Talk:Noah

Clean vs. unclean

Ok, so for a site that puts forward the truth of biblical scripture, I would have thought that there wouldn't be a mistake on the animals on the Ark. The article says two clean and seven clean, surely it says clean and unclean. At least it does in my bible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addeter (talk)

Link to homo sapiens

I undid the recent change creating a link for "people" by directing it to "homo sapiens". Based on Creationist thinking, other groups such as Neanderthals are usually considered to have been humans in the tough post flood environment. Also, I believe links are supposed to be germaine to the article. A link giving a definition of people is not germaine to an understanding of Noah. Thanks Learn together 16:28, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Too short!

The article seems far too short. For example, it doesn't say what Noah's side of the covenat with God was, and nor does it describe the nature of the curse placed on Canaan. The article on Wikipedia is much more complete - couldn't it be used here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk)

No :) We don't use wikipedia articles in that way. Many hands make light work, however, and you should feel free to expand it constructively :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:43, 26 June 2007 (EDT)