Talk:Genesis flood narrative

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)

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 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

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 that "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)