Jump to content

Talk:Genesis flood narrative/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Stub created

I've created this stub following discussion at Noah's ark. More work needs to be done, so please contribute if you can - and be careful to avoid duplication of the Noah's Ark article. PiCo (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit stunned that an article about this – focusing on Genesis, I mean – didn't already exist. Was that the case? Misty MH (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It did exist... it just kept on getting deleted over fights about the flood being mythological versus being real. Happens all the time with religion related articles that aren't sourced properly (WP:OR) or have a poor WP:Scope.   — Jasonasosa 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing is the key. I want to rely on biblical commentaries and on works by biblical scholars - if necessary every single sentence should be noted. PiCo (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In no way am I trying to be mean or vicious... but I want to drive the point, elaborating on User:PiCo's comment "Sourcing is the key", using User:Misty MH's edit as an example as to why a page like this gets deleted:
(cur | prev) 23:10, 30 July 2012‎ Misty MH (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,263 bytes) (+51)‎ . . (Added "that would "cut off" all flesh or destroy the Earth" for clarity, per Genesis 9:11.) (undo)
When you start deviating from the sources, splashing quotes from scriptures as if a point is trying to made... it's all down hill from there. Pages like this come into question and are deleted when thousands of wikians start adding their own take on the article's content without checking what the sources actually say, splashing POV with a twist of non referenced material. Please don't take offence, just take it from us (User:PiCo and other great editors...) and maybe you won't get undone.   — Jasonasosa 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Genesis creation narrative which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition of contradictory

The article says 'Although there are differences in characteristic style and vocabulary, overall they are not contradictory.' in reference to the two original narratives that make up the Noah's Ark story, then goes on to explain 'difficulties'. If one narrative says two of each clean animal were taken aboard and the other says seven pairs, isn't that a contradiction?--Jcvamp (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is that you need two animals... for mating, and that you need redundancy, as in more than one pair. The bible also makes a distinction between clean and unclean animals. But at a minimum you need 1 pair of animals, and potentially more than one pair. It never says, "just get 1 zebra" or the like. If you had two pairs, you still have 2 of a clean/unclean animal, but you have a backup as well. -- Avanu (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

"The Genesis flood narrative is the Hebrew Bible's version of the worldwide flood myth," sounds strange to me, like there is a flood myth in the sense of in-universe Cthulu legends or something. Could we change it to "The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth in the Hebrew Bible,..."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

lol...   — Jasonasosa 15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the story of a universal flood really is found all over the world. This doesn't mean that there was an original myth that they all descend from, as it could simply reflect the fact that floods (normal ones) are themselves pretty universal, and/or that water is a very common creation material (which in turn can have universally found reasons - notably the fact that babies are born from the the amniotic waters). PiCo (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Calling it a "myth" is extreme anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-Muslim bias, and has no business being there in the first place.Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No, you just don't know what the word myth means. See Christian mythology. A number of Christian theologians have accepted that the word myth (which means "sacred story," not "false story") is totally applicable to many portions of the Bible. C.S. Lewis described the story of Christ as "a myth that is true." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
So I guess calling the stories about Zeus, Hera and the gang "myths" is anti-Greek? Why do you feel your myths deserve special naming? It's all about what scholarly sources say, not your personal opinion. SuperAtheist (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
In the same Christian mythology article, under the "Christian attitudes toward myth" section, it is also stated that "myth" should not be used. Furthermore, "myth", in the standard dictionaries available to most people, can also be defined as a falsehood or a story that is not true. So given the circumstances, it would be extremely imprudent to use the term "myth" to describe the Genesis flood event as it would be extremely disrespectful to the beliefs of Christians and Jews. Since this is an event which occurs in the Christian Bible and the Jewish Scriptures, surely it is only right to use the term that accommodates the followers of these religions respectively? Pretty Pig (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edit changed Flood mythto story which is not so accurate or descriptive. A flood myth is a symbolic narrative in which a great flood is sent by a deity. This has been argued about extensively for many years on the talk page if you look up the archives and the consensus has been that flood myth is the correct neutral term. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Since you say it is so, I will not challenge it, but I disagree with it. As mentioned earlier, myth can also be used in a derogatory manner, so it is not the most suitable of words to use if one really wants to take a neutral point of view. Pretty Pig (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Images of Muhammad offend Muslims, but we use them in places. Thank you for stopping trying to force this in. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

2 sources I think should be used in this article

Norman Cohn's Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, Yale University Press 1996, and J David Pleins' When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood OUP 2009. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow covenant is inaccurate

According to this article the story of Genesis does not mention a rainbow at all: www.academia.edu/3632788/One_Bow_or_Another_A_study_of_the_bow_in_Gen_9_8-17

Could anybody provide textual evidence that proves that kèsèt refers to a 'rainbow', rather than the much more likely 'bow and arrow'? Otherwise the article should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.221.42 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Noah's Ark be merged with Genesis flood narrative. The two issues are so closely linked that I think it’s meaningless to discuss the two in isolation from each other. The two existing articles are both small enough that merging them will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Wdford (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Except it should not be discussed here, but at Talk:Noah's Ark#Merger proposal. StAnselm (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Important but expensive source

The Primeval Flood Catastrophe Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions Y. S. Chen Oxford Oriental Monographs 352 pages | 16 black-and-white plates | 234x156mm 978-0-19-967620-0 | Hardback | 12 December 2013 [1] Discusses all major aspects of Mesopotamian Flood traditions in depth

Offers a systematic treatment of the historical development of the Flood traditions, and makes important new observations on the origins and development of the traditions

Provides analysis based on an extensive and systematic documentation and analysis of Sumerian and Babylonian flood terms in their literary contexts

Unravels the complex historical relationship between the Flood traditions and major literary and historiographical traditions in Mesopotamia

Sheds new light on our understanding of each individual source (e.g., the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic) involved

Explores the socio-political circumstances in which the Flood traditions emerged and evolved

Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Npov

This article is pro standard geology, anti-creationist, not neutral.182.249.247.2 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What portion of the policy at WP:NPOV is being violated? VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Please can you explain what you mean by "standard geology"? Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Very happy to see that this page is neutrally reporting what the experts say about geology and the history of the world, instead of giving equal treatment to parochial opinions. "Neutral" means "on the side of the experts." If you're against the experts, like the creationists are, then you're opinionated, not neutral. Leadwind (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Experts on the historical and scientific accuracy of the narrative are not experts on the narrative itself; the focus of the article is on why the story cannot literally be true, rather than the story itself, and literary and allegorical interpretations thereof are completely omitted. There are already articles on biblical literalism and creationism (note also that creation-evolution controversy is a separate page). As is, this article contravenes the "balancing aspects" and "controversial subjects: religion" portions of the policy at WP:NPOV. The page should be treated no differently than other religious myths.82.20.156.31 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why say "one of many flood myths found in human cultures"?

This topic is discussed in the section "Comparative mythology". Why then call it a "myth" when it is already said so later on? There is really no use of this phrase since it is already explained in the section mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.116.118 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have an article titled flood myth about them; it therefore seems like the appropriate term to use. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It is precisely because its nature as a flood myth is discussed later on that we must mention it in the WP:LEDE -- the intro summarizes the body of the article. Arguing for its removal on that ground is like saying "why do we mention that it's in the Bible in the lead? It's clearly mentioned in the Flood narrative section." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding recent POV pushing

173.35.54.125 has been removing sourced information, as well as adding unsourced POV commentary (which falsely assumes that scholars who disagree with him aren't even trying to consider all possibilities), as well as adding an opinion poll as if it is of any relevance to academic consensus. The excuse that he's "trying to present balanced views of both sides" goes against WP:GEVAL.

He has been reverted by Doug Weller, C.Fred, and myself; and his edits have been restored by no one else. Clearly there is a consensus not to include those edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Move to Genesis flood myth

This page is acknowledged to be a flood myth. As it is not different than any other flood myth on Wikipedia, we should move this page to Genesis flood myth.

jps (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So oppose including more knowledge out of some idea that one narrative is some sort of scientific truth and the others aren't worth studying? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Like in Noah in Islam and all the bluelinked entries here: List of flood myths?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
How would that not be suggesting that Genesis's version of the extremely common flood myth is a known historical fact and the only authentic version? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that it shouldn't be called that, but really, it wouldn't suggest that it's a known historical fact. Zondervan's dictionary can call it that because it's a bible dictionary, so all the entries are assumed by default to be in the bible. We're not a bible dictionary, so we don't have that luxury. But there's nothing about the words that suggest fact. We could (although I'm not suggesting this as the current title is better) call it "The flood in the Bible" without making any assertions of existence. That would be parallel to Zondervan for Wikipedia. Cf. Unicorn, rather than Unicorn (mythological animal).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
No. It is about the narrative's content, which is the Genesis flood myth. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Opppose I'd be okay with Flood of Noah, but I think the current title is best.

How about Genesis flood myth narrative? That will cover all elements fairly and clearly? Wdford (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to cover everything, it'd have to be Genesis flood myth story/narrative in Genesis. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Nothing speaks against calling a myth a myth. Other flood stories are also titled myths on WP (or dare I say denigrated?), so why make an exception for this one? WP has to stop bowing to religionist editors. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That would suggest an actual flood. ♆ CUSH ♆ 04:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cush: the way dragon and John Rambo suggest an actual things/people? Conciseness is one of our naming criteria. VQuakr (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Given the number of religious nutjobs (including WP editors) who think there was an actual flood, removing the myth qualifier from the title is problematic. It is bad enough that we have the "narrative" crap instead of "myth" in the title. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you reframe your response in the context of our naming policy? "Nutjobs" does not appear in WP:NAMINGCRITERA. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Opppose There is nothing wrong with the current title. The story of Noah is indeed a narrative. We could instead change the other flood myths to narratives if we need to balance out the religions. Their capacity as "flood myths" are told within the first paragraph.68.100.116.118 (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Major revisions reverted, but, yes, the article does need work.

I've undone some edits by PiCo. I feel that the article Genesis flood narrative does need work, yes, but I don't support major rewriting without first discussing here. This is an important article, many people have contributed. Furthermore, some of the edits by PiCo also resulted in the removal of interesting and useful citations to source material. So, with this message, I would like to encourage discussion. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Isambard, for having the fortitude to call PiCo’s shots. I think you need to understand PiCo’s worldview regarding issues related to the Bible, and his seeming inability to address in an adequate manner views that differ from his own. Consider, for example, the dismissive comment that he gives when deleting the discussion of the chiasm of the Biblical Flood Account. This is, in my opinion, the most elegant chiasmus in all the Biblical literature, and one of the most sophisticated from any source in the ancient world. Just on this basis, therefore, it has every right to be included in a page dedicated to the Genesis Flood narrative. Why then censor it as something the general reader should not be allowed to see?
I think the answer to that question is because it does not fit the old JEDP theory. This was formulated in the 19th century before the literary conventions of the Ancient Near East were well understood. In particular, chiasmus in the Bible was not really appreciated until Lund’s work in 1942. Modern scholarship has gone on greatly since then, and there have been many, many studies analyzing chiasms in the Bible. Some authors seen chiasms where, in my opinion, they were not really the intent of the author, but nevertheless there have been many valid and helpful modern studies dealing with chiasmus in the Bible.
From what I have seen of PiCo’s edits, his viewpoint is locked into what agrees with the original version of the Documentary Hypothesis, which is now outdated even in the non-conservative literature. The repetitions in the Flood account have always been a major tenet of the Documentary Hypothesis. I asked PiCo on the Talk Page for “Darius the Mede” which conservative authors he has read regarding the issue under discussion; he has not answered this. When I put in views by respected conservative scholars he deleted them because it was not “Mainstream”, i.e. in accordance with his viewpoint. He put in the statement that there are no historical references to Daniel’s Darius (the Mede), even though I had put in previously two ancient references to such, along with citations of their discussion in conservative writers. He deleted all this; it is not mentioned in his ‘mainstream’ sources.
Notice also the method of stating something as a fact, and which the reader is meant to take as a fact, but then putting a reference on the end to ‘establish’ that fact. Example: “The Flood narrative is a composite of two different stories, or sources, which scholars call the Jahwist and the Priestly source. Two different reasons are given . . .” At the end of this is a reference to Coffer. But PiCo did not write “Coffer has the opinion, shared by many other scholars, that the Flood narrative is a composite . . .”. Instead, the composite nature from two different sources is presented as a fact; just because Cotter is cited at the end does not change this. It was intended to be read as a fact; otherwise Cotter’s statement would have been put in quotes. This is part of his agenda to present as ‘fact’ that the reader must accept what is instead only a scholarly opinion, while at the same time not allowing the expression of good scholarship that differs from this, and which the general reader has a right to see.
The same agenda is being carried out on other Wikipedia pages, including the pages for the books of the Pentateuch. Only one viewpoint is being presented as the “scholarly” or “mainstream” understanding. I could wish that Larry Sanger, who is an alumnus of Reed College like I am, were still on board at Wikipedia. If he were, I could then hope that the Wikipedia principles of fairness and the guidelines for conduct, that are really well written, would be enforced in an impartial manner. If they were, then there is enough evidence from what PiCo is currently doing to issue a warning and if it is not heeded, to ban him from further edits in the areas where his agenda prevents a fair presentation of scholarly opinion. But since nothing has been done, it looks like he has the sanction of the moderators, one of whom says that he knows more about the Bible than you or I do.
Thanks again, Isambard, for having the courage to do what you have done. I hope you aren’t banned because of it. But back to the issue of just one item, the chiastic structure of the whole Biblical flood narrative. The proper thing for PiCo to do, if more modern discoveries do not fit into his paradigm, is to cite an author who refutes Wenham’s presentation of the Flood chiasm. It’s obvious that it strikes at the heart of the JEDP theory, as do other more recent studies of ancient literature. I myself had thought of including Emerton’s attempt to answer Wenham. However, this boiled down to Emerton saying that if he had created the chiasm he would have done it in a different way than the author did. But maybe PiCo has found someone else who had a more reasoned answer than Emerton was capable of; let him present what they say, and not just say “Mainstream scholarship” does not agree with Wenham. And then I can quote more conservative scholarship that does agree with Wenham, and which establishes that here we have the most exquisite chiasm in all of the Biblical literature, and it’s just too bad if that disagrees with the very basis of JEDP (of course I’ll say it nicer than that).
I am also waiting for PiCo’s explanation of which conservative scholars he has read (before I asked him) on the issues where he is trying to marginalize views that do not agree with his own. For example, he has read Rowley, Collins and Newsom on the Book of Daniel, but which conservative commentaries had he read? Newsom is editor of Vetus Testamentum, and so any articles there will usually agree with her opinions. According to an investigation of a few years ago, Vetus Testamentum was distributed to 562 libraries worldwide. Compare that with the conservative journal Bibliotheca Sacra, the oldest theological journal in the Americas; it was distributed to 930 libraries worldwide. It is this kind of conservative scholarship which has made many important contributions, including that of Wenham, and which should not be excluded or censored, but should be given a fair hearing. If not, it will be clear that Wikipedia does not represent the even playing field envisioned by Sanger. PiCo, which conservative authors have you read, not just read as filtered through Collins etc.? How do you justify deleting sound scholarship like that of Wenham on this page, or (on the Darius the Mede page) that of Keil, Zockler, and Anderson? I hope you don’t consider it impolite to ask these two questions of you. I think their answer will help us to understand whether or not we are on a level playing field, and the moderator will not just say I am being too wordy. These are real concerns to me and others too.Chronic2 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Chronic2, I'm only one person who (because of his/her family upbringing) has (actually) read the Bible. My contributions, such as they have been, are based in that reading. More generally, I find the scholarly work surrounding the Bible to be very interesting, but I don't have strong opinions about any one particular scholarly interpretation of the texts. I can, however, look at this article on the Genesis flood narrative and see that it needs work. But since, I've previously edited the article, and since I just made some bold intervention, here, I'm hoping for discourse with other editors. Can you weigh in with specific suggestions regarding how this article might be improved? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's support sound scholarship that Chronic2 points out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.2.179 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I also just removed the voluminous and POV material, including New Testament material, on chiastic structures introduced by Chronic2. I can imagine that discussion of chiastic structure might find a place, in here, but I'm not sure. The early books of the Bible are quite a jumble of material. Anyway, if someone introduces encyclopedic material, then that would be great. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that the material added by Chronic2 was deleted. Anyone who knows biblical Hebrew and the structures that exist within the text of Genesis 1-11 is extremely well aware that there are chiastic structures used throughout, including separate chiasms for both the luminaries of Gen 1, the flood narrative, and the noahic covenant narrative, just to name a few. Chronic2's contribution should not be deleted; it should be expanded upon.99.225.250.138 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course there's a chiastic structure there, it's widely accepted. My objection isn't to that, it's to devoting so much space to it. The fact merely needs to be mentioned, and its significance noted. PiCo (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Islam and Yazidi sections

Can I suggest that these two be hived off as separate articles? This is called the GENESIS flood narrative, and there's no Book of Genesis in either of those two religions. (There are links, yes, but the differences are very great).PiCo (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that we have the article Noah in Islam, and the material in Genesis flood narrative article is, I suppose, partially redundant with material in that article. I have no familiarity with Yazidi (I've "corrected" the spelling of the title of this talk page subsection!). Of course, the Genesis flood narrative is important for many reasons: obviously, as part of Jewish history and mythology, but also because the narrative has influenced other religions (including the art and literature associated with those religions). It has also influenced "science", but I know you are not, now, proposing that that material be removed. My point, however, is that the Genesis flood narrative does not exist in isolation, as just part of Genesis, but, rather, it exists in a greater context. I can imagine that many readers will come to this article because they are familiar with the Genesis flood narrative from their readings within those other contexts, including reading the subsequent depiction of the story in the Quran. Shouldn't we retain some of this greater context? If the Islam section is removed, then I think the cited material should be incorporated into Noah in Islam. I would not know what to do about Yazidi. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at them again I don't think there's enough there for either of them to become articles. I know where the material came from - both were in the old Noah's Ark article before it got split in two a few years ago. Prior to that, the source for the Muslim material is probably Cohen's book or else the Jewish Encyclopedia, but I have no idea where the Yazidi comes from. My inclination is to remove them as sections (they're too short) and assimilate them into the article - but only if it can be shown from sources that both or either are based on the Genesis story. (That's not necessarily a given - the Yazidi stuff could be from Babylonian sources, and the Koranic is almost certainly from Jewish legends circulating in Arabia in the 6th century rather than direct from Genesis).PiCo (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is not enough content in each paragraph to be a separate article. I think, however, a more encompassing section within this article, one that accommodates the general topic how what is the Genesis narrative came to be represented by other religions, might serve as a place for other editors to contribute additional content. Otherwise, how would you assimilate the Islam and Yazidi material into the rest of the article? Perhaps the Yazidi material might just be removed? Just asking, and thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
To be frank I've never come across anything on that subject. I have come across some mentions of the formation of the Koran, but they tend to be very general. This is a very specialised area. I can have a look.PiCo (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's let give it a week or so, allowing other editors a chance to weigh in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Annoying

About the number of unclean animals in Genesis 7:2.

  • Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate;
  • Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate,

The first is the Genesis linked to in the body of this article ("According to the Masoretic Text"), the second is ESV. Is any of them more "right" than the other? Also, in articles like this one, with bible-links in the body, what bible is the "correct" one to link to? I´m currently thinking of Wives aboard Noah's Ark (which really needs some good secondary sources), which links to a KJV at wikisource. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to link to Jewish/Hebrew translations for OT verses and Christian translations for NT verses. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genesis flood narrative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate era: BC or BCE?

I would propose switching this article from the AD/BC style to the CE/BCE style. AD/BC is a Christian numbering system, and Genesis is a Jewish text. Consulting related articles, such as Genesis, Noah's Ark, and Genesis creation narrative, I see that they all use the CE/BCE style. Indeed, this seems to be the general style for articles discussing the texts of religions other than Christianity; see Quran, Upanishads, Buddhavacana, etc. Would there be any objections to switching? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There being no objection, I've gone ahead and made the change. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No, this article is based on Christian "legend", therefore it should be in Christian standard, Wikipedia doesn't need to be completely Atheist, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.2.3 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disjointed narrative

OK so why not mention both the fact it seems to be contradictory and the fact some scholarship thinks it is a unified whole?Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


Hello, sorry for polluting everybody's inbox. I've never used the Talk page before, which is why I hesitated. Here is my dilemma, and I would like advice on how to proceed. I have found an error in this article. It's an obvious one, so it should be no trouble for anyone to identify. But the trouble is, the error is in a book that this article cites. The author makes an error in his conclusions. I know... far be it for a published book to contain a mistake! But here we are. Should I 1) remove the text from the article (after explaining the error), or 2) keep the text and provide an "alternate view" that shows how it is mistaken? I tried #1, but it was reverted (which I understand), and then, because I do value truth and I hate setting mistakes touted as truth on Wikipedia, I spent an hour or two going the route #2. But then that was reverted. So now I'm here to talk about it! How should I proceed? Forest51690 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That is unfortunate as on Wikipedia we only allow cites to RS, not our own conclusions. If you have an RS that actuary says the view that the flood story contradicts itself if wrong put that in. What you cannot do is use a source that does not explicitly say that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
In essence, the existing source (Cline) gives a interpretation of the text, and then identifies his interpretation as a self-contradiction. Can I give another source that interprets the text rightly, in order to show that with the right interpretation, there is no contradiction? (I don't need to mince words here. His reasoning is clearly and completely flawed on these points of supposed contradiction). If this page needs to share Cline's deeply flawed viewpoint on the interpretation of the text, then it should at least allow other competent viewpoints to be shared as well. Forest51690 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
That Cline "got it wrong" is an opinion; while various apologetics found arguments to explain the various inconsistencies over time and justify the story or propose it as historical, progress like the documentary hypothesis, etc, provided more convincing explanations about why the narrative contradicts itself (not only for Noah's story). There is also evidence of influence from older (pre-Hebrew) traditions. More recently with the popularization of science, there is increased criticism based on highschool-level science explaining how many aspects of the story are impossible (or must all be miracles), other than geology and archaeology which also don't support it. This increased understanding is rather recent however. Not so long ago, there were flood archeologist adventurers digging and associating unrelated discoveries with Biblical stories. It is possible that a historical perspectives section could summarize 16th+ century views of notable commentators, including Jerome commentary, etc. But I don't think that we should use older material to finish each section claiming that these views were the correct ones. Someone I would be glad to get input from is PiCo who recently improved various Biblical articles. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It's my opinion. But how can I say anything that's not my opinion? I'm sure I'm right about this. But I get it; that means nothing to you because I'm just some random person. But I will show below with reasoning how these errors are not a matter of opinion but fact, unless logic is a matter of opinion. Then, once it's evident, it will be the opinion of everyone, and perhaps then you'll be more favorable to the idea of removing these errors.
Errors The propose of this section is to convince anyone it concerns, that the claimed contradictions are false, and to gain support for adding contents to the article that shows this clearly, so as to not mislead the readers with false information.
Cline claims there are contradictions. For the purposes of this discussion on the Genesis food story, a contradiction is an internal contradiction between two statements in the text, such that (in the context of a story) both statements in all their details could not have both happened. If the two statements could have happened, in all their details, then there is no contradiction. If anyone disagrees with this basic definition, let me know now.
  1. two pairs or seven pairs? Cline claims that Genesis 6:19 and 7:2 contradict themselves.
We can see that these verses are not statements about what animals were in the ark. They are statements telling God's words to Noah on two different occasions. The verses do not both describe the same event in time. Any disagreements so far? Comment if I have said anything less than absolute fact so far.
Given the above facts, this cannot be a contradiction of the text. At best, you may say that God contradicted himself. But even so, the text is a non-contradictory story about when God contradicted himself. Moreover, as mentioned before, the two verses are not referring to the same event, so therefore, they cannot by definition be contradictions, since both events may have happened in all their details, without the remotest possibility of one contradicting the other.
Comment now if you see an issue with my logic.
So, apparently Cline forgot what the definition of what a contradiction is when he wrote that part of his book. Being a professor doesn't make him less wrong.
This is one of the three contradictions he mentions. I will talk about the other two, but I want to get a consensus on this one first before I continue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest51690 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This is not a forum to discus sources reliability. And cline is not the only RS that see's contradictions in Genesis.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"This is not a forum to discuss a source's reliability" How then do you determine it? Do you not judge the reliability of a source? If not, then do I have the right to use any source, reliable or unreliable? That would be detrimental thing. Then how do you determine it, besides discussing it here? For that is precisely the reason I was sent to this page before submitting a correction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest51690 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me for not understanding Wikipedia's guidelines. I am currently reading up on them and I will find a better way to approach this. I would support it if a moderator removes these recent comments of mine from this talk page, to keep it clean. From now on I will make sure my comments are informed of the way Wikipedia operates, and what constitutes a reliable source. Slatersteven, I understand now that you perhaps meant to say "this is not a forum for evaluating the trueness of a source". So I misunderstood. I trust that the editors of this page do in fact strive to avoid errors in its contents. Thanks. Forest51690 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Here [[2]] is where we discus reliability of sources. Here [[3]] is where we discus fringe theories, and you seem to be saying that the view that genesis is contradictory is fringe. Frankly I already know what the answer is but you can try. And again Cline is nbot the only source for this, do we really need to have a huge list of sources?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Mentioning "the fact some scholarship thinks it is a unified whole" is very dangerous, since the majority of modern scholars are perfectly capable of reading the bible as literature and treating the flood story as a fictional narrative that "works" as a single fictional narrative, or reading it in a way that emphasizes historical study of how Jews and Christians have traditionally interpreted the text, without being too concerned for what the text actually says. Both of these are perfectly valid ways for scholars to read the text, but the problem is that the majority of lay people who would like to quote those scholars, including on Wikipedia, are definitely more interested in quoting them to give the impression that "The text doesn't have contradictions and doublets! These scholars agree!", which is definitely not what they are saying. We should always make it clear that when scholars read the text as a unified whole, they are practicing a form of literary criticism that does not reject "the fact it seems to be contradictory". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of Cline

Hello, I'm suggesting a minor edit. The article contains this text:

many details are contradictory, such as ... how many animals were on board the ark

(emphasis mine) with a citation to page 20 of Cline's book. However, the book says something different:

And how many animals was Noah told to take into the ark?

(emphasis mine). The article text is saying something different than the source. How many animals were aboard the ark is a different point of topic than how many Noah was told to take into the ark. To say that these are the same requires an assumption that Noah obeyed his instructions. This assumption is not started in the source. Adding assumptions is Original Research and therefore inappropriate. I propose changing the article to read thus: "how many animals was Noah told to take into the ark". Please comment if you disagree, otherwise I will proceed with this edit later today.

Forest51690 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC) As a side remark, I must note that according to the text in Genesis, Noah was given two instructions (120 years apart). Even though these instructions are different, it is not a textual contradiction because they are two separate events. Two descriptions of separate events can in no way contradict. Statements must overlap in order to contradict. In the text it may describe God contradicting himself, but a recording of God's contradiction is not in itself a contradiction. I make this note here to make it plain that Cline is wrong on this point, when he says this is a textual contradiction. Therefore with this understanding I hope to receive support when I find a Reliable Source that is adequate to point out this error. Can anyone suggest a source I can use? Forest51690 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the bit about taken vs asked to take. Cline is saying, as others have said, that there are two stories woven together and that this results in a contradiction - which of course is a textual contradiction. Two sets of instructions at different times can certainly contradict each other. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thank you for making the edit. To address your comment: "Two sets of instructions at different times can certainly contradict each other." -- yes, they most certainly can. But you seem to equate the instructions with the record of the instructions. The instructions contradict themselves, sure, but the recording of them simply tells the words as they were spoken.
Please consider this example. If a text contains this story: "Henry said to his wife, 'I went to the store on Monday'. Later on, he told his son, 'I did not go to the store on Monday.'" The text tells a story of Henry contradicting himself. But if the text tells Henry's words accurately, then how can it have a textual contradiction? A contradiction is in the form "A, and not A", where both As must refer to the same thing (or event). Therefore, in this example, Henry's words are a contradiction where A = "I was at the store", and "A and not A" = "I was at the store and I was not at the store". The story itself does not have two As; it has A and B, where A = "On one occasion, Henry said this", and B = "On another occasion, Henry said that". A and B are not the same thing or the same event, (and moreover they are both true!) so they do not conform to the definition of a contradiction.
So yes, "Two sets of instructions at different times can certainly contradict each other", but a text that records those separate statements does not contradict, but simply records the words. Or if you still disagree, then what definition of "textual contradiction" are you using? By your definition, is it possible for a text to contradict itself and still record all events accurately? (I would ask that you please answer this question if you still disagree. I presume you will say no, but I want to make sure).
Forest51690 (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
None of which matters as it is OR,we say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not answering for Doug and also welcome his answer. However: "By your definition, is it possible for a text to contradict itself and still record all events accurately?" We let expert scholars do their research and we just report it, otherwise we would be inserting our own original research in articles (WP:OR). —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Paleo is of course correct, but I also think that this is a case of Begging the question. It works if you assume that this is one narrative, but Cline is arguing that it is two narratives that contradict each other. Two texts, in other words. Not that I have the same problem you do with the term. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes Paleo is correct, this is OR, and I have no intention of putting my OR in this article. Even if I tried, it would not pass the eyes of this stringent group of editors. In my root post I wasn't as clear as I intended to be -- I'm discussing this not to get my opinions added to the article, but to persuade you that the error is indeed an error, so that when I find RS that says the same I will not meet undue opposition.
@Doug Weller: I am trying to understand how I have begged the question (which is, to assume one's own conclusion as a premise in order to prove the conclusion). Because, I have not used the conclusion (i.e. "this is not a contradiction") in my argument in order to prove it. You seem to be saying that I am begging the question since I assume it is one narrative. But I am not assuming that, nor does my reasoning relying on that. It matters little whether the text is comprised of one source or multiple sources; the fact is, the text as it is does not contradict with itself. I can understand Cline's reasoning if he thinks that the two sources were different than what is contained in Genesis. Perhaps they initially referred to the same event, and that through the process of weaving them together, Genesis represents them as two separate events. In that case, the two sources would contradict because they tell of the same event, whereas Genesis would not contradict because it tells of two separate events. I don't know whether this is what Cline was thinking or not; the fact is, Cline does not argue his conclusion -- he does not provide facts and logic to argue it -- he only states it. I wish that Cline would have exposed the evidence and reasoning behind his conclusion, rather than giving the conclusion on merely his own authority. Authority does not persuade a skeptic. Along these lines, it's better that this article include better sources for this claim (@Slatersteven said he knows of other sources) -- sources that do more than state the author's personal conclusion.Forest51690 (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The assumption I've assumed that you are making is that this is one narrative, not two. In any case, this is more of a semantic argument about what seems to be a commonly used concept. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We are not here to discuss biblical inerrancy, or to discuss random issues even if they are related to the topic. By questioning whether Genesis could "still record all events accurately", you are implying that you wish to insert your own OR in the article, since you are not allowed discuss those issues here unless you are proposing a change to the article. I could respond to your question by pointing out that no, of course Genesis doesn't record "all events" accurately: even if everything in Genesis was recorded accurately, that still would not be "all events". What did Noah have for breakfast on his fifty-second birthday? Where did he get it? Did he get indigestion afterward? Forget Noah -- what about Gilgamesh's uncle Schmilgamesh? He would have been living during the timespan covered in Genesis, but he isn't even mentioned. This is semantics, and is nonsense, of course, but it still answers your question. But none of it helps improve this Wikipedia article, so this is not the place to discuss it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Thanks for referring me to that policy. I was not aware of it until now. So I will not continue this discussion any further. Thank you to all who contributed their point of view; I appreciate it. Forest51690 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"universal" flood myth

It is simply not true that the flood myth is categorically universal. There are cultures which do not have a flood myth. This adjective should be removed.

jps (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Caveated, we should point out which RS have said this is not true.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, to the contrary, there is not a single RS which has said it is true, that I can find. The source cited does not contend that the flood myth is categorically universal. jps (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The universal flood myth is a pretty old and widely held belief. I have no issue with also saying who has said it is true.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. The adjective "universal" is not a stand-in for "global" but rather can be read that the myth is held in common across all cultures... in much the same way we would say "language is a cultural universal". Since there are cultures which do not have a flood myth, the flood myth is not universal. jps (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't call it the universal flood myth. We also have Flood myth which is more general and might be a better place to address this belief. —PaleoNeonate – 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Problem is it is sourced,so we need sources to challenge it,and then to have a section on the debate. What we should not do is remove sourced content just because we do not like it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
What we have is a source that refers to "the universal flood myth". It never states "every culture has a flood myth". It's a situation where the literal meaning of the phrase does not match how an academic has actually used it, although we also have no idea what Leeming had in mind when he wrote that line. Heck, maybe he does think every culture has one. I don't see a problem with just shortening it to what our article is actually titled. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, The Myth of the Universal Flood Myth. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
There's the double meaning, both would be erroneous: 1) flood which covered all the earth 2) myth common to all cultures... This myth is however indeed about a world-wide flood (even if that never occurred), so in that sense it could be a correct (but unclear) description. —PaleoNeonate – 00:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
And "global" would probably have been used for #1... —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It is also ("the Hebrew version of the universal flood myth") Practically a direct quote from the source.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite get what the problem is. I would read "the Hebrew version of the universal flood myth" as referring to a myth about a universal flood, not a universal myth about a flood. Yes, jps is right that not every culture has a version of this myth, and yes, a number of people (including the authors of a large number of "reliable sources") mistwkenly beliebe this not to be the case, but do we really need to watch our wording so much that we can't describe a myth about a universal flood with the words "universal flood myth". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. Didn't notice the wikilink on "flood myth", making it unambiguously claim that the flood myth is universal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Yes. So there are a few possibilities, while still avoiding OR:

  • The lead does not need to be sourced if it simply faithfully summarizes the article content, it would not need to present it as "universal".
  • Add a sentence and a source questioning "universal" in the lead, but I don't think it would be the right place for this
  • Multiple sources could be used in the body which both support and criticize the use of "universal", if necessary; the lead would just summarize that (alternatively, that could be done at Flood Myth, or not be necessary, if we go with the following solution)
  • Omit quoting "universal" from the source and keep it as-is
  • Select another source (there are various encyclopedias and dictionaries to quote a short definition from other than the current source)
  • Keep it as-is (preserve the status-quo, potentially eventually resulting in the same discussion in the future).

—PaleoNeonate – 11:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Or add a caveat.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It's vastly better to just leave "universal" out. RS and V are not suicide pacts - the fact that a reliable source got something wrong doesn't mean we have to repeat it. Discussion of the myth of the universal flood myth belongs at Flood myth. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: They're not suicide pacts, but in fact one of them covers this exact type of situation. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, no source, no matter how reputable it is for other kinds of information, is a reliable source for an extraordinary claim about which it is almost certainly wrong.
As an aside, I found this thread a little difficult to read, and while punning on the dual meanings of both "universal" and "myth" is fine for a talk page, I would avoid referring to the common misconception that the flood myth is "universal" as a "myth" in the article space, especially in the context of the phrase "universal flood myth", which as it has been used in this thread could mean any of (a) a common misconception that all world cultures have a flood myth, (b) a myth about a global/universal flood, or (c) a flood myth that is held by all world cultures. (This is the same reason I honestly think Myth of the flat Earth should be retitled, but that's another matter.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Great issues within this article

Howdy. I'm fairly new at editing pages, but have been a reader for years. I have a number of concerns about this page that I would like to peacefully discuss, and hopefully request an older user to edit since I cannot.

The first and most extensive problem is that there is a great deal of bias in the text. If by "Genesis Flood Narrative," the title is supposed to indicate that this page is devoted to discrediting the biblical account, then this can be ignored. This is not the case, however, since "narrate" literally means "to give an account." What I am getting at is, if this page's purpose is solely to refute the biblical account, it should be renamed. If not, then it needs to focus on the account of the Flood, according to Genesis, as its title indicates. The first problem with bias would be the first sentence immediately calling the Hebrew Flood account a myth. Despite scientific opinion (albeit, drawn from evidence), this completely ignores the widely held belief amongst the three most prominent religious groups that the Great Flood is a historical fact if they also believe the Torah, Bible, or Quran are taken literally (which most within these groups do). Considering that there is a page entirely devoted to the Flood myth, why does this page also immediately choose the same side of the argument?

Compare this page with Noah's Ark, which describes the biblical account of Noah's Ark moreso than refuting the entire thing. Or perhaps look at Cush, which primarily lays out the biblical account of Cush instead of pointing out all the scientific reasons he never existed because there was no Flood. Even consider Biblical and Quranic Narratives, which presents the similarities and differences of either account, and completely withholds from listing the opinion of the writer as to why both are mythological or symbolic. I'm not saying atheistic or liberal Christian views should not be included in this article, but rather that interpretations should be reserved for their appropriate sections. A page that is designated for information of the biblical account should include what the biblical account says without engraining the entire article with the opinion that the whole things has no shred of evidence or is mythological.

The Composition Sources section says in the second sentence that the Biblical account reads as a "fable-like and legendary," and the very next sentence authoritatively calls the entire thing symbolic, which is not the consensus among Bible believers. Yes, there are theologians like Blenkinsopp who take this position, but this has never been deemed the absolute interpretation of any Christian or Judaic group (I am less familiar with Islamic beliefs, but I would guess the same holds true). The next sentence is blatantly incorrect: Adam is mentioned as a real character in Deuteronomy 32:8, Joshua 3:16, 1st Chronicles 1:1, Job 31:33, Luke 3:38, Romans 5:14, 1st Corinthians 15:22 and 15:45, 1st Timothy 2:13-14, and Jude 1:14; Eve is mentioned in 2nd Corinthians 11:3 and 1st Timothy 2:13. I'll withhold from listing every verse outside of Genesis that speaks of Eden and the garden, the serpent, man made from dust, and so on. If the sentence stating that "almost none of the persons, places and stories in [the pre-Flood Genesis narrative] are ever mentioned anywhere else in the Bible" is hinting that the biblical account is meant to be taken symbolically in the rest of the Bible, then the view of mainstream groups must also be mentioned and the sentence needs to be reworded to indicate that it is the view of Blenkinsopp. If I understand it correctly though, this is saying that very few pre-Flood characters and places are found in the rest of the Bible, which is absolutely false. Note, Jesus mentioned the Flood itself in Matthew 24:37-38 and Luke 17:26-27.

The pairs of animals issue can be looked at as contradictory, but it is biased to say "many details are contradictory" and "despite this disagreement on details" without explaining how Christians and Jews alike have the two verses for years. Sure, keep the position of Cline, but why is a Genesis Flood article only presenting one side of the issue? I can explain how and why this is not the traditional view by Bible believers if needed, but I think the more pressing issue is the one-sidedness of the entire article. The supposedly factual contradiction with the 40 days vs 150 days is actually contradicted in the Flood Narrative Summary section, where it says rain was on the earth for 40 days, but the waters did not subside until 150 days later. Where is the length of the Flood presented as factually contradictory, and yet explained in the next section as not contradictory with no refutation of Cline's stance (or rather, the disagreement of details stance)?

In the Comparative Mythology section, the Flood is again called a myth as if this is the only stance.

This is not a problem with bias, but === The flood and the creation narrative === section is far too similar to the page's title. Simply changing "narrative" to "comparison" would help. Also, the statement about the ark being a microcosm of Solomon's Temple should be better explained. The next section about Intertextuality could easily be merged with the previous section since they are very similar and a bit repetitive.

The Islam and Yazidi sections should not be under their own heading, since the page is the Genesis account. The Quran does not contain any book called Genesis (nor does the Yazidi as far as I know). Perhaps a main heading called "comparative accounts/narratives". The comparative mythology section would also need to be moved under such a heading as a subsection.

The Historicity section's first sentence needs to be entirely reworded, since it currently seems to say "some scholars see the Flood as local rather than global, while most fields refute it altogether." This is biased and ignores any differing side that the Flood was global. The second sentence about the total implausibility view "follows closely the development of understanding of the natural history" needs to be explained, especially since both citations speak only of geology. There should at least be some mention of the fact that the Black Sea deluge stance has been viewed as geologically sound (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/).

The Species Distribution section should at least mention the Genesis narrative that two of each "kinds" of animals was taken, which has been interpreted to correspond to families in taxonomy. This could lead to a deeper look at the stance, and include the Hebrew word for "kinds", explained in https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4327&t=KJV as "Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool."

In conclusion, I kindly ask for whoever has the ability to edit this page to make the necessary changes to make it a neutral article that focuses on its title. It is currently poorly structured, opinionated, and altogether negligent of its actual purpose (according to the title of the page, at least). Wikipedia was made to be editable by anyone so that problems like these would be manageable. Even when it is necessary to block new or anonymous users from editing a page, no article should be subject to horribly blatant bias. Samfoe (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought I just point that the word "myth" comes from the word "muthos" meaning the spoken part of a religious festival (as opposed to "dromenon" from where we get the "drama", meaning the acted-out part of a religious festival). This means that, contrary to how the word "myth" is used in popular discourse, the word "myth" is conveying truth in symbolic form.Vorbee (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point, but as a great number of words in the English language have changed in meaning over time, myth has as well. It's safe to say a majority of readers don't look at the etymology of words, especially words they have heard countless times. Two of the four definitions of "myth" from Merriam-Webster are, "an unfounded or false notion" and "a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence." Even if the use of the word in this page follows the original meaning, however, this is yet again a biased assumption that the Genesis Flood Narrative is symbolic, allegoric, or a fable. To stay true to the Genesis account, there is no direct reading that it is a mere symbol of anything. Unrelated note: if anyone is a fan of etymology, the first use of "myth" in its English form was as recent as 1830. Etymonline, though not necessarily an end-all source, says the word's use in the "general sense of 'untrue story, rumor' is from 1840." Quite fascinating how quickly language transforms. Samfoe (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Etymology isn't a good guide to the current meaning of words as you say. I don't know how relevant this is, but theologians (who are believers in their faith) talk about mythology. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Right. My point was that only a decade after the word's first appearance, it was already used as it is today (false story connotation). Would you mind providing references to the theologians you speak of? Even still, this would represent one viewpoint of the argument. One group takes the liberal approach and sees the whole thing as allegorical (mythology literally means an allegorical narrative), while another group views it as literal. To choose one side or the other for an informational article is illogical, and this is still ignoring the fact that the page is supposed to represent the account that the actual words of Genesis give. Samfoe (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You say the article should “represent the account that the actual words of Genesis give” but Wikipedia only reports on what reliable sources say about a subject and the reliable sources call it a myth. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for linking me to the source page, helpful stuff! After doing a bit more reading, I found Religious neutral POV says, "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology [...] Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." Furthermore, contentious labels, says myth should only be used in the formal sense if the scholarly context has been established. Primarily for the first sentence that cites Lemming, does "scholarly context" include a simple citation? And if it does, could a helpful footnote at least be added? Google Scholar does not include a preview of the glossary that is cited, of course lol, but myth is well defined in the introduction to his book -- could this be reduced to a footnote or included in the article to "establish scholarly context"? In the Comparative Mythology section, for the statement that the Flood originated in Mesopotamia, the source says "it is generally believed..." In other words, part of the problem seems to be the authors of the Wiki page including their own biases, rather than from the sources.
There were previous debates on if the article itself should be called Genesis flood narrative or Genesis flood myth. It evidently is one of various origin myths (called this way by scholars and reliable sources not only because of falsehood, but their literary style and purpose). As Theroadislong already wrote, we can use primary sources quotes, but secondary or tertiary reliable sources are summarized for the interpretation (which should ideally be recent enough, representing the current view of scholars). —PaleoNeonate – 21:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Samfoe: Easy to find through Google books and I don't have the time. But you could read Christian mythology and Jewish mythology, they might help. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I found a 2004 seminary study that is titled "The Genesis Flood Narrative: Crucial Issues in the Current Debate", which seems quite relevant to the issue. It should be included because it challenges the Yahwist and Priestly documentary hypotheses employed in this wiki page, and the author challenged the assertion that the Flood is included in mythology. In addition, I found a different article by a theologist that has a PhD in paleontology from Harvard, speaking on the possibility of a worldwide Flood drastically changing climate, geology, and biology. He writes about Jesus speaking of the fall from Eden, the flood, and Babel, which is contradictory, as I previously stated, to the Wiki article claiming nothing before the Flood is ever mentioned again in Scripture. I haven't read the entire second article, but it seems to focus more on the scientific possibility of a Flood, while the first focuses on various positions within the debate of the actual Genesis Narrative. I think the first is a secondary source, and the second is either primary or secondary. Samfoe (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
No, Young Earth Creationist Kurt Wise is not a source we would use. Nor would we use a seminary paper unless it had been cited multiple times in mainstream academic sources, which hasn't happened to this paper (which is again Creationist). We wouldn't even use that one to put forward the Creationist view. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

This article is a big POV pusher. It describes the flood as a 'myth', whereas many religious people of many faiths believe in the flood as fact. It not only discredits the reality of the flood but also much of the Book of Genesis that came beforehand. Being that any reference to Noah's flood redirects here and this is where people will come to read about it, this goes very much against Wikipedia's neutrality. Softpalbaby (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The word myth is used here in the academic sense: "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used in the colloquial sense of "something that is false." Perhaps we should put that in a {{FAQ}} box at the top of this page. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The specification for readers would be helpful. On the other hand, I have never seen a page that needs to define a sensitive term in such a way, which is why I think the use of the term "myth" is unreasonable in the first place.Samfoe (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I spent quite some time addressing multiple POV issues with this article a few months ago, but apparently the title "Genesis flood narrative" has nothing to do with the narrative in Genesis of the flood. I say this sarcastically of course, because this page would be better titled "rejection of the Genesis flood narrative" since the account in Genesis has nothing to do with the greater bulk of the article. Every source was written by "theologians" that clearly reject the flood themselves. Nobody is asking to remove their viewpoints, but multiple polls show that about half of people in the US believe in creation and the flood. These people are severely under-represented by the article's biased standpoint.Samfoe (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
We don't even try to represent people in that way. Perhaps you'd prefer Conservapedia which has very different policies and supports Creationism. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
"multiple polls show that about half of people in the US believe in creation and the flood. "
And then people are asking why the United States is in decline. Its educational system does not work. Anyway, polls do not determine either truth, nor verifiability. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. " Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not a forum. The veracity and historicity of a story are not determined by its assumed popularity. The special pleading to not call it "Genesis flood myth" to appease religious editors is already bad enough. The encyclopedic value of this article is dubious at best. ♆ CUSH ♆

Christianity

@Obliss1: thanks for also using secondary sources this time. It's possible that the sources are not optimal or that too much weight is put on minority views but that can be worked on. —PaleoNeonate – 15:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This part is not necessarily directed at Obliss: many Christians believe in a "second covenant" or "new covenant" (there is some mention at Covenant (biblical)#Christian view but which is unfortunately also primary sourced only it seems) and more information at New Covenant). The relationship being that in supersessionism the new covenant is believed to deprecate the old covenant (the Noahide covenant considered to have been established after the flood and affirmed by a rainbow, that humans are not to be destroyed again by a flood). By extension they consider this to also deprecate Mosaic law. Since these are mainstream views in Christianity (I think, at least) I'm surprised that it is not yet covered, if other minor views would be. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 15:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradictions and sources

Contradictions and sources the comments about contradictions in the 2 Biblical accounts of the flood is erroneous. the Wiki page writer is biased and therefore makes a basic mistake. The waters rose and increased for 40 days verse 17 says: "So the waters continued to surge and rise greatly on the earth". The waters remained on the earth for another 150 days verse 24. "And the waters prevailed upon the earth for 150 days." Now lets continue what is this 150 days? it is the amount of time taken for the waters to recede enough for the ark to rest on MT Ararat but still it was under water. Then the waters still receded after 150 days until the 10th month, another 3 months and the mountains were now visible. In chapter 8 verse 2 it says: 

"2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

anyone can understand this from carefully reading the account. The text should be quoted on the Wiki page from Genesis 6:9-9:17. This wiki page discredits wikipedia as a reliable source. Opinions and bias about the story including whether it is a myth or historical event should be treated as an unbiased section entitled opinions or controversy.

Citation https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A9-9%3A17&version=NIV

i will be brief about sources and only quote one to make my point. the author in the 1st section the author proclaims "Scientists have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology and palaeontology" and cites The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Are we to believe that there is zero scientific discussion on this topic based on one cherry picked source that is not scholarly in any way and make this the new Wikipedia standard? and who is this Author. simple answer and anti-creationist.I could not find any information about his professional background other than he edits a web page,, has written some article and this book. It doesn't matter what people believe this is Wikipedia not an anti-creationist website. All facts and viewpoints surrounding the discussion of this topic should be represented. This not a forum nor a debate on whether or not the Flood story is fact or fiction. the information should be presented as facts. for example in this case it is a fact that there is considerable scientific discussion on the flood story. The author of this wiki article is simply unqualified to make these claims and so simply should leave it out until someone else in the community who is qualified can add it. This makes me suspicious about the authors intentions.

regardless of the topic this brings up much more serious issues on Wikipedia. I would like to provide another wikipage for reference of a neutral page for comparison. please note the section titles and language used. it is concerning the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis so it is related to the flood topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilldomain (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologetic literature indeed attempts to synthezise conflicting verses and stories, but Wikipedia should use sources that describe the modern academic view of the topic. If that particular source is a problem, we can find others. It's true that Wikipedia is not "anti-creationist", but it's "pro-academic" (WP:ABIAS). Geology demonstrated that there never was a flood of those proportions in the human era (which goes back to about 200k years ago). Biology and other sciences also discovered that we evolved, and explain how. At that point, there is little value in adding undue weight apologetics that conflict with what modern scholars found about the Torah. For the suggestion to use primary sources, we can include quotes where relevant, but for any interpretation we must summarize a secondary or tertiary source (we can't insert our own research or synthesis per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). —PaleoNeonate – 23:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure why lengthy comments were deleted.I guess anyone can delete comments? very childish and not very pro-academic. If I say that word several times does it make me correct or my comments relevant?

PaleoNeonatels comments about Geology and biology are erroneous and over reaching. Science is evidence based and theories are developed and adjusted accordingly. Very little is proven and certainly not the Big Bang or the evolution of man. Natural Selection is more believable and there is more evidence. anyway its irrelevant to this article. In scientific knowledge there is evidence and discussion and should be more humility. but this is off topic. 

It has zero to do with apologetics I am not sure why PaleoNeonatel mentions this. yes you are correct apologists do this but not just Christian  apologists but atheist and agnostics as well. anybody trying to sway someone else to believe anything controversial can be an apologist. lets face it most things are controversial. It happens all the time in science. we have accepted scientific theories that were once controversial. 

I get that synthesis happens. The Bible is not apologetic literature. Is that what you are claiming?  If the text has been synthesized cite the evidence for that. Regardless, in the text as it is written there is NO conflict. Any statement to the contrary is false. The main issue is what the text says in Genesis, everything else is commentary about that.

Pro-academic is fine that includes Biblical scholars and experts. People use words like apologetics and pro-academic to imply that the people who disagree with their opinion are less intelligent. it is not productive on wikipedia. There is zero contradiction in the text as anyone who can read would see. This is simply a false statement in the article that I am correcting. doesn't wikipedia strive for correct information not false statements? I am guessing false statements are not pro-academic. A true statement would be Some believe that there are contradictory passages. But that would be unnecessary apologetics here is the passage read it. This is a rediculous discussion https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7-8&version=NASB

As far as geology is concerned there is an ongoing discussion. here is a reference from a wikipedia page entitled Black Sea Deluge. Relevant. there is a lengthy discussion about controversy. Why because it is relevant as it would be here for the Genesis narrative. this is not proof of a flood but evidence that the scientific community is not sure. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322716302961— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilldomain (talk • contribs) 11:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"rediculous" indeed, this is not a forum. Theroadislong (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
You may want to read what I wrote at User talk:2400:7800:4D74:BF00:C927:304B:968:C0E4. —PaleoNeonate – 22:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
NO what is being said is that sources that claim it is not contradictory are.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Pro-academic? Larry sanger one of the co-founders disagrees"Wikipedia is not perceived as credible among librarians, teachers, and academics" not Anti-Creationist? the other founder Jimmy Wales is an Atheist so forgive me if I am sceptical of your claims. But I am not a Christian so your points are moot. My only concern is this article now. The Genesis Flood Narrative should address the narrative as written in the Judeo-Christian Bible. But if atheists or agnostics want to couch their bias in Wikipedia articles then it will only hurt the credibility of the website. in layman's terms the sources are crap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilldomain (talk • contribs) 15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Noone here is a mouthpiece for Wales or Sangler. The articles are also not supposed to be our own summary of primary sources as previously mentioned, but that of reliable sources. If there's a particular source you want to contest, please be specific, you've been told this is not a discussion forum. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hilldomain: Sanger's feud with Wales isn't relevant here - and he is in direct competation with Wikipedia as an officer of Everipedia, a poor relation which hasn't even accepted new editors for months and allowed pages attacking Wikipedia editors with out and out lies. Of course he'd say that. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Names and characters from the first chapters on the Genesis

The article contains incorrect information: "Most notably, almost none of the persons, places and stories in it are ever mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.[8] This has led scholars to suppose that the History forms a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[9]"

In fact there many references in the rest of the Bible to events and personalities from the first chapters of the book of Genesis. Here is what I was able to find in a few minutes (for sure there are many more):

36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37. Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38. Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:36-38)

1. Adam, Sheth, Enosh, 2. Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, 3. Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4. Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (1 Chronicles 1:1-4)

20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:20)

39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:39)

27. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:27)

5. And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly… (2 Peter 2:5)

45. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:13)

14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:14)

14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints… (Jude 14)

14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)

3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3)

Godlovingandrew (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

All that is original research (WP:OR) if it only relies on primary sources and editor interpretation of those sources. We need secondary, non-self-published, reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:SPS). —PaleoNeonate – 10:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Most of these passages are from the New Testament books (late 1st-early 2nd century AD). The main exception is the Books of Chronicles (4th century BC), which is repeating (and partly reworking) material from older books of the Bible. :
  • Much of the content of Chronicles is a repetition of material from other books of the Bible, from Genesis to Kings, and so the usual scholarly view is that these books, or an early version of them, provided the author with the bulk of his material." Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Narrative ?

Why does this article not match the other myth articles being called a narrative? Is Wikipedia edited by Christians or scholars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:542:AB57:E1C8:30F6:6FD3:F97 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia is edited by the average person with an average education. Not too many academics have time to edit Wikipedia.... there are a few of us retirees but that's about it. The problem is the articles is edited by believers rather than by an academic perspective..... as most religious articles on Wikipedia are forsaken by the academic community because of never ending disputes. That said after you start reading the page its pretty clear that it's the same as the other myth article's... just a difference in terms used...... some terms make people warm and fuzzies others give a distinct bad taste.Moxy (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This. Its wrong that this situation exists, but this is not the place for such discussions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is this the wrong place for such discussions? it seems common sense that all religions should have flood myth or all religions should have flood narrative. Wouldn't consistency in treatment of a topic across equally valid views be one of the primary reasons for using an encyclopedia? List of flood myths 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Narrative

Why is this called a narrative? Myth would be better no? Myth is a specific term used for narratives about Dietes or supernatural people. Mike Muir - Carleton University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:562:4C3B:D447:B9CF:DF17:A002 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Because most editors of English wikipedia come from a background of Abrahamic religions. I personally don't have a problem with the term "narrative", which by definition is a story and can be either true or false, but all religions should get the same treatment. All the creation stories should be defined as narratives or they should all be defined as myths. Trying to make it more encyclopedic is futile. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, but it is certainly inappropriate to call the overarching category a "flood narrative" rather than what the article is called, flood myth. jps (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus to move, leaning towards a consensus against moving. bd2412 T 03:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative → Noah's flood – After some extensive searching through sources, it is clear that the turn of phrase "Noah's flood" is more indicative and more widely used than "Genesis flood story", "Genesis flood myth", or "Genesis flood narrative". It is also clear from the content of this page that there is more to this topic than simply that story that is reported in the Book of Genesis as we cover the related stories from Islam and Yazidi. Per WP:NPOVTITLE, we should go with the more common name which would be recognizable to members of the Islamic and Yazidi faith (both of whom would object to the Genesis story as being the most faithful telling of Noah's flood). jps (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose and suggest Genesis Flood instead - per Google Scholar, 266k results for "Genesis Flood", 18k for "Noah's Flood". -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    You need to exclude The Genesis Flood (the book by Henry Morris) from your results. jps (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    That's right. @Netoholic: you may want to reconsider your position in light of this Google Scholar search for "genesis flood" that excludes results containing the name "Morris" — only 1,400 hits, much smaller than the 18K you found for "Noah's Flood". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    What that does is removing not only those papers that are directly about that book, but also ALL results that use the Morris book even just once as a citation - hardly a constructive technique considering its an authoritative book that's beein around for over 50 years. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Anything by Henry Morris is hardly "authoritative". The point of this filtered search is precisely to remove hits that mention Morris as a citation, because any paper that cites Morris's book would naturally use the same term. In any case the Ngram results linked below provide a better indicator of the most common usage. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Anything by Henry Morris is hardly "authoritative" FWIW, WaPo begs to differ --> "He was a respected teacher and department head at Virginia Tech, and his 1963 textbook, "Applied Hydraulics in Engineering," remains a cornerstone of the field." --1990'sguy (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    A text so highly-cited in scholarship is by definition authoritative. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Authoritative of what, exactly? It's the foundation work for Young Earth Creationism, but I would hope as at Wikipedia we strive to be a serious reference work that we could move beyond using ideological sources as any sort of barometer for the way a term is used. See WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Its an authoritative source for that theological viewpoint, as evidenced by the number of citations. Remember, we aren't here to debate WP:TRUTH, only represent views in proportion to their prominence, and related to the biblical flood myth, that book would seem quite prominent and necessary to consider fairly for our coverage. Consider that, for example, a prominent film reviewer is considered authoritative, even if that viewpoint is fully subjective (as opposed to objective truth). I think you need to be careful about separating those two concepts. -- Netoholic @ 14:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Young Earth Creationism is a WP:FRINGE theological viewpoint. By preferencing it, you are violating Wikipedia WP:PAG and specifically arguing for WP:UNDUE weighting of this obscure and anti-academic perspective. Remember WP:MAINSTREAM. jps (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Really doubling-down on the accusations, ain'tcha? I feel the need to point out that I've never edited this article nor shown any "preference" for any particular source. I wasn't the one the brought up this book in this thread. I am an impartial participant in the WP:RM process here to evaluate what this topic is most often called in English sources, and using as much objective evidence to form that evaluation as possible. I am not here to debate any truth claims about the topic except that. -- Netoholic @ 15:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Tests for common usage need to be indicative of the way the term is used in reliable sources. You have been hoodwinked by a popular (at least among certain anti-intellectual circles), but ultimately extremely unreliable source which promotes the phrase you are arguing is most reliably used. That you aren't familiar with the contours of this problem is fine, but your inability to take the time to come to understand the problems with your (unintentional) skew towards creationist sources is not okay. jps (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support based on ngram viewer showing clearly that book references to "Noah's flood" and "Noah's Flood" (capitalized) clearly show that it's the WP:COMMONNAME. And it has been so throughout history: ngram viewer back to 1800 shows that "Noah's flood" has never been surpassed by any other term for over two centuries. ~·Anachronist (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is about a flood myth, not a real flood. And Noah is a relatively small part of the narrative, in comparison to the malevolent deity responsible for the flood, and to Ham who is spotlighted in the narrative. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, it's about a flood myth, but that's made clear in the lede. Noah is the common thread in the different traditions mentioned in this article. I'm not sure why you think Ham is spotlighted more than Noah. What a strange argument! jps (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    I agree, this argument is a non-sequitur in the context of what the common name of the subject is. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – The title 'Noah's flood' has been the common name for centuries, which one can see at Ngrams. 'Genesis flood' is a relatively recent creation, spawned largely by the book The Genesis Flood, and its usage in regular Google searches is inflated by hits referring to that book, rather than the event itself. Ngrams solves this problem, showing that 'Noah's flood' is much more common in practice. In any case, 'narrative' is not required, as it is a superfluous label...'Noah's flood' already implies a narrative by default. Contrary to the above, the word 'narrative' simply means course of events...it makes no judgement about the fictional or non-fictional nature of those events, and so isn't even serving the WP:LABEL purpose that is claimed above. Per WP:CONCISE, drop 'narrative', and per WP:UCN change to 'Noah's flood'. RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others have said,m this is about a story, not an event. Also I think it's tradition name was just "the Flood". And no I do not agree that Noah's flood implies it is a story, after all battle of Britain is not a story, but a real event. So any name must make it clear it is just a myth.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
So what do you suggest? The present name implies that the only story that counts is the one in Genesis in spite of referencing at least two others. jps (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No it implies that this is about the account in Genesis, the book it is in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Notice that there is a section in the article about the Islamic and Yazidi stories who reject the authenticity of Genesis in favor of their own books. Should we therefore remove that section? jps (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No, as this is about their view of the Genesis narrative and thus relevant (also the Yazidi have two flood myths mentioned). Nor does either section say they reject the genesis flood narrative.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Do a little research. Both faiths reject the Hebrew Bible as accurate instead preferring their own versions. As usual, your failure to do due diligence is causing this conversation to grind to a halt and your intransigence appears to be based on personal bias rather than on careful consideration. jps (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No more so then the Christian bible, all of these faiths use the Jewish bible as a basis. If they rejected it they would not even have this flood narrative but a wholly different one. This is not about the bible but the genesis flood narrative, and it is clear that whilst Islams version has differences it is also based upon (and builds upon) the genesis narrative. The same with then Yazidi (who have to have a second flood to create their own story, rather then adding themselves to the genesis one).Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The proponents of those religions strongly reject the claim that their scriptures are derivative of the Hebrew Bible. It isn't our place to say that some religious beliefs are right and others are wrong. I am with jps on this one. As for the earlier claim by Netoholic that "The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris is "an authoritative book that's been around for over 50 years". Nonsense. Morris is about as much an authority on geology as John Harvey Kellogg is about the benefits of the incandescent light bath. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Morris is not only lacking in authority with respect to geology, but also theology, religious hermeneutics, and even textual interpretation. It's simply inappropriate to have an article that skews so heavily towards that work. jps (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Islam does not reject the Torah. In fact it considers it a holy book given by god.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The article on the crackpot is under the title Henry M. Morris. He should not be confused with Sir Henry Morris, 1st Baronet, who was a surgeon and anatomist. Dimadick (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely incorrect to say that Islam rejects the claim that their scriptures are based on the earlier Abrahamic texts. In fact the Koran explicitly says "And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it." (Quran 5:48) see [4]
Muslims hold the following to be scripture; The Koran (Quran in Arabic), The Torah (Tawrah in Arabic), The Gospels (Injeel in Arabic), The Psalms (Zaboor in Arabic). Being as Genesis is in the Torah it is absolutely considered scripture in Islam. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
You are arguing against something that I never said. What I said was that Islam rejects the concept that the Quran is DERIVED from the Torah. Derived, as in that's were it came from. Muslims believe that the Quran was given by Allah to Muhammad, and they believe that the Torah was given by Allah to Musa (Moses). They do not hold that one is based upon the other, but rather that they come from the same author. We have an article on this: Islamic holy books. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Morgan Leigh. Is it accurate to say that Muslims hold that where there is a contradiction between the other scriptures (e.g. Tawrah) and the Qu'ran, the Qu'ran is to be held as the more accurate account as the other books are liable to have been corrupted (tahrif)? jps (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
That is quite accurate. The next bit of the text after the aforementioned quotes is "And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee." But I think we are all straying into discussing the topic rather than the matter at hand. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that the point I was trying to make is that it might be not expansive enough to call this particular account the "Genesis flood narrative" when discussing the Islamic understanding of it in the article. But I see you arrived at that conclusion below. Thanks again! jps (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Accounts of real historical events are also 'stories', and 'narrative' is a separate word altogether. I hope you realise that 'history' and 'story' come from the same root? The Italian storia, the French histoire? RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm understanding your proposed division of the two articles...why would an article about 'the Ark' specifically deal with the broader myth about the flood? Why would it be necessary to separate the Genesis account of the flood from the myth itself, as the two things are intimately connected? What makes this title more neutral than 'Noah's flood'? If what you say is true, the two articles should be merged under the title 'Noah's flood'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Background. Many years ago there was just one article, called, I think, Noah's ark )I could well be wrong but it's not important). We agreed to split it in two because it kept getting longer and longer. The idea was that the material on the ark itself could be one article, and the flood another. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, both articles have now grown to the point where they contain much duplicated content. PiCo (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article should contain the word "narrative", as its subject is the biblical story - in the technical vocabulary of biblical studies, a "narrative". Nor is it about the Ark - it's about the Flood.PiCo (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Can you point to a source that says that in the technical vocabulary of biblical studies a bible story is called a "narrative" instead of, say, a "myth"? jps (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's totally a thing in religious studies generally. See Fewell, D., (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, Oxford University Press, p3 for example. In fact that whole first chapter. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
No mention of specific narratives or myths, nor any discourse on terminology in that chapter. jps (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we are not looking at the same chapter. This one starts "The last five decades have witnessed the rise of a veritable academic industry addressing the relationships between knowledge and narrative". Then goes on with "The field of biblical studies has in recent years given much attention to narrative...". And goes on again to ask "In what ways might we understand biblical narratives as historical artifacts". You didn't ask for information about specific narratives, although they are there. It's not that they are not called myths, they are. But narrative and myth are not mutually exclusive terms, they are saying different things. Naming a thing a narrative means it is a thing that is telling a story. Whether or not that story is considered a myth is another question entirely. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
jps - narrative is a technical term in humanity-based studies generally rather than specifically biblical studies. So we talk about the "narrative" of things like the Brexit debate, and "controlling" that narrative, and so on. It's important, though, to realise that the wording of the article title will control, to a very large extent, the direction the article will take. "Narrative" will means such things as how the story is written - things such as authorial voice and intention, for example. "Myth" is more genre-directed - calling this article the Genesis flood myth will mean an article that pretty much focuses on it in that light, which I think is rather restrictive. ("Narrative" includes the study of genre, but not "myth" does not encompass genre). PiCo (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually it's Wikipedia's policy that titles shouldn't matter at all really. The article is about what it says in the lead, not the title. The title is just there to find it easily, and could actually be technically wrong. GliderMaven (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The flood and science

These two statements need to be removed:

  • Scientists have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology and palaeontology.

This is untrue - scientists have ignored the flood for the last 200 years. The book referenced for this is way, way fringe.

True, but irrelevant - this is an article about the story in the Bible, not about flood geology. Delete it.PiCo (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • The flood narrative in Genesis is not science, and therefore can't be pseudoscience. WM Norton is neither a scientific nor a scholarly publishing house, and the book is aimed at a popular market. You need to demonstrate that it's relevant to this article.PiCo (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's certainly not a fringe publisher, much less a "way, way fringe" publisher; it's a respected mainstream publisher, and since you don't appear to have the volume at hand you don't know what the source says and so can't opine on its content or merits. Pseudoscience by definition is not science. The standard cited information should not be removed without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not the publisher that's fringe, it's the view in the book - that scientists take any interest at all in Noah's flood. That's what you'll have to demonstrate if you want to keep this in the lead, or in the article at all. I don't need to read it to know that this is so. By the way, you do realise that we agree that flood science is pseudoscience?PiCo (talk)
It looks like a good addition to the article to me, and the "way, way fringe" argument is not compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Guy, could you explain why this seems like a good addition to the article to you? PiCo (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A significant proportion of people of Judaeo-christian faiths view the flood as fact. Ergo it is provable/disprovable. And if unable to be proven becomes a fringe/pseudoscience topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I rather doubt that that's true - some very noisy American nutters do, but they aren't representative of Christians in general. Anyway, that really belongs to the article on flood geology - which is why I'm saying we shouldn't devote so much space to it here.PiCo (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The two subjects obviously overlap, and Wikipedia generally has information about the historicity of biblical stories in the wiki articles about those Bible stories. There is no stricture against material being covered in more than one Wikipedia article. The lede of an article summarizes the body text, which is why there is a two-sentence (23-word) summary of the scientific evidence for historicity in the lede. Softlavender (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to a one-sentence mention of the fact that this isn't a scientific subject, but the entire section that treats is handled the wrong way. The question is one of genre, and the idea that there was a flood, or that the story was meant to be taken as such, is a case of mistaken genre. See how it's handled on Genesis creation narrative.PiCo (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Those are assertions that are not current or consensus for this article, and you'd have to make your case, in a separate thread, about that section; this thread, per your OP, is about the two sentences in the lede and their citations. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
What? Could you try that again, but in English?PiCo (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please let me know if any of the following is unclear. Three editors (Softlavender, Guy Macon, Cas Liber) disagree with you and so far none have agreed with you. I have an essay on what to do in this situation: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion was moved from my talk page. Please discuss article content on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The following concerns these edits:[5][6]


I appreciate your intervention, but those aren't references - they're reviews of the original ref, which is a book.PiCo (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

They are indeed references, which substantiate the statement that "Scientists have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology and palaeontology." They are detailed summaries of the contents of the book, which itself details the unsuccessful attempts by scientists to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology. Please keep content discussions on the talkpage of the article in question, rather than on usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
References are for telling readers where specific information in the article is sourced, so it can be verified. What you're talking about, Softlavender, is arguing a case. On Wiki we don't argue cases.PiCo (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The citations verify the fact that numerous scientists have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology. That is a fact and is not in dispute, and the citations verify it. Please keep content discussions on the talkpage of the article in question, rather than on usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at one review

I would like to focus on a single review of The Rocks Don’t Lie by David Montgomery. I believe that the things we can learn by carefully examining the one review will pretty much apply to all of them.

First of all, why a review? Why not simply use Montgomery's book as a source?

First, I cannot find the text of the book in a form that any reader can freely access. Second, although David Montgomery has impressive credentials (B.S. in geology at Stanford University, Ph.D. in geomorphology from UC Berkeley, Head of the The Geomorphology Research Group at the University of Washington, author of several books and papers[7]) the reviewer I am about to cite has even more impressive credentials.

OK, which reviewer am I going to cite, and what are his qualifications?

I have chosen a review by Donald Prothero: Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, B.A. in geology and biology (Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of California, Riverside. Author, co-author, editor, or co-editor of 32 books and over 250 scientific papers, including five leading geology textbooks. Has served as an associate or technical editor for Geology, Paleobiology and Journal of Paleontology. Fellow of the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, and the Linnaean Society of London. Received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Science Foundation. President and Vice President of the Pacific Section of the Society of Sedimentary Geology, Program Chair for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Received the Schuchert Award (outstanding paleontologist) of the Paleontological Society. Has appeared on several television documentaries, including episodes of Paleoworld (BBC), Prehistoric Monsters Revealed (History Channel), Entelodon and Hyaenodon (National Geographic Channel) and Walking with Prehistoric Beasts (BBC). Also see [ http://www.donaldprothero.com/papers.html ].

I am pretty confident that Donald Prothero is a reliable source, whether when writing his own book or reviewing a book written by someone else.

Now for the link to the review. Please read the entire review before continuing (it isn't very long):

A Gentle Journey Through the Truth in Rocks

The above review establishes, from an impeccable source, several things that are germane to our page on the Genesis flood narrative. They include:

  • "Creationists are notorious for distorting or denying the facts of biology (evolution), paleontology (denying the evidence of evolution in fossils), physics and astronomy (denying modern cosmology), and many other fields. But some of their most egregious attempts to twist reality to fit their bizarre views are found in “flood geology,” a concoction of strange ideas about the geologic record that clearly demonstrate how little actual experience any of them has in looking at real rocks."

This is important information for the reader. He or she may very well have ended up on our page after reading a creationist website, and deserves to know what reals scientist think about creation scientist's theories about the flood described in the book of genesis.

  • "Montgomery is a well-respected geomorphologist at the University of Washington who has studied landforms around the world... [he] looks at a number of places on earth where he has done research on Ice Age glacial dams and floods, and reveals that they show no evidence of being part of a global flood."

Again, this is important information for anyone who is trying to understand the Genesis flood narrative.

  • "...the Middle Ages, when scholars and natural historians tried to shoehorn all of earth history into the narrow accounts of Genesis, and finally were forced to reject the idea of Noah’s Flood by about 1840—all without losing their Christian faith."

Absolutely relevant information. The creationists make a huge point of claiming that rejecting their interpretation of the flood equals rejecting the Christian faith. Our article should clearly establish that there are many Christians who are not creationists, and this would be a great citation supporting that claim.

  • "...ancient Sumerian and Babylonian flood myths that were directly plagiarized by the authors of Genesis."

What could be more relevant to a page about the Genesis flood narrative?

My conclusion is that this review is well worth including, and that the arguments against citing reviews are without merit. -Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

palaeontology. The a is missing in the first paragraph of the description. 154.119.40.241 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done see paleontology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

Under Species Distribution:

X says currently: In 1646 Sir Thomas Browne wondered why the natives of North America had taken rattlesnakes with them, but not horses: "How America abounded with Beasts of prey and noxious Animals, yet contained not in that necessary Creature, a Horse, is very strange".[1]

This sentence appears to be a moot point given

Y to add in place of X: Most Amerindian groups are derived from a basal Ancestral lineage, which formed in Siberia prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, between about 36,000 and 25,000 years ago, from a combination of Proto-Mongoloid and Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. They later dispersed throughout the Americas after about 16,000 years ago (an exception are the Na Dene and Eskimo–Aleut speaking groups, which are partially derived from Siberian populations which entered the Americas at a later time). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas Charlesinbedford (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal is offtopic: In 1646 Sir Thomas Browne was beginning to find difficulties reconciling the traditional myth / narrative with geographical findings, not with times outside his imagination or indeed the Ussher Chronology. The nearest to the concepts you're discussing was the Pre-Adamite speculation of 1655 so that's unlikely to have influenced Browne, and you'd need a very good source. Not just links to other Wikipedia articles. . . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cohn 1999.

Please add information on intercultural flood mythology and theories on postglacial global sea level rise

Please add something like this:

Greenland ice cores (GRIP and GISP, drilled by European and American teams) in the early 1990s revealed that the last Ice Age ended abruptly 9500BC, within the space of a few decades, and led to global sea level rise by more than 120 metres until about 5600BC, causing extensive global flooding. Many cultures on different continents have flood mythologies, and Stephen Oppenheimer, in his controversial work "Eden in the East" [8] was among the first to explore potential links between postglacial flooding events and flood mythologies. More refined hypotheses resulting from this approach include the Black Sea deluge hypothesis {see main Wikipedia article).

This is just a start. I furthermore agree with Pico in the discussion above that the lengthy criticism of creationist pseudoscience is misplaced in this article. It is irritating for the non-American Wikipedia reader to be bombarded with anti-creationist obsessiveness, just because a few nutters somewhere in the States have misguided ideas about the Bible. When I look up Wikipedia I expect to learn about new facts, not about an internal American political argument. Sorry, I like Americans on the whole, but I had to say this. 86.167.131.205 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No. You should look at the response in the Pico discussion above. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This needs further discussion. Roxy is mistaken - there is no mention of postglacial flooding in the earlier discussion with Pico.31.4.131.32 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect scripture information

Hi I was reading ur article and wanted to let you know that genesis 7:12 refers to how long the rain fell - which was 40 days and genesis 7:24 speaks of the how long the waters prevailed. The waters decreased at the end of 150 days genesis 8:3. Donnacelder (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't write WP:RS. We follow WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"You don't write WP:RS" doesn't seem like a valid or complete response to the suggestions from Donnacelder and actually seem a little trite. If you actually read the Bible chapter(s) quoted by him/her, his/her statements seem accurate. That and this entire article seems completely biased and anti-Christian and anti-Religion. Altogether inappropriate tones that aren't "mainstream" in the Christian community and many in the scientific community when you aren't cherry-picking. The comments on the "lengthy criticism of creationist pseudoscience" are proof of the ridiculous bias here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.42.223 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear what, if anything, would be affected by the texts cited by Donnacelder. For any change in the article, we need clear proposals with reliable secondary sources showing significance and interpretation: hence WP:RS. The "ridiculous bias" here is in favour of reliable published sources, giving due weight to majority scholarly views. . . dave souza, talk 12:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Is the bible a reliable source for anything? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
As any primate would know, it's a primary source, hence the need for a secondary source to avoid WP:SYN. . . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Please change the first paragraph's wording of Tanakh to Old Testament because Old Testament is a more general term and Tanakh is more appropriately used by one specific religion or people and many readers would be unkown to the word Tanakh. Considering the topic itself considers various religious arguments and used by many different religion a more general term would be appreciable. Rahid98 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

no Unnecessary The Tanakh and Old Testament are completely different terms. Its possible by using "Tanakh" the article is referring to something else. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, it talks about Genesis flood narrative which mentions Noah who is a major figure in Islam, Christianity as well as in Judaism. Considering that it was referring to Genesis verses in its introduction to the article, Genesis is a chapter of the old Testament. Old testament is necessarily not Christian or Jewish or Muslim but religious book venerated by all of them. Christian version of Old Testament is the canonated old testament and Jewish version is the Tanakh. Here by using the Jewish version Tanakh is ignoring the Christian importance of the Flood Narrative. Instead Genesis would have been enougj, Tanakh is unnecessary and ignores the veneration given to it by other religions. Rahid98 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Why can't we consider Noah's Flood as a real event, but told in hyperbolic language? (read comment before argumenting)

Seriously, why would you make a symbolic myth of a local flood? Just why? It makes no sense, there are many things in the story that would not work if it was simply a symbolic myth, for example, putting the Ark in a location that has nothing special to Isreal (mountains of Ararat/Urartu), just makes no sense. The thing is, why scientists can't search for evidence and consider the story as some kind of real event, but told with hyperbolic language, as this is pretty common, not only on ancient times, but nowdays (for example, we say there are 20 mosquitoes on our arm, when there is only 5 or 6, same case with Noah's flood). Also, a literal Noah's Ark might not be practical, but what about a real Noah's Ark but in a smaller size, and only with some regional animals inside? Very practical and plausible. Also, Noah's Flood is not a plagiarism, with what I said in mind, Noah was only reporting what happened to him, and similarly, some other people told what happened to them, all in hyperbolic language (it might have been some event that caused huge floods on some locations).

What I mean is (in a non-religious way), some huge local flood might have been caused on a region due to excessive torrential rain for days, Noah somehow predicted it and made a vessel to save him and his family from the flood, which was going to cover "his whole world", after the rain stopped, he sent out birds to find land, and after some long time, he landed, and told what happened in hyperbolic language.

I hope someone actually does research on this. If scientists find some evidence of this, this might be added on Wikipedia soon. Conta Sla 2 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I say, this is a totally non-religious view from a Christian, before you argument I'm talking about that according to my religion. Conta Sla 2 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You might, and plenty of scholars have suggested its based on a lesser localized flood. But we have no way of knowing how much of it is real.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
A number of localized floods may be behind other flood myths. The Sumerian flood myth may be based on "localized river flooding at Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara, Iraq) and various other cities as far north as Kish, as revealed by a layer of riverine sediments, radiocarbon dated to c. 2900 BCE, which interrupt the continuity of settlement." Which means that this localized flooding managed to depopulate a considerable area. Dimadick (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Some scholars also suggested what I argued here, but this is not popular, as people and some scholars think that a plagiarized myth is the only explanation, but they have to be open to other views, I really hope someone actually tries to do some good research on this, I mean, some Bible stories don't need to be a myth to make sense. Conta Sla 2 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure what your point is, do you have an RS supporting your contention?Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not adding things to the article, it's just an discussion of an not very popular theory, my point is, that the Genesis flood narrative wasn't simply a plagirazed myth based on river flooding, that makes no sense, instead it might have been a real event told in hyperbolic language (common on humans), this theory suggests there was an Ark, there were animals and there was a large flood, they were just told about in hyperbolic language. I don't knkw what you consider a reliable source, scientific sites, well finding an RS will be hard here, as most scientists accept the plagirazed myth theory, but I have some sources that support this theory, I just don't know how to add them. Conta Sla 2 (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Conta Sla 2: I was going to close this discussion at talk pages aren't forums for discussing a subject, but as you say you have sources, bring them here for discussion. Adding them is trivial and you can be shown how. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
While the Noahide story is considered by many to have been inspired from older ones, Dimadick's comment is the closest to what I remember about the hypothesis that those older stories may have also been inspired by one or a few local floods of the past (but I know of no reliable historian directly linking this version of story to one historical event). It may be possible to mention it in this article, but the mention was from Sumerian creation myth using the Crawford source. —PaleoNeonate – 12:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Interpretative difficulty

According to the article, "The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together..as a result many details are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24)"

I won't contest that the Flood is made up of two separate accounts which were fused together to form Genesis but saying that there's a contradiction in the length of the flood is one hell of an interpretative mistake. Genesis 7:17 is talking about how much time had passed since the Flood had begun, and not about how long it lasted. Change this. 177.104.119.93 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the most relevant scholastic sources to corroborate this is Wenham:

  • Wenham, Gordon J. “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 28, no. 3, 1978, pp. 336–348. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1517042. Accessed 3 June 2020.

Even Christopher B. Hays, one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the Documentary hypothesis, acknowledges that "Wenham's explanation of the chronology of the flood may reveal that . . . the conflict between the 40 days and the 150 days is more apparent than real."¹

¹ - Hays, Christopher B. “Hidden Riches a Sourcebook for the Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East.” Amazon, Westminster John Knox Press, 201

Sentido33 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sentido33 , Wenham's paper is rather old, I'd like to see what more recent scholars are saying - do you have anything by Enns, for example? (Incidentally, Hay's says that Wenham is attempting to harmonise a contradiction, not that no contradiction exists). Achar Sva (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

But it still doesn't matter, the Genesis Flood narrative might be referring to 40 days with strong rain and flash floods, and 150 days with normal rain and normal flooding until it ended and the waters started to recede, it isn't that hard to interpret. Conta Sla 2 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a Harvard lesson by Shaye J.D. Cohen at Vimeo which discusses precisely that issue. Not a written book, but it helps you get an idea of what scholars discuss. From my memory, it think it is the lesson upon the Documentary Hypothesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing citations

Did someone remove a bunch of citations by mistake? A lot of them are missing. I have added "Full citation needed" tags to some of them but stopped because there are so many. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: You shouldn't ask for citations indiscriminately. I see that many of the sources have the link to Google Books, which often displays that page to you (but sometimes hides the same page to some IPs and displays it to others). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The ones I've tagged are missing completely and have no links to anything as far as I can tell. What is "Morton 2001" for example? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok I found a few of them. PiCo removed Browne, Dalrymple, and Young here: [9] GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
And some others are from PiCo adding a footnote without providing the full citation, for example Bodner here: [10] GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@GA-RT-22: PiCo is an old, trusted editor. Please WP:AGF, since he rarely commits mistakes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, it's patently manifest that flood geology is pseudoscience and lost the game before Darwin set foot on the Beagle. That can hardly change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

The statement "Flood MYTH," should be removed, as it has been proven to be historically correct by archeologists. It is also OFFENSIVE to the many MILLIONS of believers. And, the person that is editing this article is a high school grade kid!!! You should have an age requirement for submitting information, and it be proven by legitimate sources. It makes me want to stop using you, because I feel like kids are writing it, and I'm afraid of using it as a credible resource when just anybody can write whatever they think if they wanted to. Christabelle541 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED, as to the rest. Far more archeologists (and plenty of anthropologists) have said it is a myth.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Please provide reliable secondary sources that show the proof that god sent down a flood that destroyed the world, except for a single family and a boat full of animals. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the page should be protected full time Kirbopher2004 (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Narative?

Why long title here. I noticed the FAQ section about myth versus narrative debate and wonder why the article is not simply called "Genesis flood". When searching Google people are not going to type myth or narrative.104.249.225.78 (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it would imply that we are talking about a real flood, instead of an otherwise typical flood myth. Dimadick (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
What does google suggest to you when you enter "Genesis flood"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a narrative, a story, calling something a narrative or story is not implying it is false. So there is no problem in calling the article "Genesis flood narrative".

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian and I believe Noah's flood happened, but there is simply no problem calling it narrative, it is narrating a real event (I don't agree with the article anyways). Conta Sla 2 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

This narrative is counter-productive. It seeks to divide people based on an individual's perception. The editor calls the flood a myth. It would have been better to leave out such divisive words.

It would have been better to just state: "this occurrence as per the Bible. Why the need to label it "a myth"?

It is divisive. It is a deliberate attempt to discredit Christianity! It is insulting to all Christians, and should be condemned. 41.10.42.99 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
It is only insulting to fundamentalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Reported Flood Height and Book references

The historian Josephus mentioned the flood of Noah covered about 15 cubits(25 feet) high of land. I think this should be added to the article. Also the books “The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood” by David R. Montgomery and possibly “Navigating Genesis” by Hugh Ross should be added to the references. The two have some valuable knowledge that should be mentioned in the article.
I am on the talk page so there won’t be an edit war.GregYoot (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@GregYoot Do you have an exact text you can propose? With references formatted, ideally? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In this Nutshell, page protection is warrant

People, people, people, no matter how authentic does narrative passage of such article may be, nothing in Wikipedia marked as a myth. Unless it has generate a story, which present genuinely, none of us has a rights to cancel or discredit what it should be reported. Why grumble and say it is not a story? Myth, or story that is fabrication, has no place in Wikipedia and all other encyclopedia. Respect them all, please.

On whether style or tone of Genesis Flood Narrative counteract or does not give contrary action that warrant conviction, it has been vetted through many theological commentaries, biblical cross-references and discussions. Hence this narrative is authentic in it own rights as does many other Wikipedia articles and images of many cultures and customs listed in Wikimedia. Discourses of it, when reached general acceptance, marked it conclusive. So, why dispute as a myth, as if it sounds like it never have happened? Thereby, this article may be checked out as a story ought to be told, whether practical sense, of eye witnessing or passing on as an oral history.

None of Wikipedia articles can bear the testimony that is fable, enough to marked as myth, or "fake news." This narrative was not written in sensation to bring attract or attention dealing mythology or supernatural. Rather fabricating as a myth, any article convey in any form of information transmittal is a story, period.

Please note, I confess I did not read this article entirely, because the first thing I saw was the word "myth." That "labeling" on page description stop me from reading this article onward. I check on page history but I rather not mess page versions. I don't know who or how it winded up as a myth but no, it is not a myth. Secondly, I avoid naming anyone, including myself, from making "edit war" as I noted in this talk page.

So, I nominate to semi-protect this article, and further prevent it to be called "myth." Why semi-protect? Core of Wikipedia believe anyone can contribute, yet I think we should never cancelling out what anyone ought to contribute the fact. Dmaestoso (talk) DRC 11:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dmaestoso: as reliable sources call it a myth we cannot avoid using the word. Most importantly, you should read Myth as you clearly don't understand the word as it is used in those sources. Of course science shows that a global flood never occurred. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How long was the flood?

It says that in one of the verses it says the flood went on for 40 days and in another verse this wrong article says the flood took 150 days and it says that that is a contradiction but this is false because the rain took 40 days to stop but it took 150 days for the water to settle and the ground to reappear so please you naive people do some research on these topics and also this article is trash. Jdietr601 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not so fast: Shaye J. D. Cohen discusses this issue at http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/ and... it's complicated, very complicated, it's a mess (in the Bible). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well if you would actually read the Bible you would know. Jdietr601 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth".Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't do WP:OR. Mainstream Bible scholars recognize that it is a serious problem and other Bible exegeses cannot agree which is the real solution.
According to Cohen, the two narratives of the flood are the most convincing case for the Documentary Hypothesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I was quoting A bible to show that there is not THE bible, and why OR is a very bad idea when it comes to "read the Bible you would know".Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up before. Good luck fixing this without OR. The contradictions section is nonsense, but somehow it was published in a random Nat Geo article. Good luck finding RS to refute it. Forest51690 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to the article Eric H. Cline: he is a full professor at a reputable university, he speaks about his own specialism, so he is competent enough that Wikipedia believes what he wrote. At least unless the reliability of the source becomes seriously in question, and I'm afraid that's not going to happen. Wikipedians have commented that in the 2000s National Geographic was much more reliable than in the 2010s. Oh, yes, there is also a huge difference between the magazine and the books published by National Geographic Society. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
You're right, it's a book; I incorrectly called it a magazine. Apologies for the error.
About Cline, I can see by his impressive CV that he is a respected scholar in his field. But unless we are Appealing to Authority, we cannot rule out the possibility of even the most seasoned academic being wrong at times. But unfortunately, as you said, the book's reliability as a whole will never be challenged, because these errors are immaterial to the overall content of the book. --Forest51690 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The Cline 2007 source

We need to re-evaluate the Cline 2007 source in relation to the contradictions section. I know it's RS, and RS needs another RS to disprove it, but how is that possible? Wikipedia has rules about RS and OR, but the prime unstated rule is to seek truth and avoid error. ...or at least I hope it is.

Cline makes clear errors in judgement about his understanding of what a contradiction is. Let's focus on a specific statement.

About the dove and raven, the Wikipedia page says this:

"The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together.[14] As a result many details are contradictory, such as ... whether Noah released a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up" or a dove which on the third occasion "did not return to him again," or possibly both.[15]"

Both [14] and [15] are Cline 2007. Here I have pasted the relevant text from p.20:

"details within the Bible's account contradict themselves ... for example ... did he release a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth" (8:7), or did he release a dove three different times before "it did not return to him ever again" (8:8-12)? Or was it both?"

Pay attention to that last sentence: "Or was it both?" Ponder this question: if it "could be both", then is there a contradiction? What contradiction exists between two options if both could be the case? To say "it could be both" implies "it could be both without contradiction".

A reasonable reading of the passage Genesis 8:6-9 (Please refresh your memory: https://biblehub.com/esv/genesis/8.htm) is that the raven's "flying until the flood was over" did not strictly precede the release of the dove, but instead it was a parenthetical. Because, the immediately following verse says "the dove returned because the flood *wasn't* over". Either this a blatant error and the compilers and editors and early readers all missed it, or is there not an error because this is a reasonable parenthetical. Cline's "it could have been both" case is indeed a reasonable possibility. We're not talking about mental gymnastics here.

I'd like to ask, if anyone would like to respond, can you answer two questions so I can see if you value truth and are honest in your judgement: 1. If "it was both" as Cline allows, then is there a contradiction? 2. Is this the correct meaning of a "contradiction" — "two statements that cannot both be true (at the same time and in the same sense)"?

However, this is all well and good and irrelevant because it's Original Research. Even if we establish that Cline is wrong in calling this a contradiction, what can we do about it? Should we write to him, convincing him to publish a correction on this point? Should Nat Geo editors publish errata? All this because "something's wrong on the internet"? Or should I search for another RS that disproves Cline? Who would publish such a thing, and if it's not specifically addressing Cline then how can I apply it without without involving the sin of Original Research?

I don't think it's possible. I'm asking for a reasonable exception here. I focused on just one of Cline's contradiction examples, but actually all of them are incorrect. I'd like to get them all removed, all at once or separately. I can discuss the other two examples in other threads (later — to not distract from this topic). There are people who want to keep the content even if it's false, and there are other people who want it gone even if it is true. But let truth prevail. The readers of Wikipedia should not have to doubt the veracity of what they read. Forest51690 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right: Wikipedians don't care about POVs based upon WP:OR. It is your opinion and yours alone that Cline is wrong. What we won't do is allow Wikipedians harmonize the contradictions of the Bible: harmonizing contradictions is what any fundamentalist believer can do, routinely. It is when you add up all those harmonizations that you realize that harmonizations have produced a bigger mess than accepting the fact that the Bible has contradictions. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
If Cline has made a lot of errors other academics will have picked them up, especially in a book that's been around that long. Your admitted original research can't be used. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Forest51690: you raised the same issues in 2017.[11]. Why are you back now? Doug Weller talk 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
"Why are you back now" .. I appreciate the directness. I suppose the simple answer is that no one has fixed the error yet, and I care about the truth. --Forest51690 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: It's not that Cline made "lots of errors"... he just made a passing error. What academic would would care enough to rebut that? The book was not a study on contradictions, it was a survey of bible topics. What respected academic or publisher would be so pedantic? Perhaps if Cline publishes errata, would that suffice? But it is a 15-year-old book, so would he bother to do this? --Forest51690 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I understand that there are rules against OR. What can we do about this? Is the Fringe Theories Noticeboard the only avenue for removing RS that is wrong? I hope you see the situation: this error is not likely to be addressed by the academic community, and there is a scholarly bias against pro-fundamentalist publications or those that could be construed as such. No reputable scholar would touch the "debunking bible contradictions" topic with a pole of any length. Those that are willing to do it are ...not in the Reliable Sources list, lol. --Forest51690 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Cline himself harmonizes it. He says "Was it A? Or was it B? Or was it A and B?"; therefore he states that A and B can be harmonized. I do not regard your comment "it is your opinion and yours alone", since it's the Bandwagon fallacy. Besides, how could you know that I'm the only one? That's the Argument from Silence, another fallacy. Let's keep things objective here. I do however concede that this is OR.
@Forest51690: Let me rephrase it: it your opinion, the opinion of your church and the opinion of like-minded churches.

Where this kind of repetition is found, the simplest explanation is often that two versions of the same story have both been allowed to remain in the finished form of the book, unreconciled with each other. In some cases material from two or more sources seems to be interwoven: the classic example is the Flood Narrative of Genesis 6-9, where one version speaks of a 40-day flood and the other of a 150-day flood, with incidents from the two versions set down in alternating blocks. Similarly repetitious accounts, often extremely complex and hard to analyze, may be found in Exodus 24, where Moses seems to go up the holy mountain three times, and Joshua 3-4, in which the account of the crossing of the Jordan under Joshua’s leadership is impossibly convoluted. Where two accounts or versions are closely similar in extent, they are often called a doublet: compare, for example, 2 Kgs 24:10-14 with 24:15-16, or Gen 37:21-22 with 37:26-27.

— Christine Hayes
Source: http://ruml.com/biblicalliteracy/pdf/SourceCritAndDocHypAnno.pdf . So, you see a Harvard Yale Bible full professor says the same in a Harvard Yale course about the Bible.
And if you wonder, the license of ruml.com is copyleft. What kind of copyleft, I don't know, but it says "Licensed to the world". tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Great quote, thanks. I was thinking of making a comment but the quotation is much better. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Sorry, I was wrong about the professor: not Shaye J. D. Cohen but Christine Hayes.
Cohen says the same at http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/06-Notes.pdf (page 4). tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Bulldog! Bulldog! Bow, wow, wow![12] In any case, Eric H. Cline is a great academic. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Forest51690: Your hubris is immense. Yup, if we'd give the lie to Cline, we'd also give the lie to Bible courses from Harvard and Yale. Wikipedia can't do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu:I don't think that's a fair accusation. No one actually responded to the content of my original post (and it was a very specific post). I did have a point, but no one responded to it at all. Instead you've made accusations and jabs at me. If you want to have less complaints from Christians about the content, here's what I suggest. Explain the contradictions section better to explain that the contradictions are suggested by the Documentary Hypothesis. This is in no way an attempt to call it fringe or suggest an alternative, but rather to resolve the cognitive dissonance that readers will have when reading it. Readers familiar with the Bible's flood story will no doubt think "Wasn't it BOTH a raven and a bird? Why are they calling this a contradiction? Don't they know what a contradiction is?" And so you give them a reason to doubt Wikipedia instead of learning something. If you take a second to ponder their point of view, you might see that it needs rephrasing, to tell what's really going on. Something like this: "According to the Documentary Hypothesis, a consensus among modern Bible scholars, the current flood story is comprised of two earlier stories: a Priestly text (termed "P"), and a Yahwist text (termed "J"). These texts contained contradictory details that were later woven together by an editor called a Redactor ("R"). These contradictions include [the flood length], [the number of pairs], [the bird sequence]". The key point is to more clearly identify what contradicts: the source texts, not the final text. The scholars are saying that the J and P texts are contradictory, and they were woven together, not so much that the final version is contradictory (though it might be in some areas). Again, I will bludgeon you with the raw fact that Cline himself says "or was it both". So instead of saying "[the current version] contradicts itself", maybe we can change it to "the sources contradicted each other, and were woven into the current version." That would satisfy my desire for accuracy, it would link to the Documentary Hypothesis, and it would satisfy your desire to keep calling the Bible contradictory. Everyone wins. --Forest51690 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Forest51690: WP:SCHOLARSHIP has moved from the Documentary Hypothesis, but I'm afraid not in the direction you would desire. The consensus that there were four big documents is crumbling. Scholars now see more hands and more sources involved in writing the Torah. At least JEDP offered a simple to follow and coherent narrative. JEDP ensured order and coherence, now it is a mess. This isn't chastising, since postmodernists love the messiness of the field. And JEDP still gets taught in universities for the same reason that sociology students learn the theories of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and others. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Given that there never was a Great Flood, it's pretty hard to see why the birds matter.Achar Sva (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Great point from Achar Sva above. :) However Cline was NOT suggesting that there were two birds. The question "was it both?" is a very pointed criticism. If it was actually a raven, then one story is correct and one is wrong. If it was actually a dove, then one story is wrong and one is correct. But if there actually were two birds, then both stories are wrong. Per Cline, the net result of the analysis is that - either the Bible narrative is wrong, or the Bible narrative is wrong, or the Bible narrative is wrong.
You get the same problem in the gospels. Matthew says that Joseph was warned of an impending massacre, so Joseph took his family urgently to Egypt to hide from Herod. Luke says Joseph took his family to the temple - right across the road from the palace - and then calmly went home to Nazareth. They cannot both be correct, and the solution is that the entire nativity spiel is fiction. Fundamentalists however claim that Joseph got the warning on the road back to Nazareth, and took a detour to Egypt. They think this makes both stories correct, but it actually makes both stories wrong.
Wdford (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

When there's lots of solutions, that means there's a problem to be solved. ... Rabbis were like all over all of this and they pointed to all of these things and they came up with explanations for them. But again the fact they needed to explain something indicates that there was a problem. ... You can see later biblical authors and texts reading the Pentateuch and trying to figure out what they're supposed to do with contradictions in it.

— Joel Baden

Source: Did Moses Write the Torah? Interview with Dr. Joel Baden on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Documentary hypothesis

Just to note that I've moved the documentary hypothesis to the See Also section. This is because the DH is by no means the scholarly consensus on how the Pentateuch was composed - it has followers in the US, but I think the supplementary model is more popular these days (meaning that a priestly author or series of authors worked with various material, including documents, to come up with the Pentateuch.) Achar Sva (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Serious omission

Why doesn't this article include a basic piece of information that any reader would expect to find here: how many years ago the Genesis flood is believed to have taken place? According to Ken Ham, it took place about 4,300 years ago. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS: We have to use reliable sources, which Ken Ham is the opposite of.
Different people actually compute different dates for this fictional event from the fictional account called Genesis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Both Ken Ham and I have a Science Degree from an Australian university. He really should send his back. I wonder if the OP has a particular date in mind? HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hob, Who says it's fictional? At most that's your own view, and its a big world. 212.129.74.102 (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
It's worse than fictional; it's an uncredited, blatant plagiarism of the Sumerian myth of Utnapishtim written at least 1,000 years earlier - but such was the shockingly blasé disrespect for intellectual property rights in the ancient world. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets review wp:soap shall we? Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A global flood as described, would have left a lot of unmistakable physical evidence. However the reliable scientific sources say that there is no such evidence. No evidence, no flood. Wdford (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Must make the remains of a v. large ship on Ararat both uncomfortable and inconvenient. 212.129.74.102 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no very large ship on Ararat. Or even a small ship. Or even a canoe. No evidence, no ship, no flood. Wdford (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
My mistake, Durupinar site 29 km south of summit of Ararat. The data shows the below surface remains of a structure consistent with the range of the Genesis proportions, which is inconvenient, plus an erratic- a cut stone block anchor. Apart from that there is absolutely no evidence at all. 212.129.74.102 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
No, the "data" has been rejected by actual experts in geology, archaeology and even theology. As have the claim for every other site. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
And that, my friend, is the nature of academia. Like I said, inconvenient. 212.129.74.102 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Which remains on which Ararat? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs wp:or and wp:fringe. If you are going to come here and say "sorry but the experts are wrong" there is no point in you coming here. This needs to be closed as a waste of everyones time. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You are saying that the engineers /archaeologists I regard as experts are wrong, the ones who generated the data... with a conclusive 'no' ! Sorry do I need your permission here?? 212.129.74.102 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
No, RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Finding the Ark would have made global headlines, but I seem to have missed the whole thing. Please would you present the reports of your expert engineers /archaeologists here for us to read? Wdford (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I presume you aren’t talking about David Fasold? Doug Weller talk 17:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The fact that you think an engineer would be an expert for matters like this speaks volumes. Can we stop this? You will not get anywhere because what you want goes against policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Lead researcher Dr Fethi Ahmet Yuksel, Dept. of Geophysical Engineering, Applied Geophysics Dept., Istanbul University Used ground penetrating radar to generate scans and believes results of the scans indicate a man made artifact beneath the surface.
As reported in the Jerusalem Post Oct 3rd 2021.
Is that okay with you Hob ?????? 212.129.78.192 (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Radar is capable of discerning between man-made and non-man-made stuff? Since when? And how does the logic jump from "man-made" to "Noah's Ark" work? That guy can believe what he wants, but we do not have to accept it.
It is very usual for cranks who believe they can revolutionize one field to have studied another field: Engineers who want to revolutionize archaeology, astronomers who want to revolutionize biology, biologists who want to revolutionize physics, chemists who want to revolutionize medicine and so on. They all make rookie mistakes because they are rookies.
More to the point, journalistic sources are not reliable for scientific questions.
Even more to the point, this discussion is about adding a date, and this is far into WP:FORUM territory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yet 2 years later not one major scientific journal has published one article saying "the Ark is found" nor one major technological journal, nor one major Church or theocratic journal. Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There may very well be a "man made artifact beneath the surface", but there is no evidence that this was a ship. That part of the world is one of the oldest locations of early civilization, and there are millions of old ruins and buried structures. Also, ground-penetrating radar merely detects a "disturbance" of the subsoil, but this disturbance may well have been caused by an earthquake or a volcano or cave or landslide etc etc. This part of the world is very seismically active. Only if the "disturbance" is extremely regular in shape can we assume that it might perhaps be artificial. Where can we obtain and review Dr Yuksel's report please? Wdford (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Not his but this [[13]] and this [[14]] maybe relevant, as another GPR has found oddities, and the scientist involved (after initially declaring it was a ship, even before doing any tests) concluded it was not a ship at all, or even artificial. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Here is the original Yüksel article from the Jerusalem Post. Not even that newspaper gave the "findings" much credence. [15]. Wdford (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Look, make your mind up. Either this is a place to discuss this or it isn't. 212.129.73.223 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
It isn't. This talk page is the place to discuss improvements to the article. You have not done this. Instead, you are attempting to engage people in a long-dead-and-discredited theological debate backed by pseudoscience sources. Now, either propose some specific text to add, citing actual reliable sources, or drop the stick. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Then it isn't for everyone. My lack of reply to the above few posts wasn't an accident, I had already finished. 212.129.79.84 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

it shouldn't be called a flood myth and the bit about how there isn't proof should be removed Onurrresman (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to get a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, in order to remove the bit about how there isn't proof, you need to find lots of reliable sources that say there is. Read WP:RS to find out what that means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Change it so it does not say myth

The flood is not a myth this is discriminating 76.70.55.164 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable, independent source that says it's not a myth? HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
It can now be changed because the ark was discovered 2600:1700:1BEC:200:B067:4C40:CFCB:BEB7 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/noahs-ark-archaeology-search-science tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
That's behind a paywall. Can you summarise it here please? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@HiLo48: I am accessing it from the Netherlands, having a very powerful adblocker. It is not paywalled. At least not for me. Anyway, a verbatim quote from a Young Earth creationist: “We do not expect the Ark to have survived and been available to find after 4,350 years,” says Andrew A. Snelling [...]. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It tells me it’s only for subscribers. Doug Weller talk 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:CRYBLASPHEMY. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The main difference to other myths like the ones about Heracles is that those who believe in this one have managed to massacre enough people who don't believe in it in the last few thousand years to achieve a temporary consensus among the survivors that this one is history and not myth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
If there is objective hard evidence to support it, then it is fact. If there is no objective hard evidence to support it, then it is hypothesis. If there is objective hard evidence to refute it, then it is false. If it is false but is for some reason still believed by some people, then it is myth. Somewhere along the "myth scale" lies "deliberate mendacious self-serving lies", although the actual threshold thereof is a bit subjective. Does that help you? Wdford (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"deliberate mendacious self-serving lies" We are not talking about the canonical gospels. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"The main difference to other myths like the ones about Heracles" The main difference is that the story of Heracles] contains elements of realism, and that the flood myth narrative lacks any resemblance to reality. It depicts a high fantasy world. Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The ark has now been discovered. Looks like your reality just changed. 2600:1700:1BEC:200:B067:4C40:CFCB:BEB7 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/noahs-ark-found/ tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"this is discriminating" Against whom, modern morons? They are the only ones who can not understand the mythic content of the Book of Genesis. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The ark was just discovered. Who is the moron now? 2600:1700:1BEC:200:B067:4C40:CFCB:BEB7 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.logicallyfacts.com/en/fact-check/false-noah-s-ark-has-been-found-on-mount-ararat tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
No, its a myth. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
It's absolutely not a Myth! Everything that happens in the Bible is true! 2600:1700:19C1:95DF:4C62:D346:2925:4CAC (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Ipse dixit. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we please not sail close to violating wp:npa and wp:soap? Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. The Durupinar formation is not a "new" discovery. There is no evidence of any boat remains at Durupinar. There is no evidence of a global flood at all. Obviously there is evidence of human presence in the vicinity - there were mature Sumerian civilisations around at that time. Gobekli Tepe is only 700km from Mount Ararat, and it was occupied by a functional society 11,000 years ago. Noak's Ark was mythical, as was the global flood. Wdford (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It would be helpful if all users on this talk page stopped fighting ghosts (responding to months-old conversations), used reliable sourcing, and avoided personally attacking those who hold a different perspective, wherever that perspective lands ranging from blind faith to unyielding science. TNstingray (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Change “Hebrew myth” to “historical event” 2604:2D80:9407:4700:F1A3:D756:26AB:7624 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kate the mochii (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand what they want to change, and they need to establish consensus before doing it. Which will be tough because wp:fringe.
So:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Xan747 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This is also wp:bludgeoning of the conversation just above and previous ones in the archive. Xan747 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The correct response to this is: haha, hoho, good one, but it's not 1 April. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The fact that you are calling this a myth is simply sickening 212.76.109.132 (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Your negative reaction to facts does not help improve the article. Please use the rest of the internet for such postings, not this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Change myth to religious belief

Wikipedia is suppose to give an unbiased view and saying that this is a myth, which most people commonly associate with being false, is biased and condescending. It is assuming an atheistic view of the world, which is not the point of Wikipedia. And changing it to religious belief would make it so that it is not stating whether this event is true or false. 98.29.114.206 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Pls review WP:Myth versus fiction. Moxy- 03:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
What would be wrong with saying religious belief? It doesn't state whether something is true or not true, which is supposed to be Wikipedia's stance on things. Just because you think that there couldn't possibly be a God doesn't mean everyone does, so stop forcing your worldview on everyone. Savagecrybaby (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Savagecrybaby Is the IP you? In any case, don’t insult editors. You don’t seem to get it that we have policies and guidelines that apply here. Or what it means to call it myth. If you feel strongly about this go to Talk:Christian mythology and ask for that article to be deleted. You won’t get far. Actually better yet read the article. Please don’t respond here without relying on policies/guidelines, this isn’t a forum. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Savagecrybaby Most Christians do not believe that a world-wide flood really happened. Calling this a myth is not atheist or anti-religious bias, it is just mainstream thinking. Doric Loon (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Most of them do, and mainstream thinking is anti-religious thinking. Why can't we change it to something neutral, I really don't see the problem with religious belief. Savagecrybaby (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
DO they, source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Savagecrybaby Well, more than half the world's Christians are Catholic, and the official Catholic position is that the early chapters of the Bible state spiritual truths "in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured" (Humani Generis 38). Modern mainstream Lutheranism, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism and Methodism all reject uncritical claims of literal truth in these stories. I don't want to make assumptions about you personally, but I suspect that if you have the impression that the majority of Christians support Biblical inerrancy, you are viewing the world from inside a fairly small bubble out on the fringe. Sorry. Doric Loon (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You really don't want a neutral point of view, do you? Savagecrybaby (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Savagecrybaby - Please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. Try very hard to avoid discussing other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Savagecrybaby I think you don't understand what "neutral point of view" means. It does not mean that if someone claims 2+2=5 we should give that equal space in an article about arithmetic. We prioritize mainstream ideas over fringe ideas and we prioritize ideas backed by scientific/scholarly consensus over ideas that do not have that kind of academic authority. Doric Loon (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The note in the lead

The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false".

Is that last line really necessary? It's already implied by the preceding one, no? I understand this to have been the result of some old compromise. The first sentence is ok, as it merely describes the term (although the article it links to also explains it adequately), but the bolded part sounds unencyclopedic, condescending, and frankly even a bit like a disclaimer. The bolding in the quote is mine but the italic "not" isn't, and it makes the line look even more out of place. I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in any other article despite some of them being far more controversial than this one. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The whole note is pretty pointless. Those that don't know what a flood myth is can click on it. Those that still have questions about myth can click again. Why disclaim at all? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, the note should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed also. We should be aware, however, that with it or without it, there are going to be periodical challenges to using the word "myth" as related to any Biblical narrative. Even though that is precisely what they all are, in a high philosophical and intellectual academic level, the belief in the Bible as the precise, unchangeable, commanding "word of God," will apparently never go away. So this academic use will have to be explained every time again. warshy (¥¥) 20:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
There will be, but we can refer them to the FAQ. Otherwise I concur with the opinion that the note should be removed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately when we use words we have to use the full meaning. Oxfords dictionary clearly determines that myth indicates falsehood 2605:B100:350:69D6:0:14:EC35:6501 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
No, "myth" is a scholarly term. We use it as scholars do. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove the sentence that states how long the flood lasted was contradictory

"Many of these are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24)"

This is presumptuous. According to the NLT translation, Genesis 7:17 states 134.22.15.2 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I definitely see where you are coming from. This portion relies upon one expert that has some interesting things to say about the textual construction, but I see how that comes across as presumptuous when you can go and read the text and easily reconcile the alleged contradictions. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources rather than the opinions and synthesis of its editors. If you can find a reliable source to balance Cline's contribution, then go for it, and we can discuss how to properly integrate that into the article while maintaining due weight between opposing views. TNstingray (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
And one version of the bible does not Trump any others. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This is not presumptious. It is the scholarly consensus. The fact that this passage is an amalgamation of two sources is one of those things that you could easily not notice, but once you've seen them, they are so obvious that you can never unsee them. You will find whole libraries full of devotional texts that ignore this, but modern scholarly ones, not so much. Doric Loon (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Our goal should be to guide the reader to that point. If the average reader finds the current structure confusing, we should take note of that because it means we are not conveying something clearly. The answer is not reverting the talk page when a legitimate question is asked. Many of the editors here go too far in personally attacking people who have been taught something different than scholarly consensus. You don't win anybody over by calling requests "pointless" or stooping to the level of ad hominem as you see so often with neckbearded Internet trolls on both extremes. TNstingray (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
How do we determine the average reader? Certainly not an IP who hasn’t edited before. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@TNstingray Totally with you about ad hominem remarks and dissing of honest questions.
The text is fine at this point, but I'll grant you we need to cite a better source than a National Geographic article. The International Critical Commentary (ICC) on Genesis, or von Rad's commentary (SCM Press), would be the obvious sources to quote. Doric Loon (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024

It’s not a myth. There’s geological evidence all around fish world, on every continent, that proves there was a global flood. One that was able to deposit the mega-sequences of sediment and mass erosion we see today. Be better. Tell the truth, instead of repeating a lie. ArizonaJ711 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We rejected the idea its not a myth recently, and to make your case you will need to bring forth some very good rs. This is not gonna happen.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven Blocked as NOTHERE,see their edit summaries and talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Not because of this post, see their edit summaries and their talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_flood_narrative/Archive_1&oldid=1255599953"