18 January 2018
Fix some ref problems. Article still has unfixed cite problems.
Reverting possible vandalism by 220.127.116.11 to version by MarnetteD. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3252832) (Bot)m
event does not exist.
16 January 2018
11 December 2017
Robot - Removing category Hebrew Bible events per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 2.m
22 October 2017
→Flood geology: The consensus contradiction is NOT why the scientific community rejects it. It's because there are facts about the world which are contradicted. Remanded to later.
12 October 2017
Robot - Removing category Abrahamic mythology per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 4.m
12 September 2017
Add pp-protect template
Protected "Genesis flood narrative": Restore the semiprotection thru January 2018 which used to be here ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 03:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expir...m
rmv as the protection has expired
10 September 2017
4 September 2017
→Sources: minor change per talk page, although I think that "aboard the ark" and "told to take aboard the ark" aren't basically different
2 September 2017
Changed protection level for "Genesis flood narrative": Edit warring / content dispute: restore to semi protection after expiration ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 15:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)) [Move=Requir...m
Undid revision by Forest51690 - Per WP:BRD, you need to STOP EDITING until you get consensus from other editors at Talk:Genesis flood narrative.
Granted; I see it is a book. Anyway, I don't see why you are reverting my change. What is wrong with it? Or why are you preferring one professor's book over others written by other scholars?
Undid revision 798537981 by (talk) we aren't using a magazine article but a book by Professor Eric H. Cline - please discuss this on the talk page
These widely-read commentaries certainly represent a significant interpretation of the text. Why would you accept a single Nat Geo article as a source and not these works? Do not suppress knowledge. What is wrong with my changes?
Reverted good faith edits by Forest51690 (talk): Please discuss on talk page. A 17th Century author and 2 from the 19th suggest this isn't a significantant view . (TW)
no edit summarym
Added more sources to the part on contradictions, moving the content to its own section. Previously there was only one source on the topic: a National Geographic article (Cline). Added more viewpoints, maintaining an overall neutral position.
1 September 2017
Undid revision 798426776 by Forest51690 (talk) We report what the sources says, please check the source
Not a clear contradiction. The 150 days in verse 24 is more likely referring to the total duration of the flood, whereas 40 days in verse 17 is more likely how long the water rose. Evident from the context: "the waters increased and bore up the ark"
14 August 2017
12 August 2017
10 July 2017
Add pp-protect template
Protected "Genesis flood narrative": Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UT...m
Undid revision 789917322 by 18.104.22.168 (talk) You could add material but don't remove well-referenced (and quoted) previous material
9 July 2017
Undid revision 789833423 by Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:DA42:200:F8F5:E6ED:89B8:AF76 This is not the general Flood myth article
→Comparative mythology: add missing full stop
6 July 2017
Undid revision 789253439 by Zarcademan123456 (talk) Unnecessary change, and removed a source
5 July 2017
22 June 2017
20 June 2017
10 June 2017
Convert ad-hoc citation to cite-journal
Reverted 1 edit by 2600:8803:8A00:DCF0:A4E8:8339:1E5E:267E (talk) to last revision by Doug Weller. (TW)m
It's not a myth
8 June 2017
it's possibly the archetypical flood myth, which doesn't mean that it isn't true or based on something that happened
Because it's not a myth
31 May 2017
Reverted 1 edit by 22.214.171.124 (talk): Unhelpful. (TW)
→Sources: added traditional view
Reverted edits by Saronsacl (talk) to last version by Materialscientistm
Please read the comparative mythology section.
Reverted edits by 126.96.36.199 (talk) to last version by Jim1138m
This is very obviously relevant.
Reverted edits by 188.8.131.52 (talk) to last version by Narky Blertm