we include this? Do we have good enough sources for this?--Filll 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe wrote Antiquities of the Jews, in which he rehearsed the bible as history. What specifically do you want to mention?PiCo 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Josephus gave an interpretation of the flood narrative as a local flood. This is worthy of note in the history of interpretations of the Genesis flood narrative. But beware, any mention of local flood interpretations of the Genesis flood narrative have been systematically excluded from this article. I have objected to this as providing only one POV. --Taiwan boi 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This idea of a local flood comes from reading the bible as history - "the bible is literally true, a worldwide flood is clearly impossible, therefore it must have been a local flood." But Genesis 1-11 is a combination of theology and cosmogeny: God creates the universe out of the waters of chaos, "tehom", the universe being a flat disk of land surrounded and supported by a circular world-ocean (chaos has been banished to the fringe but not eliminated altogether); God then becomes dissatisfied with the moral progress of his world and destroys it, allowing the waters of chaos to return (the "fountains of the deep", the "deep" being tehom again); the waters of chaos then subside (back to the primeval world-ocean, which continues to exist, but far from the world of men), and a new creation begins. Or, to put this enother way, Genesis 1-11 has a lesson to deliver, and it's not a geography lesson. PiCo 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave aside the fact that you wrongly imply that a local flood interpretation is only the result of a perceived tension between lack of evidence for a global flood and a belief that the Bible is 'literally true'. That's certainly not how Philo and Josephus arrived at the local flood interpretation, or certain of the later Jewish rabbis. That leaves me wondering exactly what your point was. --Taiwan boi 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is that there's no point looking for a local flood. The flood has to be cosmic for the story to make sense. PiCo 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you believe there's any point in looking for a local flood is both irrelevant to this article and to the point I was making. --Taiwan boi 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I think we're in danger of wandering off into biblical exegesis again, which is a constant temptation with this and other OT articles. The purpose of these pages is to discuss improvements to the article. Filll thinks we should perhaps include a reference to Josephus. I don't object in principle, but I wonder what exactly we should reference. PiCo 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include a reference to Josephus in a section in which historical interpretations of the flood are reviewed (as in the paper by Hugh Davies which is in the bibliography of this article). But at present the article is restricted to a description of global flood interpretations, and suggestions that it should be enlarged to contain other interpretations have been systematically opposed. --Taiwan boi 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the Ark rather than the Flood. I know it's hard to keep them separate, but we should try. (Surely there's a Flood article out there somewhere?) If we do go down that road, the appropriate place would be in the Literalism section, since belief in any flood at all, local or universal, supposes taking the flood narrative as history rather than theology. PiCo 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually 'Noah's Flood' redirects to a single tiny paragraph in the larger article 'Deluge', which in turn redirects to this article, 'Noah's Ark' (it actually says 'See also: Noah's Ark'). It's clear from the entire article here that the flood and its interpretation is being included in the discussion of the Ark. I would add that it is a serious error to define Literalism as the acceptance of the Bible as a book which contains records of genuine historical events. That is not the definition of Literalism by any stretch of the imagination. There are plenty of secular archaeologists and historians who believe that the Bible contains records of genuine historical events, but they certainly could not be described as Literalists. --Taiwan boi 08:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That paragraph in the Deluge article seems like the most appropriate place - bearing in mind that it doesn't have to stay a single paragraph. You can expand it. From the point of view of the Ark, it doesn't much matter whether the flood on which it floated was local of universal. PiCo 08:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
From the point of view of the Ark, it makes a huge difference whether the flood was local or global. As has already been pointed out many times over the centuries, and is pointed out extensively in the Wiki article, it makes a difference to the number of animals carried, the amount of food carried, and the weather conditions and survivability of the Ark. That is precisely why all these issues are addressed in the article. --Taiwan boi 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Then it would belong in the Literalism section. Go ahead and draft something. PiCo 04:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would it belong in the Literalism section, when Josephus wasn't a literalist? --Taiwan boi 09:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If this article is only about the Ark then why is the following section included: Noah's_Ark#Mesopotamian_flood_stories? This would seem to be an ideal place for the local flood. Alternatively the flood stories could be moved to deluge (mythology) or Noah's flood (which redirects to Deluge (mythology)). Noah's flood would seem to make more sense. David D. (Talk) 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Any primary source for "Sirens" as part of the Noah's Ark story?

I looked up the source (Cohn, 1996) that claims Mediaeval scholars were confounded over the question of whether or not the mythological "sirens" were included on the Ark. It does indeed assert this on p. 41, claiming that the sirens of ancient Greek myth were still believed by Christian scholars to have existed. No primary source or citation is given for this assertion, although the front cover illustration of Cohn's book does show a mediaeval painting of the Ark with bodies in the water around it, identified as "The ark with sirens alongside, From the Quentell Bible, Cologne, c. 1478". The Wikipedia article on Sirens isn't much help, since it makes no mention of a belief in sirens from the Middle Ages, though it does link to a 10th century Suda entry on Sirens, which squarely declares them to be fanciful pagan myth of centuries gone by. It would be good to know the original source of this elaboration, can anyone help? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Cohen referring to medieval beliefs, or post-medieval? It seems to me that a belief in the sirens smacks of someone who's been reading the Classics instead of the Fathers. PiCo 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Cohen refers only to a belief allegedly current at one time that "sirens" had somehow survived Noah's flood, being based upon an unnamed "commentator" who claimed to have "actually possessed the skeleton of a siren", to supposedly prove this. Regrettably, Cohn does not give any clues as to where or when this enigmatic "commentator" lived, let alone who he may have been, so it all seems suspiciously anecdotal. I have been searching long and hard, and so far can't find any shred of evidence of this skeleton, or of a later belief in the "sirens" (of Ancient Greek lore) seriously existing, whether in medieval or post-medieval scholarship, outside of Cohn's rather bald assertion that they did believe this. Til Eulenspiegel 22:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
After some more research, I am finding out that Jerome in the 4th century, when he translated the Bible into Latin, did translate Hebrew tenim (jackals or foxes) in Is. 13:22 as "sirens", and another word meaning "owls" in Jer. 50:39, however Ambrose, in writing Christian doctrines later that same century (4th), explicitly used a whole chapter to declare that these were purely allegorical uses, since sirens are clearly mythical. Other monastic writers between then and about 1200 similarly interpreted "sirens" as merely symbolic for everything monks were supposed to stay away from in the world. Ironically, it is only in the 17th century when a handful of Jesuit authors seem to seriously assert that such creatures as sirens might exist, such as Cornelius a Lapide who evidently wrote that one had been captured off the coast of Frisia, but this fantasy couldn't have been taken seriously for too long. Til Eulenspiegel 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Athanasius Kircher, a Jesuit in the late 17th century, discussed the existence of sirens in connection with Noah's Ark; he scoffs at the naturalist Oleaster's suggestion that they had survived outside of it, and insists that rooms must have been built to accomodate them. Finally got to the bottom of that one, plus some good additions for the siren article! Wonder why the official line on sirens from 300 to 1600 was that they were mythical, and then suddenly Jesuits began to assert their existence, think they were possibly trying to discourage sea travel? Til Eulenspiegel 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this fascinating research. Your last question (about the Jesuits) is probably worth an in-depth study in its own right - it could make a good article or even book. PiCo 02:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Added a summary to the lead

I've added a summary to the lead, since it's not an absolute given that a reader would know what we're talking about. Might need tweaked a bit - it's a little awkward to know how to deal with descriptions of Bible stories - it needs to be clear that the account given is according to the Bible, of course, but belabouring that point could well amount to an attack on Christianity. Adam Cuerden talk 05:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, I think it's a good addition. I've modified it quite a bit, however - I wanted to make it shorter, as the lead should provide a bare summary of the most important points, and I've tried to bring out what those most important points are. I understand them to be the following:
  • God's decision to destroy all life is not unmotivated - the God of the Bible is a moral God, and his anger was aroused by the wickedness of mankind (rather than by the noise they made, which was the motive in the Mesopotamian stories).
  • The phrase "God remembered Noah" lies at the centre of an elaborate palistrophe, marking this verse as containing the meaning of the entire story. Unfortunately, our article almost completely ignores the structure and meaning of the ark episode in Genesis, but I'd like to add an article on the theology of the Ark at a later stage.
I've also made a few minor edits elsewhere which I'll explain if anyone wants to question them. PiCo (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes to mthe first para of the lead which might be controversial. I've removed the first few words which said that the the story was "according to Abrahamic religion": personally I don't think this qualifier is necessary, as the story is quite obviously a religious one (it's in the bible, which is by definition Abrahamic religion). Secondly, I've changed the last few words to make clear that the Koranic and other stories are subsequent to and based on the Genesis story. Please discuss here is you object, rather than simply reverting. Thank you PiCo (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I reinstated that the story is according to Abrahamic religion. Otherwise it would appear as if the story is factual, which of course is controversial. Terjen (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to documentary hypothesis section

I've made some major re-arrangements of the material in this section, plus some less major edits to the contents. Frankly I'm not entirely happy with the section as it stands - it concen trates too much on Wellhausen, when Wellhausen hardly represents the latest word in source criticism (he's been dead a century, after all). So I've tried to update things a little, and also to reduce some unnecessary details. PiCo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Noah? Joan of Arc? Huh?

I was rather puzzled by this statement: "12% of Americans think Noah was married to Joan of Arc.[29]" This makes no sense with the surrounding context; if the point of this statement is to argue that Americans often hold ridiculous views than this should be made more clear. I don't think it is necessary at all. standonbible(Talk)Assume good faith and stay neutral! 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That entire paragraph on polling and biblical literalism needs cleaning. The information on what-biblical-literalists should believe should come first. This should be followed by better references to appropriate polls on Ameriacn (and preferrably some international) belief in Noah's Ark/generic deluge.
The Joan of Arc result is from an entirely unrelated poll and should not be included. It's off-topic and does not provide context. It provides incorrect context, as it is from a different poll. The ABC and Barna polls both reach as similar 60% figure (just under 2/3) but it should be referenced that two independent polls reached this result. The text following is not referenced to the polling questions, but instead reflects serious literalist theological literature, and should be placed in a seperate context from the polls.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The Joan of Arc comment is entirely inappropriate in this article. Who cares what strange ideas someone who is uneducated on such matters holds? Consensus appears to be 3:0 for removing it; so I have done so.rossnixon 01:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of animals

How can you have an article on Noah's Ark and ignore this?--Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't ignore it - see the first paragraph of the section Secular Biblical Scholarship.PiCo (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused by your Edit summary and didn't check further.--Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Flood was 40 days upon the earth-at that time.

There is no contradiction here. The flood was 40 days upon the earth at the time that the waters picked the ark up, but the water stayed on the earth for 150 days. It is obvious if you read the scripture referenced.Ronar (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which version?

The Priestlyh (P) story -- which consistently uses the name 'god' for the deity refers to "male and female", has one pair of each kind of animal, has a raven, etc. Or the Yahweh (J) story - 'Yahweh', 'man and his woman' as well as male and famale, 'died', seven pairs of clean animals, a dove, etc. P: Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6,8,9,11,13-16, 21,24 8:1-5, 7, 13-10 J: Genesis 6:188, 7:1-5,7,10,12,17-20,22,23 8:6,8-12, 20-22 There are quite a few of these pairs of stories in the OT. P says "and the waters grew strong on the earth a hundred fifty days". J, 8:6, suddenly brings in the 40 days when Noah opens the window. If you read at as the two stories they almost certainly are (drawing separately from earlier sources), each story makes sense on its own. This isn't OR, it's Richare Elliott Friedman, "Who wrote the Bible". And clearly needs to be included in the main article in some form.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Too hasty again! It is there, why the discussion here? There are two stories, that's why there is confusion.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we refrain from using terms such as 'P', and 'J' given that there's no scholarly consensus on what constitutes either 'P' or 'J', or whether either even existed? I don't see how this is useful. The article itself notes that this 19th century theory has received little support in recent years. But the article starts off by introducing this as a theory, and then quickly asserts it to be fact, interpreting the entire flood narrative accordingly. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Those terms ares shorthand of course. The lack of scholarly consensus should certainly not stop us from referring to them -- we'd have to cut out a lot of Wikipedia if we followed a policy like that! I think you need to read the article on the documentary hypothesis again, by the way. It doesn't diss Friedman. But thank you for your 'fact' claim, that's led me to note one little thing that is asserted as a fact (not the above) which I need to check out.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
These terms are shorthand for a disputed theory, and they are increasingly less used as a result of that theory losing support among modern scholarship. I don't mind reference to them being included, as long as they aren't presented as fact. A proper treatment of the 'two narratives' theory would not only make reference to antiquated theories, but to modern theories, and would also provide examples of alternative views (briefly cited in the text), which argue for a single source, using analogous ancient texts. I'm not actually saying anything about Friedman, one way or another, but I note that the article on the Documentary Hypothesis still says what I remember it saying months ago, which is that the Documentary Hypothesis no longer enjoys consensus support. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting lost here. All current theories are disputed, and there has never been a real consensus. The article makes it clear that there are more recent models which dispute the DH and that the DH has much less support than it used to have. It did suggest what Wenham's view was fact, and I've changed that. But I don't understand what you mean by shorthand, the article doesn't use 'P' and 'J'.
What seems to be the case though is that undue weight is given to the DH and that should probably be changed. What do you think? I also am not convinced that George Athas is the best person to describe the Copenhagen School.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean literally the single letters 'P' and 'J', but the terms 'Priestly' and 'Jahwist/Yahwist' which they represent (terms used in the article). I agree the DH has too much weight in the article, especially since the hypothesis as quoted in the article has little support now. As for the Copenhagen School, Athas isn't an authority as far as I'm aware, but his article is balanced, well reasoned, and well referenced. If you would prefer a different assessment, then I suggest you look at the Copenhagen School article for other descriptions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Documentary Hypothesis isn't "losing ground" to any belief in a single source: rather, the newer approach involves even more sources and editing. In this particular case, the interweaving of two distinct versions of the story is still the main scholarly view IIRC. I think we need to briefly mention the uncertainty regarding the Flood's duration in the "Narrative" paragraph, which currently asserts that it lasted 150 days (which is only one view). I'll copy the sentence that mentions this issue in the Flood geology article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the DH is losing ground to any belief in a single source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, the article mentions apparent uncertainty about the duration of the flood, and Ross Nixon deleted it which I have now reverted. “The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.” (NIV) seems enough to prove apparent uncertainty, isn't it? Opinions as to whether this can be reconciled to end up with a definite 40 days aren't enough to remove the sentence I've restored--Doug Weller (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

...Indeed. And it's directly contradicted by Genesis 7:17, which specifically states that "the flood was forty days upon the earth" (i.e. this was not just the duration of the rainfall, as earlier verses indicate). And Noah later sends out a raven after 40 days (Genesis 8:6-7), even though this comes after the "waters abated" after "150 days". Apologists sometimes assume that this was on day 190 (150+40), but the story gives no indication of why Noah would wait this long. There is confusion here, just as there is with the "number of animals" issue: the two-source hypothesis neatly explains why. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as there is no consensus on which parts of the story belong to different sources (whether two, six, eight, or however many other theories want to ascribe), the 'two-source hypothesis' explains nothing 'neatly'. The older multiple source theories (and modern source theories based on them), typically pay no attention to Ancient Near East analogues (comparable ANE narratives or texts which are indisputably the result of a single source but which contain doublets, redundancies, and repetition), which is understandable given the ignorance of Wellhausen's era, but less excusable today. Some mention of this would help to contribute to the quality of this article, which is still well below par. It doesn't help that all Christians who believe in the flood narrative are inaccurately lumped together as 'Biblical literalists'. There's no mention whatever of the centuries old 'local flood' interpretation, which is found at least as early as the 1st century AD (Josephus and Philo of Alexandria). Then there's the incomplete representation (if not misrepresentation), of some sources. Thomas Browne is quoted as questioning how animals could have reached the Americas, as if he was a skeptic challenging the truth of the flood narrative, when in actual fact he was a Christian who not only believed the flood narrative was completely true, but actually defended the global interpretation of the flood narrative (despite recognizing its problems). In the first five editions of 'Vulgar Errors' he acknowledged that in his own day there were Christians who believed in the local interpretation of the flood, but dismissed their arguments out of hand and concluded they were completely wrong ('so that some conceiving it needlesse to be universal, have made the deluge particular, and about those parts where Noah built his Arke; which opinion because it is not only injurious to the Text, humane history, and common reason, but also derogatory unto that great worke of God, the universall inundation'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How come suddenly "NIV is enough" now, when every other time, secondary sources making the arguments are required to be attributed? As for favoritism to the "NIV" English language (mis)-wording, we do have access to the original Hebrew from which all the other translations were made, you know.... SOME scholars may interpret it the way you do, OTHERS do not, regardless of which school of thought you may wish to champion, we still have to follow the normal procedure of neutrality, and explain exactly WHO feels WHAT about it, and WHY. In other words, the article should state WHO interprets this as a "contradiction" and WHO does not, WHAT language interpretation was used to arrive at each conclusion, etc. rather than push any one school of thought while attempting to attack or weaken the opposing schools of thought. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Who said 'NIV is enough@? I didn't,it was just an example. There is just no possible way you can say there is no uncertainty. so how do you justify removing that bit? There is no possible way of resolving the uncertainty or making it go away, so you are just going to have to live with it.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we do have the original Hebrew, and the translation is not disputed: all translations agree that the verses do indeed say "40 days" and "150 days" respectively. And all translations agree that Genesis 7:17 gives 40 days as the duration of the Flood (Hebrew mabbuwl, a flood: from the root yabal, to be borne along or carried away: check a concordance). As for secodary sources: the flood-duration issue is part of any discussion regarding the scholarly interpretation of this section of Genesis, and one such source has already been provided as a reference. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The translation certainly isn't disputed. Modern translations I've looked at rightly identify two completely different words in Genesis 7:17 and 7:24, rendering them with their different respective meanings. Modern translations render mabbuwl (verse 17), as 'flood', and mayim (verse 24), as 'waters'. These two words do not have the same meaning, and are therefore translated differently (as they have been since at least 1611). This is why many people see no contradiction between these verses. Others do, but the grounds on which they do are not lexical. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone else quoted the NIV translation just a little while ago above here, and then stated "that seems enough to prove uncertainty". But that is not so; secondary sources that interpret this as an uncertainty are what would truly be "enough", and the secondary sources that do not interpret it so, can and should also be found for the opposing viewpoint. Indeed, as you have said "the flood-duration issue is part of any discussion regarding the scholarly interpretation of this section of Genesis"; although actually there is no single interpretation of a controversy, and the opposing viewpoints should not be artificially forced to be reconciled as if there were no controversy, but rather each should be detailed and explained without taking sides. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's turn this around. Is there uncertainty or is there certainty?--Doug Weller (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends what you mean. If you mean "Is there disagreement among sources about the interpretation", then clearly, yes there is. If you mean "does the primary source by itself establish or indicate uncertainty", that is more like what the disagreement in the interpretive sources is about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're now agreeing that your earlier action, in deleting mention of the uncertainty and thereby "artificially reconciling" it "as if there were no controversy", was inappropriate? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't do it again; but as long as we are discussing this, I would like to see the controversy explained more fully with more sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A flood timeline is carefully worked out here [47] for those who are interested. rossnixon 05:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Genuine Biblical scholars are not in the business of "resolving" Biblical contradictions. The Bible is errant: this has already been established. It contains stuff that is true, stuff that is false, and stuff that is uncertain. Each apparent contradiction should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, with the most plausible explanation being regarded as the most likely "correct" one (based on context, usage etc), with no prior committment to either an "inerrant" or "errant" explanation. In this case, the interweaving of two accounts has already been established by other evidence (such as the number-of-animals issue, with its anachronistic allusion to the yet-to-be-invented dietary codes). Given this, the most plausible explanation for the Flood-duration contradiction is that this is part of the same issue: there's no need to attempt to distort Genesis 7:17 to say anything other than what it DOES actually say. The Flood was upon the Earth for 40 days, according to that author: this is what the scholars say. If there was a contrary scholarly view (NOT one based on an ideological committment to "inerrancy"), and that view was based on evidence, then it would become the new scholarly consensus if a good enough case could be made for it. Meanwhile we report what they are saying now. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The current reference is to an anonymous, undated, university webpage that does not even look at the difference in the Hebrew words used. No discussion or evalution is done whatsoever. That is not how "scholars" publish their views. rossnixon 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd like to see something more than an 'anonymous, undated, university webpage that does not even look at the difference in the Hebrew words used'. It's good to see people checking the links others add to this article. Links such as that don't do much for the FA status of the article (which at present it certainly does not deserve yet, with anonymous, undated self-published references such as that). In this case an evaluation of the apparent contradiction needs to draw on proper scholarly research which takes into account analogous ancient literature, assessing ncient Near East analogues (comparable ANE narratives or texts which are indisputably the result of a single source but which contain doublets, redundancies, and repetition), none of which are mentioned in the article at present. The Wellhausen hypothesis is given undue weight for a theory written by a non-specialist in ignorance of ANE literature, and is at least 100 years out of date. It does need to be replaced with a modern assessment, and that does not mean simply citing modern repeats of the original hypothesis, which was based on such unfortunate mistakes as the theory that writing didn't exist before about the 10th century BC. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Multiple strawman arguments. Use of multiple sources is still the dominant scholarly view, as you have admitted: "I don't think anyone here is arguing that the DH is losing ground to any belief in a single source". And the DH (and its later derivatives) is in no way dependent on any belief that writing didn't exist before the 10th century BC (even though this is what Wellhausen believed). NO scholarly reference of ANY sort has been provided for the claim that there is no actual contradiction here. And if other similar ANE texts contain similar doublets, redundancies and repetition: how would you go about demonstrating that they "are indisputably the result of a single source"? Nor would the existence of mere repetition be analogous to the apparent contradictions within the Biblical account. No quibbling about the use of "different words" for the Flood itself (actually by different authors, according to the two-source view) would change the meaning of Genesis 7:17, or change the account of Noah releasing a raven after 40 days (Genesis 8:6-7). If you don't think a university is a reliable source, then provide a better one. And, in any case, none of this would justify the deletion of the views of those who say that there is a contradiction here: which is what prompted this discussion. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You're making a lot of assumptions and not actually reading what I write. I am not contesting the use of multiple sources in the flood narrative. For what it's worth I personally believe the entire Pentateuch is the product of multiple sources, but my personal views are not relevant here, and you need to understand that yours aren't either (this article is not supposed to be a showcase for people's personal opinions). I am not claiming that this is not longer the dominant scholarly view. I have not claimed that the Documentary Hypothesis is dependent on the belief that writing didn't exist before the 10th century BC. I am not suggesting the deletion of those who say that there is a contradiction here. You seem to be extremely sensitive to any suggestion that this part of the article be edited in any way. You seem particularly scared that this article is going to be hijacked by 'religious people'.
I could point out that 'NO scholarly reference of ANY sort has been provided for the claim that there IS an actual contradiction here', but of course that would be redundant. Scholarly opinions are ranged on both sides, and the article should reflect this,. Your complete dismissal of the point that two different words are used for the 'waters' in Genesis 7 suggests strongly that you were completely unaware of this, and the fact that professional Bible translators recognize a distinction between the two (and have rendered them differently for the last 400 odd years of English Bible translation), demonstrates to me that the distinction is valid and your objection to this fact both spurious and motivated by a personal agenda. Some scholars see this as evidence of two sources, some do not. The article should reflect both views.
Whilst it is my responsibility (and the responsibility of others), to point out inadequate references in the article it is not my responsibility to go hunting down better references (that's the responsibility of the person who included the reference in the first place). The very fact that such a reference was included in this article and left for so long without being examined demonstrates that some of us are going to have to watch this article with care to keep it honest. It's incredible that such a poor reference was even included (and you complain about lack of scholarly references?).
Your question regarding analogous ANE texts further demonstrates ignorance of the relevant literature on the subject (and no I am not talking merely about repetition, I'm talking also about apparent contradictions, redundancies, and stylistic differences). Such texts are demonstrably the product of a single source when they are found in contexts such as monumental architecture, law stela, among other examples. For example, no one argues that the Code of Hammurabi was the product of different scribes who all edited the stele at different times, despite the redundancies, repetitions, stylistic differences, and apparent contradictions throughout the text. I'll quote here from Kenneth Kitchen ('The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Eve of the Exodus', Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59, Spring 1971), whom I'm convinced knows a great deal more about the subject than you or I:

'Genesis 7: 17-20 with its four-times repeated increase and prevailing of the flood waters (each with a fresh complement)28 is a good example. This kind of feature (plus general repetition on a grand scale) can be observed readily in Sumerian and Babylonian epics, e.g. as in Lugal-banda (Sumerian)29 or Atrakhasis (Babylonian).30

Such a style may well have marked the original versions of the matter now found in Genesis 1-11 as brought by an Abraham from Mesopotamia, where Western Semites came to share in a cultural heritage. And these phenomena of style, both the use of couplets (single or multiple) generally in the Near East and the repetitious style in Genesis and Mesopotamian literature, are an inherent part of Near Eastern and biblical literary usage; to scissor-up their elements among imaginary 'source-documents' is a pointless waste of effort,31 producing tatters that have no relation to attested usage in the biblical world.'

--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a simple fact that the article WAS edited, and relevant material WAS deleted: My "fears" are evidently entirely justified. Furthermore, I was well aware of the use of different words for the Flood itself, and I am also aware of the fact that the two-source hypothesis assigns the differing "duration passages" to different authors writing at different times in different styles: therefore this in no way refutes the two-source interpretation, and hence does not appear to be especially relevant here. As for the reference: it's material provided by the faculty of the Religious Studies department of the University of Pennsylvania (the faculty members aren't "anonymous", even though the article unfortunately is: they endorsed it, they released it). As such, it meets all the necessary criteria of a Wikipedia reference (it's not an open wiki or personal website, it's material provided by a notable and reputable educational institution). There may well be better references out there, but this in no way justifies the deletion of a reference that is already adequate, leaving this section without a reference at all: see WP:RS (and note "items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles", and that organizations can be considered reliable sources). Meanwhile I will restore the reference. There are thousands of articles throughout Wikipedia with references that are far less substantial than this one. I will keep your tag, however: as a request for an additional or substitute reference. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
...Actually, WP:SOURCES seems to address the reference issue more directly. "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Educational materials presented on a university's website, while not explicitly mentioned here, are clearly equivalent to "university-level textbooks" from that university. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The 'simple fact' that the article was edited and material deleted does not justify your fears, since the edit was not made on religious grounds but on the entirely valid grounds of verifiability. If you're aware that the two words used in the passage under question do not have the same meaning, then why do you consider them evidence for the 'two-source' theory'? If they were two different words which both meant 'flood' (and you clearly believed they both meant 'flood', since that was your original point), you could have an argument, but as it happens they don't. One is a specific word, one is a general word. They are consistently translated completely differently by Bible translators, and have been for 400 years. If there was any evidence that these two words are used synonymously throughout the flood narrative, this could well be evidence for the 'two-source' hypothesis, but as it stands the difference in meaning between the two words renders extremely tenuous the argument that they are differing stylistic devices of two individual authors. You've provided no evidence that they are evidence of 'stylistic differences' between two separate authors. That is precisely why it is relevant, since it is not necessarily evidence for the 'two-source' hypothesis. Surely you can find better evidence than this? And what are you going to do about the quote from Kitchen? In addition, I note that you still haven't presented the contrary view, despite the fact that the contrary view is extremely well attested among various authorities such as Kitchen.
Arguing that there are thousands of Wiki articles which contain even less adequate references is not a valid justification for including invalid references. This is the kind of sloppy thinking which degrades the entire resource. The reference provided may be technically acceptable on certain grounds (despite the fact that it's anonymous and undated and isn't even a 'textbook', so I dispute your claim that it's analogous to a 'university-level textbook'), but is this really a superior reference on the subject to a direct quote from an authority such as Kitchen? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the deletion was made on the basis that there was (allegedly) no contradiction regarding the duration of the Flood. This is clear from what was actually deleted, and from the edit summaries: "no uncertainty - duration of rain and duration of flood are two different things"... "It rained for 40 days. The flooding didn't abate for 150 days. Get it yet?" One side was arguing for inclusion, the other for deletion: not just deletion of the reference, but deletion of the two-source view regarding the Flood duration. There was a "pro-inclusion" faction and a "pro-deletion" faction in this editorial dispute: you seem to have chosen to support the "pro-deletion" faction (apparently without checking what was actually going on, judging from your "I am not suggesting the deletion of those who say that there is a contradiction here" comment). And the reference is still valid, and Kitchen's opposing view doesn't make the whole controversy disappear (and are you aware of Kitchen's religious views?). And your argument regarding the Hebrew words translated as "Flood" and "waters" are still not relevant to any point I was actually making, nor do they address the independent evidence for contradiction (the entirely separate issue of the release of the raven after 40 days). If you want to add material relating to Kitchen's opposing view (even though he is arguably unsuitable as an "extremist source", and is notable primarily as an Egyptologist), I won't stop you: I'm "pro-inclusion", remember? --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


The deletion was made because you hadn't made a plausible case for a contradiction, and the point was (well), made that the two words you claimed had the same meaning actually have two different meanings.
I find it incredible that you quote my explicit statement SUPPORTING non-deletion ('I AM NOT suggesting the deletion of those who say that there is a contradiction here'), and then claim I am in the 'pro-deletion faction', when I said the complete opposite. Someone is not reading something here, but it's not me.
I haven't argued that Kitchen's view has 'made the whole controversy disappear'. I've simply pointed out that a citation from someone like Kitchen is superior in value to the citation you gave. Not only does it fully identify the author, work, and date (unlike yours), it's from an authority in Ancient Near East languages, inscriptions and literary forms. Was the article you cited written by an authority in Ancient Near East languages, inscriptions and literary forms? Well you don't know, do you, because you don't even know the author's name. What rationale does the author of the article you cited give for their interpretation of the text? Well you don't know that either, because they simply don't explain themselves. You know that they used the Documentary Hypothesis, but you don't know how they decided on which parts of the flood narrative to attribute to one author and which to attribute to another. But even worse, the article you cited DOES NOT attribute Genesis 7:17 and Genesis 7:24 to different sources. It doesn't even make the point you've attempted to argue here. I wonder if you have even read the article fully?
Kitchen is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an 'extremist source'. He is a well recognized archaeologist who isn't remotely a conservative Christian, though he is a Christian. If you had ever read any of his works (as I have), you would know that he never makes any attempt to argue for miraculous events, and has in fact suggested natural causes of certain events described in the Bible as supernatural. He is so far from the conservative Christian perspective that his works have been repeatedly CRITICIZED in standard theological journals because they do not make any attempt to support the supernatural elements of the Bible (as much as his archaeological research might be praised). Kitchen doesn't support the Documentary Hypothesis, but does state explicitly that the Pentateuch was revised and edited by different hands over time. Though Kitchen is by specialization an Egyptologist, he is still an authority on related fields, and one of them happens to be ANE languages, inscriptions, and literary forms. Even so, in the quote I supplied from Kitchen he did NOT appeal to his own authority, but cited archaeological evidence. I note that you didn't even attempt to address this fact. Nor does the article you cite.
So on one hand we have an undated article by an unnamed author of unknown qualifications who doesn't even make the argument you do regarding Genesis 7:17 and 7:24, yet you want to claim that this constitutes a valid argument for your case. On the other hand we have a quote from a completely identified work written by a recognized archaeologist who is also an authority in Ancient Near East languages, inscriptions, and literary forms. Yet you claim the quote I provide is 'unsuitable'? Your agenda is utterly transparent.
The point I made concerning the two words in Genesis 7 is completely relevant, since your entire argument was that the two words had the same meaning and were indicative of the two literary styles of two distinct authors. Now you want to abandon that and talk about other 'contradictions'. Well go right ahead, but what do you think you're proving? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what Wikipedia says about Mr. Kitchen. "Professor Kitchen is an Evangelical Christian with regard to his religious beliefs. He is frequently cited by conservative Christians in relation to writings rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis," "Archer and Kitchen are devout conservative Christians" "a number of conservative scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen, continue to work within the Albrightian framework." Ok, he isn't a strict traditionalist or a fundamentalist, but he is definitely attractive to conservative Christians, and has been called an inerrantist. Doug Weller (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, there's a reason why Wikipedia articles aren't permitted to cite each other as authorities. I have already stated very clearly that Kitchen is a Christian. But he is NOT a 'conservative Christian' by any stretch of the imagination. His works are regularly criticized in conservative theological journals (and I have around 20 of them), specifically because he is not a conservative. It's irrelevant that he has been 'called an inerrantist'. What does that have to do with anything? William G. Dever has been called a 'Zionist', do you think he's a Zionist? If you are objecting to the scholarly assessment of Kitchen's which I have cited, then you need to do it on scholarly terms. You can't just say 'Well he's a Christian, so he must be wrong', or 'Well he's a Christian, so of course he's going to fabricate evidence or make a contrived but inaccurate argument to support his personal faith'. What you're doing is called 'well poisoning', claiming that a given argument is necessarily wrong or suspect simply because of its source. Kitchen cites archaeological evidence. You have cited none. You haven't even addressed the evidence he provided. Now if you do object to the inclusion of the quote from Kitchen, then please give logical and rational reasons for doing so. Not this agenda driven nonsense. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan Boi, Why are you continuing this discussion?
Because of your misrepresentations not only of me, but of the facts concerning the subject included in the article which we're discussing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be for discussing modifications to the article.

That is what I am discussing. Did you note my reference to Kitchen? Did you note my inclusion of Kitchen in the article? Did you notice my SUPPORT for the inclusion of the argument that the Genesis flood narrative is not a literary unity and contains contradictions? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But you're still sounding-off on some personal tangent of your own. Consensus has long since been reached: the mention of the contradiction stays.

How many times do I have to point out that I have NEVER objected to the mention of the conclusion being included? What I have objected to is your providing a particularly poor citation in support of this argument. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet: you continue to either misrepresent or misunderstand me. The Hebrew mabbuwl, used in Genesis 7:17, has consistently been translated as "flood": the fact that a different word, mayim, used in other verses, has consistently been translated as "waters" is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making (especially as the etymology of both words indicates that the respective English translations are appropriate).

It's clearly not irrelevant to your point, since you claimed the two words were both referring to the same subject and were necessarily stylistic indicators of two different authors. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My actual point was to address the apologetic claim that the 40 days referred only to the rainfall duration rather than the flood duration (though I can see where you may have become confused, as another user had mentioned a verse that used mayim). Genesis 7:17 indicates that 40 days was the duration of the Flood (mabbuwl), not just the rain, as earlier verses had implied. THAT is the comparison I was making (though perhaps I didn't make that clear enough). But the "waters" are nevertheless the waters of the Flood: the same actual floodwater is being referred to.

It's clear that you 'didn't make that clear enough', because it's clear that you made a completely different point. Your claim that the waters being referred to are in fact the flood is simply your opinion I'm afraid (but do please give me your academic qualifications for your translation and interpretation of the words in question). --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As for Kitchen: he rejects the Documentary Hypothesis (in all its forms). As per WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia gives priority to mainstream scholarly views: and Kitchen isn't maistream on this. The mainstream scholarly view IS the Documentary Hypotheis, or variants thereof: "Most contemporary Bible experts accept some form of the documentary hypothesis", according to Stephen L Harris (Professor and Chair, Department of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University, Sacramento, fellow at the Westar Institute etc etc).
This part of what you wrote is particularly bizarre. I already stated specifically that Kitchen rejects the Documentary Hypothesis. Why do you state this fact as if it's something I didn't know? And what relevance does all of this have to the article and what I wrote? The topic under discussion is not the Documentary Hypothesis, but the literary unity of the flood narrative. On that very point please note that several scholars are cited as holding to the literary unit of the flood narrative (Cassuto, Nielsen, Anderson, Wenham), so why shouldn't Kitchen also be mentioned? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Are university educational materials reflecting the mainstream view superior to a signed article that does not? Yes, as per WP:UNDUE.
What 'mainstream view' does Kitchen's comment contradict? The comment I provided from Kitchen is specific to the flood narrative, it's not discussing the entire Documentary Hypothesis. I haven't once attempted to challenge the Documentary Hypothesis with anything from Kitchen. The issue I raised was whether or a completely identified work written by a recognized archaeologist who is also an authority in Ancient Near East languages, inscriptions, and literary forms. You say 'Yes'. I say 'No', but I'm prepared to have your citation included in the article regardless because I understand that Wikipedia is a populist rather than a scholarly source. I'm not aware that there's any consensus among Ancient Near East scholars that the flood narrative is the product of two contradictory sources, which is the specific point Kitchen is addressing. There isn't even a consensus on its relationship to the other Ancient Near East flood narratives. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And the article does clearly identify the Flood duration issue as being part of the pattern.
I didn't dispute that. What it doesn't do is make the claim you made, that Genesis 7:17 and 7:24 are attributed to two different sources. Not only that, but it doesn't make any reference to any contradictions in the flood narrative, yet that's the specific argument for which you cited it in support. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though it doesn't specifically mention Genesis 7:17, it DOES clearly list "Duration of flood" in both columns, with 40 days in the left column and 150 days in the right. The breakdown isn't as clear as some I've seen, but it is entirely sufficient to support the point being made in the article: that there is an apparent contradiction regarding the duration of the flood. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, the article said nothing about this being a contradiction. Did you miss that? It simply attributed the verses to two different sources. This attribution is typically made on the basis that this is a 'doublet' (a case of the same thing being said twice, in different ways), not a contradiction, and that is exactly what this article does. So it doesn't attribute Genesis 7:17 and 7:24 to two different sources (as you did), it doesn't claim that Genesis 6:12 and 7:24 are contradictory (as you did), and does not in fact mention any contradictions in the record at all. Completely contrary to your argument, the article identifies the two different sources not by identifying contradictions, but by identifying 'when each source is used to retell the same part of the story' (doublets, as I said earlier). That is why I asked you if you had read it, and why I pointed out that you have absolutely no understanding of the basis on which this particular division of the narrative has been derived. If you want use an article which makes a case for a 'two-source' theory of the flood narrative on the basis of contradictions, then at least cite an article which specifically mentions contradictions and which uses them to identify different sources. Can you understand yet why the article you cited is insufficient to support the point you're trying to make? I'm being extremely generous in letting you include reference to it in the article under the section in which it appears. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
...BTW, just to head off another possible argument: Yes, I KNOW that some apologists want to argue that "the flood" refers just to the active process of "flooding" (i.e. the rising waters) and that the waters then lay there for another 110 days (150-40). OK? Please don't accuse me of ignorance of that. I reject it, for the following reasons: it requires a redefinition of the use of mabbuwl that is not evidenced, it ignores the issue of the release of the raven after 40 days, and it is an unnecessary assumption given the additional evidence that already exists for the two-source view (such as the number-of-animals contradiction). I will also add that a contradiction doesn't "disappear" even if an apologist does work out a theoretical resolution for it: if the apologist cannot reasonably demonstrate that this was what the author probably intended, the existence of the apparent contradiction remains notable. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This will probably me my last post on this subject, because it's WAY off-topic, and because the misrepresentations (or ongoing misunderstandings) are becoming ridiculous. Just to clarify some of the above: there IS a contradiction regarding the Flood, and when making the case for that on this page (to defend against the DELETION, remember?), I don't NEED that reference. I can, and have, argued my case independently, referring directly to the Bible itself. The reference is only required (and is sufficient for) the ARTICLE. And the reference doesn't NEED to lay out the supporting reasoning in detail, because it's only being used to provide evidence that there is a NOTABLE OPINION regarding two durations for the Flood (which is all that the ARTICLE requires). And if you can't see that "40 days" contradicts "150 days", then there is no hope for you. And I really can't see anything charitable to say about "Your claim that the waters being referred to are in fact the flood is simply your opinion I'm afraid (but do please give me your academic qualifications for your translation and interpretation of the words in question)". The translation has already been done, by experts. The translations of mabbuwl as "flood" and mayim as "waters" is clear and consistent. The story is all about a worldwide inundation: did you somehow miss that? A little boat floating on a vast ocean of water that wasn't there before: and you're saying (in effect) "...Water? What water? I wonder what is this "water" I'm reading about?" WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAP, WP:DNFTT. Goodbye. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Secular Biblical Scholarship?

This implies to me that none of the scholars involved are Christians, Jews or Muslims. I don't think that's the case.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that it has this implication? "Academic" biblical scholarship could also be used. The issue is not how people describe themselves, it's what community has endorsed them as reliable authorities. Scholarship which hasn't been endorsed by Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religious communities is not reliable Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religious scholarship regardless of the commentator's self-described affiliations, in essentially the same way that scholarship that hasn't been endorsed by the academic community is not reliable academic (secular) scholarship, regardless of whether the commentator studied at a university or the commentator's personal claims of academic affiliation or expertise. See WP:V. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seaworthiness

The section on seaworthiness says it would have been far bigger than the biggest wooden ships ever built. The Chinese treasure ships were said to be of comparable size but this is disputed. Even so the statement as included can't really stand up as there is quite a bit of evidence the treasure ships did exist and were of the size claimed. The best that could be said is that it would have been larger than the largest wooden ship whose dimensions are undisputed. Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though any ships that large in the Chinese fleet were river barges. IF they were that large.Doug Weller (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly but modern scholarship also shows the figures to be quite plausible, see Talk:Junk (ship)#Size of Zheng He's ships. Chinese junks were much more advanced compared to European ships of the time, for instance they had bulkheads and could sail into the wind. Just because Noah's Ark is a myth doesn't mean one has to agree with wrong arguments that purport to prove it so. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Modern scholarship shows the figures implausible - [48] "The results of this investigation support the conclusion of Xin Yuan-ou ?, professor of shipbuilding engineering at Shanghai Jiaotong University, who argues that it is highly unlikely that Zheng He's treasure ships were 450 ft long, and suggests that they were probably closer to 200-250 ft in length." And the replica being built is about 233 feet. See Largest wooden ships - lots of problems when you get over 300 or so feet long. Note that the Wyoming was in practice only 330 feet long and had serious problems. And it had iron cross bracings, are you arguing that Noah's ark had these?Doug Weller (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be at least worth pointing out the view of certain Christian apologists that the Ark has ancient analogues, and that they argue comparisons of a free floating barge to a steam powered high masted iron clad schooner are invalid. For example, here it is argued that comparison to the Appomattox is inappropriate, and that a more appropriate comparison is to the entirely timber barge Santiago (336 feet long), which was longer, unmasted, not iron clad, and which had a service life of around 20 years. Other ancient analogues suggested in that article are the 'Giant Barge' of Caligula (unmasted, no iron cladding, about 341 feet), the warship of Ptolemy IV (unmasted, no iron cladding, about 390 feet), and the great obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (unmasted, no iron cladding, modern estimates range from 311-459 feet). It is argued that all of these are better analogues because they approximate not only the size by the actual shape and construction techniques which were used in the Bronze Age to construct barges. A review of the article you mentioned (Largest wooden ships), actually lists all of these ships, as well as the 377 foot long pleasure barge of Ptolemy IV (the existence of which is undisputed). I personally don't see the merit in comparing a 19th century tall masted iron clad clipper with a Bronze Age unmasted timber barge without iron cladding, but I'd be happy to see an explanation as to why this is relevant and analogous ancient timber barges aren't. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sholarship doesn't have a consensus. No I'm not saying they tried to stiffen the ships with steel. Personally I'd have thought that would be contrary to Chinese philosophy which is always going on about bending with the wind and accepting things and suchlike. If they built such a large ship I'd have imagined they'd have made it flexible in some way as for instance rafts can be. I'll be interested in seeing what this reconstruction turns out like when there is so little info. Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Scholarship does, in fact, have an overwhelming consensus - the ark did not exist. There isn't any serious debate about it in any sort of scientific circle, and if we want to talk about the ark as a physical object, who are we going to listen to - the scientists, or the fundies? I think the evolution article holds the answer to which has priority under Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, I believe that Dmcq was referring to the scholarly consensus regarding the Chinese baochuans, not the scholarly consensus regarding the Ark. I don't see anyone here arguing that there's no scholarly consensus regarding the Ark, I don't see anyone here arguing that the Ark must be referred to in this article as a genuine historical vessel, and I don't see anyone here arguing that we should listen to 'the fundies' rather than the scientists. Do you? --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article & Mespotamian flood myths

I've reverted to the original structure of the article. This was changed without discussion some weeks ago by a newbie editor. The old structure follows the development of ideas about the Ark, from the oldest traditions (the Rabbinic ones) through Christian and then Islamic interpretations, to the emergence of scientific and secular scholarly approaches in the last few hundred years. It ends with literalist interpretations because they represent a rejection of the scientific worldview, of all advances in knowledge since about 1650.

I've also deleted the long section on the Ark and Mesopotamian flood-myths. This is not because I feel they have no place - they have a very important place - but because I feel the connection between these myths and the Noah's Ark story wasn't spelled out clearly. I'll do a revision later to bring this aspect back. PiCo (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming, part I

There's a major problem with the paragraph on the Wyoming:

'...literalist websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long. This is considerably longer than the schooner Wyoming, launched in 1909 and the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built: it measured only 329.5 feet (100 m) and needed iron cross-bracing to counter warping and a steam pump to handle a serious leak problem.'

This paragraph claims the Wyoming was 'only 329.5 feet (100m)', yet the Wikipedia article to which it links says the Wyoming was '137.16 m (450 ft)'. This is a classic case of people not checking facts, and demonstrates why Wikipedia articles are not supposed to cite other Wikipedia articles as authorities. A couple of books I have checked confirm that the Wyoming was in fact 329 feet long ('Plotting the Globe: Stories of Meridians, Parallels, and the International Date Line', Avraham Ariel, Nora Ariel Berger, 2006, page 176, and 'The archaeology of the Roman economy', Kevin Greene, 1990, page 25).

This means three things. Firstly it means that the Wikipedia article 'List of world's largest wooden ships' is in need of correction. Secondly it means that this paragraph in the 'Noah's Ark' should not use the Wyoming as a comparison of the Ark to 'the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built', it should use the Thalamegos (documented, 377 feet, 200 BCE), the great obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (documented, modern estimates range from 311-450 feet, about 1,480 BC), and the Tessarakonteres (documented, modern estimates range from 390-420 feet, 200 BCE). These are all documented vessels, and appear as genuine historical ships in Lionel Casson's authoritative works 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World' (1995), and 'Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt' (2001). Thirdly, it means that the Ark was not 'considerably longer' than 'the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thalamegos and Hatshepsut are documented? You've got the blueprints?PiCo (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are documented, which is why they appear in standard historical authorities. Did you note my citation of Lionel Casson? No we don't have 'blueprints', but the Thalamegos is recorded in historical accounts which are considered valid sources by standard academic works such as:
  • Lionel Casson's 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World' published in 1995: on page 342 he says 'It was over 300 feet long'
  • Michel Robert's 'Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity' published in 2000: on page 347 he says the Thalamegos is 'well known from historical sources'
  • George Sarton's 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.' published in 1993: on page 121 he says the dimensions of the Thalamegos as given by Athenaios 'must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary'
As for Hatshepsut's barge, there's a massive contemporary depiction of it, which is as close to a blueprint as you can get. Let me be clear on what you are saying. Are you disputing that the ships to which I have referred are recognized by standard historical authorities as genuine historical vessels? Or are you saying that they are wrong to consider these genuine historical vessels? Or are you saying something else? And what about the reference to the Wyoming? Why it is it even in here, and why have its dimensions been misrepresented? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
They are not documented to a standard acceptable for inclusion in this article - blueprints only please.PiCo (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? What standard is that? It's clear you were completely unaware of the fact that they are documented, and that they are accepted as such by academic works which all meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability. Find me all the blueprints cited in the Wikipedia article List of the world's largest wooden ships (hint, you won't). If you had any academic grounds for doing so, you would have given them. Given these facts, and the fact that you have not answered my questions, you have no valid objection to these references. You're just inventing an imaginary objection. Why does everything about this article have to be a constant struggle against people with personal agendas? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in the Boys Big List of Ships. My problem with the ancient super-ships is that the standard of documentation is drastically different frkm that applied to the Wyoming - it's based on second-hand reports of soi-disant eyewitnesses (tho no actual eyewitnesses). In other words, the so-called "documents" are thoroughly subjective and unreliable compared with 19th century ships like the Wyoming. It's comparing apples and oranges. PiCo (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if you have any interest in 'the Boys Big List of Ships' or not. I am demonstrating that your requirement that blueprints be provided of the ancient vessels in question before they are permitted to be included in this article is blatantly POV, and your rejection of the academic sources I have cited is in violation of Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.
I also don't care if you think the 'the so-called "documents" are thoroughly subjective and unreliable ', since your opinion means zero in the academic community, and the academic community says the opposite. Your personal objections mean nothing, and the fact that you're objecting in bad faith is a serious problem.
I am not claiming that these ships are better documented than the Wyoming, or even as well documented. I have demonstrated, however, that they are sufficiently documented to be accepted in the academic community and recorded in standard authorities as genuine historical vessels. You have not even begun to address this fact, nor have you even acknowledged it.
As for comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing ancient ships to ancient ships, Bronze Age to Bronze Age (Hatshepsut), timber barges to timber barges, dateable construction techniques to dateable construction techniques. You on the other hand want to compare a Bronze Age entirely timber barge to an iron clad 19th century schooner with a steam pump, built using different construction techniques. That is 'apples to oranges' if anything is.
Once again, I have cited academic works which all meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability, and you have raised no valid objection for rejecting them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you should assume bad faith on my part - we should always assume good faith. Anyway, that aside, you put your finger on the point I'm making when you say that the ancient ships are not as well documented as modern ones. By the standards of documentation which apply to the Wyoming et al, the ancient ships can hardly be said to be documented at all. Tghe works you mention are by historians, and are works dealing with naval history. The authors are forced to use the best sources available to them, and I don't think they'd claim that these documents - ancient histories - compare remotely with what modern naval architects would call good documentation. That's what I mean by comparing apples and oranges. (Incidentally, the Wyoming was wooden hulled, not iron-clad). PiCo (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You forfeited assumption of good faith by consistently acting in bad faith. First you claimed that these vessels were not documented, despite the fact that I cited standard academic works which demonstrate that they are documented (you simply ignored them).
You then claimed these vessels are insufficiently documented to establish historicity, and cannot be included in the article unless their blueprints could be provided. This was an arbitrary standard of your own making, which is not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and not required by standard historians as evidence of historicity. I then provided direct quotes from standard academic works which demonstrated that they are documented to the academic standard of historicity, and that the academic sources I quoted meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.
Next you simply repeated your claim that unless blueprints could be provided these vessels cannot be included in the article (again, your completely fabricated excuse). Once more you ignored the academic sources I quoted, all of which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.
I then proved that your 'standard acceptable for inclusion in this article' was entirely fabricated and not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. I also pointed out that you had still not addressed any of the academic works I had cited, all of which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.
Then you came up with a new argument, which is that since these vessels cannot be included in the article because they aren't documented to the extent that the Wyoming is documented. This was yet again a fabricated excuse, which is not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. You claimed that the documentation for these vessels is inadequate to establish their historicity, which is a claim contradicted by the scholarly consensus. I responded to all this yet again.
You have now repeated your argument that these vessels cannot be included because they are not as well documented as the Wyoming. This is a completely fabricated excuse of your own POV, and not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. By the standards of documentation which are agreed on by the scholarly consensus, these vessels are documented and their historicity is accepted. The fact that you don't like that is irrelevant, as is your comparison to the documentation of the Wyoming. The documentation of the Wyoming is not used in the academic community as the standard of historicity. Yes, the works I cited are written by authors who are 'forced to use the best sources available to them', and their consensus is that these vessels are all documented historical vessels. You have not yet addressed this fact. That this documentation does not compare with 'what modern naval architects would call good documentation' is irrelevant (not that you would know). It is a level of documentation accepted by professionals in the relevant field, namely historiography, including naval historiography. Please note that Casson is an authority on naval historiography, as is Björn Landström who estimated the barge of Hatshepsut at 95 meters ('Ships Of The Pharoahs', 1970). I note that you have still not cited any academic references whatever in support of your views. The academic consensus is against you. The historicity of these vessels is undisputed, and their sizes are debated to within margins which are irrelevant for the purposes of their inclusion in this article.
Yes you're right about the Wyoming, it was iron braced not ironclad. Thanks for the correction. It still does not belong here as a point of comparison, for the reasons stated (read 'iron braced' for 'ironclad'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

River barges are vastly different from sea-going ships and can't be used as evidence that a boat the size of the Ark could survive even a normal sea voyage.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence please that the Ark was a 'sea going ship'? As I've already pointed out, the Ark was (putatively), a Mesopotamian river barge (look at the dimensions and where it was built, there's no talk of it being launched from the Philistian or Egyptian coast, it was built inland, in the Mesopotamian flood plain). It was putatively a Bronze Age barge constructed with Bronze Age techniques. Don't tell me that a valid comparison to a Bronze Age barge is a 19th century iron braced seven masted schooner made using completely different construction techniques. The two are nothing like each other. If you really want a modern comparison instead of an ancient comparison, you should compare the Ark with the Santiago (336 feet long, unmasted and unpowered timber barge without iron bracing, which lasted from 1899 to 1918), but even that was built using a completely different design and different construction techniques.
In any case, the issue in the original paragraph under discussion is the comparison of the Ark to the size of other entirely timber vessels, and whether or not it was the 'significantly larger' than the largest timber vessel ever built. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The putative Ark had three putative internal decks, which makes it a putative ship, not a barge. Plus it was built in a little more than a putative month by a putative man aged exactly 600 (with help from three putative sons all aged 500). That's quite a lot of putativity. How do decide which putative bits you believe and which you feel are perhaps a bit of a stretch? PiCo (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The number of decks is usually used to distinguish boats from ships, not barges from ships (though I see no relevance to this point in any case). You have fabricated a number of irrelevant details. The record nowhere says Noah had only a month (and no you can't reach that conclusion by comparing Genesis 6:6 with 6:11), nor that he was only assisted by his three sons, and since Genesis 5:32 informs us that Noah had his three sons when he was 500, they cannot possibly all have been any more than 100 by the time Noah was 600 in Genesis 6:6. If anyone here was attempting to assert the historicity of these details you might have a point. They aren't. You don't. The only issue under discussion here is the historicity of vessels of analogous size and shape to the description of the Ark given in Genesis 6 (regardless of whether or not the Ark existed). The historicity of those vessels is a matter already determined by the academic consensus and already cited. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only would a flood put stresses on a boat the Nile, for instance, won't, any ship that can float on a global ocean has to bear the stresses of a seagoing ship. So unless you are arguing that the Ark just had to navigate a river, it had to be a sea going ship. Doug Weller (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue under discussion has nothing to do with whether or not the flood was local or global which is an entirely separate issue. I personally believe the flood was local, but my view isn't relevant. The only issue under discussion here is the historicity of ships of analogous size and construction techniques. To date no one has provided a valid argument against their inclusion, and no one has provided a valid argument in favour of including the Wyoming. Instead, attempts have been made to contradict and overthrow the scholarly consensus based on nothing more than personal opinion and POV. Nothing meaningful has been added to this discussion by either you or PiCo. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
At the moment the article cites a modern wooden-hulled ocean-going ship, and notes that it had a leak problem so bad it needed a steam pump to stay above water. While we don't note it, other 19th century wooden ships of similar length had the same problem - they flexed in ocean swells, and as a result they leaked. We do note an opinion that the experience of these 19th century ships demonstrates that these ships were pushing the extreme limits of safety for wooden hulls. And you want to put in something about some ancient ships. What do we know about them? Not much, really. That they existed is probable. That they were as long as the ancient authors say is untested and untestable. That they leaked like sieves is a certainty, given what we know from the Wyoming and other ships - it's a matter of physics. Did they ever put to sea? Not like the Wyoming, no - they went out on rivers, or cruised around the harbour, or at the very most they were towed across the Mediterranean, which in summer is flat as a millpond (I know, I've been there). How did the crews handle the leakage problem? Lots of slaves with lots of buckets is a good guess, but that isn't a viable option for Noah and his three centenarian sons. So in sum, the standard of "documentation" of these ancient ships and barges isn't equal to that of the Wyoming and its peers, and there's no reason to include them. PiCo (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You are simply repeating points I have already addressed. The Santiago of 336 feet in length was an entirely timber barge which operated on the Great Lakes (notorious for their storms, not exactly 'flat as a millpond'), for 20 years without any steam bilge pumps or mention of constant leaking. Schooners and barges are very different vessels, and a 6 masted schooner such as the Wyoming is subject to completely different stresses to a timber barge like the Santiago. That's why the Wyoming had a tough time every voyage, but the Santiago lasted a comfortable 20 years and needed no steam bilge pumps. You are not comparing like to like.
The rest of what you wrote is simply personal opinion, and uninformed personal opinion at that. I note that you provide absolutely no reference to any academic sources (as with all your posts on this subject). There is no mention by naval historians of these vessels 'leaking like sieves', and not only do you invent this objection you're also forced into inventing ideas about how they could stay afloat if they leaked as much as you claim (when you're forced into inventing new unsubstantiated theories to overcome problems caused by previous unsubstantiated theories, you should realise your reasoning is flawed). There was absolutely no room in a standard trireme for a bucket crew, let alone in something the size of the Tessarakonteres. There is absolutely no mention of bucket teams or chronic leak problems in any of the ancient sources, despite the fact that they note other problems such as almost complete lack of maneuverability in the case of the Tessarakonteres, and extreme difficulty in launching.
The Egyptian obelisk barges provided no access to the hull below the deck, which would have been impossible in any case with the top deck covered by huge monoliths or obelisks. Egyptian sources mention many difficulties experienced by obelisk barge crews (running aground, foul weather, darkness, difficulties in towing), but never mention leakage as a problem, nor any 'bucket crews'. Egyptian construction techniques (studied in detail for over 100 years), didn't even include caulking like their European counterparts, since their method of construction resulted in a watertight seal which was actually assisted by the pressures on the hull (remember they used a completely different hull construction technique to the Europeans). This is all well documented in an abundance of scholarly sources such as 'An Analysis Of Tomb Reliefs Depicting Boat Construction From The Old Kingdom Period In Egypt' (Edward Rogers, 1996), and 'Boat-building and its social context in early Egypt: interpretations from the First Dynasty boat-grave cemetery at Abydos' (Cheryl Ward, Antiquity, 80 (2006): 118–129), which I have read and you clearly haven't.
What we know about the ancient ships is that they are documented to the academic standard of historicity, and that the academic sources I quoted meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. This is relevant because the entire point of the paragraph under question is to compare the size of the Ark to comparably sized wooden vessels (whether or not you think it could have survived the flood is irrelevant to this point).
As I have already noted, Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources do not require these ships to be documented as completely as 'the Wyoming and its peers', that is simply a fabrication of yours which you are repeating, and it is the only argument you are raising. Your personal interpretation of Genesis 6 is likewise irrelevant (as is mine, though I've kept mine out of this discussion). You are carrying out original research and representing it as fact, in an attempt to justify an objection to relevant information being included in this article from academic sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. I have borne with the discussion to this point, but now you are saying nothing new, and indicating that your only objections are personal, so the article will be amended as I have proposed. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming, part II

(This is a continuation of the previous thread, broken up to make navigation easier)

Put your proposed amendment here so we can discuss it. PiCo (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing it. It's the third paragraph in my original post in this section. We can play with the wording if you like but up to this point I've simply had to defend the very idea of such an amendment being made. The cartels which govern these articles are becoming ever more dictatorial. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'dictatorial' comment is verging on violating WP:AttackDoug Weller (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, I had another look at your third paragraph at the head of this section, but can't see anything that looks like a proposed amendment. To make clear what I mean, I'm asking you to put here the actual words you want to add to the article (or take away). And incidentally, I agree with Dougweller that a little more civility and a little less paranoia would make life better for all of us. PiCo (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought I had made it clear which words I wanted taken away from the article and which added. But if you want to read a verbatim rewrite, then I'll write something up and post it here as soon as I can. And incidentally, there is no 'paranoia' here. Edits to this article which illustrate arguments for the historicity of the flood narrative have been repeatedly resisted by a number of members here, and on no valid grounds whatsoever (claims and objections have even been fabricated in the process). This is not paranoia (how civil!), it is completely documented here in the Talk page. It's ironic that I'm accused of paranoia (would you call that a personal attack Dougweller?), when you've been able to get away with blocking a single amendment for almost a week on no valid grounds. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wyoming (schooner) article lists three lengths for the Wyoming: "450 ft (140 m) overall, 350 ft (110 m) on deck, 329.5 ft (100.4 m) between perpendiculars". The longest length is described as "from jibboom tip to spanker boom tip". As Noah's Ark (and the various barges) would not have had these features, it appears that we should be using the deck length, which is 350 feet (110 m). This still makes the Wyoming the longest documented wooden seagoing vessel ever built (river barges aren't a good comparison). I propose we add the word "seagoing", and mention the possible existence of (non-seagoing) river barges that were larger. Not quite sure what to do about the Tessarakonteres: Plutarch says "But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger". So, even if we assume it existed and was as big as claimed, its status as a "seagoing vessel" seems dubious (did it even venture out into the Mediterranean at all?) --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You're not saying anything which hasn't already been discussed. The issue in the paragraph under question is whether or not ships of analogous size have been built, not whether the Ark was a sea going vessel. Please see the previous discussion.
By the way, measuring the Wyoming from 'from jibboom tip to spanker boom tip' is exactly the wrong way to go about determining whether or not it is 'the longest documented wooden seagoing vessel ever built'. Ship length is measured from stern to prow, or by decklength, not from extremity to extremity:

'The most used measure in length for registering a ship is the "length of the topmost deck" - the :::"length on deck" (Lod) - 'measured from leading edge of stem post to trailing edge of stern post on deck level' :::or the "length between perpendiculars" (LPP, LBP) - 'measured from leading edge of stem post to trailing edge of :::stern post in the construction waterline (CWL)'.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read the previous discussion (why do you assume that I have not?). I have just agreed with you regarding the most appropriate way of measuring ship lengths, and edited the article to give the Wyoming's length as 350 feet ("deck length" is essentially the overall length of the boat, excluding spars: the most direct comparison with the overall length given for Noah's Ark). The largest comparable (documented) seagoing ship is clearly the Wyoming. Much of the discussion above is of dubious relevance, as it's about non-seagoing vessels: which is a very relevant issue, as the main hazard to a wooden hull is "sagging and hogging" due to ocean swells. This is the main factor limiting the size of wooden vessels. River barges (and even vessels on large lakes) don't face this problem. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think you had read the previous discussion because you simply restated what has already been said before, without addressing why it has previously been identified as irrelevant to the discussion. For example, you still claim that the Wyoming is 'the longest documented wooden seagoing vessel ever built', when it is not (I have already cited the relevant academic sources).
I apologize for misreading you, I read too quickly and I just spent several hours on a rewrite of the paragraph under discussion. I have now spent about four hours on it and it's still not complete, not because it's extraordinarily long, but because I am retaining all the information which was in the original paragraph as well as balancing it.
You insist on including the Wyoming (reference to which I am actually retaining), simply because it's a seagoing vessel and you assume the Ark was also. That's where you beg the question. But that aside, you're still comparing a 6 masted North American schooner to an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge. You can't say 'Well the Ark was a seagoing vessel, so it must have been built like a 19th century North American schooner, not an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge'. The Ark is, by any reconstruction of the given details, a barge. There's no getting around it. It is also an Ancient Near East vessel putatively made using Bronze Age technology. You can't get around that either. So comparing it to Ancient Near East vessels made using Bronze Age technology is comparing like to like. Comparing it with a 19th century North American tall masted schooner made using completely different construction techniques, is not.
You are free to argue 'The Ark was a Bronze Age timber barge, and such a barge would not have been seaworthy in the flood described by the Bible', but that's an entirely separate issue and if you wanted to include it in the article you would have to cite the arguments of others, not your own personal opinion or Original Research.
Yes, both sagging and hogging are typical problems faced by timber ships. But contrary to your claim, river barges and vessels on lakes do also face this problem. The lake bound Appomattox had a timber hull but metal bracing (such as metal keelsons and cross bracing), specifically to combat sagging and hogging. Likewise, Ancient Near East river barges did indeed suffer hogging and sagging, and were built specifically to withstand these forces. If you were familiar with the Egyptian river barges I have cited from sources such as 'An Analysis Of Tomb Reliefs Depicting Boat Construction From The Old Kingdom Period In Egypt' (Edward Rogers, 1996), and 'Boat-building and its social context in early Egypt: interpretations from the First Dynasty boat-grave cemetery at Abydos' (Cheryl Ward, Antiquity, 80 (2006): 118–129), you would know that one of their most distinctive features (and indeed one of their most remarkable technological achievements), is the use of incredibly large hogging trusses specifically to counter the very forces you claim river barges do not encounter. The hogging trusses are clearly visible overhead on this relief of Hatshepsut's barge, the largest recorded Egyptian obelisk barge.
Comparing Ancient Near East or even Classical age Greek and Roman timber vessels to 19th century English and North American tall masted timber vessels is completely invalid given the totally different construction techniques used (especially 'shell first' versus 'hull first'). Going by the 19th century 'Lloyd's Rules & Regulations for the Construction and Classification of Vessels' (used as a guide for shipbuilding), the Classical Greek triremes had a waterline length to hull depth ratio which was twice the supposed practical limit. The only way 19th century timber vessels were able to overcome this was with iron cross bracing and strapping. Yet the Greeks used no such reinforcements in their triremes, and should therefore have sunk every time they were launched (and remember, they were seagoing vessels). But not only did the triremes survive the seas despite breaking 'Lloyd's Rules' (breaching an alleged limit by 100%), they were among the most successful ships in the Ancient World. Clearly no one told the Greeks that their triremes couldn't float without iron cross bracing and strapping. The fact is that the Greek method of constructing triremes was totally different to the English method of constructing tall masted schooners and other timber vessels, so this supposed limit didn't actually apply to them. The mortise/tenon joinery and 'shell first' construction method they used (the same method used in ancient Mesopotamian and ancient Egyptian shipbuilding), overcame this problem without the need of the metal reinforcements, hence the amazing success of the Olympias trireme reconstruction, the construction of which which blithely ignored 'Lloyd's Rules' and breached them completely.
It's worth noting that English timber ships well over 200 feet in length were made possible not by metal reinforcement but by the use of cross bracing and hogging trusses, innovatively proposed by Robert Seppings (‘On the great strength given to Ships of War by the application of Diagonal Braces’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, pages 1-8, 1818), but already used for centuries in the Ancient Near East. Even Caligula's Nemi ships (at around 229 feet), were longer than typical English ships before Seppings' redesign, because of the different design and construction techniques they used (no iron reinforcements here either). Previously such sizes were considered totally impractical for timber vessels, but a change in English construction techniques raised the limit considerably. It's also worth nothing that whilst some timber ships of 300 feet in length leaked badly and suffered severe structural weaknesses, other timber ships even longer (like the Santiago at 336 feet in length), did not suffer from the same problems because of their different design. That's why it's important to carry out proper research of the topic, and compare like to like. This is a far more involved and complicated subject than the average Wiki keyboard warrior imagines. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Wow! Taiwan boi knows his ships! Nevertheless, where is it taking us? The Wyoming was the largest (longest) wooden-hulled ship for which comprehensive and reliable records exist. With all due respect to the historians of ancient shipping, they have to fill in with a lot of supposition and guess-work. And where do we end up? With ships all pretty much the same size. Except, of course, that we know some things about the Wyoming that we don't know about the ancient ships. We know she leaked badly. We don't know whether the ancient ships leaked, although we can assume so. How would the Ark, with only 4 crew members, all of them aged at least a hundred, have coped? (The wives could have helped, of course).

Incidentally, it's not quite true that the Ark was a Bronze Age vessel - the Bible clearly states that Tubal-Cain had already invented iron-working. And of course, when the entire world was covered with water, that must surely count as an ocean, and the Ark as an ocean-going ship. PiCo (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where it's getting us is demonstrating that objections raised as to why the Ark should be compared with Ancient Near East and Classical barges are fabricated. You are repeating once more your invalid point regarding the documentation of the Wyoming. The other ships mentioned are documented to the necessary academic standard. No we don't have to 'fill in with a lot of supposition and guesswork'. It is ridiculous that you, Robert, and Dougweller can sit here inventing random statements like this, whereas someone who is actually informed on the subject is simply ignored even when citing standard academic works which explain in detail all the relevant issues and contradict your objections. No we don't end up with 'ships all pretty much the same size'. Yes we know that the Wyoming leaked badly. But we also know that this was due to her construction techniques, design, and the stresses on her hull. Other ships didn't suffer from these problems. Speculation about how the Ark and its crew would have coped can be included in the article as long as it is cited from a notable source which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability (though it's probably in the article already).
I'm sorry, but your suggestion that the Ark was not a Bronze Age vessel because 'Tubal-Cain had already invented iron-working' is certainly not remotely credible. Please find me any relevant authority which says this. In any case you're simply increasing the level of technology available to Noah, not decreasing it, and that only increases the likelihood of the Ark's construction, which is the opposite of your aim.
Once more you claim the Ark must have been an ocean going vessel on the basis of your personal opinion that 'the entire world was covered with water'. Not only does this beg the question, it's irrelevant. As I have demonstrated repeatedly, the Ark was a barge and you cannot escape that fact. As I have also stated, you can certainly ask how a barge could survive a flood which apparently covered the entire world, but to have this included in the article you would have to cite a notable source which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In calm water, the only "hogging" force is the increased buoyancy of the midsection compared to the bow and stern. In the open ocean, there is also the effect of ocean swells, which don't occur on rivers or lakes. These alternately lift the midsection relative to the bow/stern, and lift the bow/stern relative to the midsection: see Hogging and sagging. And I still don't see where any seagoing ships have been mentioned which exceeded 350 feet in length: the Greek triremes weren't that large (and didn't traverse an ocean), the Santiago was shorter and not "seagoing", the Thalamegos was a riverboat, the Tessarakonteres might have qualified but its "seagoing" status is at best questionable. The Wyoming is still the largest wooden vessel in history (other than possibly the Chinese treasure ships) that was unquestionably built to withstand the full force of the ocean. It is the best analogy to Noah's Ark that we have available, in terms of what it would have to withstand: which is what that paragraph is all about (it is, after all, entitled "Seaworthiness"). The primary issue here is whether or not ANY wooden vessel (especially one without pumps and with a crew of 8) could plausibly have survived the Biblical Flood, regardless of how it was constructed (as the Bible gives us few details of that). The Ark was only a "barge" in the sense that it lacked motive power: it was a "ship" in other respects. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Originally you claimed barges didn't suffer from any hogging or sagging at all (they did, and the forces on a ship the size of an obelisk barge, carrying several hundred tons of cargo, were significant). Now at least you've realised you were wrong about that and you want to change the subject and talk about about ocean swells and seagoing ships. I have addressed this issue several times previously.
The Wyoming is not the largest wooden vessel in history (I have cited at least three academic authorities which say otherwise), and it is certainly not the best analogy to Noah's Ark that we have available, in terms of what it would have to withstand'. Noah's Ark was differently designed, differently constructed, did not have a huge set of 6 masts (the weight and leverage of which place huge stresses on the hull), nor a steam engine shaking the hull boards apart with constant vibration. The idea that a North American 6 masted schooner with a steam engine is 'the best analogy to an unpowered Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge doesn't even deserve a second glance. As I have also stated, you can certainly ask how a barge could survive a flood which apparently covered the entire world, but to have this included in the article you would have to cite a notable source which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability.
Once more I note that neither you, nor PiCo, nor Dougweller have provided anything in the way of authoritative verifiable academic sources for your arguments, you've simply made things up on the fly and invented a new objection every time I've disproved a previous objection. I have spent at least 30 hours on this discussion in the last week, including hours carefully checking my sources and references, and at the end of the week I'm receiving nothing more than the same ad hoc fabricated arguments unsubstantiated by any academic authorities that I was hearing at the beginning. I'm also still seeing the complete rejection of academic consensus and standard scholarly works. Until a new argument is raised which is appropriately substantiated from a scholarly consensus and academic works, there exists no reasonable objection whatever to the inclusion in the article of the material to which I have referred. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the seaworthiness (or otherwise) of the Ark isn't really a major issue, given the pretty overwhelming evidence that the Ark is fictional anyhow (in particular, because we're not talking about a real boat here, we need not get into too much detail about how real Mesopotamian shipbuilders built real Mesopotamian boats). There was no global Flood in historical times: and, while the story may well have been based on accounts of a local flood, this humongous vessel would not have been needed for that (Noah could simply have walked to safety with his family and livestock, and there would have been no need to preserve all species of wildlife). So, any actual boat involved in such an incident would not have been "Noah's Ark" as described in the Bible (maybe an ordinary river barge that happened to be available?), and arguments pertaining to its supposed size and construction would be moot. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this part is entirely personal opinion and valueless to the discussion. All you're doing is exposing your bias and demonstrating the real reason for your objections, which is that you personally don't believe in the historicity of the Ark, and want to suppress any information in this article which contributes to arguments for its historicity. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan Boi, your attitude is not at all helpful. Every post I have made to this discussion has stressed the importance of the word "seagoing", and I have pointed out the importance of "sagging and hogging" due to ocean swells. Not once have I ever claimed that river barges don't experience ANY "hogging" forces: so please stop trying to pretend that I don't know what I'm talking about. Also, the Wyoming IS still apparently the longest documented seagoing wooden vessel in history, and you have presented no counterexamples: so please stop claiming that you have done so. And the paragraph in question isn't about the feasibility of building a large wooden vessel: it's entitled "Seaworthiness". Furthermore, if you're now trying to claim that Noah's Ark only had to survive the same conditions that a river barge would have to survive, YOU are exposing a bias: choosing to ignore the Bible (the only primary source) in order to perform Eisegesis, projecting your own views (or the views of other modern apologists) into the Bible and into the article. Regardless of whether it was inspired by a local flood, the Biblical Flood (on which the Biblical Ark would have floated, if it had existed) was worldwide. This is clear from the context (the need to drown everyone except Noah's family, and the need to preserve breeding pairs of all life on Earth). It is also specifically stated in the Bible: "all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered". Yes, I know some apologists like to pretend that this could refer only to the "visible sky", arguing that the water might only extend to the horizon: but if you've researched this, you should know why this interpretation is incorrect. Now, I have no objection to mentioning other large wooden vessels, and I DO understand the differences between a 6-masted schooner and an unpowered barge: but I ALSO understand the differences between a river/lake barge and an oceangoing vessel. This article NEEDS the Wyoming. Initially, you tried to argue that it did not: "...this paragraph in the 'Noah's Ark' should not use the Wyoming as a comparison... And what about the reference to the Wyoming? Why it is it even in here... ...It still does not belong here as a point of comparison...". But I am glad to see you've had a change of heart: "You insist on including the Wyoming (reference to which I am actually retaining)..." We need the Wyoming because it was a seagoing vessel. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not being helpful? Have a look at this Talk page and see who is contributing constructively to the article and who isn't. Yes, I know you've been pushing your 'seagoing' barrow, and I have been explaining why it is irrelevant.
You didn't simply claim that the Wyoming is 'the longest documented seagoing wooden vessel in history' (as I pointed out, the Tessarakonteres was launched at sea), you also claimed more boldly later that the Wyoming was 'the largest wooden vessel in history', without any qualification at all.
You're making much of your reference to ocean swells with regard to hogging and sagging, if you only meant to refer to the hogging and sagging then your next sentence 'This is the main factor limiting the size of wooden vessels' is totally inaccurate, since it would only be 'the main factor limiting the size of ocean going wooden vessels'. If by 'River barges (and even vessels on large lakes) don't face this problem' you did not mean 'they do not face hogging and sagging', then I apologise, that was by no means clear. Previously you had even attempted to deny that the Ark was a barge, so it was very clear to me that you have little or no knowledge of the nautical engineering issues at hand, and this remains clear.
Yes the paragraph in question is about 'Seaworthiness' (though in both its original and current form it also discusses the practicality of building a timber vessel over 300 feet in length), and you're welcome to quote or cite any arguments from a notable source meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability, which makes any arguments concerning the Ark's seaworthiness. Hey, I've done this myself to save you the time! How about that? What you can't do is simply insert your own ideas, which constitute Original Research (not to mention personal opinion).
Yes I have a bias, which I have freely acknowledged in this Talk page. Other people haven't been so honest about their bias. But unlike other people, I don't permit my bias to affect negatively my contributions to the main article. You have yourself acknowledged the reasonableness of my proposed amendment, which gives equal weight to both skeptical and Christian arguments and retains all the information which was in the original paragraph. It does not make the article itself argue one way or the other, which is what the original paragraph attempted to do (see NPOV).
No the article does not 'need the Wyoming'. That is simply an expression of your personal bias. What the article needs is evidence that the Wyoming is relevant to certain arguments raised against the practicality and historicity of the Ark. I have provided that evidence, in the correct context and in the correct manner. I have cited it in the context of skeptical arguments against the practicality and historicity of the Ark, which actually use the Wyoming as an example. No, I haven't changed my mind and I still believe the Wyoming is an utterly ludicrous comparison, but because I don't let my personal bias to affect negatively my contributions to the article I have deliberately included reference to a skeptical article which uses the Wyoming as part of its argument against the practicality and historicity of the Ark. What the original article did (and which you want to do), was entirely improper, having the article itself argue against the practicality of the Ark using the Wyoming as a basis of comparison.
If you understand the difference between a 19th century North American 6 masted schooner and an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge, that's good (remember, previously you tried to deny that the Ark was a barge at all). You'll understand completely why comparing the two is invalid (they are built differently and thus experience different stress issues). As I've said, you can't deny that the Ark is explicitly defined as an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge. What you can do (as I have also said), is cite any arguments from a notable source meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability, which make any arguments that such a barge could not have been seaworthy on the basis of the failure of similar all timber barges. Do of course remember Caligula's 340 foot giant barge, which crossed the Mediterranean.
Your personal comments accusing me of Eisegesis constitute a personal attack, but that doesn't particularly concern me. I am fully aware of what the Biblical text does and does not say, and I am fully aware that the two earliest Jewish extant expositions of the flood (Josephus and Philo), both describe it as geographically local. I am also fully aware that the ancient Hebrews had absolutely no concept of the entire globe any more than they had any concept of the entire galaxy, and that analogous Ancient Near East texts used exactly the same apparently global language to describe what was obviously a local area (the Sumerians for example sometimes described their kingdom as 'the entire universe', despite knowing full well that there was something outside their kingdom). --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan Boi: again, why are you misrepresenting me, and stating falsehoods about me? This does seem to be a habit of yours, and does nothing to improve the tone of this discussion. At no point have I ever claimed that the Wyoming was the largest wooden vessel (of any sort) ever built: so please stop claiming that I have done so, when anyone reading this discussion can see that I have not. On every occasion I have either used the word "seagoing" or the expression "built to withstand the full force of the ocean". Stop blaming others for your own careless reading. Also, your statement "you can't deny that the Ark is explicitly defined as an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge" seems rather odd, as the Bible says no such thing, there is no historical record of the Mesopotamians (or the Hebrews, who wrote the Biblical version of the story) building anything of comparable size, and the multi-decked structure isn't characteristic of typical river barges. In particular, the vessels familiar to the Hebrews would probably have been fishing boats or simple rafts. And the opinions of Josephus and Philo, writing centuries later at a time when the size and roundness of the Earth was well-known among the educated, tells us little about what the Genesis author intended: what we know about the Shamayim (the actual Hebrew word used here) tells us much more. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware that I am misrepresenting you or stating any falsehoods about you. If you want to express yourself more clearly, please go right ahead. Previously you've leaped from one ad hoc argument to the next, whilst representing yourself as not having changed arguments (previously you claimed the Ark wasn't a barge at all, remember).
If you think it's odd to claim that the Ark is explicitly defined as an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge, please go and argue with the scholarly consensus. Remember, you'll have to take on quite a few atheists in the process, who will be annoyed at your attempts to move the Ark into a technologically more sophisticated age. The very suggestion that 'the vessels familiar to the Hebrews would probably have been fishing boats or simple rafts' is utterly ludicrous. It's clear you know nothing of Ancient Near East nautical history, still less that pertaining to early Israel. In the 10th century BCE Israel already had international trading routes using ocean going ships which traveled from one end of the Mediterranean to the other, and even outside the Mediterranean. Fishing boats or simple rafts indeed! You should stop just making things up to suit your prejudices and then representing them as facts to defend ad hoc arguments. That there's no evidence the Hebrews built anything of comparable size is irrelevant, since the Ark is not attributed to the Hebrews, it's attributed to a pre-Hebrew civilization in Mesopotamia. That there's no record of the Mesopotamian's building a barge of comparable size is equally irrelevant, what is relevant is whether they could. Hatshepsut's is the only large obelisk barge of which there is epigraphical evidence, yet we know that the Egyptians had to have built more than one given the number of obelisks and monuments they shipped. Prior to the discovery in the 20th century of Caligula's Nemi ships and giant barge, scholars ridiculed the idea that the Romans were even capable of building a ship even approaching 200 feet. They were proved completely wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Look up 'negative proof'.
The opinions of Josephus and Philo are relevant, because even if (as you claim), they knew of the 'size and roundness of the earth' (what has the 'roundness of the earth' to do with the flood?), this defeats your own argument since they still interpreted the flood as local. What they demonstrate is that this interpretation was not simply an apologetic invention of the 19th century, it is about the earliest extant Jewish interpretation of the flood on record. As for the ancient Hebrews, from whom the Ark narrative came, you've completely neglected the fact that they had no concept of the entire globe, and you've also ignored the fact that the language of the flood narrative has Ancient Near East analogues which agree with a local interpretation. You've thrown out the word Shamayim as if it has anything to do with the discussion, which it doesn't. That's a Hebrew word meaning 'heavens', and has nothing to do with what the Hebrews conceived of as the 'erets' (the word used in the Genesis narrative for the 'earth', or 'land'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the evidence that a giant barge built by Caligula crossed the Med? You wouldn't need it to transport an obelisk that was what, 106 feet long?Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've cited an authority below (predictably you rejected it, just as PiCo has rejected standard academic authorities). --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan boi, this is an article about Noah's ark - the one described in Genesis 6-9. It's not about Josephus's ark, or Philo's. It's about the one in Genesis. The flood in Genesis is global - it covered "all the high mountains", not some of them. It covered "all the high mountains under the skies", not all the high mountains in Babylonia. In short, it covered the entire world. It was not local. In fact it's very interesting to see what Genesis actually describes: iron-working had already been invented (Tubal-Cain), so it wasn't built with Bronze Age technology. It had no hull, despite the popular depictions - it was just a huge rectangular chest, flat on all sides (and there was a reason for that). Noah had somewhere between a week and 47 days to build it, and into that time he had to fit trips all over the world to collect the animals. And he was 600 years old, and he built it alone. That, and more, is the story in Genesis. Please stop inventing your own version. PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That is your personal interpretation of the account in Genesis, nothing more. You can disagree with my interpretation all you please, but don't represent the disagreement as significant in any way. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming, part III

(continuing the voyage of the good ship Wyoming)

Taiwan Boi: it is qite pointless to pretend that you have not misrepresented me, when your false claims are plain for all to see. You have falsely claimed that I said the Wyoming was the largest wooden vessel in history "without any qualification at all", when "...that was unquestionably built to withstand the full force of the ocean" is a major qualification! You are also falsely accusing me of "changing my argument" when I have actually argued consistently about the importance of seaworthiness on the open ocean rather than rivers etc.

If you meant that phrase to qualify the claim 'The Wyoming is still the largest wooden vessel in history', then I'll accept that (although it was certainly not clear to me), and apologize. I don't ever misrepresent you intentionally, so stop claiming I do. It's incredible that you want to try and claim the high moral ground given your behaviour in this talk page and your repeated fabrications (not to mention your numerous attempts to prevent scholarly information from being included in the article).
When I mentioned you changing your argument, I referred specifically to your comments regarding the Ark being an barge ('Previously you had even attempted to deny that the Ark was a barge'), nothing to do with it being an oceangoing ship. You are not reading my posts. Read my posts, please. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical Flood was not local: it covered all the high mountains under the sky, and there was no "horizon effect" in Hebrew cosmology (the sky is a dome over a flat Earth, the whole sky is visible from any point under it, the visible sky covers the whole world). Later apologetics don't change that (regardless of who is using them).

Now you're deliberately running from the fact that the ancient Hebrews had no concept of the entire planet, and trying to fabricate a new argument based on their cosmology of the sky. Once more you demonstrate an ignorance of the subject on which you're attempting to speak, and simply making things up as you go along. This is (ironically), typical Fundamentalist behaviour.
The Hebrews were very well aware or a 'horizon effect', whatever their understanding or explanation of it was. They knew full well that objects became more difficult to see at a distance, and eventually became impossible to see. They did not believe that anyone, standing anywhere on a level plain, could see the entire world. On the contrary, they understood that you could only see more by reaching a higher elevation, demonstrating a clear knowledge of the horizon effect. With regard to the 'whole sky', you've completely misunderstood the phrase to which you're appealing, which the Hebrews also used to refer to a limited local area (for example, in Deuteronomy 2:25 'the nations that are under the whole heaven' refers only to the nations in Canaan, see also ‘all flesh’ in Psalm 145:21, Isaiah 40:5; 66:23, Jeremiah 45:5, Ezekiel 20:48; 21:4, Joel 2:28 and ‘the face of the earth’, in Genesis 4:14; 41:56, Exodus 10:5, Numbers 11:31; 22:5, 11, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Ezekiel 34:5; 38:20).
As for 'apologetics', neither Philo nor Josephus was writing an 'apologetic' for the flood or the Ark, the historicity of which were completely accepted in their day not only by the Jews but by the Greeks and Romans. Josephus even cites approvingly the Roman deluge legend, pointing out that their description of the flood was also local. These men weren't attempting to write apologies for the flood and 'scale it down' for that purpose, they were simply commenting on the text as it read naturally to them. The fact that they didn't interpret it as global is a complete refutation of your claim that such an interpretation is merely ad hoc modern apologetics. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for Israel having "international trading routes with oceangoing ships": I presume you're conflating the Hebrews with the Phoenicians there, but in doing so you've torpedoed your own argument.

No I am not conflating the Hebrews with the Phoenicians. Clearly you're ignorant of this history as well. The 10th century Hebrews certainly had strong trading relations with the Phoenicians, but also had their own sea going fleets which traveled to distant destinations such as Tarshish and Ophir. See for example 'Seafaring and the Jews' (edited by Nadav Kashtan, 2001), 'A Hebrew Seal Depicting a Sailing Ship' (Nahman Avigad, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 246, (Spring, 1982), pages 59-62), and 'Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East' (Robert Stieglitz, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 47, No. 3, (Sep., 1984), pages 134-142). I should be charging a tuition fee for the amount I’m having to teach you about history here on Wikipedia. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though the Flood story was originally Sumerian, this differed in many ways from the Genesis version: and the Genesis version was written by the Hebrews, who (by your own argument) were familiar with oceangoing SHIPS (and even the vessels the Hebrews were themselves accustomed to building, in their coastal fishing ports, would have been primarily boatlike rather than bargelike). So why should they concieve of the Ark as a "Mesopotamian river barge" if they were familiar with oceanging vessels that were not built like Mesopotamian river barges?

I’m glad you acknoweldge the many differences between the Genesis flood narrative and the other ANE flood narratives (a point I address further below). But you've actually forgotten your previous argument (or else simply abandoned it). Previously you claimed that 'the vessels familiar to the Hebrews would probably have been fishing boats or simple rafts', in order to argue that they would not have conceived of the Ark as a barge. Having been proved wrong on that point, you're hastily dumping that argument and switching to a new one, that they were familiar with 'oceangoing vessels', but that since these vessels were 'not built like Mesopotamian river barges', they would not have conceived of the Ark as a river barge.
This is a ludicrous argument given the clear description of the Ark as a barge. Just look at the dimensions and shape. You can't get around it. Why would the Hebrews have conceived of the Ark as a barge? Because that's what the entire purpose of the vessel was! Why would they conceive of it as a Mesopotamian river barge? Because that’s exactly what everyone used to carry massive loads within the Mesopotamian flood plain! The very shape of the vessel indicates that the Hebrews conceived of it NOT as a fully rigged seagoing clipper with a team of rowers, but as a massive cargo barge. This is internal evidence that the flood narrative was understood to refer to a local event. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your whole argument hinges on the belief that the story was based on an actual giant wooden vessel that was actually built in ancient Mesopotamia, rather than a fictional giant wooden vessel written about by people who would more likely have envisaged a giant oceangoing vessel as a scaled-up Phoenician ship!

My argument doesn't hinge on that at all. My argument is simply that the way to test the Ark's practicality is to compare it with ANE analogues, which is exactly what I am doing. This requires no unwarranted assumptions, no personal faith beliefs, and does not even prove the Ark was ever built. Your claim that the Hebrews would 'more likely have envisaged a giant oceangoing vessel as a scaled-up Phoenician ship' contains the unwarranted assumption that the Hebrews believed the Ark was an oceangoing vessel, and completely ignores the fact that the dimensions and shape of the Ark are absolutely nothing like any of the oceangoing vessels well known to the Hebrews. It's not just a 'scaled up' Phoenecian vessel, it's a completely different shape. It's a barge, and I know of absolutely no recognized academic commentary (whether religious or secular), which even attempts to describe or reconstruct it as anything else. You're simply making things up to fit your prejudices. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, IIRC, the Sumerian/Babylonian Ark was more like a giant box than a "river barge". But this is an article primarily about Noah's Ark, from the Hebrew Book of Genesis: not the ark of Ut-Napishtim or whoever. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Sumerian or Akkadian arks are described, either in terms of size or shape. You're thinking of the much later Assyrian 'ark' described in Tablet XI, inserted into the Gilgamesh Epic by Assyrian scribes in about the 7th century, which was a 55x55x55 meter cube. The Genesis flood narrative clearly did not use the Sumerian or Akkadian descriptions, since neither of them describe shape or dimensions, and clearly did not use the late Assyrian description either, since the Genesis narrative describes a vessel which is totally different in size and shape. The Assyrian flood narrative is the most wildly unrealistic and exaggerated of all the Ancient Near East flood narratives, and was clearly written by someone who had no clue whatever about the practicalities involved. There are only 2 days to build a completely enclosed cube of wood or reeds (55x55x55 meters), full of animals, people, silver and gold, as well as thousands of measures of oil, without tension trusses, with 9 rooms in seven decks, which must survive heavy storms for 6 days (which has to cover Mesopotamia using only 6 days of rain), equipped with punting poles for propulsion and steering (which cannot be used), handled by a man who cannot see where he is going while the ship is under way and who sends out the wrong birds to sight for land.

There isn’t enough time to build the ship, or for the rain to flood Mesopotamia. The ship’s shape and dimensions are nothing like ships either of the early Mesopotamian era or even of the later Assyrian era, it's totally impractical for use on any body of water at all (inland or at sea), and the ship wouldn’t have the strength to survive the heavy storms described in the narrative (’the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land... the storm was pounding, the flood was a war’). The punting poles could not have been used in a ship which is completely enclosed, the navigator can’t see anything while the ship is under way, only opens a hatch after the ship has run aground, and is completely unqualified for the task, showing an ignorance of standard nautical procedures. The Genesis flood narrative is nothing like this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's another rather crucial problem with your argument: the civilization that allegedly built the Ark was wiped out in the Flood. And even though the "Mesopotamians" known to the Genesis authors were considered to be the descendants of Noah: so was everyone else. There would have been nothing specifically, culturally "Mesopotamian" about the Ark-builders. If we assume Genesis is true, then Noah and his culture were just as much Greek, Chinese, Olmec etc. as "Mesopotamian". The agument only works for a local flood that didn't wipe out the actual Mesopotamian culture: and that contradicts Genesis. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're manufacturing a problem which doesn't actually exist by insisting that the Genesis flood narrative must be referring to a global flood. In order to assert this you have been reduced to fabricating the claim that the people who wrote the Genesis flood narrative had a level of scientific knowledge which they simply did not have (as has been well documented). Once more I note a complete lack of any academic references in your posts on this matter. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Utnapishtim's vessel was a model of a Babylonian ziggurat (it wasn't actually a cube, it was a pyramid), it's 7 levels corresponding to the 7 heavens; Noah's ark is a model of the idealised Temple in Jerusalem described in Ezekiel's vision, its 3 levels corresponding to the 3-fold levels of Creation described in Genesis 1 (and the Temple itself is a model of the world, long and thin as conceived by the Egyptians and Canaanites rather than circular or square as conceived by the Babylonians).
What does 'Ten dozen cubits the height of each of its walls, ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck' mean to you'? That's a 120x120 cubit cube. Note that the deck is 'square', and it is 'ten dozen cubits' along each edge. The deck being the top floor, this cannot be a pyramid. See 'Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods' (Raphael Patai, 1998, page 3), 'Middle Eastern Mythology' (SH Hooke, 2004, page 47), 'The Pentateuch: A Story Of Beginnings' (Paula Gooder, 2005, page 41), 'The Names of God' (Herbert Chanan Bricht, 1998, page 117, note that Bricht actually argues that the Assyrian flood narrative is supposed to be a comedy), 'The Creation: Secular, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim Perspectives' (Everette Jenkins, 2003, page 278), and any number of other standard works in the field which identify the 120x120 cubits as a cube. You are probably thinking of Origen's interpretation of Noah's Ark as a great pyramid. If you aren't, then wherever you found this 'Utnapishtim's vessel was a pyramid' idea, it's almost certainly fringe and not represented by the majority of mainstream literature. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither Utna nor Noah needed navigation - they both had God to guide them.
Clearly you haven't read either narrative. In the Assyrian Tablet XI Utnapishtim equips his ship with punting poles, which cannot possibly be used if you can't see where you're going (clearly the intention was that he should know which way he is going, but the rest of the story contradicts this), and they can't be used in an entirely enclosed cube in any case (unless there were punters hanging off the side of the ship). Not only that, but there is no mention whatever (in either Tablet XI or the Genesis narrative), of Utnapistim or Noah being 'guided by God' (you seem completely unaware that there are many gods in the Tablet XI narrative, not just one 'God'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Utna had 2 days to build his ark, Noah had a week to a month (tho Noah had the additional task of travelling all over the world collecting the animals - he must have thanked God that the birds came unaided). The waters for Noah's flood came from the cosmic ocean which surrounds the world (that's why God opens the "windows of heaven" - to let in the outer waters); God does this on the 2nd month (corresponding to the 2nd day of Creation, when the firmament which keeps them out was put in place - God is now removing the separation between the world and the outer waters), and rose until the 7th month, at which point the Ark, like God on the 7th day, rests (and Noah's name also means "Rest"); the waters then fall for 7 more months, completing the cycle of two sets of seven, each mirroring the 7 days of Creation in Genesis 1. Does this really sound like a description of a historical event, or even a memory of a legendary one?
This is all simply personal opinion mixed with a few bits and pieces of various different interpretations, but all of it is irrelevant to the discussion between Robert Stevens and myself. As I've already demonstrated, your claim that Noah had a week to a month to build the Ark is totally inaccurate (the Genesis narrative says no such thing), and so is your claim that Noah had to travel all over the world to collect the animals (again, the Bible says no such thing).
A number of the other ideas you mentioned are also fringe, especially the alleged parallels between the Ark and the Hebrew cosmology and Temple. I see you've simply ripped off Holloway ('What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology', 1988), without checking the facts or considering the criticism. How many scholars out there agree with Holloway? Well, you wouldn't know (have you read any of the standard criticism?). Others claim the Ark is modeled on the Tabernacle, not the Temple! Of course, when you're making it all up as you go along then you can say what you like. Maybe the Ark is modeled on the box which Josiah put out for the Temple reconstruction fund! There's no consensus even on which parts of the Genesis flood narrative were the product of which source, or which dates, and some would place the description of the Ark's dimensions in the pre-Temple era. The numerical 'parallels' you list are demonstrably contrived (though I've seen worse), following the usual practice of 'grab the numbers which fit the theory and ignore the rest', hence the selection of the '2nd month' as if it's significant, whilst totally ignoring the '17th day', there's no mention at all of the 40 days and nights of the rain falling, nor the 40 days of the flood engulfing the earth (despite the fact that 40 is one of the most oft used representative/theological numbers in the Old Testament), no mention of the 150 days, the 7th month is identified as significant though the 17th day is ignored (again, selective reading), the connection between God 'resting' on the 7th month and Noah's name is imaginary (there is no mention of the waters rising until the 7th month, and the significance of the meaning of Noah's name has already been identified in Genesis 5:29), and no mention of the waters taking seven months to recede.
That the Genesis flood narrative is told using various chiastic constructions and stylized narrative features is certainly not disputed. That this means it is not a historical record, is simply ludicrous. If that's what you believe then you certainly are not familiar with what is 'well-established in the scholarly literature'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the Bible is full of wonky numbers - there are 20 generations from Adam to Abraham, corresponding to 20 kings from Solomon, who built the Temple, to its destruction, etc etc. And if you think there really were 20 kings of Judah, what about the odd fact that there are also 20 kings of Israel - and each list is interrupted at number 7 by an Evil Queen? (Coincidence, sheer coincidence). All this is well-established in the scholarly literature, and I'm surprised taiwan boi seems not to be aware of it.PiCo (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There are scholarly terms for the use of numbers as ritual, symbolic, or narrative devices, and 'wonky' is not one of them. Please do a little reading before you try to speak on the subject (and preferably a little learning).
You slide in 'All of this is well-established in the scholarly literature', as if you're referring to everything you've written (I hope you weren't, as this actually applies to almost nothing you've written). In the list of the kings of Judah the 'wicked queen' Athaliah comes in at number seven, but in the list of the kings of Israel there are no wicked queens ruling at all, in the entire list of 19 monarchs (sorry, Ahab was on the throne not Jezebel, there was no 'interruption' of the monarchy by a 'wicked queen', check the standard king lists). So that's 21 kings for Judah (not 20), 19 kings for Israel (not 20), and only one 'wicked queen' ruling in the entire list of 40 monarchs. Do you even bother to check what you read? Apparently not. So much for 'coincidence' and so much for what you think is 'well-established in the scholarly literature'.
When it comes to Noah's Ark and the Genesis flood narrative there is surprisingly little which is 'well-established in the scholarly literature', as consensus on most interpretative issues doesn't even exist. If you meant 'All of these ideas are found aired within the full range of scholarly literature', I would agree with you. That's something of which I’m very well aware, contrary to your entirely unsubstantiated claim (I have a personal collection of 25 scholarly journals on my computer alone, not to mention my access to JSTOR). I've read all kinds of interpretations of the Genesis flood narrative in the scholarly literature, from the rational to the simply idiotic, and it's clear from your posts in this Talk page (and your list of edits of Bible related pages, together with people's various objections), that your sympathies are with the latter. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan Boi: I see that your fabrications are continuing. I didn't merely "mean" to qualify my claim, I DID qualify my claim. And now you've added a bogus charge of "repeated fabrications" (where?) and "numerous attempts to prevent scholarly information from being included in the article" (where?). There is a saying: "when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, it's time to stop digging".
And you're still insisting that Noah's Ark was a "Mesopotamian river barge" despite NO reason whatsoever to assume that this was how the Hebrews envisaged it, and completely disregarding every indication to the contrary! And I certainly never claimed that the Ark was "fully rigged" or had a "team of rowers": only that there is no indication that it would have used the same construction techniques (hull design etc) as the Mesopotamians used for their river barges. And the assumption of a worldwide Flood (and hence an ocean) is certainly not "unwarranted", and indeed the story makes no sense otherwise (you evidently cannot explain why Noah needed to build an Ark rather than simply leave the area, or why Noah had to preserve breeding pairs of all the wildlife: after a local flood, new wildlife would move in from the surrounding area MUCH more quickly than single breeding pairs could replenish it). BTW, you have misunderstood the "horizon effect", which is NOT merely the observation that you can't see forever: it is a specific phenomenon that is dependent on a round Earth, which the Hebrews had no concept of. And under Hebrew cosmology, the entire SKY can indeed be seen from anywhere, even if the entire EARTH cannot (unless part of the sky-dome is hidden behind a nearby mountain or whatever: but as the Flood covered "all the high mountains", this clearly cannot apply here). Therefore all the world under the sky-dome is... well, the whole world.
You have also failed to address my argument that the civilization that allegedly built the Ark was wiped out in the Flood (and was therefore not the same civilization that you know of as "Mesopotamian"). This argument is NOT specifically a global-flood argument: if we assume that Genesis is true but the Flood is nevertheless local, then the purpose of the Flood was to WIPE OUT that civilization. If that civilization survived, then God FAILED in his stated purpose. There are (at least) two versions: one is that all humanity lived in the affected region, and the other is that God wasn't targeting those humans who lived elsewhere: but the civilization from which Noah came would have been wiped out. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwanboi, I really do wonder what it is you're reading - I gather you're an undergraduate at a small bible college somewhere in America, so you should be becoming increasingly acquainted with at least some of the literature.
I know a bluff when I see one PiCo, and in this case we both know that I'm the one who regularly reads the standard academic journals, when you're a freelance journalist who doesn't. You found Holloway somewhere online, ripped off bits and pieces of his work (without attribution, to make it seem as if this was some kind of scholarly consensus), and you're not even aware of the standard criticisms (I myself kicked it apart in 15 minutes). You didn't even stop to check basic facts such as the dimensions and shape of Utnapishtim's vessel. No I am not 'an undergraduate at a small bible college somewhere in America', I've never even lived in the US and I graduated about 12 years ago (not from 'a small bible college', but from a standard secular university). I'm also far more studied and well read on this subject than you are (not to mention better academically qualified).
You know the kind of works I'm reading, because unlike everyone else here I've cited and quoted a wide array of mainstream scholarly works. A list of what I am reading would take up a page on its own, but suffice it to say that it includes William G Dever, Thompson L Thompson, Israel Finkelstein, Philip Davies, Niels Lemche, BibSac, Vetus Testamentum, and JNES. Even you should know that this is where the mainstream scholarly Bible commentary is to be found. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the consensus among mainline bible scholars (as distinct from those popular in evangelical colleges in the American boondocks) is that there never was a Flood or Ark, and that the first 11 chapters of Genesis don't represent real history.
Another carefully unqualified statement. The consensus among mainline Bible scholars is that there was a flood, and possibly an ark (both of which came down to the Biblical authors by way of older sources), and that the first 11 chapters of Genesis contain certain historical details from earlier oral or textual traditions. So what? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The theories you advance (they seem to be OEC) are definitely marginal.
That's another attempt at a bluff, simply because I exposed your use of fringe arguments (you didn't even know you were so wrong about the king lists and the 'wicked queens', did you?). Most of the arguments I've raised are in fact completely mainstream, and as a regular reader of the mainstream journals I'm in a position to know (I'm also perfectly aware which arguments are marginal). This is highly ironic coming from someone who tried to foist Holloway on me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(Frankly, I have more respect for YEC views that OEC - once you start down the OEC path of picking out particular bits to believe and rejecting others, you start down the slippery slope that leads to Lemche and Whitlam) PiCo (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how many people have no understanding of the modern historiographical method. Look over at the Battle of Kadesh page for an example of what you call 'picking out particular bits to believe and rejecting others', and what modern scholarship calls 'correct historiographical method'. By the way, Lemche and Whitlam arrive at different conclusions, on the basis of different methodologies (but clearly you didn't know that either). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't quite a bluff - I was wondering whether your academic qualifications are so solid as you would have us believe.

It was certainly a bluff, because you were trying to give the impression of a lot more knowledge than you have, and trying to give the impression that the views you were giving belonged to some kind of consensus. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to lay the cards on the table: I have a PhD in history (dissertation on the breakup of the British Raj), served in the Australian diplomatic service for 18 years (I was Charge in Baghdad in 1990 - that was fun!), then went to the UN as a political officer in South Africa (the 1994 elections), Iraq, and finally Morocco, before retiring. My journalism is more in the nature of a hobby than a career - I don't earn my income from it. So that's me. What about you? Why so coy about your background?

In other words, you're a retiree whose last scholarly work was more than 30 years ago and wasn't related to this field, you dabble in the articles here on the Old Testament despite the fact that 'my interest in the OT is fairly minimal', despite the fact that you have no relevant qualifications, despite the fact that you don't keep up with any of the scholarly journals, you don't know mainstream from fringe, your reading on the subject is almost completely limited to what you can Google in your idle moments, and you have a history of people objecting to your self-interested edits to Wiki pages on the Bible and related subjects,
I haven't been 'coy' about my background. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I've simply rejected your inaccurate description of me. I have a double classics major and that's it (at least it's relevant to Biblical studies). My Masters degree is in information management, and I'm still completing it (though my training in this field is the major reason why I'm far better at the proper research and use of academic data than you are). I haven't claimed any specific qualifications in this field. I've simply pointed out that I'm better informed on it than you are, and better academically qualified for it as well (and what do you know, it turned out to be true). For someone with a PhD in history, you made an incredibly ignorant comment regarding historiography. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe that someone like Ken Kitchen is a mainstream authority (he's actually quite marginal)?

I never said any such thing. Read what I wrote:

A list of what I am reading would take up a page on its own, but suffice it to say that it includes William G Dever, Thompson L Thompson, Israel Finkelstein, Philip Davies, Niels Lemche, BibSac, Vetus Testamentum, and JNES. Even you should know that this is where the mainstream scholarly Bible commentary is to be found.

But yet again we have a completely unqualified statement from you. Kitchen is most certainly a mainstream authority in the field of Egyptology and ancient Semitic inscriptions. But you wouldn't know that (I own and have read his works, you do not and have not). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist that the 2-sources-in-theFlood-narrative is contested, when it's universally accepted?

I wasn't actually the one who said this. Read the posts, please. I said very explicitly 'I am not contesting the use of multiple sources in the flood narrative' and 'For what it's worth I personally believe the entire Pentateuch is the product of multiple sources' (you're as bad as Robert Stevens, he almost never reads my posts properly). But however you want to define 'contested', the fact is that it's not 'universally accepted'. Surely you must know that there are almost as many theories on this as there are scholars. If you had read any of the criticism of Holloway for example, you would have found three source theories. I personally hold to one of the multi-source theories as I have been very clear to state, though I believe the narrative as it has come down to us is one literary unit (if you had read Thompson L Thompson on Genesis-Exodus as a literary unit you would have understood this). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but of course, I already know the answer: you're an OEC, well out of the mainstream yourself!

Ah, but you're wrong! You're simply trying to turn the discussion to me in order to avoid the academic sources I've quoted. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Incidentally, a lady doesn't have to reign to be a queen, she just has to have a husband in the right line of work - Jezebel was the Wicked Queen of Israel...and there were 20 kings of Israel and of Judah: this isn't my personal theory, it's a well-known puzzle in the Good Book - well known to everyone except, apparently, you...) PiCo (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation, 'Ooops, that was a bad mistake, now I'll have to try and dig myself out with more bluffing'. You said interrupted, remember? You can't dig yourself out of that. Find me a scholarly regnal list which replaces Ahab with Jezebel (you both know we won't find one). Athaliah was certainly an interruption, Jezebel most certainly was not. I didn't claim that '20 kings of Israel and of Judah' was your invention, on the contrary I said it was something you had read somewhere and accepted uncritically (as I have pointed out, standard academic king lists differ from this claim). The only real 'puzzle' with regard to the regnal lists is not to do with the number of kings, it's to do with the regnal years (see Thiele, etc). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose this does also raise the question of just how divorced Taiwan Boi's "mainstream Biblical scholarship" is from other mainstream historical (and other) scholarship.
It isn't (not that you would know what constitutes 'mainstream scholarship' any more than PiCo):

A list of what I am reading would take up a page on its own, but suffice it to say that it includes William G Dever, Thompson L Thompson, Israel Finkelstein, Philip Davies, Niels Lemche, BibSac, Vetus Testamentum, and JNES. Even you should know that this is where the mainstream scholarly Bible commentary is to be found.

This is why I'm better informed on the subject than you are. I read the current literature. You don't. You don't even know what's mainstream and what isn't. I spend a lot of time here correcting your errors and exposing your fabrications, and you just keep blithely continuing regardless. From your Talk page, it's clear I'm not the only one who has experienced your special brand of editing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Israel definitely had a seafaring tradition because Solomon (unknown to history), in Israel's "golden age" (unknown to history), traded with Ophir (apparently about as historical as Atlantis or Eldorado)? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot believe I am reading this. Firstly that is not what I said. Secondly I cited no less than three academic sources as support for what I said (predictably, you simply ignored them):

See for example 'Seafaring and the Jews' (edited by Nadav Kashtan, 2001), 'A Hebrew Seal Depicting a Sailing Ship' (Nahman Avigad, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 246, (Spring, 1982), pages 59-62), and 'Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East' (Robert Stieglitz, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 47, No. 3, (Sep., 1984), pages 134-142).

Thirdly Solomon is not 'unknown to history' (again you demonstrate an ignorance of historiography), and nor is Israel's 'golden age' (even Dever says this). Fourthly Ophir is not 'apparently about as historical as Atlantis or Eldorado'. This is precisely what I mean by fabrications. You don't have any knowledge of this subject, and you just make things up as you go along, totally ignoring all scholarly work and academic authorities. At least PiCo acknowledges the scholarly work and academic authorities, he just keeps insisting that they're wrong and he's right (except when he needs one, then he'll find a fringe article by someone like Holloway and try and represent it as the mainstream consensus). By the way, I noticed you eagerly made a completely inaccurate post about what I had written concerning the Assyrian flood narrative, and then had to embarrassingly delete it all because you suddenly realised that you hadn't read my post properly. Let that be a lesson. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Good grief. According to Dever, "The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence". So, no "golden age" as presented in the Bible. And, of course, there is no consensus that anything from Solomon's reign has ever been found. Incidentally, Dever has more recently said "I wrote to frustrate Biblical minimalists, then I became one of them"... --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I see all you've done is visit the Wikipedia page on Dever, and quickly copy/paste a couple of sentences. Well, that's all I should have expected. Not only is there no rational argument here, you've completely misrepresented Dever because you havne't actually read his works (as I have), and you don't know what he actually argues (which I do). This is precisely what I mean by fabrications. You don't have any knowledge of this subject, and you just make things up as you go along, totally ignoring all scholarly work and academic authorities.
For your information, although Dever believes that the Biblical histories contain exaggerations and embellishments, he still argues for the historicity of Solomon, that he did preside over a 'golden age' (though less glorious than the Biblical descriptions would appear to say), and specifically argues that the most glorious achievement of Solomon (the huge and ornate temple), was a genuine historical building. Here are some actual quotes from Dever ('What Did The Biblical Authors Know, And When Did They Know It?', 2002):
  • 'We have used this evidence of centralization at Gezer, as well as at Hazor and Meggido, as proof of a Solomonic "state" in the 10th century' (page 133)
  • 'The Solomon-Shishak destruction-layer synchronism is so secure that most archaeologists take it for granted, arguing at most over exactly which layer in a given mound is the best candidate for Shishak's raid' (page 137)
  • 'Indeed, the "fabulous" nature of Solomon's temple in the Bible is largely what prompts the revisionists and others to dismiss it as a figment of later writers' and editors' imaginations, fired by the old legends the "Golden Age of Solomon". But is the biblical temple really "fabulous", that is, nothing but a fable? Hardly. It might have been regarded so a generation ago; but the fact is that we now have direct Bronze and Iron Age parallels for every single feature of the "Solomonic temple" as described in the Hebrew Bible, and the best parallels come from, and only from, the Canaanite-Phoenician world of the 15th-19th centuries' (page 145)
  • 'Before leaving Solomon, perhaps a bit diminished now, let me emphasize that every single detail of the Bible's complicated description of the Jerusalem temple can now be corroborated by archaeological examples from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Ages. There is nothing "fanciful" about 1 Kgs. 6-8' (page 155)
Once again you are attempting to speak on a subject concerning which you know nothing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
...And as for those Bible verses: "With regard to the 'whole sky', you've completely misunderstood the phrase to which you're appealing, which the Hebrews also used to refer to a limited local area (for example, in Deuteronomy 2:25 'the nations that are under the whole heaven' refers only to the nations in Canaan, see also ‘all flesh’ in Psalm 145:21, Isaiah 40:5; 66:23, Jeremiah 45:5, Ezekiel 20:48; 21:4, Joel 2:28 and ‘the face of the earth’, in Genesis 4:14; 41:56, Exodus 10:5, Numbers 11:31; 22:5, 11, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Ezekiel 34:5; 38:20)." Is that more "mainstream Biblical scholarship"? There's a surprising amount of obvious eisegesis in there: verses which make perfect sense given the small-world view of the Hebrews (e.g. hoping that God would be feared/worshipped by all nations) but can't really be applied to a local area of the world without injecting knowledge that the Middle East was a small region, plus obvious ignoring of context (e.g. references to stuff covering the "face of the Earth" in Israel or Egypt, clearly indicated in a previous verse). If this is "mainstream Biblical scholarship", it's in a terrible state... --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again you demonstrate a breathtaking ignorance of the subject and standard works. There is no 'eisegesis' here. It is well known that the Israelites had no concept of the entire planet, and that such phrases as these were often used for a limited location (you can't get around such passages as Deuteronomy 2:25, which is specific to Canaan). You've even shot yourself in the foot acknowledging that a number of these passages make it clear that 'the whole earth' or 'the face of the earth' refer to a local area such as Israel or Egypt. Yet you claimed they were always universal, and necessarily indicated a knowledge of and reference to the entire planet. Now you're backflipping completely. And still no academic sources cited by you, I see. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the text expresses the wish that the campaign against the Caananites will be the beginning of what will eventually be a reign of terror over the whole world. There is no indication to the contrary.
What a bizarre interpretation. Talk about 'fringe'. I've never even heard that before. How about you publish it in a peer reviewed journal? I'm sure people will be interested to know that the specific boundary limited land defined in explicit detail as a particular area of Canaan really meant 'the beginning of what will eventually be a reign of terror over the whole world'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No such limit is specified for Deuteronomy 2:25, which is quite distinct in tone from the surrounding verses. It comes after a list of conquered nations, refers to this as the beginning of a greater process (that would eventually cover the world), and then the author gets back to more immediate matters and starts talking about messengers (and eventually gets back to the typical bloodshed).
This is completely false (and only your interpretation in any case). It's a quote from Moses' own words concerning their initial conquests of the Canaanites, and in fact speaks of what had already happened in the past. The entire section is speaking of their entry into the land and their conquest of the inhabitants. As I have pointed out, the borders of the land are clearly demarcated. There is no 'reign of terror over the whole world'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And I note that you have not cited a single authority in support of your claim that this verse doesn't mean exactly what it says. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you want me to? How many do you want? Every time you attempt to make this claim in an argument I bury you in references and you then proceed to ignore them. Given that you never cite any yourself, this is irony indeed. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is no "backflip" here (stuff can cover the ground anywhere), and you're not even using the right Hebrew phrase anyhow (under the whole sky etc).

Of course there's a backflip. You previously claimed this language had to be universal not local, now you've acknowledged it is local. These phrases are relevant because they demonstrate the Hebrews used a range of apparently universal terms for local areas, substantiating my argument and ruining yours. Now do this article a favour for a change, and go and read my latest proposal. --Taiwan boi (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand which phrase is being used for which purpose in Genesis. The definitive whole-Earth phrase is not "face of the Earth" (that's just water covering the ground: context indicates what part of the "face" is being covered by something), it's "under the whole sky" (i.e. every part of the world below the sky-dome). --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...But we've gone far into WP:NOTAFORUM territory by now, I've long since lost track of what all this has to do with the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Documentary Hypothesis" section and projected new section on contemporary scholarship

I have deleted the rather long additions on the structure of the narrative. These had grown up on the end of the Secular Scholarship section, but had the effect of detracting from the original intention of that section, which was to describe the role of the Ark narrative in the development of secular biblical criticism during the 19th century. The Ark story played a very important role in the Higher Criticism (as it was called at the time - the term is distinctly frowsy today), and deserves to be treated in its own right. Indeed, the entire articler takes a historical approach - it begins by setting out the narrative itself, then runs through the three major religious interpretations in chronological order, then moves on to describe the impact of the Enlightenment and the European exploration of the Americas. Irt was meant to move then to the 19th century and the development of secular biblical scholarship, as I mentioned above, but recent additions have destroyed the clarity of this structure. So I've renamed the section as Documentary Hypothesis and restricted it to the DH alone.

What's needed now is a new section on contemporary knowledge about the Ark narrative. I believe this should touch on the following points (and I put these ideas here for discussion with other editors):

  • The ANE context of the Ark story - meaning the Babylonian and possibly Egyptian stories behind it
  • The literary analysis of the narrative - it's place in the Primeval History, the role of chiasmus, etc.
  • Its theological meaning - by which I mean the meaning it held for its original audience.

I'd be glad to have input on these ideas. PiCo (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds sensible to me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted because the extensive deletions included much more than just the referenced discussion of the "structure" of verses, which appears only at the very end of the removed section. Much more crucial and reliably referenced information was also removed. (When I saw the summary at first I thought something about the physical dimensions of the ark had been removed, but I looked a little more closely) But at any rate, the information in question is all properly referenced and should not be suddenly removed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Til, I'm not proposing the permament deletion of this material but it's removal to a new section which will take in a rather wider range of subjects, summarising contemporary thinking on the Noah's Ark narrative. PiCo (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well, it would be much more preferable if you do not "temporarily remove" something until you are ready to replace it somewhere else. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

The following is my proposed rewrite of the section 'Seaworthiness'. Please note that it retains the information which was in the original version of this section, and actually adds superior references (including two new atheist Websites, one of which specifically cites the Wyoming and Great Republic). Please also note (and note well), that it does not argue for the practicality of the Ark, it simply notes Christian apologetic arguments for the practicality of the Ark. I repeat, please note this well because I do not want to have to spend hours saying this three or four times to people who don't read properly.

*Seaworthiness: The Ark is described as 300 cubits long, the cubit being a unit of measurement from elbow to outstretched fingertip. The ancient cubit was from 17.5 inches to 21.5 inches, giving a length in the range 437.5 feet (133 m) to 537.5 feet (164 m);[6]. As a result, many different assessments of the Ark's length have been posited. An extreme length of 680 feet was suggested in the 19th century,[7] but most earlier estimates were considerably shorter than this. The dimensions are generally understood as indicating that the Ark was over 400 feet long. Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long, [8], whilst other Christian sources posit slightly smaller dimensions,[9] or merely cite the cubits in the Biblical account without calculating the size in modern terms.[10]. With a generally agreed on length of over 400 feet, the Ark was noted as late as the 19th century as 'larger than any modern ship'.[11] It has been pointed out by skeptics of the Genesis narrative that the Ark's length is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming and the clipper Great Republic (two of the largest all timber vessels ever built), and claimed that the chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation from which such ships suffered (despite reinforcement with iron bracing), proves the Ark could not have survived the flood.[12][13] Modern shipbuilding commentaries note that similar late 19th century ships such as the HMS Orlando and Mersey experienced the same problems, and cite them as evidence that timber ships beyond these dimensions are likely to be impractical.[14]

Christian apologists generally reply to these objections by claiming that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark. From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant fighting ship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. [15] The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities[16][17]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.[18][19][20][21]

Other ancient ships used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships,[22][23] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[24][25][26][27][28][29]

A Korean paper published by Answers In Genesis claims the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic, and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'.[30] Typically cited by Biblical literalist Websites,[31] this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

...Not bad. I think all it needs is this, added to the end of the second paragraph: "However, none of these ancient vessels was required to survive conditions on the open ocean, as the more modern wooden ships did". And maybe a "see also" link to Hogging and sagging, to provide further information on the forces at work (for those who might be interested). BTW, TalkOrigins is not an "atheist website", but that's a nitpick... --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you generally approve. I see no reason to add the information you suggest, since it is irrelevant to the subject of the paragraph (which is 'Christian apologists generally reply to these objections by'), and since it is Original Research. It also assumes that survival on 'the open sea' is somehow relevant to the topic under discussion in the paragraph (which it isn't). As I've said before, if you want this information in the article by all means quote or cite a notable source making this argument, which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and then place it in the relevant section (which is not the 2nd paragraph of my suggested amendment).
Survival on the open sea is absolutely crucial to this issue, and I will ensure that this is mentioned in some form, somewhere. It's not "original research", and is even brought up in two of the references you have already provided:
"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."
"It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the midship) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the midship) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any calking that could be devised..."
"...And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days and then remain at sea for almost a year..."
"...Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm." --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't understood my argument, and you've just destroyed your own. My argument has never been that such information cannot be included in the article. My argument has been that you cannot insert this information in the article as an original composition of your own. As I've said before, if you want this information in the article by all means quote or cite a notable source making this argument, which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and then place it in the relevant section (which is not the 2nd paragraph of my suggested amendment). I don't know how many times I have to say this.
As you note, my amended paragraph actually mentions information this specifically (because I'm so incredibly reasonable and broad minded), and as you note it 'is even brought up in two of the references you have already provided'. The information is already in there, in the correct context and presented in the correct manner (if you want add additional sources which make the same argument please go right ahead). What you wanted is to have it included in an incorrect context and an incorrect manner. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you still trying to argue that this is "original research" when you also admit that the references already provided support it? I think it would be a good idea to actually draw out some quotes from those (and maybe other) references into the article.--Robert Stevens (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you read the Wikipedia definition of Original Research, and read what I wrote? As I said, you cannot insert this information in the article as an original composition of your own. That's Original Research. If you are citing references which make an argument, that is not Original Research. Original research takes place when people write their own arguments into Wikipedia, instead of citing arguments made by notable sources meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability. In this case I replaced a personal argument made by someone, with a notable source which made the same argument. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you're right, TalkOrigins isn't strictly speaking an atheist Website, though the bulk of the material is atheist and it has gone beyond its original intention of explaining evolution. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never found any "atheist material" on TalkOrigins: rather, I have found various explicit statements that evolution is NOT "atheistic", plus citations to that effect from religious authorities. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't found any atheist material on TalkOrigins, then I wonder when you last looked? Do you honestly think all the contributors are Christians and all the arguments are compatible with theism? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not all the contributiors are Christians, but all the arguments are compatible with theism, as far as I can see. From your ongoing failure to provide any "atheist material", I will conclude that you have none. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, it's clear you've misapprehended my meaning. By 'atheist material' I mean material written by atheists specifically against Christian positions. If you haven't found any on TalkOrigins, then you haven't read the site. Try 'below is the thought process that led me to atheism and a disbelief in creationism by godhead'.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
One other thing: you describe the Tessarakonteres as a "giant fighting ship", but it's pretty clear that the Tessarakonteres wasn't actually a "fighting ship". Maybe "giant showpiece galley" would be better. --Robert Stevens talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Every source I've read describes the Tessarakonteres as a warship, which was absolutely full of soldiers. You are probably referring to the fact that it never saw maritime warfare, and that it was almost completely totally impractical as a warship, but you can't classify it as anything else. It wasn't a cargo vessel or a floating palace, it was designed and constructed as a warship. The link I provide to the Tessarakonteres makes it perfectly clear that it was for all practical purposes useless in maritime conflict. It's not like I'm misrepresenting it, or pretending it was some amazingly successful battle cruiser. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
On the linked page, Plutarch is specifically quoted as stating "But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger". So, not a fighting ship. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You're not addressing my point. It was designed and constructed as a warship (I can cite at least three authorities which classify it as such). You're also neglecting what Athenaios says about it (he says it carried 400 sailors, and 2,850 soldiers). By the way, the article linked to also describes it as a galley 'designed for sea battles with catapults and could carry 3 to 4 thousand marines'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Plutarch specifically says otherwise. Sure, it's designed to look like a warship, but it wasn't built to actually do any real fighting (according to Plutarch). Therefore it was not an actual "fighting" ship. Are you saying Plutarch was mistaken? Only one other historical source is mentioned: so how did Callixenus of Rhodes describe it? --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying Plutarch is giving his opinion (a couple of hundred years later). It wasn't simply built to 'look like' a warship, it was designed as a warship. designed for sea battles with catapults and could carry 3 to 4 thousand marines' says it for me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This definitely needs something like Robert Stevens suggests about seaworthiness. And I'm not yet convinced, even by Aldrete, that Caligula's giant barge ever crossed the Med. I'll have access to better resources next week and can research this.Doug Weller (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the paragraph, and follow the links, you will find seaworthiness is specifically addressed. Robert has even acknowledged this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
...But it shouldn't be hidden away in the references, it needs to be laid out in the article. I propose using Taiwan Boi's example, with two minor changes (from "ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark" to "ancient timber vessels which they consider to be comparable to the Ark", as the actual validity of the comparison is disputed: and the Tessarakonteres may be described as a "giant showpiece trireme" rather than a "giant fighting ship" to avoid directly contradicting Plutarch), and one new paragraph inserted after "Other ancient ships...":
Firstly it isn't hidden away in the references'. On the contrary, I make a far stronger statement than your proposed amendment. The paragraph I suggested says that skeptics claim the Ark could not have survived the flood, not simply that it couldn't have survived a global flood. The very title 'Seaworthiness' has to go anyway (to be replaced with 'Practicality'), since the paragraph both currently and in the proposed amendment covers more than seaworthiness, and the title assumes that the case for seaworthiness is made in the flood narrative itself (it isn't, that case is made by proponents of a global flood). I suggest leaving the word 'skeptics' instead of replacing it with 'critics', since 'critics' is a word with a pejorative tone and sounds loaded as a result.
Secondly, it's clear you haven't read my paragraph properly. I say that Christian apologists claim 'that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark', not that there are such vessels. I then go on very carefully to say that 'comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction', that is considered by the Christian apologists (see the first part of the sentence). That is exactly the distinction you want me to make, and it is already there in my paragraph (please read it).
Thirdly, you've given no reason why we shouldn't contradict Plutarch, especially as standard historical authorities define the Tessarakonteres as a warship (though impractical), and at least one authority I read argued directly against Plutarch's description, saying that there is no way that such ship would have been built and armed simply for show, as Plutarch claims. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Critics of the Ark's supposed seaworthiness argue that the problems experienced by large wooden vessels on the open ocean is a major factor, as such forces would also be experienced by Noah's Ark borne on a worldwide flood: "It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."'[32]... "Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm."[33] (see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work). Ancient examples of large wooden ships operated on rivers, lakes, or inland seas, with the possible exception of the Chinese treasure ships, the size of which is disputed[34][35]. One explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river. The Treasure Ships are not known to have traversed a major ocean (Chinese records indicate that they skirted the coast of the Indian Ocean as far as East Africa, but a claim that the fleet reached the New World remains controversial).
If you want to make reference in the paragraph of skeptical arguments specifically concerning the Ark's seaworthiness, then I will say 'Sure let's do that', and then include in the next paragraph the Christian apologetic responses which argue against this, saying that there's nothing in the Bible which says the Ark had to be seaworthy. Note that the TalkOrigins article you quote specifically states that it does not argue against local flood models, only against global flood models, so its concerns relating to the Ark's seaworthiness are confined to global flood models. The other link also explicitly argues against the Ark surviving ocean waves in a global flood. In any case your problem with regard to the inclusion of this material is not me, your problem is with PiCo who think that I've already given too much detail and that the paragraph should be shortened not lengthened. Please argue it out with him, I'll be happy to include your quotes from the article I provided will balance the second paragraph accordingly.
I saw no reason to include arguments for or against the Chinese treasure ships, since they are not a comparison commonly used by any Ark apologists. At present your inclusion of them is original research since you are not citing third party skeptical arguments which argue against their historicity in any way relevant to the flood. If you want to include arguments against their historicity in a manner relevant to the flood, please cite or quote such arguments from skeptical sites, don't carry out original research. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that some of this was lifted from the "Treasure Ships" article (and slightly condensed), and the lack of references for the "Yangtze river" and "New World" claims reflects a lack of citations in the original (though the amateur historian mentioned does have his own page). --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: there were references elsewhere. Zheng He contains a reference to the Yangtze River claim, and Gavin Menzies contains 4 references to the controversy regarding his theory. These should be added to the paragraph. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, I don't think that the Chinese treasure ships are sufficiently common a point of comparison to be mentioned here, either for or against, but if you can find arguments against their historicity in a manner relevant to the flood, please cite or quote such arguments from skeptical sites, don't carry out original research. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate being told to 'actually read' anything.
Then please read more carefully next time. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote deliberately said "something like Robert Stevens suggests", which is not just something in the references.Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And what he had suggested is already in the article, as I noted (and he agreed). He has now suggested something else. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi is to be congratulated for the work and thought that has gone into this proposal. It contains a lot of good information. So please, don't feel that I'm being negative in my comments here - I'm genuinely appreciative of the effort to improve our article. Anyway, that said, I feel this is a little too long and detailed for our purposes. At the moment, we have three bullet-points, one each on gopher wood, seaworthiness, and capacity. We arrived at these three after considerable discussion - they seemed to represent the essentials of a very voluminous literature, and they were agreed by user rossnixon, who is a YEC and more or less or resident literalist. We were trying to keep the number of bullet points as low as possible, and the entries as short as possible, to avoid bloating the article. I would prefer that the details be left out, and referenced through footnoted links to the relevant places where interested readers can find them. As an encyclopedia, we only need to record a point, not prove it. PiCo (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments PiCo. So far that's one vote against the amendment (PiCo), and three votes in favour of it (myself, Dougweller, Robert Stevens). I note that Robert Stevens didn't have to have his recent change to the article approved, and you happily removed an entire section without seeking anyone's approval (the fact that I had no problems with it doesn't change the fact that other people did, and you saw no need to seek anyone's permission for such large removal), in liu of replacing it with new material which you intended to write, also without seeking anyone's approval. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Taiwan boi, I'm not against, I'm in favour. I'm suggesting shortening it by removing some detail, that's all. PiCo (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when you say 'I feel this is a little too long and detailed for our purposes', and 'I would prefer that the details be left out' that conveys exactly the opposite impression to me. As it stands, the vote is three in favour of including the amendment as it is, and Robert Stevens actually wants to include more details. There's nothing to prevent the entire 'Biblical Literalism' section being rewritten, which it needs in any case since at present it's trying to classify any Christian who believes in the historicity of the flood narrative as a 'Biblical literalist' who believes in a 450 foot Ark and a global flood. We need to make proper mention of the diversity of Christian views on the flood narrative, including the local flood views and different interpretations of the Ark's dimensions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Try removing some of the detail. Our job as an encyclopedia is to state a case, not prove it. PiCo (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but other people think it's fine, and two people want to add more detail (which I'm happy to do). If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I am stating first the skeptical case, and then the apologetic case. I am not attempting to prove either (that's what Robert Stevens is trying to do in his attempt at inserting original research into the paragraph). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not necessary to state any case at all - this section is describing beliefs, not making cases. Specifically, it's describing the beliefs of literalists. We don't have to prove those beliefs, nor disprove them, just describe them. But my point is something else: we have constraints of space in the article, and your proposal is simply too long. It needs to be shortened. This can be done by deleting your secondary details and sticking to the essential beliefs of literalists regarding the Ark's seaworthiness.17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
PiCo, you need to remember what you write. First you said 'Our job as an encyclopedia is to state a case, not prove it', now you say 'It's not necessary to state any case at all'. I don't care if you call it a 'case' or a 'belief', it doesn't affect the fact that the content belongs here (the skeptic view, the apologetic view). The paragraph does not attempt to prove either view (unlike Robert Stevens' last edit). I have worded the paragraph very carefully specifically to describe them, not prove them. The original paragraph detailed skeptic arguments against the seaworthiness of the Ark, yet omitted any details concerning apologist arguments for the seaworthiness of the Ark. This is far from balanced, and no one objected to the level of detail given to the skeptic argument (indeed, Robert Stevens has even added to it).
I have been extremely patient over the last week, despite being met with any number of completely spurious and even fabricated objections. I have watched others freely edit the article without asking anyone else for permission (Robert Stevens even added a little original research of his own), and no one has raised any objections (other than one objection to you removing an entire section without rewriting it first). I have written my paragraph and made my case for it in absolute conformity to Wikipedia guidelines, I have refrained from editing the article without asking others first, I have taken hours to write up a correctly balanced paragraph which has even been acknowledged as such, and yet I have been asked to meet standards which don't exist in Wikipedia and to conform to the personal opinions of other editors. No one else here is faced with this kind of behaviour.
Thus far other people are happy with the paragraph's length, and two people even want to add more detail (which I'm happy to do, as noted). Your are the only one who has objected to this level of detail. Thus far you are in the minority. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi, it appears that you are attempting a classic strawman argument. "Firstly it isn't hidden away in the references. On the contrary, I make a far stronger statement than your proposed amendment. The paragraph I suggested says that skeptics claim the Ark could not have survived the flood, not simply that it couldn't have survived a global flood." That is NOT the argument the skeptics are making! Indeed, I have never seen ANY skeptic argue that Noah's Ark could not have survived a local flood. Therefore counter-claims based on local-Flood apologetics, involving vessels that never had to survive on the open ocean, miss the point of the actual argument that the skeptics are making! And your version did not present that actual argument in the article. It is simply not acceptable for the actual argument to remain hidden in the references: hence my paragraph.

There is no strawman here, because I'm not attacking a misrepresentation of your argument. If you had read as many skeptic articles on the flood as I have, you would know that a common argument made is that the Ark could not have survived the flood, regardless of whether it was local or global, on the basis that it was too large to support its own weight and could never have been launched (see here 'There is no possible way Noah could have built a boat 450 feet long which held together under its own weight', here 'How could a boat made entirely of wood be so much larger than any wooden ship could ever be without collapsing under its own weight?', and here 'If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel, by all means demonstrate it', none of which make any argument for the practicality of the Ark based on the flood being global, they say it couldn't survive the flood because it would collapse under its own weight). Furthermore, if you actually read my post to you, you will see very clearly that I am completely happy to have included the direct quotes you suggest:

'If you want to make reference in the paragraph of skeptical arguments specifically concerning the Ark's seaworthiness, then I will say 'Sure let's do that', and then include in the next paragraph the Christian apologetic responses which argue against this, saying that there's nothing in the Bible which says the Ark had to be seaworthy.'

...I'll be happy to include your quotes from the article I provided [and] will balance the second paragraph accordingly.

So you have nothing to complain about here. You just didn't read my post properly (yet again). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the paragraph commencing "Christian apologists generally reply...", it isn't clear which of the following statements are merely the claims of those apologists, and which are being stated as fact: especially as the paragraph ends with declaration which are plainly NOT intended to be mere apologetic claims (unless you want to imply that "naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals" don't actually say what you're claiming they say, but the apologists merely claim that they do?). In particular, are there actual vessels comparable to the Ark (statement of fact) that the apologists claim to be sufficient evidence (statement of belief), or is "comparable to the Ark" itself a statement of belief? My suggestion would have clarified that.

Are you joking? My paragraph says exactly what you claimed it doesn't say. Let's look:
  • 'Christian apologists generally reply to these objections by claiming that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark':
This says very clearly that Christian apologists claim there are ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark. Which part of that is confusing you?
  • 'The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities[11][12]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals'
This says that The Tessarakonteres remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. That sentence makes it very clear that this comparison was made by Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals, as carefully documented in the references given. It says very clearly that this comparison was made by Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Which part of that is confusing you?
  • 'Other ancient ships used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships,[17][18] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[19][20][21][22][23]'
This says very clearly that giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships are all used as a point of comparison by Christian apologists, and that the historicity of these ships is recognized by standard historical authorities. Which part of that is confusing you?
So your suggestion doesn't clarify anything which isn't already very carefully clarified in my paragraph. It says explicitly that Christian apologists claim that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark. As described clearly in the paragraph, the historicity of these ships is undisputed by standard historical authorities, whilst the idea that they are meaningfully comparable to the Ark is the claim of Christian apologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the Chinese treasure ships: I suggest you re-read WP:OR. Presenting facts which are directly related to the subject of the article is not OR: specifically drawing conclusions from those facts is OR. Large wooden boats are relevant to the subject of the article (indeed, note your own references to the Orlando and the Mersey, and various citations you have provided which apparently don't mention Noah's Ark at all). Nowhere in my paragraph have I specifically compared the Chinese treasure ships to Noah's Ark: that would be WP:SYN (though others have done, and it would be simple enough to add [49]: I will do so). There is no Wikipedia policy which states "Thou Shalt Not Provide Relevant Factual Information Which Might Allow The Reader To Infer Something". --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the original paragraph in the article now, you will find that the information on the Orlando and Mersey is already referred to in one of the references given. All I was doing here is including information which was already in the original paragraph and making explicit what it was referring to by '[late 19th-century wooden European]', vague text inserted by whoever wrote the original paragraph instead of the specific vessels referred to in the article. That is not 'Original Research', it's making explicit what is in the reference already provided (and I made that clear). Did you even read the link?
I didn't claim you had compared the baochuan to the Ark. My point was that the way you included them constituted original research, and wasn't directly relevant to the paragraph (read my second statement in the context of this first statement):

'I saw no reason to include arguments for or against the Chinese treasure ships, since they are not a comparison commonly used by any Ark apologists. At present your inclusion of them is original research since you are not citing third party skeptical arguments which argue against their historicity in any way relevant to the flood. If you want to include arguments against their historicity in a manner relevant to the flood, please cite or quote such arguments from skeptical sites, don't carry out original research.'

So you have nothing to complain about here either. I haven't argued against their inclusion altogether, I've simply argued for their inclusion in a relevant way which does not constitute original research. It would help if you provided a link from Christian apologists which used them as a point of comparison, together with your other link, since the link you provide does not cite any specific Christian use of the baochuan as a comparison. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, missed this in my response: "Thirdly, you've given no reason why we shouldn't contradict Plutarch, especially as standard historical authorities define the Tessarakonteres as a warship (though impractical), and at least one authority I read argued directly against Plutarch's description, saying that there is no way that such ship would have been built and armed simply for show, as Plutarch claims." Until now, you have been opposing Plutarch's view by quoting that of an unknown Wikipedian, and indulging in OR to apply general comments about catapult-ships to the specific case of the Tessarakonteres. Now you've progressed to "at least one authority I read" who is contradicting Plutarch's view. We still have no actual reference, and if this unknown person is a modern commentator, who is he to say that Plutarch was mistaken? Also, we shouldn't be misleading readers here. Describing it as a "fighting ship" implies that it was quite seaworthy, as a fighting ship has to be: this was evidently not the case, as the Tessarakonteres article makes clear, but readers shouldn't have to go to the Tessarakonteres article to discover that this was not the case, when the Tessarakonteres is being presented in THIS article as an example of the practicality of large wooden ships. My own wording is more neutral, and indeed does not convey just how impractical the Tessarakonteres was! --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Until now I have demonstrated that the Tessarakonteres is commonly spoken of as a fighting vessel or warship (you'll probably have a fit when I point out that most modern authorities believe it was a twin hulled catamaran, with each hull at least 100 meters long), and I have not used simply 'an unknown Wikipedian' ('Every source I've read describes the Tessarakonteres as a warship, which was absolutely full of soldiers', 'I can cite at least three authorities which classify it as such'), I even included Athenaeus. I don't always have the time to copy out complete references for you. Do you have any idea how much time it takes me to look up these references in my research library and then copy/paste or (more frequently), type them out by hand for you? It's ridiculous anyway. I shouldn't have to spend half my time here teaching you people about the relevant subjects related to this article simply because you're trying to comment learnedly on subjects you know nothing about:
  • Jean MacIntosh Turfa, and Alwin G Steinmayer Junior: Under the heading 'cargo type' in a comparative table of large ancient vessels, the Tessarakonteres is described simply as 'warship, probably catamaran' ('The Syracusia as a giant cargo vessel', The International Journal of Nautical Archueology (1999) 28.2: 105-125). The same article says 'A giant ship known to ancient scholars (Athenaeus 5.203e-204b= Casson, 19711 86,108-1 12, 140) was of course the famous Forty warship commissioned under Ptolemy IV (Philopator, 221-203 BC)', and 'As a warship, it was ungainly, intended for display (Plutarch Dem. 4 3 3 , but its measurements lend credence to the scale of a functional Syrucusiu (Table 6)' (page 119). Note that despite agreeing with Plutarch that it was intended for display, they still call it a warship. As I said, these are not mutually exclusive descriptions.
  • Andre Wegener Sleeswyk, and Fik Meijer: Describe the Tessarakonteres as 'the enormously long oared fighting ship, the tesserakonteres or ‘forty’, which Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-203 BC) caused to be built' ('Launching Philopator’s ‘forty’', The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (1994) 23.2: 115-1 18'). They are the ones I cite as having said 'Of course, it is hardly probable that it was the original intention to have a ship only for show and not for use', though they say it 'must have been a failure' (page 115).
  • Lionel Casson: Classifies the Tessarakonteres as a warship, 'all the way up to a monster tessarakonteres "forty-fitted" (cf. 108 below)5', the footnote to which sentence is '5. Trieres, tereres, and the others in the -eres series refer to warships of more or less fixed specifications: fixed as to general length, breadth, number of rowers' ('Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 78), though he agrees with Plutarch that it was 'intended for display not action' (page 98). As I said, these are not mutually exclusive descriptions.
That's all I have time to cite now. I don't even need an argument as to why we can contradict Plutarch (though I gave a valid reason), you actually need a reason as to why we shouldn't. Who are you to say that Plutarch is correct, and that modern authorities are wrong to contradict him? What you want to do is include in the article your own specific arguments against Christian apologist claims. That's original research, and a result of your desire include your personal opinions in the article.
Contrary to your claim, my paragraph does not present the Tessrakonteres in this article as an example of the practicality of large wooden ships. READ THE PARAGRAPH. It is presented as an example of what Christian apologists claim are 'ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark'. My paragraph ensures the article itself makes no such clam, nor any comment on whether or not such a comparison is vaild, since the article is not supposed to evaluate whether the arguments of the skeptics or apologists are valid (in this case whether or not the Tessarakonteres is an example of practicality), that's for the user to decide, and in this specific case they are directed to an article which describes the Tessrakonteres as utterly impractical as a fighting vessel, so you have nothing to complain about. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Another strawman argument. I am quite aware that the Tessarakonteres was "a warship" rather than a cargo vessel or whatever.
You clearly don't know what a Strawman is. I am not attacking a misrepresentation of your argument. I am addressing your original specific objection to the Tessarakonteres being described as warship. If you agreed with me, then why did you specifically argue against it being a warship (you claimed the only source I had to support this definition was 'an anonymous Wikipedian'), and specifically object to it being described as either a 'fighting ship' or a 'warship'? You're forgetting your own argument, or else simply changing it yet again. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am also quite aware that it was a catapult-armed catamaran (why do you imagine I'd "have a fit"? Less of the histrionics please).
Er, I think you mean that you're quite aware that 'catapult-armed catamaran' is the current 'best guess' as to what it really was (we don't actually know if this is true, so we can't be 'quite aware' of this). I thought you'd have a fit because you were the one so skeptical of a ship over 350 feet in length, yet standard scholarship reckons the best guess for the Tessarakonteres is a catamaran of two hulls each at least 300 feet long, and some believe it consisted of two 420 foot hulls, up to 100 feet apart. Yet you don't even blink at the credibility of this. Ironic indeed! --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
But it was a "warship" that apparently couldn't fight, and both Plutarch and Casson say that it was built for display.
We've already been through this. See my previous post. These are not mutually exclusive descriptions, as you had previously claimed. Note that Casson still describes it as a warship. At least you've had to stop claiming that it's wrong to call it a warship and that I don't have any support for this other than an 'anonymous Wikipedian'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
As for those who say otherwise: you didn't cite them until now.
No, I didn't quote them until now. I already made mention of the fact that all the sources I had read described it as a warship or fighting ship, and that I could cite you at least three academic source saying this. You refused to believe me, so I was compelled to go through my personal library, look it all up for you, and write it out. You really ought to be tremendously grateful for the lengths to which I go to educate you. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
But "trireme" actually conveys more information than "fighting ship" (in addition to not conveying a misleading impression) and is therefore preferable.
Unbelievable! It seems you haven't read anything I've written. The word 'trireme' describes a completely different model of ship, and isn't remotely an accurate description. This was a tessarakonteres, not a trireme. Read the quote from Casson. The term 'trireme' is not even remotely valid here, stil less 'preferable'. It's completely misleading. Do you even know what a 'trireme' is? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also I suggest you drop the ongoing insinuation of OR regarding the Chinese treasure ships, given the fact that your "'Christian apologists generally reply..." paragraph contains references which are not "Christian" and apparently don't mention Noah's Ark at all.
Another case of not reading me, and of fabricating charges. I have already explained why your sentence is original research, and I have very helpfully explained to you how to change it so that it is not. I have also made it clear I am perfectly happy for it to be included in the article when it has been corrected. As for my paragraph, you're still not reading either it or what I write subsequently. There is nothing in that paragraph which is claimed to be what 'Christian apologists generally reply' which is not actually what 'Christian apologists generally reply'. I identify specifically what 'Christian apologists generally reply', and what material comes from other sources. Read the paragraph. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And note that the TalkOrigins article IS in fact a response to creationist claims, and therefore has more direct relevance than those. Or do you intend to remove all references that don't mention the Ark?
You really aren't reading what I wrote. I know it's a response to creationist claims. What I said was that it is not a response to specifically identified creationist claims. To which creationist are they responding? You don't know, because they don't say. Which creationist publication are they critiquing? You don't know, because they don't say. Read what I wrote, please. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, you seem to be using "Christian apologists generally reply..." as an excuse to shut out all qualification of those claims, while nevertheless supporting them yourself with non-Christian sources and apparent declarations of fact: please desist from this double standard. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's complete nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in that paragraph which I identify as what 'Christian apologists generally reply' and then represent it as being supported with non-Christian sources or 'apparent declarations of fact'. I've proved you wrong on this twice now. It's so interesting that you're only raising this charge now, when initially you said 'Not bad. I think all it needs is this, added to the end of the second paragraph', and wanted a mention of the baochuan as well. As I've responded to these objections, you've invented new ones.
I can see that once more I am going to have to do the work which you are not doing. I am going to have to chase up proper referenes and write up a new section for you properlly, since you won't do it yourself. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a strawman. So please desist from using it. You are still misrepresenting my argument: I never sought to deny that the ship was a "warship" in the sense that you are implying, so you can quit posting all the descriptions of it as "a warship". OK?

This is a strawman. What I wrote was not. You did not say 'The Tessarakonteres is not a warship in the sense that you are implying'. You denied that it was a warship at all:
  • 'One other thing: you describe the Tessarakonteres as a "giant fighting ship", but it's pretty clear that the Tessarakonteres wasn't actually a "fighting ship"'
  • 'So, not a fighting ship'
  • 'Therefore it was not an actual "fighting" ship'
  • 'Describing it as a "fighting ship" implies that it was quite seaworthy, as a fighting ship has to be: this was evidently not the case' (this was nonsense, as I demonstrated)
You objected specifically to it being referred to as a warship or fighting ship. You wanted it referred to as something completely different. You said Plutarch called it something completely different. You said I had only an 'anonymous Wikipedian' to support my view. I referred to the fact that at all sources I had read referred to it as a warship, and you still wouldn't accept the term. I told you that I could provide at least three academic sources which referred to it as a warship, and you still wouldn't accept the term. Then I quoted them in full, and suddenly you started to back down ('I am quite aware that the Tessarakonteres was "a warship" rather than a cargo vessel or whatever'). Now you're trying to rewrite history and claim you never objected to the use of the term in the first place, only to its use in the sense that I am implying. But I made it clear that the only sense I was implying was that the Tessarakonteres was built and designed as a warship (those were my specific words), despite being a failure as one. You now say you agree with this and claim you always did! --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion would progress much more smoothly without your constant bad-faith misrepresentations of the positions and arguments of others. This isn't some high-school debate club, where you think you can score points by "catching out" others: this is supposed to be a discussion about the article (something you plainly forgot in our previous discussion too).

The irony is strong with this one. I haven't made any 'bad-faith misrepresentations'. I've simply been carefully and consistently correcting both you and PiCo (using standard academic resources), when you've tried to make spurious arguments and raise spurious objections. You've both been acting in very bad faith. Yes, let's talk about discussing the article, and while we're at it let's talk about who has kept his edits out of the article until they are agreed on (I have, not you or PiCo), who has actually taken the time to write a fully referenced, detailed and well balanced new paragraph (I have, not you or PiCo), and who has been completely willing to see that paragraph include various changes suggested by other editors (I have, not you or PiCo). I'm the one contributing to this article and to this discussion, not you or PiCo. You're only here for the thrills, I'm here for the work. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not call it a "giant showpiece warship"? You want to claim that it wasn't a "showpiece"?

We have been through this, please read the scholarly quotes I provided and note yet again what the linked Wikipedia page says about it. There's no evidence that it was only built for show, and the one ship we know was also this size was also built for use not for show (the Thalamegos). The reader is not going to receive the impression you claimed. They are going to understand that this was built as a warship, and when they click on the link they will learn all about its impracticality for the purpose. If you really want to make a point of this, then find a specific skeptical source which argues against the relevance of the Tessarakonteres as an analogue to the Ark, and quote it properly in the relevant section of my paragraph. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And you're now denying that your "Christian apologists" paragraph includes the words "standard historical authorities", or "naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals"?

No I am not, and I never denied this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to argue that all of these are "Christian apologists"?

No I do not, and I never argued this. Read my posts. I made an explicit distinction between what Christian apologists say, and what 'standard historical authorities' say. I also made it very clear when something was done by Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals (in this case, drawing comparisons between the Tessrakonteres and the Ark, read the references I provided). You're fabricating arguments again. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am only raising this now to highlight your hypocrisy here. I DON'T actually object to their inclusion: I'm using them to illustrate the hypocrisy of your ongoing objection to the Chinsese treasure ships! Drop that baseless allegation, and I will stop accusing you of the same when you use non-Christian or non-Ark-related references (in general, not just in that paragraph). Do you understand this now? Especially as I have already provided one reference specifically linking those ships to the Ark, and others won't be difficult to find!

I understood you the first time, which is why I raised no objection to them being included, as long as they were included in a manner relevant to the article and citing relevant sources. I have said this three times now. You are not reading my posts. There is no 'hypocrisy' here. I have cited third parties and what they say concerning subjects relevant to the article. I have asked you to do the same. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And you could certainly "do the work" better if you spent less effort on wasting everyone's time, including your own. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really thought I was wasting your time, you wouldn't bother responding. The only time I have to waste is when I'm correcting you and PiCo because neither of you are sufficiently educated on the relevant subjects, and you just make things up as you go along. But let's look at who is really doing the work here. Who's the one who spent hours writing a new paragraph, and who is soliciting changes to it from other editors? That's right, me. Not you. Not PiCo. Me. I'm contributing to the article, you two are just spamming your opinions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand the distinction between a "warship" and a "fighting ship". It's the difference between a noun and a verb. "Fighting" is something a ship does, but the ship in question could not do. Whereas "warship", in this context, is a ship category. I cannot understand why you would object to describing the Tessarakonteres as a warship (and even a "showpiece warship"), except to give the misleading impression to the casual reader (who doesn't click on the link) that the ship was sufficiently seaworthy to fight. Why are you so determined to mislead the reader? If this is NOT your intent, why object so strenuously to such a trivial change? And the Thalamegos was most definitely "built for show": a floating palace, only used on the Nile, that apparently was towed along from the banks of the Nile! It certainly wasn't a "fighting ship", or even a "warship"! --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you read nothing I've written? I am the one who was describing it as a warship, and you were the one arguing it shouldn't be described as a warship. Now you're tryhing to say you think it should be described as a warship, and that you were arguing this all along. As I've demonstrated, it is described as both in scholarly articles (even using the same terms in the one article), and no one suggests or implies even removely that using the term 'fighting ship' means it was some kind of success (the phrase 'fighting ship' is a noun phrase, not a verb). There is nothing remotely misleading here, and the link is provided so people can find out all about it. Yes, 'warship' is a ship category, and so is 'fighting ship'. They're synonymous. See the references I provided. Casson uses the term 'warship' of ships which actually fought, so are you going to complain to him that he shouldn't be calling the Tessarakonteres a warship? This is ridiculous.
The Thalamegos was not simply for show, it was actually used. The phrase 'for show' means that it is not used, it's only for looking at. The Thalamegos was built as a floating palace, and used successfully as a floating palace. Your quibbling over this point is ridiculously tendentious. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Amended paragraph suggestion

Here's my newly edited paragraph suggestion:

*Seaworthiness: It is commonly assumed by skeptics and Christian apologists that the Ark would have needed to be a seaworthy vessel in order to survive the flood. Critics of the Ark's supposed seaworthiness argue that the problems experienced by large wooden vessels on the open ocean is a major factor, as such forces would also be experienced by Noah's Ark borne on a worldwide flood:

"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."'[36]... "Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm."[37] (see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work).

Another common skeptical argument is that the Ark was too large to sustain its own weight and could never have been launched. [38][39][40]The Ark is described as 300 cubits long, the cubit being a unit of measurement from elbow to outstretched fingertip. The ancient cubit was from 17.5 inches to 21.5 inches, giving a length in the range 437.5 feet (133 m) to 537.5 feet (164 m);[41]. As a result, many different assessments of the Ark's length have been posited. An extreme length of 680 feet was suggested in the 19th century,[42] but most earlier estimates were considerably shorter than this. The dimensions are generally understood as indicating that the Ark was over 400 feet long. Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long, [43], whilst other Christian sources posit slightly smaller dimensions,[44] or merely cite the cubits in the Biblical account without calculating the size in modern terms.[45].

With a generally agreed on length of over 400 feet, the Ark was noted as late as the 19th century as 'larger than any modern ship'.[46] It has been pointed out by skeptics of the Genesis narrative that the Ark's length is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming and the clipper Great Republic (two of the largest all timber vessels ever built), and claimed that the chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation from which such ships suffered (despite reinforcement with iron bracing), proves the Ark could not have survived the flood.[47][48] Modern shipbuilding commentaries note that similar late 19th century ships such as the HMS Orlando and Mersey experienced the same problems, and cite them as evidence that timber ships beyond these dimensions are likely to be impractical.[49]

Different Christian apologists reply to these objections in a range of ways. In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local, and that the Ark therefore did not have to survive a catastrophic global storm or the open seas[50], or that the Ark was made using construction methods which rendered it seaworthy regardless of the size of the flood.[51] A Korean paper published by Answers In Genesis argues for the seaworthiness of the Ark, claiming the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'.[52] Typically cited by Biblical literalist Websites,[53] this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists.

Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark [54]. From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant fighting ship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. [55] The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities[56][57]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.[58][59][60][61]

Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships,[62][63] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[64][65][66][67][68][69] A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists is the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan'.[70] Skeptics object that the design and size of these ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.[71]

OK, let's have a look:

Firstly, "Another common skeptical argument is that the Ark was too large to sustain its own weight and could never have been launched." This is not a "common" claim, and your three references are all pretty obscure: suggest you drop "common". It also seems a bit out of place tacked onto the front of a paragraph about the Ark's dimensions, which does not otherwise raise or address any problems.

It is a common claim (I included three sites out of a number I could have used, how many do you want, half a dozen?), and the references are not 'obscure' (one of them is the TalkOrigins Google Group, which is the complete opposite of 'obscure'). It's also not out of place in a section on the Ark's dimensions, since that is exactly what it's talking about. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, "In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local..." Obviously only some apologists claim it was local, and only some use such a claim against that problem (others just say it was tough enough to survive). Suggest insertion of "some" there. There may also be a WP:UNDUE issue, due to the apparent prominence given to local-Flood apologetics there (placing it first, as if "Big Ark, local Flood" was the dominant approach).

Read the sentence properly. There's the word 'OR' in there. Apologists claim X, or apologists claim Y. These are the two basic responses which encompass all apologists (local and global flood positions), and the phrasing avoids the weasel word 'some'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, "Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality are met by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark". Again, the global-Flood skeptical position isn't actually being met by the riverboats and suchlike being presented here, so there's a POV implication.

The word 'met by' simply means 'are responded to by'. Why do you think 'met by' means 'correctly answered or refuted by'? It means nothing of the sort. If you really can't understand the phrase 'met by', then I'll dumb down the language. What else are you finding difficult? --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fourthly: "giant fighting ship" -> "giant showpiece warship" as described previously. A fighting ship that cannot fight is not a fighting ship: this is simply a contradiction. Trivial change, and no good reason for NOT making it has been provided.

It is not a contradiction, as I have already pointed out using academic references which refer to it both as a fighting ship/warship and as a showpiece. This is meaningless. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fifthly, the Chinese treasure ships have almost disappeared, and the text is confusing.

Absolute nonsense. I included all the skeptical claims concerning the Chinese treasure ships, along with the TalkOrigins link. The only text I didn't include was your personal writing, which as I already explained to you nearly half a dozen times previously, was original research. I told you that you needed to find a third party source which made the argument for, and another making the argument against. You found the second, I provided the first. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

'"Skeptics object that the design and size of these ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark": that claim doesn't explain why not, and isn't even clear (until the reference is clicked) on who the "skeptics" are (they could be Christian apologists skeptical of the claim that the treasure ships are sufficiently analogous to the Ark to be used for comparison).

Firstly the text explains that they are not sufficiently analogous in design and size. That means we are being told very clearly that the objection being raised is that their size and design are not sufficiently similar to the Ark to be relevant. What is unclear about that? That's the very argument being made. Secondly, even when clicked on there is no way to identify whether the skeptical position is being made by Christians or not (didn't you notice?). That is why they are referred to as 'skeptics'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It also seems very strange to relegate them in this fashion, as they are the only comparable ancient oceangoing wooden vessels (subject to the caveats regarding whether the biggest actually crossed the ocean), and are therefore more relevant to the mainstream skeptical position (as illustrated at the beginning with the quotes) than all the other riverboats etc. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have explained in detail previously, they are given here all their due weight. Since they are not commonly used as a point of comparison by apologists, this is all the mention they deserve, one reference for and one reference against. They're almost never mentioned on skeptical sites either, and since that is what you're really objecting to then I suggest you start a campaign encouraging skeptics to refer to them more frequently. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to make comments on part of the proposed paragraphs:
"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998...
The original statement in talkorigins has no references to back it up. As such it is simply a foundationless OR assertion by author Mark Isaak, who is not a naval architect and has no background with wooden ships. Therefore it is a very weak argument. I recommend finding a better source.
"Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm."Noah's Ark
This source also has no references to support any of its assertions. This is simply the authors OR opinion, and he too is not an naval architect nor engineer.
"(see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work).
I recommend these pages for extensive detail for hogging and sagging concerning Noah’s Ark. These actually have a better explanation than Wikipedia. The author/s of these pages are naval architects and a mechanical engineer.
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/basic_hull_design/monocoque_vs_truss.htm
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_calcs/wave_bm1.htm
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_calcs/still_water_bm.htm
"...Skeptics object that the design and size of these ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.Claim CH508
The web link to the quoted source on this talkorigins page is broken. The quote may be accurate, but cannot be confirmed on-line. The worldwideflood site above points out that using the smallest unit length for the Chinese ship still put it at ~400 ft. Also, since next to nothing is known about the design of the Chinese ship, it is very difficult to say that the design is or is not analogous to the Ark. The Worldwideflood site authors simply point out that large ships have been built of wood. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is not to assess whether or not the arguments for or against are valid. The purpose of this article is to present the arguments for and against. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
CS: The TalkOrigins references regarding ocean stresses are actually being used to support the existence of the skeptical claim that the Ark would have needed to survive a worldwide flood. Hence, it doesn't actually matter if Isaak was wrong. Taiwan Boi had insisted that I support the claim that skeptics consider the Genesis flood to be global (!!). --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's completely untrue. The reference under question is a reference to the Chinese treasure ships. I insisted you provided a link proving skeptics consider the Chinese treasure ships insufficiently analogous to the Ark. That's what I asked for, not that you 'support the claim that skeptics consider the Genesis flood to be global'. I was the one who provided almost every other skeptic link, because I'm the only one around here who does any real work. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I am referring to the QUOTES in the beginning of the article, which do NOT refer to Chinese treasure ships. Will you PLEASE pay attention? --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you're the one not paying attention, because Christian Skeptic is referring specifically to the article on the Chinese treasure ships. You've switched to talking about a completely different article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, he was initially referring to the quotes regarding hogging and sagging etc: NOT the Chinese treasure ships. THAT is what I was referring to in my reply. Again, you have blundered, and refused to accept correction. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi: Of the three references you have provided for the "common claim" that the Ark could not be built or could not survive calm water, NONE is acceptable: all breach Wikipedia policies. The first is a personal website of someone called "Colin Frayn". The second is a personal website of someone who doesn't even give his name: "Flux -- That would be me, AKA Fluxypoo, Fluxster, and even sometimes Eric". The third is a post on the TalkOrigins discussion group (not TalkOrigins "proper"). Please read WP:RS and WP:V. At present, you have nothing at all: no valid references for this "common" claim.

You have (as usual), completely misunderstood Wiki policy. These are not being cited as authoritative sources for an assertion of fact. They are being cited as sources for what skeptics argue. As such, they are entirely valid. If they were being cited in the manner you mistakenly thought, then none of the skeptic arguments, since they are all self-published. And I was the one who told you (twice), that the TalkOrigins site is a Google Group (where this argument used by numerous skeptics in plenty of different threads). But you've only just realised now? You haven't been reading my posts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Personal websites (of non-notable persons) are unacceptable for several reasons: the content might change tomorrow, and the non-notable person is neither an authority nor a representative. "Flux" could be cited as a source for what "Flux" thinks (if anyone cares), but not what "skeptics" commonly think. Your inability to find a valid reference for this alleged "common" claim is your problem. Heck, if I could just grab a few discussion-forum posts and toss them into the article as examples of "common" arguments, that would be a lot easier: but I cannot. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And by pursuing this fantasy, you're still falsely arguing that calm-water river barges "meet" the global-flood claims of skeptics. They do NOT. They don't ADDRESS the claims at all: hence there is no question of them either "correctly" or "incorrectly" refuting them. They're predicated on an entirely different scenario!

This is utterly false. I have said no such thing. You are still not distinguishing between what is stated as fact, and what is stated as the claims of Christian apologists. Read the paragraph. I have cited some Christian apologists responding to skeptics of the Ark's practicality and seaworthiness:
  • 'In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local, and that the Ark therefore did not have to survive a catastrophic global storm or the open seas[44], or that the Ark was made using construction methods which rendered it seaworthy regardless of the size of the flood'
  • 'Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark'
I see you didn't even notice that I had changed the wording to 'is responded to by apologist claims', from the previous 'is met by'. Again, you're not even reading what I write. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile you have apparently relapsed into describing my writing on the Chinese treasure ships as "original research" when it is not. (Indeed, most of it wasn't even mine, and it wasn't OR on the article I copied from either). You badly need to learn Wikipedia guidelines on this!

You don't understand what original research is, despite me going through this with you several times and linking you to the relevant Wikipedia page. Original research doesn't mean it has to have been written entirely by you, it means that an editor is including material which they have put together themselves (using whatever sources), and they are including it as a statement of fact when it is simply an argument they are making. That is what you did. I told you over and over again that the reference to the Chinese treasure ships needed to be included using a third party source, and I even went to all the trouble of finding a relevant source for you. Then I included the material in the correct manner. I have done all this for you because you wouldn't do it yourself, and you still complain. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I found my own sources regarding the Chinese treasure ships: from the Treasure Ships article (and 2 other linked articles) and TalkOrigins. You're getting confused (as usual): what YOU provided (earlier) were the skeptic quotes regarding Ark seaworthiness (which did not mention Chinese treasure ships). --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You've also failed to respond on the WP:UNDUE issue regarding "Big Ark, Local Flood" apologetics (and falsely claimed to have covered all apologetic positions, entirely omitting "Small Ark, Local Flood", "No Ark, Local Flood" and "that part of Genesis is entirely myth": yes, these are Christian positions too, and even "apologetic" positions).

Read the paragraph. It explicitly addresses all Christian apologetic claims defending the practicality of the Ark in the flood, specifically against the claim that it would not have been seaworthy. The two typical responses to this argument are 'It didn't have to be seaworthy because it never went to sea', and 'It did go to sea but it was entirely seaworthy because of it's design and construction'. If you can find a reference to an apologetic argument which says 'The Ark was so small it would have survived the flood' which is specifically in response to the skeptic claim that it wouldn't have been seaworthy, I'll include it by all means. The position 'No Ark' is not a defence of the practicality of the Ark in the flood, it's a claim that there was no Ark at all. Similarly, the position 'that part of Genesis is entirely myth' is not a defence of the practicality of the Ark in the flood, it's a claim that there was no Ark at all. You're not even reading the paragraph, let alone thinking about what you're writing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion. I will go ahead and put your previous contribution into the article (we've discussed that enough), along with my addition (and the trivial clarifications to your text) also discussed. That will give us something to move forward with (even if others argue that the details are excessive: let's see how it looks first). --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a better suggestion, that's an incredibly poor suggestion and yet again an entirely willful breach of Wikipedia policy, especially where disputed articles are in question and the paragraph is still under discussion. You are not contributing anything useful to this article. You're even ignorant of standard Wikipedia policies and conventions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
...OK, it does look pretty big. I suggest that discussion of cubits, and the size of the Ark, ought to be established elsewhere in the article: the size should have been established before the actual discussion of the seaworthiness of a vessel of that size. One nitpick I didn't notice before: the Korean paper "does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists"... sez who? No reference.
Says who? Says a thorough check on the Internet. Look for yourself. It is 'typically cited by Biblical literalists', which is why it seems that it is not widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists. The paragraph already included a link to a Biblical literalist site which appeals to it. This is no different to the earlier statement (not written by me), which says 'Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long', and then provides a single reference. What do you want me to do, include a huge list of sites which don't refer to it? --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Says who? Says a thorough check on the Internet. Look for yourself." A thorough check by whom? By you? That is Original Research. I am prepared to let it through, because I've had exactly the same "proving a negative" problem myself in the past (on another article: I did, however, get fact-tagged for it): but it's OR, by definition. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of references: something has gone badly wrong with the bottom end of the references list in the article! --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Article said <Ref> where it should have said </Ref>. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Robert for moving this to the main article - it's more convenient to look at it there. I still have problems with the length of this piece - it overbalances the entire article - and I would also like to point out that the section is on what biblical literalists say about seaworthiness: quoted refs should be to modern literalists. But overall, this gives us some good material to work with. PiCo (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire 'literalist' section already completely unbalanced the article, as I have said more than once over the last few months. The problem is that there's an incredible resistance to including anything other than the YEC 'Biblical literalist' position. The 'local flood' interpretation for example has been carefully excluded from this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it just wasn't in the version that I used. I have no objection to it going back in (other than maybe WP:UNDUE: got any data on acceptance of "Big Ark, Local Flood" apologetics?). --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

This is the last time I am going to make an effort here before I take this article to arbitration. Despite including all the material from the original paragraph, and despite including all the material requested for addition in subsequent discussions, my proposed paragraph has been totally hacked up almost beyond recognition, thrown into the article itself (whilst in the middle of a discussion about it), and then hacked about some more. You Robert, and you PiCo, have been willfully editing the article however you pleased without any reference to any other editors, even in the middle of a discussion over which changes to be made. You are not paying any respect whatsoever to standard Wiki policies for article editing and conflict resolution. Note the header of this Talk page:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

You have both disregarded this completely, and taken over the editing of the article between the two of you. The paragraph now included is a badly organized and unwieldy mix of unconnected sections which doesn't even have a coherent flow. Whole sentences no longer make sense because they refer to previous sentences which no longer exist. It's a shocking editing job, and it has been carried out totally without any regard for Wiki policies. The proposed amendment needs to be settled on before being included. I have been absolutely rigid in my obedience to Wikipedia's editing policies, and I've had to watch in disgust as you both flout them willfully. Enough is enough. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...I see that all the changes have been reverted by Taiwan Boi, citing "Ask first, edit later (it's Wikipedia policy))". However, while that might arguably be applied to PiCo's shortening (though I agreed with PiCo regarding the appropriateness of shortening the Ark dimensions stuff, and personally I see no problem with his other subsequent edits either), it seems to have been taken a step too far with the removal of everything we've been discussing. I will revert to PiCo's last edit, as this has my approval. Taiwan Boi, please be careful regarding WP:OWN, and if you have any specific objections to the stuff removed by PiCo, let's discuss those (for instance, the reasoning behind the Ark dimensions could maybe go elsewhere in the article). Or, if you insist on reverting to the stage before PiCo's shortening: OK, let's proceed from there. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually made two reverts of minor changes, and then realised the entire paragraph should be replaced with the one which was in there before we started discussing my amendment. That is what should be in there. It is completely illegitimate for you to claim that both of you can simply make any changes you like on the basis that the other approves. Between the two of you, this article's content is being dictated by a minority, and a minority not even prepared to contribute meaningfully to the article.
Your citation of WP:OWN is highly ironic given that it is you and PiCo who are claiming ownership of the article and amending it as you please without consultation, whereas I have followed Wikipedia editing policy absolutely to the letter. Read this:

Since working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her—regardless of whether or not he or she "owns" the article.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're really going to take this to arbitration, histrionics and (more) baseless assertions aren't going to help your case. Your (initial) proposed addition has been accepted and used almost completely unchanged, except for the addition of another distinct paragraph from myself.
That is exactly what I am saying. My proposed paragraph has been totally hacked up almost beyond recognition, thrown into the article itself (whilst in the middle of a discussion about it), and then hacked about some more. My proposed paragraph, not the one initially proposed, but the second one (and note I now have a third one on the Talk page). You are also trying to ignore the fact that you have made edits without consultation, in an article which is under dispute, during an actual discussion of a specific issue, all of which breaches standard Wiki policy. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And you're now actually trying to claim that you (one user) are a "majority", and everyone else that has ever argued against you on this talkpage is a minority?
I have never said any such thing. I have said that the content of this article is being dictated by a minority, namely you and PiCo. You are only two out of the many editors of this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, my incorporation of your material (prior to trimming) and your deletion of mine is positive action by you and negative action by me? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop misrepresenting the case. I have not objected to your incorporation of 'my material', I have objected specifically to you incorporating material without consultation (a negative action), hence my deletion is positive. I have also specifically objected to you failing to incorporate what I actually want in the article, and instead incorporating a paragraph which I had already abandoned for a new proposal, then claiming you were simply incorporating what I wanted. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, your statements don't seem to match reality here. If we're still talking about the major amendment, my paragraph has generated much discussion and you have tried to incorporate stuff from it yourself.

In every edit I have proposed I have incorporated material from other editors, which is in harmony with the Wikipedia principle of cooperation. The fact that your paragraph has generated 'much discussion' is irrelevant, what's relevant is what is agreed to. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My previous edit has been superseded by these changes: indeed, I'm the one who deleted it from the article when I added the newer stuff! And I didn't "hack up" your second attempt, I used your first attempt, plus MY take on the extra stuff I wanted (your second draft was mostly your partial incorporation of my material anyhow).

That's exactly what I'm talking about, you hacked up my second proposal by incorporating only some of the material in it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And you are in a minority of one regarding the section under discussion.

Currently only two editors have been in favour of your edit, and you have totally ignored any suggestions by me to the contrary. You are not even pretending to try and cooperate. That's the point here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite apparently having read WP:OWN, you seem to be imagining that everything has to be passed by you before going into the article.

What absolute nonsense. As I have already demonstrated, it is you and PiCo who are the ones actually editing the article as you please without reference to others, whereas I have consistently proposed my amendments here for discussion first. I do not believe that everything has to be passed by me first, and I have even included material from you and PiCo in my paragraph despite disagreeing with you that it should even be in there. What I wanted to see from you both is cooperation, discussion, and some agreement before changes to the article were made, but it is clear you are going to continue to refuse to undertake this process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that improving articles is an iterative process: there's no requirement that a revised section should sit here forever with no significant developmental stages being reflected in the main article.

No one is suggesting that, but you are ignoring the warning at the top of this talk page:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, having said all that, here's another suggestion: I note that the previous section, "Gopher wood", links to a spinoff article with more information on that. This could be done with "Seaworthiness" too. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding the Ark

The section on searches for the Ark opens with this curious statement:

Believers in the historicity of the Genesis account feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution.

What evidence is there for this? It is accompanied by a single quote from Morris (at the Institute for Creation Research), indicating that this is specifically a view held among Christian fundamentalists, not anyone who believes in the historicity of the Ark. On the contrary, standard published works arguing in favour of the Ark's historicity (such as Bible dictionaries and notable journal articles), deny that it is even possible to find the Ark today. I believe in the historicity of the Genesis account, but I don't believe that finding the Ark would validate my views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution. How about this as an amendment:

Christian fundamentalists generally feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly would it mean to you if someone were to find the Ark on top of a mountain? That the Ark was historic, but the Flood was not? That the Ark and Flood were historic, but Noah was not? I'm curious. PiCo (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what this question has to do with anything. As phrased, it's meaningless to me since if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is true then the Ark cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain), and if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is false then the Ark equally cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So you believe that the Flood deposited the Ark on a mountaintop in the region of Ararat just a few thousand years ago, but that it doesn't exist? Weird. PiCo (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Er no, I never said any such thing. I certainly don't believe the flood deposited the Ark on a mountaintop in the region of Ararat just a few thousand years ago. What I said was that if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is true then the Ark cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain), and if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is false then the Ark equally cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain). This is because if the historicity of the Ark is true then it cannot have survived intact to this day and therefore cannot be found, and if the historicity of the Ark is false then it never existed and therefore cannot be found. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"What I said was that if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is true then the Ark cannot be discovered" - why not? What about the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel decrees that it cannot be discovered? Various other ancient ships have been. Are you saying that history records the Ark's destruction? Why could it not have "survived intact to this day" somewhere? --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Robert, the Genesis narrative says the Ark was made of timber. Given this fact, and its dimensions, it cannot possibly have survived intact to this day (TalkOrigins, please argue your case with them and to tell me what happens). Timber vessels do not last intact this long, still less a timber structure the size of the Ark. No ancient timber ships around 4,500 years old have been found intact. That's simply untrue. The oldest ship to have survived is the Khufu solar barge (only about 40 metres long), and that was found disassembled, in over 1,000 pieces and carefully sealed in a waterproof and airtight tomb. Even Caligula's giant barge and the Nemi ships didn't survive intact, despite being around 2,500 years younger. Neither has anything of the Tessarakonteres survived, or Hatshepsut's obelisk barge, despite the fact that there is no record of their destruction. If the Genesis record described Noah as having carefully disassembled the Ark into thousands of pieces and buried it in a waterproof and airtight tomb, or taken any similar steps to preserve it, you might have half a point. As it is, you're simply being argumentative for the sake of it. You're not even making a rational argument. If you were debating a Young Earth Creationist (which I am not), or a Christian Fundamentalist (which I am not), you would be the one arguing hotly that the Ark could not possibly have survived intact. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not saying it's likely to have survived intact, especially on Ararat. It's just that you seem to have a gap in your chain of reasoning there. Especially in a local-Flood scenario, where the keel of the Ark could have ended up preserved under silt near the mouth of the Euphrates or whatever. Somewhat off-topic though. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no gap in my chain of reasoning. If the historicity of the Genesis record is correct, then the Ark landed among the mountainous region of Urartu, where it could not possibly have survived. This also means that it cannot possibly have landed 'near the mouth of the Euphrates' to be 'preserved under silt'. How much silt would you need to bury the Ark and preserve it, do you think? This isn't even rational. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New article on the Flood needed?

I just deleted a sentence from the lead because it dealt with the Flood and not the Ark. I know it's difficult to separate the two, but from the length of this article on the Ark you can see how inflatred it could easily become. I'm amazed that there's no article on the Flood/biblical Deluge on Wiki, and I think one should be created - the deleted material would find a natural home there. PiCo (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept your deletion as valid on the grounds you state. Like you I'm amazed there's no article specifically on the Deluge in Wikipedia (the only Deluge article contains very little on the Genesis flood narrative). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we can finally agree on something. One problem might be the title of the article, but I'm sure that can overcome. Would you like to start it? PiCo (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do in the next few days. I would suggest the title 'Genesis Flood', with a redirect from the 'Deluge' article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29 Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the general Deluge article has been noted. What we're talking about is a separate article specifically for the Genesis flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to call it Genesis Flood, as it needs to deal with the Book of Enoch and Jubilees as well - perhaps Noah's Flood is still best. (The Book of Enoch is a 2nd century BC work expanding on Genesis - it was extremely influential around the time of Christ, and is quoted in the New Testament; Jubilees is from roughly the same period, but the chronology it contains may be much older - it forms the basis of the timetable used in the Genesis flood).
I don't mind including Enoch and Jubilees, but since they are both expansions of the flood narrative in Genesis I see no reason not to call the article 'Genesis Flood'. It will, after all, be an article specifically discussing the flood narrative in Genesis. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. PiCo (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ziusudra's ark of reeds

Shouldn't there be some mention of this? Robert Best is in the references, but that's all. He isn't the only one who has made the connection of course, and David Fasold thought at one point that's what he'd found. Best's book is outlined here, http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/contents.htm Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Noah story seems to be based more directly on Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh) than on Ziusudra. I'm not quite sure just why you think the reeds thing is important - is it because of the possibility that the word "gofer" (as in the material from which Noah made his ark) may possibly come from the Akkadian word for reed? It may, but then again it may not - the connection is unproven. More interesting is that the Mesopotamian ark was in the shape of a Babylonian ziggurat (cube-shaped), whereas Noah's reflected the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem, which was a model of the Hebrew universe. (The three levels of the ark copy the three levels of the cosmos as described in Genesis 1 - heavens, earth, underworld). The best book on this is S.W. Holloway's "What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology." With any luck it might be available in Googlebooks. PiCo (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
All this should be included in your proposed section comparing the Genesis flood narrative to the other ANE flood narratives. There's a large amount of relevant literature on this, and it may well end up included in the 'Documentary Hypothesis' part of the article, or even in an entirely separate article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how important it is but I think it is worthy of mentioned . Evidently the Jewish Encyclopedia thinks that gopher wood was a translation of an Assyrian word for reed, which would make it a reed boat, right? And as I said, Best is in the reference but his ideas don't seem to be covered in the article, or have I missed something? He thinks Noah's ark was actually a commercial river barge. His ideas are noteworthy enough to be included. See http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ Also did you see http://www.associated content.com/article/175321/noahs_ark_the_true_story.html (url broken to avoid spam filter)? Doug Weller (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like Best's views included here (along with the views of more notable sources), but I have to ask if Best was self-published and if he's sufficiently notable for inclusion. He doesn't turn up on Wikipedia, which is telling, and I don't know any scholarly sources which cite him. We need a WP:RS check. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
His first book may have been, leading to the comments I presume you've read. This book is published by Eisenbrauns, and to quote their website, "Eisenbrauns has been serving the academic community for more than 25 years with quality publications in ancient Near Eastern studies, archaeology" -- so that should not be a problem. I wish there were transcripts of the Discovery documentary and this one.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3524676.stm Doug Weller (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've opnly read the website Doug directs us to, but I can assure you the ideas there are not scholarly, in that they have no following at all in the scholarly community. For example, the 2900 BC local flood: this idea was first raised by Leonard Woolley in 1929 as a result of his excavations at Ur, where he discovered a thick silt layer separating two strata containing Ubaid material; the finding of silt layers at other sites throughout Mesopotamia seemed to confirm it; but the whole theory was examined and disproven by John Bright in 1942 and is now no lomnger spoken of outside popular and literalist circles. The problem is that these silt layers come from widely different time period, covering several thousand years, and are not continuous even over small areas - Woolley's Ur layer, for example, doesn't cover all of Ur (the usual conclusion now is that it represents an old bed of the river). There are many other problems as well. But Best could certainly go in the projected article on the Biblical Flood, under a section dealing with popular theories. PiCo (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the different ideas of what the 'ark' might have been I'm referring to. I agree with the comments on Woolley.Doug Weller (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No mention of where the Ark was built??

How come there is no mention of where the Ark was supposed to have been built? I thought the New Testament clearly states it was created in a Sumerian city of Shuruppak, which is now in South-Central Iraq in the Al-Qādisiyyah province. Anyone care to clarify? Gamer112 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a Shuruppak flood myth involving Zisudra, maybe you are thinking of that. --Doug Weller (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the many global indicators in the description of the flood it has been proposed by some that the preflood geography was very different from the postflood geography. So the construction site is thought to have been destroyed and so unknown today. The appearance of preflood names for postflood things and places may be explained by the naming of new world locations with familiar old world names (much as many USA places are called after European name-sakes, just google most any European place name and see how many times they appear in the USA). Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I just reread the relevant section of the bible and it doesn't say a location. Not that it would, given the origin of the myth. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposed amendment

This is my latest paragraph suggestion. Please read the notes which follow:

*Seaworthiness: It is commonly assumed by skeptics and Christian apologists that the Ark would have needed to be a seaworthy vessel in order to survive the flood. Critics of the Ark's supposed seaworthiness argue that the problems experienced by large wooden vessels on the open ocean is a major factor, as such forces would also be experienced by Noah's Ark borne on a worldwide flood:

"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."'[72]... "Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm."[73] (see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work).

With a generally agreed on length of over 400 feet, the Ark was noted as late as the 19th century as 'larger than any modern ship'.[74] It has been pointed out by skeptics of the Genesis narrative that the Ark's length is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming and the clipper Great Republic (two of the largest all timber vessels ever built), and claimed that the chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation from which such ships suffered (despite reinforcement with iron bracing), proves the Ark could not have survived the flood.[75][76] Modern shipbuilding commentaries note that similar late 19th century ships such as the HMS Orlando and Mersey experienced the same problems, and cite them as evidence that timber ships beyond these dimensions are likely to be impractical.[77]

Different Christian apologists reply to these objections in a range of ways. In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local, and that the Ark therefore did not have to survive a catastrophic global storm or the open seas[78], or that the Ark was made using construction methods which rendered it seaworthy regardless of the size of the flood.[79] A Korean paper published by Answers In Genesis argues for the seaworthiness of the Ark, claiming the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'.[80] Typically cited by Biblical literalist Websites,[81] this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists.

*Physical Practicality: Another common skeptical argument is that the Ark was too large to sustain its own weight and could never have been launched. [82][83][84][85][86] Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long, [87], whilst other Christian sources posit slightly smaller dimensions,[88] or merely cite the cubits in the Biblical account without calculating the size in modern terms.[89].

Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark [90]. From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. [91] The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities[92][93]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.[94][95][96][97]

Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships,[98][99] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[100][101][102][103][104][105] A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists is the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan'.[106] Skeptics object that the design and size of the Chinese ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.[107]

Please note:

  • I have removed the following discussion of the Ark's size, which can be included earlier in the article as it is unnecessary for this paragraph:

The Ark is described as 300 cubits long, the cubit being a unit of measurement from elbow to outstretched fingertip. The ancient cubit was from 17.5 inches to 21.5 inches, giving a length in the range 437.5 feet (133 m) to 537.5 feet (164 m);[108]. As a result, many different assessments of the Ark's length have been posited. An extreme length of 680 feet was suggested in the 19th century,[109] but most earlier estimates were considerably shorter than this. The dimensions are generally understood as indicating that the Ark was over 400 feet long.

  • The paragraph now refers to the Tessarakonteres as a 'giant warship', which is extremely generous of me (and Robert you claimed you had no objection to the term 'warship')
  • The paragraph includes my previous change of 'Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims', from the original 'Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is met by apologist claims' (a change which you Robert totally ignored or else simply didn't read)
  • The paragraph includes two more references to skeptic arguments that the Ark would have collapsed under its own weight
  • The paragraph includes specific reference to the Wyoming and the Great Republic because they are cited by skeptical arguments (PiCo, you may not think that the Great Republic is a good point of comparison, but that is irrelevant, the fact is that it is a commonly used point of comparison by skeptics)
  • The paragraph clarifies the identity of the specific ships cited in the reference 'Asia's Undersea Archeology' (they should be included, not covered up with the meaningless phrase '[i.e. modern timber-hulled]', there is no reason not to be specific here
  • Robert, please understand again that the information your section referring to whether or not the Chinese treasure ships ever crossed a 'major ocean' has to be included legitimately. I have told you over and over again how to include this information correctly. Firstly it has to be presented in a manner which is relevant to skeptical arguments concerning the Ark. You didn't do this. Secondly it has to be cited specifically from a third party skeptical source which raises the specific argument that the Chinese treasure ships are not a valid comparison because they didn't cross a major ocean. I have looked online for such an argument (since you wouldn't do the work yourself), but I have been unable to find any skeptic Websites at all which make this argument. If you find one, please included it.
  • I have divided the information into two sections, 'Seaworthiness' and 'Physical Practicality', since these are the two issues raised in the paragraph.
Remember, discuss first, edit later. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
TB, I'd really prefer it if you edited the version currently in the article. Given the huge size of your contributions, it really would make it easier on the rest of us.
The whole point of Wikipedia policy is to get people to edit here first, so that the article itself doesn't get changed every 15 or 30 minutes, which has a severely detrimental effect on the reader's experience, especially if they want to refer to it later. If you really want me to put in what I've added above, I'll need a few more people to say so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now some dot-points:

  • If you want to go to arbitration that's up to you, but I think we're all quite happy to keep working with you. Testy at times perhaps, but relations haven't broken down yet.
If you want to work with me, please start doing so. You can stop your 'at will' edits of the main article without consultation, for a start. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still very concerned about the sheer size of your proposed addition. The various sections of the article are all the same length, more or less, and we should try to keep it that way - this is one way of ensuring balance.
The way to ensure balance is to ensure that each section is properly balanced, not to make sure that each part of the article is the same length. Different parts of the article will always require different depths of treatment. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't have to worry about putting up the ark-skeptical arguments - this section is about literalist beliefs, we only have to describe those beliefs.
I put them up because they were there in the original article to start with. I'm simply taking it from there, and Robert Stevens is insistent that they be included (which I don't have a problem with). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's a requirement of WP:NPOV. Once we start citing arguments for the Ark's supposed seaworthiness (beyond simply "the Bible says it floated"), we are required to provide the opposing arguments. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And I'm the one agreeing you. PiCo is the one disagreeing, take it to him. But let's get one thing straight. This started because the article originally contained only arguments against the Ark's seaworthiness, and no reference to arguments for. That's WP:NPOV. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Whenever you put forward a point, make sure the supporting references are from literalist sources, not academic ones - we're describing what literalists say, not what academics say.
I have done this absolutely every time. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, you have academic references in there too (books about ancient ships etc). Personally, though, I think that's OK. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have told you before, you are confusing two separate issues. When my paragraph puts forward a point about what Christian apologists claim, it cites Christian apologist sources. When it puts forward a point about what academics say, it cites academic sources. That's precisely why it is ok. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I gather you feel that Old Earth Creationist views are not represented. I'd be quite happy to include a sentence or two about them, but are they really that prominent in literalist circles? - I was under the impression, from my reading of Creationsit websites, that Young Earthers had the majority. (Incidentally, the article on Old Earth Creationism has a section on OEC views on the Flood that we could link to).PiCo (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't actually mention OEC views at all. What I mentioned was other interpretations such as the local flood interpretation. They don't need to be included in the 'Literalist' section (I have already explained why this is a misnomer, it's trying to describe all who believe the Genesis narrative describes a historical event as 'Biblical literalists'), but they should be given at least a passing mention somewhere in the article (a link can then be given to a page which describes them in depth). The same could be done for relevant OEC views.
By the way, if you were reading 30+ academic journals as I am, you would know that the YEC view is not the majority (though it may be in North America, but only just). You need to think outside North America. The statistics I've seen cited indicate that less than 10% of Christians are YECs. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
PiCo seems to be referring to the YEC majority among creationists, not Christians in general. It appears that the majority of "Big Ark" defenders are YEC: that has certainly been my experience, and it's also apparent from TalkOrigins articles etc (in the sense that they don't seem to mention OEC-related points much, they appear to be almost exclusively directed at YEC beliefs). --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if that's what he's talking about, he's still wrong. YEC is a minority view among creationists, though it may be a majority view among North American creationists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Three more points to add: firstly, more personal websites don't improve the "common argument" claim. The Internet is a big place: personal websites, blogs and discussion board posts can be found to support just about any view (e.g. George W. Bush is a shape-shifting lizard: not actually a common view in anti-Bush circles). If this argument is common, it should be on TalkOrigins (proper) or a similar site (where, even then, the "common" qualifier may be dubious). This does not belong until at least one valid reference supports it.

I have been through this before. The issue at hand is about providing sources for what skeptics say. As such, these sources are entirely appropriate. If your objection was valid then nothing on TalkOrigins would be acceptable, as it is all entirely selfpublished. In fact many of the links in the article (including almost every single skeptic link), would have to be removed, since so many of them are selfpublished or personal pages, such as:
In this case I am presenting an argument which is certainly common among skeptics of the Ark, as I have demonstrated with plenty of sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, TalkOrigins etc. are not "selfpublished" in the WP:SPS sense. This is a common claim against TalkOrigins in particular (by those who confuse TalkOrigins proper with the discussion group), and it has failed every time. This is a notable, science-award-winning, reliable organization with a peer-review process.
Perhaps you haven't actually read the site:

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

TalkOrigins is a Usenet newsgroup.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in the talk.origins newsgroup. There is no 'organization' here called 'TalkOrigins' with a team of scientists producing all these papers. You cannot possibly claim that this is not self-published or was 'peer reviewed' in scientific journals. Nor can you make such a claim about this. Both were written by one person, Mark Isaac, who is not to the best of my knowledge an authority on either subject, and self-published them by putting them online. All he does is grab bits and pieces from the talk.orgins newsgroup, and makes articles and FAQs out of them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Articles approved and reproduced by an organization (regardless of where they came from) aren't "selfpublished" anymore: however, personal websites are.  From WP:CK: "A frequent justification in casual conversation is that a certain fact is "common knowledge". It often turns out that most people don't actually share this knowledge. Even claims that are widely believed often turn out to be anywhere from only mostly true to the complete opposite of what is actually the case.
I haven't appealed to 'common knowledge', and Mark Isaac's articles were neither 'approved' or 'reproduced' by an 'organization'. He wrote them, he put them online. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to find reliable sources to support their edits, and to cite them. Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy, and any unsourced edits may be removed."

I cited my sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, from WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Since Mark Isaac is not 'an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications', find me all the reliable sources which have made his argument regarding the Chinese treasure ships. Remember, I'm not the one objecting to this kind of source, you are. I note that you haven't commented on any of the other links. Why not? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, what reliable source has done so? Why has no reliable source made this argument? See also "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources".

This claim is not 'surprising', and it has been presented in the mainstream more than once. See this BBC news article ('The traditional shape of Noah's Ark comes from the imaginations of 19th Century artists. It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'). See also here ('the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'). See also this article in the Skeptical Inquirer ('Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'). A related argument, presented here by the National Center for Science Education, argues that neither the necessary technology nor knowledge was available to even build the Ark ('Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The notion that the Ark could not have floated even on a dead-calm pond is a surprising and apparently important claim that no notable skeptic source has ever actually made, as far as we can tell. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not citing what I wrote. The claim cited has been that the Ark could not support its own weight. Read what I wrote. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you're still repeating the same arguments against TalkOrigins that have been found to be invalid every other time they have been raised anywhere on Wikipedia. TalkOrigins is NOT the personal website of Mark Isaac.
No Robert, you've forgotten the whole point of this. You put forward a definition of 'reliable sources' which would exclude a large number of sources used in the article, as I have shown. I am defending all of them, including Mark Isaak's papers. You are defending none of them except for Mark Isaak's papers, arguing that they don't meet your definition. I am showing that Mark's papers do meet your definition. I have never said that TalkOrigins is the personal Website of Mark Isaac. Once more you are fabcricating claims. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He's part of a team that collates and approves material from the TalkOrigins discussion group, plus the stuff they've written themselves. Indeed, "Problems with a Global Flood" thanks the following people for their contributions and advice: Ken Fair, Bob Grumbine, Joel J. Hanes, Paul V. Heinrich, Bill Hyde, William H. Jefferys, Andrew MacRae, Thomas Marlowe, Glenn R. Morton, Chris Nedin, Kevin L. O'Brien, Chris Stassen, Frank Steiger.

Yes, it acknowledges help from other people, whilst giving Mark the responsibility of authorship. It does not tell us who contributed what, or what their qualifications are, and does not in any way enable us to identify any of these people as a reliable source. Nor does it identify Mark as a reliable source (according to your definition). --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And many have contributed to the "Index of Creationist Claims" too. It's this cooperative effort, the shared fact-checking and approval process, that separates TalkOrigins from personal websites written by just anyone. Plus the notability aspect, of course: regardless of qualifications, Isaac and the others are now notable sources, not just random strangers whose names fall out of a Google search.

You're not responding to my argument. I'm pointing out that TalkOrigins fails your requirement for reliable sources. Now how about all those other Websites you want write off? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to find alternatives to the personal websites of lone strangers. You're beginning to do that, but your latest sources still don't support the claim that you are making, because they don't say that the Ark would have "broken apart" merely when lying in still water:

Stop fabricating claims. I said the argument was that the Ark would collapse under its own weight. I never said the argument was that it would 'break apart merely when lying in still water'. Your deliberately repeated fabrications are dishonest. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

the BBC site is initially talking about a global flood (local-flood comes later).

Irrelevant. The section cited is specifically saying that the Ark could not be built, not that it couldn't survive the flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, "a structure too flimsy for the purpose"... of surviving a global flood while heavily laden.

It doesn't say that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Similary, "the construction of the Ark would have been impossible": unless they're talking about a shortage of wood to build the thing (entirely possible), they're talking about the construction of a vessel that was capable of surviving... a global flood, apparently (all advocates mentioned are global-flood YEC's).

Read what it says. It says the construction of the Ark would have been impossible, not its survival in a global flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE article specifically says "How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?"

The NCSE article specifically says that Noah 'would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis' before he could even have built the frame for such a large craft ('Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure?'). Your omission of this is very telling. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We still have NO reliable source for any skeptical claim that the Ark could not have floated even on calm water! --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given several. You're way behind in any case. Look at the main article for my latest edits. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, Chinese treasure ships. As far as I can tell, Gavin Menzies and his supporters are the only ones claiming that the treaure ships DID traverse a major ocean, and refutation of this claim is extensively referenced (but my wording leaves the possibility open anyhow). Everyone else thinks that they went around the southern coast of Asia as far as East Africa. Sure, I'll put in a reference that mentions the Ark if I ever find one, but as nobody is saying that they traversed any other ocean, this isn't controversial.

I am not talking about whether or not Menzies' claims are controversial. I am pointing out (yet again), that the information regarding the treasure ships does not, as it stands, have any direct relevance to the Ark and is not being presented correctly. It needs to be presented in the form of a cited argument by Ark skeptics claiming that the Ark could not have been a seaworthy vessel and specifically refuting the claim that the treasure ships prove such a large vessel could have navigated the oceans successfully. I have told you this at least three times now. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, structure and grouping. I think the mainpage article is currently better (though not perfect) than your current proposal, because there's some apparent mixing-up of different views within the same paragraph. Let's try to separate out global-flood-relevant stuff and local-flood-relevant stuff into distinct paragraphs (and, yes, specifically mention local-flood apologetics in the process). Big non-oceangoing ships don't belong with global-flood stuff, whereas arguably the treaure ships (which, despite the caveats, did at least skirt around the edge of at least one ocean) do, and modern theoretical Ark designs are claimed to be oceangoing too: that's significant.

The current paragraph in the article not only includes information which at least two of us have agree doesn't belong there (a section on the size of the Ark), but also lacks coherence. As I already pointed out, it contains sentences which used to refer to previous sentences which have now been removed, so the sentences which remain don't make sense. My paragraph made a clear separation of the various skeptical arguments and the various apologetic responses. Big non-ocean going ships are, as I pointed out, a common apologetic response to the claim that the Ark had to be a seaworthy ocean going ship, and I specifically included two references demonstrating that modern theoretical Ark designs are claimed to be oceangoing also. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE would appear to imply that global-Flood stuff gets priority, due to this being the main skeptical position and apparently the main creationist position too. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the main creationist position actually. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Since when? Can you document that? Both for 'scholars' and 'believers' please. I think most Creationist believers believe in a global flood.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean both for 'scholars' and 'believers'? I spoke specifically of creationists. See here ('More widely held by Christians than Young Earth creationism is Old Earth creationism, which is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth'). In the UK 'We have identified 463 individual churches that endorse young earth creationism in public – given that we calculate that there are 45,300 churches in the UK, this represents 1% of the total', and 'Creationism appeared to be virtually absent from the mainstream denomination churches such as Anglican, Catholic, Baptist Union, Methodist, United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland.' (here). See US statistics here ('Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education!'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert, PiCo wants me to place my new amendment proposal in the main article while it is being discussed here. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree, I am going to keep following standard Wikipedia editorial polices regardless of your disobedience to them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He said no such thing! He actually said "I'd really prefer it if you edited the version currently in the article" (i.e. no need to devise an entirely new version).
Er, editing the version currently in place is exactly what I'm talking about. I put a new proposal here, and he suggested instead that I edit the current article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My own action was to copy across stuff that was discussed HERE first. In doing so, I have used these DISCUSSED changes as a new basepoint for further improvement. Let's move forward from here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your own action was to copy across stuff that was discussed days ago and not agreed on, which is precisely why I wrote a second version of the paragraph, which is what was being discussed at the time of your copy/paste. So you deliberately didn't copy across what was currently being discussed, and you didn't copy across a paragraph which was agreed on. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists."
I'd like to see a reference for this statement. It seems to be just an observation rather than a quote from a reliable source. My experience as a Creationists and Flood Catastrophist has been that others like myself feel that the Korean paper is an excellent paper although perhaps it has not been well understood. Perhaps that is one reason why it may not be quoted much. The worldwideflood web site explains the Korean paper so that most anyone can understand it. Among Ark apologists, the worldwideflood site is considered the ultimate Noah's Ark information source given the fact that it is done by naval architects and a mechanical engineer. No one else has the education and experience to do a better job. I have yet to find ANY skeptical web site that is supported by naval architects and the like. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine by me. But I don't see what distinction TB intends by referring to "Biblical literalists" and "Christian apologists" - or rather, I can't see that Christian apologetics has anything to do with the Ark story (Christ isn't even mentioned). I gather that TB is trying to distance himself from the label "Biblical literalist," but I can't see why - he believes the Flood story refers to a literal flood, if only a local one.PiCo (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Christian apologists are the people defending the historicity of the ark. If you think that Christian apologetics only has reference to Christ, then I suggest you look up the definition of 'Christian apologist'. I have explained more than once why 'Biblical literalist' is not a correct description of every Christian apologist (let alone every Christian apologist who defends the Ark). A 'Biblical literalist' is synonymous with 'Fundamentalist', and Biblical literalists use the historical grammatical method of interpretation, which is not held to by the majority of Christians. So a 'Biblical literalist' believes in the most extreme position, a very large Ark, a global flood, all people on earth killed except for 8, all animals in the Ark, etc. As I have explained more than once previously, the term 'literalist' was being used in the article to refer to all those who believe in the historicity of the Ark, though it was actually the 'Biblical literalist' view which was being presented under this title, so the term 'literalist' was misleading. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Also: Ark apologists do not only appeal to ancient wood ships. A major part of the worldwideflood web site is the development of a wood ship design for Noah's Ark by naval architects. Here is found required structural data, calculations of expected forces, strength of materials, design features and requirements, and a proposed design. I have yet to find ANY source on-line (or elsewhere) who is duly qualified (i.e. an experienced naval architect or even mechanical engineers) that has challenged any point raised by the naval architects of worldwideflood. If skeptics want to do us all a service, get some qualified naval architects to review the worldwideflood data set. But they had better truly be qualified.
So: I propose the following additional paragraph to this section.
"In addition to appealing to ancient wood ships, naval architect apologists have proposed a design for the Ark based on expected forces, strength of materials, ship design requirements, etc. Their on-line results are available for review and analysis by skeptical naval architects and engineers."[110] Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK to me, but rather than putting it into a separate paragraph, I think it belongs in an expansion of the current last paragraph of "Seaworthiness" (in the article). That already discusses the Korean paper and nothing else, and is rather short. A dedicated paragraph specifically for everything pertaining to theoretical ocean-capable Arks seems appropriate. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Korean material up into the top of the section as it's about the most directly relevant thing I've sen on the Ark's seaworthines. I also tried to integrate ChristianSceptic's material (just above me here in this thread) into it. And I tried to shorten the whole thing. So if your sentences aren't there, please pause before re-inserting them, as I'm trying very hard to make this as succinct as possible. Cewrtainly you shou8ld find that ALL your refs are still there - let the reader go to the references if he wants more information on any specific point. For TB: I've marked off the remainder of your material between two rows of crosses. It needs to be drastically shortened. And it can be: you have a whole sentence on hogging and sagging, for example, and I managed to get it into the first para as just two words. Please ask yourself, just what point are you trying to make? I believe you're simply trying to say that some Ark-believers find support for the seaworthiness of the Ark in ancient vessels. It really doesn't need all those words to say that. Try to boil it down. PiCo (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PiCo, that whole section on hogging and sagging isn't mine, it was written by Robert. I didn't think it needed to be in there, but he insisted so I followed Wikipedia policy regarding being as cooperative as possible, and included it in my proposed paragraph. During the editorial process here on the Talk page you raised absolutely no objection to that section of Roberts, which you should have done if you objected to it.
Your edit is an improvement on what was there, but there is no mention whatever of other important issues, such as that a number of Christian apologists argue that there was no need for the Ark to be seaworthy since the flood was local and the Ark did not go to sea. In addition, the section on the Chinese treasure ships is still not in a relevant or acceptable form according to Wikipedia editorial policy. Firstly it is not identified as a marginal comparison (found uncommonly among apologists and almost never commented by skeptics), and secondly it is not presented in a manner which is directly relevant to the Ark. As it currently stands, it's an editor's personal comment and their own research, not the citing of a skeptical argument. I will edit it now to show what should be there.
As they stand, both new paragraphs are now incoherent because the original flow of argument has been abandoned, and some current sentences do not make sense because they refer to sentences which have been removed. I have said this at least three times now. The current edit makes it appear that Christians respond to skepticism of the Ark's seaworthiness with appeals to non-sea going vessels. This is a complete misrepresentation. The issue of the Ark's practicality and its seaworthiness should be separated to prevent this confusion, as I have suggested.
I haven't been trying to say some 'Ark-believers find support for the seaworthiness of the Ark in ancient vessels'. I specifically relocated information regarding ancient vessels under 'Practicality', identifying the fact that it was not discussing seaworthiness. This is an example of how my material is being misrepresented as a result of being copy/pasted out of context. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of my newly proposed material (and some of what is already in the 'Biblical Literalism' section), should be relocated under 'The Ark in scientific and critical scholarship', which has received very little attention given that there is a huge body of scholarship specifically on this subject. The 'Biblical literalism' section should be confined to discussion of the views of Biblical literalists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the people at Answers in Genesis regard themselves as scholars. PiCo (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PiCo, please confine yourself to relevant comments. If you're not aware of the critical scholarship on the Ark, then you shouldn't even be contributing to this article. Either respond meaningfully to what I wrote, or don't respond at all. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Back to who has the majority, old or young earth creationists -- YEC is clearly the majority in North America -- and I'd be surprised if there were many OEC in Afrida or South America.Doug Weller (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to a 1998 Gallup poll, YEC is the majority in North America by a massive 5%. Not exactly 'clearly the majority'. But of course, the original claim was that they are in an absolute majority among all creationists. That is completely untrue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to argue if Mark Isaak's papers are acceptable, please do so at WP:RSN. So far as I'm concerned, his flood paper is very well referenced and that is key. It should be used.Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read the posts. I am not arguing that Mark Isaak's papers are unacceptable. Robert has put forward a definition of 'reliable sources' which would exclude a large number of sources used in the article, as I have shown. I am defending all of them, including Mark Isaak's papers. He is defending none of them except for Mark Isaak's papers, arguing that they don't meet his definition. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you provided a list of sources that WERE NOT personal websites and WOULD NOT be affected by this enforcement of Wikipedia policy! I have now removed from the article the only references I have found that DID violate this Wikipedia policy. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No Robert, I provided a list of sources which met your definition for unreliability, which was not simply 'personal Websites', but self-publishing and notability. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you not read my posts? Not a single site in your list met Wikipedia's (not "my") definition, as far as I can see. Would you mind explaining your new claim that Answers In Genesis (for instance) is the personal website of one person who can post whatever he/she likes on that entire site, answerable to absolutely nobody else, and with nobody else to advise him/her? Can you name this one person who controls all content on AiG? Is it Ken Ham? Is it Jonathan Sarfati? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I never made any such claim Robert. You're making things up again, just as you made things up about ancient Hebrew seafaring, then made things up about Solomon, and then made things up about Dever. Every time I met you with scholarly evidence you abandoned your old argument, fabricated a new one, and kept on running. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, wrong on every count.
Really? You want to claim you were right about ancient Hebrew seafaring, Solomon, and Dever? Are you really going to dare to do that? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But, on the point you're still missing: everything I have just said about AiG actually applies to the sites I removed, which is why I removed them. YOU are the one insisting that the sites on your list (such as AiG) also fail the same criteria as those I removed. So, yes, that's what you are implicitly claiming. Do you understand this now? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not insisted that they all fail all the criteria you set forward. That's the part you are fabricating. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I’d like to make a couple points about some references in the article. They both make the claim that a wood ship the size of Noah’s ark would fall or break apart:
The first is by Colin Frayan PhD, Astronomy http://www.frayn.net/evolution/claim4.html dated 2 December 2005:
“Finally, the largest wooden ship ever built was the U.S.S. Wyoming, built in the first decade of the twentiath century with modern shipbuilding methods. It was more than 100 feet shorter than Noah's ark is claimed to have been. This ship represented a tremendous feat of engineering, and posed several substantial construction problems. Most notably, it required large iron strapping for support, just to hold the boat together. There is no possible way Noah could have built a boat 450 feet long which held together under its own weight, let alone also carried hundreds of thousands of animals, and floated on the tempestuous seas of the Biblical flood!”
Apparently Frayan makes the assumption that Noah’s Ark would have been made of a similar design as the Wyoming. Why? What does he base that on? Then, without any mathematical calculations claims the Ark could not hold itself together. Does Frayan have any knowledge, training or expertice to back up such claims? He is an Astronomer, not a naval architect. And he does not make any reference to any real experts in the field.
The second is Jeremy Bowen, Special Correspondent, BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3524676.stm March 19, 2004:
“It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart.”
What experts? Bowen does not give any sources. We are expected to just believe him.
Obviously neither Frayan nor Bowen are competent sources not having had any training in the field. If you are looking for competent, reliable sources to back up the assertions in this article, you really need to look elsewhere!
But then, if you want mere uneducated opinions, these are about a useless and any.
Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the purpose of this article is not to judge whether or not the arguements referred to are valid. We have been through this over and over again for the benefit of Robert. Secondly, the two links to which you refer are not being used as proof of a statement of fact, so they do not have to come from competent sources any more than the skeptic opinions cited here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree. The first, incidentally, is an invalid reference (personal website of a non-expert) that I had already deleted, and now I have had to delete it again. The second is a notable non-personal website, but in addition to your own criticisms, it didn't support the claim that Taiwan Boi originally used it for (that the Ark would simply fall apart), because it was being used in a global-Flood context (hence, ocean swells etc) - the article later moved on to discussing local-Flood. Hence, even Bowen isn't claiming that the Ark was quite as fragile as was originally implied. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
See above. Neither link is being used as proof of a statement of fact so you have no complaint to make. And the BBC Website does not say what you claim. It does not say experts think it would have broken apart because of ocean swells. It says it would have been 450 feet long, and experts say it would have broken apart. It is the very size of the ship which is being used as the reason why it would have broken apart. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal websites are always invalid references, except when quoting experts. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but that's policy, and technically Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between "facts" and "opinions" in any case (a fact is merely the opinion of a notable source: hence the slogan "verifiability, not truth"). There is also the problem of variable content, which could affect any site but is more of an issue with personal websites (and open blogs and wikis). And it was indeed being used to support a statement of fact: the "fact" that this is a common skeptical argument (as I pointed out earlier, I could provide numerous references for the claim that George W. Bush is a shape-shifting lizard: but this is NOT in fact a common argument against Bush). At least that claim has now gone.
The BBC reference says "experts say it would have broken apart", but it doesn't actually say why it would have broken apart: and it mentions the Ark's length, but not its weight. As the article is plainly discussing the global-Flood scenario at this point, this is probably just another reference to wave action on a hull of that length: certainly there is no reason to assume otherwise. We still don't have any valid reference which specifically says that (according to skeptics) the Ark wouldn't even float in calm water. I'd rather leave the question in without a reference, as a sort of rhetorical question, or half of the compound question "Could the Ark have supported its own weight? Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible?" and move the BBC reference to the end of that more general question (with the other two references). Then we're not trying to impose any specific interpretation on what the author meant. Also, there's a more dubious reference in there: the article "the age of the supergalleys" doesn't even mention Noah's Ark at all, therefore including it here is technically a WP:SYN violation. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
...Actually, it appears that the problem of off-topic references (i.e. those that don't apparently mention Noah's Ark at all) goes deeper. "Technology along the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Boats" (reference 55) doesn't either. Some references can't be checked online, but aren't being used to talk about Noah's Ark, and no quotes mentioning the Ark are provided from these (references 47, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60). Looks like a massive outbreak of WP:SYN here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Graves, David & Jane (1995). Weights & Measures. Retrieved on 2007-07-20.
  2. ^ Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature (1985). Harper's Bible Dictionary, article 'Weights and Measures', page 1,130. Harper and Row. 
  3. ^ Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale's Bible Dictionary, article 'Weights and Measures', page 1,299. Tyndale House Publishers. 
  4. ^ Book of Genesis (New English Translation).
  5. ^ Book of Genesis (New English Translation).
  6. ^ Cubit References
  7. ^ 'Journal Of The Society Of Arts', December 16, 1859, volume VIII, page 71
  8. ^ How BIG was Noah's Ark?
  9. ^ The Genesis Flood
  10. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Noah's Ark', 1913
  11. ^ Goodrich, SG, 'A History of All Nations', revised edition 1864, page 68
  12. ^ Noah's Ark
  13. ^ Isaak, Mark, 'Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
  14. ^ "The construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships", Gould, R (2001). Asia's Undersea Archeology. Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
  15. ^ 'For [z] measuring the ark by the vulgar cubit, it did not exceed the capacity of that vessel built by Hiero of Syracuse, or the ship of Ptolemy Philo-pater', Raleigh, Sir Walter, 'The History of the World', Book 1, in 'The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt', volume II, 1829, page 213
  16. ^ Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson 1994
  17. ^ The Age of the Supergalleys, Chapter 7 of Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, Lionel Casson, University of Texas Press; 1st University edition, March 1994 ISBN-10: 029271162X.
  18. ^ 'Ancient History boasts of many large vessels, which prove the possibility of the size of Noah's Ark… PLUTARCH, in his life of DEMETRIUS, relates that PTOLOMEY PHILOPATER constructed a galley, of the same length, with forty ranges or heights of oars, navigated by four hundred sailors, and four thousand galley slaves, which could contain three thousand fighting men on its decks', Radford, William, 'On the construction of the Ark, as adapted to the naval architecture of the present day, &c.', 1840, pages 21-22
  19. ^ 'Mr. A. HENDERSON has communicated to the Institution of Civil Engineers a paper on "Ocean Steamers," wherein he made some calculations respecting the comparative bulk of the most famous vessels of antiquity and of our own times. Thus, a ship constructed by Ptolemus Philopater was 420 feet long, 56 broad, and 72 high from the keel to the prow, and it was manned by 4000 rowers, 400 servants, and 2820 marines. It was estimated, therefore, that this vessel had a tonnage of 6445 tons, builder's measurement, and an external bulk of 830,700 cubic feet. Noah's ark would have a tonnage of 11,905, and a bulk of 1,580,000 cubic feet', Timbs, John, 'The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art', 1854, page 42
  20. ^ Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt (editor), 'A ship was constructed for Ptolemy Philopater, which was 420 feet long, 56 feet broad, and 72 feet deep, and of 6,445 tons burthen', The Presbyterian Magazine, volume IV, 1854, page 93
  21. ^ 'Very large vessels — their seaworthiness.', 'By old law, the tonnage of Noah's Ark was 11,905 tons, and calculated on this estimate, her external bulk would be about 1,580,277 cubic feet ; the ship built 2000 years ago at Alexandria, by Ptolemaens Philopater, 6445 tons', Report Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science', 1855, page 154
  22. ^ Impossible For Ancients
  23. ^ The Genesis Flood
  24. ^ 'It is estimated that the obelisk barge [of Hatshepsut] may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide', Technology along the Nile
  25. ^ '[the Thalamegos] was over 300 feet long, Casson, Lionel, 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 342
  26. ^ 'Athenaios does not indicate his sources for the second ship, [the Thalamegos] but it must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary', Sarton, George, 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.', 1993, page 121
  27. ^ 'Similar techniques were used in the gigantic Lake Nemi ships of the early first century AD', McGrail, Sean, 'Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times', 2004, page 157
  28. ^ 'Archaeology Italian archaeologists and engineers drain Lake Nemi near Rome to recover two giant barges that had been built by Roman emperor Caligula', Bunch, Bryan and Hellemans, Alexander, 'The History of Science and Technology', 2004, page 513
  29. ^ 'Atop one of these was erected a lighthouse that used as its foundation the giant ship that had been built to transport the obelisk of Heliopolis from Egypt to Rome under the reign of Caligula', Aldrete, Gregory, 'Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia', 2004, page 206
  30. ^ S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
  31. ^ NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
  32. ^ Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
  33. ^ Noah's Ark
  34. ^ Ancient Chinese Explorers, Evan Hadingham, Sultan's Lost Treasures, NOVA, PBS Television
  35. ^ Asia's Undersea Archeology, Richard Gould, NOVA, PBS Television article
  36. ^ Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
  37. ^ Noah's Ark
  38. ^ Claim 4 - Noah's Ark
  39. ^ Noah's Ark
  40. ^ TalkOrigins Google Group
  41. ^ Cubit References
  42. ^ 'Journal Of The Society Of Arts', December 16, 1859, volume VIII, page 71
  43. ^ How BIG was Noah's Ark?
  44. ^ The Genesis Flood
  45. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Noah's Ark', 1913
  46. ^ Goodrich, SG, 'A History of All Nations', revised edition 1864, page 68
  47. ^ Noah's Ark
  48. ^ Isaak, Mark, 'Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
  49. ^ "The construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships", Gould, R (2001). Asia's Undersea Archeology. Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
  50. ^ The Genesis Flood
  51. ^ Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
  52. ^ S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
  53. ^ NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
  54. ^ The large ships of antiquity
  55. ^ 'For [z] measuring the ark by the vulgar cubit, it did not exceed the capacity of that vessel built by Hiero of Syracuse, or the ship of Ptolemy Philo-pater', Raleigh, Sir Walter, 'The History of the World', Book 1, in 'The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt', volume II, 1829, page 213
  56. ^ Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson 1994
  57. ^ The Age of the Supergalleys, Chapter 7 of Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, Lionel Casson, University of Texas Press; 1st University edition, March 1994 ISBN-10: 029271162X.
  58. ^ 'Ancient History boasts of many large vessels, which prove the possibility of the size of Noah's Ark… PLUTARCH, in his life of DEMETRIUS, relates that PTOLOMEY PHILOPATER constructed a galley, of the same length, with forty ranges or heights of oars, navigated by four hundred sailors, and four thousand galley slaves, which could contain three thousand fighting men on its decks', Radford, William, 'On the construction of the Ark, as adapted to the naval architecture of the present day, &c.', 1840, pages 21-22
  59. ^ 'Mr. A. HENDERSON has communicated to the Institution of Civil Engineers a paper on "Ocean Steamers," wherein he made some calculations respecting the comparative bulk of the most famous vessels of antiquity and of our own times. Thus, a ship constructed by Ptolemus Philopater was 420 feet long, 56 broad, and 72 high from the keel to the prow, and it was manned by 4000 rowers, 400 servants, and 2820 marines. It was estimated, therefore, that this vessel had a tonnage of 6445 tons, builder's measurement, and an external bulk of 830,700 cubic feet. Noah's ark would have a tonnage of 11,905, and a bulk of 1,580,000 cubic feet', Timbs, John, 'The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art', 1854, page 42
  60. ^ Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt (editor), 'A ship was constructed for Ptolemy Philopater, which was 420 feet long, 56 feet broad, and 72 feet deep, and of 6,445 tons burthen', The Presbyterian Magazine, volume IV, 1854, page 93
  61. ^ 'Very large vessels — their seaworthiness.', 'By old law, the tonnage of Noah's Ark was 11,905 tons, and calculated on this estimate, her external bulk would be about 1,580,277 cubic feet ; the ship built 2000 years ago at Alexandria, by Ptolemaens Philopater, 6445 tons', Report Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science', 1855, page 154
  62. ^ Impossible For Ancients
  63. ^ The Genesis Flood
  64. ^ 'It is estimated that the obelisk barge [of Hatshepsut] may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide', Technology along the Nile
  65. ^ '[the Thalamegos] was over 300 feet long, Casson, Lionel, 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 342
  66. ^ 'Athenaios does not indicate his sources for the second ship, [the Thalamegos] but it must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary', Sarton, George, 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.', 1993, page 121
  67. ^ 'Similar techniques were used in the gigantic Lake Nemi ships of the early first century AD', McGrail, Sean, 'Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times', 2004, page 157
  68. ^ 'Archaeology Italian archaeologists and engineers drain Lake Nemi near Rome to recover two giant barges that had been built by Roman emperor Caligula', Bunch, Bryan and Hellemans, Alexander, 'The History of Science and Technology', 2004, page 513
  69. ^ 'Atop one of these was erected a lighthouse that used as its foundation the giant ship that had been built to transport the obelisk of Heliopolis from Egypt to Rome under the reign of Caligula', Aldrete, Gregory, 'Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia', 2004, page 206
  70. ^ Compare Noah's Ark
  71. ^ Claim CH508
  72. ^ Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
  73. ^ Noah's Ark
  74. ^ Goodrich, SG, 'A History of All Nations', revised edition 1864, page 68
  75. ^ Noah's Ark
  76. ^ Isaak, Mark, 'Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
  77. ^ "The construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships", Gould, R (2001). Asia's Undersea Archeology. Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
  78. ^ The Genesis Flood
  79. ^ Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
  80. ^ S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
  81. ^ NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
  82. ^ Claim 4 - Noah's Ark
  83. ^ Noah's Ark
  84. ^ TalkOrigins Google Group
  85. ^ Discover The Real Noah's Ark
  86. ^ Noah And The Flood
  87. ^ How BIG was Noah's Ark?
  88. ^ The Genesis Flood
  89. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Noah's Ark', 1913
  90. ^ The large ships of antiquity
  91. ^ 'For [z] measuring the ark by the vulgar cubit, it did not exceed the capacity of that vessel built by Hiero of Syracuse, or the ship of Ptolemy Philo-pater', Raleigh, Sir Walter, 'The History of the World', Book 1, in 'The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt', volume II, 1829, page 213
  92. ^ Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson 1994
  93. ^ The Age of the Supergalleys, Chapter 7 of Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, Lionel Casson, University of Texas Press; 1st University edition, March 1994 ISBN-10: 029271162X.
  94. ^ 'Ancient History boasts of many large vessels, which prove the possibility of the size of Noah's Ark… PLUTARCH, in his life of DEMETRIUS, relates that PTOLOMEY PHILOPATER constructed a galley, of the same length, with forty ranges or heights of oars, navigated by four hundred sailors, and four thousand galley slaves, which could contain three thousand fighting men on its decks', Radford, William, 'On the construction of the Ark, as adapted to the naval architecture of the present day, &c.', 1840, pages 21-22
  95. ^ 'Mr. A. HENDERSON has communicated to the Institution of Civil Engineers a paper on "Ocean Steamers," wherein he made some calculations respecting the comparative bulk of the most famous vessels of antiquity and of our own times. Thus, a ship constructed by Ptolemus Philopater was 420 feet long, 56 broad, and 72 high from the keel to the prow, and it was manned by 4000 rowers, 400 servants, and 2820 marines. It was estimated, therefore, that this vessel had a tonnage of 6445 tons, builder's measurement, and an external bulk of 830,700 cubic feet. Noah's ark would have a tonnage of 11,905, and a bulk of 1,580,000 cubic feet', Timbs, John, 'The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art', 1854, page 42
  96. ^ Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt (editor), 'A ship was constructed for Ptolemy Philopater, which was 420 feet long, 56 feet broad, and 72 feet deep, and of 6,445 tons burthen', The Presbyterian Magazine, volume IV, 1854, page 93
  97. ^ 'Very large vessels — their seaworthiness.', 'By old law, the tonnage of Noah's Ark was 11,905 tons, and calculated on this estimate, her external bulk would be about 1,580,277 cubic feet ; the ship built 2000 years ago at Alexandria, by Ptolemaens Philopater, 6445 tons', Report Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science', 1855, page 154
  98. ^ Impossible For Ancients
  99. ^ The Genesis Flood
  100. ^ 'It is estimated that the obelisk barge [of Hatshepsut] may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide', Technology along the Nile
  101. ^ '[the Thalamegos] was over 300 feet long, Casson, Lionel, 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 342
  102. ^ 'Athenaios does not indicate his sources for the second ship, [the Thalamegos] but it must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary', Sarton, George, 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.', 1993, page 121
  103. ^ 'Similar techniques were used in the gigantic Lake Nemi ships of the early first century AD', McGrail, Sean, 'Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times', 2004, page 157
  104. ^ 'Archaeology Italian archaeologists and engineers drain Lake Nemi near Rome to recover two giant barges that had been built by Roman emperor Caligula', Bunch, Bryan and Hellemans, Alexander, 'The History of Science and Technology', 2004, page 513
  105. ^ 'Atop one of these was erected a lighthouse that used as its foundation the giant ship that had been built to transport the obelisk of Heliopolis from Egypt to Rome under the reign of Caligula', Aldrete, Gregory, 'Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia', 2004, page 206
  106. ^ Compare Noah's Ark
  107. ^ Claim CH508
  108. ^ Cubit References
  109. ^ 'Journal Of The Society Of Arts', December 16, 1859, volume VIII, page 71
  110. ^ Ark

Stylistic comment on the section Biblical literalism and the Ark

It looks a mess right now, what are all those symbols on the left supposed to mean? And I see no point in the image - "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic." and this one isn't (in my opinion of course).Doug Weller (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Pico added the rows of crosses. So they are just meant to be temporary, ok. The image should still go.Doug Weller (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting for TB to edit the fenced-off material - I don't want to do it myself and be accused of distorting his intentions. PiCo (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have explained how I want it edited. I want to put it in a new section. I'll do that now if you're asking me to edit it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(Deleting my first comment, written before looking at the actual edit - sorry) Your latest version looks pretty acceptable to me. I'd just make a few alterations, such as not leading with an overt reference to what ark-skeptics say. (I'll make a small edit to show you what I mean - you can both get your point across, and avoid sounding so defensive). 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. By the way, you missed your signoff here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationists

Starting a new section to make it clearer. According to our Creationism article,

"According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." I'm not sure you can call the 37% OEC.

Er, 'millions of years' isn't OEC? Come again? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the view that 'Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process' is known as Theistic Evolution not old earth creationism (so actually you can call the 37% theistic evolutionist).--Fang 23 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You have to take into account the ambiguity of the poll. OECs had no choice but to take this option, because they couldn't take the other (and comparing this data with other polls, it's clear that there are plenty of OECs in North America). Unless you want to claim that no OECs answered the poll at all, which is not remotely likely. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you did, the YEC still have an absolute majority. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, a 12% majority. That's not an 'absolute majority'. That's a simple (and very slender), majority. And that's only North America, remember? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you are defining absolute majority, but you are clearly assuming that everyone who thinks a deity was involved in evolution is an Old Earth Creationist and I don't think that argument is sustainable. And outside of North America, most Creationists are almost certainly less educated and more likely to believe in a global flood.Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
An absolute majority is a majority of more than 50% of total membership (that would have to be more than 50% of all those polled). That's not my definition, that's what an 'absolute majority' is. I am not assuming that 'everyone who thinks a deity was involved in evolution is an Old Earth Creationist'. That is not what the poll asked. The poll asked if people agreed with the statement 'Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'. That's 'millions of years', not YEC. And that's 'God' not 'a deity'. That's OEC regardless of how you look at it (oh, perhaps you weren't aware of all the different models of OEC). --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the population in question is just Creationists, YEC and OEC.
A Christian who believes in evolution guided by God is not necessarily any kind of Creationist.
But as I pointed out, unless you want to claim that no OECs answered the poll, then they'll be included in the second option. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Among Creationists, the YEC have an absolute majority, and it is bigger than 8%.Doug Weller (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In order to be an absolute majority of all creationists, it needs to be more than 50%. What's your source please? So far the best evidence we've seen for a YEC majority of any kind (and a simple majority at that), only has to do with North America, and there's nothing there which suggests a greater than 50% majority. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In the poll, 45% thought humans were created less than 10000 years ago, those are, reasonably, YEC. 37% thought god guided evolution over millions of years ago. Some of them must be OEC but there is no reason to think all or even most of them are. And the others aren't Christian creationists at all, right? So clearly more than 50% of the Creationists are YEC. I don't understand your math.Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly you need to understand that polls taken in North America are not equivalent to polls taken of the world (your national pride notwithstanding). Secondly, you need to demonstrate that this poll proves that out of all creationists, more than 50% believe in YEC. In this case you need to prove that of the 37% who answered 'Yes' to the second option, less than 27.5% are OECs. That's the math, and you know you can't do it. So you understand this poll better, read this:

'Between 1982 and 2006, the number subscribing to the creationist view has ranged from 44 to 47 percent, while those who buy the naturalist take on things account for 9 to 13 percent. The middle-ground theistic position gets 35 to 40 percent of the vote. There's no clear trend over the 24 years; if anything, the naturalists have gained a few percentage points. Polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News have found similar support for creationist belief, while surveys by CBS News from 2004 to 2006 and a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll give it a slim majority, at 51 to 53 percent.'

See the link to understand why the numbers fluctuate, and how they are influenced by the way the question is posed. For a more detailed analysis, see here:

Instead, Gallup gives respondents two choices: atheistic evolution, and creationism, defining the term so incompletely as to make many theistic evolutionists, intelligent designers, and Old Earth Creationists choose the Young Earth oriented creationism definition over the atheistic evolution option.

Note that he makes the useful point that only four colleges in North America still offer a YEC curriculum. Only four. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this discussion has to do with the ark - can someone enlighten me? PiCo (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to an offhand comment by Doug which he then though warranted an entirely new section and a new discussion here on the Talk page. Ask him why, I have no clue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a couple of clarifications as I understand it:
YEC Young Earth Creationists, the entire universe and life on the planet are only 6000 years old, There is no Evolution by common descent, There was a global flood some 4000 years ago.
OEC Old Earth Creationists, The universe and planet earth is very old, Life has evolved over millions of years started and directed by God, If there was a Flood, it was only local not global.
The YEC tend to be quite uniform in their beliefs on origins, while OEC tend to have a rather wide range of beliefs.
Polls: There have been many polls about creation/evolution over the last 20 years or so. In general, the US population is about 40% YEC, about 40% OEC and about 15% Atheist (the other ~5% represents all other positions). I saw a poll taken in about 1920 which had nearly the same results as todays polls. Despite, over 80 years of public education touting Evolution, the US population position has remained about the same. This is one reason why evolutionists (and the news media) are frustrated. They believe that the education system must be deeply flawed [despite the fact that they have been in charge], or that science teachers must be poorly trained or poor excuses for teachers, or that the US population is scientifically challenged, or that religion has a mind numbing grip on scared, weak-willed believers.
Go figure: --Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's another definition of Old Earth Creationist -- any Christian that isn't a YEC. That would surprise some Christians I know. My sister-in-law for one. Then there are my Mennonite friends in northern Indiana (computer consultants) -- that would give them a good laugh.Doug Weller (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the relevance to the article: I think Taiwan Boi is trying to claim that his local-Flood interpretation has priority over global-Flood because more people subscribe to it.
Wrong. I have said no such thing. I have made it clear that I believe the flood should be in a completely different article. There's only one mention of the local flood interpretation in this article, and that's exactly where it should be. Read my posts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If so (and it might not be so, it could be a digression: not exactly unknown around here), that would require some massive and unwarranted assumptions: that all Christians who aren't YEC's are OEC's, all Christians now classified as OEC's accept a local Flood, and all now classified as local-Flood believers accept an OEC view that Noah still floated a Genesis-style Ark on that Flood. This would indeed be VERY startling news to... well, every Christian I've ever met in real life, I think. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a chain of reasoning I follow. As for 'every Christian I've ever met in real life', that would be less than 100, all in North America, and I doubt you asked them all how they interpreted the flood. So another useless comment. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What a bizarre statement!PiCo (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that it was me who was responding to a comment from Taiwan boi, not the other way around.
Read what I wrote. I said that you started this new section after I responded to a comment you made. That is what happened. I wasn't talking about how the original discussion was started. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, he makes it very difficult to work with him when he insults people. WP:Civility explains in detail the problems behaviour like his causes.Doug Weller (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. Regardless of how uncivil you think I am, I have been the easiest editor to work with on this article. I have consistently offered my amendments here for discussion instead of just editing the article as I pleased (unlike Robert). I have consistently re-edited and resubmitted my amendments here in response to the discussions here. I have also consistently included material which other editors wanted (even if I disagreed), removed material which other editors didn't want (even if I disagreed), and reworded phrases to which other editors objected (even if I disagreed). Over the last week I have spent more time actually working on and contributing to the article than anyone else. So don't try and claim that I've been difficult to work with, especially after you've done nothing but snipe from the sidelines, without even spending 5 minutes improving the article itself. I have spent at least 4 hours on every single edit I've suggested. My work here has resulted in significant improvements to the article, which have been approved even by those who think I'm uncivil and difficult to work with. You, on the other hand, have done nothing. You're not editing, you're not contributing, you've spent your whole time here arguing in the talk page. Go and find a Google Group, this place is for workers. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The "bizarre statement" was TB's comment that he thinks you never met more than a hundred Christians in your life - and yes, it's highly uncivil.
Why do you think that's bizarre? I have every reason to think so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
But TB's incivility is at least democratic - he's rude to everyone, without fear or favour. PiCo (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is highly ironic given the personal abuse to which I have been subjected here day after day by yourself, Robert, and Doug. I haven't made any personal comments about anyone, I've simply addressed arguments. In return I've experienced personal attacks, had my qualifications questioned, and had idiotic beliefs falsely attributed to me. But I don't go whinge about it to the administrators, since I know it's to be expected on Wikipedia and none of you are going to change your behaviour regardless of Wikipedia's guidelines. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And yet more insults from TB. Anyone can look at my contributions and see I spend a lot of time editing other articles, including finding new and good references (for instance, I recently subscribed to Antiquity at the highest rate just to be able to get access to back issues). Don't say I'm not a worker, the evidence is there to prove that I am. The talk page is meant to be a place to work on improving the article, so hopefully my posts here are mainly aimed at that (except when I get diverted as is happening now).The fact is TB's behaviour puts me off editing this article. I've got other articles to work on where I don't have to face this sort of thing or my motivation to work on the article is higher so I don't care about the attitude of other editors (well, I always prefer them to be civil of course).
Doug, I was referring specifically to this article. I'm sure you contribute extremely well to other articles. As for being put off contributing to this article, look through this Talk page and imagine how I feel having to put up with Robert inventing wild arguments and contradicting standard scholarly sources, trying to rewrite history according to his own imagination. Imagine how I feel having to justify to PiCo citations from standard academic authorities, when they are considered by Wikipedia's reliability policy to be the highest form of source. Imagine how I feel when I spend 4 hours working on a paragraph amendment, incorporating the material other editors have suggested, and then see other editors blithely hacking up the article as they please with 10 minute edits on the fly which aren't even accurate. Let's talk about being put off, shall we? --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I used to work for the Episcopal church by the way, I've met a lot of Christians, certainly more than 100.

That's great, I believe you. My previous comments were directed to Robert, not you. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
...And they were about as accurate as all your other personal attacks on me. FYI, I am a former Christian (I was raised as such), I was educated in Christian schools, I am a citizen of a nation with Christianity as the official state religion, my mother is still a Christian, most of my relatives are at least nominally Christian, my wife's mother and many of her relatives are Christians, most of the people I went to church with were presumably Christians... and I know very few people in North America, as I am British. My experience of Christianity is that most Christians believe the New Testament but have very little interest in the Old, and the Genesis creation and flood stories are considered myths. Most Christians here are still pretty much unaware of the existence of people who take Genesis literally. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Re your comment about most Brits being unaware of the existence of people who tajke Genesis literally: ditto for Australia. I remember reading somewhere of some American literalist boasting that Australia had the most literalists after the US - a massive 5% of the population!PiCo (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what he means by not whingeing to administrators by the way? It's tempting, but no one seems to have suggested that and I'd certainly prefer not to.

TB, you work very hard on the articles you contribute to and I admire you for that. I've been looking at the Battle of Kadesh one (something that interests me, especially since an Egyptologist I know showed me around Abu Simel) where I see you've been working and may work on that at some point if I feel I can add anything. I've better resources on that than I do on this article.Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate any work on the Battle of Kadesh article, and so would the other editors there. As you can see, there's a vote on an edit war there right now, and I don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject to make an appropriately informed decision. A contribution from someone with your understanding of the subject and the resources you have would certainly help. I suggest you contact Publik or SuperKnuckles.

Further to my post above about the varieties of religious belief: I found an interesting poll done in the UK which avoids the social pressures inherent in a man in a thin black tie and a clipboard asking you ton your face whether you believe in God, answer yes or no within the next five seconds: from this YouGov poll it appears that just 22% of Brits believe "in a personal God who created the world and hears my prayers"; a further 6% believe in a God who created the world and then went on vacation (a point of view which seems to accord with the observed facts of life as we know it). And the rest could not, in all conscience, be called believers in God, even if they might describe themselves as such if put on the spot. The 6% are obviously not biblical literalists; the 22% might or might not believe in the bible to the extent of believing in that the Ark really existed, one really can't tell from the evidence. Anyeway, the figures are way below those for the US. Yet I wonder whether the US responses also betray a social effect - saying what you think you're expected to say, rather than what you really think. After all, I imagine the rare atheist in officially God-fearing societies anywhere, from Texas to Isfahan, would prefer to live a quiet life. (The poll data can be found buried towards the end of this link: [50]PiCo (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some work needed on this subsection

I'm addressing this mainly to Taiwanboi, since it's his particular concern. TB, there are some points in the subsection on practicality that need addressing. I'll paste the whole paragraph in first, then list my comments.

Practicality: Could the Ark have supported its own weight?[41]Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible?[42][43] Such questions are responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark [44]. From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. [45] The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities[46][47]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.[48][49][50][51] Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships,[52][53] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[54][55][56][57][58][59] A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists is the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan'.[60] Skeptics object that the design and size of the Chinese ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.[61]

Now here are the comments on points that I feel need further work:

  • Raleigh's comparison of the Ark and the Syracusia: Since nobody is sure how long the Ark was, how can it be said to have been longer or shorter than the Syracusia? And just how long was the Syracusia? (this should be added in brackets). And are we sure that data on the length of the S. is reliable?
I included a link to the Syracusia which gives its size. As to the rest, you're trying to assess the worthiness of Raleigh's apologetic. That's not the task of this article. The task of this article is to mention what people believe. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • More broadly, I'm not sure we should be referencing Sir Walter at all - this section is about modern literalist beliefs. If some modern literalist source quotes Sir Walter, that's fine, but of himself he's not strictly relevant.
I hadn't noticed that this section is only about modern literalist beliefs. The section on gopher wood cites the LXX (2nd-3rd century BC), the Latin Vulgate, and the 17th century KJV for different literalist interpretations of gopher wood. My reference was simply following the same pattern. If you're interested, the Syracusia is still used as a comparison by Ark apologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your other ancient ships could also have lengths added in brackets. Otherwise, the reader is left a bit in the dark.
Well I do provide links which give specific details. The link to the Tessarakonteres gives the modern estimate, as do the links to Caligula's barge and Nemi ships. The size of Hatshepsut's barge is contained in a reference link at the end of the sentence. The only ship missing a specific reference to size is the Thalamegos. If you want me to include specific sizes in brackets after each ship, I can do that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the Chinese ships, for similar reasons - i.e., our article is about literalist beliefs. This is what I meant when I wrote earlier about the difference between making or stating a case (ours) and describing one (the literalist beliefs) - NPOV means we should restrict ourselves to describing other people's beliefs/arguments, not making our own. And yes, I'm aware that you didn't add the Chinese material.

PiCo (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paragraph you will see that the Chinese ships are mentioned as a point of comparison made by current literalists (a link is given). This is describing other people's beliefs/arguments ('A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists'), not making our own. Then a reference is made to current skeptics who object that they are not sufficiently analogous to the Ark (a link is given). This is describing other people's beliefs/arguments, not making our own ('Skeptics object'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Seaworthiness" and "Practicality": new version

  • Seaworthiness: Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long. [1] This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing.[2][3] "The construction and use histories of these [i.e. modern timber-hulled] ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships".[4] In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, [5] including a Korean paper demonstrating that the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'.[6][7][8] In this regard, some apologists cite the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan' (the largest of which are claimed to be 400 to 600 ft long), as examples of large seagoing wooden vessels[9][10]: however, the actual size of these ships is disputed[11][12], and one explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river[13]. Some apologists claim that the Flood was merely a local phenomenon confined to Mesopotamia, and hence the Ark would not have needed to survive wave action on a worldwide ocean.[14]
  • Practicality: Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible?[15][16][17] Ark-believers claim that there is ample evidence for ancient timber vessels comparable in size and construction to the Ark:[18] Sir Walter Raleigh was among the first to argue that the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia, a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (180 feet in length), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater.[19] The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities,[20][21] albeit with caveats regarding its practicality: Plutarch says "she was moved only with difficulty and danger"[22]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.[23][24][25][26] Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (206-311 ft), the Thalamegos (377 ft), Caligula's Giant Ship (341 ft), and Caligula's Nemi Ships (229 ft),[27][28] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[29][30][31][32][33][34]

Summary of changes: As per my suggestion a while back, I think this provides a better separation of global-flood and local-flood apologetics. Rather than mixing these in the same sentence, I now have the article progressing from global-flood "seaworthiness", via a separate sentence at the end (mentioning local-flood, though the main article should probably raise this elsewhere too), into the "practicality" section which describes the various non-oceangoing historical examples (though I don't specifically point this out, as it's not clear whether Raleigh and the others actually were local-flood apologists, and even global-flood apologists would probably want to mention these). I've put back some of the material regarding the treasure ships, but dropped the reference to Gavin Menzies' claims (as per WP:UNDUE, he seems rather fringe). I disagree with Taiwan Boi's opinion that these are less notable: they are mentioned at TalkOrigins (whereas the Tessarakonteres appears only in the "feedback" section), they feature prominently at the Worldwideflood site, and so forth: as we have no reference for any claim that they are less notable, we shouldn't be injecting original research there. As for the other "original research" charge regarding the treasure ships (more specifically WP:SYN): well, this is dependent on whether or not the subject of "large wooden ships" is considered "directly relevant" to the article's subject, Noah's Ark (the counter-arguments against them aren't mine, they are those of cited skeptics of the claims regarding the treasure ships). I had earlier assumed this was relevant, hence references regarding such vessels would be on-topic even if they didn't mention Noah's Ark (especially as the connection to Noah's Ark has been established by other references): Taiwan Boi disagreed, but apparently did not consider the fact that this restriction would disqualify at least eight of his own references as WP:SYN violations (as mentioned previously). I'd rather not butcher the article, but if no consensus can be reached, those additional references (and the statements supported by them) would have to go. "Practicality" is unchanged, apart from two points: I've removed the speculation regarding the Ark's ability to support its own weight (this apparently cannot be reliably sourced, and is already addressed by the rest of the paragraph anyhow), and I've included Plutarch's comment regarding the practicality of the Tessarakonteres (relevant as he's a cited "historical source" for the ship's existence). I've also incorporated PiCo's suggestion of quoting the lengths of the ships. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

...Well, I don't exactly see howls of protest here. So I'll copy it across. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You waited a day on a article that dosnt seem to get much action, and who cares ifd it was practical... --Jakezing (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Having read the Korean paper and WorldwideFlood's analysis, I'm sure that the Korean paper only deals with the "dimensions, shape," of the Ark as far as safety and stability were concerned. It does not deal with the "structural materials" of the Ark. The Engineer and Naval Architects of Worldwideflood's website have done strength of materials and structural design of a proposed wood ship. They do not depend upon 19th century ships for their design. In fact, they avoided the design of "modern" ships because they were inadequate and desperately flawed. And they used some design features of ancient ships, not used by 'modern' sailing ships, that greatly increase the structural strength of wood construction. These guys know what they are talking about. The only ones who disagree with them are people who do not have the education or experience to know.
--Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)