Talk:Noah's Ark/suggestion

In Abrahamic religions, Noah's Ark was a large vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

The story of the ark is found in numerous Abrahamic scriptures, most notably including the Book of Genesis, the Qur'an, I Enoch, and Jubilees. It features prominently in Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology. Grieved by the wickedness of mankind, God decides to destroy the corrupted world, but takes mercy on Noah. Noah is instructed to build the Ark, taking on board his family and representatives of the birds and animals. A flood submerges the Earth, but recedes to reveal dry land as "God remebered Noah". Noah offers an animal sacrifice and enters into a covenant with God. God promises to never repeat the deluge and displays a rainbow as a sign of His promise.

The story has been subject to extensive elaboration. A wide variety of interpretations arose over time, ranging from apologetic literalism to theological allegory to skeptical doubt. By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story. However, many members of the Abrahamic faiths, such as Biblical literalists, continue to regard the story of the Ark as accurate and important history. Some explore for archaeological proof in the mountains of Ararat, where Genesis says Noah's Ark came to rest.

Martin's suggestion - draft
In Abrahamic scripture(1), Noah's Ark was a large vessel built (2) to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

The story of the ark is found in numerous Abrahamic religious texts, most notably the Book of Genesis, the Qur'an, I Enoch, and Jubilees. (3) In these, grieved by the wickedness of mankind, God decides to destroy the corrupted world, but takes mercy on Noah. Noah is instructed to build the Ark, taking on board his family and representatives of the birds and animals. A flood submerges the Earth, but recedes to reveal dry land as "God remembered Noah". Noah offers an animal sacrifice and enters into a covenant with God. God promises to never repeat the deluge and displays a rainbow as a sign of His promise.

(4)It features prominently in Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology and has been subject to extensive elaboration. A wide variety of interpretations arose over time, ranging from apologetic literalism to theological allegory to skeptical doubt. By the 19th century, the discoveries of geologists, archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most scientists and many Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story. However, many members of the Abrahamic faiths, such as Biblical literalists, continue to regard the story of the Ark as accurate and important history. Some explore for archaeological proof in the mountains of Ararat, where Genesis says Noah's Ark came to rest.

1) Scripture is completely neutral and factual. Whether the Noah's Ark actually forms part of some religions is a matter of opinion. Some progressive Christians, for example, could be offended by the implication that Noah's Ark forms an essential part of their beliefs. It is also a word likely to be acceptable to fundamentalists.

2)I have removed 'God's command' as it adds an air of unintended support for the existence and authority of the Abrahamic God (although the text is actually quite clear). This aspect is made clear later.

3) Story according to scripture follows on directly from mention of scripture.

4) Secular, mythological aspects and discussion of different religious interpretations follow.

Just the opening sentence
I think most people want the opening sentence to be as neutral as possible. I think it is important, when a claim is made that a certain wording supports a particular POV, to explain why this is, rather than just make the claim. Below I give some possibilities with my reasoning on POV interpretations.

1) Noah's Ark, according to the Book of Genesis, was a large vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

This is the current version. In my opinion, mention of a specific religious text gives it undue weight. It suggests that we should know what 'the Book of Genesis' is thus making it seem important and authoritative. The mention of 'at God's command' later, strengthens this impression.

2) In Abrahamic religions, Noah's Ark was a large vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

This is Vassyana's suggestion. My objection to this is that by saying, 'In Abrahamic religions', we presume to know what is included in the religion itself, in other word what followers of these religions may believe. As can be seen from the ongoing argument there is considerable disagreement as to the exact status of the NA story in religion. Also has 'at God's command'.

'''3) Noah's Ark, according to Abrahamic scriptures, was a large vessel built to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

This is better in my opinion as we are now talking about the simple fact of what is written in certain scriptures. We make no statement about how this fact is viewed by scholars, believers of those religions, or anyone else. I would accept that 'scriptures' gives a little undue weight to the texts, maybe because it was a term often used by teachers etc.

'''4) Noah's Ark, according to Abrahamic religious texts, was a large vessel built to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

This is now my favourite. It is strictly and verifiably factual and I see no reason why 'religious texts' should or should not be taken as authoritative. We do not make (or even imply) any statement as to how these texts are interpreted by scholars, believers, literalists, scientists or anyone else. I think this is the most neutral we can possibly get.

'''5) Noah's Ark, according to ancient texts, was a large vessel built to save Noah, his family, and stock of all the world's animals from the deluge.

Although this may sound to some as more neutral than 4 it is open to serious misinterpretation. By 'ancient texts' we could be referring to strictly historical records of some cataclysmic event. This rules it out in my view.

6) In Judeo-Christian and Islamic mythology, Noah's Ark was a large vessel...

This the other version proposed in the RFC. I think 'Judeo-Christian and Islamic' is as neutral as 'Abrahamic' and agree that in certain scholarly circles 'mythology' is exactly the right word to use. However most of our readers will not be scholars of religion or mythology and will probably take the word 'mythology' to mean fairy tale or false. I can only give myself as an example. I initially completely misunderstood the term and it has taken me several days of persistent inquiry to get a good understanding of how the word is used by certain scholars. We therefore should not use this word this in our opening sentence. In any form of communication it is not what is transmitted that counts but what is received.

7) Noah's Ark is a fictional story ...

No one seems to be proposing this but I have added it as one extreme and as an example of how I believe 6 will be understood by many.

8) Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) — as related in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9), the Qur'an (Suras 11 and 71), and in other texts of various Abrahamic religions — was a massive vessel built to save Noah, his family, and a stock of the world’s animals from the impending Deluge. This is Til Eulenspiegel's proposal

9) Noah's ark is the vessel in which Noah saved the animals from the flood 

This is PiCo's suggestion
 * Despite the use of ' is the vessel', this suggests literal accaracy too strongly in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All the above are just the opening sentence I see no reason to ban 'mythology' or 'Genesis' from the lead section, just the first sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Top 3 in order of preference for the above
sandbox]]. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4,3,2 Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8,4,3 - I worked out my proposal by a lengthy process of comparing all past versions [[User:Til Eulenspiegel/NA|in my own

Discussion

 * Til I have added your proposal to the list and edited your preferences accordingly, I presume you prefer yours.
 * I am still thinking about this. Can anyone tell me (as I don't have time to go through the complete history of this article) if anyone has suggested the word 'narratives' yet? Thus, we would get
 * Noah's Ark, according Judeo-Christian and Islamic narratives...
 * This seems neutral, but may not be specific enough.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you do, don't take that as a suggestion - it needs a hell of a lot of work.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)