Talk:Noah/Archive 1

African Noah

There is considerable evidence to support the assertion that Noah was an historical figure. There is a time-honored tradition among the people who live around Lake Chad that the biblical Noah once ruled over this fertile region that bears his name: “Bor-nu” (Country of Noah). The flood of Noah likely occurred during the Guirian Wet Period from about 6000 to 2500 B.C. During this time the water table was high, the earth springy and there were many natural springs. (See the Genesis 2:6 description.) Rivers and lakes flooded surrounding areas. The flooding would have been significant as Lake Chad sits to the northeast and the southern section of Bornu is at the confluence of the Niger, Benue and Osimili Rivers.

The common people of that time used dugouts, but the rulers used reed boats sealed with pitch. In 1998 a fully preserved dugout was excavated from a site in this region of Nigeria. It was buried at a depth of 16 feet under clays and sands whose alternating sequence showed evidence of deposition in standing and flowing water. The dugout is 8000 years old. (Search Dufuna Boat.)

By all appearances, Noah was a wise and prosperous ruler. Genesis 9:20 says that he was “a tiller of the soil and the first to plant the grape vine.” At his birth an oracle was given that “This one shall bring us relief from our work and the toil of our hands.” (Gen. 5:29)

The reference in Genesis 8:4 to Noah’s ark coming to rest on a peak in Ararat reflects a different flood story whose hero was the Mesopotamian chief, Ziusudra. Behind the stories of Ziusudra and Noah stands a developed water mercantilism. It is known that farming developed along the Nile as early as 8000 B.C. and that the river provided a means of transportation of goods. Prehistoric rock paintings in the Sahara show Egyptian boats, and there are written records of journeys by ship to the southern end of the Red Sea in the time of Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (2613 to 2494 B.C.)

Much as our nation’s commerce was developed initially on the great rivers, the waterways of Africa and the Asiatic Near East were used to market goods and agricultural products. The rulers of the Paleo-Dominion controlled both the means of production and the waterways.

As ruler of the Country of Bornu, Noah controlled the commerce on and around Lake Chad. His son, Ham, probably controlled trade on a section of the Niger River that connects to the Atlantic Ocean. Sheba, a descendent of Ham, established his palace city on the Atlantic coast of what is today Nigeria.

Terah, Abraham’s father, another descendent of Noah, maintained households in Ur to the south and Haran to the north. Both towns were situated on the Euphrates River. This suggests that Terah controlled the commerce on that part of the Euphrates.

Another of Noah’s descendents was Assur (Gen. 10:22) who controlled trade on the Tigris between Assur to the north and Lagash to the south. According to the Assyrian King List there were at least five rulers named Assur. The Assur who was a contemporary and cousin of Terah must have been one of the first to establish power in that region.

Abraham, another descendent of Noah, maintained a household in Hebron to the north and Beersheba to the south. His travels between the two households took him along the “way of Shur” or the river way, although the river was probably navigable only during the wet months. In this more arid region rulers fought to control well and oasis.

The ancient Nile civilization broke into two kingdoms around 3400 B.C. Heri-Hor ruled in Thebes in the Upper Nile and Ne-su-baner-Ded ruled in Tanis on the Nile delta. That the descendents of Noah are related to both dynasties is evident by the appearance of the names Hor, Ded, and Ram. One of Noah’s descendents is named Ded’an, two are named Na’Hor, and many are named Ram: A’Ram (Son of Shem), Zim’Ram (son of Abraham), Ram (Judah’s great grandson), and Am’Ram (Moses’ father). Clearly Noah’s descendents were well connected to the ruling houses of West Central Africa, Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Genesis material points to a vast Paleo-Dominion that extended from the Atlantic coast of modern Nigeria to the Indus River Valley in India. The rulers of this dominion controlled the means of production and the waterways and were related by marriage.

The rulers of the Paleo-Dominion spoke one language although there were different dialects. The Afroasiatic language group has the longest recorded history of any linguistic group. This language family, sometimes referred to as the “Hamito-Semitic” group, is one of 17 language groups in the world. All the languages and peoples mentioned in Genesis 9 -11 belong to this group.

Ancient African languages represent a stage of linguistic development predating the division of the languages of western Asia and Africa into semitic and hamitic branches around 12,000 B.C.

Languages in the Afroasiatic group include: Akkadian, Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, Babylonian, Berber, Chadic, Ethiopic, Hahm/Jaba, Hausa, Hebrew, Phoenician, Sumerian and Ugaritic. These are called “cognate languages.” Cognate languages share a common ancestor language or origin. The words in these different languages therefore are derived from the same root. Because this is so, linguists are able to compare the languages and draw conclusions about the older “proto” Afroasiatic language spoken between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C. (Alice C. Linsley)

Untitled section about edits

Details of edits made:

"Historians, however, are agreed that there is no evidence that Noah was a historical figure." reverted/amended to the more accurate "Most modern historians...".

"...which reflects an oral legend tradition older than writing..." amended to "...which they believe reflects an oral legend tradition older than writing...". The very idea that there was a pre-writing age is unproven.

"...the story of Noah's ark closely parallels that of the much earlier Sumerian Utnapishtim, and scores of other ..." had the words "much earlier" removed. Extant copies of those records may predate extant copies of the Biblical records, but it doesn't follow that the stories originated earlier. In fact it was clearly not NPOV as it was, as the following sentence goes on to say (in effect) that some people see this as evidence that the stories all have a common origin, i.e. they all date to the same time.

I didn't change it, but I'm not happy with the term "Biblical fundamentalists" in the sentence "Biblical fundamentalists assert that the story of Noah is a true story...". Fundamentalism although described as being a return to original principles, is acknowledged as being a recent (early 20th Century) phenomenon, yet the belief the story of Noah is true applies to Christianity historically. Whether "Traditional Christians" or "Conservative Christians" are better terms, or something else entirely would be better, I'm not sure. Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poor analysis?

The article reads:

"An interval of one hundred and twenty years elapsed while the ark was being built (6:3), during which Noah tried to convince the people to repent so they could avoid the wrath of God. (Christian interpretations, as seen from Rome in the 2nd century CE, are preserved in the First Epistle of Peter 3:18-20 and the Second Epistle of Peter 2:5)." Peter mentions Noah as "a preacher of righteousness".

and then:

"Later commentaries find two degrees of righteousness, which they demonstrate as a metaphor for a man who is cold: the fully righteous person would set up a fire - that is, help the others."

Did he try to keep the whole thing a secret? Here he was building a "133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m" something box for forty years and no one knew about it? And in contrast to the tradition he didn't tell anyone why? Because he didn't really care about any other persons moral standards? Or the “men of fame” whipping up violence? - Jerryseinfeld 17:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, and I will try to fix the text. According to Rashi, God did intend for the humungous ark-building project to be noticed and questioned by all the people of the world. And the fact that it took 120 years to build would also give plenty of time for people to travel to Noah, ask him why he was doing it, and receive the answer that a flood was coming soon and they'd better repent of their evil ways. The fact that they didn't, on both counts, shows the depths of depravity to which they'd sunk. The comparison of Noah as a "man in a coat" refers not to the people's lack of interest but to his own. In comparison to Abraham, who, when he found out about the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, actively argued with God to save the cities, even if only 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 righteous people could be found there (see Genesis 18:23-33), we don't hear about Noah arguing with God. Instead, he goes about his own business for 120 years, building the ark that will save him and his family. Yes, he fulfilled God's will, but he didn't put himself out for others. Yoninah 08:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning were removed by User:Sam Spade, hopefully pending further discussion. I even agree with Sam here! (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Plato unclear?

It doesn't really seem clear to me what the "Christian Applications" have to do with Noah and/or why they are Christian applications. Maybe an explanation should be added? Davidfraser 10:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a preety big copyvio to me. The bellman 10:03, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

I removed the entire section, since the material about Plato was all that was there. I looked in the history to see if there was a better version to revert to, but there does not seem to be any that would not remove good material, so I started a new section about Christian interpretations of Noah, which needs to be expanded. Also, I think that Noah's Greek and Mesopotamian parallels should be mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure where. Academic Challenger 23:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Hebrew

In Israeli Hebrew (what the article calls "Standard Hebrew", I suppose), there is no vav in the name. According to the spelling rules, perhaps there should be, but names are different, and spelling how they are traditionally spelled in the Bible.

Removing POV external links in body of text

I re-removed the two POV external links in the body of the text. Wikipedia discourages in-body external links, except for citations. In this case, the links are highly POV and come from one confessional standpoint: Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity.

Take the Gopher-wood link.

• The article is on a Fundamentalist, Creationist Protestant site. It is not a piece of reference, but of argument.
• The article puts forward an original idea on an obscure point—that "Gopher wood" was a pre-flood tree. This is the sort of point that ought to be argued in an article on Gopher-wood, so I made a link to one. If Agapetos Angel wants it, put it there.
• If we're going to link to things as reference (as opposed to citation), we should expect high-quality material. I was pretty amused, therefore, to note the article manages to comment on the Greek text without bothering to understand how the Greek alphabet works, giving the Greek word as kuparissov. Mistaking a nu for a v? I got over that after the first class.

If you'd like to revert, kindly post your explanation here. Anyway, it's getting better slowly, right?

Lectiodifficilior 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

link removed

I removed the link about the deluge, because this is about the life of Noah, not about the accuracy of the deluge or creationism. Following this link would not really give more information about Noah, so it doesn't belong here.

OK, I delete it again. Uncommented deletions by anonymous users are generally suspicious, so they are in danger of being reverted without checking.--Ikar.us 19:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason, I have removed the reference to Walter Brown entirely (and an "Answers in Genesis" link). The link to his book isn't there anymore, creationism is not relevant to this article, and the paragraph was inaccurate (Brown is an engineer, not a scientist, and certainly not a "leading scientist" in any relevant field: the actual "leading scientists" agree that there was no such event in recent history).

Noah, the Greeks, and Berossus

I have found this book[1]. It suggests that the writer of Noah knew the Greek story of the Flood via Berossus. Myrvin (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

For Berossus, this book is of interest too[2]. I think it is saying that Noah was not based directly on the early Mesopotamian writings, but on Berossus.Myrvin (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This [3] suggests that the account of Noah may have been altered in LXX because of Berossus and Manetho - maybe the chronology. Myrvin (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And maybe this[4]. Myrvin (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How is moving two images POV? And why were my edits reverted? Why are they opposed? 49.144.167.188 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. You know damn well that is not why your edits were reverted. If you're not going to bother giving a reason for your changes, we are done here.--Atlan (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Putting a Jewish artwork as the lead image recognizes the story's Jewish heritage, and makes the article far less Christian-centric.49.144.167.188 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to make it less christian-centric, as there is no consensus that the article is too christian-centric. You have been reverted across multiple articles by multiple editors, but clearly you do not respect consensus or standard Wikipedia processes. I've already warned you to stop your rampant edit warring, or face a block.--Atlan (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless no one disagrees that this is too Christian centric either. And by the way, only two other editors have reverted my edits for no reason given.And just beacuase there is no consensus yet for whether the article is too Christian centric does not mean that it isn't.49.144.167.188 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The status quo is considered to be the consensus version. You are the one trying to change the status quo and are being reverted. It is up to you to convince editors that your changes are an improvement.--Atlan (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If somebody can find a decent and recognizable image of Noah from Jewish sources, we might consider it for inclusion in a prominent spot in the article. I'm not sure that this one in the lead of a previous version of the article [5] is adequate. Just my thoughts. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The real issue at hand, is that the IP believes our biblical articles should be Judeocentric. This is a matter for discussion and not stubborn edit warring. Moving the images is the least problematic of all the contested edits.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. In the mean time, and in an attempt to harness evident enthusiasm, let him/her look for a good image. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

How is the article too Christian-centric? I'll note that - in my opinion, and it's just from observation - that Noah is a lot more important to Christians than to Judaism because Creationists make a big deal of Noah and the Flood. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The most important thing is that the article is accessible to any reader. Replacing the term "biblical Noah" with the vague "middle eastern legendary figure" in a (misguided) effort to make the article less "Christian-centric", is unhelpful. In other articles, the IP replaces the term "God" with YHWH and Elohim for the same reason. This is even less helpful IMO.--Atlan (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the onnly reason it seems that this article should be Christian centric because of the religion's large influence, and ever-exponential growth, to the point that a massive amount of ignorant people think that the Noah story is unique to Christianity.EvangelionAngel (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And many people are unaware that the Yahweh-Elohim mentioned in the Hebrew Bible was polytheistic (this can be clearly detected in passages), since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its job is to inform the readers, instead of presenting to them the Christian-tainted translations of Elohim and Yahweh into "God" and "the LORD".EvangelionAngel (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Atlan, are you saying that making this article appeal to Christians makes the article "accessible" to readers? That's rather bigoted towards non-Christians, and ignores the desires of interested irreligious readers to know more about the full picture about religion.49.144.167.188 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No that is clearly not what I said.--Atlan (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the Ip means that, by using just the Western "God" instead of Yahweh and Elohim, we are making this article accessible, but also conceal the nature and origins of the Hebrew texts. If we use Yahweh, and Elohim, we can reflect the originally polytheistic nature of the monotheistic Jewish God, and make this article more informative for irreligious people.Gonzales John (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am reasonably sure you are both the IP editor and EvangelionAngel, who appeared out of nowhere. This wouldn't be the first time you resorted to sockpuppetry to continue a steady stream of edit warring. I will report this at WP:SPI later today.--Atlan (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711130618/http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Nuh to http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Nuh

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation.com

Due to accidentally pressing the wrong button and rolling back rather than undoing a recent edit by User:Kunroh, I didn't offer an explanation in the edit summary. Here's the explanation: creationist sources are not treated as reliable by Wikipedia. This is a basic norm here, in line with the policy page WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Alephb (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction: that's User:Konroh.Alephb (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Levenson source

I noticed a new addition then tried to verify but unfortunately the "Levenson, 2004, 26" footnote lacks a corresponding source. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I didn't see your edit here but saw the problem, the footnote was copied from Curse of Ham without the bibliography. I've done a kludge as there are other missing ones, copied over the whole bibiography. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the new edit was [6] that inserted new text just before that already existing citation. I still didn't see the Levenson one there but could also do some searches later on. —PaleoNeonate – 14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes the source is there at the other article. —PaleoNeonate – 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Text verified, thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 14:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 13 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Fkh26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Better image needed

The top image is low-resolution and not apparently notable enough to have an article or apparently much coverage online. Could someone good at the rules of this sort of stuff find a suitable replacement from Commons:Category:Noah in art in higher quality? Thanks. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)