Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 4

message: I made this change because, in the first half of the 19th Century at least, there were a number of so-called "scriptural geologists" who held out against the old-Earth view .  I'm not entirely happy with the wording "new breed of", but it's the best I could think of at the moment.  Philip J. Rayment 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the "more evolved geologists"? :-) rossnixon 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverted to simply "humanists" and "geologists." I take humanists to mean those who put man, not the supernatural, at the centre of their worldview, and thus try to explain the world in terms of natural processes. As for the geologists, remeber that we're dealing with the very early days of the development of geology as a science: even a geologist who takes the scriptures as his explanatory framework is still a genuine scientist if he's willing to change his views as new evidence an better theories to explain it become available. PiCo 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th Century geology 

message: :::: This is an interesting aside for you, Filll... According to my trusty copy of Charles' Pseudepigrapha (the one with the footnotes that aren't included in online editions), the text of 3 Baruch is every bit as contemptuous of your "scientific" understanding, as you no doubt are of it... Check this out: 
In chapter 4, it states that "Hades" is a being on another plane that drinks a cubit of water from the oceans on Earth every day, but the sea level does not go down because rivers fill it up again... Then in chapter 10, after being shown a mysterious plane in the Heavens (not on Earth) including among other things a pool of Water, the Angel explains to Baruch "the water is that which the clouds receive, and rain upon the earth, and the fruits increase..." Baruch asks "Lord, and how do men say that the water which descends in rain is from the sea?" The angel replies (According to a footnote, the Slavonic version of the text here inserts: "The race of man is deceived knowing nothing. All the water of the sea is salt, for if the rain came from the sea, no fruit would grow on the earth") "The water which descends in rain - this also is from the sea, and from the waters upon the earth; but that which stimulates the fruits is from the latter source. Know therefore henceforth that from this source is what is called the dew of heaven."  An interesting view, shows that the contempt can cut both ways... Especially "the race of man is deceived knowing nothing"; I'm sure you have a similar opinion of whoever wrote that, right?  At least it shows a drastically different understanding of the water cycle than that of "the race of man", perhaps it is just "one word against another", with each claiming the other is deceived... But if the race of man is the one that is deceived, it might be pointless to wonder about where the water of the flood went...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are of course many discarded theories, hypotheses, myths, etc that have been constructed to explain natural phenomena. This is the scientific method. If the explanation does not fit the data, then it is GONE. It might be of historical interest, it might be nice poetry, it might be allegory, it might be a famous legend, a beautiful mythology, an important tradition, part of a given society's culture. However, it is not science. That is all.--Filll 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's not science, maybe we could call it "anti-science!" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I can't really argue with you there, and I certainly wouldn't assert that it is science either... just interesting... I just wanted to throw it out there to see what you would say really! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deception? 

message: I moved the Biblical Literalism section down right after the Ark in various traditions section; this is a tradition, and is related to that section. It should come before the Ark Under Scrutiny, as that section makes no sense without this section coming before it. I feel the article flows better this way, as all the various traditions are together. It felt like it was randomly hanging between the first section and the documentary hypothesis section. Titanium Dragon 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Biblical Literalism section 

message: I think the new summary for the Search for Noah's Ark is too long; I much preferred the shorter summary. Why was it changed? It is getting too much space; it really isn't very important when compared to all the rest of the article. That's part of why it got a subarticle; there's a lot of information on the topic but it isn't hugely important. Titanium Dragon 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I'm not sure if "searches continue" is appropriate though, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Titanium Dragon 23:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I drastically shortened the section (which is ok, as I wrote it in the first place). I'm happy with the "searches continue" phrase as it expresses the optimism of those who search - I don't think that failure to find anything is going to stop them. PiCo 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope. But it's all in my head. I'll have a try at re-ordering the Searches article and making it more comprehensive...one day. PiCo 04:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You doubt the long-term storage and retrieval capacity of my neurons? So do I sometimes. Fortunately there's a back-up: it's also recoverable through the History function at the top of the article. PiCo 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Search for Noah's Ark too long 

message: :::I will point out that the search for Noah's Ark is not the only topic in the fields of "pseudoarchaeology" or "pseudohistory". I do not know if there is a good term for the area. But I might include in it things like:
:::*the claim that the egyptians had ships that regularly sailed across the Atlantic to the New World (so their mummies could contain cocaine and tobacco and they could teach the Mayans to make Pyramids and the people of northern Chile to make mummies)
:::*the claim that a plaque in the middle of Minnesota is the record of a lost Viking expedition to the area before Columbus
:::*the claim that the Chinese regularly visited the West coast of the Americas before Columbus
:::*the now discredited claim that the Ainu were from from the same group of people as the Finnish and the Hungarians (genetic studies put that one to rest)
:::*the claim that there is a fountain of youth in florida
:::*Claims that there were cities of gold in the new world like Quivira and Cíbola and El Dorado
:::*Claims that the body of St. James really rests in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (particularly the story about how he was transported there)
:::*Before L'Anse aux Meadows was found, Norse stories of Vinland were assumed to be made up
:::*Thor Heyerdal was a fan of unpopular historic theories, and would also try to prove they were possible
:::*claims that the cave drawings and stories in the bible etc are records of alien visitation by Erich von Däniken
:::*Velikovsky's astronomical theories associated with earth and bible history
:::* Stories of Atlantis or other supposedly mythical places
:::A little investigation will turn up literally thousands upon thousands of these sorts of topics. They are interesting. Some turn out to have some grain of truth in them. Some go against other evidence. Some were current mainstream beliefs or theories or hypotheses and then are discarded as new evidence turns up. And so on.--Filll 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Before L'Anse aux Meadows was found, Norse stories of Vinland were assumed to be made up".  Correct.  So I guess your point is that before it was found, this hypothesis was "pseudoarcheology"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't pseudoarcheology; there was some support for the idea, and it certainly was plausible; the issue was that no one knew if they actually made it from Greenland -> North America prior to that, even though it was documented that they had actually gone to Vinland (AKA Canada). Pseudoarcheology is stuff like searches for the Ark, most of the searches for Atlantis, claims the Chinese went to the Americas in 1421, ect. Stuff that was made up and obviously so. Some Atlantis seekers are at least reasonable, and actually focus on real possibilities - the Minoan civilization, for instance. However, no Ark seekers can focus on real possibilities, because all the "real possibilities" have the Ark not existing and the Great Deluge being, at best, a large local flood. Titanium Dragon 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it was pseudoarcheology, because finding of L'Anse aux Meadows was a complete shock to scientists at the time.  Just to head off the mythologists on here, there were a group of people who were searching for evidence of Viking culture in North America relying upon what appear to be fake plaques, stone engravings (one found in Missouri, oops, Oklahoma Heavener Runestone), etc.   However, the archeologists, Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad had read and translated an early Norse saga, and from that information, ascertained the location of a possible site in North America.  So prior to the Ingstads, it was pseudoarcheology.  They weren't.  There is no documentable historical, geological, archeological or paleontological evidence of a flood.  Thus, the search for Noah's ark is nothing more than POV pseudoscience myth.  Orangemarlin 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff about the Vikings

message: Stop complaining and write something. Pick a sentence or section you dislike and write a new "balanced" version and present the two for comparison and comment. Put up or...--Filll 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw them and I cut and pasted them to the search article. I did not revert them. I do not want to LOSE any of this material. I am not sure why they were reverted but I think that the goal was to make this section very short, so it might have been for brevity rather than anything else. In a contentious article, it is always better to put the changes here first or on a scratch page and then have people comment and so on first. Believe me, I have been down this road many times before and it gets pretty nasty. Even when you all have the same POV. --Filll 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh Ok. Now the article IS contentious and doesn't have the same POV being presented by all sides. You acknowledge that, now that it suits your argument.  Careful. You are contradicting what you have been saying all along.  But who cares. Comment on the edits that were well cited, relevant, and according to Wiki policy (and mostly in favor of what seems to be your position.) instead of just being dismissive.Katherin 05:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I only think one section is unbalanced, because it talks about the Search for Noah's Ark, which is pseudoscience, since you can't search for something that didn't happen.  As for the Great Flood article, it is very good.  It presents all of the myths, then sets out some of the scientific evidence for the existence of these myths.  I wish this article would do the same.  Noah's Ark is a myth.  Here's the evidence of why it never happened.  Then I can go on to critiquing the Historicity of Jesus article.  Orangemarlin 06:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK katherin 

message: Shouldn't some of this very long article be moved into or merged with Noah or Deluge (mythology)? At least one of these should be the main article and the others should be smaller separate articles, instead of restating the same things. Mr. Toad 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges? 

message: I just read the article for the first time. There is one part I am concerned about becasue it seems to either implyies PoV or original reserach (or somewhere in between).
Section ==The documentary hypothesis and the Ark==
The Ark narrative leaves an impression of occasional confusion: why does the story state twice over that mankind had grown corrupt but that Noah was to be saved (Gen 6:5–8; 6:11–13)? Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days (Gen 7:24)? What happened to the raven that was sent out from the Ark at the same time as the dove and "went to and fro until the waters had subsided from the face of the earth" some two to three weeks later (Gen 8:7)? Why does the narrative appear to have two logical end-points (Gen 8:20–22 and 9:1–17)?[5] Questions such as these are not unique to the Ark narrative, or to Genesis, and the attempt to find a solution has led to the emergence of what is currently the dominant school of thought on the textual analysis of the first five books of the Bible, the documentary hypothesis.
''
This section doesn't read well. Shoudn't it start with statements of fact such as, "In the "so-and-so" translation of the Bible the book of Genesis states that (and give the contradictions or different information). Then go into the documentary hypothesis by .. "This apparent difference/contradiction is thought to be due to ..."
Words like "leaves an impression of occassional confusion" and other turns of phrase don't belong in an encylopedia. They seem to be appealing to the reader and I don't think that is appropriate. Candy 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better would be "The story of the Ark is self-contradictory." Then give the examples and state that these contradictions are the reason for the research. Titanium Dragon 08:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as it stands, it reads badly, looks totally like original reserach and is unencyclopedic. So, re-writing it looks like it should be done. It is certainly a negative part of this artcile imho. Candy 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If enough people want it re-drafted I'll do it - but given the sensitivity of the subject, and the fact that the section was already as it is now when the article achieved FA status, I'd want to see a pretty strong indication that this is desirable (on acount of not wanting to put a lot of effort into opening a can of worms). PiCo 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV? 

message: Perhaps we need an article on objections to Noah's ark, with major objections listed and "arkeologist's" responses, for a few of the main objections. I do not know if it is possible to get any objections into this article, since it has FA status.--Filll 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Objections to what? I am unclear on what you mean. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not objections, that's historical and scholarly analysis. Is what you're thinking of not covered in Deluge (mythology)? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I looked. As detailed and interesting as Deluge (mythology) is, the part we would expand on is barely touched there, and does not even have any references. This area has been subject to intense scholarship for well over 2000 years. There is an immense amount. And it is fascinating.--Filll 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Theories of origin section on that article needs work and sourcing - perhaps you could start there, and once that section gets too big then create a child article, leaving a summary and link behind. Or if you were planning to specifically address the Noah's Ark myth, and not touch on related myths, you could create a child article based on The documentary hypothesis and the Ark from this article. Although I don't see how you'd get far address the Noah version only, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what your focus would be. If working from this article, I suggest working on it in userspace then moving to mainspace. The Deluge section I'd work on from where it is as noted. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you start by cleaning up and sourcing Deluge (mythology)#Theories of origin, that might make a natural jumping-off place. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections article 

message: Thanks to codex, who I am stealing this from:
:Wikipedia simply reports what is actually believed today, not what you would like people to believe, or what you would "teach" them to believe. 
Given that, what is actually believed? How do we define it? Polls? All POV? Are some POV more important than others in the literature? I do not mean to be difficult. I just do not understand this concept very well. For example, I read at Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial:
:Points of view held as having little credibility by experts, but with wide popular appeal (e.g.: the belief in astrology, considered as irrational and incorrect by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers), should be reported, but as such: that is, we should expose the point of view and its popular appeal, but also the opinion held by the vast majority of experts
Maybe we already do this in this article. I am not sure. But I am just trying to learn.--Filll 18:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That gets into the questions "Who are the experts on religious texts, and are they all in agreement?" I think scientists can certainly share their expertise, but not to exclude the other experts that speak for othesr positions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point: what you just said above about your laws, government spending decisions, etc. may well be true for your own corner of the world or jurisdiction wherever you live, but you might be surprised if you took a look at the patchwork of conditions in other places... many beliefs you may well regard as unscientific, are actually enshrined into law or otherwise recognised by various governments in many countries....ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also point out, from my reading of creationist websites and literature and history, and sampling personally many varieties of religious faith, there is no overwhelming agreement among religious authorities about almost anything. That is why we have several thousand sects of Christianity, and numerous sects of Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. There have been some great debates between creationists about the Flood and other things and what the sacred texts mean. So it is a bit difficult to claim that one interpretation is universally agreed upon, even by religious experts.--Filll 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - that is often the case, so we always try to include as many significant interpretations as we can, without showing undue or disproportionate preference. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that it is a hugely minority viewpoint that the Ark story has any basis in reality. Sorry, but that's the way of things, and it isn't held among any experts in reality. That some fundamentalist Christians believe it is literally true is relevant, but they aren't nearly as important as the vast majority of humanity who view it as a fictional story and nothing more. Titanium Dragon 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Titanium Dragon. It is a great story. It is very interesting that Flood myths exist in many cultures around the world. It might indicate one or two major flood events, or possibly not. But for something that is close to literally true as described in Genesis? Well that stretches credulity, given our data that we have.--Filll 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen any data on what "the vast majority of humanity" believe... What data are you using? I have seen data on religious affiliation, but not belief in Noah's Ark... of course you could use the exact same argument to claim that Muslims' views of the Quran are irrelevant, since the vast majority of humanity does not believe in it.    Whether there is any single belief that might encompass the vast majority of humanity is doubtful, but Noah's Ark is probably about as close as any, since it appears in cultures around the world in several religions, and claims to be the origin of all modern humanity in Armenia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a recent ABC poll that showed 60% of Americans believe in Noah's ark, at least answered that way, given the way the question was phrased. There are certainly lots of Flood myths of various kinds around the world. I will agree with that. Now, does that mean the Noachian account gains some sort of heft from that? Maybe...but...--Filll 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't gain any "heft" from that in terms of logic, only for purposes of establishing it as a "significant" POV, or at least, not dismissing this POV as 'insignificant'.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not dismiss the POV of 60% of the American public as insignificant, whether there were multiple flood accounts or not. However, it is not the only POV, and as my quote above shows, a lare fraction of the American public believes all kinds of things. And now I have to find surveys of the experts in geology and animal husbandry etc.--Filll 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to the poll? Was it a scientific poll? And it also depends on what the question was, precisely. Titanium Dragon 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am compiling information about Noah's Ark and Flood polling. The 60% comes from an ABC poll. I have the cite. I suspect, like in the case of ESP, and UFOs, and Big Foot, and lots of other things, you will find a significant fraction of the public believing them, but a tiny fraction of scientists. Because of the kind of work they do, scientists have to be very skeptical of these kinds of claims. They are constantly confronted with screwball hypotheses and they have to weigh the alternatives very carefully.--Filll 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not on a campaign. Noah's Ark has been the subject of analysis and scholarship for centuries. Descartes. Diderot. Newton. The Scholastics. Maimonides. etc. It has substantial support among the American public as a literal historic event. There are multiple accounts of a flood, and someone building a boat to rescue animals and people. Several great Creationist debates over the years have focused on creationists of different persuasions arguing with each other (no scientists involved) about the nature of Noah's Ark and the flood. It was the focus of a famous New York City court case in the 1930s; the Rimmer-Floyd court battle. However, I am not planning to introduce anything like this material in this article, which has achieved FA status. I am not necessarily going to write anything new about it anywhere. I am considering it at the moment, or at least learning. That is all.--Filll 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to learn in your own time and place.  A discussion of what you "think" about what people "think", or who studied the blinkered Ark, or trivia about some inane court case really does not belong here. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What people believe 

message: The start of the section "The documentary hypothesis and the Ark" states: 
"The Ark narrative leaves an impression of occasional confusion: why does the story state twice over that mankind had grown corrupt but that Noah was to be saved (Gen 6:5–8; 6:11–13)? Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days (Gen 7:24)? What happened to the raven that was sent out from the Ark at the same time as the dove and "went to and fro until the waters had subsided from the face of the earth" some two to three weeks later (Gen 8:7)? Why does the narrative appear to have two logical end-points (Gen 8:20–22 and 9:1–17)?"
I think certain segments of this are being illogical, sloppy, or just not well thought through.  About the pairs of animals: (Gen 6:19-20 and Gen 7:2-3).  Looking at the "old" NIV, there is no mention of "clean" in the earlier pair of verses.  Maybe I'm missing something, but the deduction can be made that every kind of animal was to be taken aboard in pairs while exception was made for clean animals, which were to be in sevens.  Now Gen 7:17 and Gen 7:24.  There is absolutely no problem here.  In fact, the numerical difference is necessary if things are to make any scientific sense.  Forty days tells how long the rain came down for, but it takes a lot of time for that much water to go away.  Specifically, the time it took for the water to recede so that land appeared was 150 days. As for the apparent redundancy, such as with 6:5-8 and 6:11-13, I view it similarly to how I view the first two chapters in Genesis.  The first part of the narrative, I believe, gives the broad overview, setting up the overall basis, and the second part goes in and gives greater details.  The appearance of the text having two logical end-points doesn't seem to float if you take away the chapter divisions.  I feel that chapter 8 flows very smoothly into chapter 9.  The chapter divisions were by no means present in the original text.  They were added far later by scholars and historians.  Also realize that unusual sounding structure may simply be the result of us having a far different culture.
But all of this may have been discussed and found in opposition to my opinion some time ago....Zephyr axiom 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your post ZA. Yes, all this has been discussed ad nauseum - you can look it up in the archives. The basic point to remember is that this section aims to explain the DH, not prove it, disprove it, or argue about it. PiCo 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK.  Thanks!Zephyr axiom 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed narrative discrepancies 

message: I deleted a recent addition by Zephyr Axiom to the "Literalism" section. The addition was to the effect that only land animals needeed to be taken on the Ark, and discussed briefly the position of insects (I can't recall with what outcome). I'm putting this note here explaining my action because ZA is a new editor on Wiki and a new editor on this article, and I don't want him/her to feel that there's any basic bias against a Creationist viewpoint or against new editors (We are not a club). My reason was simply that the additoin was entirely in the direction of adding additional circumstantial detail to a point already made in the paragraph - that literalists believe there would be no problem fitting all the animals on board. Indeed, that's the sole point of the paragraph. The article as it stands contains several sectoins each setting out different aspects of the Ark story, and we need to keep a balance between them - once a point is made, there's no need to overburden it with additional detail. Also, this is a Featured Article, meaning it's been recognised as one of the best on Wikipedia - changes should therefore only be inrtoduced if they're quite necessary. That's all. ZA, you continuing involvement in the article is welcome. PiCo 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for informing me.  I totally understand.  At least I was able to contribute with that "kind" link.--Zephyr axiom 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zephyr Axiom's addition to the 'literalism' section 

message: The Bible says it RAINED for 40 days, but that's not how long the flood lasted.68.161.33.193 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 days 

message: The concept of two stories for Man versus Adam and two Flood stories is easily explained by two theories. Genesis belongs to Jews, and Jews say Moses wrote it. Moses dropped and broke the tablets he spent 40 days writing. It was the law on these tablets, not just 10 commandments, and who can say it wasnt also Genesis he was writing. If broken, there would be fragments of the first copy he would extract from the same way we try to restore when we crash and lose a file. My own writings have these frequent duplications of thoughts. Secondly, Moses tries to distiguished what is GOD and what is Jehovah. He wants the reader to learn that Jehovah is the cause and effect that God proves himself to be so that we too can see and predict the way Moses did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elijah Michael (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOR for Wikipedia's policy on original research. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Genesis 

message: I think it is mistaken to say that Orthodox Jews must use the historical-grammatical method to properly interpret the Bible. After reading the page on historical-grammatical method, which seems to suggest that each part of the Bible has one correct way to be interpreted using grammar and history, I think this is at odds with Orthodox and traditional Jewish interpretation, which allows for many "correct" interpretations. I'm going to clean this up a little (see Midrash and Pardes (legend)). Michael.passman 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be prepared to cite your sources, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Jews are probably the least dogmatic of religions.  Orangemarlin 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical-grammatical method 

message: I took this sentence out of the lead:
These stories of the largest major cultures do have calendar epochs of specific dates referred to as the Creation of the world by flood.
I had 2 reasons. First, the lead is a summary of the body of the article; if this belongs anywhere, it belongs in the relevant section further down. Second, I don't understand what it's trying to say, and if I don't understand it, neither will most other readers. What's a calendar epoch - the start-date for measuring years? If that's what it is, then the major world calendar-epochs (Jewish, Christian, Islamnic, Hindu, Buddhist) certainly don't start with a flood. (This is interesting, by the way - in Thailand it's currently the year 2000-something, based on the birth or death of Buddha, in the Muslim world it's 1400-something, based on Mohammed's flight from Mecca to Medina, and in Burma it's barely 1200-something, due to a medieval king who decided to re-start the Buddhist count; and China works on cycles of 60 years, and the ancient Greeks dated things from the first Olympic games). Anyway, if this is what's meant by calendar-epoch, it's clearly incorrect to say world's major cultures date their epochs to the creation of the world by flood. PiCo 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar epochs