Are There Two Flood Stories in Genesis?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2022
- Proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis claim Genesis 6-9 contains two flood accounts that were stitched together. But when we dive into the flood account of Genesis this theory begins to fall apart.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy - Розваги
Your videos turned me from athiest to Christian a while back, and I have to thank you for that.
@@missouritravelers This channel is great
Thank you so much for telling me. I am glad I could help bring you to Christ.
Loved you in Another Day in Paradise!
And there was great celebration in heaven when you believed, and we're saved.
Can you demonstrate a god existence then Phil and end Atheism forever?
This was well-researched and helpful. Thanks much, as always.
Thank you
@orkhaa If you watch the rest of IP’s videos about the flood, you’ll find that he does not fit the caricature you’re painting about his position. Peace to you. :)
Great video IP you made me from someone who just believes in Christ from faith alone to someone confident in his beliefs
Do you have any top recommendations of his? I’d like to point some people to them.
@@futureman7999 His cosmological argument is very well made, as is his moral argument. I found his recent series on exodus astounding, his new testament series is great and his videos on life after death are incredible. I am not a huge fan of his ontological videos as they were well articulated by I have found many issues with them after. His quantum mechanics videos are also good. Overall his channel is amazing.
So you don’t have any faith in your dogma anymore?
Don't forget that "pistis" means evidence-based faith!
In my estimation, flood myths are a dim memory of the thawing of the ice age.
Lets goooo! Amped for this one. The more JEPD videos the better. Heiser covers some of this, but his content isn't necessarily the most accessible for the students who ask me about it
Waited for your videos. Great to see this come through!!
There is definitely a bias against the bible, scholars who are supposedly approaching all ancient texts with an unbiased criticism seem incapable of doing so when it comes to the bible. Interesting
Now tell us about your bias against the Quran.
@@midlander4 I don’t need to be biased against the Quran every sane minded scholar does that for me and when even Islamic scholars say there are holes in the narrative, you know a book has major issues. Did you know that the first of the rightly guided khalifs held a burn the Quran day. I bet you didn’t
@@colinblackie9654 fantastic tapdancing there. You know that millions of scholars - and billions more non-scholars - know your magic storybook is utter bullsht? Right?
That’s just your own bias opinion based on your feelings.
Cope.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus The bible has many problems however evidence shows that it is subjected to more intense scrutiny than any other ancient document, the earliest writings about Julius Caesar where compiled 100 years after his death yet no one doubts their historical accuracy, but the bible does not get the same kind of treatment this is bias
I read a book many years ago titled "Before Abraham Was", which addressed this very issue. It focused on the chiasm with "God remembered Noah" at the center. This presentation brings many additional considerations to bear. Very good, and well presented!
I have a book that supposedly "reconstructs" the sources used to "stitch together" the Pentateuch, but I find that a lot of it is based on pure assumption. It's based entirely on circular reasoning, with anything that contradicts the hypothesis explained away with "they were trying to harmonize it" rather than the simple "it was always only one account" explanation. One example is the hypothesis that Cain was the line of descendants followed in one source (where Seth did not exist) and Seth was the line followed by another source (where Cain did not exist). But because it has Eve saying a line about Seth being a son born to her because of Abel's death, the hypothesis says "This line must have been added later in order to harmonize the accounts." It really makes no sense IMO, because you would think that whoever combined the sources together would have harmonized the accounts even more than just in little places like that, given the amount of "contradictions" the hypothesis points out elsewhere. People aren't stupid. A person isn't going to turn a blind eye to so many blatant statements that don't work together. That person is going to try to make a seemless narrative. The entire "sources stitched together" hypothesis would have us believe that the person who stitched them together was stoned out of his mind. At that point, it's simpler to accept the traditional explanation that the Pentateuch as it stands is the way it was always written, and that any "contradictions" are just from people misunderstanding certain passages or making too much of little details (such as Noah sending out a raven and a dove. The hypothesis I've read assumes that this means that separate sources had different birds in them, when in reality there's no reason not to assume that he sent out two birds at different times. Like I said, the hypothesis is making too much of little things that are insignificant).
J
Cc
Then get a better book lol
Excellent in depth work once again IP
I remember discussing the J.E.D.P. hypothesis a long time ago in a small group at my church. I have always felt there were issues but had trouble articulating why. My thought patterns are usually quite scattered and unfocused. Thank you for the concise nature of your presentation
I bought an Oxford study Bible and they present the documentary hypothesis almost as fact. And their reasoning seemed so weak to me. Glad I’m not the only one that thinks scholars get carried away with flimsy hypotheses
Just curious, but is it the Oxford Study Bible (1885RV) or New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV)?
@@mr.starfish4965 new oxford annotated NRSV
2:55 Of course, it contains repetition: When you're in a time where most people did not have paper nor pencil repetition helps People memorize the story since most of this would be read out loud.
The Hebrews were literate from at very least the time of Abraham. This is why we have public schools (from schul, a religious sanctuary). There's a law which is thought to come from Abraham to his decedents that all children must learn to read and write. By Abraham's day, writing was at least 350 years old. Abraham's library (as a wealthy man, he would have copied master texts as a student as part of his education) would have been made of things like velumn.
@@marschlosser4540 Yes, But the pentateuch was written shortly after they got emancipated out of Egypt, so, I don't think slaves were much in the way of literacy.
@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 You make the mistake of thinking of European slavery. Slaves in Egypt, like Hebrews, had their own towns, markets, fishing boats, livestock, teachers, and were basically independent of their owners. This was quite common. And, they were only slaves for just over a century after Egypt was invaded and overrun.
@@marschlosser4540 Slavery is slavery, just like the rape is rape, there's no hierarchy, just because you have quote on quotes, towns, doesn't mean everyone is literate and happy.
@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 Nope, slavery is not just slavery. You really need to research this. Again, because you didn't read what I wrote, Hebrew slaves owned property. they owned businesses. They were craftsmen and and owned the land they lived on and farmed. Got it? Most copyists, tutors, and so on were slaves. I'd say that's a major difference from a field hand, wouldn't you? Hebrews slaves also had the Ten Commandments tho not yet codified.
Most 'slavery' was bond slavery. Europeans and most in the Middle East, some in Asia, and Africa practiced something along the line of generational slavery. Males were castrated, women kept as sex slaves or put in weaving sheds and so on. Any children born to a slave woman was a slave, as well. My ancestors and the Hebrews alike only practiced bond slavery, not generational.
Thanks for this and what you do!
I happen to be reading The Lost World of the Flood, on page 58 and I find this video. Great research.
Fantastic work, so much valuable insight and information packed in these videos! Thank you for your service.
Thank you
The flood account of Genesis, with it's three-peats, is the collaboration of Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japheth after the flood to give a unified history to their descendants. Read several of the 'Tablet Theory" search results to better understand the collaboration idea.
Repetition in pattern is an ancient Hebrew literary/learning structure known as chiasmus. This is most prevalent and seen best in Isaiah, also uniquely found in the Book of Mormon. Not sure if the flood story utilized that with all the same structure and known rules but something to consider.
awesome video. Thanks a lot, IP
this sister is very grateful for the work you put into these vids..... God bless and keep you till HE returns.
Gilly wife of Mark
I'd be very interested in seeing you study the multiple "Isaiahs" theory.
exceptional work and references fam
Second time through this video and I'm going to give it a thumbs up even though I don't believe the flood mythology ever happened. This video was well thought out very well put together. 👏
Yeah ever single religion and nation record a flood myth 12000 years ago it has to be myth right? All the evidence of a flood on the whole planet and it must be a myth?
@@rapturefox7068 Yes, it's still a myth. It is scientifically impossible for a global flood to occur.
Whenever you bring up culture in the intro I get so hyped.
This is great, nice work. I truly feel we can put the documentary hypothesis behind us on move in to real progress.
I’m not finished critiquing the DH!
@@InspiringPhilosophy fair enough. When you’re done, then we can put it behind us.
actually this i would like to look more into
i think ik when on the actual flood (ca. 11,500 BC) there's just more pieces to find and pick up to put this whole ordeal together.
great work!
This effectively counters the idea that the sources were combined and immediately frozen with no further changes. But that's not the idea that people actually think. It doesn't counter what people actually think, which is that the sources were combined and then influenced each other while being treated as one thing and became subject to later thematic alterations... just like any & all other old myths & legends. Constant changing, adoption from one source into something else, and thematic/symbolic reinterpretation are how all mythology everywhere has always worked.
Except IP is wrong there are 2 complete stories that stand on there own. They were carefully woven together into one story.
I have posted both stories and the comparisons.
Some scholars also say that repetition was used as a method for effective verbal teachings.
I may have to listen to this again later.
Do it!
Great video...I was hoping you'd point out the chiasm in 6:6 to 9:17
14:56 Besides for the dove holding a olive branch (which could be was also in the original P), all others are constantly P!
Can you do a video about Birthdays and if they are pagan or not? I have seen your videos about other holidays and it really helped to understand and refute people who attack others for celebrating holidays. Thank you
Tremendo Dios te bendiga y a tu ministerio
Hi IP,
Do you have any thoughts on the prophesies and apparent "just so stories" in Genesis?
For instance, if Genesis existed at the time of David, then why is Saul seen as a good king by Samuel out of the wrong tribe if the scepter should come out of Judah?
Also why is Lot's story told so much that we then know that a whole group is the offspring of incest?
Hey inspiring Philosophy, how do you see the Bible? Is it inherent? Is it divine inspired? Was it made by humans or God? Or was it made by the combination of both. Is all of it truth? What are your thoughts?
I have always felt that this J and P issue is a forced proposition almost designed to create a reason for citing the text as false. This video clearly and succinctly takes sources from many places and proves that such forced falsehood is clear.
You could have at the end done as you did in previous videos state "and so this apparant contradiction can be resolved!"
Excellent work.
I would also suggest that you could take the transcript for this video add the sources and submit a journal article for peer review too, thus making the claim and video acceptable to intellectual snobs who denigrate anything but journal articles.
Once again Excellent work.
So this is false?
A Textual Study of Noah’s Flood
Part 1: The Difficulties in the Noah Story
Modern academic biblical studies claim that the Torah was not written by one hand at one time, but contains multiple sources or layers, spliced or redacted together. Scholars support this claim by pointing to redundant and contradictory narratives and laws. Many of these duplications and redundancies had been noted in classical rabbinic and medieval Jewish interpreters, which used them for midrashic purposes in a unified text by one Author, while modern scholars believe that they reflect the product of different authors.
The doublets-redundant stories told several times-and the contradictory narratives are sometimes placed adjacently, as in the two creation stories in Genesis, or maybe intertwined, as seen below, or may even be separated textually, as in the quail and manna stories in Exodus (ch. 16) and in Numbers (ch. 11). The intertwining of stories is the most complicated and may have been the least preferred option.
For example, in the case of the flood, it would be awkward to have two floods one after another, especially after a story that ends with a promise that God will never again inundate the earth! When intertwining two or more stories, the editors attempted to make the story flow as smoothly as possible, changing his sources as little as possible. For this reason, the careful reader may discover seams and fissures that help us recover the original sources that have been redacted.
A classic example of a spliced narrative is the story of Noah[1] which contains contradictions and redundancy through the inclusion of multiple doublets. It is the story Richard Elliott Friedman uses to demonstrate the phenomenon in his Who Wrote the Bible (Harper Collins, 1997), and it is often the text of choice in introductory classes on Bible to teach the documentary hypothesis.
The Noah account contains both doublets-identical or similar actions that are narrated twice-as well as contradictions.
Doublets:
1. God notes that humans are wicked twice (6:5. 6:12).[2]
2. God tells Noah of his decision to wipe out all life from earth twice (6:13, 7:4).
3. God tells Noah to gather a pair of each animal species to put on the ark twice (6:19, 7:2).
4. The story records that Noah fulfills God’s command twice (6:22, 7:5).
5. Noah and his family get on the ark twice (7:7, 7:13).
6. The flood starts twice (7:6, 7:10).
7. The animals get on the ark twice (7:8-9, 7:14).
8. The flood waters lift the ark twice (7:17, 7:18).
9. All the humans and animals on earth die/are wiped out twice (7:21-22, 7:23).
10. Noah sends out a raven to look for dry land (8:7). Then he sends out a dove to do the same (8:8-12).
11. Noah’s three sons are introduced twice (6:10, 9:18).[3]
The text also contains a number of terminological doublets, i.e. two distinct phrases describing the same thing.
1. God is sometimes called YHWH (י-הוה) and sometimes God (א-לוהים).
2. Sometimes God destroys (שחת) the earth (ארץ), and sometimes God wipes them off (מחה) the surface of the ground (פני האדמה).
3. The surface of the ground (פני האדמה) dries (חרב), and the earth (ארץ) dries (יבש).
Contradictions:
1. Is Noah supposed to bring one pair of each kind of animal (6:20) or is he supposed to bring seven pairs of clean animals plus birds and only one pair of unclean animals (7:2-3)?
2. Do the flood waters come from God allowing the waters of the depths and the heavens to overflow the earth (7:11, 8:2) or does it come from excessive rain only (7:4, 12, 8:2)?
3. Does the flood last for forty days and nights (7:4, 12, 17) or does it last for 150 days (7:24)?
4. Does God have a pact with Noah from the beginning never to destroy the world again (6:18, 9:11), or is it the sweet smelling sacrifice that brings about this decision (9:21)?
Summary of J
According to the J text, YHWH realizes humanity is evil. He then regrets having created humans and decides to wipe them out, all except Noah. YHWH informs Noah that he will flood the world with rain in seven days and tells Noah to enter the ark.[5] Noah is to bring along seven pairs of clean animals and birds, and one pair of unclean animals to repopulate the planet. He also brings along his family, which includes his three sons. YHWH closes Noah into the ark, and the rain starts.
The flood lasts for 40 days and wipes out all life from the earth. When the rain stops, Noah opens the window and sends out a dove repeatedly, looking for dry land. When he finds the dry land, he removes the top of the ark. (Leaving the ark is not mentioned.) Noah then offers a sacrifice to YHWH (hence the seven pairs of clean animals), and YHWH enjoys their sweet smell, helping him decide never to flood the earth again. Noah then plants a vineyard and gets drunk. His sons Shem and Japhet cover his nakedness, but Ham does not. When Noah awakens he blesses Shem and Japhet but curses his youngest son Canaan (not Ham).
Summary of P
Noah is a righteous man. When God sees that the world is violent and destructive, he tells Noah to build a huge ark (measurements are included) and bring one pair of each species on the ark, and that God will make a covenant with him. The flood takes place on the 17th of the second month, when Noah is 600 years old. Once in the ark, God opens up the gates to the waters of the heavens and the waters of the depths, and the world is flooded up to 15 cubits high, killing every living thing on earth.
The flood lasts for 150 days. God then closes the flood-gates, and the waters begin to recede. On the 17th of the seventh month (i.e. 5 months, or 150 days after the flood began), the ark rests on Mount Ararat. The waters kept receding until the 1st of the tenth month, when the mountain tops became visible. At this point, Noah sends out a raven to go back and forth until it finds dry land. On the first of the first month, in the 601st year of Noah’s life, the water was gone.
On the 27th of the second month (a bit more than a year later), the land was dry. God tells Noah that he and his family and the animals should leave the ark and repopulate the world. Further, God gives Noah permission to eat animals but forbids him from consuming them with their blood and from murdering other humans, the latter being punishable by death. God then makes a promise of a covenant with Noah, including never to flood the world again. The covenant is to be marked by the creation of the rainbow. Noah lives 350 more years and dies at age 950.
Comparison
Although the two stories have significant overlap, there are some key overall differences.
The P text is longer and filled with technical details such as how to build the ark, the age of Noah, dates when things occur, etc. (Such interest in details and dates typifies P elsewhere.) Furthermore, God plans the covenant in advance, and no sacrifice is mentioned. P’s description of the flood is also closely connected with part of P’s creation story concerning the creation as the separation of the waters from earth (Gen 1:6-10), so that this story reflects an undoing of creation.
The J text is shorter and has fewer specifics. Nevertheless, its account of the bird looking for land is longer, and it includes the sacrifice and the story of Noah getting drunk. Like P, J’s flood connects to its creation story, which begins with the need for rain (Gen 2:5-6). However, instead of undoing creation, as in P, J reflects an overabundance of the creative force (rain), which destroys life. The sacrifice fits in with J’s world view that the ancients did sacrifices (Gen. 4:3-4), while in P sacrifice only began after the constructions and sanctification of the divinely sanctioned tabernacle (משכן).
The images of God-not just the names-distinguish the two sources as well. YHWH has an internal life in J, we hear his thoughts to himself, whereas P does not use such anthropomorphic language about God, who speaks and acts, but doesn’t “feel.” This also fits into the image of YHWH in J’s creation story, since in both YHWH changes his mind. P’s God has everything planned in advance, both in creation, and here in his covenant with Noah.
@@fordprefect5304 yes.
Source criticism was designed specifically to create problems and undermine the text. The main proponent wellhausen even admits that his focus was to remove God and a Divinely inspired narrative.
It has largely been debunked since the 50s. However those athiest/agnostic scholars often have more trouble leaving it behind due to their own personal belief system.
Yet many do not recognise in themselves that the beliefs of an Athiests are equally a faith construct and many (not all) refuse to apply the same critical thought process to their own belief.
Most often you see this when they produce Isegesis rather than Exegesis. They seek proof texts rather than extrapolate from what is written or the author's intent.
@@mickyfrazer786 That post comes from a website called "THETORAH"
So don't bore me with your comments by atheists. All the writers are believers and theologians do not let mythology get in the way of their beliefs.
@@fordprefect5304 sorry I bore you, but that point does not matter. Source criticism was designed to undermine the text.
Just like the Jefferson Bible was designed to remove all mention of anything supernatural.
As to being religious, there are many uber-liberal leaning people of faith that rely on feelings and could quite happily almost treat the entire Bible as myth. But that misses the point.
I came back to this video because I just watched the hypothesis video and holy crap this makes so much more sense now my brain doesn't hurt
I’m excited for the day we don’t have to pretend the documentary hypothesis can be just another hypothesis, the 19 century was so long ago
Brothers and sisters, I need some supernatural help. I'm currently going through a situation where my mom is a proclaimed believer, but she has a secular mindset about a lot of things beside spiritual warfare and the book of Revelation. She has a lot of fear, causing toxic traits of being controlling. She gets aggressive quickly, verbally, emotionally, and mentally when someone disagrees with her, and says that and is to say the "head. of the household". She doesn't want my brother and I, (we're 22 and 23, finishing college this semester)to move out, get married, have children, and she doesn't want us(my dad also)to find a way to fellowship with other believers. I've brought it up to her and have been called disobedient. I'm not rebelling against my mom at all. In fact, I tend to be more on the subservient side, and I take care of her and my dad, with my brother. But when God tells me to do something that He wants(evangelism, getting married one day, fellowshipping with a body of believers), if she doesn't agree with it, then I'm listening to the flesh, and it's not of God. It's hard on my older brother, even my girlfriend, who God has confirmed for me through many times of fasting and prayer, because of this reason. It's a whole lot more to this, but this is the general. Please help me pray for my mom to let fear go, and to let us honor her by being the men Jesus wants us to be in this life🙏🏾🙏🏾💕💕✨✨. I love her, dearly.
Check out living waters youtube channel.
@@jsharp9735 I know about Living Waters, family lol, amazing ministry. Thank you🙏🏾😄.
@@BC-zv5sk I just thought that since Ray deals with so many different types of people and objections it could help you on how to go about your situation. God bless !
Hi, great video, thank you for all the work you do in the body of Christ. is it possible for you to make an explanatory video on the claim that the genesis creation account originated from mesopotamian creation myths? It's gaining a lot of traction especially amongst atheists.
From what I've heard of it, (secular and religious) historians believe Genesis is a transcription of a separate, uniquely Hebrew oral tradition precisely because of Mesopotamian influences. The Genesis account actually uses Akkadian loan-words, but it is a more "primitive" account; that is it is much shorter and has less details than other flood myths. It isn't very common to borrow a myth only to reduce the word count, and furthermore the characterization of God (sorrowful) is very different from pretty much every deity in every other flood myth(wrathful). So the clear signs of Mesopotamian influence actually strengthen the case for Genesis being based on an older tradition given a shorter story given that it informs us that there was contact between those cultures, and yet the story has both less detail and dramatically different details.
@@nathanharvey8570 "Genesis is a transcription of a separate, uniquely Hebrew oral tradition precisely because of mesopotamian influences."
Could you give more clarity on this, are you saying that it is a Hebrew derivative of the Mesopotamian creation accounts with a slight difference in philosophy? or that it is based on an older tradition, but contains some Mesopotamian influences?
@@cisuminocisumino3250 What I meant, what that the story was very clearly distinct from Mesopotamian sources in the aforementioned ways(being "primitive", different characterization, etc.), but the existence of loan-words indicates contact between the cultures, which would indicate a familiarity with the existence of other flood myths without the adoption of them.
@@nathanharvey8570 How well does this match with some of the script samples on the lead curse tablet found at Mt.Ebal? Is there any correlation between the writing content, structure or conventions? Or is the writing on the tablet too short to do that?
@Inspiring Philosophy Which translation of the Bible do you use?
That one that suits his agenda
Epic 👌 as ALWAYS Thanx Michael
Man, you are brilliant. But this is one of your best. Very convincing
can you please do and debunk the sun of god theory that jesus was an allegory based on the suns journey or movement.
3:22
I find this point very interesting. From my own experience, in Kanva Shakha of Shukla Yajurveda, many mantras are repeated throughout the Veda. In first adhyaya the mantra "devasya tvaa savitu: prasaveshwinor bahubhyaam pushno hastaabhyam" is appearing 3 times. As well, the mantra "pratyushtag raksh: pratyushtaa araatayo nishtaptag raksho nishtaptaa araataya:" appears 3 times as well. In the 10th anuvaka of Namakam too, the mantra "teshaag sahasrayo janevadhanvaani tanmasi" appears numerous times. This is just my experience being part of an oral tradition.
Edit: im intrested in hearing anyone else's thoughts on this
Does anyone dispute the authenticity of that text?
@@DLAbaoaqu of what text? Of the Veda? Veda isnt a text, veda is recitation. The veda itself never claims to be true like the Christians say about bible. Veda actually says that there are probably no gods
Could you make a video showing how you do research for these videos? I would be really interested to see how you do this, because I refuse to believe you read this many books since your last video. Lol
I have not set way, so I don’t know how to make that vidoe
@@InspiringPhilosophy thanks for the response. Do you have some kind of resource that you use to get these quotations? Thanks
@@jameswillison1527 Thank you for that thoughtful response!
I'm trying to become thorough in my research on certain topics, and this will definitely help me!
@@natebozeman4510I think books like Old Testament Survey, Books on Pentatuech etc gives a path, and then you have to come up with solution reading them.
Hey IP I read nothing about the flood being regional? And how would the lineage of Adam be compatible with evolution?
@Princess how is it compatible
Adam and Eve never existed so it does not effect evolution in anyway whatsoever.
@Princess You don’t have any authority to tell anyone what to do on here. Calling people a fool when what you believe isn’t real is the definition of being a fool.
No amount of belief makes something real..so there’s no need to get triggered.
I agree entirely that Bereshit is one unified work rather than multiple compiled works. There is, however, one thing I struggle with in the flood account. Noach was commanded to bring seven pairs each of the clean animals, but what animals were clean or unclean were not defined until the Law was given to Moshe, so it seems to me that this instruction would only have confused Noach. Without the Laws of Kashrut to define which animals are clean and which are unclean, if someone told me to "gather clean animals," I would literally go looking for animals that had recently been bathed. That is not even being a smart Alec; without the Law to give a different definition to the term, that would be the only meaning someone would infer. I'm curious if you have an explanation of how Noach was supposed to even know what the term "clean animals" actually meant AND how he would have known which ones they were.
While arguing from an absence is usually a bad idea with the Bible, the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility that either:
-Noah had inherited knowledge of the Law from Adam or Enoch (and that they had been given them offscreen)
-God knew Noah would unconsciously lean toward seeing animals he had been raised to eat and sacrifice as clean and animals he doesn't as unclean
-God give Noah more specific instructions than what we were given
-Noah frantically tried to cram as many critters as he could to cover his odds and hoped that any he missed were unclean (this is what I would do if told to gather animals according to two categories I'd never heard of).
-God lead the animals to Noah already sorted (I mean, how else would he get wolves and sheep on there at the same time?)
-Noah didn't know which animals were clean or unclean but (somehow) did the job right, it was only when after the Law was given that people went "oh, that's what that part of the story meant."
-The numbers seven and two are not exact totals but idealized numbers perhaps with the impure animals meant to mirror how God loves us even if we're a bit messed up
-God has more important things to tell us about when He inspired the scriptures
-Any combination of the above
It could be something put in by the authors. God might not have told Noah "grab 7 of each clean animal", he may have simply listed which animals Noah should have 7 of. But the authors compiling the Pentateuch may have recognized these creatures as the clean animals in the Mosaic law. The Bible has other instances of the authors inserting contemporary terms (albeit, normally regarding geography), so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Whatever the case, that certainly is an interesting point!
Personally I think Moshe wrote the account as an anti-myth to counter the other ANE myths, and simply retrojected his knowledge back onto Noach.
The account is not a literal word-for-word record, the purpose is to explain what was communicated by God to Noah. As this is written by an Israelite (I suppose you don't have to believe it was specifically Abraham but I see no reason to doubt it) to Israelites, saying 'clean animals' succinctly describes what sort of animals is being referenced. Either animals which were clean by Levitical standards, or perhaps animals which Noah was aware God considered acceptable for him to sacrifice whether or not that list is exactly the same as that of the Mosaic system.
The Bible does not give an exhaustive account of everything God ever said to anybody or what every person said to each other. For example, Cain and Abel are shown offering sacrifices when God at that point in the text had not indicated He should recieve sacrifices, what should be offered, how it should be offered etc. It doesn't require a very complicated or difficult explanation as long as you understand that things happen "off screen" which the Bible does not describe in detail or at all. Either God told Noah what sort of animals were fit for sacrifice, He told someone (likely of the line of Seth) in the past and this knowledge was passed to Noah along with anything else he knew associated with the worship of God, or perhaps Noah believed in some man-made standard for what was acceptable sacrifice and God accepted that because he knew what was in Noah's heart when he did it. Or maybe something else, we don't and can't really know.
The assumption you are making here is that Noah's clean animals are the same as the clean animals under mosaic law. That is not given. There may a later reinterpretation here, perhaps the original hinted at "animals meant for eating" and the later scribe/repeater changed that to clean animals.
This was very enlightening; I still believe the documentary theory, but then I also think the flood happened a lot longer ago.
2239 B.C.E [1656 A.M.]
There is a lot of repetition throughout the Bible, through the use of the literary device called Chiasm. Search for 'Superior Word Chiasms' on UA-cam. examples of such (v. simple) reversals: when the going gets tough the tough get going' and when Jesus says "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Lots in the Bible cover lengthy passages, not just pithy sayings, as for Noah..
Wow. This is the first time InspiringPhilosophy has been right. I was expecting him to say, "Yes.", to the title question.
The numbers in the flood account are due to two calendar systems. The 360 and 364
Hey! What do you think about the new JWST discoveries that contradict the Big Bang? How do they affect your views on creation?
@Princess JWST - James Webb Space Telescope. It is one of the newest space telescopes launched by NASA to observe deep space, which found several contradictions in assumptions most astronomers made about the Big Bang. It appears to have disproven the theory to a lot of people.
Yes and Ron Wyatt just found Mary's Cherry
@Princess JWST = James Webb Space Telescope, the new space telescope that was just launched earlier this year with a main mirror so big it had to be made in pieces and folded up to fit in the rocket... but it actually didn't say anything in particular about the Big Bang, nevermind contradict it. It just found some new evidence about the process of the formation of early galaxies, which affected some theories on the processes of galaxy formation. Then sensationalist "pop-sci" articles made up absurd headlines which had nothing to do with anything that had actually happened, because pop-sci sources think everything has to "totally demolish" all prior knowledge in order to be interesting.
After reading about the flood and the 40 days and the 150 days I thought it was also two different things but once really reading it the forty days is basically saying it rained for 40 days and night and God shut them in the ark and the rain kept coming and finally the ark was floating and then they was on the ark for 150 days so God shut up before the flood hit them but I see where it looks so confusing In reading about the days and numbers but after going back and reading it it is simple it took 40 day plus for the flood to hit everything for the rain to fall then for all that water to resign it’s took 150 days
Why aren't you cross-posting on your Rumble channel???
IP: puts massive amounts of work into research, making a good video, etc.
Me: Hehe, he said 7, 8, 9.
7:22 I don't see your point. Both P and J come from the same culture and would know about animals that are clean and unclean. The point is that the J source mentions the sacrifices and thus needs to dwell on it while P does not.
Good stuff, man.....
ancient scribes didn't have a cut and paste tool. If a writer wanted to combine 2 stories, they still needed to write each word as they wanted it to be read.
I want to say how much I respect this channel and am enjoying honest comments on my posts. I normally agree with the channel. If you want to check for yourself what I'm talking about here are the theoretical textual threads: text A. Genesis 6 1 8/7 1 5/7 7/7 12/7 17 18/7 23/8 6 12/8 13b/8 20 22/9 18 27. Genesis text B 6 9 22/7 6/7 8 11/7 13 16/7 19 22/7 24 8.5/8 13a/8 14 19/9 1 17/9 28 29.
I am not sure what you mean. I addressed the hypothesized separate texts throughout the videos.
The explanation to doublets can be found in Dublin: have you ever heard an Irish pub song?
They go something like this “… He fell right off of the stool, Ohhhh, he fell right off of the stool.”
Do you plan to deal with the claims that Isaac was actually sacrificed by Abraham, with a later editor changing the story?
It's interesting how Elohim asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but YHWH saves him, Elohim doesn't appear with Isaac anymore after the story only YHWH, and Isaac's story is rather short and parallels Abraham's at times, to me it seems an original human sacrifice story was edited to turn it into an anti human sacrifice story. I would also like to know if he's done any videos on Jephthah's daughter.
@gothictheurgist9367 yeah, he hasn't touched on that yet. Would be interested in hearing his view though.
13:16 The ark was not navigated, so what is the point of this bird trick?
Can’t wait
I’m stunned at the mental gymnastics some go through to push their hypotheses that an account isn’t as it simply claims to be or what other authors of the same Bible claims it is. As for the bias towards specific numbers, everyone seems to forget that there’s one God designating the number of days and other things He specifies.
The simplest and least arbitrary explanation for seeing repetitions in the account, sometimes in triplicate, is that there really were three witnesses who actually signed their account at the end:
“This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. (Gen. 10:1)
Only one flood but two character, Noah's Arc that landed in mt. Everest according to genesis old version of the bible and the Nephilim arc that landed in mountains of ararat.
I agree it was written with sacred numbers in final form. I agree the whole flood text is ancient and authentic. I have separated both verses into their separate accounts. They make two valid ancient accounts in two author voices. Moses used sources; its okay.
Umm, not exactly, no?
The accounts lack detail and literary unity with the rest of Genesis. The fact that there is literary unity within Genesis casts doubt on major elements of redaction (though sources can explain some details quite well, but this isn't one of those areas).
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf then you are left in the worse position of two scribe sources contemporary with Genesis. Remember I have personally read the separation. Ancient sources of denominational variation only are not harmful to unity. It is common in Israel or Jacob north and south etc. Not proposing a late composition. Remember everything 1 thru 11 happened before Moses birth. To be accurate He had to rely on accounts held sacred.
@@jimgillert20 You are correct that everything in 1-11 (heck, everything in Genesis) is prior to Moses. However, in a tightly knit population like the Hebrews, why would variation crop up? Why wouldn't unity be expected?
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf why is there Horeb vs Sinai. Moses codified the law. Moses uses ancient text references prelaw to shore up the themes of the law. Genesis states when they started calling on the name of the LORD specifically for example. Just like Christ references both old testament text and oral authorities tradition. " You have heard it said."
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf I remind myself of how a large study group within a church I attended focused on sole study and practice of the Beatitudes. From only one gospel. The rest of the church followed normal services and variations. They did to. There was no disharmony. There was subdenominational practice. It was all good.
I find very amusing when the video mentions "assuming something being true, and then explaining difficulties away", it's beautifully unaware.
Merging two stories doesn't mean chopping, and cluing together two stories, it means two stories being fused together into one. The incongruousness are vestigial, not core. But if inconsistencies happen on a frequent and systematic basis, and are supported by a lot of other patterns, then it forms a very reasonable hypothesis.
If that is the case then how does one go about attempting to reconstruct the originals, and distinguishing between which elements belong to one or the other? If the method used to divide them - and even claim they can be divided - nevertheless includes elements from different parts, then how does one know they were two separate sources? If the editor didn't bother to modify the texts so it became one seamless narrative, why did the account contain so much cross pollination between its sections?
@@lukecox6317 You attempt in the same way bible scholars are doing, what we can't do, is assume it will be precise. The scholars are just doing the best reconstructions with the information we have, and that has a lot of value, but we can't analyze reconstructions in the same way we analyze primary sources, because those are two very different things.
Your language makes me think you assume we can achieve a level of confidence, of "knowing things", that we really can't reach with the information we have available. I think what is the lacking the most the video and comment section and the general knowledge how myths are created and evolve over time. It's a much more natural and gradual process, when people here seem to be assuming it's a super deliberate and premeditated thing.
@@Testeteste-yi7xz perhaps myths do grow and change with time, but with the level of structure in Hebrew writing, such as Noah's story having a clear chiasic structure, when they are written down they are done so in a deliberate way. What information available made the scholars believe it was two different accounts? Just that the account uses two different names for God - didn't the Hebrews use different names for God in different situations, all by the same person, such as HaShem, the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, Elohim, etc.? By implication the scholars who try to separate the accounts believe it can be split based on which passages use a certain name for God, but wouldn't whoever compiled the account have seen no problem with using both names? Why do they think it was two accounts in the first place, or that if it was that those accounts can be separated based - at least primarily it seems - on which name of God is used?
Do you mean like this:
A Textual Study of Noah’s Flood
Part 1: The Difficulties in the Noah Story
Modern academic biblical studies claim that the Torah was not written by one hand at one time, but contains multiple sources or layers, spliced or redacted together. Scholars support this claim by pointing to redundant and contradictory narratives and laws. Many of these duplications and redundancies had been noted in classical rabbinic and medieval Jewish interpreters, which used them for midrashic purposes in a unified text by one Author, while modern scholars believe that they reflect the product of different authors.
The doublets-redundant stories told several times-and the contradictory narratives are sometimes placed adjacently, as in the two creation stories in Genesis, or maybe intertwined, as seen below, or may even be separated textually, as in the quail and manna stories in Exodus (ch. 16) and in Numbers (ch. 11). The intertwining of stories is the most complicated and may have been the least preferred option.
For example, in the case of the flood, it would be awkward to have two floods one after another, especially after a story that ends with a promise that God will never again inundate the earth! When intertwining two or more stories, the editors attempted to make the story flow as smoothly as possible, changing his sources as little as possible. For this reason, the careful reader may discover seams and fissures that help us recover the original sources that have been redacted.
A classic example of a spliced narrative is the story of Noah[1] which contains contradictions and redundancy through the inclusion of multiple doublets. It is the story Richard Elliott Friedman uses to demonstrate the phenomenon in his Who Wrote the Bible (Harper Collins, 1997), and it is often the text of choice in introductory classes on Bible to teach the documentary hypothesis.
The Noah account contains both doublets-identical or similar actions that are narrated twice-as well as contradictions.
Doublets:
1. God notes that humans are wicked twice (6:5. 6:12).[2]
2. God tells Noah of his decision to wipe out all life from earth twice (6:13, 7:4).
3. God tells Noah to gather a pair of each animal species to put on the ark twice (6:19, 7:2).
4. The story records that Noah fulfills God’s command twice (6:22, 7:5).
5. Noah and his family get on the ark twice (7:7, 7:13).
6. The flood starts twice (7:6, 7:10).
7. The animals get on the ark twice (7:8-9, 7:14).
8. The flood waters lift the ark twice (7:17, 7:18).
9. All the humans and animals on earth die/are wiped out twice (7:21-22, 7:23).
10. Noah sends out a raven to look for dry land (8:7). Then he sends out a dove to do the same (8:8-12).
11. Noah’s three sons are introduced twice (6:10, 9:18).[3]
The text also contains a number of terminological doublets, i.e. two distinct phrases describing the same thing.
1. God is sometimes called YHWH (י-הוה) and sometimes God (א-לוהים).
2. Sometimes God destroys (שחת) the earth (ארץ), and sometimes God wipes them off (מחה) the surface of the ground (פני האדמה).
3. The surface of the ground (פני האדמה) dries (חרב), and the earth (ארץ) dries (יבש).
Contradictions:
1. Is Noah supposed to bring one pair of each kind of animal (6:20) or is he supposed to bring seven pairs of clean animals plus birds and only one pair of unclean animals (7:2-3)?
2. Do the flood waters come from God allowing the waters of the depths and the heavens to overflow the earth (7:11, 8:2) or does it come from excessive rain only (7:4, 12, 8:2)?
3. Does the flood last for forty days and nights (7:4, 12, 17) or does it last for 150 days (7:24)?
4. Does God have a pact with Noah from the beginning never to destroy the world again (6:18, 9:11), or is it the sweet smelling sacrifice that brings about this decision (9:21)?
Summary of J
According to the J text, YHWH realizes humanity is evil. He then regrets having created humans and decides to wipe them out, all except Noah. YHWH informs Noah that he will flood the world with rain in seven days and tells Noah to enter the ark.[5] Noah is to bring along seven pairs of clean animals and birds, and one pair of unclean animals to repopulate the planet. He also brings along his family, which includes his three sons. YHWH closes Noah into the ark, and the rain starts.
The flood lasts for 40 days and wipes out all life from the earth. When the rain stops, Noah opens the window and sends out a dove repeatedly, looking for dry land. When he finds the dry land, he removes the top of the ark. (Leaving the ark is not mentioned.) Noah then offers a sacrifice to YHWH (hence the seven pairs of clean animals), and YHWH enjoys their sweet smell, helping him decide never to flood the earth again. Noah then plants a vineyard and gets drunk. His sons Shem and Japhet cover his nakedness, but Ham does not. When Noah awakens he blesses Shem and Japhet but curses his youngest son Canaan (not Ham).
Summary of P
Noah is a righteous man. When God sees that the world is violent and destructive, he tells Noah to build a huge ark (measurements are included) and bring one pair of each species on the ark, and that God will make a covenant with him. The flood takes place on the 17th of the second month, when Noah is 600 years old. Once in the ark, God opens up the gates to the waters of the heavens and the waters of the depths, and the world is flooded up to 15 cubits high, killing every living thing on earth.
The flood lasts for 150 days. God then closes the flood-gates, and the waters begin to recede. On the 17th of the seventh month (i.e. 5 months, or 150 days after the flood began), the ark rests on Mount Ararat. The waters kept receding until the 1st of the tenth month, when the mountain tops became visible. At this point, Noah sends out a raven to go back and forth until it finds dry land. On the first of the first month, in the 601st year of Noah’s life, the water was gone.
On the 27th of the second month (a bit more than a year later), the land was dry. God tells Noah that he and his family and the animals should leave the ark and repopulate the world. Further, God gives Noah permission to eat animals but forbids him from consuming them with their blood and from murdering other humans, the latter being punishable by death. God then makes a promise of a covenant with Noah, including never to flood the world again. The covenant is to be marked by the creation of the rainbow. Noah lives 350 more years and dies at age 950.
Comparison
Although the two stories have significant overlap, there are some key overall differences.
The P text is longer and filled with technical details such as how to build the ark, the age of Noah, dates when things occur, etc. (Such interest in details and dates typifies P elsewhere.) Furthermore, God plans the covenant in advance, and no sacrifice is mentioned. P’s description of the flood is also closely connected with part of P’s creation story concerning the creation as the separation of the waters from earth (Gen 1:6-10), so that this story reflects an undoing of creation.
The J text is shorter and has fewer specifics. Nevertheless, its account of the bird looking for land is longer, and it includes the sacrifice and the story of Noah getting drunk. Like P, J’s flood connects to its creation story, which begins with the need for rain (Gen 2:5-6). However, instead of undoing creation, as in P, J reflects an overabundance of the creative force (rain), which destroys life. The sacrifice fits in with J’s world view that the ancients did sacrifices (Gen. 4:3-4), while in P sacrifice only began after the constructions and sanctification of the divinely sanctioned tabernacle (משכן).
The images of God-not just the names-distinguish the two sources as well. YHWH has an internal life in J, we hear his thoughts to himself, whereas P does not use such anthropomorphic language about God, who speaks and acts, but doesn’t “feel.” This also fits into the image of YHWH in J’s creation story, since in both YHWH changes his mind. P’s God has everything planned in advance, both in creation, and here in his covenant with Noah.
@@lukecox6317 It has been done I have posted both the J and P texts, They are complete flood stories that can stand on their own.
The entire article can be found on
"thetorah"
A Textual Study of Noah’s Flood
I would post a link but youtube will delete it.
Here's my thing: Moses was educated in Egypt. Is there an account of the Flood in Egyptian world history (that we know of)? If this is a story taken from another culture, it seems like the Egyptian culture should be the first culture it borrows from. When Moses commissioned the Torah to be written, did he dictate all these events to his scribes or did they just write what came to them?
There's no evidence outside of the buybul to support the existence of Moses in the first place 😂
_Nothing, Nil, Nada_
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Another primitive atheist. There is a thing called textual evidence which can be derived from the actual text itself to support it's reliability. For example, the books of Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah have 26 old Iranian loanwords which occur 82 times. This can serve as evidence of when and where they were written.
@@UltraConservativeMonarchist So the actual experts and professors are wrong and you’re right?
Prove it then princess. C’mon now..
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus There are experts on both sides, princess. Not to mention that this is an appeal to authority fallacy. I unlike you want to know WHY scholars hold the views that they do, and not just blindly accept the consensus without having to use my brain at all. Scholars once considered King David to not be historical, the consensus on that has changed now. The problem is that you expect one concrete direct piece of evidence. The case for Moses is cumulative, slow, and indirect. It builds on top of various different pieces of data and eventually you reach a point where the best explanation of the data is to posit a Moses figure. If I saw that you are genuinely interested in a discussion I would be glad to spend the next hour writing the case for Moses, but considering your profile and behaviour, I see that you're just another primitive who is only here to laugh at things he knows nothing about. Have a nice day.
@@UltraConservativeMonarchist So what?
Can you provide evidence for Moses existence or are just going to throw another hissy fit.
It reads like one account if you consider that Elohim is the Father and Yahweh the Son in this account. They can't see it because they made up a rule that says in effect scriptures can't see ahead to the NT. The Holy Spirit disagrees.
Plus, if the Tablet Theory is correct, it is the account of "Shem, Ham and Japheth". There are your multiple sources right there.
I really love thia channel.... Of my favorite christian channel here on youtube....
Thank you
You can find the biblical flood in almost every religion. And even as far back as the epic of Gilgamesh, it’s recorded that a man build a boat on the behest of the guards, and filled it with two of every animal.
The Bible seems to be confusing itself between two different flood events. One that took place some 24,000 years ago and the one that took place 12,000 years ago. The Indian flood narrative states that Manu (Indian Noah, also where the word Man comes from) was King of Dravidas (Meaning those with aboriginal features) before the 24,000 year old flood. He was said to have rescued the seven sages called as the Saptsrishis, in a boat. These seven sages were originally taught by the Adhiyogi (First Yogi or Shiva) on various things like Morality, Karma, Meditation, Yoga, Warfare, manipulation of creation (Agriculture, Chemistry, Alchemy and other sciences) before the flood. Manu was said to have landed somewhere in South India/Sri Lanka (most likely Sri Lanka) as Islam maintains that Adam fell to Earth in Sri Lanka. From there the seven sages moved in all directions to meet other surviving cultures and reeducate them.
The Indian scriptures specifically mention that aside from the descendants of Manu, there were many other tribes who survived the flood. These cultures mixed together and formed the Indus Civilization under Shivas teachings. The Sumerians specifically mention that they were taught by the 7 Appkalu (7 Fathers) who came from the East. Which is similar to what the Tamils called them, 7 Appakallu (Seven Wise Fathers). The Olmecs might be this same early Indus Civilization, as all the statues and figurines of them show them doing Yogic poses.
Sometime after the 12,000 year old flood, the narrative was adopted and Whitewashed, making Noah white and placing the Jewish/Sematic people as the true descendants.
The Jewish seem to have been Indian Brahmins who prayed to Brahma. Something happened in Indian History which caused all worship of Brahma to be stopped and all temples related to him to be destroyed. This event I believe caused the Brahma worshipping Brahmins to be kicked out of the Indian region. From where they were adopted into the Persian Zoroastrian faith. And later enslaved by the Egyptian Cushites (Cushites being the descendants of Ram/Ham). Then we know the history from there, where they eventually constructed the narratives of the Bible.
The entire premise of the King James Bible was to convince people to go against the descendants of Ram/Ham (Ram had two sons Lava (Levites) and Kusha (Cushites)). Hence why the Indians, Black Africans and Irish (Who's culture is strikingly similar to the Indian culture, same color-coded flag too) were enslaved. The Semitic people were getting revenge against Ram/Hams descendants for their enslavement, using the Bible. Also using the Catholic Church they destroyed these cultures Pagan Science (Shivas teachings), completely removing God from it. Allowing for the creation of Modern Science, which is completely devoid of God.
Hello.Please reply if you see this comment. I have a request from you. Can you add Turkish subtitles to this video and your other videos? I'm a Turkish Christian, I want to watch it.
I can’t because I don’t speak the language
@@InspiringPhilosophy there are languages up to Hindi in the subtitles, why are other languages added but not Turkish?
@@sorgulayanbirinsan7466 They're either auto generated or the community stepped in to do subtitles. That is a thing on UA-cam where the viewers can volunteer to add subtitles in a different language.
I feel your pain. Maybe pass the transcript through a translator like Google? e.g the first timestamp of 0:00 'the flood account of genesis is' > 0:00 Genesis'in sel hesabı
When I first heard of the Documentary Hypothesis and that scholars with letters after their names were arguing for different sources based on different names, I was amazed. It just sounds as a such a stupid idea, but when it gets accepted in the academy by people with letters after their names, then everyone accepts these ideas. I'm a classical Protestant believing in inerrancy. There may be arguments to posit that there are many different sources behind the Penteteuch, but the argument based on different names for God is just so stupid and baseless.
Now thru Gobekli Tepei in the Levant Turkey we have proof of symbols being used to communicate. 11 thousand years ago. The idea of Genesis having reliable symbolic sources is no longer absurd. In the 18 and 1900s it was. The old text critic assumptions were antagonistic to religious orthodoxy assumptions. This is no longer true due to archeology. I'm not scared of popular and changing critic trends. For example if the Exodus was around 1446bce then heavy Babylonia text influence is a problem for late composition. Now that 1200s bce is more viable Babylonia influence is much less a problem.
If multiple stories are similar it’s likely to be the same story. Atra-Hasis and Summerian epic of Gilgamesh tell the exact same story except the name of the hero is different. So is there 3 or 4 floods or was there one flood and the story retold from different cultures and the story evolved over time. Or was there two Noah’s… way to much energy towards very unlikely scenario.
P, J, etc...I'm waiting for the PB&J account.
the B source power level is too powerful to be discussed
Maybe you can invite DH proponent Joel Baden (professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School ) to your channel to discuss the topic.
Why would Joel Baden want to debate a UA-cam video poster with zero credibility?
This IP post is easy to debunk.
I have posted the complete J and P stories.
They stand by themselves, two complete flood stories
Baden doesn't do debate. Someone already reached out to him.
Actually I would prefer a friendly discussion (on Mythvision Podcast, for instance, I believe you both know Derek already?).
Me too
Very interesting!.. I also find Walt Brown’s “ hydroplate theory “ very interesting too.. ( 6 hrs of scientific proof which is more plausible than presently taught theories)… the man worked for NASA and has several PHD’s… I find his account/ theory fascinating 🤨
You forgot to mensoon, the bible was written by several people one person, could have wrote the bible the way god told them, and another did the same, but when they had to write the one and only truly recognized offical bible, they had to use texts from both sources, which may have been perceived differently, causing confusion since the stories had to be mixed.
9:20 Why can't it be R (redactor)?
My brain Explode when I heard on JPED sources...it's new to me...can anyone advice me,From where should I start reading or watching Videos On JPED sources? i totally don't know what is the difference between these 4
Key words for searches, in addition to just "documentary hypothesis":
J = Jahwhist/Jahwist/Yahwhist/Yahwist source (based on the name "Yahweh/Jehovah"; Hebrew names we romanize with a J originally had the sound of Y)
P = Priestly source (because of its emphasis on the cultural role of the priesthood, starting with talking about Aaron in Exodus)
E = Elohist source (based on the "Elohim", meaning "the gods" but often translated as "God"; singular would be just "El", which is also used a lot in the Bible)
D = Deuteronomist (a later source thought to have both written most/all of Deuteronomy and edited the other early books with a newly monotheistic & moralistic angle)
Watch ua-cam.com/video/OZIm_edPz20/v-deo.html for instance
Anything by Joel Baden is worth it. His focus is on narrative flow, so it's easy to follow. And he does a lot of interviews and talks!
Please go tell Kent hovind and crew the numbers in the flood are symbols and not literal. I wish you luck 🍀
This man is smart but he twist scripture to support false science and evolution and those go against the bible
Hey IP! I’m a middle schooler and I’ve been a bit confused about the Noah story because of this one video by this guy named “the truth hurts” an ex jw guy claiming in his video called how the story of Noah disproves the entire Bible. It would be cool if you did a response to it. Again I’m in middle school and I say the truth hurts guy talks really creepily and his hands movements are strange to. (In my opinion) but anyways, I like testing the foundation of my faith and people like you really help clear up some things. Thank you for your work.
P.S I think God also used some seismic activity to get water from underground to flood the earth along with the rain similar to what happened in the 2011 Japanese earthquake that also experienced water coming up from the ground other than the giant tsunami obviously 7:11 When Noah was six hundred years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month all the outlets of the vast body of water beneath the earth burst open, all the floodgates of the sky were opened. Also do you think the flood was global or regional? im leaning towards global personally because the Bible says every single living thing on the earth died, except for the living things in the ark.
Sorry this comment is so long I appreciate it if you actually read this whole Noah essay done by an American 7th grader that actually isn’t an edgy teen atheist like most lol.
Oh wait I’m an idiot he literally has these verses in the video and I posted the comment without watching the video sorry folks my bad 💀
@N/A oh yeah I’ve heard of the whole cosmology thing but really never paid attention to it thanks 😊
See the videos I made on the topic:
ua-cam.com/video/1SZZzuweVEs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/mp3HpDOOWS8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/lLSyiJ9KUCo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Q07gxxbggJs/v-deo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy thanks!
I just watched that video myself. Here’s some things that may help to think about:
On the question of why it seems only civilizations by water bodies have stories of a great flood: It could be that early civilizations all lived by water or they would die.
On the question of why did Noah not have any children until he was 500: From Seth to Lemech, only one son is named from each father, but it always says that the father had other sons and daughters. We don’t even know if each son mentioned is the oldest since Adam is mentioned to have fathered Seth, yet Cain is older. I imagine Noah was the same with having other sons and daughters. It’s interesting that the first father before the Flood (Adam) has 3 sons mentioned in Cain, Abel, and Seth, and the last father before the Flood (Noah) has 3 sons mentioned in Japheth, Shem, and Ham.
As far as feeding all the animals on the ark goes, God provides and multiplies food in both the Old and New Testament. If Jesus can feed 5000 men (not including women and children) to the point of being satisfied with 5 small loaves of bread and 2 small fish, God can take care of the inhabitants of the ark. Since God miraculously had all the animals come to Noah and board the ark before God himself shuts them in, I imagine God also kept them all feed.
The flood very well could have been a large local flood. The known earth to people back then was not the known earth as we know it today. Nothing in Scripture (that I know of) contradicts that.
Then again, I don’t have a problem seeing an all powerful supernatural God do all powerful supernatural things. I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. I believe that Jesus died, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven at His Father’s right hand. I also believe that God will destroy this earth and create a new one. If you believe those things, why should the Flood be a faith breaker?
The next true question should be then where did they settle? Cause with two accounts. Only one leads to the destruction of babel
Is it chiastic?
I still believe in the J,E,P, D hypothesis. Makes more sense than Moses did it all, with the exception of the Deuteronomist.
That is a false dichotomy. You can reject the DH and not think Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Can u please make s a video about jhona in the whale belly
We can just go with the Gilgamesh flood myth.
What is called an unnecessary repetition seems to me most likely a necessary repetition to aid remembering what was written/spoken. .
Could a wooden boat as big as Noah's Ark float even with modern waterproofing techniques used today?
I guess you would have to ask a shipbuilder about that, But it doesn't really matter as the Ark was not made from wood planks.
The Hebrew word translated “ark” is tevah (teivah) which means “basket”, the hebrew word kuphar can mean a plant or reed. The ark was not made from wood planks, it was
made from reeds! Up til the 1970’s a round reed boat called a kuphar was widely used in the Middle East for transporting people and goods because it very stable in the water.
Noah's Ark was not long and narrow, but round, circular. The same words translated as length and breadth can be used for the width of a circle and the circumference of a circle.
The idea that it was long and narrow comes from the fact that it’s the way boats were made in Europe at the time Scripture was translated. People understood according to western culture rather than Middle Eastern Hebraic culture.
There may well have been numerous oral traditions of the flood account (which intriguingly is found in numerous cultures around the globe; and the biblical overlap with the epic of Gilgamesh are striking). And they may have been mixed before the book of Genesis was constructed. My sense is that it is impossible to reconstruct a text which was written between 4000 or 2500 years ago (depending on one's theological leaning), never mind extracts its historical accuracy. The fact remains that the instructions about the number of animals as it stands in Genesis is inconsistent (2 or 7). And the number of 7 of every clean animal is associated with the term Yahwe. There are other examples of that in the bible, e.g. the different decalogues. I think liberal theologians have an easier time of it and are free to speculate (often wildly) and disagree with each other, as they would not see the bible as the inerrant revealed word of God. Evangelical Christians have the slightly harder task to bat away the inconsistencies as they must arrive at the defined destination of inerrancy.
As Hebrews were literate from Abraham, at very least, I can go along with the theory that there were many authors of Genesis.
So you're saying yeshua was lying when he said Moses wrote the Torah
@@YAHWEH-SAVES777 Show me where he or Moses said Moses wrote the Torah.
@@marschlosser4540 ok well get ready cause you asked for it. I shall start with the old testament and then move to the old testament. Get ready to get your study on.
Exodus 17:14
Numbers 33:2
Joshua 1:7-8
Joshua 8:31
Joshua 23:6
1Kings 2:3
2Kings 14:6
1Chronicles 22:13
Ezra 6:18
Nehemiah 13:1
Daniel 9:11
Malachi 4:4
AND NOW THE NEW TESTAMANT
Mathew 8:4
Mark 12:26
Luke 16:29
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:44
John 5:46
John 7:22
Acts 3:22
Acts 15:1
Acts 28:23
Romans 10:5
Romans 10:19
1Corinthians 9:9
2Corinthians 3:15
Well there you go enjoy
@@YAHWEH-SAVES777 And now understand that I can write off a copy and therefore have written it. LOL. I'm an editor and manuscript researcher.
@@marschlosser4540 and then you should no the word of God then. You asked for proof and I gave it and you denied it. That's your problem
Why shouldn't there be two or more stories synthesized into one? There are flood stories from all over the ancient world. Makes sense to me, even if you find a way out of that hypothesis. There are a few stories that come out of Mesopotamia from countries or regions adjacent to each other and the names and places are different because of the differing understanding of the story.
I’ve studied the book of Genesis for 20 years,The vast majority perhaps 90 percent has 1 author.There is one theme running through the entire patriarchal process.The issue of who shall inherit from the father.Isaac or Ishmael,Jacob or Esau,Joseph or Judah.The problem of inheritance was the prevailing issue in that era.In fact clay tablets dug up in Mari,Ebla,and Nuzi and dated to the patriarchal era are overwhelmingly concerned with disputes over inheritance issues.So am I supposed to believe that 1000 years later ,swashbuckling j,p,e,d authors independently wrote the vast stretch of Genesis and somehow they guessed that it should deal with inheritance?Sorry if I was a detective I would say case closed.1 author.
Trinston was here
The thing that never made any sense to me was that ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals were not made until Leviticus.
So how did Noah even know what a ‘clean’ animal was?
Because Adam knew what was clean and unclean. It's been known from the start then it was codified into a legal system at Sinai.
@@wayfaringman8418 My mom used to look behind my ears to see if I was clean. I'm sure Noah did the same thing
I think a good parallel area of study for these videos is the world of Jonathan Pageau in particular and to go deeper add in , Bishop Robert Barron, Dr.Peter Kreeft, Dr.Brant Pitre and Dr. Jordan Peterson's Bible series.
Bah! What does Jordan Peterson know about the contextual history of the Bible? He'll just give it a psychoanalysis and completely misinterpret it.
@@HangrySaturn You assume that the historical reading is the only valid reading. Christian tradition has accepted that there are at least the three spiritual interpretations of reading as well. And of these one is the Moral sense which, does tell about how the individual should act and another is the eschatological which, is where everything is going ultimately, and the final is regarding Christ Himself, Who is of course the Savior and indisputably the perfect Man. I do not see how an archetypical reading does not comport well with these.
Genesis flood account uses language more ancient than Gilgamesh. Thus ancient and authentic beyond Gilgamesh "novel".
What language are you talking about?
@@AurorXZ in Hebrew it uses archaic words that mean twisting another 7 days (like quipu) and the word for ark. Gilgamesh uses more recent words for ship.
@@jimgillert20 Wow
@@jimgillert20 What academic paper can I read this in?
@@AurorXZ my sources are Dr Irving Finkels works on translating cuneiform for ship (coracle). And Strongs translates the Hebrew for twisting.