Q: Why does this page refer to The Flood as a "myth"?
A: The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false".
Q: Why doesn't this page focus more on the creationist point of view?
A: On topics of theology and mythology, Wikipedia is largely focused on what can be demonstrated based on a consensus of peer-reviewed academic papers. As this article notes, many mainstream scholars dispute that The Flood actually occurred. Wikipedia is neutral, but we also believe in "not giv[ing] minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects," where minority views refers to views found in a minority of reliable sources.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false".
Is that last line really necessary? It's already implied by the preceding one, no? I understand this to have been the result of some old compromise. The first sentence is ok, as it merely describes the term (although the article it links to also explains it adequately), but the bolded part sounds unencyclopedic, condescending, and frankly even a bit like a disclaimer. The bolding in the quote is mine but the italic "not" isn't, and it makes the line look even more out of place. I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in any other article despite some of them being far more controversial than this one. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole note is pretty pointless. Those that don't know what a flood myth is can click on it. Those that still have questions about myth can click again. Why disclaim at all? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the note should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed also. We should be aware, however, that with it or without it, there are going to be periodical challenges to using the word "myth" as related to any Biblical narrative. Even though that is precisely what they all are, in a high philosophical and intellectual academic level, the belief in the Bible as the precise, unchangeable, commanding "word of God," will apparently never go away. So this academic use will have to be explained every time again. warshy(¥¥) 20:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There will be, but we can refer them to the FAQ. Otherwise I concur with the opinion that the note should be removed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately when we use words we have to use the full meaning. Oxfords dictionary clearly determines that myth indicates falsehood 2605:B100:350:69D6:0:14:EC35:6501 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "myth" is a scholarly term. We use it as scholars do. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's behind a paywall. Can you summarise it here please? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: I am accessing it from the Netherlands, having a very powerful adblocker. It is not paywalled. At least not for me. Anyway, a verbatim quote from a Young Earth creationist: “We do not expect the Ark to have survived and been available to find after 4,350 years,” says Andrew A. Snelling [...]. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It tells me it’s only for subscribers. Doug Wellertalk 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference to other myths like the ones about Heracles is that those who believe in this one have managed to massacre enough people who don't believe in it in the last few thousand years to achieve a temporary consensus among the survivors that this one is history and not myth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is objective hard evidence to support it, then it is fact. If there is no objective hard evidence to support it, then it is hypothesis. If there is objective hard evidence to refute it, then it is false. If it is false but is for some reason still believed by some people, then it is myth. Somewhere along the "myth scale" lies "deliberate mendacious self-serving lies", although the actual threshold thereof is a bit subjective. Does that help you? Wdford (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"deliberate mendacious self-serving lies" We are not talking about the canonical gospels. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The main difference to other myths like the ones about Heracles" The main difference is that the story of Heracles] contains elements of realism, and that the flood myth narrative lacks any resemblance to reality. It depicts a high fantasy world. Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"this is discriminating" Against whom, modern morons? They are the only ones who can not understand the mythic content of the Book of Genesis. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. The Durupinar formation is not a "new" discovery. There is no evidence of any boat remains at Durupinar. There is no evidence of a global flood at all. Obviously there is evidence of human presence in the vicinity - there were mature Sumerian civilisations around at that time. Gobekli Tepe is only 700km from Mount Ararat, and it was occupied by a functional society 11,000 years ago. Noak's Ark was mythical, as was the global flood. Wdford (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if all users on this talk page stopped fighting ghosts (responding to months-old conversations), used reliable sourcing, and avoided personally attacking those who hold a different perspective, wherever that perspective lands ranging from blind faith to unyielding science. TNstingray (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are calling this a myth is simply sickening 212.76.109.132 (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum. Your negative reaction to facts does not help improve the article. Please use the rest of the internet for such postings, not this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is suppose to give an unbiased view and saying that this is a myth, which most people commonly associate with being false, is biased and condescending. It is assuming an atheistic view of the world, which is not the point of Wikipedia. And changing it to religious belief would make it so that it is not stating whether this event is true or false. 98.29.114.206 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be wrong with saying religious belief? It doesn't state whether something is true or not true, which is supposed to be Wikipedia's stance on things. Just because you think that there couldn't possibly be a God doesn't mean everyone does, so stop forcing your worldview on everyone. Savagecrybaby (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Savagecrybaby Is the IP you? In any case, don’t insult editors. You don’t seem to get it that we have policies and guidelines that apply here. Or what it means to call it myth. If you feel strongly about this go to Talk:Christian mythology and ask for that article to be deleted. You won’t get far. Actually better yet read the article. Please don’t respond here without relying on policies/guidelines, this isn’t a forum. Doug Wellertalk 19:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Savagecrybaby Most Christians do not believe that a world-wide flood really happened. Calling this a myth is not atheist or anti-religious bias, it is just mainstream thinking. Doric Loon (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them do, and mainstream thinking is anti-religious thinking. Why can't we change it to something neutral, I really don't see the problem with religious belief. Savagecrybaby (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Savagecrybaby Well, more than half the world's Christians are Catholic, and the official Catholic position is that the early chapters of the Bible state spiritual truths "in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured" (Humani Generis 38). Modern mainstream Lutheranism, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism and Methodism all reject uncritical claims of literal truth in these stories. I don't want to make assumptions about you personally, but I suspect that if you have the impression that the majority of Christians support Biblical inerrancy, you are viewing the world from inside a fairly small bubble out on the fringe. Sorry. Doric Loon (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't want a neutral point of view, do you? Savagecrybaby (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Savagecrybaby I think you don't understand what "neutral point of view" means. It does not mean that if someone claims 2+2=5 we should give that equal space in an article about arithmetic. We prioritize mainstream ideas over fringe ideas and we prioritize ideas backed by scientific/scholarly consensus over ideas that do not have that kind of academic authority. Doric Loon (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
02:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kate the mochii (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
