Talk:Antediluvian

message: The concept of "SAT words" came up elsewhere, recently.  This probably deserves an article in itself, but since it's been thirty years since I've had to worry about such things, I don't know them.  Is there a List of SAT words or some such thing? -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: SAT words

message: "The Earth contained many more people than the Earth contains today? Whiston calculated that as many as 500 million humans may have been born in the antediluvian period"
The current world population is over 6 billion people (6 thousand million), or more than 12 X 500 million.
Am I missing something here?
: Whiston published in 1696, at which time the world's population was probably less than 500 million. --Saforrest 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antediluvian population? 

message: It seems rather off to me to describe Whiston and Morris as equivalent without any qualifications.  Clearly both believed in the existence of the Flood, but equating the two would be like equating Ptolemy with a modern proponent of geocentrism.  The fact that Morris explicitly chose to renounce the scientific consensus of his day is significant difference. --Saforrest 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: Should this article not say somethig like '.. but science has found no evidence of 900 year old humans during this period'? I know the phrase 'creationists believe...' explains a lot but I still think the article comes across as lacking that bit of reason. -- Andrewmabbott 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, firstly, one could argue that the statement "science has found no..." is a weasal word.  What do you mean by "science"... some sort of anthropromorphised entity that is the embodyment of science?  Plus your statement is rather rhetorical.  Of course there have been no discoveries of human remains that could be judged to be 900 years old at any period of known archaeological record.  Most educated people know this.  Its rather like you arguing that we should insert a statement in the Harry Potter entries that "science has found no evidence that saying 'avada kadavra' can kill someone."  As for reason, this article is reporting, quite objectively, an entry on human religious faith.  By reason, I assume you want to keep people from actually believing it.  I think *that* should be left up to the individual reader as to whether revealed religions are valid or not.  In this case, reporting the facts and what 'antediluvian' means, Wiki has done its job. Yanqui9 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The term has relevant in science history as well as in religion. This article should remain, and statements should be sourced properly. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science? 

message: This may indicate my ignorance about the period, but there is no indication as to which years this period occupied.. is there no estimation anywhere at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.227.231.39 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one of the few guys from the Judeo-Christian background who tried to put dates on things, Bishop Ussher, placed creation at 4004 BCE and the flood at 2348 BCE.  A period of 1648 years.  As we now know from fossil record, astronomical studies, and carbon dating, the world has been around alot longer than that, the dates are mearly a curiosity.  Albeight Ussher's date was taken very seriously by fundamentalists for many years and maybe still is in some quarters. Yanqui9 03:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Why are there two different headings which read "The antediluvian period"?194.81.255.254 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double heading 

message: We beg to differ with Wikipedia...the Antediluvian period referred to in the Bible (ex: II Peter 3:5 and others)indicates the period before the time of Genesis 1:1 and the creation of modern man. Commonly referred to as "Lucifer's Flood," the world before the creation of modern man was destroyed by flooding so devastation as to have decimated all creation from that ancient world. Thus, today we find sedimentary rock formations and fossil records which are not entirely explainable by any other reason or rationale.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigi ga (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antediluvian NOT Period Between Creation & Noah 

message: hey folks, it's not new news, that biblical flood was around the black sea and really horrible for those who lived there, btw the black sea was more or less in the middle of all bible stories, the flood never reached the atlantic-, pacific- or even indian ocean. it was a "in-land-flood". and it also never harmed atlantis because atlantis was more of a boat then an isle, it was NOT fixed to the ground. --78.43.41.8 (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  only a small area was flooded 

message: The section entitled "The Biblical Flood" begins with the sentence "In religious texts such as the Christian Bible and the Hebrew Torah, the Antediluvian period begins with the Creation according to Genesis and ends with the destruction of all life on the earth except those saved with Noah in the ark."  While some scholars argue that this account is derived from other similar creation/flood accounts, none of these other stories "begins with the Creation according to Genesis and ends with the destruction of all life on the earth except those saved with Noah in the ark" and none of them would logically fall under a section heading of "The Biblical Flood". So the wording "In religious texts such as" seems both inaccurate and incompatible with the section header and my suggestion is that we delete them. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change that I think addresses your concern. Note that this section of the article is, specifically, about the Genesis/Bible accounts. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

text: And I apologize for reverting your previous edit, which was, I now recognize, perfectly acceptable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of Biblical Flood wording