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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-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.
The article talks about Noah's Ark from a religious and scientific point of view, but not from an ethical point of view. There isn't a word about the ethics of drowning millions of men women and children. Not to mention drowning animals. It seems a bit of a miss not to mention this.
I propose adding a section to the article titled "Ethics". Have fun with that one. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You can try. But unless you put in some cited content, it'll be deleted. Myrvin (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a very important ethical point which is referenced here and there but we need a serious citation rather than a few lines from TV and stand-up shows. Jimp 12:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Possibly worth pointing out that the flood wouldn't have drowned millions of people (can't comment on the animals) - according to the genealogies in Genesis there were only a dozen or so people in the world at the time. PiCo (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The genealogies only concentrate on the lineage from Adam to Noah. They leave open the possibility of other lines, especially those descending from Cain, who are said to be the "wicked" lineage. These also supposedly had children by "fallen angels". The actual numbers probably weren't millions, but the bible leaves open the possibility of tens of thousands.FimusTauri (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
My word, it seems all the Patriarchs had already died before the Flood. The sole exception is Lamech, Noah's father, who died in the year of the flood, aged 969 - I believe Jewish tradition holds that he died of old age. This was something of a surprise to me. PiCo (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I've done some more research on this question, which it seems has never been addressed till now. What I'm looking for is the probable population of the earth in the year of the Flood. According to my sources, pre-modern demographic patterns produce a doubling of population every 1,000-1,500 years. Beginning with a global population of two (Adam and Eve), we can therefore expect global population to have doubled, but not quadrupled (i.e., a doubling doubled), by 1656 AM, the year of the Flood. (AM mean Anno Mundi, the count of years beginning from the Creation). In actual numbers this means a global population of between 4 an 8 - and as it happens, the Book of Genesis has 8 people on the Noah's ark (Noah, his three sons, and their wives). I'm impressed by the way this vindicates the Biblical story. PiCo (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to do that. PiCo (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
A world-wide flood and the ark are facts, not religious myths
The first few paragraphs of this WIKI article, like those in most of WIKI, are reasonably accurate. But then the author lapses into a confusing series of statements apparently designed to insult Judeo-Christian readers, promote the theory of evolution, and elevate the importance of traditionally non-Western religions. This approach might be excusable if the world-wide flood and the ark had anything to do with mystical faith or irrational beliefs, but the facts prove otherwise. There are volumes of scientific research, done with no religious (or anti-religious) bias, that prove the flood phenomenon, beginning with obvious discoveries like datable oceanic shells found on inland mountaintops and uprooted petrified trees preserved in rock strata. There are also at least 25 different accounts of ark sightings over a 1500-year period, including some in the 21st century, despite the political turmoil and snow-capped conditions that accompany 10,000-foot Mt. Ararat. Of course, even if a huge wooden boat built 5000 years ago has disintegrated into splinters, a rational person would need convincing proof that it never existed at all - since no trace of Caesar's chariots nor the Mayflower exist either! I would hope that WIKI would avoid the temptation to inject propaganda into its articles, and let the truth speak for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I object to lumping all Jews and Christians as though they all shared the same belief that the Bible is literally true. So far as I know, this is a minority view among Christians and Jews. Doug Weller (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the IP editor would benefit from reading some of the Jewish commentary linked in the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr.Thomson, please refrain from personal remarks and comment only on the article. For my part, a world-wide flood and the ark are myths to the secularist, but facts to the Christian. As for what the original person who started this discussion says, he should first find reliable sources before stating the flood as a fact, on Wikipedia at least. While what he says is quite true concerning resaerch, they do not come from academic sources, and Wikipedia only publishes academic sources.18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
They're myths to the vast majority of modern Christians too, since the idea of a literal flood is more than a little silly in light of modern science, the boat could not be built and the scenario requires every animal and human be infested with every parasite in existence at the same time. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
A rational person requires proof that something does exist, not proof that it doesn't. Otherwise, you can't prove you don't owe me ten thousand bucks, so you'd better pay up. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Christians believe that "with God all things are possible.". Hence, unless you are an atheist, you cannot say a literal flood is "silly". In any case the one who started this discussion has to reference academic sources, and since academic sources have no sense of the miraculous, there are none to provide. Hence, I am finished with this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
No, you absolutely can say that and still believe in a creator. Christians do not have to be fundamentalist biblical literalists. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone involved that wikipedia talk pages do not exist to educate the ignorant or to challenge poorly grounded personal beliefs, but to discuss improvements to the article. Both sides of this debate are the same - frustrated with what they see as widespread but false beliefs on this topic. This is understandable: no matter which side is correct there is a large number of people who are incorrect and those people's ignorance is harmful to themselves and frustrating to others. However, Wikipedia does exist to solve that problem. If you want to have a discussion about what Christians/atheists/rationalists/fundamentists/whatever do believe or should believe you should take that to your personal talk pages, or better, to another web site. 126.96.36.199's original complaint is incorrect, but every comment after that of Ian.thomson was inappropriate because they give the wrong reasons for the complaint being incorrect. The correct response is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned it may very well be the case that the available sources are incorrect or even propaganda, but if so until the pool of available sources changes Wikipedia will also be incorrect or propagandistic, and this is an accepted limitation of the project. -- LWGtalk 20:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)