Christians, for what reasons do you think that Wikipedia classifies Noah's ark story as "Christian mythology"?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark (go to the bottom of the page)

Answer 1

Because wikipedia is ardently and openly atheist.

Answer 2

Because the writer of the supposedly historically

accurate article is in reality a biased schnook...

Answer 3

Well, it does satisfy the technical definition of mythology (which makes no claim either way as to whether those events are true)?

The Trojan War is also "Mythology", and a real event.

Here's another quote from Wikipedia.

"...the status of a story as myth is unrelated to whether it is based on historical events. ..."

Answer 4

Maybe they're nonChristian on Wikipedia.  I don't really know.

Answer 5

Are you telling me that you would actually believe a book that says a man carried with him on board his boat 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 species of birds, and 15,000 species of mammals? This does not include a million species of insects and the additional million yet to be discovered!

How could a single vessel contain every single land borne creature on the planet? Think of the sheer number of species, then think of their respective climates of origin, dietary requirements (like eating the other animals on board or having an almost infinitely large supply of equally as many diverse plants). Then imagine how you would dispose of all that waste they produce. What about the mobility for the animals as well? Where does that come into play on a wooden boat?

Furthermore, the Egyptians AND the Chinese existed before and after the so called "flood". Why did they not drown? Didn't they notice they were submerged for 40 days and nights? Why do they not have records of a worldwide flood?

Noah's flood was plagiarized from a Mesopotamian flood a thousand years before. Get over it. No, if a Noah's flood (global flood) ever occurred, several things would be evident:

- A globally homogenous layer of sediments would be found containing a mix of human and dinosaur bones.

2- Nobody would have survived except Noah's clan, as per scripture. (Yet the Chinese and Egyptians are still here).

3- The bio-diversity of the plant kingdom would have been limited to seaweed and mangroves.

Seeds floating or submerged in saltwater die before the 40 day mark. Land plants cannot survive coming into contact with saltwater for long periods. Atmospheric pressures on submerged plants would crush plant cellular structure. With the Earth full of dead plants and mud, what did all the animals eat after the flood?

Incase you may ask, "Well, why do you think those cultures existed before the flood?", I would have to tell you that it's common knowledge that The ancient Egyptian culture is known to date back to AT LEAST 3150 BC. That would be 5,157 ago. Most theologians agree that Noah's flood must have occurred 2349 BC. That would be 4,356 years ago. The Chinese cultures have been dated quite older than even the Egyptians.

Not to mention that a global flood as described in Genesis would release enough energy to make the surface of the earth shine brighter than the sun, boil away the oceans and sterilize the entire earth.

         It's easy to calculate. Kinetic energy of rain, enough to cover the earth in the way described in Genesis, coming down for 40 days and nights.

        && The elevation of the oceans are the same today back as it was in Noah's time because it was 6,000 years ago. The oldest living thing on the planet is 11,000 yrs old && it shows no signs of a global flood. Tree rings worldwide should show a major disruption, but they don't. There should be evidence of water on the tallest mountains. There isn't. Noah's Ark is a parable; not a science lesson.

Answer 6

I hate to argue on behalf of the Christians around here, but using Wikipedia for factual information is like using Penthouse for lessons on human anatomy.

Answer 7

Lib'rul propaganda, obviously.

That's why bastions of truth like CreationWiki and Conservapedia exist.

Answer 8

well...that's what it is.

Answer 9

Because that's a pretty good definition.

Answer 10

Because they don't believe a boat carrying so many animals could populate today's world's diverse species.  But they probably believe that all of our diverse species came from amino acids in a warm bowl of primorial soup!  Go figure.

Answer 11

By definition a "myth" is a story that can not be proven. And one can not (at least at this point in time) PROVE the story of Noah. So whether you believe the story or not, that does not change the fact that it IS a myth either way.

Anyone who disagrees either does not understand what the word myth means, or they are withholding proof from the rest of us lol :)

dictionary.com

myth –noun 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.  

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.  

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.  

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.  

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.  

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.

Answer 12

Because it is mythology. I'm a Christian, and flood narratives are a component of many different religions, not just Christianity. Creation and flood stories, regardless of their origin, are generally classified as mythology. Noah's Ark just happens to be a version of a flood story that is well-known within Christianity, hence, some people would describe it as a "Christian myth".

Answer 13

Wiki is hardly an authority on much of anything, it's just a place where people who don't want to learn about a subject can get a brief and highly slanted synopsis of it.

Answer 14

Because Noah's Ark is a myth. The definition of a myth is: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

You have no proof that Noah's Ark is a true story. And it may have also been called mythology in order to not offend any non-believers. And besides, Wikipedia isn't exactly a dependable source. I could go on there right now and type "The ark pooped butterflies"  

Answer 15

Lack of wisdom

Answer 16

because anyone can edit it...would you like me to change it...

Answer 17

miss classification

Answer 18

yeah, wikipedia is known for it's academic credibility.... not