Talk:Noah/Archive 2

Refs needed
Can anyone provide references for these statements? "Some scholars to believe that Noah was originally the inventor of wine..." What scholars? "It has been suggested that the Flood story may originally have belonged to Enoch". Suggested by who? This comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but needs refs from the original sources (i.e., from whatever the authors of the encyclopedia were so goes:

Ham was cursed not because he saw his father naked, but because he stole his garment, which was the same garment that was given to Adam (Genesis 3:21) when he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This garment also represented the beginning of animal sacrifice (because it was a coat of skin - which came from an animal) to represent the coming of a Savior to be sacrificed for the sins of all mankind (and although an alter is not mentioned, this is the first reference to an alter being used for sacrifice - this being the same type of sacrifice that was made by Abel, Noah, and many others including Moses - Genesis 4:4, Genesis 9:9, Exodus 20:24 as well as many others). The making of this coat would have been the first sacrifice of a living creature. This coat was also said to be a symbol to all creatures not to harm Adam, which is inferred in Genesis 9:2 when God tells Noah that all animals will fear him.

It was also said in the book that I got this information from that Nimrod "a mighty hunter," who was a descendant of Ham (Genesis 10:8-9), may have used this garment to lure animals to him so that he could slay them. This idea also came from Genesis 9:2 when it says "into your hands are all [animals] delivered." If this were the case, it would also explain how Noah was able to get so many different animals in the ark.

Well, there it is. Obviously it is not word for word. Sorry I don't own the book where I read this anymore. I don't remember its title or anything. Despite that I don't own the book anymore, and am unsure who first gave rise to this idea, it is obvious that there is some consideration to be made in reference to the ideas presented here.

I mean, to even consider that such a hefty curse would be put upon someone for seeing a naked man (much less his own father) is somewhat naive.

Nammerama 17:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us know when you find the book :-). PiCo 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you go to google.com and use these words together in this order "noah ham garment hunter" without the quotation marks you can find plenty of references for ideas mentioned above. Again, I don't have time to go through and reference everything, but it is very fascinating, and if anyone has the time it should be added to this article or to the curse of ham article. Nammerama 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a few primary disagreements with the above premise First, The so called curse of Ham, is not actually a curse upon Ham, as much as it was a curse upon the son of ham Canaan. "Cursed be Canaan" is the exact wording used in the KJV version of the Bible. Therefore the curse isn't upon Ham. The wording of the section is a misunderstanding of the passage of the Bible. see article on curse of Ham Second, the narration that is given above about the curse passed by Noah upon his son's family about a stolen fleece seems a bit hokey. Just because a Google search turns up a consensus of a legend does not mean that the legend was fact. (As prevalent and powerful as it is today, was Google there?) a)The Biblical reading of the gathering of the animals for the ark that Noah built will dispel the notion that Noah needed a fleece to gather the animals. God gathered the animals. b)As today, a fleece is a part of a carcase of a dead animal, the skin. All portions of a carcase will decay with time. It is preposterous to think that the fleece of a sheep killed as a garment for Adam would survive until the time of Noah, (calculated by some as 1600-1800 odd years) let alone until the time of Nimrod possibly up to 200 years later. Even the best preserved leather dries out breaks down in time. Third, Some have asserted that the curse wasn't passed simply because Ham saw his father naked, but possibly because Ham expressed himself sexually when he saw his fathers nakedness. I heard one person say that Ham may have taken advantage of his fathers in a homosexual way while he was in a drunken stupor. Another interpretation that would go along with later Jewish law about uncovering the nakedness of ones father would go that Noah's wife may have been drunk as well and that Ham raped his mother. From the Biblical account there is no way of knowing exactly what went on in that tent while Noah was drunk from his wine, whatever the case, Noah must have felt it significant enough that a curse needed to be passed. (incidentally the descendants of Canaan were wiped out following the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua.)Mortsey 22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are actually references for the ideas that Mortsey mentioned above, it would be nice to see them so that we can all benefit. As an addendum to my comments above, I did use google to find some quick references but this does not mean that my references are not valid. As mentioned above, the book I originally read that contained these references was lost, and then I used google to see if I could find it. As it turns out, there were multiple references from scripture scholars from various backgrounds(they spend their whole lives studying these things). Again, if you stop to think of the importance of such a garment as was given to Adam by God, it would only seem logical that it would be handed down from father to son. The garment given to Adam was not just some "fleece," but it represented the first animal sacrifice, and the garment of that sacrifice was given unto man(see references in first comment). This was not just something that God did on a whim. Seriously, does God do anything on a whim? This animal sacrifice, performed by God (Gen 3:21), was also the first death upon the Earth, which may be reason enough for it to be important to animals too (seeing as God also created the animals). Maybe this is why Adam and Eve were not mauled by a bear before they could procreate. As a reminder, these ideas are not my own, but come from references that can be found using the search terms above (and I am sure they can be found in other places too). Some may not agree with these ideas, but it would seem that there is more reference in the Bible for the above ideas than to just say that Ham made a homosexual pass at Noah. I have also "heard" that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Edan for sexual sins (which seems strange since Eve was Adams "wife" (Gen 3:17)). However, according to the Bible, Adam "knew" his wife (in that sexual sense) after they had already been "kicked" out (Gen 4:1). I am sure there are other ideas that do not agree with the one that I presented. I love Wikipedia because you are free to present them, but at least try to include some sort of reference. Also, according to the KJV of the Bible it would seem that God commanded Noah to gather the animals into the ark, and he (Noah) did (and the reference for this is Genesis 7:1-9). This is the usual pattern found in the KJV of the Bible: for God to command and for man to act and actually work to accomplish what God commanded man to do. Regarding the garment surviving for so long, Noah was six-hundred years old when the flood came, which may also seem preposterous, but things did seem to last a lot longer in ancient times than they do now. With the perfect knowledge and power that God has, I do not think it would have been too difficult for him to have "figured-out" a way to make it last. Nammerama 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I decided to go out and get an actual reference. Much of this idea of "Ham" being cursed for stealing a garment comes from insights of other scholars, both Jewish and Christian alike, based on excerpts from the Aggadah (check out the Wiki-link to learn more about what the Aggadah is). Apparently, according to Jewish tradition Ham did steal the garment that God made for Adam from Noah and it was passed down to Nimrod. According to this tradition the garment also had power over animals. To read these excerpts for yourself, go to http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/index.htm and go to Chapter 4 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj106.htm) of Volume One. Scroll down to the bottom section on Nimrod and enjoy. You can also read about Esau slaying Nimrod, taking the garment spoken of and eventually losing it to Jacob in Chapter 6 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj108.htm) of Volume One under the headings "The sale of the birthright" and "Isaac blesses Jacob". Thus eventually this garment ended up back in the direct lineage of whom it belonged. Coincidence? I don't think so. Anyway, I would highly recommend that you read about the Aggadah in Wikipedia before you read the other links. Nammerama 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Noah that I know does not wear animal skins, he wears a "finery" that you would not know, he wears cloth, similar to a toga, at that Time. The use of animal skins may be an allusion to seizing by witches. If Noah does not sacrifice on the altar on Mt. Ararat, there is NO "meat to eat," something that the wicked desire to do.  Consider this: you have been chosen to save ALL of the animals, why would you then genocide at LEAST ONE species so that you can (not might) eat MEAT.  The logic behind the sacrifice on Mt. Ararat and the skins after Eden and Cain killing Abel lead one to believe of witch influence.  As you might study, Cain killed Abel.  In such Ancient Times, stoning was reserved for Hate.  Abel may have bitten Cain's penis.  If you research the occasions for the stoning of individuals under Hebrew Law, you might so agree with me. Gnostics (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ham actually couldn't be cursed because of Gen 9:1 "And God blessed Noah and his sons and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". Noah did not have the power to curse what God had blessed. Canaan's curse was upon his head only.

The major myth is that Ham was cursed into blackness and then became the father of the black race. If black mankind was cursed into existence from non black mankind, then non black mankind has to show an earlier existence that predates black mankind. So far archeaology and DNA research are at a loss to do this. Genesis 9:25-27. 25: And he (Noah) said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. (Meaning Cush, Mizraim and phut) 26: And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Meaning as written) 27: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Meaning as written). These verses are true and accurate. Canaan was the servant of those written in these verses. That's it. His children were not cursed and Ham couldn't be cursed by man. Ham was born black. So what was Noah? The descendants of Ham were also not born into poverty. There are no more natural resources that can be found in the world than can be found in Africa. Gold, diamonds, etc. Psalms 78:51, 105:23-27, 106:19-22 King James Version refer to Egypt as the land of Ham. Other than the servitude of Canaan neither Ham or his descendants were cursed. Actually they were quite wealthy, ruling all of Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, Babylon, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Jerusalem, Sumeria, Syria and more. Tom 03/28/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Section title?
The section title "In the Hebrew Torah" makes little sense. The Torah is by defintion in Hebrew. "In the Hebrew Bible" or "In the Torah" would make more sense. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just "Summary" I think - that's what that section is, a summary of the story.PiCo 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Did the flood really happen?
Does anyone have any essays, tv documentaries or even any web pages that discuss if this great flood even actually happened? Or if some kind of flood did happen, did it happen world over, or just in the region Noah lived in? I came here interested in seeing what 200 years enlightened science had discovered about this mythical flood, but this web page just tells the story, it doesn't delve into wether it actually happened, or never really happened at all JayKeaton 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the flood was a real flood, but it was a river flood about 2900 BC and affected only a few cities in southern Sumer (Iraq). See the Ziusudra page for more ancient versions of the flood myth.  The Ziusudra page links to the Atrahasis page.  The Atrahasis myth clearly describes the flood as a river flood. Greensburger 06:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the flood was a real flood covering the entire earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp rossnixon 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your mileage may vary :). PiCo 01:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) The BBC made a TV documentary called Noah's Ark, which you might possibly be able to get hold of on DVD. It basically says that the bible story is based on the Ziasudra story, and tyhe flood was a once-in-a-thousand-years type event but localised to the Tigris/Euphrates valley. It also assumes that Ziasudra was a real person, which is a pretty big assumption. There's another theory to the effect that a meteor might have done it - exactly how the meteor is supposed to have caused the flood I don't recall, but it seems fitting, given the derivation of the word "meteorological", meaning concerning the weather. PiCo 05:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "flood" is not used in Genesis 8. Instead the word "waters" is used, the waters of the Persian Gulf. The Hebrew word "erets" which is usually translated "earth" did not mean the planet earth but rather the ground, the soil, the dirt that a farmer plows. To exaggerate 15 cubits of water on the ground in the Euphrates River valley to the planet earth is not supported by the Genesis text. All flesh died that moved upon the erets. Yes all the people and animals died in the flooded lowlands of southern Iraq. But the people who climbed to high hills above the 15 cubits of Genesis 7:20 did not die. They were not mentioned because they were beyond the scope of the story. The rest of the world outside southern Iraq was also not mentioned because it was beyond the scope of the story. Greensburger 04:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be trying too hard to make a myth a reality. If this were only a localized weather event, how did the Ark land on Mount Ararat (some 17,804 ft high and hundreds of miles away?). Why did it take over half a year for the flood waters to recede? Not to say that the flood happened, but like the lunar cycle apologists, your half-baked attempt to stretch a myth into reality also fails.Ryoung122 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No flood that covered the Earth occurred or could have occurred in historical times, any more than Noah could have been eight hundred years old. This is Hebrew/Christian mythology, which stems from Sumerian [and other] mythology, such as the story of Gilgamesh. There was no way to confirm a ‘world wide’ event such as a flood. It was common for people to believe local phenomena and catastrophes were ‘everywhere’.


 * There was not enough water available to cover the Earth then, or now, and no where for the water to go when it supposedly ‘drained off’. Even the water locked in the ice at the poles would not provide enough water. Belief in such myths is based on mystical metaphysics. In other words if God wishes the Earth to be covered with water and then wishes the water to go away then it does … magic. DasV 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read the link I gave 5 paragraphs back? rossnixon 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Are you saying that faith is not the basis for belief in the Flood as fact? Can you suggest how anyone could have confirmed a flood that covered the entire world at that time? It's simple enough if you have faith that God can do whatever he pleases including breaking natural laws then the flood happened because the message comes straight from God written by divine guidance so God made the flood without complying with natural laws - he made the laws he changed them to make the flood then changed them back. Magic. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not very in light of an absence of miracles being documented nowadays. The problem is that when people insist that myths actually happened AND insist that ONLY the myths they believe happened ... and the myths are otherwise impossible happenings - miracles - belief comes down to FAITH. Everyone is welcome to their beliefs and to have faith that they are true ... but in this case the only mechanism for producing a worldwide flood is a miracle. I will believe any miracle I can see ... like the birth of a child. DasV 23:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Flood of Noah was a real flood if you take the Biblical narrative literally. (and I do) That said, there may have been more than one flood that constitute flood legends such as the one mentioned above (2900bc et al). After four or five thousand years creationist get all excited when they come across a flood legend in which people fled for their lives, imagining that the flood waters of the legend were the Noahic flood waters spoken of in the Bible. That flood was a deadly catastrophe, not a local flood where the people fled and survived. OK, so I am a skeptic of the local flood theories constituting the flood of Noah.

As for the miracle of the flood, there are a few factors and mechanisms to consider. First we need to consider the idea that thing were not always the way that they are today.(unifomitarianism). Perhaps the environment was different, the ecosystem on earth was different, the atmosphere was different and the makeup of the crust of the earth was different. The mechanism that may have touched off the events that lead to the global flood could have been a number of things, giant meteors disrupting the crust of the earth. Perhaps Solar flairs caused warming on earth (global warming) that affected the core temperatures. There is little way of knowing, but if one is to believe the biblical narrative one has to realize that something affected a change that caused the flood. A disaster on a global scale had to have a long term natural cause which lead up to the flood. It didn't just one day start to rain. In the global flood model following the flood the earth changed drastically as no longer do any of these take place or exist.Mortsey 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose nobody will take a blind bit of notice, but here goes anyway: Please remember that the Talk pages of articles are for the discussion of improvements to the article concerned; they are not meant as a forum for airing personal views: if that's what you want to do, go to a chat-room or whatever, but please don't add bandwidth to poor Wiki. PiCo 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking PiCo's advise, I slimmed down my above entry (see history if you don't believe me) to make it more pertinant to improving the article (I think) and less of an opinion rant. Sorry Pico, I am learning and your blind bit of notice was noticed.Mortsey 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted to put a smiley face here but it doesn't seem to work - colons just increase indents. Anyway: material on the Flood belongs more rightly on the relevant article, probably called Deluge (Biblical) or something similar. This article is more about Noah than the flood, tho I agree it's hard to separate them. Also, and possibly more importantly, it's not your or my opinions and thoughts that count, but those of reputable published sources - which means that if Answers in Genesis, or Bishop Spong, say something, it can go in, but if you or I believe we've stumbled over the answer, it can't (even tho we're probably right, of course). Welcome to Wiki. :-). PiCo 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mortsey, your ideas seem straight from Sunday school. Please take some university classes in geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. and then get back to us.Ryoung122 06:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have met Noah, and he didn't say it didn't happen. Do your research on "Middle Earth."  The lands Below had water, and there may have been twelve "levels" to the Earth.  When the waters from the possibly ten levels below were "stopped up," Noah's ship floated up to the eleventh level.  The areas below were destroyed, closed off.  The Pillars of the Earth; one I know is the Alps another the Himilayas.  They and other Pillars held up the twelfth level, but the above level collapsed, possibly later on.  "Ashes, ashes, all fall down." Gnostics (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Allright, one more time. This is the talk page for editing the Noah page, not a forum. We all have differing beliefs on Noah, the Flood, Creationism, etc., and talking about them will just cause trouble. If the person who started this section really wants an answer, you have the entire internet at your fingertips. I'd appreciate it if ya'll would stop posting that here. Thanks- ---G.T.N. (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Sea deluge theory- C. 5600 BCE. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

the flood did happen. if you look through the history of the world. records show that the earth was once ALL coverd in water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by California lydia (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar Chinese Myth?
Just to add to the discussion further, people might want to look at Chinese prehistory, and the Three Sovereigns, who were mythological rulers of China before the Xia Dynasty (see Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors). Two of the Emperors, Fu Xi and Nüwa (clearly phonetically similar to all Semitic pronunciations of Noah, although Nüwa is female in the Chinese myth) are credited as being survivors after a catastrophic deluge, and are the ancestors of mankind. Someone might want to add a similar myths section to the article itself? 92.12.107.153 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar Hindu mention of flood
I want to suggest that Hindus also have a story of Manu having saved humanity and other creatures from an ancient flood. That story has great resemblance to the one of Noah. I feel that should be included in the main article for better information to the readers. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture section
None of these things in the pop culture section are important to the subject of "Noah". None of them have any hope of being integrated into the article. I'm removing the section. SchmuckyTheCat 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to remove this section. The popular culture section is entirely relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman88 (talk • contribs)


 * In what way? SchmuckyTheCat 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It serves absolutely no purpose to delete it. The popular culture section is relevant by taking a historical topic and demonstrating its impact and influence on contemporary culture. It certainly does not weaken the article in any way. On the contrary, it adds to its impact. Musicman88 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the stuff in this section is relevant to the subject of Noah, because of this, it actually weakens the article to have a bunch of pop trivia on such a serious subject. There are times and places where such pop culture lists are appropriate and "demonstrate the impact on contemporary culture" but this one fails even that. SchmuckyTheCat 05:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to the subject. Also, this information may be useful for others who are researching Noah and are looking for contemporary references. Just because you don't like it in the article does not mean that others would not benefit from the information. I disagree with your premise, but would gladly welcome some other opinions on this matter. Musicman88 12:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are talking about junk cast-off mentions from things like comic books, pop-fiction novels, and cartoons. We have guidelines that specifically say those kinds of irrelevant factoids should not be included. I've added many things to pop culture/trivia sections on Wikipedia, I've done re-organizations of several of them.  This one crosses the line, as the reader is suddenly taken from the lofty discussion of how Noah is treated by three of the worlds major religions to his depiction in a comic book.
 * A suggestion for you, Musicman88, is to take this section and create a stub article called Treatment of Noah in culture. Then write some real paragraphs discussing the importance of Noah to popular culture as an intro.  Add to the list; this is a 4000 year old story, don't limit yourself to the last 20 years as this cruft does.  Then start integrating the disparate factoids into a cohesive article, of prose, not just a list, that supports the premise of the intro paragraph.  Pop culture articles have been spun out like this and gotten recognition as Good Articles.  Go for it, it's just not appropriate to dump this information into this article.
 * As an example, I created this, United Nations in popular culture, from a section in the UN article that now points to that article (see: United_Nations). It's not a great example of how a good pop culture article can be written, but it's an example I know because I did it and many others have worked on it after its creation.
 * SchmuckyTheCat 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, found you a better example than my UN article. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a "featured list".  SchmuckyTheCat 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

 * In the manga series D.Gray-man, living descendants of Noah assist the Millennium Earl by destroying Innocence.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * In genetic genealogy, Y-chromosomal Adam is the name given to the patrilineal human most recent common ancestor from whom all Y chromosomes in living men are descended. However, according to the story as told in Genesis, the most recent common ancestor of post-diluvial humanity would be Noah, not Adam.
 * Should be worked into the article


 * In 1998 a made-for-TV movie entitled Noah depicted a carpenter who is visited by an angel and told to build another ark so he may survive another world flood.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * The Cradleland Chronicles trilogy's last two books focus on Noah's life, including training by God Himself in handling animals in Noah's childhood. The last book in the series takes place primarily while Noah is building the Ark, and during the Flood.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * Two books in the Doctor Dolittle series by Hugh Lofting feature Mudface, a giant turtle and acquaintance of the Doctor who lived through the Great Flood aboard Noah's Ark. The story portrays Noah as a grumpy curmudgeon and suppresses the religious aspects of the Flood, focusing mainly instead on the fates of the various animals involved in the aftermath.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * In Madeleine L'Engle's 1986 novel Many Waters Sandy and Dennys are accidentally transported to antediluvian Mesopotamia and meet Noah, Lamech, and Japheth
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * Shane Johnson's 2002 novel Ice portrays Noah in a manner consistent with the Christian tradition: as the head of a household consisting of the only kind-hearted persons on the planet, a man on a mission from God, and a leader who sometimes had to make hard, not-quite-pleasant decisions. In one memorable scene, Noah--or a simulacrum of him--orders a man left behind, not because he didn't deserve to be taken aboard the Ark, but because God's orders were that only eight people--Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives--board the Ark.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * American composer and recording artist Daniel Decker has achieved critical acclaim for his song “Noah’s Prayer”, which is a collaboration with Armenian composer Ara Gevorgian. "Noah's Prayer" chronicles Noah’s journey on the ark to Mount Ararat. In the shadow of Ararat, the song was debuted in 2002 in Sardarpat, Armenia to celebrate Armenian Independence day. In attendance were Armenian President Robert Kocharian, His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians (head of the Armenian Apostolic Church), as well as ambassadors from countries around the world. The concert, which was broadcast live on Armenian television, and via satellite to over 30 nations, has catapulted Decker to celebrity status in Armenia. "Noah's Prayer" is featured on the recording "My Offering" by Daniel Decker.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * Stephen Schwartz's musical Children of Eden's second act focused on the story of Noah and his family, but used artistic license to add onto the story.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * Blameless in Abaddon by James Morrow presents a Noah (inside the "sensorium" of God himself) who despairs of the task that was put before him, making note of the fact that his ark has no rudder (as per specifications for construction received from God), and presents the protagonist with the very axe he used to make the ark, which plays a very significant part in the closing chapters of the book.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * In Disney's Fantasia 2000, Donald Duck was asked by Noah to help him get the animals on board of the ship.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * In one episode of Pokemon, When Ash, Misty, and Brock were stranded out in the ocean, Brock told Ash about the story of Noah. So Ash took out his pokemon Pigeotto to find land.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * In one episode of Animaniacs, Noah is portrayed by Richard Lewis and he builds the boat to put the animals on.
 * Nothing to do with Noah, the subject. Adds nothing to the readers knowledge of Noah. Distracts from any academic treatment of the subject.


 * It seems to me that these all do have something to do with Noah, with the possible exception of the very first one ("descendants of Noah"? What's so notable about that?) They are all about Noah's treatment in popular culture. There is more than enough for a subarticle, I think. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The popular culture setcion should NOT be deleted. I agree with Codex Sinaiticus about its relevance. Just because you don't see its value does not mean that others feel the same way. I can see deleting the first popular culture entry (about Manga etc.), but the rest of the entries all have merit. Musicman88 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Musicman88 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. It is petty to delete an entire section just becasue you don't like it. I am not the only one who sees its relevance. Please DO NOT delete entire sections. Thank you. Musicman88 23:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see relevance, but I think a subarticle for Noah in popular culture is the obvious solution... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Popular" culture is called that because it is just that...lowbrow material not fit for scholarly debate. And while true that Wikipedia and the Internet have broken down the walls of elitism, it is also true that we are losing a lot of value by lowering standards. Clearly, any mention of Noah in popular culture needs to be in a separate article.Ryoung122 06:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read the three paragraphs of suggestions above? SchmuckyTheCat 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reposting
 * You are talking about junk cast-off mentions from things like comic books, pop-fiction novels, and cartoons. We have guidelines that specifically say those kinds of irrelevant factoids should not be included. I've added many things to pop culture/trivia sections on Wikipedia, I've done re-organizations of several of them.  This one crosses the line, as the reader is suddenly taken from the lofty discussion of how Noah is treated by three of the worlds major religions to his depiction in a comic book.
 * A suggestion for you, Musicman88, is to take this section and create a stub article called Treatment of Noah in culture. Then write some real paragraphs discussing the importance of Noah to popular culture as an intro.  Add to the list; this is a 4000 year old story, don't limit yourself to the last 20 years as this cruft does.  Then start integrating the disparate factoids into a cohesive article, of prose, not just a list, that supports the premise of the intro paragraph.  Pop culture articles have been spun out like this and gotten recognition as Good Articles.  Go for it, it's just not appropriate to dump this information into this article.
 * As an example, I created this, United Nations in popular culture, from a section in the UN article that now points to that article (see: United_Nations). It's not a great example of how a good pop culture article can be written, but it's an example I know because I did it and many others have worked on it after its creation.
 * SchmuckyTheCat 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, found you a better example than my UN article. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a "featured list".  SchmuckyTheCat 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We don't have this clutter in articles about Adam, Abraham, Jacob; why clutter this article with this? Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I too support this - if it were up to me, these useless trivia sections would be permanently removed from all articles. Of course, even if it's purged now, without constant vigilance it'll be built back up again from scratch over the next few weeks. Daniel C/T+ 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is all well and good, but I DO NOT appreciate being threatened with being banned simply for trying to defend the integrity of an article in good faith. I am not a vandal trying to destroy it. On the contrary, I just do not feel it is approapriate to delete entire sections like that. It comes across as rather biased. As for creating a subarticle, I have no problem with that, although I have no idea how to go about it, nor the time to compose it. Musicman88 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Java7837's additions
At first glance, the recent additions by Java7837 seem to be both too voluminous in an article of this size, and secondly not a major historical Jewish view. Well, I'm not sure on that last point, I know very little about Talmudic and Kabbalistic sources. rossnixon 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - too much. The source for both Java's text and the previous one is the Jewish Encyclopedia on-line edition - a reputable source, but Java uses far too much of it. I've restored the previous text, but it needs to have the references added back in.PiCo 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Later: Java deleted the reference to Noah being born with hair "white as snow" etc etc.. on the grounds that this is apocryphal. So it is, and so what? The first phrase of the sentence clearly identifies it as "a Jewish legend", and the section is about later stories about Noah within various traditions. PiCo 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Java has done similar things with Moses and Jonah. Why he feels copy-pasting 80+k of information from the Jewish Encyclopedia to Moses is better than just providing a link is beyond me. Edward321 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The text is not canonical it is from the book of enoch which is not canonical in judaism nor has it ever in any branch including the Sadducees who aren't even rabbinic as a result it shouldn't go under rabbinic perspectives but instead apocryphal perspectives--Java7837 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The book of

The Deluvian Church
Someone keeps adding a link to a group called "The Deluvian Church," which, apaprently, worships Noah. They also seem to have a text that Genesis that differs from mine: according to them, Genesis 9:8-9 says that Yahweh says that the covenant with Noah will be the final covenant - I wonder what the rest of Genesis looks like according to them? Anyway, they're evidently a very offbeat group. Should we allow the link to stay, just for curiosity value? Should we tell them that they're spelling their name wrong (it should be Diluvian, not Deluvian)? Should we ask them what "growing" (they claim to be a growing church) actually means (one new member this year)? PiCo 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. When they get some reliable sources specifically on them then include it in the article.  The EL would be uncontrollable if we included links just for curiousity value. SchmuckyTheCat

I am afraid if you can tell me the right thing on prophecy I mean which prophet brought which book?? and what the followers of each are called?? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.167.95 (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC) frianto yakobus egeten lahir di pakuweru pada tahun 1998 tanggal 11 februari sekolah smp kristen 4 tikala manado hobby musik dram  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.75.191.65 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The influence of the flood on science
I have introduced a small section linking the effect of the belief in Noah's flood on the development of early Geology. John D. Croft 09:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a better fit with the Flood Geology article. rossnixon 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ten and Last?
Since Noah's son, Shem, was already several hundred years old before the flood (according to the Biblical account), why is Noah rendered as the last antediluvian patriarch? Unless, of course, we cound the last 'patriach' as the oldest male at the time. In that case, shouldn't it be 'Methuselah' who died in the year of the flood?Ryoung122 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Poor Methuselah, apparently numbered among the wicked - unless he died before the flood - while Noah, who introduced drunkeness to the world, gets saved. But to your point: for some reason Shem gets left out of the count, and I have no idea why. If you want to do some research on this, see if you can find out just who the rabbis considered to be patriarchs. Feel free to make edits by all means. PiCo 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact: Noah had but three sons (two carried the cloth backwards while the third laughed). May there have been a Time when he had no sons?  After he had (Transliterated?) to Heaven for many Ages (without death) he began to miss (?) his wife and came back down and they added one more [son (?)].  If the stone altar on Mt. Ararat is not used, Noah can be (is) a very Righteous Man(Kind) (not a "human kind").  It is best not to kill.  Brother of Sky 216.215.40.1 06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) One is not given the eating of meat when Noah does not use the altar, although most people eat meat anyhow.  There is still the Rainbow Promise. Brother of Sky 216.215.40.1 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) At Times, the Earth is an "Ark."  When the Sun is no more or has become too angry, the Earth can move throughout the Universe.  The Earth may also settle to rest on a cooled and Wintered Sun. Brother of Sky 216.215.40.1 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hadith
According to Sunan al-Tirmidhi in Hadith

Prophet Muhammad said, "Shem father of Arabs, Ham (son of Noah) father of habsh(People of Ethiopia), Japheth father of Roman"

the Hadith in arabic ومن ناحية الأنساب وإستنادا إلى الترمذي فإنه روى الإمام أحمد عن سمُرة أن النبي قال: "سام أبو العرب، وحام أبو الحبش، ويافث أبو الروم".


 * This belongs in the Sons of Noah article. PiCo 08:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint perspective
Latter-day Saints believe in a literal interpretation of the Noachian flood, and his position as a Patriarch, Melchizedek priesthood Priesthood holder, and progenitor or re-populator of the earth. Division of humankind into races/nations/people forms a central element to the LDS worldview and their scriptural narrative. It is also a "hot topic", so to speak, in LDS thought and one of only TWO "official declarations" coming from the President of the Church - i.e. a case of revelation from God altering contemporaneous Church policy. I believe this is important information that ought to be available to the reader of a section entitled "Latter-day Saint perspective" on Noah. Obviously, user "Rossnixon" does not - however, s/he admits to being of a fundamentalist Christian bent, so I don't know that s/he is a reliable adjudicator of what should be included in this section... Ledenierhomme 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In case anyone's interested, here's the contentious paragrpah that Ledenerhomme keeps adding and Rossnixon keeps removing:
 * Latter-Day Saints have traditionally taken literally the verses in Genesis that state that all humankind is descended from Noah's three sons, and ascribes their descent to the traditional ascriptions in 19th century Christianity, namely, that Shem is the progenitor of the Semitic and Asian peoples, Japheth the progenitor of Europeans, and Ham the progenitor of black Africans (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527). The descendants of Ham were "cursed", by what is called the "Curse of Ham" (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:24; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859), which applied to the Negro peoples of America and prevented them from receiving the priesthood until President Spencer W. Kimball's 1978 "Official Declaration 2". See Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for more information. PiCo 11:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An LDS perspective in fine to include, but should show how it is different to traditional Christianity. The first half of your paragraph shows an identical view. The second half talks about Ham and slavery. This is off-topic for an article on Noah. Please try to gain consensus from other users on this talk page before adding again. rossnixon 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why ought I to "gain consensus from other users" before adding, as opposed to you "gaining consensus from other users" before deleting? Where does the paragraph mention slavery? How is referring to Noah's son Ham, "off-topic"? Ledenierhomme 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, on closer inspection of the latest "diff"; I should have said 'Curse of Ham', not slavery. I removed it again for two reasons: 1. This is off-topic. 2. "Bold editing" is to be encouraged, but when there is a dispute, consensus must be gained with other editors on the talk page before content can be changed. rossnixon 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely, and if you look back in the edit history, you'll see that I merely restored information that was removed without explanation. The LDS info has been added and removed since at least November 2006. It should be noted that according to wiki scanner this removal was from a LDS-registered IP address! http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=216.49.176.0-191.255&ip2=64.80.178.176-183&ip3=66.213.213.96-103 If i knew how to "request for moderation" I would.... rossnixon has a very transparent agenda here. The idea that the Curse of Ham is off-topic for an article on Noah is ludicrous. The Curse is a result of Noah's actions and is mentioned in at least four other instances throughout the article - including the introduction Ledenierhomme 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ledenierhomme, the Curse of Ham has it's own article. This is where the detail goes. And I don't think we need to mention it at least 4 more times in the Noah article, either. I will see if I can figure out the appropriate moderation/comment option for you. rossnixon 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A Mormon told me that Cain's mark was "possibly" dark negroid skin, the curse of Cain; not a physical mark upon a man's forehead, which marking I am customary to. Do the negroes have two marks upon them? Noah did not have Ham marked, as far as I know.  Ham was a "laugher" in so much as he dishonored his Father's "nakedness;" while considering that Adam and Eve would not be "fully Forgiven" unless they were once again to be allowed to go "naked."  Might we all be laughed at for being drunken and naked, considering the trials we must go through.  Why must things be just "so?"  Most of all that I ever did was confuse the languages so that the people would not come to know me so well?  The Tower of Babel.  I have never really ever claimed to be a god. Gnostics (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Curse of Ham edit dispute
Two users are disputing whether LDS detail on the Curse of Ham is appropriate for an article on Noah.


 * It is vaguely appropriate. Curse of Ham is already wiki-linked earlier. The material being added doesn't match Wikipedia style guidelines, but that is fixable.  As it is written it doesn't belong here; I'll try a compromise.  SchmuckyTheCat


 * I'm happy with the compromise SchmuckyTheCat. Over to you rossnixon! Ledenierhomme 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not include Armenian Orthodox detail on the Curse of Japheth? Because it is not found in any reliable documents (in this case it seems that Genesis is the only marginally "reliable" document), much like the majority of LDS positions.(Rayraymitts 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

OCCUPATION??? (what he did in life)
What did Noah do in life before/after the flood? A lot of sources claim that a Noah was a farmer, but I cant find anything that says it was the Noah who built the ark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.155.156 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I read somewhere that Noah was the first insurance salesman. PiCo 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what he did in life, but I am pretty sure he built the ark. From what I can tell, God commanded Noah to build an ark, and Noah did (KJV Bible Gen 6:14-22). Also, just in-case you are interested, according to Jewish tradition as found in the Aggadah Chapter 4 of Section One (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj106.htm) Noah was also the one to build the ark. Of course we do not read in either of these books that Noah built the ark alone. Is seems reasonable to assume that Noah's sons could have helped him, considering that they were also invited to be on the ark. Nammerama 06:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What He did before the Flood, I do not know. Since the Flood, He has been the Care Taker for many Ages.  He has even Moved the Earth from one Sun to Another, although He did not know that He should have, none the less, He did.  When He moved the Earth, the Earth was in levels of occupancy, to defray the fighting.  Now we are all upon the surface?  The Mysteries. Gnostics (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the first 480 years of his life, Noah lived on the farm. On the day of his birth his father, Lamech, said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." (Gen. 5:29-32) Then, for 120 years, Noah preoccupied his time with building the ark. (Gen. 6:3-22) Between the ages of 600 and 601, Noah lived on the Ark, desperately keeping the animals alive. (Gen. 7:6-8:13). After that, Noah occupied his time with wine-pressing. (Gen. 9:20) When we last saw Noah, he was living in retirement on some Polynesian Island (according to the epic of Gilgamesh). Nate5713 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Ark Mythology
The bible told a story and the Kuran told it for morality. The flood is the punishment of God for the wicked people. It is the Oracle who decided to wipe out the wicked people. That was a tale of the Sumerian Gilgamesh epic found in the tablets, where Utnapishtam plays the role of chief priest and the story is told exactly as the Bible depicts it with new names and personages. Here comes Noah (in Hebrew NWH as well as in Arabic) meaning the settling, the end of wandering. The Old Testament brought a Mesopotamian story from its land in Babylon, during the Captivity. The writer copied the tradition of his contemporaries as they have been telling the story generation after another since before Sumer and Agadee.

Not only Noah story was Mesopotamian but also the story of Sargon of Agadee (Sharrukin) whose mother feared the oppression of the then Sumerian king killing all the newborn children by fear that one of them will take over his throne when he grows up. This is exactly the story of Moses childhood whose mother put him in a basket and released him floating in the Yamm... remember the story of the Scorpion King Sargon?

Noah story tells not only the flood mythology but also the Settling mythology. In Hebrew and in Arabic the term Noah means stop and settle down, compare the term Shabat (Saturday) or Thabet (fixed) meaning settling down, resting. In addition, the term Taboot (TBT) means coffin, compare it with the Ark, which is a huge wooden build. In Arabia today we witness the existing Thabet tribe, Noah tribe, Nuwayhah tribe, leading to the Settling mythology. Also the term Nakh or Manakh in Arabic are related to the camel’s place where they "sit", we say the camel Nakh (sat). The Almanach is the ledger of the camel market, also it means the camel market but moreover the weather and seasonal status. All these are Arabian thoughts and only Arabia can tell you about the Bible stories. In the end, the Bible is not only Hebrew but also Arabian summarizing the stories of the entire Arabia from Yemen to Mesopotamia and Canaan. The Jews of Babylon have the merit of writing them down. Noureddine (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Compare the lead sentences of Noah and Moses. The first gives you the impression that the individual is mentioned in a book, but did not necessarily exist; the second tells you the individual existed and is also mentioned in a book. Does this seem inconsistent to anyone else? Should either the first or the second article lead section be modified for consistency? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-03-18 12:48Z

Noah

Hindu perspectives
To the new contributor who insists on adding this paragraph to the effect that Noah and Manu are connected: This is a very far-fetched claim, and needs to be very solidly sourced. Here's the paragraph:


 * In Sanskrit Noah is mentioned as Manu. There was an big controversy on Noah being confused with Manu the name of the flood hero in the traditions of India. He, like Noah, is said to have built an ark in which eight people were saved. It was later revealed and summarised in the Bhavishya Purana that Noah and Manu were thus the same individual. The "Ma" is an ancient word for "water," so that Manu could mean "Noah of the waters. (

Your references are as follows, with my comments:

1. [http://texts.00.gs/14_Manu-antara-s.htm 14 Manu-s of 14 Manu-antara-s. Not a valid references - a strange website which makes no reference to Noah that I can see, and is in any case without provenance (i.e., we have no odea who wrote it). 2. Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Not explicit enough - what exactly are you trying to support with this reference, and what exactly does this book say about Manu/Noah? 3. Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam) 8.13.1. Not valid - this is a primary source, you need secondary and tertiary ones - in other words, this constitutes OR. 4. Doniger, Wendy (editor) (1993). Purāṇa Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts. Albany, New York: State University of New York. ISBN 0-7914-1382-9. Possibly valid, but given your poor understanding of referencing in the other three, I'd need to know exactly what the book says about Noah and Manu.

As for the paragraph you've written, practically every sentence contains errors and/or unsubstantiated claims: PiCo (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "In Sanskrit Noah is mentioned as Manu." Where exactly? Quote the passage. And since you say that "Noah is mentioned as Manu," the passage will have to say, explicitly, "Noah is Manu", or sonething very close to that.
 * "There was a big controversy" - where exactly? - "on Noah being confused with Manu..." Who confused them? Give a source, and it has to mention Noah by name.
 * "It was later revealed ... in the Bhavishya Purana that Noah and Manu were the same individual." Does the Purana say explicitly "Manu and Noah were the same individual", or words like that? Give a quote from the Purana.
 * "Ma" is an ancient word for "water"... (Says who? And a word for water in what language? And even if it is, so what? Ma is also an ancient word for 'mother', and many other things) "...so that Manu could mean "Noah of the waters." Says who? Give a specific source for this.

Islamic perspectives

 * according to the article References to Noah "are scattered throughout the Qur'an, but no single narrative account of the entire Deluge is given". I think this is not true, you can read the full story in the sura of Hud(chapter 11 in quran).


 * I couldn't find any authentic islamic source saying that only 83 people accepted the message of Noah. can anyone support this claim by islamic reference please?


 * according to the article "The references in the Qur'an are consistent with Genesis, and Islamic tradition generally follows the Genesis account, with one important exception: In the Bible, the deluge is a world-wide event, while in the Qur'an, it directs to a regional event, affecting only the people of Noah."

I can debate here that:
 * 1) it is not that quite clear from the Quran that the deluge was a regional event.
 * 2) there are more than one important difference between the story in Quran and Genesis. for example, Quran mentions the mount of (الجودي) -pronounced 'Joody' - instead of Ararat, this mountain in south turkey, this mountain is never mentioned in this article (I suppose there should be a separate article about this mountain in wikipedia). Quran doesn't mention how long time it took until the Ark came to rest on the mountain. Noah has an other son who was a disbeliver and he drowned (this point was mentioned later in the article but it is an other example of differences between Quran and genesis). --Aaronshavit (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Revised the section to try to take account of your points. (I believe the reference to 83 people being saved comes from later traditions, not the Koran). PiCo (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital 'H'
Frome the article: When Noah was six hundred years old, God, seeing man's wickedness which had become abundant in the earth, was saddened, and decided to send a great deluge to destroy disobedient mankind. But He saw that Noah was a righteous man, and instructed him to build an ark and gather himself and his family.

Specifically, "But He saw...". Now, if we're going to be removing the PBUH honorific from articles mentioning Muhammad,, should we be capitalizing the word "he" in reference to the Christian god? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiacarra (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of Noah.
CheskiChips (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC) In the Jewish section should his name be written "Noach"? There is a Noah, but that version of the word is a woman. Is it considered insulting to give a man a womans name?

(User = RichardL) Appears related to the ancient annual Egyptian festival of the flood - Argha Noa = (literally) Wet Moon. Somewhere Argha got confused with the aramaic word for a chest or boat, and Noa became a gentleman's name.
 * Richard, sign your posts by putting four ~ squiggles, like - the sign that comes immediately before the number 1 on the keyboard. Put it at the end of your posts. As for Noah's name, you need to have a reputable source for this - not good enough that you say so, even if you're right. PiCo (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case RichardL has an english keyboard - the tilde is found by pressing shift + #.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead illustration
There used to be a lead illustration for this article - Noah building the ark or something - and now it's gone. Why? Is there any good reason we can't have it back?PiCo (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Direction of Influence
The article ends with "...examples of apparent comparison between Greek myths and the "key characters" in the Old Testament/Torah have led recent Biblical scholars to suggest a Hellenistic influence in the composition of the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible." This appears to be the reverse of what I understood to be the situation: i.e. that the myths of Mesopotamia and the Levant were carried by the Phoenicians (by sea) and the Anatolians (by lands) into Greece where they became Hellenised. Can anyone provide a citation for the current text?--FimusTauri (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The line talks about a Hellenistic influence, which brings us down to post-330 BC or thereabouts. This sounds like an argument from minimalist scholars, who see the Torah/Primary History composed after that time. I don't know a reference for the statement, but if we understand it to mean strictly what it says - that "some" scholars have made this suggestion - then it seems valid. Whether it's true is quite another matter, but as a (minority) scholarly view, ok.
 * On the other hand, the editor who wrote that line might have been confusing Hellenistic with Hellenic, which would be more mainstream. I believe it's pretty well universally accepted among Classicists that Greek myths have a strong Levantine influence. Again, Til would be our local expert. And it's also a given in biblical scholarship that the influence was two-way, and that there's Greek traces in the OT - the story of Goliath, for example, seems to have been expanded to take in some Greek influence from the Iliad, which dates from the 6th centyury BC or earlier (I'm not up on these things) and was the soap opera of the Mediteranean in its day. So my guess is that someone might have confused Hellenic and Hellenistic. (I guess you've got Martin West's The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth"?) PiCo (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic!?
I really dont understand why Was the Arabic Name removed,Its a semitic language and I really dont see any big deal by having it kept there to represent itself.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.1.220 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Noah's Age of death?
Does anyone have a resource from Islamic tradition or hadiths or anything Islamic which proves Noah lived for 1000 years and not 950 like the Bible says so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.1.220 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really appreciated or encouraged to keep pictures or images of events in islam therfore i think it would be inappropriate to keep a pictureHighdeeboy (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me! Its really disrespectful to change the image back on .. its not allowed to show events or faces of prophets or such illustrations in Islam .. focus and look at the Islamic articles to get a broader view .. and please dont refute this and return the pic with no care or respect

thank youHighdeeboy (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This has got to be one of the most discussed topics on Wikipedia. Please understand that Wikipedia is not censored!  You cannot remove images from article just because their presence is considered objectionable by some.  Favonian (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture
I think this picture would seem to be a good picture to match this page

http://www.freebibleillustrations.com/main.php/v/01_Genesis/01008009+170+-+Genesis+8+9+-+The+return+of+the+dove.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Yitzhak Mordechai (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately I don't think that we can use that image as the type of Creative Commons licence it uses seems to be incompatible with Wikipedia. The image prohibits commercial use and derivative works. See our policy on this. Fortunately we already have a few good images in the article so, while it would have been nice to have this one, it isn't too much of a blow. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I come to think of it, I am pretty sure that I have seen similar images of the Noah with the dove. If you can find one that dates back to the 19th century or before then we can probably use that. Provided we can be confident that the image has passed into the public domain due to the copyright owner being dead for more than 70 years, we can use any such image without any restrictions. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a look in the Wikimedia Commons. How about one of these?:


 * --DanielRigal (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear these are Beautiful! I like the first and third one they seem to match the page BUT .I think the first one would look great .. whatever matches and fits in properly .btw where do u get these images from they're magnificent!Yitzhak Mordechai (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They are all from the Wikimedia Commons which is a sister project of Wikipedia. They are images which people have taken when visiting museums and historical sites and then licensed to the Commons. As the artworks themselves are all out of copyright people are free to do this. Images from the Commons can be included in Wikipedia articles directly so we don't have to download them from the Commons and upload them again here. They can also be widely used for other purposes. Have a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ok! thanks! so now are we allowed to put this image and replace it now?Yitzhak Mordechai (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done it. I thought that we should have a specifically Jewish, Islamic and Christian depiction for the three sections on those subjects and went with the early Christian picture because it is of most historical interest even if it is not the most visually appealing. I swapped out the second picture of the theme of the sacrifice for the mosaic of Noah sending the dove. That seems less repetitious and also works better as it is clearer what is being illustrated when viewing it as a thumbnail. I think the article now has the maximum amount of illustrations it can handle before they start to clutter up the layout. One image per section, preferably relevant to the section itself, seems to be the a good rule of thumb. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Areas for expansion
While I was looking at the images a few things occurred to me: --DanielRigal (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tradition section could be expanded considerably to set out the story in more detail.
 * Rather than shoehorning illustrations onto other sections, it might be sensible to have a section on "Noah in art" where we can explain the key visual themes taken from the story (The arc, the dove, the rainbow, the animals). A small gallery of the most exceptional artworks on this theme could be included.
 * We should probably have a "Noah in contemporary and popular culture" section to cover film, TV and contemporary literature.

Hey Daniel this is me Yitzhak Mordechai!!!!,.,.Listen someone used my Ip and now Iam blocked till July  please help me out! as quick as possible

Btw nice images its beautiful but I think we should replace the image in the Jewish perspectives because its originally christian but it seems dull why not replace it with the brown image .. the third one in the gallery u showed me its alot better! 77.69.165.110 (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you can't log in? I can't see any blocks. I am not an administrator so I can't help with this. The best thing is to go to your own talk page (whether you can log in or not) and explain the problem. Put the tag on it and that will get attention from an administrator. Sometimes IP blocks do affect innocent users even though the administrators do their best to avoid this risk. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

well Ive done as you said let them tell me whever they see this .. anyway I wont let that slow down things lol concerning the Image what do u think .. why not replace it because that pic is actually displayed in the Mount Judi article so its silly to put one pic in two articles why not spice up this page with another image which isnt old or dull .. the third image ..the one with the large ark in a brown theme ! 77.69.165.110 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please put a frame and comment on the photos in this article because they look ugly and out of proportion without a frame or border and comment, like they had on before. Highdeeboy (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am seeing a frame and a caption on each picture. Are you sure this is not just a technical problem at your end? Try doing a complete forced reload (Shift-Reload or Shift-Refresh) of the page and see if that helps. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

92.23.20.26 (talk)
Somebody block 92.23.20.26 (talk) for screwing up this page with vandalism. Jasonasosa (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They only did it twice so it is a bit early to talk about blocking them. They have had a warning message. Lets see how it goes. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL... block em, then cut off there hands! ARRGH! Jasonasosa (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Map from Restoration Library
Here is the map url: http://restorationlibrary.org/library_restoration/AOBH/AOBH_016_A.jpg This very important map should be added into the article. Please anybody add this map into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocah anon (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases).  That doesn't amount to any sort of evidence.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am modern scientist. Please be patient (explain latter). Bocah anon (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DEFAMATION OF ARTICLE
I read this (((Shi'ah Muslims believe that Noah is buried next to Ali[10] within Imam Ali Mosque, in Najaf, Iraq.)))) I read this also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve has anyone even dared to check this reference ! .......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.54.24.70 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)