Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:52, 24 July 2007

Template:Talkheaderlong

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Noah's Ark. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Noah's Ark at the Reference desk.

	Noah's Ark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted

Template:FAOL

Bible FA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iraq FA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion FA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Judaism FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

{{

Noah's Ark: The Truth!

It was the Nommos.

24th century BC category

Surely this is a somewhat doubtful category for this article. For one thing, even if we accept this as a historical event, how do we know if it was 23rd or 24th or 25th century? Then, if anyone wants to assert this as a historical event, there will be an immense battle here again, as everyone knows. Someone looking for Noah's Ark will be looking in this category? I doubt that, frankly. This seems to be someone who just wants to pick a fight or make some sort of point.--Filll 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem: it is not history. The only place it could go is "24th century BC in fiction and mythology" within the 24th century BC article, and even that is shaky as the actual dating (even given all of Ussher's hard work) is really only a guess. •Jim62sch• 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely remove it without further comment whenever it's re-inserted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The category has few entries; and true, it can't be pinned down to that exact century, so I accept this deletion. 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd Millennium BC

It can't be pinned down to that millennium either. It can't be pinned down to any particular time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Sorry, does third millennium bc refer to the date the story was thought to have been compiled or the when the flood was supposed to have occured? ornis 05:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Bible, if you work the dates backwards, you'll find that the flood would have occured in the 24th century BCE. Obviously it didn't (Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China all writing well before then, and many other cultures beside) but that's when the Bible says it did. I'm not sure it is inappropriate to place fictional/mythological events in those categories, as they supposedly happened at that time. Titanium Dragon 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. In that case, I'm removing the cat. If someone can point out a reliable source placing the origins, or at least redaction of the myth then perhaps there article can go in that era's cat. ornis 07:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TD, The oldest verifiable Chinese dates are from the Xia_Dynasty 2070-1600 BC. The dates were revised downward following new scholarship in recent years. Slightly OT: The oldest living organism is a Bristlecone Pine (4650 years old). Anyway, there are at least 5 ways that this category is acceptable.

• The Bible is a reliable source
• Much lower standards of verifiablity are accepted in other articles
• The "story" is set in that millennium
• This is not a science article or science encyclopedia
• The majority of people accept the historicity of this event. 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Bible is a reliable source. No it ain't.
• Much lower standards of verifiablity are accepted in other articles. That's not really an excuse, given that only 1 in 756 articles are considered 'Good Articles'.
• The "story" is set in that millennium. Fair enough.
• This is not a science article or science encyclopedia. No arguments here.
• The majority of people accept the historicity of this event. Only if you assume that all muslims, jews and christians accept its historicity and then it's only just a bare majority.

Anyway, I won't remove it from the category again, based on the 'setting' rationale. ornis 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Records of the Xia Dynasty are no older than 3rd century BC, based on older legends. Although archaeology has discovered urban sites from around it's supposed time that may well be the culture described, but we have no contemporaneous records from then. Since the Chinese were well able to predict the motions of the planets, any recorded astronomcal indicator of Xia Dynasty times could easily be a product of computation by later chroniclers. So this proves nothing.

• The Bible is not an entirely reliable historical source.
• Much lower standards of verifiability exist in other articles, but are not accepted if challenged.
• The story is not "set" in any particular time that can be positively identified. It certainly doesn't give any date internally. You have to use extra-Biblical computations to arrive at a date, so even assuming it's literally correct as history this is a matter of opinion. Ussher's date isn't the only one, after all. His epoch is over 1,000 years more recent than that in my (much older) tradition, and there's no NPOV reason to assert one tradition over another.
• Scientific or not, we cannot place a firm date on an event that cannot otherwise have been shown to happen.
• The majority of people do not accept the historicity of this event. You'd have to assume that every single Christian, Jew and Muslim in the world did, but that's not true. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you study up, you will find that the genealogies in the Torah matched up with known secular dates such as the building of Solomon's Temple, do place the 'setting of the Noah's Flood "story" smack in the middle of the 3rd Millennium BC. 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read that page carefully, and not with the idea that it proves your opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt, you'd see how much guesswork went into that calculation, and that the accounts in Genesis were intended to be read as literally true, which cannot be concluded. There is furthermore no reason to put "story" in quotes. An account can be true or not without changing its story-like character. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical chronology is a fascinating subject. Ross, I think your source is wrong on a few points. He says that Japhet was born before Shem, but the birth-order given in Genesis is Shem-Japhet-Ham: "The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan." This is important, because one of the themes of the entier series of biblical books from there to Samuel is to establish a direct line of descent from Noah (and hence Adam) to David, either as first-born (as in the case of Shem here), or as receiver of the birthright (on those occassions when a younger son is given priority over the first-born). The point being made is that the kings of the Davidic line are the first-born, favoured sons of the entire human race. (And one of the equally interesting spin-offs of this is that are two competing accounts of just who got the birthright of Jacob, either Judah, according to one account, or Ephraim, according to another - Ephraim being the tribe of the first kings of Israel after Solomon, and Judah the tribe of the Davidic kings). Anyway, all that aside, there's a problem with the way numbers are used in the OT. Far too many things happen in units of 40Today we interpret 40 as meaning 40, but in Hebrew it had two meanings: a single generation, and "many" (because the words for "forty" and "many" sound very similar). So Solomkon and David reign 40 years, and the Israelites wander in the wilderness for 40 years, and 480 years elapse between the Exodus and the building of the Temple (480=40x12, twelve being the highest number you can count to on the fingers of one hand, hence, like our Indo-European 10, a number signifying completion, fulness). The upshot is that the numbers, let alone the computation of numbers, in the bible can't always be taken literally, and weren't always meant literally. PiCo 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was precisely the numbers that I had in mind in my post just before yours, but you expressed the idea with far more clarity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

References

OK, this shouldn't be too controversial. I'm cleaning up the references to standardize them per WP:CITET. What I've found is that when the references are clean and easy-to-use, it makes it a better and more academic article. I do this with total NPOV, meaning, I don't care what the reference says, unless it's a dead link, or absolutely does not say anything that would support the statement in the article. If i really think something is off-base, I'll post here. This takes time, so be patient. And I'll be pretty uncivil to anyone who adds a reference that doesn't adhere to the CITET standard. Grrrrrrrrr. Orangemarlin 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythological Ship

You know, it's totally irrelevant whether or not the ark actually exists in any form. The one this article focuses on is still mythological, because it's a feature of a very well-known Judeo-Christian myth.

To put this in perspective, I would consider the City of Troy to be a mythological city, even though archeologists have unearthed the city that the myth was based on. There was a real city of Troy, yes. But that doesn't make Homer's stories about gods and goddesses true. The Troy of his poems is a mythological version which mirrors whatever city actually existed.

In the same way, I don't care if a ship is actually found on Mt. Ararat. That doesn't prove the existence of the ancient Hebrew storm god Yahweh, it doesn't mean snakes can talk or people can walk on water, or any other mythical aspect of the Bible, and the mythological ark in Genesis would still just be a fantastical story at best partly inspired by some real life events.

If an actual ark were found, it would not make Christian fairy tales true any more than it would prove any other flood and ark myth true, like the ones featured in Greek or Babylonian mythology.Rglong 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum 172.145.222.35 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning supposed discovery of ark someone keeps adding

Yeshua2000 keeps adding information saying that the ark was discovered in Turkey in 1987. See his edit ]. Here is a picture of the supposed ark he says was found ] which is obviously fake. I'd recommend someone revert his edits due to the sources being unreliable and apparent fraud. Wikidudeman 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Yeshua2000 that this IS Noah's Ark. But the photo itself is not a fake. The object is real. Someone in the field put tape on the object to outline supposed structural components then took the photo. I'm certain that this has not been Photoshopped.

I believe that Wyatt actually believed all the stuff he said, but the poor man was ignorant and self-deluded. The problem is that he was an effective communicator especially to people who knew even less than he, such as Yeshua2000

It might be useful to have reference to Wyatt in the to show how ignorance can lead to deluding one's self and others. Allenroyboy 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Surely it is our duty to make personal judgements and pronouncements on what we consider fake and ignorant, in order to enlighten all the deluded masses out there to our most correct way of thinking. 172.133.94.242 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record. I personally believe that there was a global cataclysm and that there was an Ark. And I'd love to see the Ark found. However, so far, other than reported sightings, there is no hard evidence that it may still exist. Wyatt's claims were made out of ignorance. I believe he may have been well intentioned, but simply self-deluded. Allenroyboy 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IF it's a photo of a boat, It's not on Mt.Ararat. If it's on Mt.Ararat then it's not a photo of a boat. If it is a photo of a boat and it is on Mt. Ararat then someone manually put it there recently for tourism purposes. Either way you cut it, It's a fake in that it's not what it's pictured as being. Wikidudeman 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The object is real, but it is not a boat. It only superficially resembles a boat. It is a geologic structure composed solely of rock and soil. Wyatt's claim is that it is petrified. But the rock is igneous, not the type of rock that forms in the mineralization of a fossil.

It is not on Mount Ararat, but in some mountains just south of Ararat and the town of Dogubayazit. Allenroyboy 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know for sure. Wikidudeman 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See the Ron Wyatt article for an assessment of Ron, whether con-man,charlatan, sincere seeker of truth, or whatever. See also Durupinar for an assessment of his version of Noah's Ark.PiCo 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one Christian view of the flood and Ark?

The article almost uniformly presents the 'literalist' view of the flood and Ark, without any reference to the views of Christians who believe the Genesis account to be historical but who do not believe in a global flood or a 450-600 foot Ark. I'd like to see this corrected, and I've added a little material to get this going. --Taiwan boi 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the information I added to the article on this has also been removed. Is there a reason why only one Christian interpretation is to be presented in this article? --Taiwan boi 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical evidence for similarly large timber ships

The section on the physical practicality of the Ark described the standard skeptical arguments whilst only mentioning in passing Christian apologetic responses. The only response listed was that of Christian 'literalists' who apparently believe that 'Noah must have built the Ark using advanced post-19th century techniques such as space frame construction'. No reference was made to Christian apologetics who advance different arguments, using historical evidence of similarly pre-modern timber ships, so I have added material which reflects this particular Christian argument. I endeavoured to be thorough, but people might think it's too detailed or too long. Let me know. --Taiwan boi 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the information I added was promptly removed without any explanation. That was unexpected. --Taiwan boi 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I think your concerns may be valid, for the moment I've reverted them so we can get a bit of consensus first. For one thing you've put them in the wrong section, and for another, they're largely a copyright violation, since it seems you've cut and paste large blocks of text from your source. Anyway here's the diff. ornis (t) 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The section I placed them in was a section comparing the Ark to historical timber ships, discussing Christian responses to criticisms regarding the size of the Ark. The material I added also compared the Ark to historical timber ships, discussing Christian responses to criticisms regarding the size of the Ark. I'm uncertain as to why this was the wrong section. With regard to copyright, a reference was made to the source of the material which was added, a direct link being provided, and since I have permission to use the material on that site in this Misplaced Pages article, I fail to see how copyright was breached. --Taiwan boi 09:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Among other things, couldn't you just summarise the material in a sentence or two then put a link to your source? We're an encylopedia here, whose role is to summarise knowledge. Reproducing material, writ large, defeats this objective somewhat. And, regardless of having permission to reproduce material, if it does become necessary to reproduce material here, at least mark it up as such by placing it in quotes. If nothing else, such lifting of material may otherwise be mistaken for plagiarism (or the work of neutral Misplaced Pages editors!). --Plumbago 09:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen on Misplaced Pages, the standard practice is to use text directly from various articles (sometimes word for word, sometimes slightly paraphrased), with a link to the source article (sometimes with a note saying 'This article uses text from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica', or 'This article uses text from the Encyclopedia of Judaism'), without placing material in quotes. The MacTutor Mathematicians Archive is one source commonly used in this way (without even saying 'This article uses text from...', simply placing a link at the end of the article). But I'm happy to use quotes instead. I'm also happy to rewrite the information in summary form. --Taiwan boi 09:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1911 Encyc. Brit. is in the public domain. It's also considered a reliable source. Your source is neither. ornis (t) 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've missed the point of what I wrote. The fact that the 1911 Britannica is in the public domanin doesn't mean that people can use its words without quotation marks as if those words were their own. As far as my source goes, if you have information that it is unreliable please do present it. It cites Robert Seppings on the issue of 19th century ships over 200 feet in length, it cites Memnon as a source for one ancient Greek warship and Plutarch as a source for the Tessarakonteres, it cites Egyptian inscriptions and a work on Egyptology as a source for the details of the obelisk barges, and it cites recognized scholarship and archaeological finds as sources for the details of Caligula's 'Giant Ship' and 'Nemi ships'. --Taiwan boi 10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? ornis (t) 10:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 'Oh really'. The fact that a work is in the public domain does not mean you can use its words and pretend that they're your own. That is plagiarism, regardless of the fact that the work is out of copyright. The article you quoted (and let's remember 'Wiki is not a reliable source' according to ConfuciusOrnis), does not say anything of that kind. It does say 'The eleventh edition has become a commonly quoted source'. That is why Wiki articles using it carry a statement saying something like 'Information in this article has been taken from the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica'. --Taiwan boi 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the section I linked to shows that Project Gutenburg is in the preocess of re-titling and redistributing the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as "The Gutenburg Encyclopeadia"... looks a lot to me like using "its words without quotation marks as if those words were their own". ornis (t) 10:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the introduction of 'The Gutenberg Encycloaedia', which makes it very clear that these are not their own words: 'The Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia is a reproduction of a 1911 edition of a famous encyclopedia. The text has not been updated. Although the text is in the public domain in the United States, the original publisher still has a valid trademark in the original title of the encyclopedia.' --Taiwan boi 11:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is meant to be an overview of literalist ideas, not an in-depth review of them - in other words, we don't have the space to add all that material. Far better to give links to any websites you feel are relevant, either through the footnotes or through the external links section. --PiCo 09:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect this section to be an in-depth review of literalist ideas. I do expect it to include relevant material from a range of different views, including those of Christians who do not believe in a 450-600 foot Ark. I also expect the material concerning the physical practicality of the Ark to be factually accurate. --Taiwan boi 09:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The section you placed them in was discussing literalist interpretations, and I was under the impression your objection was that the article didn't give a voice to non-literalist christian apologetics. And really, how am I supposed to know you have permission, I couldn't find anywhere on the site where the author gives permission to reproduce the material in whole or part. Also I should point out that blogs are generally not regarded here as terribly good sources. ornis (t) 09:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do object that the article doesn't give sufficient voice to 'non-literalist christian apologetics', but the information I included in that section was not included in order to provide voice to 'non-literalist christian apologetics'. It was included to balance the claims made regarding the practicality of timber ships over a certain size. I know you couldn't find 'anywhere on the site where the author gives permission to reproduce the material in whole or part'. That doesn't change the fact that I have such permission. Furthermore, whilst 'blogs are generally not regarded here as terribly good sources', that particular blog provides appropriate references and verifiable information (some of it from Wiki in fact). --Taiwan boi 09:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also not a reliable source. If the blog provides other good sources, then you should go to those instead. The fact that you have permission is neither here nor there, if the author has made no clear disclaimer of copyright over the material. Anyway, as others have said, it's better to use short quotes and summaries, over wholesale cutting and pasting. ornis (t) 10:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's quotable, 'Misplaced Pages is also not a reliable source'. I get that all the time. The fact is that Wiki is reliable where it is correctly referenced. I don't believe that particular blog uses any information from Wiki which is not correctly referenced. As for linking to 'other good sources', you've missed the point of the link I included. The link I included was to provide an example of Christian apologetic arguments for the practicality of Noah's Ark on the basis of historically large ships of similar dimensions. Linking to an archaeological article does not constitute an example of Christian apologetic arguments for the practicality of Noah's Ark on the basis of historically large ships of similar dimensions. Furthermore, I fail to understand why the author's permission to use their material is 'neither here nor there' simply because no explicit disclaimer of copyright has been made. I'll rewrite the information in summary form. --Taiwan boi 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In other news, here's the copyright notice of the source under question: 'Material from this site may be quoted, paraphrased, or cited on the basis of 'Attribution' and 'Non-Commercial' Creative Common licenses. This means that material can be used as described on the basis that the author is credited for the material (by a link to the article or by crediting 'J Burke' and the article name), for non-commercial purposes.' --Taiwan boi 10:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that you have permission to reproduce copyright material, but rather that the material is copyright. That means that there is an implied protection against modification. So once you place the copyright material here, any other editor can alter it. The authors credit then becomes problamatic. The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica is out of copyright, so no such problems exist. Much better to summarise and reference. --Michael Johnson 10:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, and your points are valid. However, in this case the material in question is usable under the 'Attribution' and 'Non-commercial' Creative Commons licenses. If it is paraphrased and a link is provided, then there's no problem with anyone changing the paraphrase, since it is not being represented as the exact text of the article. If on the other hand it is quoted directly in quotation marks and a link is provided, then I doubt anyone is going to change the text in the quotation marks, so copyright issues will not arise. --Taiwan boi 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the copyright, nor the lack thereof, but the poor quality of the material itself. Here's some notes on the ships mentioned in Taiwanboi's proposed addition to the article. I've compared each of his four ancient ships to the Wyoming, the largest all-wooden ship ever built, by hull-length (we cite this in the article). As you see, these ships were all either the same length as the Wyoming, or shorter, and none of them were sea-going:

• Tessarakonteres, 100 meters, same length as the "Wyoming": built for show, not use, could be moved "only with danger".
• Egyptian bronze-age barge, 63 metres: shorter than the "Wyoming".
• Hatshepsut's bronze-age barge, 95-140 metres est.: the shorter end of the estimate is about the same as the "Wyoming", and the experience of the Tessarakonteres and the Wyoming suggests that the shorter end is more accurate.
• Roman Nemi ships, 75 metres: shorter than the Wyoming.
• Caligula's giant ship, 104 metres: not much different from the Wyoming.

On this basis, I don't think we can accept the proposed addition. PiCo 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you have provided there indicates that the quality of the information is 'poor'. You are instead contesting its relevance in the context of this particular section. The issue under discussion in that section is not whether timber ships larger than the Wyoming could be built, but whether it was practical for ships of a size comparable to the dimensions suggested for Noah's Ark to be built (the title of this section is 'Seaworthiness', but the actual issue of seaworthiness is not specifically addressed in this section, which as it stands should read 'Practicality'). The Tessarakonteres was the same length as the Wyoming (the fact that it wasn't very navigable doesn't change the fact that it was built), you've chosen to ignore the longer posited length of Hatshepsut's barge (whereas even the shorter length is around the same as the Wyoming), and you're misinformed on Caligula's giant ship (the Nemi ships were lakebound floating palaces, but the giant ship was a seagoing transport barge). These vessels are relevant to the issue of whether or not a ship of dimensions similar to the Ark could be built. Comparisons with the Wyoming are only slightly relevant given that the Ark was a barge like these other ships, whereas the Wyoming was not a barge and was subject to stresses from which these other ships were free. Comparing them to the Wyoming is comparing apples to oranges. --Taiwan boi 11:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've realised my error about the Giant Ship and have corrected myself. As for your main point: the section on literalism doesn't deny that ships the size of the Wyoming could have been built in ancient times, it suggests that they wouldn't have been seaworthy. The Ptolemaic ship certainly wasn't sea-worthy (moving it was deemed "dangerous"), Caligula's pleasure-barges floated in a lake, and the Egyptian barges were used on a river. The problem that huge wooden ships face is hogging, which is caused by waves - so the lake and river bqarges are irrelevant. The only one that could be relevant is the giant ship, but did it ever go to sea? I see no evidence that was ever used as anything more than the foundation for a lighthouse - a giant caisson to be filled with rocks. We need something better than this. PiCo 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, I've realised that we are in fact discussing the merits of the arguments raised by Christian apologists, which is not the purpose of this talk page. Whether or not you or I agree with the merits of the arguments raised by Christian apologists on this subject, the purpose of citing this blog is as an example of arguments used by Christian apologetics on this subject. I will endeavour to correct this in my next revision. By the way, you'll find that the river barges that the Egyptians used overcame hogging problems by using hogging trusses, that Caligula's giant ship is recorded as having moved an obelisk from Egypt, and you'll also find that the blog argues that the Ark was a landlocked barge experiencing a local flood, which is why comparisons with analogous barges are relevant. Comparisons with multi-masted, heavily rigged, ironclad sea-going Western vessels with steam powered bilge pumps constructed on entirely different design principles, are not relevant. --Taiwan boi 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs almost never meet WP:RS, a policy on Misplaced Pages. The blog being used as a source does not. If someone has a reason why that blog should be considered as a source, please let me know, because otherwise this whole discussion is rather off-point, as it seems to be discussing the merits of content from the blog. KillerChihuahua 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The blog cites Robert Seppings on the issue of 19th century ships over 200 feet in length, it cites Memnon as a source for one ancient Greek warship and Plutarch as a source for the Tessarakonteres, it cites Egyptian inscriptions and a work on Egyptology as a source for the details of the obelisk barges, and it cites recognized scholarship and archaeological finds as sources for the details of Caligula's 'Giant Ship' and 'Nemi ships'. If that means it's not a reliable source, then I would have to wonder what is. But you are correct, the merits of content from the blog should not be discussed here. It should not be cited as a reliable source if people are going to argue about it. But it should be cited in the main article as an example of Christian apologetics in the relevant section, because it is an example of Christian apologetics on this subject. Whether or not you, or I, or anyone else agrees with the content of the blog, that is how it should be cited in the article. The problem was that neither the criticism nor the apologetic material was really presented with NPOV. I will rewrite later today. --Taiwan boi 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No, we should not use a blog which does not meet RS as an "example", or for any other purpose - it does not meet RS. Find another source for Seppings, Memmon, and Plutarch. In your proposed rewrite, use those cites. Avoid weasely "Some Christians" or "Some apologists" in favor of "Seppings states" etc. Attribution needs to be specific, not to some undefined "some". We do not give "examples" from unreliable sources; we may use an article or other reliable source which does comment on a blog or its contents, but to do so ourselves is original research. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary, not a primary, source. And finally, remember that this is a featured article and any proposed changes must meet consensus as being considered an improvement; please work with other editors on the talk page on your desired changes. KillerChihuahua 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I am talking about using the blog as an example of what Christian apologetics say about the Ark. If we want examples of what Christian apologetics say about the Ark, we do not look to Seppings. Seppings is not an example of what Christian apologists say about the Ark. Seppings did not write a Christian apologetic on the Ark. Seppings may or may not have even been a Christian. This is irrelevant. If we want examples of what Christian apologetics say about the Ark, we do not say 'Seppings states'. We say 'Some Christian apologists say', and then link to the blog as an example of what 'Some Christian apologists say'. That is not using 'weasel words', it is stating a fact unless you can demonstrate that the site is not saying what is attributed to it, or you can demonstrate that the site is not a Christian apologetic. Is this clear yet? On the subject of what is and what is not a reliable source, if a direct quote from Seppings does not constitute a reliable source for what Seppings said then what does? --Taiwan boi 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with making any citation from a blog is really a combination of two factors:

• Our guidelines specifically state that self-published sources such as blogs can only be counted as a reliable source for what the author says and not for any other subject.
• The author of this particular blog is not notable (unless you intend to show evidence to the contrary).

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to cite this blog because it would just be stating one person's opinion. You would need to present further evidence, again from a reliable source, that that author's opinion was typical or representative of some larger group. I hope this sheds some light on the problem. The best solution I can suggest is to find a website (or a published position document) from a group which states their position. SheffieldSteel 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you've misread my proposal also. I am not suggesting that the blog be cited as a 'reliable source'. I am suggesting that it be cited as an example of an argument raised by Christian apologists. I originally wanted to cite it as a 'reliable source', but later agreed this was inappropriate and suggested it be cited as an example of an argument raised by Christian apologists. KillerChihuahua kept thinking I wanted to cite it as a 'reliable source'. Currently the article makes numerous claims about what 'literalists' say without actually providing any information as to who these 'literalists' are, and without providing any evidence that this is what they say. Instead we have vague handwaving references to 'many websites'. I wasn't aware that this was the correct way to support statements in a Wiki article. What I am suggesting is the kind of reference which already does exist in the article. In the article we have the statement 'While some literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species', and a single website is provided as evidence that this is 'a more common position today'. I am suggesting the same kind of thing, a statement that 'Christian counter-arguments include', or 'Christian apologists reply' or something similar, and then a link to the blog as an example of how 'Christian apologists reply'. Is this valid or not? --Taiwan boi 14:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What SheffieldSteel says! I didn't misunderstand Tawian boi, but it seems I was less than clear in my post. If you still don't see the problem after reading SS's post, let us know. But you cannot use a blog as an example, that's Original research, just like using an interview you did yourself is Original research. We're not a primary source, and OR is not allowed. KillerChihuahua 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit: cubit

I would like to propose the following edit:

Many different cubits were in use in the ancient world, and various commentators differ in their opinions as to which should be used to interpret the Ark's dimensions. However, 8th century BC Siloam inscription indicates a Hebrew cubit length of around 17 inches, which is 431.8mm (making the Ark about 410-425 feet long), and is the earliest written evidence for the cubit length used in Israel before the Babylonian exile. This is the nearest written Hebrew source to the composition of the flood narrative in Genesis, and so this is the most likely length of the cubit used by Noah. Literalist websites seem prefer to use a larger cubit, possibly in order to maximize the available space within the Ark in order to contain all the animals a literalist reading of the text requires, and seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) in length.

The sources cited are an article from the Atlantic Baptist University, an article from the Harper Bible Dictionary and an article from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary. These may or may not be considered 'original research' or a 'reliable source'. All three say exactly what the article in the blog says, all three citing the Siloam inscription as the relevant proximate literary evidence for the length of the Old Testament cubit, as the blog did. Please comment. --Taiwan boi 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That much info would be fine in the Cubit article, but far more than we have room for in this one! PiCo 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have only added two sentences. We don't have room for two sentences? Remember, that paragraph in italics is a proposed edit which incorporates existing text. It's not a new paragraph to be added. --Taiwan boi 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the sources as being reliable. Why do they think the 8th century BC is close in date to the composition of Genesis? Van Seters and Schmid place J in the Exilic period, the Copenhagen School puts it even later, and almost everyone except Friedman dates P to the Exile or later. In other words, all of them put the Noah story several centuries later than the 8th. That's among the Americans: in Europe, Rendtorff and Blum see Noah and the entire primeval history as a post-Exilic addition, the very last part of Genesis to be written - again long after the 8th century. The only contemporary scholar who would agree with your 8th century date for the Noah story is Erich Zenger - he gives the primeval history a date in the 7th to early 6th centuries. Your sources seem unaware of any of this. (To put this another way, there's no point in looking for a pre-Exilic cubit when the majority of biblical scholars give the primeval history and Noah a post-Exilic date). PiCo 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read what I actually wrote, you will see that I did not cite them as sources saying that the 8th century Siloam inscription was the closest proximate literary source to the Genesis narrative for the cubit. I cited them as sources saying that the Siloam inscription is the earliest written evidence for the cubit used in Israel before the Babylonian exile. I understand that you're saying that you want this part of the article to reflect a certain POV (secular Higher Criticism), though I don't agree with the decision (when you refer to 'the majority of biblical scholars', you refer of course to the majority of secular biblical scholars). But from a quick review of the other comments on the Talk page today, I can see that this is the general aim of the editors here. I'll make another attempt at suggesting an edit:

Many different cubits were in use in the ancient world, and various commentators differ in their opinions as to which should be used to interpret the Ark's dimensions. Literalist websites seem prefer to use a larger cubit, possibly in order to maximize the available space within the Ark in order to contain all the animals a literalist reading of the text requires, and seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) in length. Other Christian websites suggest a shorter cubit of around 17 inches, making the Ark 410-425 feet long (125-129 metres). --Taiwan boi 23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Moses - a prince of Egypt - wrote the book of Genesis in circa 1560-1520 BC, one should look for a definition of cubit in ancient Egyptian records. Looks like a 20.6 inch cubit is likely (see 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice guesswork, but that has nothing to do with article content. Taiwan boi wants to include information that some literalist groups use a different standard for the cubit than the conventional "royal cubit". To establish that he only has to cite sources from those groups. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Narrative

The narrative presents one intepretation of the Genesis account as if this is exactly what the Genesis account is saying. Several different POVs of the Genesis account exist. The only one represented in the narrative is the 'globalist' view (note I will not say 'literalist', since 'literal' in this article is being misused). I suggest that the narrative section needs to be edited in order to identify the fact that it can be, and is, read from different POVs. --Taiwan boi 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article was written in any POV rather than describing the biblical account. Interpretations, whether scientific or otherwise, probably are better placed in POV forks to this article. For example, see Flood geology where I believe there are any number of different accounts of event. Orangemarlin 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's presenting a POV. It's presenting what is called the 'literalist' POV, which it presents as 'according to chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis'. It assumes a global interpretation of the language used to describe the flood, which is not necessarily global in its meaning. --Taiwan boi 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Gen.7:19:"And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." I think the POV might be yours. PiCo 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have just quoted to me one English interpretation of the Hebrew text. That is one POV. That is not a representation of what the Hebrew text necessarily says, that is one English interpretation of what the Hebrew text says. What you have quoted is itself POV, the KJV POV. --Taiwan boi 05:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a translation, not interpretation. Do you have scholarly support for a radically different translation? 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a translation, it is a paraphrase of the English text of the KJV. I am not suggesting replacing it with a 'radically different translation'. I am suggesting replacing it with an NPOV paraphrase. --Taiwan boi 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tb, while some of your complaints are valid, this one is way off base. This is the English Misplaced Pages; we can't give the text in Hebrew and expect that most readers could derive any information from it. The purpose of the "Narrative" section is to convey what the text says. To that end it gives a paraphrase of the scriptural story. The whole section begins with, "according to chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis," clearly indicating that it's only presenting the story as its given. There's no interpretation whatoever.

Yes, it would be good if the very sketchy "in Christian tradition" section was expanded to be commensurate with the wholly out-of-proportion section on literalism. However, you can't expect an article about a text to avoid any mention of what the text says. That's just unreasonable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting giving the text in Hebrew. I am suggesting replacing it with an NPOV paraphrase. You cannot say that there's 'no interpretation whatsoever' whilst at the same time acknowledging it's a paraphrase. It's not even a translation. A translation would be a rendering of the Hebrew text into English. The narrative does not do this. It is a paraphrase of the English text of the KJV, and as such it is an interpretation.I am not suggesting avoiding any mention of what the text says. I am suggesting replacing the current narrative with an NPOV paraphrase. I will write up an example of what I mean. I will also look at writing up an expansion of the 'in Christian tradition' section. --Taiwan boi 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"All the high mountains under heaven were covered" seems to be the universal translation. I'd be interested to see where you find a translation that says something different. Here's a Jewish translation that seems to stick very close to the Hebrew: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered." - not much room there for inferring anything less than a global flood. (Sorry about the Hebrew - I can't seem to make it cut and paste properly). PiCo 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not suggesting replacing it with a 'radically different translation'. I am suggesting replacing it with an NPOV paraphrase. See my suggested edit below. Your interpretation of the text as 'not much room there for inferring anything less than a global flood' is a classic case of 'exegeting the English'. The phrases used in the Genesis flood narrative and elsewhere which appear to indicate a global scope (such as 'all... under heaven', 'every living thing', 'under the whole heaven', 'all flesh', 'every... on the face of the earth', and '‘The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground’), are regularly used in the Old and New Testament in a non-literal sense. They are usually translated as they read in the Hebrew, because that is how they should be translated, just as 'raining cats and dogs' in an English text should be translated 'raining cats and dogs' in a French rendering of the English text. But that does not mean that the meaning of the phrases is necessarily what they appear literally to mean, any more than 'raining cats and dogs' means what it seems literally to mean in English. --Taiwan boi 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

However, that section is not about interpretation. The text says the waters rose to cover the tops of the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits (~20 feet), and that's simply what the paraphrase is reporting. It doesn't even say the flood was global. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Really big ships

Since I think the historical accuracy of big wooden floating things is the crux of part of Taiwan boi's arguments, I didn't see a link to a couple of good articles on this projects: List of world's largest wooden ships and Wyoming (Schooner). Both articles debunk the ability of large wooden ships to float, and that most historical big wood boats were more mythical than actual. I think everyone has more or less discussed ad nauseum the rest of your points. Orangemarlin 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither article debunks the ability of large wooden ships to float. Neither Caligula's giant ship, nor Hatshepsut's barge were mythical, and they floated just fine. What they do is demonstrate that certain designs of timber ship aren't very stable in the open sea when scaled to certain large proportions. Your comparison of ocean going 19th century multimasted Western designed ships with heavy rigging, and/or cannon, iron cladding/bracing and steam engines/pumps, with pre-modern inland use 'shell first' designed barges with hogging trusses, lateral and transverse strength beams, is like telling me that you can't build a yacht more than 200 feet long, because you can't build a canoe more than 200 feet long. But this is beside the point. As I have said twice previously, I want to include a reference to this information as an example of what some Christian apologists argue. You may disagree with what they argue, but I see no valid reason why the argument should not be presented. What I am seeing is resistance to any reference to Christian interpretations other than the 'literalist' interpretation, which is presented throughout the article, sometimes without any supporting references at all. We are told 'Literalists explain...', 'literalist websites seem to agree', 'literalist scholars who accept these objections believe that Noah must have...', and 'numerous literalist websites...', all without a single link or reference to prove that this is what 'literalists' actually say. If it's ok to do this, then I fail to see why it's not ok to present what some Christian 'non-literalists' say, providing actual evidence that they say it. --Taiwan boi 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Taiwanboi, what he's saying is that some believers in a literal Ark don't accept the length of the cubit most often acceptedf, with the result that their version of the Ark is about the same length as attested ancient ships/barges (which happens also to be the length of the Wyoming). So the crux of our argument shouldn't be whether such ships could float, but whether this is a viewpoint sufficiently important to merit inclusion.PiCo 00:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you PiCo, that is indeed what I am saying. I agree that the key here is whether or not this viewpoint is sufficiently important to merit inclusion. I believe it is. I find it amazing that the article implies that doubts concerning the 'literalist' interpretation of the Genesis flood narrative arose as a result of 'natural historians' being unable to reconcile it with increased scientific knowledge. No mention is made of Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Genesis flood narrative which understood it to refer to a local flood. As early as the 1st century Josephus referred to people who had survived the flood by gaining high ground, and you can be certain he wasn't interpreting the flood as local on the basis of scientific advancement. Rashi and Maimonides said the same, and they certainly didn't say so on the basis of a Renaissance paradigm. Sir Thomas Browne, quoted in the main article, made mention of the Christians who in his day believed the flood was local ('some conceiving it needlesse to be universal, have made the deluge particular, and about those parts where Noah built his Arke'). By the late 19th century, the local flood position was already common among Christians, and accepted as within orthodoxy by the majority. It just so happened that the Fundamentalists became the most vocal and their position the most well known. The article on the other hand gives the false impression that by the 19th century secular scientists no longer gave the global flood interpretation credence, but that this was still the standard view among Christians. --Taiwan boi 06:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty in this instance, as in many other topics such as creationism etc, is that the biblical literalists seem to garner the lion's share of the attention. Partly this is because they are vocal. Partly because this is because they claim that all other Christians believe as they do, which is patently false; the vast majority of Christians disagree with them in most instances. Partly this is because they often use subscription to biblical literalism as a litmus test for deciding if a given person is Christian or not. Partly this is because their extreme positions are more easy to dismiss, and most at odds with standard scientific thought. However, it is probably worthwhile on all of these articles which discuss literalist beliefs to make it clear how much of a minority position biblical literalism truly is. Even among Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, anonymous surveys demonstrate that only about half of the congregations subscribe to biblical literalism. Among mainstream Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc, only about 10% claim to believe the bible is literally true (and even this might be an overestimate, depending on how the survey is done). This is like the story of the "Emperor who wasnt wearing any clothes". People are sometimes reluctant to state the obvious; any careful scholarship or understanding of the bible makes it very difficult to maintain a belief in biblical literalism. I do not know what the corresponding figures are for Koranic literalism, but I suspect they might not be too different, if done by anonymous surveys among literate, educated people.--Filll 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fill, I quite agree. The very fact that the term 'literalists believe' is used throughout the article demonstrates that the contributors to the article are well aware that views exist among Christians which are different to the views of the 'literalists'. I see no reason why these other views should not be here. If people can just come out directly and say whether or not one Christian viewpoint is to be presented here, it will save us all a lot of time. --Taiwan boi 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see where in this article are there significant literal interpretations of the bible. Mostly, the article states what the story is. Other forks do the interpretation. Orangemarlin 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the entire narrative section, which presents a 'literalist' interpretation of the text (it's not even a quote from the Biblical text, it's an interpretation of the text). Secondly, we are repeatedly presented with the 'literalist' interpretation of the Ark narrative, using such phrases as 'Biblical literalists today continue to take the Ark as test-case for their understanding of the Bible', 'literalists rely on interpretation', 'Literalists explain...', 'Literalists see nothing puzzling', 'literalists devote much attention', 'literalist websites seem to agree', 'literalist scholars who accept these objections believe that Noah must have...', 'a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between literalists and their opponents', 'While some literalists hold', and 'numerous literalist websites...'. The 'literalist' interpretation is presented throughout the entire article, and not contained in a fork. No other Christian interpretation is presented. The very fact that the term 'literalists believe' is used throughout the article demonstrates that the contributors to the article are well aware that views exist among Christians which are different to the views of the 'literalists'. I see no reason why these other views should not be here. --Taiwan boi 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The narrative section is a paraphrase of the text, not an "interpretation". We have to present the story, but quoting three chapters of the Bible verbatim is inappropriate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The narrative is a paraphrase, and that's what makes it an interpretation. I am not suggesting three chapters of the Bible verbatim be quoted. I am suggesting an NPOV paraphrase. --Taiwan boi 00:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggested rewrite of the narrative section:

The story of Noah's Ark in chapters 6 to 9 in the Book of Genesis has been interpreted in a number of different ways within Abrahamic religions, with a range of interpretations being found within rabbinic, Christian, and Islamic traditions. In the narrative which follows the general outline of the story as found in standard English translations of the Book of Genesis is described (direct quotes are from the King James Version of the English Bible). Details of the story which are interpreted differently by different traditions have been placed in italics. They are represent what the text appears to say, but not what it necessarily means:

'The Genesis flood story begins with God observing man's evil behaviour and deciding to flood the earth and destroy all life. However, God found one good man, Noah, "a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time," and decided that he would carry forth the lineage of man. God told Noah to make an ark, and to bring with him his wife, and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives. Additionally, he was told to bring examples of all animals and birds, male and female. In order to provide sustenance, he was told to bring and store food. Noah and his family and the animals entered the Ark, and "the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." The flood covered even the highest mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet, and all creatures on Earth died; only Noah and those with him on the Ark were left alive. After 150 days, the Ark came to rest among the mountains of Ararat.' --Taiwan boi 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Make it more clearly a story please, especially when using quotes. Eg. Genesis says that the flood covered even the highest mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet, and all creatures on Earth died; only Noah and those with him on the Ark were left alive. --ZayZayEM 04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, all I've done is keep the existing narrative as it already stands in the article at present, add a short introduction, and placed some parts of the text in italics. The parts in italics are not intended to be quotes, they are intended to be details of the story which are interpreted differently by different traditions. They are not intended to be quotes ('examples of all animals and birds, male and female', for example is not a quote from anywhere in Genesis), and they are supposed to be identified as other than quotes. Direct quotes have already been placed - unsurprisingly - in quotation marks. It seems you have a problem with the narrative as it stands in the article at present, in which case I propose you suggest a rewrite of the narrative. I don't know how it could be more obviously 'a story', when it opens with 'The Genesis flood story begins with'. --Taiwan boi 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear from context what the italics mean; it's not a standard use for them. But I disagree, and strongly. There's no interpretation at all going on in that section, just a synopsis of the plot, if you will. That is what it is independent of any interpretive filters. Those come after the story is laid down. There's no getting around the actual content of the text, no matter how this group or that chooses to read it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

References

1. "Weights & Measures". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/custom5.htm" ignored (help)
2. Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature (1985). Harper's Bible Dictionary, article 'Weights and Measures', page 1,130. Harper and Row.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale's Bible Dictionary, article 'Weights and Measures', page 1,299. Tyndale House Publishers.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Online text of Genesis

The article used to link to the UNi of Virigina online etxt of Genesis in the Revised Standard Version. The National Council of Churches of Christ, which holds the copyright to the RSV in America, has now withdrawn permission for its publication in favour of the King James, to which they also hold copyright. I've found a different online source for the RSV, but it seems to be hosted by the Uni of Michigan, so might also be forced off.

And why does the NCC want to ban the RSV? The RSV has been controversial with fundamentalists ever since its publication, not least because of Isaiah which they take as a prophecy of Chrit's birth - "a virgin shall conceive", or words to that effect. The Hebrew word the fundamentalists want to translate as "virgin" is more accurately translated "young woman", and this is what the RSV has. That's one of their most important objections, but there others, all to do with the RSV preferring accuracy over theology. I don't know why it's taken them so long to ban the thing, but at last they have. I'll keep an eye out for further events. PiCo 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The KJV is public domain in the US, and the NCC owns none of the copyrights to any of the recent versions that incorporate "King James" in their names.

But why link to a particular translation at all, when we can use {{bibleverse}} to let the reader choose? If you don't specify a translation, you get a list: {{bibleverse||Genesis|6-9}} yields Genesis 6–9. Or you can pick one and go there directly: {{bibleverse||Genesis|6-9|50}} gives Genesis 6–9.

The RSV has been controversial for more than just fundamentalists, but the NRSV is even worse. That is really the version they want to promote, but my church has specifically forbidden its use for liturgy and spiritual reading. (Not academic study for the purpose of analysis, of course.) Well, the NCC might want to push the NRSV, but I don't see any sign on their website that they've banned the RSV. They may well have withdrawn permission for online access, but that's not really shocking. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your recent edits I started to wonder why you were so wedded to the RSV, but then I re-read your comment above more attentively. The problem isn't really that the RSV "prefer accuracy over theology", but that they not uncommonly use a minority witness in the ancient sources to put forward their preferred meaning. This is more a problem in the NT, where they rely on the Alexandrian texts more than is really warranted.

In any event, the "virgin" reading in Isaiah is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some like to make out these days. It obviously has an ambiguous meaning: The 3rd century BC translators of the Septuagint used the Greek word for "virgin" there, which must reflect their understanding of it at the time and which must necessarily be free of any Christian theological bias.

That's of secondary importance anyway. When Matthew quotes it, he clearly thinks it means "virgin", but he says flat-out that Mary was a virgin anyway. More problematic is the obscuring of Messianic prophecy in many OT verses. In both Greek and Hebrew the words for "annointed one" would be the same in either the context of, say, the Psalms and in NT use -- if the NT were translated from Greek to Hebrew -- making the connection stand out if that's what you're looking for. But in the RSV they deliberately chose to use "annointed one" or similar everywhere in the OT, while retaining "Christ" in the NT. Greek has "christos" in both places; Hebrew would similarly use "moshiach". A translation concerned primarily with accuracy would have found a way to show this in English.

Never mind that the English is just plain ugly in places. And the way they use the archaic second-person pronoun is absurd. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the KJV for the poetry - perhaps it's just a matter of childhood memories, plus the way it's so intertwined with English literature right up to the early 20th century. I like the RSV for attempting to get closer to the Hebrew, which unfortunately but inevitably has meant moving well away from the KJV. What many in the US don't like about the RSV is, as you say, the obscuring of what they take to be Messianic prophecies. Whether you believe those prophecies are there depends very much on whether you already believe in the Messiah. (Outside the US the question doesn't really arise, as so few people read the bible in any edition).PiCo 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's intended to be a Christian translation, isn't it? So it should be written to meet the needs of Christians. I know of no Christian denomination that doesn't see these prophecies as important. And again, it's an obscurity that simply would not exist in either Hebrew or Greek. To that extent it's artificial.

It's not clear that a direct translation from the Masoretic is really desirable anyway. The differences between it and the LXX were once thought to be errors, but if the Dead Sea Scrolls have showed nothing else it's that the two simply represent different textual traditions, both of which were current in the 1st century. The NT quotes from the LXX far more than it does from the tradition now represented by the Masoretic. (The LXX as a translation predates the addition of vowel points to the Hebrew Scriptures by at least 1000 years.) One might therefore be justified in thinking of the LXX as the "Christian Old Testament". TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's intended to be a Christian translation, isn't it?" I'd prefer an English translation. "So it should be written to meet the needs of Christians." If those Christians merely want their existing beliefs reinforced, yes. But their beliefs are extraordinary - an incarnate god who dies and is resurrected, descended from a man (David) who died a thousand years beforehand, and so on. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs, as someone once said. The bible itself is the only proof these claims can have, and so they (Christians) really shouldn't be looking for a translation which merely reinforces their beliefs - they need to be sure they're right. PiCo 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why is is so important to hide things that are actually in the text? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Water

Why is there no mention of the fact that there is not enough water on earth to be able to completely cover it? Ian 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason is, that when similar scientific criticisms were suggested, they were shot down as being inappropriate for an article that had already reached FA status. A proposal to write a separate article dealing with criticism, or history of criticism was considered, but the effort has not progressed very far yet.--Filll 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already being addressed at Flood geology#Source of flood waters, which is more appropriate. Perhaps we need a "See also" link at the head of the section to redirect those seeking information related to Creationist arguments regarding the flood itself. Sxeptomaniac 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is abt the Ark rather than the Flood. Yes, I know, no flood, no ark. But we try to disentangle them, just to keep the thing manageable. PiCo 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• FA-Class Iraq articles
• Unknown-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles