Talk:Noah's Ark

Active discussions

Noah's Ark is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
Article milestones
March 12, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
July 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Robert MooreEdit

I have a question please. Is the article by Robert Moore, who is not a researcher, a sufficiently qualitative source to validate a general claim like "There is no scientific evidence that Noah's Ark existed as it is described in the Bible"?

Thanks to the respondents. Theshumai (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Theshumai, Moore's work is published in a scientific journal, so I would say that makes it a reliable source. We could find many more sources if need be. The point is: even if the ark existed, it has clearly not been found. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
And in addition, what do you mean Moore is not a researcher? The article is very extensive, the result of much research, and Moore is reporting the findings of his studies. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"No geologic evidence of a biblical global flood"Edit

This comment refers to problems with the following quotes:

In the historicity section: "While research shows a literal Noah's Ark could not be practical,[3] nor is there geologic evidence of a biblical global flood,[45] commentators throughout history have made attempts to demonstrate the Ark's existence."

Correspondingly in the intro: "There is no scientific evidence that Noah's Ark existed as it is described in the Bible,[3] nor is there evidence in the geologic record for the biblical global flood.[4]"

And similar comments in the Noah's Flood Genesis and Genesis flood narrative. The problem lies not in the historicity of the ark, but rather in the historicity of the flood. The claim that there is no historical candidate is plain wrong.

There's plenty of floods that most Flood myths could accurately have represented, to take a massive example, anything of similar size to the Zanclean Flood would make a good candidate, of course the Zanclean Flood is too old to survive in myth form, but I'm illustrating that a flood doesn't need to be actually global to realistically be a candidate for Noah's flood. Of course such a candidate flood would not be global as the myth claims, but to such a historical author, the area covering the mediterranean sea would be their world.--TZubiri (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A more recent example and best candidate for inspiring Noah's flood is the possible Black Sea deluge, dated around 5000 BCE, situated near the mediterranean, and through a strait mechanism similar to the Zanclean Flood, it has been proposed as such a candidate, see following references:

1- Black Sea deluge hypothesis

"As proposed, the Early Holocene Black Sea flood scenario describes events that would have profoundly affected prehistoric settlement in eastern Europe and adjacent parts of Asia and possibly was the basis of oral history concerning Noah's flood.[3] Some archaeologists support this theory as an explanation for the lack of Neolithic sites in northern Turkey.[4][5][6] In 2003, Ryan and coauthors revised the dating of the early Holocene Noah's flood to 8400 14C years BP (possibly around 8800 calendar years BP).[7]"

2- An article from the guardian about archeological discoveries 3 years after reference 3 in the above quote:

Of course there are criticisms of this theory, but these sources are stronger than the one present that claims lack of evidence. Furthermore the focus on a global flood is just glaringly obvious, I'm aware that some fringe groups like young earth creationists might propose a literal interpretation of the events in the myth, but this discussion is pretty much dead and settled. The edit I will make will thus leave these comments unaltered, but add a separate discussion about non-global historical candidates for such a flood.--TZubiri (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Ark and its Flood are, of course, related. But this article is about the Ark, and concentrates on that; its mentions of the Flood are, and should be, merely summary in nature. It is not the job of this article to go deep into the Flood itself. The lead, which itself is summary in nature already says "There is also no evidence of a global flood...", which carefully and specifically includes the qualifier "global", thus leaving open the probability that some other sort of real flood (i.e. non-global) probably underlies the story. I think everything you want about these ideas is already present in the "Historicity" section of this article. More detail would more naturally belong the Flood article rather than this Ark article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Flat no. Firstly, I, as many, searched for Noah's Ark, not noah's flood or Genesis flood narrative. This is one of those cases where a merge would be appropriate, but it is how it is. Second, the Flood article does not have this problem, so I have not raised the issue there. Thirdly, the flood article links back to this page. So, this is a very relevant place to discuss this issue.--TZubiri (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Google MapsEdit

Has anyone looked at Mount Ararat on Google Maps recently? There is a major shape visible on the South East slope that needs investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an investigative service I'm afraid. You'll have to find a real world body to look into that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 09:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

BCE and CE vs BC and ADEdit

Although it is an interesting academic exercise, BCE is still not the measure for dates used by the majority of people using the Julian calendar. The article and all other articles should respect the original BC and AD references and changes made should be seen as vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanerasmus2006 (talkcontribs)

@Deanerasmus2006: See our guide on era styles at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style. In general, styles should stay consistent and should not be changed arbitrarily. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Very Minor Punctuation MistakeEdit

"Research shows a literal Noah's Ark could not be practical,." The comma needs removing. I'd do it myself if the page weren't locked. (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Noah's Ark" page.