Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 23 February 2005

Archive to Dec 17 2004

commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

looks great.

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

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

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

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

new criticism of flood geology.

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

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

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

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

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

picking on genesis.

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

Lack of Neutrality

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

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

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

To resolve this:

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

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

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

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

<<I'm asking for sources>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Sources for each story individually referenced.

2. Comparison of sources. Comparison of details.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flood plains argument

The article contains the following:

Scholars of mythology often point out that many deluge myths originate among peoples who lived in the fertile plains along river basins, such as the Nile in Egypt and the Tigris-Euphrates river basin of Mesopotamia (in present day Iraq). These and many other rivers are known to flood seasonally with spring snowmelt, inundating a large flood plain. It is not unusual that such peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods as it was an integral part of their lives. A supporting point for this idea is that cultures that live in areas where flooding is less likely to occur often do not have flood myths of their own.

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

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

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

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

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

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