This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ssilvers (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 28 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:06, 28 May 2006 by Ssilvers (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)