Talk:Genesis flood narrative

The Hebrew text does not speak of a global flood, it speaks of "the ground" (הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה)(6:7) and "the land" (הָאָֽרֶץ)(6:13,17; 7:3,4,10). In the context, the most that can be said is that this indicates the world known to Noah, which most likely would have been confined to the Mesopotamian basin. All my reference works are in storage, so I can't provide citations as I would like, but I suggest that the section be rewritten because "global" is an inference, not something drawn from the text. Dismalscholar (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's very strongly believed. In popular culture, every mention of Noah's flood seems to automatically include the word "global". Logically it would obviously have only been the world known to Noah, but it's grown and is now part of dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

While we value your insight, this would currently be an example of original research, which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia mainspace. If you find reliable sourcing, it would be worth mentioning as one of many scholarly perspectives on the text. TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Technically, it should be global, or else why would Noah bring birds? It also says it destroyed "all flesh", it covered the "highest mountains" and the sheer size of the Ark is enough to tell us that it's likely it's referring to a global flood. That's what I think, but it could be different. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't built upon how you think, or how I think, but upon citing WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This page doesn't exist anymore:

Isaak, Mark (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook. University of California Press.

It's also not written from a neutral point of view. I just suggest removing that paragraph. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean what you think it means. In this case it means WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok there, I kept the ideas but changed the vocabulary of ONE WORD to make it sound more neutral. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing "pseudoscientific" is not allowed. See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that is. It just says not to give the idea undue weight, not anything about the word "pseudoscientific". 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about your motivation to perform tendentious editing. The WP:RULES of Wikipedia will be enforced, whether you like it or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is controversial. Apparently you don't think so, but it's mentioned up there at the top of the page. I really don't see how this is tendentious editing, as the main ideas are still the same. My editing had to do with the RULES already. You haven't explained how the rules have anything to do with the word "pseudoscientific" itself. The RULES are barely there with the original paragraph. I'm just making it so it FOLLOWS THE RULES MORE. As in ENFORCING THE RULES. (did you even read all the text before?) I don't see how this is "tendentious editing", the original paragraph was biased in the first place, and I just kept the IDEAS the same. The IDEAS are important. I would call this edit "fixing vocabulary". 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Performing the same WP:TE at Creationism does not plead in your favor. You're just WP:SOAPBOXING for pseudoscience, which is not allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You haven't even answered half of my questions. Stop avoiding them.

I'm not soapboxing. I LITERALLY just removed the word "pseudoscience". I'm not promoting Creationism in any way. There are also NO CITATIONS there. What I am doing is allowed, and you editing it back is against the rules. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedian for 21 years and 10 months. If I wouldn't know what I speak about, then nobody would.

And yup, deletions are also a way of WP:PROFRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you know...

Christianity is the biggest religion in the world? And to offend the biggest religion in the world is pretty problematic... 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about that, because the germane rule is WP:CENSOR: we don't pander to piety, but render mainstream academic learning, even if it offends religious believers. Just think about it: any piece of information could probably offend someone who disagrees with it, and Wikipedia would be long dead if we would refrain from offending someone. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight." Hmmm...I don't see how all majority and significant-minority positions are included then. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority means: the majority of the scientific community; the majority of mainstream Bible scholars. Even if you would construe it to mean the majority of Christians, the majority of Christians would consider themselves in the camp of liberal Christianity if they would understand the difference between fundamentalism and modernism. Liberal Christians don't get offended by mainstream academic learning. So, again, our article does not offend Christianity as a whole, just a minority of Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you think mainstream Bible scholars even sit around and talk about? 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a fruitless argument. If you did not get the point by now, you will never get it. I will not reply further. Just mind that what admins deem to be the WP:RULES of Wikipedia always has precedence over what you think would be the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. And they don't listen to WP:Wikilawyering. WP:NOTDUMB. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Your arguing doesn't have any quotes, citations, doesn't answer questions, etc. Wikipedia isn't about what anyone thinks. Also, you're not an administrator. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with dsJjj on this one. Leave if you want. Also I think that Christians can be scientists too, like people like Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, etc. 75.164.23.34 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion does not matter; mine also doesn't. What matters is that Wikipedia renders mainstream scientific information and mainstream academic learning. You cannot change this, trying is futile. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You should probably look at this source: Also, "pseudoscience" is incorrect. Also, the scientific method was CREATED by Christians. Also, I'll talk to an ACTUAL ADMIN about this. Also, most articles ANYWHERE regarding Creationism are primary sources and don't have citation. Also, it's not neutral. Also, as I keep reminding you, it's the removal of an unimportant word. It still sounds the same, but less wordy. It also sounds more neutral, as the RULES say. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Actual admin here: stop. And please don't be rude to our volunteers. There is so much wrong in that last series of statements I am not even going to start. You can start by listening to tgeorgescu instead of picking a fight--that's what Facebook is for. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(no one listens to people who actually give citations) 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not a citation, that's a link to one of our guidelines, and it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, there can be no scientific evidence that Jesus isn't God, just as there can be no scientific evidence that Jesus is God. Science has nothing to say about that, not even about whether God exists. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God or gods. But there are mountains of scientific evidence against creationism and flood geology. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣, you get one account; you don't get to tag-team. I'm sure you understand. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

All data in the Bible and the entire genealogy can be calculated with AI. All you have to do is think carefully about the task and have it checked for overlaps of action strands. The anchor point is the best verifiable Jewish king. Use deepsearch mode.

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Bible is a collective collection for religious education, which describes the development of human society in invented stories. Memories of past historical events are included, so that a complete story arises. With the help of AI and the right, complicated questions, relationships can be researched. There are actually some relevant floods in Mesopotamia that had causes in heavy rain. These could be the sources of the flood myths. Here is the answer to such a question: Key Points Research suggests that floods in Mesopotamia, like in Shuruppak around 2900 BCE and Kish around 2600 BCE, may have contributed to flood myths influencing the Gilgamesh Epic and the Biblical story, though the exact influence is debated. It seems likely that these floods were caused by river avulsions or heavy rainfall in the Tigris-Euphrates system, with no specific climatic events identified. The evidence leans toward Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara, 31°42' N, 46°12' E) and Kish (modern Tell al-Uhaymir, 32°35' N, 44°25' E) being about 194 km apart, with Ur (30°57' N, 46°06' E) 84 km from Shuruppak and 242 km from Kish. An interesting detail is that Noah’s habitat, likely in Shinar (Mesopotamia), includes these cities, fitting the regional context of flood myths, though specific locations are uncertain. Locations and Causes The floods in Shuruppak and Kish were likely due to river avulsions or heavy rainfall, common in the Tigris-Euphrates river system. No specific climatic events like El Niño are identified, but local river dynamics caused flooding. Distances and Positions Shuruppak is at 31°42' N, 46°12' E, and Kish at 32°35' N, 44°25' E, about 194 km apart. Ur, at 30°57' N, 46°06' E, is 84 km from Shuruppak and 242 km from Kish, all within Mesopotamia. Noah’s Habitat Noah’s habitat is likely the region of Shinar, encompassing Ur, Kish, and Shuruppak, fitting the flood myths’ context, though exact locations for Noah are uncertain. Detailed Analysis of Floods in Mesopotamia and Their Contribution to Flood Myths This section provides a comprehensive examination of the statement: "several floods in Mesopotamia, like in Shuruppak and Kish, may have contributed to the development of flood myths that influenced both the Gilgamesh Epic and the Biblical story." It analyzes the climatic and weather events causing these floods, localizes Shuruppak and Kish with precise positions and distances, and explores how Noah’s habitat fits into this area, using the time of the Old Kingdom in Egypt (2686–2181 BCE) as a rough orientation. Historical and Archaeological Context The Holocene epoch, beginning approximately 11,700 years ago, was a period of relative warmth and stability, ideal for human civilization development, including ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia, known as the "land between two rivers" (Tigris and Euphrates), was prone to regular floods due to its riverine environment. The analysis focuses on floods in Shuruppak and Kish, with dates around 2900 BCE for Shuruppak and 2600 BCE for Kish, the latter falling within the Old Kingdom period in Egypt for relevance. Analysis of Floods and Their Causes The statement suggests that floods in Shuruppak and Kish contributed to flood myths. Archaeological evidence confirms: Shuruppak Flood (ca. 2900 BCE): Located at modern Tell Fara, this flood is dated to the end of the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3100–2900 BCE), with a layer of riverine sediments interrupting settlement continuity (Shuruppak - Wikipedia). The cause is likely river avulsion, a common process in the Tigris-Euphrates system, where the river changes course, leading to flooding (Flood myth - Wikipedia). There is no evidence of specific climatic events like El Niño, but heavy rainfall could have exacerbated the flooding. Kish Flood (ca. 2600 BCE): During the Early Dynastic III period, Kish (modern Tell al-Uhaymir) experienced a significant flood, dated around 2600 BCE, within the Old Kingdom timeframe (The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence). This flood, also likely caused by river avulsion, is part of the region's floodplain dynamics, with sediment layers indicating periodic high water levels (Expedition Magazine | Reflections on the Mesopotamian Flood). These floods were not triggered by global climate events like the 4.2 ka BP event (around 2200 BCE), which caused droughts, but rather by local riverine processes. The 5.9 ka event (around 3900 BCE) is too early to be relevant. Localization and Distances Precise locations are crucial for understanding regional impacts: Shuruppak: Modern Tell Fara, coordinates approximately 31°42' N, 46°12' E, south of Nippur in south-central Iraq, originally on the Euphrates River (Shuruppak | Map, Excavation, Sumerian, Fara & Uruk | Britannica). Kish: Modern Tell al-Uhaymir, coordinates approximately 32°35' N, 44°25' E, northwest of Nippur, also in central Iraq (Kish - Wikipedia). Distance Calculation: Using approximate coordinates, the distance between Shuruppak and Kish is about 194 km, calculated via the haversine formula for spherical distance on Earth. Shuruppak to Ur (30°57' N, 46°06' E) is about 84 km, and Kish to Ur is about 242 km, all within the Mesopotamian plain. Other flood sites, like Ur with a flood around 3500 BCE, are not relevant to the Old Kingdom period but provide context for regional flood history. Contribution to Flood Myths The statement suggests these floods influenced the Gilgamesh Epic and the Biblical story. The Gilgamesh Epic, dated to ca. 2100–1800 BCE, describes a flood survived by Utnapishtim from Shuruppak, likely inspired by the 2900 BCE flood there, as it fits the timeline before Gilgamesh’s era (ca. 2500 BCE) (Ziusudra - Wikipedia). The Biblical flood story, with Noah, is traditionally dated around 2348 BCE, and likely draws from Mesopotamian myths, with Shuruppak’s flood being a candidate (NoahsArkillustrationPictureSumerianShuruppak). The Kish flood around 2600 BCE, during the Old Kingdom, may have reinforced these myths, contributing to oral traditions in the region. Noah’s Habitat and Regional Fit According to the Bible, Noah’s family settled in Shinar (Mesopotamia) after the flood, encompassing Ur, Kish, and Shuruppak (Ur - Wikipedia). This region aligns with the flood sites, suggesting Noah’s habitat was the same area where these floods occurred. While specific locations for Noah are uncertain, the general area fits the context of flood myths, with Shuruppak being central to the Gilgamesh narrative and Shinar including Kish and Ur for the Biblical story. Unexpected Detail and Regional Implications An interesting detail is that while Shuruppak’s flood is directly linked to the Gilgamesh Epic, the Kish flood during the Old Kingdom might have been part of ongoing oral traditions, highlighting how multiple floods in the region contributed to a rich mythological tapestry, influencing both Sumerian and later Biblical narratives. Conclusion The floods in Shuruppak (ca. 2900 BCE) and Kish (ca. 2600 BCE) were likely caused by river avulsions, with Shuruppak at 31°42' N, 46°12' E, and Kish at 32°35' N, 44°25' E, 194 km apart. Noah’s habitat in Shinar fits this region, aligning with the flood myths’ development, supporting the statement’s claim of their influence on the Gilgamesh Epic and Biblical story.

maybe this table is not in correct structure put in here?

Comparative Table of Floods and Relevance

95.90.183.164 (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This section appears to be generated by an LLM. I have not read it. Do you have any ideas of your own that are backed up by reliable sources? It also appears to be rife with WP:OR (original research) and isn't acceptable either. Roxy the dog 12:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This needs more elaboration. The text says nothing about the whole universe. It is true that in most mythologies creation begins in a primordial ocean, but this statement suggests an occult interpretation of Noahs flood. To where there was no literal flood and it's just the end of time. It references a book by Barry, can anyone confirm the reference? Or I'd like to know more about this perspective and whether the statement should exist on this page. 38.72.71.254 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)