Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 14 November 2004

This was on the page:

Gen. 8:4 reads, in the KJV, "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." (And modern Christian translations, and the old JPS, are similar.) Ararat is a region in Armenia, according to Biblical scholars, so the verse

• is entirely consistent with the ark landing somewhere other than Mt. Ararat (whether or not the writer knew that), and
• is entirely consistent with the ark landing on Mt. Ararat (without the writer knowing that), but
• is hard to explain if the ark landed there and the writer intended to convey that.

So the widespread traditional belief that the Book of Genesis identifies Mt. Ararat as the resting place of Noah's Ark must be described as a misconception.

Can't figure out what it means, could someone who knows please rephrase it and put it back into the article? If it's worth it, that is. Gaurav 11:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wrote it, but

• obviously it's not worded well enuf, and
• on reflection, IMO most of it belongs only on this talk page, to serve as verification of some version, in the article, of the conclusion of that argument.

What it's supposed to get across is

Anyone you ask will tell you that the Bible says the ark landed on Mt. A. But where did they get that idea? It doesn't say that, it just says it landed in a region that might mean "somewhere in a group of mountains that includes Mt. A" or "somewhere in the region whose largest city was also the largest city near Mt. A"

OK, it doesn't say it landed on Mt. A, but does it say it didn't? In fact, historians say all the time that "the Wehrmacht was defeated at Stalingrad", without mentioning that it happened on the Volga, bcz everyone knows that. So the writer may have known its landing point in that much detail (or not); all we can tell is that for some reason they didn't decide to give any detailed information.

But we can say this: the people who tell you it landed on Mt. A. don't have to be wrong about that, but they're wrong if they tell you they got the idea by carefully reading the Bible.

Do you think most people can figure out this:

The tradition that Mt. Ararat was the resting place of Noah's Ark is widely known. Similarly widespread is the misconception that the Book of Genesis asserts that. (In fact it says as to location only "And the ark rested ... upon the mountains of Ararat", at Gen. 8:4, KJV.)

Even if it's not "worth" the long version, i think one this short is well justified on the article. --Jerzy(t) 18:41, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

That's nice, but I think "And the ark rested ... upon the mountains of Ararat" does sound like the literal mountains of Ararat are meant, and not merely the area near them (if I understand your point correctly). Is there some confusion in the meaning arising from the translation, etc? Alternatively, you could just add it to the article and then we'll fight over how best to phrase it .. the Wiki Way! *cheesy grin*. Nicely written article, btw. Very thorough! Gaurav 17:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The change to the article was a corrective to statements on WP that Mt. Ararat, not the range that includes it, is supposed to be the resting place. No one is suggesting that it was not said to be on a literal mountain. If you think "mountains of Ararat" is more widespread than "Mt. Ararat" (which means a specific well identified peak) bring evidence of that, and the words "the widespread misconception" can be softened, but your comment is not a valid criticism of my proposed language, which i will indeed insert. --Jerzy(t) 00:50, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

This article, particularly "The flood" and "The Flood under scrutiny", has several serious problems, which hopefully I will return to fix. But first, can somebody support the claim that "mabbuwl" literally means "storehouse of water" or "heavenly ocean"? I think this is quite suspect. Philip J. Rayment 15:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph, on the ground that the inaccuracies in it leave it with no merit whatsoever.

While the flood might explain the extinction of species such as the dinosaur, it gives no explanation for the extinction of any marine life, which of course would not have drowned. Also, the Bible mentions that Noah took 1, 2 or 7 pair of EACH land animal on board (more precisely, every land animal with the breath of life in its nostrils). Why he would not have taken any dinosaur on board is not explained. It is impossible that dinosaurs didn't breath or breathed through their skin like some insects simply due to their size.

The flood is not used to explain extinction, as the ark was used to prevent extinction. Nevertheless, the geologic upheavals involved with the flood would have suffocated and buried many marine creatures, potentially leading to some extinctions. The paragraph assumes that dinosaurs were not on board then argues that on Biblical grounds they should have been. The latter is correct (they should have been), so why the assumption that they weren't? Philip J. Rayment 04:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have now consulted not only Strong's Concordance, but also The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by Benjamin Davis, and "mabbuwl" does not mean "storehouse of water" nor "heavenly ocean". Therefore I have changed the first paragraph of "The Flood" to reflect this, and added a bit about the rain being only one source of the water.

I have also made the following changes to the "The flood under scrutiny" section.

I removed the line "However, the Bible is very clear on how the deluge happened. It doesn't speak of a flood, but of 40 days of continuous rain, which is something very different." as it is based on the incorrect meaning of "mabbuwl".

I removed the paragraph about the amount of rain required and the amount of thermal consequences as it ignored the contribution of the "fountains of the deep".

I rewrote the paragraph about "kinds", as it wrongly claimed that Christians who believe in a literal flood disagree with speciation, and therefore wrongly concluded that representatives of each species must have been on the ark.

I removed the paragraph regarding the distribution of animals from the ark for several reasons. The lack of evidence for such a distribution implies that we should expect such evidence, but why should we? The sentence "There is no explanation why certain species can only be found at certain continents, such as marsupials in Australia." is unwarranted because (a) it was contradicted by the next sentence which purported to offer just such an explanation(!) and (b) because this problem is not confined to a Biblical worldview, but is a problem for almost any attempted explanation of animal distribution. The creationary explanation given for the distribution is really an explanation for isolation, not for distribution, it was vague ("the earth looked much different then") and the criticism of it as requiring impossibly fast geological processes seems to ignore the possibility that the main process involved was rising sea levels at the end of an/the ice age.

I modified the last paragraph of the section to make it more NPOV. As it stood, it said in effect, "such and such is the case, although creationists disagree". Philip J. Rayment 02:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Following Gene Poole's modifications and reversions, I made the following further changes:

I again removed the bits about the thermal consequences of the rain, as it was still based on an unsupportable assumption about the quantity involved. To clarify, I provided extra information--in general terms--regarding the water volumes.

I reinstated some wording regarding the animals on the ark as the previous changes were written as though the two accounts of the numbers were necessarily in conflict, which would only be the case if the two accounts were both intended to be comprehensive. There is not reason to presume this, as far as I am aware. (i.e. the first could be a general description of the numbers involved, and the second a more-detailed description.)

I also removed the word "allegedly". This section is describing the story. In one sense the entire story is "alleged", so I see no need to add that word additionally at this point.

I also re-removed the paragraph regarding the distribution of animals. When removing it the first time I explained why (see above), and it was re-instated without any case being made to do so, and without any refutation of my reasons for removing it.

Philip J. Rayment 06:37, 9 Sep 2004 (U

some of you have mentioned that Noah's Ark was only a story. While not trying to take sides, I would have to say that there is plenty of evidence for the flood. Also. Whoever wanted to merge it with the article Noah, I disagree. This is about the ark itself and the events that surrounding it. The article about Noah should be about Noah as a man, of course give some info about the Ark, but mainly him as a person.