Talk:Genesis flood narrative

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why does this page refer to The Flood as a "myth"?

A: 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".

Q: Why doesn't this page focus more on the creationist point of view?

A: On topics of theology and mythology, Wikipedia is largely focused on what can be demonstrated based on a consensus of peer-reviewed academic papers. As this article notes, many mainstream scholars dispute that The Flood actually occurred. Wikipedia is neutral, but we also believe in "not giv[ing] minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects," where minority views refers to views found in a minority of reliable sources.

Weather: Floods Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Mythology Mid‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for merging with Noah's Ark on 31 January 2014. The result of the discussion was not merge.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Noah's Ark was copied or moved into Genesis flood narrative with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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 Genesis flood narrative. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Genesis flood narrative at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Did God promise to never destroy life again?

In Genesis 8:21, I read: "and the Lord said in his heart ... neither will I again smite every thing living" (emphasis added). In original Hebrew, I read: "va-yomer Yehova el-libo," i.e. "Jehovah said to his heart." I see no promise and no "covenant with Noah." God DECIDED to never destroy life again. This is different from promising -- decisions are in no way binding and can be reversed unilaterally. I suggest editing the article accordingly:

1. "God made a covenant with Noah that man would be allowed to eat every living thing but not its blood, and God decided to never again destroy all life."

2. In the Sources table: "God smells sweet aroma, decides not to destroy again." DenisProf (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source would be required to discuss such nuance compared to other scholarly perspectives on the text. TNstingray (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article, as its name conveys, is to represent the narrative in the Book of Genesis accurately. I cited that very narrative, in the original language and in an English translation. The original source supersedes any "scholarly perspective" or interpretation. The table already cites the source (Genesis 8:21). The same source can be cited elsewhere if necessary. DenisProf (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. The Bible is a primary source "suitable for attributed, relevant quotes", but not for content that "interprets or summarizes scriptural passages". The latter must be "be cited to appropriate scholarly sources". The quotes are from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, since the Bible can be interpreted in thousands of ways. As Bart Ehrman argued, if you seek to find the Trinity in Genesis chapter 1, you will find it there. But that says more about you than about the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for referring me to the policy. As long as the policy is in place, you are correct that, as sources, scholarly texts trump scriptural texts. However, it strikes me as bad policy that, for summarizing scriptural narratives, any secondary sources should be privileged over the original. My suggestion is to switch from interpretation to the uninterpreted original (not to offer a self-researched interpretation.) This must be a switch toward a more reliable source. DenisProf (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DenisProf Policy allows us to quote the Bible when appropriate, but then you may have an argument about which translation to quote. The trouble with quoting Hebrew and Greek texts is that people with no credentials will argue about what it means, and the few of us who have actually studied those languages can't pull rank because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. So you do need a respected scholar to have already said the thing you want to put in here. But that shouldn't be difficult, as there are great scholarly commentaries. Try the International Critical Commentary on Genesis by Skinner, or the SCM one by von Rad, and you will find reliable explanations verse by verse. If what you are saying is right, you will find your source there. Doric Loon (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:or, how do RS translate it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Global" flood

The Hebrew text does not speak of a global flood, it speaks of "the ground" (הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה)(6:7) and "the land" (הָאָֽרֶץ)(6:13,17; 7:3,4,10). In the context, the most that can be said is that this indicates the world known to Noah, which most likely would have been confined to the Mesopotamian basin. All my reference works are in storage, so I can't provide citations as I would like, but I suggest that the section be rewritten because "global" is an inference, not something drawn from the text. Dismalscholar (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very strongly believed. In popular culture, every mention of Noah's flood seems to automatically include the word "global". Logically it would obviously have only been the world known to Noah, but it's grown and is now part of dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we value your insight, this would currently be an example of original research, which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia mainspace. If you find reliable sourcing, it would be worth mentioning as one of many scholarly perspectives on the text. TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it should be global, or else why would Noah bring birds? It also says it destroyed "all flesh", it covered the "highest mountains" and the sheer size of the Ark is enough to tell us that it's likely it's referring to a global flood. That's what I think, but it could be different. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't built upon how you think, or how I think, but upon citing WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page doesn't exist anymore:

Isaak, Mark (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook. University of California Press.

It's also not written from a neutral point of view. I just suggest removing that paragraph. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV does not mean what you think it means. In this case it means WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok there, I kept the ideas but changed the vocabulary of ONE WORD to make it sound more neutral. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "pseudoscientific" is not allowed. See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is. It just says not to give the idea undue weight, not anything about the word "pseudoscientific". 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your motivation to perform tendentious editing. The WP:RULES of Wikipedia will be enforced, whether you like it or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is controversial. Apparently you don't think so, but it's mentioned up there at the top of the page. I really don't see how this is tendentious editing, as the main ideas are still the same. My editing had to do with the RULES already. You haven't explained how the rules have anything to do with the word "pseudoscientific" itself. The RULES are barely there with the original paragraph. I'm just making it so it FOLLOWS THE RULES MORE. As in ENFORCING THE RULES. (did you even read all the text before?) I don't see how this is "tendentious editing", the original paragraph was biased in the first place, and I just kept the IDEAS the same. The IDEAS are important. I would call this edit "fixing vocabulary". 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Performing the same WP:TE at Creationism does not plead in your favor. You're just WP:SOAPBOXING for pseudoscience, which is not allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even answered half of my questions. Stop avoiding them.

I'm not soapboxing. I LITERALLY just removed the word "pseudoscience". I'm not promoting Creationism in any way. There are also NO CITATIONS there. What I am doing is allowed, and you editing it back is against the rules. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedian for 21 years and 10 months. If I wouldn't know what I speak about, then nobody would.

And yup, deletions are also a way of WP:PROFRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

Christianity is the biggest religion in the world? And to offend the biggest religion in the world is pretty problematic... 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about that, because the germane rule is WP:CENSOR: we don't pander to piety, but render mainstream academic learning, even if it offends religious believers. Just think about it: any piece of information could probably offend someone who disagrees with it, and Wikipedia would be long dead if we would refrain from offending someone. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight." Hmmm...I don't see how all majority and significant-minority positions are included then. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The majority means: the majority of the scientific community; the majority of mainstream Bible scholars. Even if you would construe it to mean the majority of Christians, the majority of Christians would consider themselves in the camp of liberal Christianity if they would understand the difference between fundamentalism and modernism. Liberal Christians don't get offended by mainstream academic learning. So, again, our article does not offend Christianity as a whole, just a minority of Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think mainstream Bible scholars even sit around and talk about? 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a fruitless argument. If you did not get the point by now, you will never get it. I will not reply further. Just mind that what admins deem to be the WP:RULES of Wikipedia always has precedence over what you think would be the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. And they don't listen to WP:Wikilawyering. WP:NOTDUMB. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguing doesn't have any quotes, citations, doesn't answer questions, etc. Wikipedia isn't about what anyone thinks. Also, you're not an administrator. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dsJjj on this one. Leave if you want. Also I think that Christians can be scientists too, like people like Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, etc. 75.164.23.34 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion does not matter; mine also doesn't. What matters is that Wikipedia renders mainstream scientific information and mainstream academic learning. You cannot change this, trying is futile. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at this source: [1] Also, "pseudoscience" is incorrect. Also, the scientific method was CREATED by Christians. Also, I'll talk to an ACTUAL ADMIN about this. Also, most articles ANYWHERE regarding Creationism are primary sources and don't have citation. Also, it's not neutral. Also, as I keep reminding you, it's the removal of an unimportant word. It still sounds the same, but less wordy. It also sounds more neutral, as the RULES say. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actual admin here: stop. And please don't be rude to our volunteers. There is so much wrong in that last series of statements I am not even going to start. You can start by listening to tgeorgescu instead of picking a fight--that's what Facebook is for. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(no one listens to people who actually give citations) 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a citation, that's a link to one of our guidelines, and it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, there can be no scientific evidence that Jesus isn't God, just as there can be no scientific evidence that Jesus is God. Science has nothing to say about that, not even about whether God exists. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God or gods. But there are mountains of scientific evidence against creationism and flood geology. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣, you get one account; you don't get to tag-team. I'm sure you understand. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "The Genesis flood narrative (chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis) is a Hebrew flood myth.", as for many, the Genesis flood is not a myth. This applies to all statements regarding the Genesis "myth" as a myth. SHAFdfdsoi (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: see faq Cannolis (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It says that a global flood is inconsistent, but 1) it gives no proof, 2) I think it may offend people.

I would suggest just removing that part altogether.

Wait I don't even know how to use these talk pages. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We only WP:CITE mainstream academic WP:RS. We don't go by WP:OR. See also WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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."

Just trying to fix this thingy. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content based upon multiple reputable academic sources is not appreciated. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that one of the sentences has only one source and that source leads to a 404 error? 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot is not a reason for deletion. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite that. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the link vanished, it does not mean that the book itself vanished. It was just a link saying what for book it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]