| Revision as of 20:53, 9 September 2006 editTherealmikelvee (talk | contribs)726 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:52, 10 September 2006 edit undoSsilvers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers178,894 edits →MergingNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| These articles should NOT be merged because the "mountains of Ararat" are obviously not refering to the single Mount Ararat. In fact, it is possible (maybe even more likely) that the two are different. ] 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | These articles should NOT be merged because the "mountains of Ararat" are obviously not refering to the single Mount Ararat. In fact, it is possible (maybe even more likely) that the two are different. ] 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I agree. -- ] 04:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:52, 10 September 2006
I took out the paragraph quoted below. It may be right, but it has little to do with this 'pedia entry. The entry already says the story is biblical. Whether you take the bible as historical or not is another subject.
- "Fundamentalist believers of the various Abrahamic religions characteristically accept the Genesis account as historical in every detail, while other believers balance the findings of modern science and consider Genesis as a mix of historical and mythological detail which may nonetheless be inspired (the position of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches)."
Also, the meaning of the sentences below is not clear. I am guessing that the writer is not a native English speaker, and something has gotten lost in translation. Can anyone clarify?: "An alternative identification is with Urartu people ("Urartu" may possibly be cognate with "Ararat"). This culture was centered around Mount Van in Armenia during Biblical times ( Currently it is in Turkey). Mount Ararat has the distinction of holding this tradition in its name and among its surrounding cultures for centuries, and is also geographically within ancient Urartu, giving it the most legitimate potential claim as the Biblical Ararat." --Ssilvers 15:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Merging
These articles should NOT be merged because the "mountains of Ararat" are obviously not refering to the single Mount Ararat. In fact, it is possible (maybe even more likely) that the two are different. mikey 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. -- Ssilvers 04:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)