Talk:Genesis flood narrative

The note in the lead
The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false". Is that last line really necessary? It's already implied by the preceding one, no? I understand this to have been the result of some old compromise. The first sentence is ok, as it merely describes the term (although the article it links to also explains it adequately), but the bolded part sounds unencyclopedic, condescending, and frankly even a bit like a disclaimer. The bolding in the quote is mine but the italic "not" isn't, and it makes the line look even more out of place. I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in any other article despite some of them being far more controversial than this one. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The whole note is pretty pointless. Those that don't know what a flood myth is can click on it. Those that still have questions about myth can click again. Why disclaim at all? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the note should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed also. We should be aware, however, that with it or without it, there are going to be periodical challenges to using the word "myth" as related to any Biblical narrative. Even though that is precisely what they all are, in a high philosophical and intellectual academic level, the belief in the Bible as the precise, unchangeable, commanding "word of God," will apparently never go away. So this academic use will have to be explained every time again. warshy (¥¥) 20:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There will be, but we can refer them to the FAQ. Otherwise I concur with the opinion that the note should be removed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately when we use words we have to use the full meaning. Oxfords dictionary clearly determines that myth indicates falsehood 2605:B100:350:69D6:0:14:EC35:6501 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, "myth" is a scholarly term. We use it as scholars do. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

✅ VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Change myth to religious belief
Wikipedia is suppose to give an unbiased view and saying that this is a myth, which most people commonly associate with being false, is biased and condescending. It is assuming an atheistic view of the world, which is not the point of Wikipedia. And changing it to religious belief would make it so that it is not stating whether this event is true or false. 98.29.114.206 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Pls review WP:Myth versus fiction. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What would be wrong with saying religious belief? It doesn't state whether something is true or not true, which is supposed to be Wikipedia's stance on things. Just because you think that there couldn't possibly be a God doesn't mean everyone does, so stop forcing your worldview on everyone. Savagecrybaby (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Savagecrybaby Is the IP you? In any case, don’t insult editors. You don’t seem to get it that we have policies and guidelines that apply here. Or what it means to call it myth. If you feel strongly about this go to Talk:Christian mythology and ask for that article to be deleted. You won’t get far. Actually better yet read the article. Please don’t respond here without relying on policies/guidelines, this isn’t a forum.  Doug Weller  talk 19:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Savagecrybaby Most Christians do not believe that a world-wide flood really happened. Calling this a myth is not atheist or anti-religious bias, it is just mainstream thinking. Doric Loon (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of them do, and mainstream thinking is anti-religious thinking. Why can't we change it to something neutral, I really don't see the problem with religious belief. Savagecrybaby (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * DO they, source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Savagecrybaby Well, more than half the world's Christians are Catholic, and the official Catholic position is that the early chapters of the Bible state spiritual truths "in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured" (Humani Generis 38). Modern mainstream Lutheranism, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism and Methodism all reject uncritical claims of literal truth in these stories. I don't want to make assumptions about you personally, but I suspect that if you have the impression that the majority of Christians support Biblical inerrancy, you are viewing the world from inside a fairly small bubble out on the fringe. Sorry. Doric Loon (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You really don't want a neutral point of view, do you? Savagecrybaby (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Savagecrybaby - Please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. Try very hard to avoid discussing other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Savagecrybaby I think you don't understand what "neutral point of view" means. It does not mean that if someone claims 2+2=5 we should give that equal space in an article about arithmetic. We prioritize mainstream ideas over fringe ideas and we prioritize ideas backed by scientific/scholarly consensus over ideas that do not have that kind of academic authority. Doric Loon (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove the sentence that states how long the flood lasted was contradictory
"Many of these are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24)"

This is presumptuous. According to the NLT translation, Genesis 7:17 states 134.22.15.2 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I definitely see where you are coming from. This portion relies upon one expert that has some interesting things to say about the textual construction, but I see how that comes across as presumptuous when you can go and read the text and easily reconcile the alleged contradictions. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources rather than the opinions and synthesis of its editors. If you can find a reliable source to balance Cline's contribution, then go for it, and we can discuss how to properly integrate that into the article while maintaining due weight between opposing views. TNstingray (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And one version of the bible does not Trump any others. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not presumptious. It is the scholarly consensus. The fact that this passage is an amalgamation of two sources is one of those things that you could easily not notice, but once you've seen them, they are so obvious that you can never unsee them. You will find whole libraries full of devotional texts that ignore this, but modern scholarly ones, not so much. Doric Loon (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Our goal should be to guide the reader to that point. If the average reader finds the current structure confusing, we should take note of that because it means we are not conveying something clearly. The answer is not reverting the talk page when a legitimate question is asked. Many of the editors here go too far in personally attacking people who have been taught something different than scholarly consensus. You don't win anybody over by calling requests "pointless" or stooping to the level of ad hominem as you see so often with neckbearded Internet trolls on both extremes. TNstingray (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How do we determine the average reader? Certainly not an IP who hasn’t edited before. Doug Weller  talk 17:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TNstingray Totally with you about ad hominem remarks and dissing of honest questions.
 * The text is fine at this point, but I'll grant you we need to cite a better source than a National Geographic article. The International Critical Commentary (ICC) on Genesis, or von Rad's commentary (SCM Press), would be the obvious sources to quote. Doric Loon (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024
It’s not a myth. There’s geological evidence all around fish world, on every continent, that proves there was a global flood. One that was able to deposit the mega-sequences of sediment and mass erosion we see today. Be better. Tell the truth, instead of repeating a lie. ArizonaJ711 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We rejected the idea its not a myth recently, and to make your case you will need to bring forth some very good rs. This is not gonna happen.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Blocked as NOTHERE,see their edit summaries and talk page. Doug Weller  talk 18:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not because of this post, see their edit summaries and their talk page. Doug Weller  talk 18:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)