Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 17 January 2006

Clarification Please

I thought Noah brought two of each unclean animal (one male and one female) on board to the ark. But this article says two pair which means four of each?

No, two by two means the mode of entry into the Ark — in pairs.71.100.184.44 20:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ararat

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)

The numbers given for the ages of the persons listed in the Genesis genealogies are symbolic and represent the number system of the ancient afroasiatic ancestors of Noah. The statement that the ark was made of gopher wood is misleading. The Hebrew word for Noah's ark is the same word that describes the reed basket that Moses floated in. Gopher means it was sealed with pitch. Noah ruled in the area of Lake Chad in what is called the country of Noah or "Bor-nu" the only place on earth that claims to be home to the biblical Noah. (See The Biblical Noah on Drell's Descants. descants@classicalanglican.net) There are two flood accounts in Genesis. One is African and the other is Mesopotamian. Noah is the African hero and the ancestor of Abraham. The Mesopotamian story is based on the account of Ziusudra, not related to Abraham. Alice C. Linsley

2004 Fall

Animals & Water Source

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

Restored Discussion

The following discussion between two editors (apparently continuing what is just above the heading) was removed by one of them (the IP 198.208.159.14, AKA Charlie Turek), and then again, the second time over the protest of the other. It is now restored by Jerzy·t 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

C)

I am considering of drawing the reader's attention to the 2 different traditions that exist within the Noah's of Ark story. Instead of using the traditional J,E,P,D. I would prefer to simplify using A and B. The story of Noah's Ark contains the most vivid and striking examples of multiple authorship. Since the story of Noah's ark is so popular and confusing in its telling, if it is closley examined; (at least it was for me) I think this is the right place. Then I will link it to the Documentary Hypothesis. I welcome your comments. User:Kazuba 18 Oct 2004

If you do this, you need to be clear that the idea of "two different traditions", indeed the entire J,E,D,P, theory, is by no means universally accepted, but is just one way that people have tried to explain the Bible from a liberal perspective. I suspect that one of your examples is the first reference to animals being in pairs, and the second to some animals being in sevens. But this can just as easily be explained as initial summary information followed by more detailed information at a later date. It is frequently possible to see patterns where none exist. Philip J. Rayment 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, There is very much more. I do not consider myself a liberal, or an anything, I have genuine curiosity. I love a good puzzle. I do have one problem. I cannot understand why people desire conclusions and convictions and why delving into things as deep as possible is rare. I have a difficult time with boundaries. I have heard it said,"God lives in details." Man, I love details. Kazuba18 Oct 2004

Forget it! Putting this stuff on here is tough. I've got better things to do that won't get people upset..again. Perhaps this time I can keep my trap shut and sacrifice my curiosity for the sake of others. Yeah sure...Kazuba19 Oct 2004

Preservation of Discussion

It is fundamental to this community's use of talk pages that the course of the discussion be preserved, either in its original location or in archives easily found from that location.

The removal of one's own discussion (always in cases where it has appeared long enough to elicit comment by others, and generally in any case) requires extraordinary circumstances that produce a consensus for removal; unilateral removal of one's own remarks is vandalism, and removal of others' on-topic remarks, or removal of the context in which others' were made, is suppression of the others' right of expression, or effective forgery of their their signed remarks by changing their meaning.

The IP in question is warned that both the previous removals are absolutely unacceptable, and repetions will not be tolerated.

If there is need to mark certain remarks as regretted, misconstrued, or whatever, that may be done, with time-stamps and signatures (coded with --~~~~ to provide a clear history, and it may even be justified to strike thru some text thusly to emphasize (without rendering it unreadable) that its content is substantially deprecated. If that is desired, it should be discussed, again with proper time-stamps and signatures.
--Jerzy·t 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ark as Story, and Everything Else About Noah

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.

The page history show the above to have been added in Revision as of 20:54, 14 Nov 2004 by User:Tommajor.

Ancient Chinese characters

First, i failed to make myself understood in an effort to be pithy. I meant "goofy" not in the PoV sense of being laughably false, but in the sense of being at the fringe of opinion. This is objectively goofy in that sense:

• The other subheads of "The historicity of the flood" describe familiar sorts of arguments, of multiple generations' standing, but this is still an obscure one after 25 years; i think i've heard all the others before, but never this one.
• This argument puts itself at odds with prevailing scientific opinion in a qualitatively different way from the others: biology and geology draw conclusions about events that can't be directly observed, using very complicated networks of evidence (including rocket-science methods like molecular biology and super-high-pressure, -temperature, and -viscosity chemistry, sonics, and fluid dynamics) that laypeople can't hope to check, so the arguments are hard to disprove to a layperson's satisfaction. In contrast, the handful of sentences in the 2nd 'graph quickly attack the foundations of the argument with reasoning most people will believe they could verify to their satisfaction with a few hours' study of well-organized relevant evidence, and the only sense in which the 2nd 'graph has encountered rebuttal is the bizarre and unsupported implicit assertion that "boat" is an "abstract idea". The linguistic evidence is far from the usual rocket science, and for most people the "Ancient Chinese characters" argument not only has no traction so far, but will continue to have none.

That is not PoV, it is verifiable if we were to finance a survey, and it is already clear by the standards that we already apply on VfD.
Here's what is PoV:

it's related to "other flood accounts," so it should follow that section.

The "Other flood accounts" section concerns various stories that are apparently unequivocal accounts of great floods; they are of interest because Noah's tale is an unequivocal account of a great flood; they are agreed to be relevant, despite whether they support historicity by showing a common experience of all cultures, or undercut historicity by showing the universal fact-free "saleability" of a compelling work of imagination -- or (why it's not in the article already is not to the point here today) patterns of thot that come as naturally to humans of any culture as do the "bird-of-prey + carnivore + snake = dragon" tales that combine the three horrors that haunt small primates. (Is it rhesus monkeys who have a specific warning cry for each of those predators?)
This is not another unequivocal account of a great flood, nor does it enter into the dicussion in the same way. If this one were true, it would be about faithful transmission of details over something like 4000 miles (and the need to explain why those details show no other presence in pre-missionary Chinese culture, and why it took 500 years of missionaries before anyone came up with this theory). It would be a totally different line of evidence. And calling it relevant is PoV because it is only relevant if what some have called the goofy argument is accepted as true. It doesn't need the support of the "Other flood accounts" section, nor does it supplement that section. It is independent, and it belongs in a separate section under historicity. A later section, so that the many readers who will judge it of negligible interest can make their decision on that after they've seen the meat and potatoes, rather than reading it (and maybe quitting the article completely in disappointment) because they hesitate to start skipping stuff when they're barely halfway through.
No reasonable argument has been made for putting it anywhere but where I did, just before the "Theology" subsection. (At the risk of getting off track, that subsection is also differs, in different dimensions from those "Ancient Chinese characters" differs in, from all the other sections: it defends the historicity of a myth (in the Rudolf Bultmann sense) with the theology, rather than what the rest of the section does, which is defend the historicity of the myth with natural arguments, to the end of producing receptivity to the theology. I don't see (yet) any problem with it being in the historicity section, but i'm glad it's at one end or the other.)

very persuasive:). i consent to your better reasoning:). Ungtss 01:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The POV of this page is seriously skewed. The Chinese character nonsense is only the tip of the iceberg. There is virtually no scholarly research and quite a few fabrications. I suggest that the page be reverted to the state it was in a year ago and new page created for "Opinions about the Flood Myth". --- John_Hardy 27 April 2005

Deleted the last sentence "However....". Not only it comes from a questionable source, but also it doesn't address the problems in interpreting the "boat" character. Yenchin 17:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment of Narkas-based content

The article said:

An Italian archaeological group named La Narkas is the most recent of numerous groups claiming to have pinpointed the location of Noah's Ark close to the top of Mount Ararat, which straddles the border of Turkey and Armenia. Photographs of this alleged discovery are available on their website .

until i removed it.

Is it the top (summit?) or some other portion of the mtn that crosses the border? In either case, the NYTimes/London Times 1983 Atlas of the World shows the summit outside Armenia by over 20 miles. The Turkish-Armenian border (which is a river big enuf to extend about 300 miles up- and down-stream, from that area, parallel to the ridge Ararat is on, not down the mountainside) is at that point below 1000 m (in contrast to the 5156 m summit and 2000-3000 m ridge running from it parallel to the border. If someone thot the reality justified describing it as straddling a border, why would they mention only the Armenian one? The Turkish border with Iran is at least 25% closer than that of Armenia, and in a direction along a line that drops slowly as the ridge dies out, not steeply toward the valley and Armenia. It could be argued that the tail of the ridge crosses into Iran, but anyone who believes the mountain extends across the border with Armenia is probably a dupe of someone willing to lie (to raise money from Armenian-Americans? for the greater glory of God?) to produce that belief.
The removed 'graph should stay here until it is determined whether it is the website or the editor who cited it who can't be trusted, and fixed before moving it back.
--Jerzy·t 23:20, 14 & 23:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As'm't to Cat "Mythology"

_ _ My edit summarized

(rv ed of Jayjg to last by Festival of Souls, since cat is defined "Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious..)

restored the article to Category:Mythology, whose full description is

Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious or belief system.

For more information, see the article about Mythology.

_ _ In response, user:Codex Sinaiticus reverted, summarizing

(rv; pick a less offensive term)

_ _ This talk page's article meets the Cat't criterion (which BTW is long-standing, see Category talk:Mythology), and the aspects that make it do so are significant aspects of the article, so it belongs in the Cat; in that light, removing it destroys an appropriate WP navigational facility, and constitutes vandalism. No single article (or group of articles for that matter) is an acceptable place to act on any complaint about the offensiveness of the word "mythology" in this context (or for that matter, the accuracy of the Cat's description): if there is any problem, it is a problem with the Cat and must be addressed on it or its talk page; in view of the already evident controversiality of the desire to remove the Cat tag, it would be foolish to start with the Cat page rather than its talk page.
--Jerzy·t 21:43, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

The following material is being deprecated here by strikethru, with the contents copied to the various talk pages where they are pertinent:

1. The first sentence to User talk:Jerzy/Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy;
2. The second sentence to User talk:Codex Sinaiticus#Formal Warning;
3. The remainder to Category talk:Mythology.

--Jerzy·t 19:40, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
I would like to remind anyone who may be new to wikipedia to read the guideline policy: Assume good faith. As for vandalism, I don't happen to think it is vandalism to remove an inappropriate or offensive category; this happens all the time on wikipedia. Try leaving it to the reader to decide whether or not he feels this is mythology, instead of trying to make his mind up for him, which usually isn't going to be effective anyway. Stick with verifiable, referenced assertions and above all, the principle of neutrality (this always wins on wikipedia with any pov that is controversial); throwing a "mythology" tag up is just a backhanded form of pov pushing in this case, especially as a great number of people disagree. The definition at the article mythology makes it quite clear that this is a term only used for stories that could not have any truth to them, and is a way of implying this; therefore it is pov and should be removed in the paramount interest of maintaining NPOV without provoking cries of 'vandalism'... Codex Sinaiticus 03:37 & 03:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How did fresh and saltwater fish survive the Flood?

Some salt-water fish can live in wide range of salty waters Some ocean fish such as the Mozambique tilapia can thrive in waters that vary greatly in salt content. This fish can be transferred from freshwater to sea water and back and adjust to the change in salinity. The gills of adult fish contain mitochondrion-rich cells known also as ionocytes that regulate the internal ionic composition of cells. The mitochondrion-rich cells were classified into 4 kinds by Junya Hiroi and associates at St Marianna University School of Medicine, and University of Tokyo, Japan; the USGS Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Massachusetts; and the University of Massachusetts. After transfer of fish from freshwater to seawater, type IV cells appeared in 12 hours and increased in number thereafter. When fish were transferred from seawater back to freshwater the type IV cells decreased and disappeared within 48 hours and type III cells increased; in addition, type II cells, which are not found in sea water, appeared at 12 hours and continued to increase after that. Since the type I cell occurs in both water changes, it was thought to be an immature cell that could give rise to any of the other 3 cells. These changes were achieved by moving a sodium-potassium-chloride cotransporter from one surface to another and replacing it with a chloride channel. (Journal of Experimental Biology 208:2023-2036, 2005; from Science Briefs)71.100.184.44 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The above material is copyrighted and you may have violated the copyright. To quote the overlying main page : "Use of Material On the Science Museum of Minnesota Web Site The information, artwork, text, video, audio, or pictures (collectively, "Materials") contained on the Science Museum of Minnesota web site are protected by copyright laws. You may only access and use the Materials for personal or educational purposes. You may not modify or use the Materials for any other purpose without the Science Museum of Minnesota's ("SMM") express written consent. Except as provided below, you may not reproduce, republish, post, transmit or distribute any Materials on the SMM web site. You may print Materials on the SMM web site for personal or educational purposes only, and you must include any copyright notice originally included with the Materials in all copies." Carrionluggage 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some ocean fish such as the Mozambique tilapia can thrive in waters that vary greatly in salt content." OK. Nevertheless, as any aquarium owner and pet-shop proprietor can affirm, some is not the same as all. And here, in the Ark story, we're definitely talking about all. Anville 11:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not Ararat!

There are no any Ark on Ararat. The word 'Ararat' on ancient jewish means Caucasus, Northern Lands or Northern Mountains, not one mountain. I think that Ark could stay anywhere on Caucasus mountains.

I found this:

"On the mountain Karataw, Ark is remain,
If this mountain not holy,
What Ark doing there?"
                       Folk Poetry

Karataw is a mountain in modern Kazakhstan. 16:41, 23 September 2005 195.82.23.228

And in what language was that allegedly written? (not the translation, the original) Jim62sch 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we Noah's descendents?

So, the Bible says humanity descends from Noah, not from Adam? I am not that familiar with the Bible, so this is a honest question. --Daniduc 19:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct, but since it also says that Noah descends from Adam, it would mean we can all claim descent from both Adam and Noah. Codex Sinaiticus 21:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but does Eve enter the picture someplace? Are there purported to have been descendents of Adam who were not descendents of Eve? If my guess is right that you folks assume all descendents of Adam were descendents of Eve, it would be politer to include her. Carrionluggage 01:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't venture my own opinion here, I just answered the question as it was written by someone asking about what the Bible says. What you usually see in the Bible is descent traced along the paternal line, to a male ancestor. Mention of even the female ancestors' names there is the exception, not the rule. Eve is mentioned, and of course, the Biblical view is that we are all today descended from her as well (and for that matter, from Noah's wife, not named in Genesis, but called "Emzara" in Jubilees...)Codex Sinaiticus 06:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But today, Jews determine membership by descent along the maternal line (they also accept other ways to membership). Carrionluggage 03:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out where Cain's wife came from. Jim62sch 19:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"history"

I think it is unfortunate to allow 40% of article text to be taken up by this creationism stuff. Even if it is debunked, discussing this nonsense at such lengths suggests that it is accepted as a serious argument. 81.63.58.100 12:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

When in a madhouse, do as the madmen do. Carrionluggage 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"I've got a question for you. It's a one-word question. Dinosaur!" — Bill Hicks.

Anville 11:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The ark was a lot bigger than thought? They only took dinosaur eggs? Uhmmm...  :) Jim62sch 19:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Trilobites, Neanderthals, and Obesity

These people who believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark need to explain if there were trilobites, ammonites, sabre-tooth tigers, Neanderthals, pterodactyls, Hesperornis, brachiopods etc. on the Ark. Now there are modern brachiopods and fossils dated to the " very early Cambrian, roughly 550 million years ago" according to the Misplaced Pages article on Brachiopods. Something's gotta give here. Misplaced Pages speak with forked tongue. Either the Earth existed long before the dates deduced from Genesis, or it did not. I have seen a lot of Creationist and Intelligent Design material disputing radioactive dating as "inaccurate." But the scientists using these methods know they are not perfectly accurate and include error ranges. For example, a paper in the current issue of Nature (Vol 483, pp. 51-56) discusses Neanderthal and Aurignacian (our ancestral) populations overlapping in France 40,000 to 42,000 and 42,000 to 43,000 years ago. Hey, guys, if you step on a scale, and you are 6 ft tall and weigh 275 lbs, you can argue that the scale is not "accurate," but you are obese. If it is 270 lbs or 280 lbs the result is the same. Carrionluggage 18:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The scientists "error ranges" have massive assumptions. Do a search on the RATE project for the latest scientific research into the problems with radiometric dating. And Neanderthals were just a variation of Homo Sapien. RossNixon 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Neanderthals were rather different and died out. I looked a little at the RATE project, but it is almost impossible for intelligent people who understand science to keep up answering the barrage of nonsense emanating from the true believers in literal Genesis. When scientists do take the trouble, they spend a lot of time and who knows if anyone on the other side reads their presentations. For an example, since about 1961 a chap named "Robert V. Gentry" has been publishing materials designed to show that the Earth is not very old. He was reduced to putting letters to the editor in Physics Today, but I think they got tired of it. I am not a geologist but a good one (in my opinion) gave a very detailed answer to Gentry on . It's in pretty simple terms - perhaps you would take a look. It illustrates how unjustifiable assumptions can lead a person (Gentry) astray. Carrionluggage 05:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

RATE doesn't rate as anything but drivel. Neanderthals are of the species Homo Neanderthalensis. Jim62sch 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

So is ark capped or not? In some places it is, in others it is not.

I think it should be capitalized (please note spelling - you want "capitalization" for the noun) because it is capitalized in the title, and it is a specific ark, "Ark" being part of the name. As in Empire State Building, not Empire State building. Carrionluggage 03:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ark is only capitalized when preceded by a definite article. If preceded by an indefinite article, it is lower case. (e.g., an ark, the Ark) Jim62sch 13:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism

The following paragraph has been removed by KillerChihuahua and re-added by Carrionluggage three times:

The following objections are evidently proffered by supporters of a literal reading of the Bible, because they all are couched in the form of scientific objections, but few if any scientists would take the Flood story literally. Witness that there is no scientist or other "skeptic" identified with any of these objections. Nevertheless, there follow the "objections" which the proponents of literal interpretation of the Flood story concoct so as to provide a platform for their replies:

Comments on the history page are getting a tad vitriolic.

I find the skeptical objections to be reasonable; I find the paragraph to be POV and have removed it. Caroline Sanford 04:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The objections may seem reasonable to people who take the story literally, and thus it is likely that they were raised by such people, and then answered from within the same goup. The context makes it seem as though people who regard the story as an allegory nevertheless are concerned with nit-picking at details. Then they are put in their place by effective answers from the other side. It is a charade and does not belong in the encyclopedia. The point, again, is that true skeptics about the literal (rather than allegorical) truth of the story would not come up with these "reasonable" objections; the objections are first of all unattributed, and secondly are minor, as compared to questions about who wrote that story, and why; whether it was intended for children, or as allegory for children or adults; whether it was a sort of "filler" item to explain a few things until further research might make them clearer, etc. I may work on another rephrasing you would find more middle-of-the-road, but it would really be better to drop both the objections and the replies. Misplaced Pages is not a place for charades. The Bible and the Flood story stand on their own and exist in a plane different from the practical - you could call it spiritual or allegorical. Carrionluggage 06:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Caroline, if you are going to make a link of a username, please add User: before the name, or else you make a redlink to a non-existent article, or (if there is an article with the same name as the user) you make a link to the article instead of the user. thanks! KillerChihuahua 04:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Carrionluggage, I think I better understand your objections now. Here's a solution with which I think we can both agree.

First, we both agree that some people take the Old Testament literally. This is already covered in the article, which mentions fundamentalist Protestants, among others. Why, just the other day I read a Time/CNN poll in which 59 per cent of Americans said they believe the events in The Book of Revelations will actually happen. Since some people really do believe in the Noah's Ark flood, I think it's worth looking at the logical problems associated with the concept. We shouldn't be afraid to say something right just because it seems pedantic. That's why I argue that the subsection should remain.

Second, let's examine the ostensible purpose of the Skepticism subsection. As it currently stands, it collates a somewhat random assortment of objections to a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark story. Some objections are dealt with in detail in other subsections ("Biology", "Geology", etc). I think this subsection would be better if we put it at the end of the "The Flood as Purported History" section and re-named it to "Other objections" or something similar.

Third, I think the "Skepticism" and "Creationist answers" sections should be collated into one subsection. It's only fair to pair up the complaints and the responses.

Fourth and finally, some of these issues are already dealt with in other subsections. For example, many of the points about animal species could be moved into the "Biology" section. This would result in a substantially smaller "Other Objections" section for now, and longer "Biology" sections.

If all this seems reasonable to you, I will draft up a copy. Caroline Sanford 12:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Biology

Can anyone give a reason why this whole section should not be removed from an article titled "Noah's Ark"? KillerChihuahua 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Skit

"The skit told of an American soldier in World War II named Ed Davis."

Was this a comedy show, or is this an obscure typo? --Slashme 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

linguistic and race classification

I edited out the section on linguistic and race classification. It read: "Linguistics until the 19th century divided the races and languages of the world into three categories: Semitic (Middle Eastern), Hamitic (North African) and Japhetic (European), under the assumption that the peoples of these regions were descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth respectively. The former two terms are still considered valid linguistic divisions, but the latter has largely fallen out of use since the mid-20th century. Exactly how languages outside of the classical world fit into this scheme has been debated."

This is simply nonsense - while the terms Semitic and Hamitic are indeed still in use for historical reasons, there's no connection today with the Flood story. The final sentence is the worst of all - there's no debate among linguists about how languages fit into the 19th century 3-fold division, it's a non-issue. Please, let's keep WP accurate! PiCo 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, you are completely correct. Jim62sch 20:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Depth of floodwaters

This entire page seems to me to be getting off topic, and is tending more to the subject of creation than being restricted to Noah's Ark and the reason for the ark's existence, the flood. I would like to add some detail regarding the possible depth of floodwaters, but want to remove paragraph two of that section which deals with the possible creation of a single continent. Short of where I can move it to, does anyone have any objection? In my view, it is not relevant to the heading, and the argument that mountain heights have changed as a result of the flood has already been put. 202.61.229.133 09:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Cobblers 09:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why bother. There is simply insufficient water on the planet to flood the whole thing to the highest mountains, hills, or whatever term you want to use. Sorry, but no matter what kind of logic you attempt to use, this story is as valid as Jesus having a discussion with Pilate in Latin (or any other language for that matter). Jim62sch 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh

The story is on a par with the long rainstorm and raft described in Winnie the Pooh. Why not just reference that and not fiddle with adding purported "scientific" details to what started as a simple children's story? Carrionluggage 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

- -

• My humble apologies. You are quite correct. I got carried away, and was overly influenced by the extensive analysis and perspective inserted by previous contributors :)

• I thought that the subheading depth of floodwaters should perhaps contain something about depth of floodwaters, not unsupported comment about terrain changes, and something conjectural about a single continent creation. I now realise that the subheading is itself a little too far off topic, and it should be deleted in its entirety. Your comment is therefore appreciated. I am wondering how an entire page like this can practically be trimmed back to topic whilst retaining the goodwill of all previous contributors.

• Cobblers 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Mythology is not POV, its a definition. Advise reading the Mythology article, which states "stories that a particular culture believes to be true" are myths, and later "Some use the words myth and mythology to portray the stories of one or more religions as false, or dubious at best. While nearly all dictionaries include this definition, "myth" does not always imply that a story is either false or true." How is that POV at all?

Secondarily, what cats should this article be in? Torah events only? Should we add a Bible based cat? KillerChihuahua 16:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The POV of the ambiguous and slippery word "Mythology" to describe Biblical beliefs is heavily under dispute. Not only is the mythology page locked because of this dispute, but I advise you to read the talk page of the Christian mythology category you tried to add this to (All three archived pages) to see the consensus about what constitutes "Christian mythology"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Did already. I concur with the view from Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Archive_2#A new suggestion. the reason people take umbrage at the word "myth" is they have the erroneous belief that "myth" implies falsehood. It doesn't, they're ignorant, and I'm not going to try to swim upstream if its not productive.

I am open to better ideas - Category:Bible stories was deleted. Category:Bible is still extant. I just don't see that Torah is the only cat for this. If Bible and Christian mythology are out, Category:Water transport is about all that's left that I can see, altho I think it would be rv'd faster than a Myth cat. KillerChihuahua 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bible certainly seems to fit. As for "myth", its definition of "a fictional belief" is not erroneous or ignorant, if its supported by dictionaries. This is currently being debated at length on Talk:mythology, where some people agree with you that this definition is erroneous and ignorant and they don't wish to accept this definition, despite its being included in practically every dictionary; while others agree with me that the dictionaries are not erroneous or ignorant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The ignorance is that "myth" does not always mean "fictional belief". It can and does mean "faith based belief, which may or may not be fictional". I agree, people should actually read the darn dictionary, then they'd know this.

So Bible? Is there a sub-cat of Bible which would work, now that Bible stories is gone? KillerChihuahua 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth would likely be the appropriate category, and one that would not likely raise a mythical hair on a bald man's head, were the topic the flight of Icarus, Prometheus giving fire to man, the Aeneid, the Bhagavad Gita, 70 virgins (or raisins), etc. The Noachic Flood is nothing more or nothing less than the above-mentioned stories, hence it is a myth. Jim62sch 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So you are thinking Category:Mythology not Category:Christian mythology? It is included in Judaic beliefs as well, so that would be accurate.

On Category talk:Mythology, FestivalOfSouls states Noah's ark in the cat is 100% accurate. Since a myth is a story which people believe, which may or may not be true, which usually involves supernatural elements, I see no reason this article should not be in the Christian mythology cat. There is also a Category:Religion, but apparantly not a Category:Religious mythology which would cover all angles. KillerChihuahua 19:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would also object to the Gita and the 70 virgins being called "myth" as pov, but not Icarus, Prometheus or the Aeneid -- not because I believe in the Gita or Quran, but rather because "myth" is the very word used in most Encyclopedias (at least until very recently) to draw a distinction between beliefs that are no longer widespread, from those that are still currently widespread. Anyway, there is enough of this debate going on the other page, and we're getting off topic, so lets just leave it at that. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing)If you don't want to contribute any more to deciding what Cats are appropriate for this article, Codex, that's your choice. KillerChihuahua 19:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just suggesting that we not use this page to enter into yet another debate about the dictionary's definition(s) of "myth". As for appropriate cats, what is wrong with Bible, or maybe one of its subcats? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned Bible as a possibility, and you replied to that already. Why reiterate what's already been said? We're currently discussing Mythology, Christian mythology, and other possible cats. soeone mentioned Children's literature as well; that sounds like a good idea to me because the Noah's Ark story is always a favorite children's story, and anyone browsing by cat for a children's story might be interested in this. KillerChihuahua 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in reiterating it again: Category:Bible is appropriate and npov, and no one will object to it. Anything with "mythology" in it will be disputed, and will trigger another probably lengthy debate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A lengthy debate does not mean that the categorization as myth is wrong, it just means that people's beliefs get so offended that their intellects cease to function. Jim62sch 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A lengthy debate also might mean that what you just said is a P-O-V, and one that is not universally shared. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) Writing an accurate article is my only concern. Part of that accuracy is accurately categorizing the article. Currently, the one and only cat is insufficient. Mythology is accurate, Christian mythology is specifically accurate. Your argument reads like you don't want to be accurate because you are afraid of POV pushers. Trust me, you should go over to Bigfoot to see POV pushers in action. DreamGuy and Bishonen are active editors on that page, and not once has either of them ever said, oh heck, too many debates, let's go ahead and let this article be inaccurate. Good example, that. I'm serious, check it out - talk page and history are both illuminating. KillerChihuahua 21:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Which I think is what I said. Jim62sch 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Mythology page (for the first time), and I am truly amazed. No wonder you guys are arguing. The word myth (deriv. muthos) applies to a sound-word, imitating the sound of speech, and is therefore verbal tradition (and likely to be subject to variation in the telling). I have always understood that when a story is documented and no longer handed down verbally, then it is no longer myth. Christian theology is a documented tradition, so the term Christian mythology is a misnomer. Today, with everything being committed to writing, there should be no myth except perhaps children’s bedtime stories, and to now categorise a documented belief system (of any flavour) as myth is to imply a slur on its consistency, as if it were a story still told. I would suggest that the word mythology should only refer to ancient stories which in their day were transmitted verbally. Cobblers 07:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you derived that etymology, but it is false (and as I just noticed, someone notes that below). All of the alleged Greek and Latin "myths" are written down (else we'd know nothing of them), so does that make them not myths? A myth is any story that purports to be true, whether written or oral (verbal does not mean oral), but that cannot be shown to be true, has no supporting evidence from history, and is believed by a specific group of people. Thus, virtually every story from every religion is a myth for those reasons. The reason people bristle at the use of the word myth is because they do not understand it. Jim62sch 13:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The summary on the Mythology page says this in toto:

"The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυϑολογειν mythologein to relate myths, from μυϑος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λογος logos, meaning speech or argument) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, "mythology" is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths."

This implies that a myth is an orally transmitted narrative embodying stories believed to be true and which embody the eupernatural to interpret natural events and explain the universe and the nature of humanity. Apart from the oral transmission, that description fits the biblical Ark story like a glove. The current state of bibilical scholarship is that Genesis was apaprently written in its persent form in around 500-400 BC, drawing on older written sources of indeterminate age. But clearly those written forms of the story were once orally based - the Ziasudra myth is an obvious ancestral varient of the bibilcal story, for example...except that Ziasudra is only known to us in written form, too... Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Ark story fits the description of a myth, using that word in a non-derogatory way. (I hope it's clear from the addition I made to the main article today that I certainly don't hold the Ark story in derision). So keep the myth cat I say. PiCo 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no -- "-ology" is a suffix meaning to discuss/study a particular subject, it does not imply "oral" in any way ]. Based on the conclusions drawn by two misreadings of the etymology of mythology, one would be led into assuming that biology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, cardiology and even etymology are oral traditions only. Obviously, that would be incorrect.

I hope this nips that little misconception in the bud. Jim62sch 14:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more iem, from Liddel and Scott (the authoritative greek dicytionary): 6. like Lat. dicere, to mean, ti touto legei; what does this mean? Ar., Plat.; pôs legeis; how mean you? Plat.:--to explain more fully, eisô komizou su, Kasandran legô get thee in--thou, I mean Cassandra, Aesch.; potamos Achelôion legô Soph. Jim62sch 14:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should post that on the Talk:Mythology page. KillerChihuahua 14:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Jim62sch

Thanks Jim62sch. So Mythology cat seems secure. I wish someone would comment on my pretty big addition to the main article - is it a good idea or what? PiCo 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of category

The category is not POV, it is accurate. If you wish, I can provide you with the OED definition of "myth" so that you may see that the categorization is appropriate. If you object to it being called "Christian" mythology, then the only other alternative is "mythology". Unlike some here, I am not afraid of discussion, nor do I seek the easy way out in order to avoid discussion. Do you deny that Noah's Ark is a story? Do you deny that it is a story held to be true by only a certain group? Let's talk rationally, rather than screaming "POV, POV". Jim62sch 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you're POV pushing, because the word "mythology" has more than one meaning, it's ambiguous, slippery, offensive, and until very recently, was applied strictly to dead beliefs. This is a belief that is still widely held, and calling it "mythology" is only your way of pushing your POV. I am prepared to debate this for as long as necessary to ensure that religious scriptures are not labelled as "mythology" by anti-religious bigots. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sparky, enough with the personal attacks. If you can't discuss things rationally, then please desist from discussing anything. Calling me a religious bigot is a bit ridiculous, as you know nothing about my beliefs. Actually, I'm a bit surprised you didn't go right for "atheist bastard".

Additionally, you just tipped your hand with your "religious scripture" comment. Your POV is clearly showing: it is one in which belief trumps reason. It's a shame really, given that our intellects are the only things that separate us from the animals we were given dominion over.

As for words having more than one meaning, look up the following from your own venomous (the snake in the real garden?) screed: slippery, ambiguous, offensive, very, widely, pushing, dead and debate. I'm guessing that linguistics is not your forte, so you might not want to go into the arena with that lion.

BTW: I know you think your alias means something in Latin, but, uh, it doesn't. Jim62sch 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1) My name is not Sparky. Is that some kind of personal attack? 2) I did not call you a "religious bigot". I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I said that it is the goal of ANTI-religious bigots to label religion "mythology", as it always has been. The history of mankind proves that there have always been anti-religious bigots. Trying to label religion as "mythology" is only their latest feeble game plan, as it's a but futile for them to try to throw people of the "wrong" faith into gas chambers of the moment. But I note that they're always there, ready to deny that this ever happened, and always ready to deny that there are those who would do it again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear me, I actually made a typo, so let's agree for the record that you called me an anti-religious-bigot then, so then I suppose I'm an atheist? That kind of nonsense has already gotten several people banned from editing on Misplaced Pages for periods ranging from one day to one week.

Additionally, your claim of historicity reads more like a "how do I explain away what I said" rather than an expansion of your previous statements. No one involved in this discussion is some Marxist atheist hell-bent on destroying religion. However, what we strive for is accuracy. Thus, labeling stories of a particular group of people as myths is both accurate and logical. I realize that that will offend some people, but that is, as I've stated before, merely because they do not understand what "myth" really means. Jim62sch 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Category page is clearly stated: "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 Misplaced Pages 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. "

Its not slippery and offensive to anyone who can read. What is your issue with the word? and why won't you explain it here, instead of reverting? KillerChihuahua 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Because all the dictionaries that say it means "story, either true or false" were written within the past couple of years. All the older dictionaries say it means "false" or "discarded" belief. Most people still use and understand the word that way. No Encyclopedia other than wikipedia chooses to label peoples' Religious scriptures as "mythology", because that is so blatantly pov terminology. Dictionaries are not supposed to redefine words away from the way people use them. If the word has more than one meaning, it is ambiguous and not the best term. How many times do I have to explain this? Every time you ask me to explain, I do, and you act like you can't understand a word I'm saying. But I will repeat myself as many times as it takes until it starts to sink in. Calling peoples religious scriptures "mythology" is POV. It might be the POV of Karl Marx, but IT IS NOT NEUTRAL. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you even the remotest clue of what you are going on about? I have in my possession the 1933 printing of the original Webster's Universal Unabridged Dictionary, which gave, in the 19th century the following definition of myth: "A traditional story developed or created out of a conception or idea." I'd hardly say that that's a new definition, especially given that the science of lexicography is not very old.

As for dictionaries not being "supposed to redefine words away from the way people use them", you are obviously of the prescriptivist, not descriptivist, school. The job of a good dictionary is to provide all of the possible definitions of a word.

So, am I a commie or a pinko socialist? Besides, if it weren't for Marx you'd be working 12-hour days, six days a week. Reality bites, dude.

Can you explain why all the encyclopedias of the 20th century used "mythology" to refer to Greek and Norse mythology, and did not use that term to describe the modern day world religions? I'd love to see your explanation for that, and I'd also love to see why you think its suddenly okay to call modern religions "mythology" and pretend its not POV-pushing, just because now any Tom Dick or Harry can write an encyclopedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See both my and KillerChihuahua's previous explanations of the phenomenon. An encyclopedia that offends one's religious sensitivities is unlike to sell as well as one that doesn't. That does not, however, mean that the encyclopedias were correct in doing so. Additionally, were one to read a number of textbooks on philosophy and intellectual heritage, one would note that religious stories are treated as mythology as a means of comparing and contrasting the stories. Sorry, but sometimes the intellect must overrule the emotions. Jim62sch 14:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I like what you did with adding the explanation above the categories, though - that is good thinking! It allows us to be accurate, and addresses your concerns that some people ight not understand the meaning. No need to type in all caps, that is considered YELLING and I would appreciate your not doing it. KillerChihuahua 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note you are in violation of 3RR, if you revert again, Codex. KillerChihuahua 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I never violate 3RR. Please look and pay attention to the edit before you assume I am reverting. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing something someone else wrote is not reverting? I'd really like to see your dictionary. Jim62sch 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, whom were you referring to as "anti-religious bigots"? KillerChihuahua 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer to this ought to be a doozy. Jim62sch 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, KC, obviously I was one -- I think this makes time number ten that I've been accused, either directly or indirectly, of being an atheist. Jim62sch 15:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Modern searches

These are in the modern searches section:

• 1840 earthquake story
• 1876 James Bryce story
• 1952 American oil worker named George Jefferson Green story
• 2004 Mount Ararat, samples turned out to be rock story

I can find no reference of any of these stories. We have 4 links under "Ark search", and none of them seem to cover any of these stories. We need to work on this, people - if there are modern searches which are on the sites which are not in the article, we need to add them, and we need to either find references for the searches listed or remove them as unsourced. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The 2004 story is about some New Zealand researchers who thought the samples they obtained may have been wood. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-539.html RossNixon 07:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Forums are not considered reliable sources, however the link you posted gave another link to World Net Daily, which I am adding - thanks much! KillerChihuahua 10:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The WND article did not show the results, that's why I added the Rense link. The NZ Herald requires a subscription to see older articles (couldn't find article even on www.archive.org), but I do remember the testing and results being discussed on our primetime TV news here in New Zealand. RossNixon 03:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree if we can find the source, we should put it here, but surely we can do better than Rense.com. If nothing else perhaps we can identify the issue of the NZH and add the information as we would any print source. KillerChihuahua 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed George Jefferson Green - the only instances on the web are us, and one edu site which probably got the info from us. KillerChihuahua 11:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Added source for the 1876 Bryce story. KillerChihuahua 11:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Not to get off the subject (if there is one), it seems to me that it's better to include more categories than fewer, if they are at all relevant. Whatever the dictionaries say, people from various cultures may be interested in the myths and fables of others. Americans can study Aesop, the Bhagavad gita, and the Elder Edda, the Adi Granth or the Koran, whilst those in other cultures who have not (yet?) been converted to Christianity can study the Bible as literature - and - yes, though I may incur the "Terrible Swift Sword" at Judgement Day (or before), as mythos. It is very POV to insist that the Bible stories can't be referred to the category of myth and fable. I don't say "classified solely as" myth or fable - I say referred to through the Wiki categorization process. Carrionluggage 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. Jim62sch 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why classify the Bible under "myth". There is no evidence to show that it is anything other than historical documents, despite several hundred years of "Higher Criticism" and "Scientific" ridicule. RossNixon 02:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule? Scientists have better things to do, and are more polite than to vent ridicule on the Bible. What a strange comment - perhaps tending towards paranoia. If you think you know of a scientist who ridiculed the Bible - please give a reference to that. Carrionluggage 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a belief. A myth is a story about supernatural events, which people either believe, or did believe at one time. This is completely neutral about whether or not they are "historical" or not. KillerChihuahua 02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean like Evolution? This belief has supernatural aspects - matter organizing itself, increase in information content, complexity and utility. Feel free to add the "Myth" category to the Evolution article. :-) RossNixon 02:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In Evolution matter does not (I believe) organize itself (although it does so in the formation of crystals and snowflakes). I believe that in Evolution, many random (not organized) changes occur and only the most viable and competitive survive. That refers to the evolution of life once it started. As to the start of life on Earth, I believe the theories are very speculative so if you want to insist on a master intelligence in that case, that's a better place for you to ply your trade. Carrionluggage 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Evolution article. Please take your thoughts about what categories that article belongs in to that articles talk page. KillerChihuahua 02:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the definition of myth by the vox populi is the radix malorum in this discussion. In any case, KC is correct, evolution discussions belong on the evolution page, not here. Jim62sch 03:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As you stated earlier??? You can state that definition is a vox populi until you are blue in the face, but that still won't take it out of the English dictionary as a legitimate definition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you might want to look up vox populi before you make a fool of yourself. Additionally, it appears likely that you are a bible literalist (I'm not casting aspersions, just noting a possibility), and if this is the case your opinions and arguments may be far too POV for you to rationally analyze what KC and I are trying to say. Jim62sch

It is too late to advise Mr. Nixon or Mr. Sinaiticus not to make fools of themselves. Maybe it is timely to advise them not to create a scene by touting their distraction. Of course, they both have an idée fixe. Reminds me of that chap who thought he was Napoleon for decades. The doctors in the mental hospital tried one treatment after another without success, but one day the patient seemed cured and thanked them: "Doctors, I am so glad you have restored my grip on reality. I am now sure I'm not Napoleon. Just wait a moment while I tell the good news to Josephine." Carrionluggage 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Carrion, you have made two posts to this section. In one, you said it is paranoia to think that "scientists" would ridicule the Bible. In the other, you are heaping ridicule and personal attacks on me for what you perceive as my faith in the word of the Bible. Not only are these two positions 100% mutually contradictory, but they constitute a clear and direct personal attack in violation of numerous wikipedia policies, which will be reported as an incident the next time it occurs. This time it is just a warning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex, if you really believe that scientists sit around and ridicule the Bible, you are indeed paranoid. Contrary to Fundamentalist dogma, most scientists are theists of one type or other; they just happen to realize that no holy book or religious tradition has all the answers to reality.

Second, I do not believe that Carrion was ridiculing you for your beliefs, rather he was pointing out your intransigence. To infer, in high dudgeon, that he was ridiculing your beliefs speaks to both paranoia and a persecution complex. (By the way, two items being contradictory implies mutuality). Jim62sch 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

His comments were out of line, no matter what the reason he was ridiculing me. As it is for you to attempt to psychoanalyse me or Ross for anything we have said in here. Maybe you should analyse yourslf to see what causes you to assert some kind of authority over me, when you have none. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your generosity is appreciated. I was poking fun at you, not at the Bible, nevertheless. It is fine for you (and your cohorts and even legions) to hold any belief you see fit. But it can be considered inappropriate to try to enforce or promulgate those beliefs in an encyclopedia. Carrionluggage 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If we stated that Noah's Ark was a historical proven, undeniable fact, that would be wrongly promulgating a pov. Stating that it is a "myth" is promulgating the opposite pov. Neutrality means doing neither, and deep down, I'm sure even you know it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you just simply don't, can't or won't get the concept of the word "myth". Additionally, as far as I can tell I never attempted to assert any authority over you -- although I have little doubt that you'll misquote and misinterpret something I wrote to "prove" your claim. De cruce descende! Nam lignum desideramus. Jim62sch 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the Mythology article, which states "In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which some believe but which is not true. In this sense, a myth is a "mere story" that might hold meaning meaning for people but is not historical fact". Common usage should prevail, so as not to confuse the average reader. Therefore the "Myth" category is not applicable to this article RossNixon 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixon as usual is defensive and sets up a strawman, by choosing to say "Common usage should prevail" and ignoring the next few sentences in Mythology, which broaden the concept. Also please see: . If it's good enough for the Rangers, maybe it will be good enough for Mr. Nixon.Carrionluggage 02:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like quote-mining. Ross, did you bother to read the rest of the article or just the part that suited you? For example, "Many modern day rabbis and priests within the more liberal Jewish and Christian movements, as well as most Neopagans, have no problem viewing their religious texts as containing myth". (Moreover, no, this does not equate the rabbis and priests with the Neopagans, so don't go there).

Also, it appears quite likely that both you and Codex in rejecting myth would like to see instead the category of "History", or better yet, "Literal Truth". Sadly, neither would be accurate. Myth on the other hand is accurate, your quote regarding "common usage" notwithstanding. Essentially, this argument is similar to the ongoing "theory" argument, in which the nonscientific scream, "it's just a theory, not a fact!", essentially using the colloquial rather than scientific meaning of the word.

Free your mind from the shackles of dogma, allow yourself to use the greatest gift man has ever received, his intellect, to guide you through the process. The truth is out there if you merely seek it. Jim62sch 12:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ross, but I for one would not allow a category of "history" or "literal truth", because that is every bit as much an unjustified p.o.v. as a category of "myth". When I say I'm neutral, I really am neutral. Please do not ascribe to me sentiments that are the exact opposite of what I have already indicated. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you would reject those terms, that was my purpose in positing the possibility. In any case I fail to understand your objection to myth -- it is not POV, it is factual. That you are concerned regarding the colloquial definition of the word is understandable, but as has already been pointed out, so long as a disambig of myth is included, it is accurate. Like it or not, the stories of all religions are in fact myths. Jim62sch 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New section: Story of the Ark

Added this because I think it's important to let readers know just what the story is. I imagine some editors might object to the use of the KJV as the basis for the summary. Please bear in mind that what's important is this section is simply to summarise the plot of the ark story. Anyway, I like the KJV - it's got the poetry :). PiCo 03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

'Cause you asked. :)

It is large, and also as the Ark story is also a Torah story (and maybe elsewhere?), I'm concerned we may be violating NPOV by using King James. The reason I didn't comment about your addition before is that I freely admit I love the cadence and phrasing of the KJV, so I'm tempted to be too favorably biased towards inclusions from it. I don't suppose that is much help, I am sorry. KillerChihuahua 14:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the KJV is extremely nice writing, but, alas probably POV and difficult for many to truly comprehend. What might be best is to find a modern-English translation of the story, either directly from the Torah, or even something like The New American Bible or the Good News version. Absent that, there is no reason that you yourself cannot take it out of the KJV version and render it in modern English. Jim62sch 15:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I redid it using the New International Version. No, it's not as poetic, but as a number of the visitors to the English version of Wiki do not speak at a native or near-native level, it will be more understandable to them. Here's the link,

I'll miss the poetry, but it's ok :). Incidentally, I think maybe change the title of the new section to "Narrative", which better describes the reason for including it. PiCo 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the poetry, but while Jacobean English is Modern English, a lot of folks have trouble understanding it (kind of like Shakespeare's Elizabethan English, the precursor to the Jacobean style). Ooops, we were discussing the flood story and I wandered off into linguistics, sorry.  :)

Let's see if we can get input from a few others and reach a consensus then we an make both changes. Jim62sch 22:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* Well we can always read it at home, eh PiCo?

It is still far too long; here is a suggestion. Rewrite the whole thing, triming like mad. Take out all Chapter references, all quoted bits. Tell it as a narrative or story, as the section title indicates. Make it short, sweet, and not include a good deal of the fine detail. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua 22:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I can do that if that's what everyone wants, it's easy enough. I should be able to get it to half it's current size. I can just footnote the whole passage as Gen 6-9. Jim62sch 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here 'tis: Jim62sch 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats it. Simple, covers it. Finish the first sentence, copyedit a little, and I think that will do it. Do you mind if we work on it there? (you, I, PiCo and whoever else) until we feel its ready for prime time? KillerChihuahua 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit away. I'm sure it can be tweaked a bit.  :) Jim62sch 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked was an understatement. Grrr. Jim62sch 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked it even further. Bye-bye poetry. One aspect I had in mind was length: the Tower of Babel page begins with a section called Narrative which gives the Tower account verbatim; but it only comes to 237 words: even my edited version still comes in at around 270 words. Another aspect was avoiding giving a misleading idea of the complexities of the story by editing confusions and nuances out of existence - the summary, for example, mentions nothing of the permission God gives Noah to eat meat after the flood (the Bible strongly implies that mankind was vegetarian from the Expulsion until this point), and the institution of halal butchery. Anyway, how about this one? PiCo 08:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a few grammatical changes (note: ark is itself lowercase, especially when preceded by an indefinite article, it is only uppercase when specified as the Ark). Anyway, I think it should be fine now. Let's get KC to weigh in and then we can go with it. (I'm not worried about length, it's not easy to condense 4 chapters into a summary unless we go with something like: God was pissed. He decided to kill all animal life except Noah. Noah built an ark. It rained for 40 days and nights. Everything flooded. The waters receded. Noah, his family and the animals left the Ark. God and Noah made up with God using the rainbow as a sign of peace.) Jim62sch 13:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the items regarding dietary laws and halal aren't really necessary to the story. If you had a section called "How the flood changed Judaism" or something like that, it could go there. Jim62sch 13:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should work with Jim's version a little more, and use it. Expulsion from the Garden is unnecessary to this story, IMHO - also concur on the food not being germane. Can we keep editing one version? KillerChihuahua 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I felt that way about the garden, but I figured I'd wait until you weighed in. Feel free to edit away. I guess we can make mine a bit shorter if necessary. Jim62sch 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I pared a bit more out, fixed some typos and grammar. Jim62sch

I removed the dove's talons - makes me envisage a dirty great eagle, not a sweet bird of peace. Otherwise I'm happy. PiCo 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Minor point: doves are not peaceful, they are actually rather vicious birds. Jim62sch 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I copy-pasted it into the article and changed to section-heading to "Narrative". ("And on the seventh day Noah sent out a rather vicious dove..." nah, it doesn't work :) PiCo 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pico, and Jim, you need to be congratulated. Its hard to write a summary and take into account all of the fine 'between the lines' detail. I am sure I could not have put the text together so succinctly. But please don't now sigh if I say I have one suggestion. It is important. There is in the record much made about how the flood occurred, that it was more than lots and lots of heavy rain, but that subterranean waters, 'fountains of the deep' were opened, and were the principal source of the flood. (The critics love to weigh in with the 'you can't get that much water out of 40 days rain' accusation.) How about it? Again, congratulations. Cobblers 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a quote from Genesis about the 'fountains of the deep/windows of heaven' plus added also the names of Noah's sons. Plus some small stylistic edits to make it read more smoothly. PiCo 03:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cobblers, thank you. I had excised the part about the fountains of the deep, primarily to see if anyone was paying attention.  :) OK, maybe that's slightly devilish, but it worked.

PiCo, your edits were great! I changed one thing, the colon before the quote to a comma. Jim62sch 14:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wives aboard the Ark

One of the links under See also is an article called Wives aboard the Ark. The article makes this statement: According to ancient traditions, the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, enjoyed fantastically long lifespans, living for centuries, while speaking prophecy to each generation they saw come and go. They were reputed to be known as Sibyls, original authors of the corpus of texts known to the Mediterranean world as the Sibylline Oracles. Other Sibyls were thought to have followed in their stead, adding to the Oracles. (The original Sibylline books were considered sacred even to the Greeks and Romans, but are no longer extant; the Oracles that are extant today are widely considered to be pious forgeries.) Can anyone confirm that this is accurate? I was under the impression that the Sibyl was totally Greco-Roman. PiCo 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is Greco-Roman. Any attempt to directly link Judaic traditions with Greco-Roman beliefs, especially in the sense of declaring those Judaic traditions to be precursors of Greco-Roman beliefs, is revisionist history with an evangelical/theological purpose. Anytime I hear/read this argument, I recall the quote of the Sibyl of Cumae (see Satyricon and The Wasteland, άποθανειν θέλω. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to weigh in on Talk:Wives aboard the Ark. CS is cheerfully using a source he knows, and admits, is a fabrication. Putting in a section which mentions this fabrication is fine; leading off with content from it presented as "ancient tradition" is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa - I didn't ever admit it is or is not a fabrication one way or another. The article already states that it is widely regarded as a forgery, and that is about as npov and true as you can get, so I don't know why you keep suppressing that. Even if it is a forgery, and it could well be, it is undeniably ancient, not exactly modern revisionism. All the part you keep blanking states, is that it is ancient, and that it is considered a forgery; it certainly does not "declare" that there is any definitely established connection between Greek and Jewish beliefs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Either I phrased myself badly, or you read me wrong, because your post doesn't make any sense to me. - KillerChihuahua 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now, your latest edit there seems to have sorted it, if anyone wants to discuss this further, let's use the talk page over there. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BTDT. Jim62sch 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ark

From the article:

In preparation for the flood, Noah, his wife, his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives entered the ark - eight persons in all. They took seven pairs of each kind of clean animal, two pairs of each kind of unclean animal and seven pairs of each kind of bird into the ark. Then God sealed the door.

It is a commonly held misconception that there were only two of each animal on board the ark. This misconception is furthered by many traditional depictions of the scene.

Actually, given that between Gen 6:19-20 and Gen 7:2-3 there appears to be a change in the story, I doubt it could be considered a "misconception". If anyone has access to the bible used in Catholic Schools (I used to, but I cannot find it at the moment) would they be so kind as to see if an E, Y(J) or a P follows these entries? This would give an indication as to the writer of each section.

Also, the Amplified Bible notes, " Noah had many years in which to interest travelers in securing these animals for him. The five extra pairs of clean animals were for food, and for sacrifice later." If this is accurate, it needs to be pointed out in the text. Jim62sch 14:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: In the Koran, the animals are only in pairs (The Believers (Al mu'minun), 23:27), not 7 pairs of this, or only two of that. Jim62sch 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here in Wikisource - the bible Documentarily Hypothesised. The Priestly Source says 2, the Jahwist says 7. Not two pairs and seven pairs, by the way, just two and seven. If you follow the DH, the conflist is a result of the two sources, but Biblical literalists naturally see this as a problem (if the Bible is the word of God there can't be any contradictions) and so look to reconcile such discordancies. The note you quote from the Amplified Bible is an example of this mode of thinking - sacrificial offerings is a reasonable guess, but the text of Genesis says nothing.

Looking back through the talk page, I gather that this article once contained a discussion of the ark story in the light of the documentary hypothesis, but time and the day seem to have washed it away. I'll draft something up to replace it, as it seems like a useful addition. PiCo 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, thanks a million! I'm glad someone didn't think I was just rambling on about the P, Y and E stuff (I knew it couldn't be D, so I omitted that one), and the note from the Amplified Bible. I have my guesses on what happened, but you have to fix your link -- it goes nowhere. Jim62sch 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the link :) PiCo 22:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Precisely as I figured -- (and as you pointed out earlier) different sources. My guess is that a problem was noted with the sacrifice of animals -- "hey if they were sacrificed, how did they procreate?" -- so the "sevens" were added to resolve this issue (and, of course, given numerology's importance to Judaism, seven was an apt choice). Jim62sch 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of early redacteurs noticing things, one thing that impresses me about this earlier part of Genesis is the extremely precise arithmetic of the ages of the Patriarchs - Methuselah dies in precisely the year of the flood, thus saving the emabrrassment of having him survive despite not being on the Ark. (Although it then opens up another embarrassment, that he was presumably numbered among the wicked who were destroyed). PiCo 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicked? Died of old age just before the flood is more likely. RossNixon 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering his age, you're probably right :). PiCo 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Genesis 8:20

"And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar."

Is that to imply that Noah sacrificed all the clean animals? Or only one of each type of clean animal? In which case, Noah is responsible for the killing of 1/7th (or 1/2, depending) of all living, non-human things on the face of the Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.156.242.39 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

it would be 1/14 or 1/2...but anyway...this is part of why I asked my question in the topic above re annotations. Jim62sch 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic mythology

I added the above cat, even though Christian mythology is listed. In fact, Christian mythology could probably be removed so long as Abrahamic mythology remains.

Also, lest we get into a long fight over "mythology" again, the disclaimer above the cat listing is a must read for all. Jim62sch 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is all a violation of the previous workaround, where "Torah events" was made a subcat, so that a "mythology" supercat wouldn't have to appear on the page. It seems your entire purpose is to go against all this that was decided by prior consensus, just to get the word "mythology" on the page somehow anyway with both a subcat and the supercat. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So who added the "Christian mythology" category and the disclaimer? Not I. Besides, Abrahamic mythology is far more accurate. If there was some previous arrangement, did you complain when Christian mythology was added? Given that its existence precedes the category I added are you sure that there was a work-around and a consensus? Jim62sch 19:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through the talk page, I saw no consensus matching that which you claim. Jim62sch 20:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I did add it after we discussed it. Thus since I added it, I'm removing it in favor of Abrahamic mythology as the story is part of the three Abrahamic religions.

New section: Textual analysis

I've added a new section, basically the documentary hypothesis as it applies to the Ark narrative. Open for comment and suggestions. PiCo 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Julianonions (where do people get these nicks?) for the very useful and appropriate additions. I've taken the liberty of moving them to the third paragraph of the section, as their prime import seems to be to point out the differing agends of the two sources. PiCo 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I got my "nick" from my parents through a naming ceremony shortly after birth. :) Codec 09:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary Re-writes?

It seems like people are trying to 'reason' what the most sensible version of 'pairs' to go with. Could we just stop re-writing history and go with the correct version, not the one that sounds the best.--Piedras grandes 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)