Talk:Noah/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Noah. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Refs needed

Can anyone provide references for these statements? "Some scholars to believe that Noah was originally the inventor of wine..." What scholars? "It has been suggested that the Flood story may originally have belonged to Enoch". Suggested by who? This comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but needs refs from the original sources (i.e., from whatever the authors of the encyclopedia were so goes:

Ham was cursed not because he saw his father naked, but because he stole his garment, which was the same garment that was given to Adam (Genesis 3:21) when he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This garment also represented the beginning of animal sacrifice (because it was a coat of skin - which came from an animal) to represent the coming of a Savior to be sacrificed for the sins of all mankind (and although an alter is not mentioned, this is the first reference to an alter being used for sacrifice - this being the same type of sacrifice that was made by Abel, Noah, and many others including Moses - Genesis 4:4, Genesis 9:9, Exodus 20:24 as well as many others). The making of this coat would have been the first sacrifice of a living creature. This coat was also said to be a symbol to all creatures not to harm Adam, which is inferred in Genesis 9:2 when God tells Noah that all animals will fear him.

It was also said in the book that I got this information from that Nimrod "a mighty hunter," who was a descendant of Ham (Genesis 10:8-9), may have used this garment to lure animals to him so that he could slay them. This idea also came from Genesis 9:2 when it says "into your hands are all [animals] delivered." If this were the case, it would also explain how Noah was able to get so many different animals in the ark.

Well, there it is. Obviously it is not word for word. Sorry I don't own the book where I read this anymore. I don't remember its title or anything. Despite that I don't own the book anymore, and am unsure who first gave rise to this idea, it is obvious that there is some consideration to be made in reference to the ideas presented here.

I mean, to even consider that such a hefty curse would be put upon someone for seeing a naked man (much less his own father) is somewhat naive.

Nammerama 17:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us know when you find the book :-). PiCo 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you go to google.com and use these words together in this order "noah ham garment hunter" without the quotation marks you can find plenty of references for ideas mentioned above. Again, I don't have time to go through and reference everything, but it is very fascinating, and if anyone has the time it should be added to this article or to the curse of ham article. Nammerama 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a few primary disagreements with the above premise First, The so called curse of Ham, is not actually a curse upon Ham, as much as it was a curse upon the son of ham Canaan. "Cursed be Canaan" is the exact wording used in the KJV version of the Bible. Therefore the curse isn't upon Ham. The wording of the section is a misunderstanding of the passage of the Bible. see article on curse of Ham Second, the narration that is given above about the curse passed by Noah upon his son's family about a stolen fleece seems a bit hokey. Just because a Google search turns up a consensus of a legend does not mean that the legend was fact. (As prevalent and powerful as it is today, was Google there?) a)The Biblical reading of the gathering of the animals for the ark that Noah built will dispel the notion that Noah needed a fleece to gather the animals. God gathered the animals. b)As today, a fleece is a part of a carcase of a dead animal, the skin. All portions of a carcase will decay with time. It is preposterous to think that the fleece of a sheep killed as a garment for Adam would survive until the time of Noah, (calculated by some as 1600-1800 odd years) let alone until the time of Nimrod possibly up to 200 years later. Even the best preserved leather dries out breaks down in time. Third, Some have asserted that the curse wasn't passed simply because Ham saw his father naked, but possibly because Ham expressed himself sexually when he saw his fathers nakedness. I heard one person say that Ham may have taken advantage of his fathers in a homosexual way while he was in a drunken stupor. Another interpretation that would go along with later Jewish law about uncovering the nakedness of ones father would go that Noah's wife may have been drunk as well and that Ham raped his mother. From the Biblical account there is no way of knowing exactly what went on in that tent while Noah was drunk from his wine, whatever the case, Noah must have felt it significant enough that a curse needed to be passed. (incidentally the descendants of Canaan were wiped out following the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua.)Mortsey 22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are actually references for the ideas that Mortsey mentioned above, it would be nice to see them so that we can all benefit. As an addendum to my comments above, I did use google to find some quick references but this does not mean that my references are not valid. As mentioned above, the book I originally read that contained these references was lost, and then I used google to see if I could find it. As it turns out, there were multiple references from scripture scholars from various backgrounds(they spend their whole lives studying these things). Again, if you stop to think of the importance of such a garment as was given to Adam by God, it would only seem logical that it would be handed down from father to son. The garment given to Adam was not just some "fleece," but it represented the first animal sacrifice, and the garment of that sacrifice was given unto man(see references in first comment). This was not just something that God did on a whim. Seriously, does God do anything on a whim? This animal sacrifice, performed by God (Gen 3:21), was also the first death upon the Earth, which may be reason enough for it to be important to animals too (seeing as God also created the animals). Maybe this is why Adam and Eve were not mauled by a bear before they could procreate. As a reminder, these ideas are not my own, but come from references that can be found using the search terms above (and I am sure they can be found in other places too). Some may not agree with these ideas, but it would seem that there is more reference in the Bible for the above ideas than to just say that Ham made a homosexual pass at Noah. I have also "heard" that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Edan for sexual sins (which seems strange since Eve was Adams "wife" (Gen 3:17)). However, according to the Bible, Adam "knew" his wife (in that sexual sense) after they had already been "kicked" out (Gen 4:1). I am sure there are other ideas that do not agree with the one that I presented. I love Wikipedia because you are free to present them, but at least try to include some sort of reference. Also, according to the KJV of the Bible it would seem that God commanded Noah to gather the animals into the ark, and he (Noah) did (and the reference for this is Genesis 7:1-9). This is the usual pattern found in the KJV of the Bible: for God to command and for man to act and actually work to accomplish what God commanded man to do. Regarding the garment surviving for so long, Noah was six-hundred years old when the flood came, which may also seem preposterous, but things did seem to last a lot longer in ancient times than they do now. With the perfect knowledge and power that God has, I do not think it would have been too difficult for him to have "figured-out" a way to make it last. Nammerama 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I decided to go out and get an actual reference. Much of this idea of "Ham" being cursed for stealing a garment comes from insights of other scholars, both Jewish and Christian alike, based on excerpts from the Aggadah (check out the Wiki-link to learn more about what the Aggadah is). Apparently, according to Jewish tradition Ham did steal the garment that God made for Adam from Noah and it was passed down to Nimrod. According to this tradition the garment also had power over animals. To read these excerpts for yourself, go to http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/index.htm and go to Chapter 4 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj106.htm) of Volume One. Scroll down to the bottom section on Nimrod and enjoy. You can also read about Esau slaying Nimrod, taking the garment spoken of and eventually losing it to Jacob in Chapter 6 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj108.htm) of Volume One under the headings "The sale of the birthright" and "Isaac blesses Jacob". Thus eventually this garment ended up back in the direct lineage of whom it belonged. Coincidence? I don't think so. Anyway, I would highly recommend that you read about the Aggadah in Wikipedia before you read the other links. Nammerama 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Noah that I know does not wear animal skins, he wears a "finery" that you would not know, he wears cloth, similar to a toga, at that Time. The use of animal skins may be an allusion to seizing by witches. If Noah does not sacrifice on the altar on Mt. Ararat, there is NO "meat to eat," something that the wicked desire to do. Consider this: you have been chosen to save ALL of the animals, why would you then genocide at LEAST ONE species so that you can (not might) eat MEAT. The logic behind the sacrifice on Mt. Ararat and the skins after Eden and Cain killing Abel lead one to believe of witch influence. As you might study, Cain killed Abel. In such Ancient Times, stoning was reserved for Hate. Abel may have bitten Cain's penis. If you research the occasions for the stoning of individuals under Hebrew Law, you might so agree with me. Gnostics (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ham actually couldn't be cursed because of Gen 9:1 "And God blessed Noah and his sons and said unto them , Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". Noah did not have the power to curse what God had blessed. Canaan's curse was upon his head only.

The major myth is that Ham was cursed into blackness and then became the father of the black race. If black mankind was cursed into existence from non black mankind, then non black mankind has to show an earlier existence that predates black mankind. So far archeaology and DNA research are at a loss to do this. Genesis 9:25-27. 25: And he (Noah) said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. (Meaning Cush, Mizraim and phut) 26: And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Meaning as written) 27: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Meaning as written). These verses are true and accurate. Canaan was the servant of those written in these verses. That's it. His children were not cursed and Ham couldn't be cursed by man. Ham was born black. So what was Noah? The descendants of Ham were also not born into poverty. There are no more natural resources that can be found in the world than can be found in Africa. Gold, diamonds, etc. Psalms 78:51, 105:23-27, 106:19-22 King James Version refer to Egypt as the land of Ham. Other than the servitude of Canaan neither Ham or his descendants were cursed. Actually they were quite wealthy, ruling all of Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, Babylon, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Jerusalem, Sumeria, Syria and more. Tom 03/28/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Section title?

The section title "In the Hebrew Torah" makes little sense. The Torah is by defintion in Hebrew. "In the Hebrew Bible" or "In the Torah" would make more sense. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just "Summary" I think - that's what that section is, a summary of the story.PiCo 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Did the flood really happen?

Does anyone have any essays, tv documentaries or even any web pages that discuss if this great flood even actually happened? Or if some kind of flood did happen, did it happen world over, or just in the region Noah lived in? I came here interested in seeing what 200 years enlightened science had discovered about this mythical flood, but this web page just tells the story, it doesn't delve into wether it actually happened, or never really happened at all JayKeaton 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the flood was a real flood, but it was a river flood about 2900 BC and affected only a few cities in southern Sumer (Iraq). See the Ziusudra page for more ancient versions of the flood myth. The Ziusudra page links to the Atrahasis page. The Atrahasis myth clearly describes the flood as a river flood. Greensburger 06:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the flood was a real flood covering the entire earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp ^ross ^nixon 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary :). PiCo 01:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) The BBC made a TV documentary called Noah's Ark, which you might possibly be able to get hold of on DVD. It basically says that the bible story is based on the Ziasudra story, and tyhe flood was a once-in-a-thousand-years type event but localised to the Tigris/Euphrates valley. It also assumes that Ziasudra was a real person, which is a pretty big assumption. There's another theory to the effect that a meteor might have done it - exactly how the meteor is supposed to have caused the flood I don't recall, but it seems fitting, given the derivation of the word "meteorological", meaning concerning the weather. PiCo 05:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "flood" is not used in Genesis 8. Instead the word "waters" is used, the waters of the Persian Gulf. The Hebrew word "erets" which is usually translated "earth" did not mean the planet earth but rather the ground, the soil, the dirt that a farmer plows. To exaggerate 15 cubits of water on the ground in the Euphrates River valley to the planet earth is not supported by the Genesis text. All flesh died that moved upon the erets. Yes all the people and animals died in the flooded lowlands of southern Iraq. But the people who climbed to high hills above the 15 cubits of Genesis 7:20 did not die. They were not mentioned because they were beyond the scope of the story. The rest of the world outside southern Iraq was also not mentioned because it was beyond the scope of the story. Greensburger 04:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be trying too hard to make a myth a reality. If this were only a localized weather event, how did the Ark land on Mount Ararat (some 17,804 ft high and hundreds of miles away?). Why did it take over half a year for the flood waters to recede? Not to say that the flood happened, but like the lunar cycle apologists, your half-baked attempt to stretch a myth into reality also fails.Ryoung122 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No flood that covered the Earth occurred or could have occurred in historical times, any more than Noah could have been eight hundred years old. This is Hebrew/Christian mythology, which stems from Sumerian [and other] mythology, such as the story of Gilgamesh. There was no way to confirm a ‘world wide’ event such as a flood. It was common for people to believe local phenomena and catastrophes were ‘everywhere’.

There was not enough water available to cover the Earth then, or now, and no where for the water to go when it supposedly ‘drained off’. Even the water locked in the ice at the poles would not provide enough water. Belief in such myths is based on mystical metaphysics. In other words if God wishes the Earth to be covered with water and then wishes the water to go away then it does … magic. DasV 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the link I gave 5 paragraphs back? ^ross ^nixon 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Are you saying that faith is not the basis for belief in the Flood as fact? Can you suggest how anyone could have confirmed a flood that covered the entire world at that time? It's simple enough if you have faith that God can do whatever he pleases including breaking natural laws then the flood happened because the message comes straight from God written by divine guidance so God made the flood without complying with natural laws - he made the laws he changed them to make the flood then changed them back. Magic. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not very in light of an absence of miracles being documented nowadays. The problem is that when people insist that myths actually happened AND insist that ONLY the myths they believe happened ... and the myths are otherwise impossible happenings - miracles - belief comes down to FAITH. Everyone is welcome to their beliefs and to have faith that they are true ... but in this case the only mechanism for producing a worldwide flood is a miracle. I will believe any miracle I can see ... like the birth of a child. DasV 23:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Flood of Noah was a real flood if you take the Biblical narrative literally. (and I do) That said, there may have been more than one flood that constitute flood legends such as the one mentioned above (2900bc et al). After four or five thousand years creationist get all excited when they come across a flood legend in which people fled for their lives, imagining that the flood waters of the legend were the Noahic flood waters spoken of in the Bible. That flood was a deadly catastrophe, not a local flood where the people fled and survived. OK, so I am a skeptic of the local flood theories constituting the flood of Noah.

As for the miracle of the flood, there are a few factors and mechanisms to consider. First we need to consider the idea that thing were not always the way that they are today.(unifomitarianism). Perhaps the environment was different, the ecosystem on earth was different, the atmosphere was different and the makeup of the crust of the earth was different. The mechanism that may have touched off the events that lead to the global flood could have been a number of things, giant meteors disrupting the crust of the earth. Perhaps Solar flairs caused warming on earth (global warming) that affected the core temperatures. There is little way of knowing, but if one is to believe the biblical narrative one has to realize that something affected a change that caused the flood. A disaster on a global scale had to have a long term natural cause which lead up to the flood. It didn't just one day start to rain. In the global flood model following the flood the earth changed drastically as no longer do any of these take place or exist.Mortsey 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose nobody will take a blind bit of notice, but here goes anyway: Please remember that the Talk pages of articles are for the discussion of improvements to the article concerned; they are not meant as a forum for airing personal views: if that's what you want to do, go to a chat-room or whatever, but please don't add bandwidth to poor Wiki. PiCo 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking PiCo's advise, I slimmed down my above entry (see history if you don't believe me) to make it more pertinant to improving the article (I think) and less of an opinion rant. Sorry Pico, I am learning and your blind bit of notice was noticed.Mortsey 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to put a smiley face here but it doesn't seem to work - colons just increase indents. Anyway: material on the Flood belongs more rightly on the relevant article, probably called Deluge (Biblical) or something similar. This article is more about Noah than the flood, tho I agree it's hard to separate them. Also, and possibly more importantly, it's not your or my opinions and thoughts that count, but those of reputable published sources - which means that if Answers in Genesis, or Bishop Spong, say something, it can go in, but if you or I believe we've stumbled over the answer, it can't (even tho we're probably right, of course). Welcome to Wiki. :-). PiCo 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mortsey, your ideas seem straight from Sunday school. Please take some university classes in geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. and then get back to us.Ryoung122 06:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have met Noah, and he didn't say it didn't happen. Do your research on "Middle Earth." The lands Below had water, and there may have been twelve "levels" to the Earth. When the waters from the possibly ten levels below were "stopped up," Noah's ship floated up to the eleventh level. The areas below were destroyed, closed off. The Pillars of the Earth; one I know is the Alps another the Himilayas. They and other Pillars held up the twelfth level, but the above level collapsed, possibly later on. "Ashes, ashes, all fall down." Gnostics (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Allright, one more time. This is the talk page for editing the Noah page, not a forum. We all have differing beliefs on Noah, the Flood, Creationism, etc., and talking about them will just cause trouble. If the person who started this section really wants an answer, you have the entire internet at your fingertips. I'd appreciate it if ya'll would stop posting that here. Thanks- ---G.T.N. (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Sea deluge theory- C. 5600 BCE. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

the flood did happen. if you look through the history of the world. records show that the earth was once ALL coverd in water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by California lydia (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar Chinese Myth?

Just to add to the discussion further, people might want to look at Chinese prehistory, and the Three Sovereigns, who were mythological rulers of China before the Xia Dynasty (see Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors). Two of the Emperors, Fu Xi and Nüwa (clearly phonetically similar to all Semitic pronunciations of Noah, although Nüwa is female in the Chinese myth) are credited as being survivors after a catastrophic deluge, and are the ancestors of mankind. Someone might want to add a similar myths section to the article itself? 92.12.107.153 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar Hindu mention of flood

I want to suggest that Hindus also have a story of Manu having saved humanity and other creatures from an ancient flood. That story has great resemblance to the one of Noah. I feel that should be included in the main article for better information to the readers. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture section

None of these things in the pop culture section are important to the subject of "Noah". None of them have any hope of being integrated into the article. I'm removing the section. SchmuckyTheCat 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to remove this section. The popular culture section is entirely relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman88 (talk • contribs)

In what way? SchmuckyTheCat 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It serves absolutely no purpose to delete it. The popular culture section is relevant by taking a historical topic and demonstrating its impact and influence on contemporary culture. It certainly does not weaken the article in any way. On the contrary, it adds to its impact. Musicman88 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the stuff in this section is relevant to the subject of Noah, because of this, it actually weakens the article to have a bunch of pop trivia on such a serious subject. There are times and places where such pop culture lists are appropriate and "demonstrate the impact on contemporary culture" but this one fails even that. SchmuckyTheCat 05:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to the subject. Also, this information may be useful for others who are researching Noah and are looking for contemporary references. Just because you don't like it in the article does not mean that others would not benefit from the information. I disagree with your premise, but would gladly welcome some other opinions on this matter. Musicman88 12:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about junk cast-off mentions from things like comic books, pop-fiction novels, and cartoons. We have guidelines that specifically say those kinds of irrelevant factoids should not be included. I've added many things to pop culture/trivia sections on Wikipedia, I've done re-organizations of several of them. This one crosses the line, as the reader is suddenly taken from the lofty discussion of how Noah is treated by three of the worlds major religions to his depiction in a comic book.

A suggestion for you, Musicman88, is to take this section and create a stub article called Treatment of Noah in culture. Then write some real paragraphs discussing the importance of Noah to popular culture as an intro. Add to the list; this is a 4000 year old story, don't limit yourself to the last 20 years as this cruft does. Then start integrating the disparate factoids into a cohesive article, of prose, not just a list, that supports the premise of the intro paragraph. Pop culture articles have been spun out like this and gotten recognition as Good Articles. Go for it, it's just not appropriate to dump this information into this article.

As an example, I created this, United Nations in popular culture, from a section in the UN article that now points to that article (see: United_Nations#The_UN_in_popular_culture). It's not a great example of how a good pop culture article can be written, but it's an example I know because I did it and many others have worked on it after its creation.

SchmuckyTheCat 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, found you a better example than my UN article. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a "featured list". SchmuckyTheCat 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)