This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dumuzid (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 7 August 2024 (→Josephus claims: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:44, 7 August 2024 by Dumuzid (talk | contribs) (→Josephus claims: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noah's Ark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Noah's Ark was copied or moved into Genesis flood narrative with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||
| [REDACTED] | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Gilgamesh flood was only written 7th-9th centuary bc
Gilgamesh flood myth is vopied from the atrahasis epic the bible has no evidence of literally borrowing and flood myths aren’t unique 176.72.71.133 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- What do you want to specifically change in the article, and what reliable source(s) can you cite to support such change?s Donald Albury 21:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The are several major mistakes in the current page. The Bible did not 'borrow' from the Gilgamesh saga. If you actually read the earliest texts you will see there are significant differences between the Biblical narrative and the Gilgamesh saga.
- Secondly, the Biblical account was written before the saga of Gilgamesh.
- Thirdly there is copious amount of evidence showing that a cataclysmic flood occurred and indeed covered the world. Mass fossil graveyards show animals bent into positions that are reminiscent of drowning. The fact that so many creatures were buried alive, shows the event was singular and incredible amounts of liquid materials were involved.
- The current page is nothing but a one-sided attack on Christian content. 124.170.118.227 (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- IP, while you are correct that the current standard version of The Epic of Gilgamesh is that from the Library of Ashurbanipal, and therefore dates to the first millennium BCE, if you refer to our page on the Epic, you will see that there is evidence for a cohesive narrative version dating back to the Old Babylonian tablets (ca. 1800 BCE), and evidence for fragmentary poems and bits of narrative dating farther back to the Third Dynasty of Ur. Whatever one's thoughts about faith, I know of no scholars who contend that the biblical narrative was composed anything like this early. I'll leave the flood for another day, but suffice it to say that there is not a scholarly consensus for the position you put forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll deal with that standard YEC nonsense. See .
- That should be the end of this discussion as talk pages aren't meant for discussing the Ark, floods, etc. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- IP, while you are correct that the current standard version of The Epic of Gilgamesh is that from the Library of Ashurbanipal, and therefore dates to the first millennium BCE, if you refer to our page on the Epic, you will see that there is evidence for a cohesive narrative version dating back to the Old Babylonian tablets (ca. 1800 BCE), and evidence for fragmentary poems and bits of narrative dating farther back to the Third Dynasty of Ur. Whatever one's thoughts about faith, I know of no scholars who contend that the biblical narrative was composed anything like this early. I'll leave the flood for another day, but suffice it to say that there is not a scholarly consensus for the position you put forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Josephus claims
Why are Josephus claims considered pseudoarchaeological? He was a secular historian. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but not an archaeologist. Much of his narrative about the distant past is basically 1st-century folklore. Dimadick (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Josephus came from a priestly family, and while his stated approach to history (essentially, being even-handed) is laudable, there is no doubt he has a particular slant and emphasis to his accounts. He even says in Antiquities that he is, in essence, repeating Jewish records. He was certainly ahead of the curve, but I don't think he can be accurately described as a "secular historian." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- So Antiquities of the Jews shouldn't be considered historically accurate because it has Jewish records about their own history? Doesn't make any sense what you say. Why he can't be considered secular he literally worked for the Roman Emperor which didn't take very kindly to their monotheistic religion which in turn lead to the Jewish Roman wars and destruction of Second Temple. Do you think the Romans would take kindly to Josephus writing Judaic religious polemics considering what they have done to the Jews? R Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Roman Empire wasn't a secular state that is certain so all it's historians shouldn't be considered secular because of that? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- My point is more that Josephus tells us quite explicitly that he bases his accounts, inter alia, on "Hebrew scriptures." Moreover, Antiquities is not, and was not meant to be, a neutral account of events. His goal was to legitimize the Jewish tradition in the eyes of what we might broadly call the European world. None of this invalidates Josephus in any way, but it does mean we should be careful to keep his works in their proper context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- So all Roman history should be considered non neutral too because it was written by Roman themselves? What about germanics or Gauls they were all written by the Romans since none could write should they be considered non historical? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not "non historical," but Roman historians too have to be used with great care, No one believes Tacitus was on hand to hear the speech delivered by Calgacus, for instance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is not impossible that Calgacus actually gave a speech before a battle. If he gave a speech before battle with Agricola we don't know for sure though it isn't impossible, it is certain the speech is not true since Tacitus didn't know Celtic but he could still have given a speech. Opposing troops weren't that far from eachother in battles before modern warfare so it not a far fetched claim. Generals and kings always gave speeches before battle. Josephus claims shouldn't be considered pseudoarchaeological but unknown to be true or false. I gave a great counter argument to what Dimadick said and still I haven't got an answer. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that you have a valid counter argument, but if you can establish consensus for a change, then by all means make it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You disagree by giving no argument. Wow what a nice disagreement. Clearly not biased. Shows again how reliable Misplaced Pages is with people like you being editors. At least Misplaced Pages itself acknowledges it is not a reliable source of information so that is good, at least it will not induce people in error. Also he still didn't answer in what capacity you are to defend his claims? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You also didn't even give arguments to even defend it is claims you just said no and left giving no argument lol. You are literally like a meme refusing to elaborate and leaving. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You also didn't even respond to what I said. You ignored all my arguments and everything I said you gave no argument nothing. You basically said no and left lol. You are pathetic. You act like a literal meme and please stop saying cheers like you won the argument you didn't even argue in order to win an argument with me ok? It is annoying. Everytime you said something I came with an argument which you have zero absolutely zero answer to give and you refuse everything I said without giving any argument. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also what consensus with who to talk. Nobody is arguing with me just you but you are not even arguing you just refuse everything I say without giving any argument for what I say. Who is the consensus there is nobody talking Dimadick didn't even give any reply to what I said is he the consensus? You are the consensus? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the moment, Dimadick and myself would appear to be. If you can convince a few other people, then you can ignore us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Who are the other people? How can I convince someone who is insanely biased and it seems you are only one actually he said nothing for hours. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies and practices. It may suggest some answers to your questions. WP:CONSENSUS would be a reasonable place to start. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. It is accepted as the best method to achieve the Five Pillars—Misplaced Pages's goals. Consensus on Misplaced Pages neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Who is addressing my legitimate concerns through a process of compromise? Who? Tell me who? You? You are compromising absolutely nothing with me you refuse everything I say without giving any argument. You thought I was going to back down with your pathetic attempt to silence my arguments. You didn't. I am very familiar with Misplaced Pages my friend. I know it isn't a trustworthy source of information Misplaced Pages acknowledges itself. Cheers!!! Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Calling your interlocutors 'pathetic' is an A+ persuasion technique! I have much to learn from you. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. It is accepted as the best method to achieve the Five Pillars—Misplaced Pages's goals. Consensus on Misplaced Pages neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Who is addressing my legitimate concerns through a process of compromise? Who? Tell me who? You? You are compromising absolutely nothing with me you refuse everything I say without giving any argument. You thought I was going to back down with your pathetic attempt to silence my arguments. You didn't. I am very familiar with Misplaced Pages my friend. I know it isn't a trustworthy source of information Misplaced Pages acknowledges itself. Cheers!!! Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies and practices. It may suggest some answers to your questions. WP:CONSENSUS would be a reasonable place to start. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Who are the other people? How can I convince someone who is insanely biased and it seems you are only one actually he said nothing for hours. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the moment, Dimadick and myself would appear to be. If you can convince a few other people, then you can ignore us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also what consensus with who to talk. Nobody is arguing with me just you but you are not even arguing you just refuse everything I say without giving any argument for what I say. Who is the consensus there is nobody talking Dimadick didn't even give any reply to what I said is he the consensus? You are the consensus? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You disagree by giving no argument. Wow what a nice disagreement. Clearly not biased. Shows again how reliable Misplaced Pages is with people like you being editors. At least Misplaced Pages itself acknowledges it is not a reliable source of information so that is good, at least it will not induce people in error. Also he still didn't answer in what capacity you are to defend his claims? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that you have a valid counter argument, but if you can establish consensus for a change, then by all means make it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is not impossible that Calgacus actually gave a speech before a battle. If he gave a speech before battle with Agricola we don't know for sure though it isn't impossible, it is certain the speech is not true since Tacitus didn't know Celtic but he could still have given a speech. Opposing troops weren't that far from eachother in battles before modern warfare so it not a far fetched claim. Generals and kings always gave speeches before battle. Josephus claims shouldn't be considered pseudoarchaeological but unknown to be true or false. I gave a great counter argument to what Dimadick said and still I haven't got an answer. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not "non historical," but Roman historians too have to be used with great care, No one believes Tacitus was on hand to hear the speech delivered by Calgacus, for instance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- So all Roman history should be considered non neutral too because it was written by Roman themselves? What about germanics or Gauls they were all written by the Romans since none could write should they be considered non historical? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- My point is more that Josephus tells us quite explicitly that he bases his accounts, inter alia, on "Hebrew scriptures." Moreover, Antiquities is not, and was not meant to be, a neutral account of events. His goal was to legitimize the Jewish tradition in the eyes of what we might broadly call the European world. None of this invalidates Josephus in any way, but it does mean we should be careful to keep his works in their proper context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Roman Empire wasn't a secular state that is certain so all it's historians shouldn't be considered secular because of that? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- So Antiquities of the Jews shouldn't be considered historically accurate because it has Jewish records about their own history? Doesn't make any sense what you say. Why he can't be considered secular he literally worked for the Roman Emperor which didn't take very kindly to their monotheistic religion which in turn lead to the Jewish Roman wars and destruction of Second Temple. Do you think the Romans would take kindly to Josephus writing Judaic religious polemics considering what they have done to the Jews? R Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- So if he got his information from an archaeologist the information shouldn't be considered accurate? We certainly don't know where he got his information so I don't know why you say he got it from folklore that is your own assumptions without any proof of them. But considering his social status it isn't impossible that he got his information from an archaeologist. Why should we deny the information just because he wasn't an archaeologist? Onlyloss6973 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Josephus came from a priestly family, and while his stated approach to history (essentially, being even-handed) is laudable, there is no doubt he has a particular slant and emphasis to his accounts. He even says in Antiquities that he is, in essence, repeating Jewish records. He was certainly ahead of the curve, but I don't think he can be accurately described as a "secular historian." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- C-Class Bible articles
- Mid-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- C-Class Iraq articles
- High-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- C-Class Turkey articles
- Mid-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- High-importance Judaism articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Mythology articles
- High-importance Mythology articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- C-Class Christianity articles
- High-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles