Talk:Flood myth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Umbrians

The Umbrian people are the oldest in Italy, they were called Ombrici by the Greeks because they survived the deluge. Etruscans submitted more than 300 Umbrians cities —Pliny the Elder, Book III, paragraph112[1], Umbrorum gens antiquissima Italiae existimatur, ut quos Ombrios a Graecis putent dictos, quos inundatione terrarum imbribus superfuissent. Trecenta eorum oppida Tusci debellasse reperiuntur.

Does this fit anywhere? Also, an etymology: it is from Old French déluge, alteration of earlier deluvie < Latin dīluvium, from lavō (“‘wash’”). Mallerd (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Richard Packham

Biblical flood geology, while perhaps pseudoscience, may or may not still be a widely held viewpoint among the biblical archaeology community. The citation given at 27, Richard Packham's review of "Veith: The Genesis Conflict" cites William G Dever (as the wikipedia citation states) as evidence that flood geology is no longer widely held among the biblical archaeology community. Dever's quote is as follows:

The "archaeological revolution" in biblical studies confidently predicted by [George E.] Wright and his teacher, the legendary William Foxwell Albright, had come about by the 1980s, but not entirely in the positive way that they had expected. Many of the "central events" as narrated in the Hebrew Bible turn out not to be historically verifiable (i.e., not "true") at all. [William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001), 21.]

I personally don't see that as a sound citation of the statement that biblical flood geology is or is not a widely held viewpoint any longer. It would seem that a declaration from someone within the biblical archaeological community would be a better source for whether or not it's a widely held viewpoint anymore. Rockiesmagicnumber (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dever is from within the biblical archaeology community.PiCo (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish

Is there a reason why this section specifies a 365-day year, rather than the 360-day Jewish year? Downstrike (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Describing the Popul Vuh as pre-Columbian

We should not be making any claims that suggest that the Popul Vuh is pre-Columbian, and in particular the deluge myth. The first written evidence for it is over two centuries after Spanish contact, Father Ximénez's manuscript.

Stephen Hart: "Any hope that the Popul Vuh might be a completely pre-Columbian text is dispelled in the introduction in which the (unknown) author refers to writing under the Law of God and Christianity" (Popul Vuh 79-80). "

Early Spanish American narrative By Naomi Lindstrom: "The existing version of the Popol Vuh does not reflect exclusively Maya sources, but controversy rages over the degree of Christian influence. Some researchers view the Popol Vuh as a cultural fusion, while others stress its Mayan character." Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the deluge myth is questionable as an precolumbian idea as the idea of multiple creations destroyed in various ways - by fire, water, wild animals etc. is found throughout mesoamerica.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

There should be a link to the deluge (prehistory) page close to or within the flood hypotheses section.

68.54.107.114 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)DelugeSuggestionGuy

Book of Enoch

I dont think it would be appropriate to add the information taken from the book of Enoch and merge it with the Jewish perspective because Judaism rejects the book of Enoch and doesnt regard it as scriptureYitzhak Mordechai (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be accurate to say that it's rejected by mainstream Judaism, but it's a Jewish book just the same. PiCo (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name change

I can't see any consensus or even any discussion about a name change?Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See the Neutrality section above for a bit of rather dated discussion, don't see much in the way of consensus. Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't have been done out of the blue in this way. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm changing it back. If the common name isn't "Flood myth" we should be able to ascertain this, but the current move was clearly done unilaterally and should be reversed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And she's changing the names of books, invented a word legendology (using the replace function I presume) etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the article changes and posted to her talk page, if someone can please move the article back until we have a discussion, thanks, I'm off to bed. If she continues with no discussion, probably ANI. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't seem to want to discuss, she's simply reverted me with no explanation. She's at 2 reverts now, as am I. I really must go! Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

His name is Arlen, not Arlene! 72.25.47.154 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. IP, you are quite correct. As pointed out above, Myth is much more POV than Legend. I moved it because I have tried discussion before and even though myth is in clear violation of WP:NPOV, the move was blocked. Arlen22 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So you try discussion and don't get a consensus but move anyway!Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't even know that discussion existed. I do remember that I brought it up though. I decided that even though past discussions did not get anywhere (there was a huge one sometime in the past), I figured I could since it was in violation of WP:NPOV. Arlen22 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do not move pages like this without discussion. That's simply disruptive. It does not violate WP:NPOV in the least. You would need to establish that and to get a consensus behind you before making the move.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore in the Neutrality discussion, there were five for the move and three against it. Who said there wasn't consensus. In that discussion, at least one person, and maybe a second, had the POV that the flood never happened and said to therefore not change the name. I changed it to flood legends, which is more neutral than flood myths. We are trying to get good info to the general public, and therefore we have to use words the way the general public uses them. Arlen22 (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, per discussion above, I will move it. I won't do a global replace though. Arlen22 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not understand WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a vote. The discussion above took place over almost 7 months and two of the editors (one an IP that might in fact be one of the other editors) had that as their only post, a 3rd editor has only 55 edits. The pertinent discussion is this one, the only one in fact that is clearly labelled as a name change discussion. We don't disqualify editors who think the flood happened or never happened (at least one of the editors in that discussion is a Young Earth Creationist, possibly others, shall we disqualify them also? Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arlen22 still needs to explain why the common usage term "deluge myth" is a violation of NPOV. There seems no valid reason for the renaming as far as I can see. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arlen22 doesn't need to explain anything. He/she needs to be rolled back and then stay away from the article. I have complained about the abysmal level of this "debate", but this beats everything I have seen so far. Seriously, this is just pathetic. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAME

For the record, google books indicates that the four combinations "flood myth", "flood legend", "deluge myth", "deluge legend" occur in this order of frequency, in a ratio of about 7:4:4:2. This means that "flood legend" and "deluge myth" have a similar incidence, while "flood myth" is the most common by a significant margin, and "deluge legend" the least common, also by a significant margin.

Unlike most edit-warriors around here, I understand the difference of meaning between "legend" and "myth". Any discussion of a name change based on opinions of "npov" from a religionist or anti-religionist perspective fail from the outset. The only valid approach is look at scholarly literature and try to figure out which is the most commonly used term. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of changing to "Flood myth" if others can agree to this, based on those results. As I mentioned at the fringe theories board I was inclined to think flood myth was most common, but I was too lazy to do the searches ... thanks Dab. The NPOV argument is nonsense.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can support a change to "flood myth" as well, since that apparently is common usage (I can only offer the same non-excuse as Griswaldo for not checking it out myself). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Flood myth is eminently suitable and seems to be in more common usage than deluge myth.Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Name change Deluge myth -> Flood myth

What's the best way to do this? Flood myth redirects here so I can't "move" the page. Just copy and paste the content and change the redirects around or is there a more efficient way to do it?Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

An admin can move a page to a new title if consensus exists. The best way to ensure this is to post at WP:Requested moves and wait for a reasonable time for all views to be heard. Attempting to move articles by copy-and-paste messes up copyright compliance since it loses track of who added what content. EdJohnston (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't thinking about the page histories. I'll do that. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Redaction or composition?

I'll go along with "redaction" rather than "composition", but I'll question the other changes:

(1) Why remove references to later non-canonical literature?

(2) The redaction was from J and P, not from the surviving ANE literature.0

(3) Giving years for the range, rather than centuries, has the appearance of more precision than we can claim.

TomS TDotO (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this page should go into any detail on the Genesis flood. Unlike most other items on this page, it has its own dedicated article. Of course, the final Hebrew text was redacted from earlier Hebrew texts, and these earlier Hebrew texts (J, P), now no longer extant, were in turn derived from older Assyro-Babylonian accounts (which are still extant). --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove some of the detail. PiCo (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Deluge myth → Flood myth — "Flood myth" appears to be the most common name for this content. Requesting move per WP:UCN.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• no opinion. Both titles are fine, and they are also exact synonyms. I have noted above that "flood myth" is more frequent on google books by a ratio of about 7:4, but I have not investigated further to establish which is preferred in academic or generally high quality publications. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• The sense I got from other searches was that Flood was more common than Deluge. Deluge tends to be used much less in general in American English (perhaps not in the British Commonwealth nations?), but they are indeed synonyms.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; my sense is that "deluge", due to its rarity in modern English, is used to refer specifically to an ancient, large-scale flood, versus "flood", which could refer to an inch of water in someone's basement. Powers ^T 13:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that the three lead illustrations are each titled "The Deluge", not "The Flood". =) Powers ^T 11:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes I agree, "deluge" is antiquated, but that goes against the idea of WP:UCN. What is the policy justification for supporting a name because it is less common? I'm not sure I understand.Griswaldo (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I meant it's rarely used to refer to common flooding. For ancient floods of Biblical proportions, "deluge" is common enough to be on par with "flood" and so WP:PRECISION takes over. Powers ^T 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. If the article were exclusively about the flood in Genesis, then one could point out that the traditional English name for it is "Deluge". But the article is about many different flood stories from many cultures. The article which is specific to the Deluge is Noah's Ark, I believe. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As you can see from the fourth picture in this article, it's not just Noah's flood that is referred to as The Deluge. Powers ^T 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article is about other flood myths of various types. One flood myth I know of only involves a flooded village. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And there's another flooded village myth in the article, and most of the Chinese flood myths are about regional floods. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Flood is more widely used. Cjc13 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Composition history of the Book of Genesis

Moses as author, c.1440 BC: not generally regarded as likely. Documentary hypothesis (four separate versions composed 950-550 BC and joined like Siamese twins c.450): popular up to about 1970, now far less so, but not quite dead. Post-DH theories with a Deuteronomist working c.600 BC, a Yahwsit c.550, and a Priestly c.450: quite popular. Where to find out about these things: I'll have a look and get back to you. PiCo (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, see the ref that I've just added to Mosaic authorship. It appears there is no modern consensus ^rossnixon 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The source you added says the following -- "Whybray's work on the Pentateuch could be viewed as the logical conclusion of the direction in which most pentateuchal criticism has been moving in the last three decades, More and more studies have been insisting on the sixth century as the time in which the whole work took shape, and there has been an ever stronger trend to unitary readings and a reaction against minute dissection." I fail to see where the source supports the idea that Mosaic authorship is seriously considered by any scholars today.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can use that reference in this article. PiCo (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that there is no indication that Moses is in any way a historical individual. Plus of course there are some orthodox rabbinical authors who say "BUT... if you really want to believe he was historical, here's how you could argue..." That's just "you may believe if you really want to", it has nothing to do with actual evidence or historiography. If you absolutely want to believe that king Minos or king Romulus are historical, there is nothing to stop you from that either, but there is also no point on writing lengthy arguments about the "historicity of king Minos/Romulus", because there is simply zero evidence: it's a non-issue. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Claim for oldest flood myth should be removed

The Indian flood myth section makes the claim that it is "arguably the oldest flood myth and possibly the origin of all flood myths". How can this be, if it is written AD 320-550, while the Epic of Gilgamesh was written more than 1000 years earlier? --85.146.35.119 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observation. I've removed the claim.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

article structure

most of this article is just a "list of various unrelated myths about floods". I don't really see the value of that. Especially in cases of myths that already have full coverage elsewhere. The only part of the article that is actually encyclopedic and to the point is the "Hypotheses of origin of flood legends" bit hidden away at the end of the lengthy list part. Perhaps this should be reconsidered. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to get a makeover similar to the one Creation myth recently received. Lets start splitting. merging and deleting. When we're left with the more general information we can consider how to expand the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Ogygian flood section

User:PiCo deleted a complete section in Flood myth compiled by many editors over the last three years or so, which incorporated some eighteen internal links, plus three footnotes, claiming that "there's not a single reliable source cited".

The article now reads: "Greek mythology knows three floods": The flood of Deucalion and the flood of Dardanus...

Is everyone happy with this? --Odysses (₪) 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Greek section is far too long - longer than any other by a considerable margin. All three Greek flood stories should be combined in a single, brief section.PiCo (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps read my comment right above this section? The entire article is listcruft and needs to be split anyway. Edit-warring over individual sections is not helpful. --dab (𒁳) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

spliting the article into various sections sounds reasonable. Then individual sections could be edited and expanded more easily. --Odysses (₪) 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Odysses, see below. What Dab suggested has been done already. I made sure all the content that didn't already have a home had a new one and then created List of flood myths. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good work. Perhaps List of flood myths link could be expanded into a paragraph including "main article tag" ({main|tag}}). --Odysses (₪) 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now what?

I've found homes for the list like content in the entry but now what do we do? The options are 1) a disambiguation page or 2) a list entry. I think a list page would be better. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I created List of flood myths and removed the list from this entry.Griswaldo (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done - good way to keep this article focused. Kahuroa (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This was all just the first step. Now we have to build the article here with more general materials on flood myths. I suggest, to anyone who is interested, to consult the most general sources first, like Encyclopedias of mythology and the like, so we can figure out the best structure for the article.Griswaldo (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your long-term intentions are but the article at the moment reads very strangely, in that it doesn't say much at all. firstly I was looking for info on the Noah myth, and got re-directed here from 'Noah's Flood'. But Noah's not even mentioned. I suggest the re-direct is changed to Noah's Ark. Secondly, before moving on to find the Noah specific article I thought I'd stay here to have a quick read about other flood myths. But there's nothing about them either! In fact it's about the geology of flood myth origins. I would have expected this article to be a survey of the various myths (with links to specific articles) and material on historical/literary origins and connections, with geological background certainly covered but probably the most minor part. DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

African flood myths

It would be great if someone could add African 'great flood' myths. Every other region seems to be covered. Barney Hill (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The East Africa Masai (Maasai_people) have an oral legend, but I don't have any particulars. Likewise the Egyptian book of the dead.
Telpardec (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Flandrian Transgression

This is the source of the flood myths I believe. Eden is underneath the seafloor of the Persian Gulf just east of Kuwait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flandrian_transgression http://ldolphin.org/eden/

AThousandYoung (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

In the ¶ "Some geologists believe..." I would respectfully suggest moving the sentence that begins "One of the latest..." and the following one which refers to NatGeo News below to follow the reference to Lake Agassiz. This places them in chronological order, which in this instance is helpful since the November '07 Exeter article discusses "Noah's flood kick-started European farming" and the later Southampton article states, "...I hope this will counter some recent ...misguided accounts of the spread of farming." -thus placing the conflicting opinions in direct juxtaposition.Mannanan51 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

CFORK merge candidate

FYI, there is an article, which appears to be a CFORK of this one, at Noach (parsha) which is being considered for deletion. I don't know if there is any content in that article which is worthy of being merged with this one, but if there is, please migrate it over. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The only User that is considering Noach (parsha) for deletion is:

(cur | prev) 05:25, 9 July 2012‎ Mann jess (talk | contribs)‎ . . (93,777 bytes) (+699)‎ . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha). (TW)) (undo)

User:Mann_jess, you are out of control. Jasonasosa (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not really helpful. You could perhaps participate at the AfD. Or, you could help here to identify content in that article which matches this article's scope.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, the fact that you are not familiar with the Jewish POV articles like Noach (parsha), means that you are not familiar with WP:POVFORK, shows up your limited editing abilities. Jasonasosa (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess is a good editor -I'm glad you struck your comments]. Part of POVFORK says "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." If that article is a povfork it should be deleted. If it isn't then I suspect it needs work.

Talmud

The Flood myth#Historicity section is strictly secular. This section does not incorporate versions of the myth, it is strictly based on secular evidence, science, or hypotheses. The Talmud is based on traditions which are religious POV, thus being inappropriate to include in this secular section. However, as I noticed, it might serve well somewhere in the Flood myth#Mythologies section, but certainly not under the The Mesopotamian flood story paragraph. Thus it was reverted yet again, and by an additional editor. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This article might have something interesting for the hypothesis section

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Entry overhaul

I'm starting the entry overhaul. We need to create an entry here that is about flood myths generally and not a list of them. This means we need to go through all the myths listed individually and either merge the material into appropriate existing entries or create new entries. Then we need to delete the material from this entry. Please understand that no material is being scrubbed from Wikipedia, it is all being moved to appropriate places. Let's get to work.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of interest in this I see. Too bad. I'm working through this slowly. Any help would still be appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I undid some of your additions to Polynesian articles. We get a lot of unsourced stuff added and it tends to distort the material. Perhaps better to mention it on a talk page rather than add unsourced stuff. A lot of flood myths postdate the arrival of the Bible and shouldn't be added into genuine myth material anyway Kahuroa (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved the material by following the links, and I apologize if some of them were wrong. Ro'o redirects to Rongo ... if that is not correct then you probably want to fix that as well. Regarding whether or not those myths post-date the arrival of missionaries and if that invalidates them that is not a question for you or I, but for scholars writing about these stories. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we don't want to mix stuff together that shouldn't be mixed together. Ro'o should redirect to Rongo, that's okay for now since they are cognates and until there is a separate page for the deity as it is manifested in the various cultures. But there was nothing in the material you added that suggested it was about Ro'o the deity - there was just a character of that name in a story about another deity. Ro'o is a common word in Polynesian languages and often used in names. Kahuroa (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. I was just following the link that was already placed in this entry. Here the Ro'o material you say is about a different character was wikilinked and it lead to the Rongo entry. I'm not questioning what you're saying just explaining why I ended up doing what I did. Thanks again for pointing it out. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Homeless content

In Norse mythology, there are two separate deluges. According to the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson, the first occurred at the dawn of time before the world was formed. Ymir, the first giant, was killed by the god Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve, and when he fell, so much blood flowed from his wounds that it drowned almost the entire race of giants with the exception of the frost giant Bergelmir and his wife. They escaped in a ship and survived, becoming the progenitors of a new race of giants. Ymir's body was then used to form the earth while his blood became the sea.

The second, in the Norse mythological time cycle, is destined to occur in the future during the final battle between the gods and giants, known as Ragnarök. During this apocalyptic event, Jormungandr, the great World Serpent that lies beneath the sea surrounding Midgard, the realm of mortals, will rise up from the watery depths to join the conflict, resulting in a catastrophic flood that will drown the land. However, following Ragnarök the earth will be reborn and a new age of humanity will begin.

The mythologist Brian Branston noted the similarities between this legend and an incident described in the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf, which had traditionally been associated with the biblical flood, so there may have been a corresponding incident in the broader Germanic mythology as well as in Anglo-Saxon mythology.

• Any suggestions for where this content could go?Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ragnorak should be interpreted more as description of volcanic events, particularly as the major source comes from Iceland (Snorri / Voluspa ). Fire, flood (Joklahaulp) and rebirth are all important themes. Branston interpreted myth in the light of natural events, but barely touches on the volcanic theme, although his Gods of the North has an interesting note accompanying a photo of the eruption of Hekla. He does comment at length on the late influence of christianity on the Norse myths and culture.

So I'd suggest that the Ragnorak flood belongs specifically in Norse / Icelandic cosmology rather than trying to join it to the proto Indo European flood myths.

Matt (fixed IP, have not got round to registering) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.255.103 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ARkStorm

Shouldn't something about atmospheric river storms be under hypotheses? The ARkStorm simulation was named referencing the Biblical Deluge. 40 days of rain fits with modelling of some of the most severe archaeological evidence of previous storms in California. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We would need sources connecting that idea to this topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A google news search on ARkStorm and Gilgamesh, Noah, or Deluge, shows many columnists linking the two -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

The article states that a flood myth is a symbolic narrative. Noah's Ark is not written as a "symbolic narrative", therefore it does not belong in this article. Zenkai _talk 20:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You will need reliable third party references that state that otherwise it's just your opinion?Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read it? It is most certainly not written in a symbolic style. Zenkai _talk 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Noah's ark is the archetypical example of a flood myth and it is mentioned in every reliable source about flood myths. If you have a source for the viewpoint that it is substantially different from other flood myths please present it, and we can include that viewpoint as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem with term "symbolic" is legitimate. The addition of the adjective "symbolic" suggests that ALL flood narratives are written to be intentionally symbolic rather than literal; this simply isn't accurate. The sentence should either simply read "narrative" or "narrative, considered by many scholars to be symbolic." Of course, that second type would require some kind of source to support the claim, whereas "narrative" alone is largely inarguable. (jacoblevi) Perhaps we could even change it to "ancient narrative" (jacoblevi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacoblevi (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Plcoopr

My intentions was to change the idea from myth to theory. I thought that would be a more appropriate fit for the article. I felt I was acting accordingly to the second piller of wikipedia (Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.) I left the article to research on how to change the title of a wiki article. My plans were to come back and finish editing the article. I had plans to add a few new section of the "opposing view" to the article. I felt this article scoffed at and was very dismissive of the idea that the flood has tangible evidence(in recent years). To say something is a myth is completely disregarding the large portion of the population that believes and have "imperial evidence" to prove their point. I do respect the policies of Wikipedia and intend to abide by them wholeheartedly. I did not mean to garner and unnecessarily attention form the powers that be. I apologize for you having to take time to tend to this situation. I can assure you the edits were coming from a good place. For future reference, If I did want to make drastic changes to an article, what would be the correct protocol to follow Plcoopr (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Use the talk page and ask for a name change in this case. You'll have to argue that our policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names supports the change you want and you'll need to get consensus. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think "Flood theory" would be a no-go. There may be a "theory" that one or more of the various flood myths reflect historical events, but I don't think that the term "flood theory" is in use and would therefore fail WP:COMMONNAME. I put "flood theory" in google books and got 3,300 hits and from a quick look over the results I couldn't see any that referred to the topic of this article. "Flood myth" generated 11,000+ results all appearing to be on topic. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

the problem with "flood theory" is that it suggests a scientific, rather than mythic, origin for the narrative. This page is about the "myth"--that is, the ancient story--rather than a scientific "theory." A different page would have to be started for "flood theory," one which discuses those who think a great flood is a viable scientific explanation for certain geological anomalies. (jacoblevi)--Jacoblevi (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Ross a literalist?

In the section on claims of historicity DeCausa has described Hugh Ross as a Biblical literalist. I find this puzzling. A local flood in the Persian Gulf area is traditionally a rather liberal and non-literal interpretation of Genesis. Clearly he is very concerned to defend Christianity but most of the criticisms in his WP article come from "Young Earth Creationists". He is also talking way outside his area of expertise (astrophysics), which is more worrying. (I haven't read anything else by him but on one video-clip he appeared very ready to make claims way outside his area.)

The aim of this section is to point to the possible historical antecedents rather than to "prove" the link with one particular flood myth. The links at the end of the paragraphs are more important. I'm inclined to remove the Ross quote altogether. The quote from Ward Sanford who wrote the other piece cited at the beginning of the paragraph predates the Anthropology considerably but does make the link with the flood stories and he is a geologist, so I'm inclined to leave that. Chris55 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ross (Hugh Ross (creationist)) has a literalist belief in the bible - just not quite as literal as some. He believes that the biblical flood happened. Maybe not precisely as in the bible but close enough. Prior to that edit, his view was being asserted without referring to its provenance - as though it were NPOV and from an RS. My main concern was to correct that misrepresentation. But if you would like to delete him altogether, I have no objection. DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but changing the title of this section to "Claims of historicity" seems to duplicate the next section, "Hypotheses". The first paragraph includes a note saying that there is no record of flood in Israel and I can't see the relevance of that point (it's been reinstated recently). The focus of the Biblical story, up to the time Abraham moved from Ur, as well as the earlier Gilgamesh epics, were all in the Mesopotamian area. Most myths have foundations in history (think of Troy) although the reality is often very different. If the major growth of early Mesopotamian civilization was in an area now covered by a shallow sea, then it is easy to see that stories would arise. Perhaps the Sanford quote also deserves treatment in the hypothesis section but I thought it important to include a linking citation. Chris55 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section because the original title of "Historicity" was obviously POV. If there's duplication, that's a content issue not because of the title I gave it. Probably the two sections should be merged under the title of "Claims of historicity", which is more informative/descriptive than "Hypotheses" (Hypothesis suggesting what?) I didn't insert/reinsert "no record of flood in Israel" so can't say why it's there. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Similarities in flood myths

Maybe we can construct an NPOV section. We could quote Morris briefly, but not his statistics. Sorry, but I wouldn't trust them one bit. We can't write a section on this without using Alan Dundes (ed.) The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1988. Then there's this[1] Historical Genesis: From Adam to Abraham By Richard James Fischer - a Christian book that disagrees with Morris. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I really cocked up my edit. I tried twice to write my reasons in an edit summary but failed. First, it's copied virtually verbatim and thus copyvio (although for some reason the number he studied was changed to match a number in another source). It's clearly WP:UNDUE - we need to cover this in an NPOV way as I suggest above. We should not describe him as though he describes the Christian viewpoint, but as the YEC viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to note that the editor reverting me is almost certainly a sock of Allthekidsinthestreet/Heatelite. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet following me here because of the earlier SPI as he's done with another editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The section was clearly COPYVIO. The same editor has added a similar list to the spinoff List of flood myths, this time citing also the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, so do you want to deal with that? That might be a better place for a proper comparison. It's odd that the list in the lead of this article only includes 3 out of 7 articles which mention a flood. One would hope that neutrality respects religious people who believe in a flood without shouting "myth" at every opportunity. Chris55 (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've dealt with the other article and mentioned this to the editor - I wouldn't have expected this from him but then I don't know him that well. Thanks for your response. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Much apologies for my blatant stupidity. I should have summarized the information rather than copy and pasting and then put in the block quote with the ref. However I fell in love with the numbers and I lost my head... twice... I also agree that the content should not have been put into the lede of the List of flood myths page. Considering I've been a party to several Talk discussions where idiots paste in "whatever" into the lede, I should obviously know better. You know we all make mistakes...

Your further discussion escapes me. I add a section where there was - no - content and it appears I'm being beat up because I didn't use the "correct" sources? So another source disagrees with the one I inserted - ok...? Nowhere in the text I added did I say this was "the" Christian viewpoint or even "a" Christian viewpoint - its just presented as a statistical analysis of the data and is inserted because the author had correlated the many flood myths into statistical data (after what I thought was an exhaustive Google search which turned up nothing else similar to this) and is presented as a sterile NPOV representation of such. Is this about Morris being a Christian? However, maybe I'm misunderstanding the discussion.

Finally, I don't want to further muddy the waters, but is the text that Chris55 added on the "List" page about the Maasai (The Maasai myth, which has obvious Judeo-Christian influences, is as follows) backed up by the text ref? Page 45 is not listed in the preview items of the ref he added so I am not able to verify whether this is his opinion or something that the author states. The whole point of this is that native cultural heritage - pre-Christian ministry influence - appear to share a common history of a flood whether it was a regional flood in the Mideast, and storms in the Carribean or Pacific rim, or flash floods in the American midwest. So unless you are saying that the statistical data presented by Morris is "wrong", I'm not sure I'm following the point. Again is it simply because Morris is a Christian...? Ckruschke (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

First, we all, including me, do things we kick ourselves for later. And it isn't about Morris being a Christian, although it is partially about him being a YEC Christian (and there are a number of sources we use that make it clear there is a problem with trusting YEC claims like this - what were the questions would be a big issue). So, yes, I don't trust his data one bit and we shouldn't present the specifics, just his conclusion. He represents one Christian point of view. Fischer is also a Christian who points out the differences. It's trivial to say that most cultures have memories of floods. Of course they do, floods are extremely common, and over millennia any culture will experience memorable ones. Morris tries to make them look more alike than they are. And Dundes goes into a lot of detail. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

See [2] on this survey, [3] on other work of his. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Morris' issues. I still think this is simply a collection of correlation statistics, but then I'm an engineer and all I saw were the numbers. I thought that the data would ADD to the page and was obviously naive of any other issues. Clearly I'm in the wrong about every way you can be so further discussion is moot. Thanks again. Ckruschke (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

To respond to your point about the Maasai myth, the words I added are copied directly from the source. That page is available on the web and I added a link to it. Chris55 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris - doesn't really matter one way or another at this point, but your link is for a free looksee of the book (which I had also found when I made my original insertion) and it doesn't include the first 110 pages or so. Thus my question about your ref from page 45. If you pasted another link (other than the Google one on the page) and I missed it, I apologize for overlooking it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Why do we say myth?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why do we say myth? the great flood DID happen. - GodLover105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.114.134 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC) In academic terms a myth is a story that is sacred and holds a particular significance within a religious tradition it doesn't imply any truth or falsehood? Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Because sources. WP:NOTFORUM.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Monomyth category

This article is categorised as "monomyth". I deleted it as I don't think the monomyth hypothesis is established in academic research, but rather a fringe theory from one person. This makes is improper as an encyclopedic category. User Maunus reverted this chance with the argument "I dont think that is really the case, and I also think it is relevant as a see also even if it were". Cleary it is relevent if it's a fringe theory, otherwise anyone with a theory on myths and religion (and there are many) would be allowed to freely categorise according to their whim. So, is it an accepted theory (hypothesis really) or not? I've read some criticism of the theory online that says it's not taken seriously in academia. But it's really not up to me to prove it's fringe, it's up to the proponents to prove it's legitimate. Otherwise, the category should be removed. --Devadatta (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are saying that the category shouldn't exist, you need to go to WP:CSD. The term monomyth shows up a lot in a Google books search. This[4] is someone else discussing Campbell and the Great Flood. Another academic source:[5]. And [6] It very much looks like an accepted concept to me, or at least accepted by a number of scholars. See also[7]. No evidence that it is fringe. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I checked your references. Your first goes to a book called "Popular Controversies in World History" with pro and con discussion about topics like if the Flood myth is based on a real flooding or whether the Shakespeare dramas really was written by him. The con part goes through argument from among others Velikovsky, Freud, Jung & Campbell. Velikovsky is as pure as pseudoscience get. Jung and Freud are not far behind this, especially Jung which was Campbells favorite.

Your second goes to a book which just mentions Campbell in a paragraph or so. "Monomyth" is then mentioned three times in the book and refers to theories of François Dupuis, George Stanley Faber & Goethe. Not Campbell.

However, your third reference could resonably be said to support one scholar who uses Campbell's concept. This is not surprising at all, in fact I assume that there are more academics who do. Considering that there are Nobel prize laureates who support pseudo-science like homeopathy and AIDS-denialism, it's not so strange. The important question is not whether some academic exist who supports it, but if it's accepted in academia by at least a large minority (like 15-20% or so). As a reference, Jung is not accepted in psychology (nor is Freud, at least by researchers). About your last reference, a Google book search on "monomyth", it only shows it's popularity, not acceptance in academia. Lastly, I dont suggest deleting the "monomyth" category. It's certainly fitting in articles like Star Wars and films inspired by Chris Vogler memo (which should be plenty). --Devadatta (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jung, Freud and Campbell are all immensely influential, and whether or not you consider them pseudoscience is utterly irrelevant. Categories do not have to be scientifically wellfounded, and not everything that is not scientific is fringe. Jung and Campbells theories are essentially literary theories, that belong to the humanities analysing human narrativives and neither claims to be a scientific theory in the popperian sense of the word. Whether or not Campbell is currently used by many academics is also irrelevant, because you will not find a book about mythology that does not mention it. It has historical importance, as one of the foundational approaches to the study of mythology. Nietzsche, Kant and Descartes "theories" are also pseudoscience under your definition, but that is rather irrelevant when aiming to consider whether a category is appropriate for a specific article. If you conduct a google scholar search for "monomyth campbell" you will find dozens of recent articles that uses Campbells monomyth model to interpret myths, novels and other kinds of narratives.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pleins mentions Noah and Jacob, not just Starwars. "Whether it is Lord Buddha, Luke Skywalker. Noah, or the biblical patriarch Jacob, the story of an individual who has suffered separation from home, tackled trials on the road, and experienced a triumphant return (or a profound spiritual realization) is destined to inspire listeners to commit themselves to more meaningful lives. In its ancient, modern, or biblical forms, the monomyth in all its variations governs the thinking of boys and men the world over." Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I acknowledged that: "your third reference could resonably be said to support one scholar who uses Campbell's concept". So, that's one academic. But there's thousands of them. --Devadatta (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? All 3 of my sources mention monomyth. As Maunus points out, this is not so rare that you can just dismiss it. I'm wondering if the Monomyth meets NPOV. The sources I've looked at don't seem as critical of the concept as the article, if they are critical at all. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I misunderstood the edit, I thought it was a see also link. I dont think the article should be categorized as "monomyth" but that "monomyth" should be mentioned in the see alsos or in the text. Not all hypotheses or theories that are not accepted are fringe, Campbells theory is historically important and is still taught as an example of historical approaches to mythology in textbooks and in univiersities. That makes it not a fringe theory, just a historical theory that has fallen out of favor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See this link to The Oxford Companion to World Mythology[8]. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The link provided above clearly establishes that the concept of monomyths is significant enough to be included in a recent, broadly encyclopedic reference work regarding mythology, and I would have to think that is sufficient enough for our purposes. And that source is yet another reference work I will, eventually, try to establish lists of articles for. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Vital but expensive source

The Primeval Flood Catastrophe Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions Y. S. Chen Oxford Oriental Monographs 352 pages | 16 black-and-white plates | 234x156mm 978-0-19-967620-0 | Hardback | 12 December 2013 [9] Discusses all major aspects of Mesopotamian Flood traditions in depth

Offers a systematic treatment of the historical development of the Flood traditions, and makes important new observations on the origins and development of the traditions

Provides analysis based on an extensive and systematic documentation and analysis of Sumerian and Babylonian flood terms in their literary contexts

Unravels the complex historical relationship between the Flood traditions and major literary and historiographical traditions in Mesopotamia

Sheds new light on our understanding of each individual source (e.g., the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic) involved

Explores the socio-political circumstances in which the Flood traditions emerged and evolved

Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this classified as a myth?

I would be interested to know the criteria for what constitutes a myth? Wikipedia has plenty of historical articles about the ancient world that are not classified as myths, many of them with significantly less historical evidence than the flood (which is supported globally across many traditions). I realize that for some, the flood's widespread ascription to a deity may invalidate the narratives as factual history, but even if all the narratives were fictional, there is no rational basis to conclude that the flood itself was fictional. Logically, there must have been some common historical event behind the various accounts, ie a great flood. Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From myth:

Alan Dundes defined myth as a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society";

Editor2020, Talk 03:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are separate articles on possible historical events related to these flood narratives. E.g. Black Sea deluge hypothesis and Great Flood (China). utcursch | talk 06:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The tale of Tiddalik the Frog

The section "Mythologies" contains a discussion of "The tale of Tiddalik the Frog", which from the description (I am not aware of this tale from other sources) does not fit the general pattern of flood as a threat and might be inappropriate for this page. In addition, the time spent on this particular tale appears disproportionate and a brief mentioned and a link to a dedicated article might be more appropriate.80.226.24.14 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Sub-Section

I am aware that this article isn't specifically about the flood of Noah, but about "flood myths," in general, which, by its description, would also include the biblical episode of the flood. Could the editors of this article agree to add a sub-section that treats on the research conducted by Professor Alan Cooper in 2013? The gist of his research is described as follows:

In 2013, Professor Alan Cooper, from the Australian Center for Ancient DNA, carried out research on early Neolithic skeletons discovered at an excavation in Sweden. In an article entitled, “Ancient Europeans Mysteriously Vanished 4,500 Years Ago,”[1] Professor Cooper was quoted as saying: “What is intriguing is that the genetic markers of this first pan-European culture, which was clearly very successful, were then suddenly replaced around 4,500 years ago, and we don't know why. Something major happened, and the hunt is now on to find out what that was.” A co-worker who conducted research on the bones found at the same archaeological dig, Dr. Wolfgang Haak, also said: “We have established that the genetic foundations for modern Europe were only established in the Mid-Neolithic, after this major genetic transition around 4,000 years ago. This genetic diversity was then modified further by a series of incoming and expanding cultures from Iberia and Eastern Europe through the Late Neolithic.”

Of course, the question that looms in my mind is how can we show that the above research coincides with the biblical narrative, without it infringing upon the WP prohibition of independent research and which is strictly forbidden here? I am open to any suggestions. Earlier I had drawn the following conclusions (see below), in an attempt to show its connection to the biblical account, which addition was rejected on grounds of it being independent research. If there is a way that we can by-pass this, yet make its import clear to our readers, how much better that would be!

" Some scholars think that these skeletons and remains are those of people who settled in Europe before the flood of waters covered the earth, as described in the Gilgamesh tablets, or the biblical narrative of the flood. In Jewish tradition, the Great Deluge occurred during the time of Noah around 2,105 BCE,[2] after which, the earth was resettled by Noah's descendants: Japheth, Shem and Ham. All nations spread out from Asia Minor, precisely where the ship that carried their forbears alighted. Those who accept the tradition of a colossal flood of waters destroying the earth's population see these early Europeans (whose DNA markings were similar to Near Eastern and Anatolian people, as described in Cooper's findings) as being the same people who suddenly disappeared at that time from Europe because of that flood, during which time Europe was resettled by Noah's progeny, viz. from Japheth. The early Europeans had genetic DNA that resembled more closely Near Eastern and Anatolian people, insofar that ALL were from one family - the progeny of Adam > Seth and/or Cain."

NOTES:

[1] Ancient Europeans Mysteriously Vanished 4,500 Years Ago, Retrieved April 23, 2013

[2] Seder Olam Rabbah, chapter 1

Looking for any suggestions. Davidbena (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think other editors share your aim to by-pass our no original research policy or, even worse, show that Cooper's research supports the biblical narrative? I certainly don't. We're not here to find or create evidence for a religious POV. DeCausa (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, granted, that no one shares my view. I can accept that. By "by-pass" I meant bringing down authentic sources showing the same conclusion that I reached. If not, can we agree to show Cooper's research, and let our readers draw their own conclusions?Davidbena (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S.- In my humble opinion, the biblical narrative of the Great Deluge has its own merits, and should not be viewed as a "myth," per se. As I pointed out to our friend, Doug, there were many stories about an epic flood, which in principle has its foundation, since this was etched in their memory as something far greater than an ordinary flood of waters. However, in those civilizations where there was no writing script, the story was passed down by way of oral tradition, and as is the case with some oral traditions, these stories could have been embellished over the years. The biblical account, however, is a written account, made by Moses, who was the 6th generation after Abraham. Abraham was aged 58 when Noah passed away. The account of the colossal flood was still very fresh in the minds of the people of Abraham's generation, since not only Noah was still living, but also Shem, the son of Noah, who endured that voyage. Here, in this case, it seems far better to take a neutral stand.Davidbena (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That may be. But Wikipedia policy for good reasons don't really care what individual editors believe. You will need to provide reliable secondary sources for such claims. Also I doubt you will find many scholars, even theologians, who would subscribe to the theory that Moses actually wrote the account in Bible about the flood. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If neither Cooper nor other reliable sources link the Biblical story to Cooper's research there are two very good reasons not to mention him in this article. (1) To do so would be WP:SYNTH and therefore against policy and (2) the lack of Cooper or other RS making such link points to there being no link. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with recent research is that it has not always come to the attention of astute scholars, and if it has, it is not always something that they have commented upon in their most recent publications. As for Moses being the author of the Book of Genesis, this is the accepted view, at least among Israeli scholars. However, as in any very old historical record having no colophon, we can only best rely upon oral traditions regarding authorship. In the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra 14b), a treatise on rabbinic teachings redacted in the 5th century CE, Moses is accredited with being the author of the First Five Books of the Pentateuch (i.e. Genesis, et al.), as well as the author of the Book of Job. Of course, this ancient tradition is mentioned also in the Mishnah (Pirkei Avoth 1:1), a work embodying Israel's oral traditions and compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince in 189 CE. These statements, IMHO, bear far more weight and credibility than theories derived at from men's unsolved questions about the said work and/or speculations about the work.Davidbena (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have a personal belief and view in the subject matter of this article and you are wishing to edit it to advance that personal belief and view. That's a red flag. Our only objective in editing an article should be to reflect reliable sources. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe in the "theory of relativity," but I doubt if that would make me disqualified for writing articles about that subject. The same can be said about any subject, for that matter, for which someone has some workable knowledge about the subject. Mine is really one that seeks a more neutral view about this topic, rather than merely portraying it as a "myth." Still, I have no intention to push my views upon others. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike with the theory of relativity, you are quite alone regarding your specific views on the subject of flood myths. That means there are no reliable, secondary scholarly sources to back up your claims. If you try and push your fringe view on an article, citing only yourself and some unreliable sources, as a citation for your specific theory, that is indeed a problem according to Wikipedia policy. Also please note that the discussion pages of articles are for specific talk about improving an article, not a forum for airing your particular views on a subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, Shalom. Let there be no question in anyone's mind here that we are all interested in improving WP articles, and I am no exception. Perhaps, though, for some it may not be their sole interest, such as when treating on a controversial subject and when some editors might be inclined to be more biased and, therefore, run a fine line between tendentious editing and verifiability and/or WP:IRS. Our job as good editors is to strike the right balance in controversial subject matters, in accordance with WP policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. This article, sadly, does not seem to have that quality, for which there is room for improvement. While there is no need to resort to pseudo-science in order to maintain the integrity of the biblical episode of the flood (during the life of Noah), there is also no need to compromise the integrity of the biblical narrative which describes this colossal event because of speculative science.

Wikipedia, by the way, also admits of Primary Sources when alleging that a certain event happened in a certain generation. If I might quote from WP policy: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.... Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” As you must be aware, many scholars have written books and articles (i.e. secondary sources) affirming the historicity of the Great Deluge at the time of Noah.Davidbena (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Unless Professor Cooper's work has been reported by reliable sources as support for the biblical flood, then it does not belong in this article - individual editors' opinions that the work does support the flood are utterly irrelevant. As for "The problem with recent research is that it has not always come to the attention of astute scholars, and if it has, it is not always something that they have commented upon in their most recent publications", yes, that is very true, but it is exactly the way things should be in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not an appropriate place to publish novel ideas before they are properly examined and commented on by academics - however long that takes. Squinge (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In this point, I agree with you.Davidbena (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• And just a comment on your own comments Davidbena, you seem to be using your personal belief in biblical truth to support your assertions of biblical truth. That's circular, and it is not going to be any more acceptable here at Wikipedia than assertions based on belief in the truth of the Quran or the Upanishads. Squinge (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Without any offence, I had actually entertained a similar thought, viz., that perhaps there may be some here who, because of unresolved questions in their quest to understand man's existence on this earth (i.e. creationism vs. evolution) that they have taken a position of disbelief in the Hebrew narrative of the Great Flood, and have tried to support by any means possible their assertions based on their own personal disbelief in the Hebrew narrative of the Great Flood, which, again, is circular. For this reason, we should give each editor the benefit of the doubt and to assume good faith. I have stressed that we try and maintain "neutrality" of view point, and this is compatible with the goals of our Online Encyclopaedia.Davidbena (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, yes, that has happened too. And I very much agree that we should not entertain any viewpoint that is based purely on personal belief/opinion of whatever sort. When you say "we should give each editor the benefit of the doubt" I would definitely agree on an AGF basis in discussions like this, but when it comes to article content we should give no credence whatsoever to the personal opinions of any editor - Wikipedia articles should not reflect the opinions of editors, only reliable sources. Squinge (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your statement here has my full agreement.Davidbena (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• PS: Re "I believe in the "theory of relativity"", I think it is dangerous to believe in any scientific theory, because belief should play no part in knowledge and can lead to closed minds. Did you know, for example, that at least one of General relativity or Quantum mechanics is wrong, because they are fundamentally incompatible at very small scales? My personal suspicion is that something better will emerge and will unite them, but there's certainly no belief involved. Squinge (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no comment here.Davidbena (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Professor Alan Cooper's research makes absolutely no connection to any flood whether mythical or not, this thread should be closed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously. Sources need to discuss flood myths. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I will try and find the appropriate sources, so as to make everybody happy. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article definitely does not meet NPOV standards. It calls the flood a myth rather than a legend. Overall, it has good information but it is written in a POV way. I firstly propose renaming it to flood legend. Arlen22 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of the NPOV policy does this article definitely fail to meet because of its use the word myth? This part of the NPOV policy suggests it is fine. Ben (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It discusses multiple flood myths, I'd argue that it is pov to talk about 'the flood'. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A myth is something that never happened. Usually the flood is called a legend. Arlen22 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before elsewhere. That may be what you mean by myth, but the usage here is in line with our article Mythology. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to Doug's comment, it should be noted that not agreeing with something is not grounds for something to be considered not neutral. Neutrality is defined in terms of reliable sources, not in terms of what we agree or disagree with, like or do not like, or see as equivalent treatment of views or not. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Myth is fiction, a fable - usually an entirely fictional event but sometimes a fictionalized account of something that actually happened, whether in a religious context or not.
• Legend is the more proper term for (intentionally or unintentionally) falsified accounts of something that really happened, like the 40 day global flood in 1656 A.M. (Anno Mundi) in the days of Noah.

The hundreds of flood legends validate the fact of the flood, but not the true details. Remember that 120 years after the flood, at the tower of Babel (1776 A.M.) after the confusion of tongues, all or most of the people no longer understood the original angelish language, so it would be difficult to verbalize the story, although they would retain the images in their memory that formed as they heard or read the account. Anyway, I agree the page should be: Flood_Legends

some legends: http://www.avbtab.org/flood/f05.htm
Telpardec (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? This is an encyclopedia, not religious fan fiction. 87.177.117.144 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to be neutral, read the dictionary definition for the words Myth & Ledgend and I think you will find that ledgend is the better fit. Also it would take out the author's opinion on whether the matter is true or false and it would then be a case of just reporting the evidence according to current knowledge, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.81.165 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Myth does not mean something that never happened, at least not in academic usage. In comparative religion a myth is a story that is sacred and holds a particular significance within a religious tradition. The word legend is not used in religious studies at all. This discussion surges from time to time when an adherent of some religion takes offense at his religions sacred texts being described as "mythology" - it is always easy to refute this as "mythology" can be shown to be a completely neutrally laden word in the comparative study of religion and that it is routinely applied to the body of narratives and beliefs of all religious traditions. This is all amply explained and sourced in the lead of the article Mythology which you should read before arguing further. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that so many of the world's cultures have stories along this whole subject. If it is a myth, why do societies that were totally separated from each other for all of history (China versus Maya) share the gist of the tale? --Gniniv (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I think you are misunderstanding what "myth" means — have a look at the relevant article. Secondly, there is already a section in the article that discusses work that has examined why flood myths are common. If you're really interested, have a look at these. If, instead, you're wishing to argue that parallels between flood myths mean that there really was a global flood on the Earth, then you're in the wrong place (the right place is possibly flood geology). --PLUMBAGO 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just call it "Deluge" in stead of "Deluge myth" then? Let the reader deside if it is a myth or not. If you don't, then it is not consistent with, for example, Dating methodology. That is even considered to be absolutely true, while it lacks evidence. --Broertje128 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broertje128 (talk • contribs)

This page is definitely incorrectly labeled "DELUGE MYTH". DELUGE should be replaced by FLOOD, since the key to the story is that people drowned, not that they got rained on. MYTH should be replaced by STORY or LEGEND since the word myth generally carries connotations. For me, I slightly prefer "FLOOD STORY" to "FLOOD LEGEND", although the nuances are not great between these two. Jonathan.mark.lingard (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First, let me assure you that I read the Mythology article. I understand what you are saying about the difference between the academic usage of the word "myth" and the common usage. However, it is a mistake to think of Wikipedia as an academic-only document. More non-academics than academics use this resource (if you want to argue that point, you're grasping at straws). It is wrong to use the word "myth," knowing that the majority of readers will attach the "falsehood" connotation to it. You are hiding behind academics to mislead people into believing that there really was no flood. This is a POINT OF VIEW error that is not supposed to be in Wikipedia.

I think the following is more neutral, even though my point of view thinks it doesn't go nearly far enough: Although the term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story, academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on truth or falsity. The Wikipedia article on the Black Sea deluge theory states, "it is agreed by all that the sequence of events described did occur." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.147.240 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is about the Black Sea 'deluge' theory - what isn't agreed is the suggestion that it was some sort of what we would call a flood, rather than a slow rise in the water level, and that this somehow is the source of some flood myth - a slow rise in water level wouldn't be that impressive.. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The end of the last ice age wasn't THAT slow or unimpressive. A rise of metres within a human lifetime (which, in flat areas, could mean a transgression of many miles inland) would be quite dramatic. And in addition to the global sea level rise, there were the far more dramatic breaking out of glacial lakes etc. - creating things like the Channeled Scablands. The draining of practically the whole center of North America seems to have caused the Younger Dryas by disrupting the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. The Black Sea flood was just one of many, and not the largest or most dramatic. At some point in the early Holocene, pretty much everywhere near a coast would have experienced massive flooding...

While there was certainly not a 'global flood' in the literalist sense of 'everything was underwater', the sea level rise at the end of the last ice age was global in that it affected every continent. Unlike the Black Sea etc. hypotheses, this explains the existence of flood myths in both hemispheres.

In fact there are really only three possible explanations of that fact. Either the myth is so old that it dates back to the common cultural ancestor of all the cultures which have a flood myth (which would be close to the out-of-Africa migration); the myth is for some reason so natural to human beings that it was independently invented practically everywhere; or the myth is derived from events affecting all continents. Since we have a perfectly good example of the latter (the sea level rises at the end of the last ice age and attendant glacial lake breakouts etc.) it seems by far the simplest hypothesis -- much more parsimonious than dozens of independent inventions of the same myth or transmission of a legend for fifty thousand years or so. 165.91.166.134 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please add some neutrality to the page. It's an embarrassment to the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.169.167 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, many people argue that wikipedia is not reliable enough to take it serious. They let anyone edit or put anyone's opinions or views. From what I believe, I think it would be most proper if this article was renamed simply to the Great Flood, or Deluge instead of calling it a "myth." The main discussion is about the Great Flood, not with the purpose to disprove the concept, or belief. This has to do with religion too. No one will go name an article the Christ Myth.--72.199.113.143 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, Christ myth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to "... there are really only three possible explanations of that fact" - there are at least two more possible explanations:

(4) Wherever there are rivers, there are local river floods. Some of these are reported by story tellers when they travel to distant places and interesting details, such as a family on a large cattle boat, get added to distant stories about unrelated floods. Missionaries taught the cattle boat story to distant people who had their own local flood stories.

(5) Story words are often misunderstood. The Hebrew word "erets" which is usually translated "earth" in English, did not mean the planet earth, it meant the land or country, as in Pearl Buck's novel "The Good Earth" meaning farm land. A story that reports that all of the country was flooded can be misunderstood to mean all of the planet earth was flooded. Greensburger (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Claims of historicity - "This flood could have resulted..."

The intro to this section bugs me, so I´m looking for some feedback on possible improvement. "This flood could have resulted" reads like all the myths above was about the same flood, and I don´t think that is what we want to say. I suggest the section to start with something like

"Floods have affected human settlements throughout history (I hope that´s WP:BLUESKY enough), and there is plenty of speculation about how historical floods relates to flood myths. One hypothesis is..."

I´m considering dropping the Ice Age bit. It probably caused floods that affected human settlements (that should probably be sourced if we leave it in), but it is sourcable to someone connecting it to flood myths?--Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. [10] --Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did this edit: [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External link ... POV-pushing

The only external link is a 35-year-old paper by a computer programmer, published by an anti-creationism pressure group, criticizing the geology of Genesis flood models that are now 40 to 55 years old.

And some of you wonder why conservatives think WP is biased. ~ MD Otley (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Political interpretations aside, that link seems to be more about Flood Geology than Flood myth. I´d be ok with removing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tone

No comments on this so I see no reason for the tag. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Given the similarities in the Mesopotamian flood story and the Biblical account, it would seem that they have a common origin in the memories of the Shuruppak account." -- This is speculation. It isn't factual. This gives it the tone of an article that is opposed to any opinion that would consider the possibility of a true flood account. stratman42 —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the last part of your statement, as the Shuruppak account is discussed in the article as being based on possible fact (ie: a localised disruptive flood for which there is some geological evidence). Therefore, it doesn't contradict the possibility of a true flood account. On the contrary, it supports it.

Deluge account in Genesis not generally considered worldwide by the sources

The final sentence includes the words "A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis...". However, secondary sources that take account of the text and geological evidence do not dogmatically assume the Genesis account was "worldwide" in the modern sense but note that the original Hebrew is qualified by statements of locality which, combined, with geological findings, favour a limited flood. My suggestion is that we just delete the words "such as described in Genesis" since at the very least opinion is divided and as far as I can see the secondary sources tend not to support that interpretation. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bermicourt, this article is about Flood myth, not a factual flood. A global flood is not supported by geological evidence. You are suggesting that the original Hebrew supports a localized flood. Can you point to a verse in Genesis that supports this interpretation? Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Flood myths may of course be based on factual floods...

To answer your question with just a couple of examples: The Hebrew text uses eres in the phrase "upon the earth" e.g. in 6:17 where eres can just mean "land"; samayim in the phrase "under heaven" e.g. in 7:19 where samayim can mean "sky" i.e. the visible part of heaven within the horizon of the viewer. So Genesis could be describing a serious flood, but not necessarily a global one; in any case scholarly consensus on the latter interpretation ended decades ago. Hope that helps. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bermicourt — the Great Flood described in Genesis myth is clearly implied as being a global flood. The context — God pushing the Earth's reset button — makes it difficult to interpret otherwise. So the modification of this final statement under discussion is not appropriate. In any case, the final statement's reference to a global flood — and the inconsistency of this with geological evidence — is a sensible counterpoint to the preceding text's examination of the evidence that mythological floods may be referencing localised flooding events. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, that view was universally held until the modern period, but is now mainly a fringe view held by those sometimes called fundamentalists. Moreover, the author would not have known the extent of the earth as we know it today - for him it was roughly the area of the Middle East - so he would surely not have been referring to a global anything. How could he? So I suggest it is a poor example and implies Wikipedia supports an out-of-date or fringe perspective that takes no account of the historical context. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what exactly the alternative to this "fringe" view is please that's not already covered by the text we have? Regardless of whether we disparage this fundamentalist viewpoint, it's still a real thing in the world out there. As such, having a follow-on point that reminds readers that a global flood - which, as I noted above, is implied by the text - is completely inconsistent with geological evidence is not a bad idea. --PLUMBAGO 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The sentence states two things: 1) the Genesis account is claiming a worldwide flood happened and 2) modern natural history evidence denies a worldwide flood; the unstated implication being that 2 is the right answer. However statement 1 has been a fringe view among scholars for decades and would not be supported by the majority of modern scholars. We are making Genesis out to claim something that the author could not possibly have known, his horizon being limited to that of the ANE. (Theologically, it makes little difference whether the author meant a global flood or a huge regional flood, but the sentence is making a historico-scientific statement not a theological point.) Actually the preceding text doesn't clarify the modern position either, simply giving a fundamentalist reading of the text, but that's a separate issue that that can be addressed by improving the article overall. BTW I'm not disparaging fundamentalists - and I apologise if that's how it came across. It's totally fair to cover different perspectives, but it's no longer the mainstream view. Bermicourt (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking again at the text, perhaps the closing sentence of the section can instead be moved to the opening of the section, and then reworded a little bit as follows:

"A world-wide deluge, such as that described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern understanding of natural history, especially geology and paleontology. However, there is archaeological and geological evidence that flood myths may be rooted in localised flood events."

That — to me anyway — better contextualises the material that follows on the evidence of large localised floods. It also separates historical / scientific investigations of the origins of flood myths from pseudoscientific attempts to validate them (cf. Flood geology).

Regarding fringe views among scholars, a world-wide deluge is not even a fringe view in scholars of natural history, where the idea simply cannot be reconciled with observational or experimental science. Nonetheless, I think that you are underestimating the vehemence with which it is attested to by creationists. I think that they would rather strongly disagree with your statement that "it makes little difference whether the author meant a global flood or a huge regional flood" — the text is unambiguous on the flood, both in it being global and on its rationale, which makes anything less than global silly (and, let's not forget, it is the inerrant Word of God). But I'm needlessly digressing now — getting back to things, can we change to something akin to the above? --PLUMBAGO 12:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any archeological or geological evidence that flood myths are rooted in the actual occurrence of localised flood events. Moreover, if there is such evidence, it would be in the form of literature and history, not in pottery and rocks. It seems to me that is possible that we can agree that there are flood myths, they being interesting stories that might have, in the past, served some function (such as teaching moral lessons), but which today are not generally regarded as factual. Whether or not the Genesis flood myth can, now, in light of modern evidence, be regarded as depicting a global flood doesn't seem very central to me. The perception of the world was different in the days when Genesis was written. I think keeping a mention of the Genesis flood in the sentence under question serves a good purpose for most readers, some of whom regard the account as factual and some of whom don't. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard. I agree there is no evidence either way and, like most distant historical events, we're unlikely to resolve that.

@Plumbago. I agree we need to take account of scholars in all relevant disciplines and I don't play down the vehemence with which individuals on all sides stress their case, often without doing the research or acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge. As you can tell from my references to the Hebrew above, scholars don't agree that the text is unambiguous. That said, you're right, let's try and find better words. I like where you're going, but may I suggest a couple of changes. How about "A world-wide deluge, such as those suggested by many flood myths, is incompatible with modern understanding of natural history, especially geology and paleontology. However, there is archaeological and geological evidence that they may be rooted in extensive but localised flood events. In addition where accounts, such as the Genesis flood, are primarily concerned to deliver a theological message, whether the flood is interpreted as worldwide or simply large-scale is immaterial to their basic purpose." I'm sure we can tweak this further, but IMHO it's more holistic and also acknowledges Isambard's point about the purpose of some of these texts. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Bermicourt, we don't seem to be communicating. What is or could be the evidence that a particular myth about a flood is rooted in "archaeological and geological evidence"? Floods happen frequently in many places. So how can one associate any particular flood event with the specific development of a myth? Seems very tenuous to me. But perhaps more to the point, here, we'd need a reliable source indicating that such an association is plausible. Are you talking about the Black Sea flood idea (controversial)? If so, that skimpy theory is already mentioned. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Plumbago and I are simply referring to the fact that there is clear evidence of quite large regional floods that fits the time frame of the stories. In other words it's not unreasonable to conclude that the "myths" may be based on a flood event. But we're not saying there's proof either way, nor are we linking a given account to a specific flood. Bermicourt (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the three of us probably mostly agree about all of this. We're just getting on to the same page via the limitations of written exchange. I'd be okay with saying that the myth might be based on a specific flood event if we had a source that made such speculation. Such source is probably out there, somewhere. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Per Isambard Kingdom, the key thing is whether we can provide appropriate sources for the contention that localised floods may be the root of flood myths. I feel like there are sources on this (i.e. I'm sure I've heard something along these lines in the past), but I don't know of any off the top of my head. The scientific literature (geology + archaeology + history) is a good place to find this, and in terms of finding things there, it's likely (especially on a topic like this) that secondary sources such as newspapers will reference them (and give the dry academic prose a populist spin). At the moment, the section seems to only have slightly unsatisfactory secondary sources and tangentially-relevant scientific studies. (As ever, one needs to be wary of dodgy pseudoscience in this arena.) --PLUMBAGO 10:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead, not great

I was about to revert Prinsgezinde [12] per WP:LEAD, when I realised that very few of the examples in the lead are even mentioned in the article. So, shall we cut those only-in-lead out, or does anybody have any WP:RS to expand on them? Also, Prinsgezinde, are you thinking of Tiddalik? I cut that from this article awhile back, since it doesn´t fit the article's definition of flood myth. It involves a problem with water, but that´s it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I was contemplating where to add it but no, I got it from notably this article. It's always a hassle on my phone causing me to not finish what I started right away. And it seemed odd to add a reference there when there wasn't any other. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you will add it to the body? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But what about the rest? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We´ll see what can be found, trim the rest I guess. Here´s one for Bergelmir: [13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Mythology (recent edit)

Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words ["mythology"] only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. In this case this is both used in the formal sense and is easily supported by mainstream scholarship as being mythology. Account can both mean tale or historic report, which may be misleading. Also, it could be considered false balance to treat other myths as myths but to call this one differently. —PaleoNeonate – 21:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Definition

It's still true; a definition cannot contain the word it defines. This Flood is no more a myth than the bible flood Old testament, New testament or the first 5 books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.61.35 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Says who? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"A world-wide deluge...is incompatible"--NPOV and SYNTH?

"A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern understanding of natural history, especially geology and paleontology.[24][25]"
Two issues that appear to me. First, WP:NPOV states "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."
Since the world-wide deluge being impossible is a widespread opinion withing the scientific community, shouldn't the sentence read more like "Most geological and paleontological scientists believe that a world-wide deluge...is incompatible"?
Second, WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." However, the sentence given above seems to combine the scientific understanding of the flood with the later interpretation of the Genesis text; the scientific understanding seems to be that a worldwide flood is impossible, while some interpretations of the Genesis text portray a worldwide flood. These two points then are combined to call the Genesis flood impossible, although neither source itself says so. (In addition, the literal reading of the text doesn't explicitly state a worldwide flood; that is likely due to later viewpoints reading into the text.) --Joshualouie711^talk 14:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a point at which an opinion is so beyond the consensus of expert opinion that it is WP:FALSEBALANCE to report it as "most scientists disagree". A world-wide flood destroying most terrestrial life contemporaneous with humans is clearly beyond that consensus of geology, archeology and other disciplines. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether it is scientifically possible or not possible that a worldwide flood could happen, instead what matters is there is a lack of scientific proof that any world wide flood ever happened in the last 20,000 years. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"a lack of scientific proof" ... Actually there's so much palentological and geologic evidence for a global flood (e.g. billions of catastrophically buried dead things, dominant pattern of distinct horizontal rock layers which typically result from sediments distributed in a water flow and liquefaction processes, etc.) that those in authority are constantly trying to explain why people should discount such an interpretation... Because it is presupposed as false by the scientific community (as it would contradict an evolutionary worldview), a global flood hypothesis is simply forbidden from consideration, but certainly not for lack of evidence. 2604:6000:1520:AF:0:FB17:EF3F:6476 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”

— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist

Young Earth Creationism contradicts: astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, geophysics, geochemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, molecular biology, paleobiology, and anthropology, see (Ayala 2007). Also, we are heavily biased for the academia/mainstream science, see WP:ABIAS and WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Quote from A Beka Book

I put in this quote from A Beka Book (Science: Earth and Space): In the fossil record, we often find millions of organisms, predator and prey alike, jumbled together in mass sedimentary graves. These large "graveyards" strongly suggest that the organisms had a sudden, violent burial. For example, a hill near Agate Springs, Nebraska, contains the fossilized and closely packed bones of an estimated 9000 animals. Dated by evolutionists to be from the Miocene Epoch, these fossils include two-horned, pony-sized rhinoceros; camels similar to antelope; giant boar-like creatures; and even beavers that burrowed in the ground. These fossils are all jumbled together as if whole herd were destroyed by a catastrophe that threw their bodies together quickly and violently. Because the bones show none of the usual signs of weathering or of mutilation by scavengers, some evolutionists conclude that the animals were buried quickly. Other evolutionists believe that there was a severe drought that brought huge numbers of animals to several remaining ponds of water, where the animals died; the bones were supposedly later buried by the wind and steam sediments after the drought ended. But this last idea does not allow for the rapid burial of so many well-preserved fossils.

This was under the section "Belief and Disbelief", which I created to help this article be more neutral. It was removed by PaleoNeonate on the basis that belief in the Flood is a fringe theory, but it isn't. Christianity is accepted by well over a billion people, and therefore a quote from a Christian source (along with an Atheistic/pro-evolutionary source) would help this article be more neutral. Readers of this article from other places might see this article as attacking the Flood as a fairy tale against evolutionary beliefs, but Wikipedia should be neutral to all religious groups.2601:644:8580:50D:CCDC:B597:8CFD:4AA (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. You seem to say that being a Christian means belief in the Flood, but I don´t think that´s right. AFAIK, biblical literalism globally is rather rare, but I don´t have any source for that. Anyway, if there are good sources that talks about who currently believes that any particular mythic flood took place, that could have a place in the article. Note though that this is the article for floodmyths in general, Genesis flood narrative is a separate article.

Your book seems to make an argument from science, but from the WP-perspective, there is no science-done-by-christians/science-done-by-atheists, there is just science. And from what I see at Abeka, this is not a WP:Reliable source about science. "Neutral" has many meanings depending on context, on WP it means WP:Neutral point of view, which includes WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, your quote is rather long, and in general we use shorter quotes/paraphrasing, especially when the text is copyrighted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

While I do not see anything particularly outlandish in the quote you provided, and it does refer to fossil evidence, your citation style has problems. When citing a book source in Wikipedia articles, we have to provide the name (or names) of the author, if necessary the editor, and the date of the publication. You only provided the title and the name of the publishing house, which are not enough for verification.

I am not personally familiar with the publisher Abeka, but the cited article we have on them claims that they support Biblical literalism and Young Earth creationism. Both are decidedly fringe positions. As for the independence of the source, the publishing house is fully owned by the Pensacola Christian College. The College is an Independent Baptist educational foundation that supports Christian fundamentalism and rejects modernism and liberalism. They are not a remotely neutral and unbiased source. Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Just plain Bill appears to be the one who reverted your change, but I agree with the revert. —PaleoNeonate – 03:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

True, not a book for a course granting admission to a top US university, see Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns. Therefore it isn't WP:RS, it is more close to pseudologia fantastica. Don't get me wrong: people are entitled to believe anything they wish, but if they claim "Young Earth Creationism is science" they are being delusional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the latest

TomS TDotO, the intent here [14] was to avoid "One of the latest" per MOS:CURRENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Humans created from clay?

The article makes the claim that in the 6th century version of the book of genesis, yaweh created mankind from clay. I was fairly certain that it is claimed that in the bible, god created man from dust, however many other myths around the world claim humans were made from clay. If anyone has any clarification about this point, it would be incredibly helpful. I'm actually very interested if an early version of the bible does use the word clay instead of dust, because this would align the myth with myths from Mesopotamia. However I believe this is a a minor error. Someone should probably clean it up. Themetacognologist (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Themetacognologist, the cited source doesn't mention clay, so I think you're right here. I found this in Genesis creation narrative: "In Genesis 1 the characteristic word for God's activity is bara, "created"; in Genesis 2 the word used when he creates the man is yatsar, meaning "fashioned", a word used in contexts such as a potter fashioning a pot from clay.[76]". We also have Creation of man from clay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

BCE article?

I think this should be a BCE article. What do you think? Editor2020 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, per MOS:ERA you should... do what you just did. IMO the current form is good enough, but if there's a consensus to change, fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reason you think it should be changed? Unless there are compelling reasons it should not be changed from the current style. There's a strong Biblical connection so I doubt very much a strong case could be made for changing this. Meters (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that while the biblical connection exists, it is not that overpowering for this article. The topic is wider than bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

OK then, leave as it is.Editor2020 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I support the change to BCE/CE. This flood myth exists in many mythologies, not only Christianity, so it would be better to describe dates neutrally. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Worldwide Flood - Waterworld

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: In the movie Waterworld, the planet Earth is covered by water, a flooding of water on all continents caused by mankind that leads to its near extinction. The Biblical flood is very similar in character to that scenario except that animals instead of plants are the focus of human attention. Noah reaches a mountain top above the waters after sending a bird- the mariner reaches a mountain top above the waters after seeing a bird. Human population is drastically decreased. "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article." (MOS:SEEALSO) I know you are dissatisfied by the see also link, but I think that there is a connection between the topics. We ought to help people interested in catastrophic floods learn about a prominent sci-fi depiction of a worldwide flood. Let me know what you think or how this could be done better. I understand your concerns. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Sure, one can see a connection, no deity involved though (unless you count Costner, likely a minority-view), but IMO it's not good enough to add this piece of sci-fi post-apocalyptic pop-cult (and I liked that film). Noah would be closer, but I don't think we should add that either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Btw, appreciate the BRD-manner! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Mythologies-neutrality

There exist reasons to present the similarities in the historical works of ancient civilities as similar and partially independent chronologies of a rel historical fact, then adding what here is not shown as the main doctrine, to say the hypothesis a myth was shared by a variety of literary sources.

Sumerians, Accadians, Babilonians and Assyrians (cf. 2 king 19,25 and the Book of Tobit) weren't so friend with the Army of Israel and this point makes improbable -if not unreliable- Jewish ould have copied the epic literature of their enemies when Israel was engaged in fighting against them and also was used to identify nation and religion (e.g. the First Commandment of the angel to Moses). Those elements make more reliable to believe an historical fact really happened and nobody could ignore it at all.

Untill the 1990s confirmations of the Bible given by external sources were seen as proof of its truthfulness, and sometimes of the kingship of God in the human history which entrusted such sources could survive untill the Modern era. Nowadays, a part of "independent researchers" started to affirm the Bible was derived or copied by the Sumerian literature. This is the opposite than what was taught thirty and more years ago and it doesn't seem to be noway a progress in the scientific research. The theological meaning of the first Arch and of Jesus Christ God as the second and last Arch of Alliance between God and the created humanity, as well as the Old Testament prophecies foreseeing its Incarnation on Earth.Philosopher81sp (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Philosopher81sp: If you don't have WP:MAINSTREAM WP:RS, you have nothing. See WP:CHOPSY. The germane policy is WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:, we -or at least the lot of people who believe in it- have the Bible. I don't understand your User talk:Philosopher81sp#A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful, I will read again but in this case I haven't violated nothing. The article affirms:

And further discoveries produced several versions of the Mesopotamian flood myth, with the account closest to that in Genesis being found in a 700 BC Babylonian copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh.[3] Many scholars believe that this was copied from the Akkadian Atra-Hasis,[a] which dates to the 18th century BC.

Note [3] links those pages which don't cite no single source and are solely based on the academic CV and, in this specific case, personal point of view of his author. Usually, if people meet some historical sources reciprocally coherent, they conclude the subject matter truly happened and not that it was invented! Otherwise, no single of the cited source had an historical value and was capable to distinguish reality from fiction. And seeing the list, this is not the case. The content of note [3] (National Geographic Books) is not a WP:reliable source and -among many other academicians existing in the world-can be hopefully moved it to a more appropriate destination.

The [a] note is an explanation without providing any WP:reliable source.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Philosopher81sp: To simplify it a bit, are solely based on the academic CV is what WP:RS mean for us. See WP:VERECUNDIAM. And no, we are not re-litigating here the consensus of 300 years of mainstream Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Believer vs. unbeliever is a false dichotomy for this article. The real choice is mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP vs. true believers. Wikipedia sides with mainstream Bible scholarship, obviously.

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. And, frankly, the mainstream scientific and mainstream theological abandonment of the idea of a global flood happened before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Source: David Montgomery Noah’s Flood and the Development of Geology Radcliffe Institute on YouTube: ... but I was very intrigued by how so much the American public could still believe things that the geological foundation for had been utterly disproved before Darwin ever got on board the Beagle. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that historical criticism is passé may suggest to some that conservative biblical scholarship has won the “battle” against historical criticism and is now finally vindicated. This may sound appealing in popular circles, but it is not true in academia.

— Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"Sumerians, Accadians, Babilonians and Assyrians (cf. 2 king 19,25 and the Book of Tobit) weren't so friend with the Army of Israel" ... but the Biblical story of the flood is considerably more recent than those empires, dating from the 6th century BC at the earliest and possibly as late as the 3rd. It's based on earlier writings, not on memories or experience. See Primeval history.Achar Sva (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been useful to better clarify the WP article. I an now acknowledged on the "progresses" of the historical criticism, given that my knowledge was updated to twenty and more years ago, according to some of the main Italian textbooks for undergraduate students. Now that I am starting a new degree to the university, I will probably try to contribute to similar articles in a more scientific way, hopefullt compatible with the truch whicis on the side of the Christian faith. In the opposite case, I will avoid to start similar discussions. Thanks for your explanation. Philosopher81sp (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Christianity is much broader than fundamentalists who insist upon the literal interpretation of the Bible. So, there isn't a Christian POV, the same way there isn't an American POV or a German POV. All these groups of people have people with very diverse views. Basically, for Wikipedia a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is WP:FRINGE, unless we WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for describing the official beliefs of the Baptists, the Pentecostals, the Adventists and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

it is also fundamentalist to reject the historicity of entire chapters of the Bible or to have banned the teaching of creationism form U.S. public schools. I have considered the state of the Italian public school system which in the last years had started to move in the same direction and how it was yet untill a couple of decades ago:

The landscape of this debate has changed considerably since the antievolution flare-ups of the 1970s and 1980s. Terms such as “creation science” and “originally created kinds” have nearly disappeared from the discussion. Defenders of a young Earth and ancient global flood are still around, but a string of adverse court decisions made it impossible for them to have their ideas openly presented in public school science classes.

— [15]

The U.S. public censorship on the creationism and on the global flood can be cited in the WP article. In Italy, we still have the old constitutional principle of the freedom of teaching, the same that prevents a couple of paragovernative universities to take the control of the public undergraduate school system. This is partially due to the memory of fascism during which only around twelve Italian universities were legally recognized by the public authority to promote its centralized programs of the politics of science (which is used to be something of radically different from the true science).This is to say a judicial decision on the scholastic CVs, a context of general threat on creationist and Roman Catholic teachers, as well as an university system centered in 4-5 top leading universities can't be taken as a global model of freedom, democracy, indipendency from the political power and its patrons, or a general reference for WP. Philosopher81sp (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Listen, freedom of speech is a great good, but it is not the driving force of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. CHOPSY were not chosen because everything good and true would come from those universities, but because they cannot afford to go out of sync with worldwide mainstream science and mainstream scholarship.

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So, this is how we do things around here and this is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. Just because what you say isn't illegal, that does not mean that you would have a right to push your POV inside Wikipedia.

And you conflate me with Jimmy Wales. He invented the CHOPSY-based encyclopedia, I have only described it in an essay.

Scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It's an understandable reaction to the fact that the scientific debate is over and they lost.
— User:JzG

So, yeah, Young Earth Creationism and the idea of a global flood lost the scientific debate since long ago, some years BDE (before Darwin era). Your POV has lost the debate in mainstream science and mainstream history. As a direct consequence, it lost the debate at Wikipedia and it may only be rendered as a fringe belief. This is a real fact, pertaining to the real world, and we don't have much patience for denialists of this fact. The global flood is pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Thereupon is a ruling of the Arbitration Committee and we all enforce it, see WP:ARBPS.

Therefore, the fact that we're not giving pseudoscience equal footing with science isn't fundamentalism, nor it is a violation of your legal rights. If you think otherwise, you may press charges in the San Francisco County, California. So it's not that Wikipedia declares by its own wish that large chunks of the Bible are unhistorical, but large chunks of the Bible are unhistorical in every university worthy of that name. Wikipedia does not teach the controversy, since there is absolutely no controversy about that in the real academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ryan, W. & Pitman, W., Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History, about which this paper concludes:

For instance, they should look again for discontinuities in sediments along the shelf, which might provide evidence for a rapid rise in sea levels, he says. Sediment cores now being examined by several groups may also provide evidence for or against a cataclysmic event. Although none of this can directly link the Black Sea to the Bible story, clearly the book on Noah's flood is not yet closed

Calcareous dunes of the United Arab Emirates and Noah's Flood: the postglacial reflooding of the Persian (Arabian) Gulf:

Between 12 and 6 ka, the sea transgressed more than 1000 km, inundating the extended route of the Tigris–Euphrates River and forcing people living on the exposed floor of the Gulf to abandon their settlements. Because of the varying rate of eustatic sea level rise, these waters at times flooded across the flat floor of the Persian Gulf at more than a kilometer per year. We proposed that the stories of a great flood, recorded in the Bible as Noah's Flood and in Babylonian history on clay tablets (excavated in the Tigris–Euphrates delta) as the Epic of Gilgamesh, are a record of this rapid postglacial flooding of the floor of the Persian Gulf.

It has become a minoritarian point of view, corresponding only to 28 papers in Microsoft Academic for the socalled "flood geology". However, a somesort of scientific evidence -even little- still exists and this objective data can be summerized in the WP article. Furthermore, the Noah's Flood sees to be remained a matter of scientific interest, still debated, even if it mainly happens outside the geological academic reasearch.Philosopher81sp (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Glaciations, local floods which might have inspired legends, this is nothing new. Listen to me, friend: the hypothesis of a global flood in the past 10000 years is dead in the water, academically, scientifically, historically. See WP:RGW and WP:IDHT.

And Microsoft Academic is just a search machine. Those results do not mean that flood geology would be scientific. Quite on the contrary, those results show it isn't, that it has been quasi-unanimously rejected by the scientific community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Philosopher81sp, you do realise that if you argue that cavemen about six thousand years ago (and they were cavemen at that time) mistook a natural rise in sea levels for the work of God, then you're arguing that the Bible is false and there is no God? Achar Sva (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Philosopher81sp has not started a conversation on the existence of the biblical god. The source he/she cites is a 2004 article on possible events which may have inspired the flood myth. To quote the article's introduction: "The possibility has its roots in a paper published seven years ago by marine geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York. The event that became Noah's flood in the Bible, they hypothesized, was actually a massive flood of the Black Sea basin, which until roughly 8,000 years ago held a large freshwater lake. Then, cataclysmically, sea water burst through a natural dam blocking the narrow Bosporus Strait and raised the level of the lake some 100 metres in just a few years, inundating Neolithic settlements along its shores. Ryan and Pitman subsequently popularized the idea in a book."In other words. the source is about the Black Sea deluge hypothesis, which has its own article in Wikipedia. It is controversial, but not outright rejected, nor fundamendalist in origin. Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But it was a local flood. The idea that there was a local flood, mistaken for a global flood in legend, is some 200 years old, if not older. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Theory about the origin of the Universal Flood.

The Universal Flood could have its origin in the destruction of the planet Maldek that existed between Mars and Jupiter, and that would be constituted for the most part of sea. Its debris would constitute the asteroid belt and much of its sea would have been left orbiting the Earth, until finally falling in a great deluge.
The destruction of this planet would explain the following facts: 1. The destruction of the Martian atmosphere 2. The shift of the planets 3. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter 4. The universal flood (which lasted 40 days according to the Bible) 5. The modification of the axis, civilization and terrestrial geography 6. The marine fossils found in the high peaks of the Earth.
181.73.115.218 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Author Víctor Manuel Loyola Hidalgo, Santiago - Chile

WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal

@UpdateNerd: You may remove it, but we have to be sure it's you (the IP claimed to be you, which seems a little improper). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That IP was not me! Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Perspective on flood myth in Jersey & Australia

• Baraniuk, Chris (2022-10-03). "Memories of the End of the Last Ice Age, from Those Who Were There". Hakai Magazine. Retrieved 2023-01-10.

Peaceray (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Or Nunn, Patrick; Cook, Margaret (1 January 2022). "Island tales: culturally-filtered narratives about island creation through land submergence incorporate millennia-old memories of postglacial sea-level rise". World Archaeology. 54 (1): 29–51. doi:10.1080/00438243.2022.2077821. ISSN 0043-8243. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)