Talk:Flood myth/Archive 1

Historical Deluges
The historical deluges section is wonderful, with tons of detail and examples. However, I don't think it really belongs tucked away in an article with (mythology) in its title; it's all about documentable, scientific geology and might easily be overlooked by someone hunting for that kind of thing. Wouldn't it be better to move this section to "Flood", or perhaps to a new article called "Deluge (historical)" or something along those lines? Bryan 09:30, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What's interesting is the possible connection between the Deluge and these Deluges. Who cares about a bunch of ol' glacial floods? unless they sparked tales of The Flood. The direct connections aren't being overstated. If they are, tone them down. Similarly the sacred bull of India to Thrace and the fearsome real aurochs. Their territories overlap. Yikes! even Christianity might have some genuine history to it! Wetman 09:42, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm an excellent example of someone who cares about "a bunch of ol' glacial floods" entirely on their own merits without connection to mythology. These were great big fantastic gooshes of water that are fun to learn about and are also hightly relevant to North American surface geology. I'm not particularly interested in myths like the Deluge (I'm more of a Greek mythology kind of guy) so I normally wouldn't come here for that, I only noticed this article when the list of floods disappeared from Flood where I'd been watching them. I don't have time right now, but tomorrow evening I'll look at various options for how to organize this stuff to satisfy all interests. Bryan 07:30, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * And now I just ran into a practical problem too, instead of just personal preference; I wanted to reference this list of prehistoric floods from the list of disasters page without including the mythological aspect too. So I'm going to split off the section now and see how the chips fall. Bryan 20:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * But say, what about the refilling of the Mediterranean? There's a deluge that's not connected here. Would it make sense at Flood? or Deluge? Wetman 16:22, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of the great deluge known across the world is typically known as the Great Deluge, and this article should thus be located there... It is a pretty good article... Tuf-Kat 21:52, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * With enough Wiki links and redirects, it could be Splish Splash and no problem. There are terrible flood disasters like the Dutch flood (13th century?). Sometimes you have Snake and you have Serpent already in the language. But sometimes you need to disambiguate the heading: Crane (mythology) might take some embarassing material off a biology entry, eh!. Wetman 23:12, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- Interesting to note that the Saroi system of counting years of the partiachs given in the Bible back to Noah's flood goes back to around 13000YPB. How about putting the rest of the dates in next to the titles? Zestauferov 07:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * how much is that in dog years? 13000 X 7 = 91,0000 years. Wow! What's your weight on Mars? Wetman 08:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3/8ths of my usual weight and yours?Zestauferov 09:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Black Sea
Growing evidence is demonstrating that catastrophic flooding, on a scale unimaginable in modern times, punctuated the melting of the ice age glaciers, at several occasions until about 5500 BCE

Is the 5500 BCE a reference to the "catastrophic flood" theory concerning the Black Sea? If so, then that date should be changed or removed since scientists studying the Black Sea since that idea was hypothesized by William Ryan and Walter Pitman do not support the "catastrophic flood" theory. Grice 12:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A quoted source is a credible source. Wetman 15:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * http://lava.tamu.edu/courses/geol101/herbert/docs/BlackSeaFloodCritique.pdf
 * There you go. Grice 22:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good. Put a brief analysis of the critique into the article and add the reference to External links. It's for the article, not for me. Wetman 05:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did already put up a critique and reference but on the Deluge (prehistoric) page (it's more appropriate there than here). Grice 10:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Genesis was not written in Mesopotamia, as this entry is currently stating. Wetman 20:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't even see what this Black Sea part is doing here. The lead says prehistoric floods are on another page, so what's this doing on this page? It's completely out of place here. Putting it elsewhere also enhances the NPOV, as selecting this theory and only this theory (especially without taking the time to show the other side criticizing it) is advancing it as true. It's just throwing pop science into a completely inappropriate place. DreamGuy 05:12, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Ryan-Pitman Deluge theory is based on geologic and archeologic evidence that provides a foundation for the myths. Since the flood would have displaced so many people, the diaspora would have spread the story to Greece, Mesopotamia, and India, transmuting into myth along the way. The article is NPOV because it indicates that there is controversy and it also indicates the recent collaborative evidence found by Ballard. Technically, if the story was not "written down" it was not "history", hence prehistoric. However, the approximate 5600 BCE date is much closer to history than what is usually thought of when the word "prehistoric" is uttered (which makes one think of millions of years). It could be said to be borderline prehistoric. But the point remains, that civilized human settlements were very likely displaced by a flood at this time and that directly gave rise to the Deluge myths. Hu 05:24, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * I think that the theory does deserve an article of its own, since it has material that might end up being duplicated here and on the Black Sea page. Nonetheless, there deserves to be a reference to it here, since it is such a compelling and thought provoking explanation for the wide dispersal of the myth, the rough timing, and the common features of the myths.  The theory has much more weight than "pop science" (whatever that might be (Immanuel Velikovsky?)).  If you can find evidence of an alternate scientific theory or theories, please enlighten us and put it on the page also. -- Hu.


 * I agree, there's duplication at Deluge (prehistoric), Black Sea and now here at Deluge (mythology). How about Black Sea deluge theory? I like a generic title without researcher names or specific dates to allow for alternate versions of the theory to be easily encompassed. Bryan 08:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. -- Hu

Dbachmann said in his revert "a reference to a theory as to the origin of the myths is indeed appropriate. did you read the talk page? they were just going to create a main article."

My understanding is that the deluge prehistory page was meant for these myth origin theories, that it was originally part of this page but was turned into a seperate article. So why is the most controversial of those theories allowed to stay on the mythology page? Maybe they should all just be put back on this page. Until then, my vote is to keep the theory on the historical Deluge (prehistoric) page. Grice 14:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * the point is that the theory tries to explain the origin of the myth. So clearly, reference to it belongs on this page. I'm not saying it should be spread out in all detail here; do create Black Sea deluge theory and link to that from here. dab 15:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well all the theories at the prehistorical flood page try to explain the myths. I think that is why that page and this page started out as the same article. If I am wrong about this, somebody correct me. Thanks. Grice 16:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * They did originally start out in the same article, I split them for reasons described near the top of this talk page. Anyway, I've created a separate article for the Black Sea deluge theory and added references to it from the various related articles; the material here in the mythology article can be trimmed or referenced as seen fit. Bryan 16:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that Grice is right, the other theories deserve to be mentioned and linked as well, so I have done so. This is in the best traditions of the web and Wikipedia, that the neutral point of view information be made available and crosslinked. Hu 17:10, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * all the theories at the prehistorical flood page try to explain the myths &mdash; possible, but circumstantial. By its title, that article's scope would also include catastrophic floods of such antiquity that they can be ruled out as origins of the myth. I think it's a good solution to have a separate article on the Black Sea one, which has been the 'hottest' candidate for the Sumerian myth lately. Information about this in the other articles can now of course be removed or compacted. dab 17:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Origins
OK, the thing I don't get here is the fascination with *just these* potential explanations for the origins of flood myths. I completely disagree with the idea that the historical floods should be mentioned in second paragraph, and especially as detailed as they are now. A one sentence explanation is really more than sufficient, in my opinion. If it was lower down I thought a couple of sentences were fine.

On the other hand, if we are going to mention that these are possible explanations for why flood myths evolved, then it seems to me that we should, following NPOV principles, mention *all the other* explanations that have been offered over the years to explain how these flood myths came about.

Specifically, we should mention the Creationists' water vapor canopy thing, Freudian/Jungian stuff about the watery womb, information about how some of the old chaotic forces and great monsters that destroy civilization were thought of as representing water (Tiamat, etc.) and, most importantly, the simple fact that the cradles of civilization were built on flood plains and legends always exaggerate facts for dramatic effect.

I'm also looking for the sources I saw a while back showing most scientists think Ryan, Pitman and Ballard are off their rockers. Once I do I'll post it in the appropriate article and then you guys debating about whether it belongs here can see it.

DreamGuy 09:45, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm all for more information rather than less. If Freud and Jung tie the womb to the flood myths, then fine, it is fodder for the page.  Your mention of the creationist's water vapor canopy theory would have been the first I had heard of it if I had not just today encountered it while researching.  It has been discarded by them (See the Answers in Genesis site), but in any case, would be covered by linking to the biblical flood page or creationist page without going into any more detail than other issues.  In other words, the referrent is the biblical flood story, not the water vapor canopy, which is a detail in the discussion of that story best left to the more detailed biblical flood pages or the creationist versus evolutionist debate pages. Hu


 * The Freud/Jungian stuff is very welcome. The "vapory canopy stuff", whatever it is, is more likely to be part of the myth rather than its origin, so it would belong under "modern versions" and not under a section speculating on the origin of the myth. dab 11:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other Flood Myths
We're missing a great number of flood myths from other cultures. I find it hard to believe somewhere in this wikipedia we don't already have some Native American ones, for example, like one of the Earthdiver variants. If it already exists we should move a summary over and link. DreamGuy 09:45, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting Hu

order of accounts
1) I put the genesis account first because it is the only one that is still relevent today -- why is it important to have it last, when it is the only one still taken seriously (by half the US population), and nobody's even heard of the eridu one? Ungtss 23:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) you reverted any reference to what the text actually SAID, leaving uncited deconstructionist interpretation of it. why?  Ungtss 23:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello, please keep in mind that most Biblical archaeologists consider the biblical account to be legend, regardless of what "half the US population" thinks. Plus, the account is best understood after the other near eastern flood myths are taken into consideration. Eridu Genesis is put first to get it out of the way since it provides the least amount of information. The so called "deconstructionist interpretation" (whatever that means) is not uncited, a link is provided at the end of this article. The link goes to a university and the article posted there originally appeared in Biblical Archeologist. Grice 23:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * i do understand that, but there are two povs regarding the flood.
 * 1) the genesis story just evolved from other accounts, and is legend.
 * 2) the other accounts are more mythological and legendary versions of the same event, of which genesis is the most historically accurate.

to place genesis last, without any reference to the actual story, and with an interpretation about how it just evolved out of jewish superstitution, is a pov designed to make it appear that the story is FALSE. almost 50% of the US, and most of the Islamic world, believes the story as reported in genesis is ACCURATE. it deserves fair representation. Ungtss 00:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The account does get fair representation because it is displayed in the context of the rest of the flood accounts. Grice 00:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * as long as it gets displayed:). it wasn't even displayed before:).  whether it should come first or last is a pov question ... you think it's best understood if it comes after the stories it evolved from.  people that take it seriously think it's best understood coming before all the stories that are just distorted copies of it.  that's a difficult problem.  any suggestions on solving it?  Ungtss 00:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's my take on it... This is a page about MYTHOLOGY, not religious beliefs. Your statement that the Genesis account "is the only one that is still relevent today" is extremely biased and is unrelated to the question of the mythology. That's like saying that creation science is the only science relevant today because a majority of the population (as compared to the population who went to college or studied the issues) thinks it's better than evolution. The biggest problem with an encyclopedia like this is having people off the streets who don't know anything about the topic "correcting" experts who do, and what you are suggesting is institutionalizing that process to make it policy. Half the US thinks WMDs were found in Iraq, that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should say it's true. I can take a stab at edits myself if necessary to get the geesis flood mentioned more in it's mythological context, though a link to some arrticle on biblical literalism might be all that's necessary for the idea that some people think the others are distortions. DreamGuy 00:24, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * true enough. i overstated again.  but there are two readings of genesis's "mythological context" -- the view that it is just one myth among many, and the view that it is a historical account, among myths.  the page doesn't necessarily have to support one or the other.  but i think it's POV if it supports one OR the other.  Ungtss 00:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Distorted copies of it" is a rather bold assertion considering that is not the view held by most archaeologists and scholars of Old Testemant studies, despite many of them having a Christian view point. My vote is to have the article represent the facts those archaeologists and scholars have dug up, that way this arcicle provides knowledge and thus lives up to being an encyclopedia. To present the story as historically accurate, despite the fact that such a view is propagated by think tanks rather than knowledge learned from peer review journals, is POV that attemps to dumb down the facts. I went ahead and put your edits in a seperate heading for the Genesis account as a temporary compromise. I do think that your edits need to be cleaned up though since it contains a lot of trivia. Grice 00:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

recent edits
I reverted the editions added by User:128.135.207.253 because they were copied and pasted from this site. I also don't think edits by User:Ungtss were neccessary since it took out important information while adding nothing. Grice 23:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * can we add some reference to the actual text before we deconstruct it? Ungtss 23:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * (you have a list of stories ... and the only one where you don't actually tell the story is the only one that's still taken seriously.) Ungtss 23:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Mythologically speaking, the others ones ARE taken seriously. And I think some of the other flood stories on the page are still believed as true by some cultures. DreamGuy 00:27, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * true enough. the hindu.  i overstated.  but genesis is the most widely-held opinion, among christians, muslims, and jews, covering 50% of north america, a solid majority in south america and africa, and near universality in the middle east.  it's the majority flood story.  Ungtss 00:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you are arguing from an extremely POV position. A huge percentage (not sure on most, but if not most, close) of the people of those faiths are not literalists and think that it could all be a legend. And this article, again, si abotu mythology, not religious beliefs. DreamGuy 00:39, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of the vast majority of myths on this page
OK, I did a history comparison check between the version offfered by Grice as a "compromise" and the one we had reverted to earlier. The new one had HUGE amounts of informations from myths from around the world comp[letely yanked out, which apparently happened during the only the Genesis one is relevant today edits earlier. Any change to this article should NOT yank most of the myths out of a mythology article, OK? We might add a little more about the Genesis myth somewhere (NOT at the beginning, as that's biased toward literalists) and maybe mention that some religions hold it to be true (which of course isn't a huge shocker, as the ancient Sumerians believed their flood stories to be true too), but we aren;t yanking most of the myths out of a mythology article, no way no how. DreamGuy 00:39, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was the one who yanked those and it didn't have anything to do with the Genesis discussion. It was because all that information about the other myths was copied and pasted from anothe website and that might be a copyright violation. I have now reverted to the original compromise I made because of this issue about the copyright. Grice 00:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * would it be possible to reword those to make them okay? they are ancient MYTHS after all ... not CREATED by the person that put them up -- just reported and attributed to their original source.  no new material.  Ungtss 00:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * (i like your compromise, by the way -- it presents both povs quite fairly i think:). Ungtss 01:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am very much okay with displaying more flood myths and incourage them to be rewritten. I was actually very pleased to see them listed until I found the page they were copied from. Someone may wish to reword those accounts. Ungtss, despite my critism of your arguments, I think some of your concerns about the context that Genesis was portrayed in are understandable. The reason it was here in the form you saw it was because the section on near easern flood myths was originally from the Epic of Gilgamesh page discussing the differences between Gilgamesh flood and the biblical flood, which I felt was inappropriate and moved to this page. Before that, this page never had a heading that solely delt with the biblical flood. So I understand somewhat your view that the Genesis account was not mentioned here, though I don't agree with you that that was true. So maybe Genesis with more description is okay (though I still think a lot of the info was trivia), but I dont want the integrity of the section moved from the Gilgamesh page damaged. Grice 01:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize about the revert to the copy violations, I misread the line above explaining it and thought you had reverted to the version by that IP number because Ungtss' edits included removal of info and copy vios and new info. It'd be very nice to see those other myths here in non copyvio versions. Regarding the compromise, it doesn't seem too bad right now, but I think starting with Genesis, then saying in the Mesopotamian section that scholars think Genesis is a legend based upon earlier myths, and then going back to Genesis again later isn't organized very well. The very important point about scholars not believing Genesis was first seems both hidden away in its current location and betrayed by the fact that Genesis is listed first. Literalist religionists have articles on Noah and etc. for their side, I would lke to think mythologists would get slightly more play in an article on mythology than a subset of religious followers who assume their legends are true. I think I'll give it a while to sit (don;t want to repeat something like the revert problem) before I make edits, but perhaps Genesis back to where it was, but explanded, and then the whole literalist versus mythology scholars mentioned as end part of lead or something might work better. DreamGuy 01:19, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Grice: all good points well made:). just to clarify, although i'm a creationist generally, i'm not necessarily a strictly young-earth creationist -- i just have a great respect for some of their ideas and i think they should be out there for people to consider -- including the possibility that the multitude of myths are a devolution of a historical account, rather than an evolution of a fiction.  makes life a little more interesting, i think:).  sorry i chopped up gilgamesh -- thanks for working with me:).  i'll try and rework some of those myths:).  Ungtss 01:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dreamguy: C.S. Lewis, Mythologist and Medeival Literature professor, held the "other" view regarding the myths, as did many others. i can cite it for you if you'd like, but there are definitely two views, both of which should be represented i think.  Ungtss 01:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would have to agree with DreamGuy on the point that this page should deal with the mythology/legends of flood myths rather than current existing religious beliefs about such stories being grounded in real history. I'll have to dwell on it as well so it can be done while satisfying everyone. Grice 01:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * i guess that's the point, tho. speaking entirely within the context of the study of myths, we can either argue that they were ALL myths that evolved independently ... are all but one are myths that devolved from a historical event.  same thing with the arrthur legends.  you can argue that the arthur legends arose spontaneously out of nothing ... or that they were exaggerated accounts based on some actual, historical event.  why, if we argue that there might have been an "arthur" of some sort to inspire the incessant legends ... do we insist that the flood is pure myth?  Ungtss 01:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think that presenting the myths as mythology is neccessarily arguing that they evolved out of nothing. Possible origins for these myths are discussed on the Deluge (prehistoric) page. Grice 02:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i agree with you totally. i just think you've got to present those two possibilities -- that they evolved out of nothing ... that it evolved from cultural memories of the black sea flooding ... or that they devolved from a historical account written by the people that were there.  Ungtss 02:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't think any useful info is being provided by documenting a view that "they evolved out of nothing" and I don't think thats the view that archaologists take. The myths and legends should be stated, possible historical origins discussed on the prehistory page, and perhaps a brief mention about literalists (in a relative sense of the word) and a link to the article discussing their views. Grice 02:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * sounds fair -- as long as the "Genesis evolved from the other myths" pov is either eliminated (so that this page only describes the myths without attempting to interpret their origin), or that view is present, and balanced by the "the other accounts devolved from a true written account" on this page, i think we're good:). Ungtss 02:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As long as the fact that the version of Genesis we have depends upon earlier sources, which include the Sumerian myth cycle, we're honest. --Wetman 04:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * everybody agrees that there were earlier sources. the question is, were those sources historically accurate, and if they were, who recorded them the best?  modernists think genesis is just one pseudostory among many.  those that take genesis seriously think whoever wrote it did so from authoritative sources, while the others did it from a slowly fading memory of a historical event.  Ungtss 04:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * that's exactly what is not the question here. This page is about the myths. We should list the myths, chronologically, and let the facts speak for themselves as to whether or not they are related. A myth is a myth, regardless of how it originated, and regardless of what percentage of USians have heard of it. This page should not deal with the (ridiculous) claim of the "historicity of Genesis" at all. dab (&#5839;) 12:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would basically agree with this, though once a lot of flood myths from around the world are here it'll be very difficult to organize them purely chronologically. Like when was the Aztec one versus the Hindu one formed? Beats me. I think you probably need to do the MidEast ones chronoologically first (as is now) and then Greek (classical, well known) and then maybe Hindu and then break the rest down into groups, like Native American (then with subsections) and Far East and whatever else we have eventually. DreamGuy 14:31, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * How do we order the stories chronologically and from a NPOV when the order is subject to POV? For example, the article referred to three stories as predating the Genesis account (I have now changed this), but that is the POV of people that believe that Genesis is derived from Gilgamish, and opposed to the POV of those that believe that all the stories derive from the real historical event that Genesis most faithfully records. Philip J. Rayment 12:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

btw, there can be main articles to any of the sections. For example, you can create Great Flood (Genesis) entirely devoted to the Genesis story, and you can create Theories of Origin of the Great Flood story in Genesis discussing the different theories. dab (&#5839;) 14:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking maybe a page that deals solely with the near eastern flood myths, since there isn't any dispute that those stemmed from a single source. Grice 19:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Origins section
I did one of those be bold things people always talk about. I added a possible origins section at the end. That's where we can have the folklore view (evolved from nothing, or rather minor incidents played up), the Biblical inerrancy view (with link to term), and the prehistoric cataclysmic flood views. Others can be added as appropriate. I don't think there's really much need to get into any great detail on that though, as I don't think I've seen anything mythology articles focusing on potential origins much at all. By doing this section, I moved the whole prehistoric deluge section out of the lead (as it has always been horribly misplaced there) and the "Genesis is true" section out of the part talking about the Noah story. So now the origin theories are covered all in one place. Also had to completely reword rest of opening too, as "best known" can be taken to be "the best myths of those that are known" and the Hindu mention seemed weird, as honestly I think that's probably one of the lesser known ones after Genesis, Greek, MidEast and etc., due to the lack of knowledge most people reading an English wikipedia would have of Hindu faith, so I hoped adding the section saying it was known because it was still believed in modern religions explained that adequately. I imagine the opening and ending are going to be a little rough and could use some reworking, but I think the basic concept of what I was doing is sound. DreamGuy 14:31, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. (I think the hindu story is also in the Shatapathabrahmana?). The ToC looks ok now. Images: We could use an artist's impression to add to the rather dry clay tablet. dab (&#5839;) 14:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * i moved the other "theory of origin" to the theory of origin section. i'm cool if we move the whole section to the front ... but i think they've all got to stay together.  Ungtss 15:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the thing you moved truly counts as a theory of origin, exactly. The origin section absolutely should not go to the front, and your edits that you called "ungutted" are trying to give your religious beliefs the same amount of space and weight as all the other origin theories combined, which is highly biased. My goal was to give all of them one to two sentences maximum, not to go into any great detail. The things you added are already in one or both Noah articles (Noah and Noah's ark) so do not need to be described in detail here. Mythology pages are not the place to make religious arguments. DreamGuy 16:06, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * okay, let's do this carefully
 * 1) explain to me why this is a religious argument. which religion am i supporting, christianity, islam, or judaism? Ungtss 16:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) how is inerrancy necessary for the argument? the muslims don't believe in inerrancy, but they believe in the flood. Ungtss 16:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) which is ACTUALLY the majority view, among non-western, secularized scientists? Ungtss 16:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) why is it appropriate to have the minority view at the beginning, and the majority view relegated to the end? Ungtss 16:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) how is "The majority of secular scholars and biblical archaeologists hold that the Genesis account evolved from prior accounts into its present form, and was either based on a large local flood or originated entirely in fiction." not a theory of origin? Ungtss 16:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) christian. more precisely the American "reborn" variety. I have yet to meet a Jew so much into proving the "historicity" of the Bible to the letter.
 * what of the orthodox jews? and what of the muslims?  what of the 1800 years in europe during which it was unanymously considered historical?  i for one am not fundamentalist, evangelical, or reborn.  i don't even go to church.  just because the evangelicals are most actively pursuing the science doesn't mean they're the only ones that believe it.  it just means they're the only ones living in countries where public schools are teaching them that they're religion is wrong.  Ungtss 17:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) if we don't assume inerrancy, the Genesis is just another of deveral mideastern flood myths, just like it was listed. You can still believe in it, of course, but you don't have to proove it is more accurate than the others. This is the stance of the Catholic Church: it is a matter of faith, not of scientific dispute.
 * you've need to distinguish inerrancy and historicity. to say that a document must be inerrant in order to be accurate would weed out nearly every book that's ever written.  fundamentalists think that bible's inerrant.  i don't.  but i DO think it is at least INTENDED to be historical.  how many myths have extensive geneologies with dates of events?  if this was a myth, it was a REALLY WEIRD ONE.  i repeat my question: why must a document be inerrant to be historical?  Ungtss 17:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3-4) this article should not present views, it should present myths. Listing them by culture, and roughly chronological sees the best method. For the purposes of this article, it is irrelevant whether anybody still believes in the myth. (btw, why "non-western secularized scientists"? as opposed to what? western ecclesial scientists?)
 * better said: non-western, or non-secularized scientists. in the past, scientists were religious.  today, 50% of the scientific community is atheist, while 10% of the general public is.  the pov in the contemporary western scientific community is one pov, but it's one of several, and should be considered in its social and historical context.  Ungtss 17:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) agreed, this is about the origin of the Genesis story. Probably meant to hint at the question "how does it tie in with the other versions floating around in the area, at the time". We can scrap it, because it should be very clear already, just from putting the versions next to each other.
 * dab (&#5839;) 16:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * sounds good:). Ungtss 17:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the important part was: "this article should not present views, it should present myths." You can be religious, and you can still be a scientist, but your conclusions as a scientist should not be influenced by your religion. Therefore, it should really not matter if you are religious, as a scientist you will still be secular (not "-ized"), because science is secular in its essence. Sure, the myth is historical. It's a historical myth. Genesis is historical: it's a historical text. It may even be harking back to some historical deluge. But there would be no reason to prefer it to any other account unless you believe it is inerrant for some reason. But again, you can discuss this on Noah's ark, it is really not the issue here. dab (&#5839;) 17:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * and that's the part i agree with. beyond that, here are the two questions that should be left totally open, in my opinion
 * 1) is the science of religious scientists informed by their religion, or is their religion informed by their science?
 * 2) is the science of non-religious scientists informed by their non-religion, or is their non-religion informed by their science?
 * as long as we don't step on either of those questions, we're good. Ungtss 17:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "the science of non-religious scientists" is a strawman designed to raise the status of creationism. What you have is science (the study of natural phenomina), which is the science of religious and nonreligious scientists, and you have creationism, a fundimentalist movement. Grice 19:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * that's one pov ... and as it happens, it's a minority pov. Ungtss 19:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * that's not so much a pov (not to mention a minority one) as a dictionary definition. dab (&#5839;) 07:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next question.
What is our guiding organizational principle as to the order ? chronology? widespread belief? degree of detail? Ungtss 17:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why has the Sumerian kings list been removed? Grice 19:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * sorry -- missed that one. any thoughts on the order?  Ungtss 19:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I moved Genesis to the front for the following reasons:
 * 1) it is the best known, held to be historically accurate by nearly all of europe for 2000 years, by almost half the US population today, by most of south america and africa, and almost all of the middle east.
 * 2) it is the most detailed, as it is the only one to provide actual dates (in terms of months and days) for what allegedly happened;
 * 3) it is the "common denominator" -- or "archetype" around which all the other myths revolve.
 * Ungtss 20:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * These arguments were already raised by you above and rejected by several editors, so you know that you didn't have consensus to make these changes but did so anyway, this I reverted your changes. As already explained, popular opinion or religious beliefs have very little bearing on the study of history and mythology, and your opinion that it is the archetype that other flood myths evolved around is extremely POV. Several editors have agreed to list the myths chronologically. Going against their decisions shows that you only are interested in imposing your religious beliefs onto the article. Please do not make such changes again. ANd no, I don't think we want to 'single out' Genesis either. We rather want to integrate it with the other Near Eastern myths, of which it is obviously a variant. DreamGuy 02:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Chronology sounds like a good basis for order. what factual basis do we have for the chronology you are presuming now?  that is, what facts do you have to support your conclusion that genesis came later?  Ungtss 15:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Scholars in the field have set the chronology, as printed in tons of reference works. You wanted to try to force us to go by majority of what people who have no educational background on it think, I think we should go by the majority of the experts in the field think. Otherwise we'd be writing an encyclopedia about what the majority ofpeople off the street think about quantum physics instead of the actual physicists, etc. That means the order for the Mid East myths should be as it was before you stuck your head into this article. Please leave your religious agenda behind before you make any changes to articles on this site, as it violates NPOV policy. DreamGuy 13:51, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * once again, sir, i have no more of a religious agenda than you have a non-religious agenda. npov is religiously NEUTRAL, and your chronology is not religiously neutral.  i'm not asking for this page to support my "agenda" (whatever the hell that might be -- i haven't gone to church in years).  i'm asking for one concrete fact to support your belief.  the majority of scholars don't believe in God (55% from one poll).  does that mean we should base every article on the pov that there is no god?  no.  npov doesn't mean we take a majority vote among people that managed to jump through the right hoops.  npov is religiously neutral.  so the "opinion" of a bunch of scholars is irrelevent unless it is backed with fact.  now give me a concrete FACT to support this order, or it's inappropriate, and we need to order it a different way.  any way.  i don't care.  but this order takes a minority pov by default, thereby takes an ANTIreligious viewpoint, and is inappropriate.  Ungtss 14:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

commentary on genesis
next issue -- this paragraph:


 * Israelites believed that sins commited had physical consequence on the land on which they lived, so physical solutions had to be made. For example, the land became polluted when murder was commited (spilling someone's blood and thus staining and cursing the ground). Several generations since mankind left Eden, the land became filled with such pollution. God then brought on the great flood not as a punishment for human wickedness but to wash away the pollution caused by evil deeds. God spared Noah and his family (instructing him to build a survival vessel) so mankind and the earth could begin a clean slate.

where does that idea come from, and what basis does it have in the text? The text says, "God regretted having made mankind, and decided to send a flood to destroy them." where does all this "land being evil but man not being evil" stuff come from? i need a cite on that, or else it's personal research ... for which i can find absolutely no factual basis. Ungtss 21:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have removed the commentary for the following reasons:
 * 1) it is not cited, and i can find no basis for it in the text.
 * 2) none of the other texts are subjected to the same sort of analysis.
 * Feel free to bring in some real scholarly interpretation in a later section called "analysis of the myths." as it stood, however, it singled Genesis out for deconstructive source-based analysis in an unfair, POV, and uncited way.  Ungtss 22:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ungtss, your argument has become circular. I already pointed out that such a view does have a source here, in a link at the end of the article, to a university website posting an article that appeared in Biblical Archaeologist. It goes into detail about the land being polluted by mans sins. Second point, that brief summary of Genesis did not deny "man not being evil" as you put it. That is a bit of a strawman. (I also feel that summary should be restored since it does have biblical archaeologist backing).
 * Your assertion that "none of the other texts are subjected to the same sort of analysis" is also wrong. All of the near eastern flood myths were presented this way in that section. Grice 11:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * the article deluge (mythology) has been created specifically to have a place where mythological floods can be discussed, as myths, in peace, and free of historical speculation or religious sentiment. The discussions on the creationism related pages are epic. No solution is in sight, since the two factions, truly Babel-like, have different vocabularies (divided tongues). A spillover of this unhealthy confusion to this page is explicitly undesireable, because we really just want to discuss the myths, as myths. dab (&#5839;) 13:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "free from religious sentiment."
 * i agree, and think that's a wonderful idea. at the moment, the article is not free of religious sentiment.  it presents the minority view that the stories are not true without presenting the majority view that they are true.  NPOV does not mean you cut out any religious points of view.  it means you create an article that neither "advances nor hinders" them.  the article, as it stands, very clearly hinders the majority point of view regarding the myths.
 * the two ways to fix that problem are to either allow the myths to stand for themselves (which would just present the myths) or present a SPECTRUM of views regarding their origin. so since the view that genesis evolved from the earlier myths is currently in there, and it seems you want it to stay, i'm gonna put the majority view back in to return the page to npov.
 * i would appreciate it if you wouldn't ascribe motives to me that don't exist. if you really think you're totally objective and the majority of human beings are "fundamentalists" then i really don't know what to say to you.  Ungtss 14:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * ok, I try once more:
 * re: "majority", I only have your word for that. I dispute that the majority of people believe in Genesis (the majority probably have never heard of it)
 * even if a moajority would believe it, it would not matter here. Of course a myth is something people believe in, as part of a mythology, not as verifiable.
 * what part of "myth" do you not understand? Presenting myths makes no statement about how close they are to a possible historical event. The point is that they became a myth. King Arthur is mythological, hell, JFK is mythological, and that says nothing about whether or not they are historical rulers. Once they are myths, they are so regardless of historical connections. Myths are timeless by definition.
 * we do not try to obscure the fact that some people try to find historical events that gave rise to (not are identical with) the myths. For this, we link to deluge (prehistorical), and to Noah, and possibly other articles.
 * being myths, these stories can not be presented to either "be true" or "be untrue". They can only be presented as myths. The article is not perfect. At the moment, it is biased towards "historicity of Genesis", because rather than just stating that some people believe that, it gives a list of complete bogus arguments, such as "They conclude that Genesis is the most historically accurate account available today, because it has the greatest degree of detail"
 * I really don't see where you perceive the article to be implying that the myths are "not true". Most of the article simply states their content.
 * dab (&#5839;) 15:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--
 * re: "majority", I only have your word for that. I dispute that the majority of people believe in Genesis (the majority probably have never heard of it)
 * Genesis is taught as absolutely literal history in schools from ghana to pakistan. i know.  i grew up in saudi arabia.  the muslims believe the history to be true, with the exception that they believe that ISHMAEL was the legitimate son of abraham.  the orthodox jews also hold it to be true, as it is confirmed by a variety of OTHER records they have.  45% of the american population believes in the gensis creation and the history that follows.  80% think it should be taught in schools.  the view that it is a myth is limited to a tiny minority of people outside of china and india.  it is still a SUBSTANTIAL point of view in the world.


 * even if a moajority would believe it, it would not matter here. Of course a myth is something people believe in, as part of a mythology, not as verifiable.
 * by that definition, all of history is a myth, because we can't go back and verify it -- all we have are the records -- some of which are more credible than others. Ungtss 16:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * what part of "myth" do you not understand? Presenting myths makes no statement about how close they are to a possible historical event. The point is that they became a myth. King Arthur is mythological, hell, JFK is mythological, and that says nothing about whether or not they are historical rulers. Once they are myths, they are so regardless of historical connections. Myths are timeless by definition.
 * myths are not timeless by definition. logically, there MUST BE a story of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  there either WAS or WASN'T a king arthur, and he either DID or DIDN'T do certain things.  what if we found an ancient book that described the life and death of arthur, talking about what age he did things, who his ancestors and descendents were, what he made his castle out of, and how he spent his afternoons.  we would give that account more credibility than the other more "mythological" stories.  Ungtss 16:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * complete bogus arguments, such as "They conclude that Genesis is the most historically accurate account available today, because it has the greatest degree of detail"


 * if it's really bogus, then it can do no harm. personally, i think the "evolutionary" viewpoint is bogus.  we presume to know how the stories evolved, without any evidence to link them or provide chronology whatsoever.  and this passes as scholarship today:(.  Ungtss 16:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I really don't see where you perceive the article to be implying that the myths are "not true". Most of the article simply states their content.


 * i'm happy with the way it is now -- i only question the order of the stories. why are we presuming that genesis came later?  reasonable minds disagree on that point, so we can either identify the different points of view or look for some FACTUAL BASIS for the chronology.  Ungtss 16:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * well, if Genesis is taught in so many schools, we get an idea of why so many people believe in it, don't we? Not because they did any research on it, to be sure. And certainly not because they are experts on Near Eastern history. And most of them will not believe that Genesis is "the best" accound, let alone the "literal truth". Anyway, I know you have a different definition of "science", but in my book, results are based on research, and not on a census in primary schools.
 * Evolution is hardly 'bogus'. It is, rather, the "empty" statement of "what happens, happens". Certainly true, but you'd want to find out more. Not the issue here.
 * I think you are beginning to understand "myth" (but consider reading the article). If we found King Arthur's autobiography, we might find out that he lived, but that would not change the fact that there are myths about him. A myth is not a myth because it is untrue. It is a myth because it is considered important traditional lore in some culture. It may also be true in the sense of a "true story" (there are always different ways to tell the same true story). :::Genesis. first written down in Hebrew in the 1st millennium BC, composed probably around 700 BC, but oral tradition may well go a couple of centuries further back. Hardly coeval with the earliest version of the Gilgamesh epos, ca. 1000 years older, isn't it? Of course you may believe that Genesis was divinely inspired, with my blessings. You can even believe this about Book of Mormon, about the Gettysburg address, or about the Lord of the Rings. It would seem a good idea, however, to sort the Near Eastern versions by date of composition, or attestation, rather than by "amount of divine inspiration" present in the text. dab (&#5839;) 16:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i ask you again to stop ascribing motives and beliefs to me. i don't believe it was divinely inspired.  i don't believe it's inerrant.  you're setting up strawmen and mocking me, which is, if i may so, intellectually "sorry-ass" behavior that doesn't speak well for your objectivity.  i want some solid factual EVIDENCE for those dates, beyond the sheer conjecture based on the presumptions of a few "scientists" who, as a whole, despise religion, which doesn't speak well for their objectivity, either.  i don't want conclusions, proof by authority, or proof by assertion.  i want evidence.  do you have any?  if not, then we need to either mention to two points of view (one that genesis is based on ancient historical records which were collected, recorded in Genesis, and subsequently lost) or choose another criteria for ordering the stories. Ungtss 16:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "if Genesis is taught in so many schools, we get an idea of why so many people believe in it, don't we?"
 * and isn't it odd that in the west, where evolution is taught as FACT, so many people believe it? what really surprises me is that people ... like me ... who were educated entirely in secular schools that tried to persuade me otherwise ... find genesis to be the most reasonable account of ancient history we have.  Ungtss 17:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "If we found King Arthur's autobiography, we might find out that he lived, but that would not change the fact that there are myths about him."
 * That's true. then we'd have an autobiography and a bunch of myths.  Ungtss 17:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Evolution is hardly 'bogus'. It is, rather, the "empty" statement of "what happens, happens". Certainly true, but you'd want to find out more. Not the issue here."
 * that was not the evolution to which i was referring. you assert that genesis "evolved" from earlier myths.  i assert that the other myths DEVOLVED from an earlier HISTORICAL account, of which genesis is the most accurate extant reflection.  i find the evolutionary argument to be bunk.  Ungtss 17:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"what really surprises me is that people ... like me ... who were educated entirely in secular schools that tried to persuade me otherwise ... find genesis to be the most reasonable account of ancient history we have. &mdash; What can I say; if you are surprised yourself about your choice of what to believe, how could we humble outsiders fathom your reasons. It's not like there are any actual clues to favour the text (detail? If I give you a text with even more detail, will you believe that??). You are free to believe whatever you like, no matter how unreasonable, but you seem to admit yourself that such belief is an arbitrary choice. dab (&#5839;) 09:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * yeah that's funny. if you ever wanna stop evading and censoring everybody's thoughts but your own, i'll still be there.  Ungtss 00:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

historical origins section
I removed the arguments given for historical accuracy mainly because the other near eastern flood myths also have measurements for the ark and also name the place the ark landed. Grice 21:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * wrong.
 * 1) the argument didn't say it was the ONLY account with those details. it said it had the MOST detail, which is true.  it is the only one with geneologies and dates.
 * 2) you've replaced it with a parody of the creationist perspective. historicity is not based on inerrancy.  you're misrepresenting the position.
 * cummon, man. compromise.  don't censor the majority here.  Ungtss 21:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * enough with the "majority" already. We do not censor even the minority, here. Your version says that Genesis is more credible because it has dates/genealogies. This argument makes no sense at all. I can make up dates and genealogies in five minutes. Also, so does the Sumerian king list, which is much older than Genesis, but nobody assumes it is "historically accurate" because it has both dates and genealogies and is among the oldest accounts. dab (&#5839;) 10:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * i'll stop with the majority of people when YOU stop with the majority of scholars:). i want a single fictional myth that lists geneologies of people, with the years they lived and died, and dates for the major events on those people's lives.  just one.  Ungtss 14:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

now about the order
What is our guiding principle for the order to the stories? if you want it to be chronology then i need hard facts supporting the present implied chronology. otherwise we need to use some other criteria. Ungtss 01:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<''Genesis. first written down in Hebrew in the 1st millennium BC, composed probably around 700 BC, but oral tradition may well go a couple of centuries further back. Hardly coeval with the earliest version of the Gilgamesh epos, ca. 1000 years older, isn't it?''>> That is one POV. Other POVs are that it was written by Moses, or that it was compiled by Moses from pre-existing written documents that date back to the events recorded (i.e. creation, flood, Babel, etc.). If the last POV is correct, then it does not post-date Gilgamish. Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * exactly:). in the absence of any hard evidence of chronology -- just interpretation -- i think it's inappropriate to order the stories as they are presently ordered.  I propose we order them:
 * Alphabetically
 * By the degree to which they are well known
 * By the degree of detail in the account


 * any other proposed ordering schemes are welcome ... or any hard facts supporting the pov that genesis evolved from the other stories. Ungtss 02:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...and those pre-existing written documents were scarcely legible because of the water-stains on them! Don't forget that part! --Wetman 04:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * is that how you got all wet too, wetman:)? Ungtss 05:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if you think I treat you unfairly. The 'sorry assed' strawmen I knocked over seemed to be set up by you. I apologize if you are really more rational than you appear. Maybe this will still become apparent. So far, you have not gone far beyond "credo quia absurdum". At least I tried to give you serious replies. If your pov is that "Moses wrote Genesis", I'm sorry, but it doesn't say that even in text. My pov is that the Leviathan wrote Genesis on the bottom of the ocean, and I demand inclusion of this pov alongside the Moses pov! :o)
 * The straightforward order is by date of composition of the known text. I.e. 2000 BC for the (fragmentary) sumerian text, 1700 BC for the Babylonian version, ca. 700 BC for extant copies of the Akkadian translation of the Sumerian text. Maybe ca. 700 BC for the composition of the Hebrew (Genesis) text, ca. 440 BC for the redaction of Genesis into its present form, and ca. 1000 AD for the oldest extant manuscript of Genesis (afaik). dab (&#5839;) 08:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea that Genesis was written by Moses is not just my POV, but the view of Judaism, other parts of the Bible, of Christianity for most of its history, and of many scholars. What support does your POV of Leviathan authorship have?
 * Ordering them by date of composition of the known text is still POV, unless you are referring to the date of the earliest known extant copies. But if the latter, you then go and undermine your argument by including a disputed POV about when Genesis was compiled.
 * Philip J. Rayment 13:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The order should be as it was, which is the agreed upon order by scholars of mythology, which, if I need to remind you, is the topic of this article! So far all you've done is come up with new ways to argue why your religoius POV should be the prevaling view, and tried to hide it behind arguments of alleged popularity and your personal beliefs about what the real chronology was. What the scholars in the field agree the order is is what the order should be. If you want to go start your own site and call it WikireligiousTracts, by all means go do so, but leave the encyclopidea to people writing information about what the experts in each particular field say and not what you and some opinion poll claims people think. DreamGuy 13:44, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * once again you've failed to present any facts. if you want to present the pov of one scholar who agrees with you, then i'll present the pov of a scholar who agrees with me.  if you think your view is universal, you're kidding yourself.  npov takes a NEUTRAL point of view.  this page is currently designed to serve YOUR agenda.  that's not npov.  Ungtss 14:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * right. Leviathan was sarcasm, of course. I have no problem with stating that Judaism traditionally believes that Moses wrote Genesis, but wouldn't that belong on Genesis rather than here? Do we, each time we want to say "Genesis" have to say "Genesis, which Judaism traditionally believes to have been written by Moses"? A better simile than Arthur or Leviathan is Homer. I believe that Homer is historical, and I think it very probable that the Iliad contains much historical facts about a historical Trojan War. Yet I have no problem with a classification of the Iliad as myth. A composition of Exodus about 500 years after "the Exodus" would be comparable to the situation of the Iliad, and I do believe that it is possible that Exodus contains much that is historical. Genesis, afaik, was written later than Exodus, sort of as a preface, and it would be more difficult to make a case for historicity, but it is of course not impossible. I am not aware that I have an agenda. I think it should be easy to present you with scholarly opinions that Exodus is older than Genesis, let me do a websearch. The 440 BC date I pulled from the Genesis page. dab (&#5839;) 14:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me:). i don't have a problem with calling it a myth either -- "myth" is not perjorative -- it's a story, irrespective of whether it's true or not.  but what i object to is the implication that the myths seriously believed by a substantial number of people to be based on fact were simply evolving tales around the campfire, without some factual basis for that claim.  and throwing names around isn't gonna cut it, because scholars disagree on that point, so we can cite both ways.  if we wanna structure the ARTICLE around it, we need facts.  Ungtss 14:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You've missed the point, dab. I wasn't arguing for inclusion of the idea that Moses was the author.  The point was that if Moses was the author, it is a lot older than you think it is.  The point was when it was written.  I have no doubt that you could find opinions that Genesis was written after Exodus, but the point is that there is not unanimous agreement on that. Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We don't want to structure the article around the evolution of the pentateuch. That Gilgamesh is older than Genesis is undisputed, the scholars disagree about the details, and maybe a couple of centuries. Here is a summary of scholarly positions: http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doctwo/models.htm And here is a graphic representatino of one scholarly position, assuming "genesis of the pentateuch" between ca. 900 BC and 450 BC: http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/images2/munster.JPG We will not quibble about a few centuries more or less here. If the historical Exodus was in ca. the 13th century, the texts would have accumulated for some 300 years before written down in their definite form. I repeat, however, that this is not the subject of this article at all. For the purposes of this article, we have: fortunately, this is very easy to order chronologically. dab (&#5839;) 14:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sumerian myth, ca. 2000
 * Babylonian myth, ca. 1700
 * Hebrew myth, ca. 1000 (in Judaism, traditionally 1445)


 * alright, we can put that in ... but we also have to put in the position of the biblical scholars that think it was written by moses based on more ancient documents still. do you want both of those opinions in here, or should we leave that for a page just for genesis?  Ungtss 14:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be enthusiastic about a more detailed discussion of the different theories of composition on the Genesis page! dab (&#5839;) 14:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "That Gilgamesh is older than Genesis" is NOT undisputed (unless all you are talking about is extant manuscripts). Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inerrant
What factual basis do you have for saying the believing that genesis is historical is limited to those who believe it's inerrant. inerrancy didn't come around in any force until 1898. the nicene council VOTED on what should go in the bible. i don't believe in inerrancy, but i have a STRONG inclination to think it was at least INTENDED to be historical. everyone who believes the story believes its historical, but NOT everyone who believes the story believes its inerrant. inerrancy is a straw-man. justify your position or leave it. Ungtss 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It was intended to be historical, except that the modern concept of history di not yet exist. It was intended as historical, exactly like the Iliad was intended as historical. If it is not inerrant, it contains errors, in the sense of, it contains things that did not happen. In order to contain errors, it would already have to be about something that happened, which is unclear. If it is not historical at all, it cannot contain "errors" in this sense either. dab (&#5839;) 14:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * who says the modern sense of history did not yet exist? what's more modern than geneologies and dates and locations? Ungtss 14:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * who says the author of genesis had the same intent as homer? where are the dates and geneologies in homer?  Ungtss 14:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * if a text contains errors, it is therefore of no value as to understanding the events it records? Ungtss 14:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * sigh. if a text contains errors, it may be criticized, i.e. people will ask how many errors the text contains. Also, you seem to confuse papal infallibility established in 1870 by the First Vatican Council with the belief in divine inspiration of the ecumenical councils (Nicaea), i.e. that the canon of the Bible decided upon there is divinely inspired. But this is grotesquely off-topic now. I have no wish to educate you, but if you dig into the literature, your questions will be partially answered. It is a good thing to be critical. You just need to apply your criticism equally among the theories under scrutiny. dab (&#5839;) 14:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * once again the patronizing. you have neither the need nor the ability to educate me.  of course the fact that a text contains errors makes us ask "how many errors?"  and that's when we turn to the style of the text and archaeology to answer our questions.  there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between divine inspiration and inerrancy.  all divinely inspired people make mistakes -- what's funny is, the bible RECORDS those mistakes.  how many myths record the adultery and murder committed by their hero?  or the sin moses committed that kept him out of the promised land.  the bible does NOT fit the myth-mold, by any stretch of the imagination.  that's why a lot of people still believe it is historical, even though not inerrant.  inerrancy was a reaction 19th century reaction of terror on the part of the church on losing its position of unchallenged supremacy.  historicity is another question entirely.  stop being so arrogant.  Ungtss 15:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ok, your article. dab (&#5839;)

The article currently reads those people who believe in inerrancy and those people who believe it is most historical. That's accurate. There shouldn't be any dispute on the point, as it covers both factions of the "Genesis flood is history" persuasion. DreamGuy 10:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

order.
all i want here is an NPOV order, because the current order arbitrarily takes the view of chronology held by some biblical scholars instead of the view held by others. i made a few suggestions yesterday ... and i didn't get any suggestions, or any hard facts to support the present chronology. without hard facts, i don't think chronology is appropriate, because scholars disagree -- so i suggest we do it by the degree to which they are well-known ... but i'll wait for other considerations. any thoughts? Ungtss 15:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The Genesis account is already mentioned in the introduction paragraph of the article as being one of the most well known. So theres no need to reorder the flood myths with Genesis first, Those are my thoughts on that issue. Grice 21:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * i'm not concerned with whether the article reflects the widespread nature of genesis. i just want an npov order, and that's the best one i can think of.  Ungtss 21:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not NPOV order and you clearly aren't even trying to be NPOV. Several people have stated that the order as it was is NPOV, as it comes from the outlines of other encyclopedias and reference books. Please stop trying to present your bias as if it were NPOV, because none of us here are that naive. DreamGuy 10:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * is arguments from majority and accusations of bias all you really have? do you not see the problem here?  i am telling you very clearly that there are multiple views on the order ... and you are saying, "no!  the majority thinks one way, so we're gonna present it that way."  that, sir, is disgusting.  you need indisputable facts, or another order.  Ungtss 15:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"article of faith beyond scientific dispute"
i am unaware of a single person who believes that the bible is true and is beyond the dispute of science. that is a straw man. creationists believe that the bible is true, and true science actually supports the bible. they believe that science itself is the most valuable thing we have ... but that contemporary scientists are making a HUGE mistake with regard to the origins of the earth. Ungtss 21:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "i am unaware of a single person who believes that the bible is true and is beyond the dispute of science. that is a straw man." That's not a straw man, the belief is the official and publicized stance of several conservative churches. Regardless of their religious beliefs or yours, this article should be about scholarly knowledge, not wishful thinking. DreamGuy 10:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * it is, for example, the official stance of the marginal Roman Catholic Church in questions of the factual accuracy of events in the bible. Note that "article of faith beyond dispute" is not equivalent to "true", it is rather an (arguably weasly) way of saying "true in a spiritual sense, not necessarily in an earthly sense" dab (&#5839;) 17:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * that's not the same thing. to say the bible is factually errant but spiritually true is not the same as saying the bible is factually true no matter what science says.  the former is a widespread belief.  the latter is a straw-man.  Ungtss 18:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

front and center
i moved the genesis account to the front since after a day there were no ideas for a more npov order, and genesis is the best known and most detailed account. i also placed the personal-research commentary about genesis intact and after the account. it should be noted that none of the other accounts are given the same sort of motives-based, personal research commentary and deconstructive analysis as genesis. i would like some factual basis for that commentary, or a scholar to cite for it ... as it's subject to the following pov objection:
 * 1) X says the story was invented because the jews believed God cursed the ground
 * 2) Y says the jews believed God cursed the ground because he actually did.  Ungtss 22:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, this is complete nonsense. To say that there were no ideas for a more NPOV order is a lie, and misrepresents the comments above. PErhaps your bias makes you blind to discussion you disagree with, I don't know, but we have consensus on the order, except for from the Creationist agenda that has stepped in to try to pervert the article to advance their religious beliefs. Please leave this article alone if all you want to do is vandalize it with your articles of faith, as you are violating the NPOV of this encyclopedia big time. DreamGuy 10:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

In response to Ungtss's concerns:
 * "it should be noted that none of the other accounts are given the same sort of motives-based, personal research commentary and deconstructive analysis as genesis".
 * 1) Actually, all of the near eastern flood myths originally listed here were treated this way (only the motives of Genesis and Atrahasis were discussed because they were the only ones that had motives recorded in their stories). If this offends your sensibilities, blame it on Biblical archaeology and Old Testament scholarship, which tends to focus on the differences between Genesis and the Mesopotamian stories related to them (which makes sense since the purpose of their research is to understand Genesis).
 * 2) You are also misrepresenting the commentary, it never said "God cursed the ground".
 * "For example, the land became polluted when murder was commited (spilling someone's blood and thus staining and cursing the ground). Several generations since mankind left Eden, the land became filled with such pollution. God then brought on the great flood not as a punishment for human wickedness but to wash away the pollution caused by evil deeds."
 * this is pov commentary. you are analyzing the motives behind the author, when none are evident in the text.
 * 3) "i would like some factual basis for that commentary, or a scholar to cite for it". You really ought to read the source for the commentary I have already mentioned to you twice before (located at the end of the artilce). If you go there, you will see that the source is an article that appeared in Biblical Archaeologist, written by a professor of near eastern studies at Wayne State University, Detroit, and reposted on the website of Azusa Pacific University (a university that also sponsors a Christian peer review journal Christian Scholar's Review) by a professor of Old Testament scholarship. So the source has credibilty.
 * As a side note, I'm okay with mentioning your belief in flood "geology" but the article shouldnt present your arguments for that view since it has even less credibility than the Black Sea hypothesis, who's arguments are not presented, just the hypothesis. Grice 12:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

amazing.
so npov means majority among editors i suppose, regardless of the facts? you failed to address ANY of my concerns, returning me only accusations of bias and "perversions of the facts." do you really consider this to be intellectually honest behavior?
 * "only the motives of Genesis and Atrahasis were discussed because they were the only ones that had motives recorded in their stories"
 * i'm not talking about God's motives. i'm talking about the author's motives.  that section speculates on the motives and biases of the author, when none are made explicit in the text.Ungtss 15:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are also misrepresenting the commentary, it never said "God cursed the ground". "For example, the land became polluted when murder was commited (spilling someone's blood and thus staining and cursing the ground). Several generations since mankind left Eden, the land became filled with such pollution. God then brought on the great flood not as a punishment for human wickedness but to wash away the pollution caused by evil deeds."
 * this is pov commentary. you are analyzing the motives behind the author, when none are evident in the text.  the text purports only be a historical account.  you are ascribing religious motives to him, just like you are ascribing religious motives to me, without any basis in fact.  that seems to be a convenient way to dismiss opinions you find inconvenient, but it certainly isn't honest.

"You really ought to read the source for the commentary I have already mentioned to you twice before (located at the end of the artilce)."
 * i read it. if you want that drivel in there, cite it by the author.  don't present it as fact.  there are a lot of people who find that sort of speculation to be laughable.  Ungtss 15:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"As a side note, I'm okay with mentioning your belief in flood "geology" but the article shouldnt present your arguments for that view since it has even less credibility than the Black Sea hypothesis, who's arguments are not presented, just the hypothesis."
 * that is also patently false. the article goes into a GREAT DEAL of detail regarding the flooding rivers and the black sea -- in fact, about twice as much as the flood geology argument.  if you want a sentence of detail for the basis of that theory, add it.  don't cut out another argument.  Ungtss 15:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

are you quite serious with all this stuff? do you have any idea to the degree to which you're denying reality to support your bias in this situation? Ungtss 15:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * whoa, what's it with the indents here? who said what? Is this Ungtss arguing with himself, now? Ungtss, all of your concerns have been answered, patiently, several times. That you refuse to listen to reason, or to mainstream biblical scholarship, is your own choice, but it doesn't concern this article. dab (&#5839;) 17:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * where did anyone address the concern about genesis being the only account in which the biases and motives of the author are analyzed?
 * where did anyone address my concern that the above speculation is presented as fact, rather than cited to a particular author in the context of other authors who disagree?
 * where did anyone address my concern that the view of "mainstream biblical scholarship" regarding the chronology of the stories is taken as fact in the article, rather than cited to the minority of people who believe it?
 * the only concern that seems to be addressed is your concern that the minority needs to go away and leave the speculations of "mainstream scholarship" unchallenged by fact. Ungtss 17:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

background, wikify, copivio
quite apart from the ongoing controversies, some of the myths could do with some background and wikification, and some might be actual copyvio copy-pasted off the net. In what sense is Chaldean used here? When/how is this myth attested? Might it actually be younger than Genesis? Also, some of the other myths (Americas) simply give the name of a people as a title and embarks right into a matter-of-fact narration (if these myths were the subject of any theological dispute, this would be harshly criticized, i.e. who believes in the "inerrancy" of the Chaldean myth as presented here??) dab (&#5839;) 17:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

find me the religious bias.
These are my concerns, repeated for the 6th time and still unaddressed:


 * why is genesis the only account in which the biases and motives of the author are analyzed?
 * why is the above speculation presented as fact, rather than cited to a particular author in the context of other authors who disagree?
 * why is the view of "mainstream biblical scholarship" regarding the chronology of the stories taken as fact in the article, rather than cited to the minority of people who believe it?
 * why do you persist on censoring any rational basis for belief in the flood from the page?
 * Dreamguy: how can you look at yourself in the mirror knowing you are evading, distorting, and censoring a viewpoint simply because it is different than yours, and how is this behavior any better than that of the religious crusaders and ideologues you so despise?

i'm not here to preach. i don't care what anybody thinks. these are my objections. would anyone care to answer them? Ungtss 19:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This addresses Tngtss's concerns aimed at me:
 * "why is genesis the only account in which the biases and motives of the author are analyzed?" I've already pointed out that this is not true, both Atrahasis and Gilgamesh were presented the same way.
 * that is plainly untrue. both of those stories only present the story.  the genesis section goes into great detail about jewish beliefs regarding sin and the ground, which neither of those do.  what are you talking about?  Ungtss 00:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "why is the above speculation presented as fact, rather than cited to a particular author in the context of other authors who disagree?" Because the views of the scholar, who seems to know what she is talking about and seems to understand the cultural context of Genesis, has passed the scientific method. There is nothing controversial about the research within biblical scholarship.
 * there is a great deal controversial about it. people both within and outside academia think it's a crock.
 * "why is the view of "mainstream biblical scholarship" regarding the chronology of the stories taken as fact in the article, rather than cited to the minority of people who believe it?" I'm okay with chronological order based off the majority of archaeological research and scholarship. That is what gives it credibility, rather than the "majority" of people outside acedemic circles who either just don't pay attention to scholarship or, like you, they are offended by it. Most people think that Columbus's opponenets believed the world was flat, even though scholars of medieval history have shot that view down. Facts about Columbus should reflect the majority of scholarship, not the public who doesn't believe it.
 * i know it's okay with you, but that doesn't make it right. there's no factual basis for it, and reasonable minds disagree.  Ungtss 00:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "why do you persist on censoring any rational basis for belief in the flood from the page? The "rational basis" for the black sea hypothesis is not presented in this article either, even though that view has, atleast, made it into peer review journals, dispite it being controversial. Putting your arguments into the article, when they are not supported by geology or archaeology, are just weasel edits. Grice 00:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Grice, stop bashing the Ryan-Pitman. I like their idea :oP dab (&#5839;) 09:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * flood geologists seem to think they're supported by geology. that's another pov that is going entirely unrepresented on this page now that you've repeatedly censored a half-sentence justification for it.


 * i just don't get you, man. can't you see what you've become?  you've become the people you hate.  Ungtss 00:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ungtss, you should take care. You are dangerously colse to ad hominem remarks now. Let's not get too heated about this. As long this is just about the section ordering, this is a matter of article flow and layout, and a minor issue in any case. As for your concern "why are the motives of the authors analyzed only for Genesis" I am afraid I don't get you. Are you complaining that we have not more background on the American myths? By all means, research it and add it. There are serious problems with these sections still, anyway (including copyvio). And as for "mainstream biblical scholarship" being a minority view, I am sorry, but that doesn't make an ounce of sense. By being mainstream, it is necessarily the majority view. Mainstream is just another word for majority here. Otherwise it would be a marginal view, you see? I really don't get it. You continue to insist that the mainstream view is the minority view, a statement that seems simply confused to me. You know, not everyone who has his views ridiculed for being way out of line with the commonly accepted is necessarily a Galileo. In most (99.9%) cases, it is, rather, because their views are, in fact, ridiculous. dab (&#5839;) 08:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i'm nowhere near as ad hominem as the attacks i've been dealing with -- consistently "ignorant, in need of education, and of an extremist religious opinion, biased, perverting the facts." grow up, fellas.  we're all big boys here and there's room for everybody's view in the article.

"Are you complaining that we have not more background on the American myths"
 * no. i'm complaining because that background about genesis is pov -- ONE point of view about the development of the text, designed to DECONSTRUCT it by delving into hypothesized motives of the author (including "is thought to be a conscious refutation of another myth.")  that is sheer speculation, presented as fact, without another point of view.  if you want that point of view in there -- that genesis is a FALSE myth ... then you need to have a point of view in there that it is a TRUE myth.  if you don't want EITHER in there, then we're fine.  but as it stands, there is only BIASED commentary against ONE account. Ungtss 14:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"You continue to insist that the mainstream view is the minority view, a statement that seems simply confused to me."
 * it IS the majority opinion in the world. it is only a fringe opinion in western academia, which is itself a fringe opinion in the world.  the arabs and jews CONTINUE to teach that text as objective, factual, secular history to this day.  that's why they call themselves "Semitic" (sons of Shem, the son of Noah).  they believe this actually happened, not on a "religious" basis as we do in the west, but as a HISTORY text.  am i getting through?  Ungtss

Ungtss's concerns: ''both of those stories only present the story. the genesis section goes into great detail about jewish beliefs regarding sin and the ground, which neither of those do. what are you talking about?''
 * Actually both Attrahasis and Gilgamesh contain commentary about motivation for the flood. Jewish beliefs about sin and the ground were not their motives so they are not mentioned there. So all three of these stories were presented fairly.

''i know it's okay with you, but that doesn't make it right. there's no factual basis for it, and reasonable minds disagree.''
 * I would keep that statement confined to the internet. If you actually told a real acedemic cirlce of scholars that there is no factual basis for the dating of the texts, you would come across as a pariah.

flood geologists seem to think they're supported by geology.
 * Flood geology is not credible, otherwise their views would be mainstream geology and there would be no need for them to exist as a seperate movement.

I'm going to ask that you don't hack up my discussions like you did with my earlier post. Just copy and paste the parts you want to respond to. Grice 11:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * That assumes that the mainstream geologists are totally objective, whereas creationists say that everyone interprets the evidence (and remember that geologists can only try and figure out what happened in the past; they can't observe the past) in the light of their own worldview, which in many cases includes a uniformitarian assumption and the a priori exclusion of any consideration of the supernatural as a factor. Thus mainstream geologists are not totally objective, and therefore it is not valid to claim that Flood Geology would be accepted if it was valid. Philip J. Rayment 14:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * what does "how i come across" have to do with anything? wouldn't YOUR biblical scholars come across as pariahs in a group of biblical scholars who actually BELIEVE the book they study?  doesn't it seem odd to you that you're constantly punting to authority instead of presenting any FACTS to support your view?  Ungtss 15:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

new cites.
i did not and i do not want this page to be about genesis and historicity, but your relentless censorship has left me no choice but to cite scholars opposing your viewpoint for balance. if you would like to return this page to being about myths, we need to: 1) find an npov order 2) remove all commentary about the motives of the author of genesis 3) make sure that the origins section reflects all points of view accurately.

i don't want a friggin war, dudes. i just want fairness. Ungtss 01:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe the best way to proceed from here would be that you quote the actual passages you take offense with here. So far, we have to try to figure out from your edits what you might mean, which may be less clear to outsiders than you imagine. If you quote the sentences you want to have changed here, maybe we can tweak them. dab (&#5839;) 08:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just want to thank Dreamguy for reverting Ungtss's last edits. Ungtss's sources came from think tanks propagating an agenda, rather than credible institutions. The section on Genesis that Ungtss objects to is not the work of think tanks but the work of legitimate biblical scholarship. The fact that the research was published in an archaeology paper 27 years ago (the paper being world renowned for its excelent scholarship) and is teached by Old Testament professors in universities today shows that there is no controversy within biblical archaeology about the knowledge presented. If the think tanks were successful in shooting down the work of Professor Tikva Frymer-Kensky, her research would not continue to hold weight in universities today. Grice 11:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

objectionable text:

the text to which i object:
 * "The ancient Israelites believed that sins commited had physical consequence on the land on which they lived, so physical solutions had to be made. For example, the land became polluted when murder was commited (spilling someone's blood and thus staining and cursing the ground). Several generations since mankind left Eden, the land became filled with such pollution. God then brought on the great flood not as a punishment for human wickedness but to wash away the pollution caused by evil deeds.


 * Similar to the post-flood events in the Atrahasis Epic, new solutions were made so a flood would not ever be needed again. God's solution was the invention of laws to keep mankinds evil in check. Most of these that he handed down to Noah dealt with murder and blood spilling, in order to prevent the earth from becoming once again polluted. Interestingly, the first of the post-flood laws, a commandment to be "fruitful", "multiply", and "Swarm over the earth", is thought to be a conscious refutation, from the biblical author, of the Atrahasis Epic."


 * but let's be clear -- i don't object to the ideas themselves -- i only object to their being presented as fact without opposing viewpoints being presented. if that text was removed, and the story simply left to stand for itself (as all the other stories are) there wouldn't be a problem -- the reader could interpret it as they like.  the problem is that there's a whole bunch of critical interpretation of the text (including "didn't send the flood to punish man, but to wash away the pollution") and "the ancient israelites believed" ...
 * as to mr. grice's repeated nonsense, tell me, what are the criteria for cited academic opinion? it seems to me that professors and PhD's qualify.  the cites were from professors with phds at accredited universities.  these accusations of "thinktanks pushing an agenda" is sheer nonsense you're using to exclude opinions you're afraid of.  so tell me, what's your criteria for "biblical scholarship?"  Ungtss 13:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Think tanks use scholars with Phd's. However, the think tanks, with lots of money pouring into them, are working to produce the desired result that the think tank wants. They are not being put through the scientific method. You've already said you understand that most bibliclal archaeologists consider the flood to be legend and not fact. The concensus here is that we want the page to reflect the facts presented by mainstream scholarship and scientific research. Mentioning the view of flood geology is okay but arguing for their beliefs on the page is inapropriate. Grice 00:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * you cannot arbitrarily decide which academics are credible based on your views of "think tanks." does the opinion of greenpeace become unciteable on issues of environmentalism because THEY have an agenda?  this is sheer censorship.  Ungtss 00:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * your accusations of religious bias are absolutely ridiculous. the arab world teaches this is SECULAR HISTORY.  this is not a question of religion.  if so, which religion?  this is not even a question of the bible.  the muslims think the bible is corrupted.  this is a question of interpretation of an ancient text.  Ungtss 14:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i have reinserted a cited, scholarly paper on the topic presenting the opposing viewpoint.
 * you will justify your censorship of this cited, academic article before you censor it. Ungtss 14:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph cited above ("the ancient Israelites believed...") is not really relevant here, and furthermore misleading, because pretty much everybody had such beliefs at the time. Also, 'not really a punishment' is bad, because there was probably no distinction between punishment and purification. I don't get the objection to the second paragraoh, since it pretty much summarizes what's in the Bible itself, without adding any pov, except for the last bit "thought to be a conscious refutation" which is interesting, but should be better explained (I'm not sure I get the point), and attributed (who proposed this?). But honestly, I read this paragraph as tending towards a "Genesis is true" statement (God did this. God did that.) and not 'secular' at all, except for the Atrahasis reference. dab (&#5839;) 09:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i agree -- it's the first paragraph and the atrahasis text -- the rest of it is wording which can be finessed. if we can get rid of the first paragraph which we agree is bad, at least CITE the atrahasis reference (because that's a good deal of speculation and certainly not a universal opinion) ... we'll be good.  i'm gonna try again:).  i don't want a war -- let's work this out peaceful like:).  Ungtss 16:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What I'm thinking of doing is removing the comparisions all together, either into its own section, or creating an Attrahasis page where the scholarly research comparing Genesis and Attrahasis can be presented. Grice 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * sounds good ... could also go on the "noah's ark" page or something ... a page that's genesis-specific. Ungtss 11:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

listen, fellas
i have better things to do than waste my time arguing over "who has the majority" with you guys. i DON'T want this page to be a forum for biblical literalism ... but i don't want it to be a forum for deconstructionist modernity either. here's what i propose:
 * problem: the commentary around the genesis account presents one pov as fact.
 * potential solutions:
 * delete all commentary, allowing the myths to stand for themselves
 * provide cited commentary on both sides of the issue.
 * i don't care which we do. but i will not accept a page that presents your pov as fact without presenting the other.  that's disgusting.  Ungtss 16:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You say this, yet your recent edits start out claiming "Approximately 1500 years after God created Adam, Genesis reports"...? That is a very obvious case of writing the article so it follows the POV that what the story says is historically accurate and factual, which is completely nuts for a page about mythology. That's not an encyclopedia article, that's a religious tract. The way this article was organized was to present a short sentence or two about each of the commentaries, with links to another article (Ryan-Pittman flood artcle, etc.) as appropriate. Your side was presented, as there was additional information on your views on the Noah/Noah's ark pages and the Flood geology page. You keep trying to add full long paragraphs supporting your religious belief. That's just not going to fly. If you believe there is some other interpretation inside the article other than at the end section, we can look at that part to make it as purely factual as possible. But balance is not putting something in there saying that God created Adam and that Genesis reports on it as if it were a newspaper article instead of a book of religious stories, or making the argument that the Genesis flood is substantially different from other accounts (with details of ship building, etc.) when it isn't. It's clear that your idea of balancing viewpoints is nowhere near anyone else's, so our best bet is to keep all them to an absolute minimum. I don't think we can remove them completely, however, as some mention/link to prehistoric floods, etc., needs to remain. DreamGuy 16:54, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * quit the accusations and deal with the facts. is there ANY analysis into the motives of the authors for any of the other accounts?  no.  is the "genesis is not true" analysis approximately 5 times as long as the "genesis is true" analysis?  yes.  what tract have you been reading?  Ungtss 17:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i corrected the intro to the genesis account to consider dreamguy's concern -- thank you for pointing that out, and i would appreciate working together on making this a fair article in the future. Ungtss 17:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * please see above. I am not sure which parts you consider to say "Genesis is not true". Certainly not the paragraphs you cited as 'objectionable' above? I don't see that they say anything of the kind. dab (&#5839;) 09:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i like it the way it is -- please feel free to fill in the "mainstream academic opinion" -- my intention is NOT to make this a creationist forum.
 * i moved the text coming before the genesis account because it is speculation and is probably universal to all the myths ... but the other myths don't have anything of the kind. if we want genesis-specific academic opinions, i think they need to go AFTER the story itself, since all the others have the story standing by itself.  i tried to write it in line with dab's suggestions ... tweak away:).
 * i didn't change a word in the last section -- i like your solution, Grice -- i just added links and changed the paragraphing -- please feel free to fill in the other opinions -- they're just as valid as the creationist one -- i just think the creationist opinion needs to at least be represented on the page, since the flood myth is CENTRAL to creationism:).
 * we alright? sorry it got heated, fellas, i appreciate the good work:).  Ungtss 16:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)