Paul, I read your blog, so I came here expecting fun analysis rooted in solid scholarship, and I wasn't disappointed. But I have to say: the visuals and production values here are great! Usually when someone "branches out" into video, it takes some time to get up to speed with the medium, but this looks and sounds as professional as the writing! It really adds to the clarity and visual appeal of what you're saying. Well done.
Came here from your appearance on MythVision. My goodness what an amazing video and what a GEM of a channel this is!!! Only thing that is sad is that this amazing video with its AMAZING editing and clear presented information only has 4K views. Instant like and subscription I hope more will do the same. Good day Paul.
This was good for a regular non scholar like myself to understand what I never really understood -but had vague confused wonderings about since Sunday school. Thank you
Hi, thanks for putting together this video it was very clear and informative. I was surprised you didn't mention Friedman's book "The Bible with Sources Revealed" that introduces and translates the Torah with the sources color-coded. It's really useful for further exploring this understanding of the text.
Thanks for the comment. Yeah, Friedman's book is a good recommendation especially for those who are new to the documentary hypothesis. I leaned more heavily on Carr's book because of his focus on Genesis and the process by which the sources were combined.
@@InquisitiveBible Thanks for clarifying, I am new to studying the DH, myself, so I'm looking for any suggestions on the best approaches to the scholarship.
Kudos. I used to say I believe in a Supplementary-NOT documentary-hypothesis-but your video makes it looks like it might be a distinction without far too many material differences. I'll however maintain that the non-P source account wasn't pre-Exilic-as the older Documentary theories claim-but was one stream from a common Mesopotamian source. Studying Michael Heiser's literature on the Flood & Gen 6: 1-4 has revealed that Enochic pseudigraphia & the book of Jubilees (together with Gen 6) are 3 independent Jewish takes on the same-type of Jewish revisionist inversion of Mesopotamian peri-diluvian plotlines. My point is that I'm willing to believe the "J" and P sources are an analogous example of multiple streams of the same Jewish-Revisionist/supercessionist reimagining of Mesopotamian theology. The difference between Divine names may be more of a stylistic incidental choice-without theological intent-that much weight shouldn't be placed on. Similar caution with "theological interests/problems"-it is likely just be an incidental feature that Yahweh happens to have less frequent raw-emotional/anthropomorphic actions in Priestly. Rabbinic & Early-Medieval Judaism still retained a very-much embodied & anthropomorphic God-therefore assigning such theological evolution to P is illogical
Thanks for the comment. The text transcript is linked in the description, but I don't have an audio version without music. I'm trying to improve my audio quality and the sound mix for future videos.
Help pleeeeeeease!! So when you compared the J and P source through Gensis 6:8-9 it is yahweh in verse 8 and Elohim in verse 9. But in every translation of the bible that I took a look on my app it does not use these 2 names. It instead uses the term Lord in verse 8 and God in verse 9. What translation of the bible can I read to see what you are reading in the video?
Thanks for the comment. Almost every English Bible hides these differences. In general, if an English Bible says "God", the Hebrew is probably Elohim, El, or Eloah. If it says "LORD" with small capitals, the underlying Hebrew says YHWH (Yahweh). The only translation I know that preserves the distinction is the Jerusalem Bible, which says “Yahweh” wherever the Hebrew uses YHWH.
@@InquisitiveBible Thank you so much for clearing that up for me! I’ve watched this video like 3 times because it’s so damn good and I seem to learn at least some small new detail every time!
The Jerusalem Bible, if you can find it, translates Elohim as "God" and YHWH as "Yahweh". It also preserves some other names, like El Shaddai and Elyon. It's not in print any more, so you would have to get a used one.
There is a complete and detailed paper that supports this video on "thetorah" A Textual Study of Noah’s Flood by Project tabs I would post a link but it will be deleted.
You're wonderful!! You cut out the prejudiced anti-religion vitriol of Mythvision & go straight for the meat of hard data. It was interesting to learn about the Adam-Utnapishtim connection. What's more, you study more meticulously with far more reasonable opinions than Gnostic informant & other non-scholar UA-camrs (becoming more & more difficult to distinguish you from a real scholar)
Thanks for the nice comment. My purpose with this channel is simply to learn about the Bible and share that journey with other people. It's for believers (of any religion) and non-believers alike.
@@BasedKungFu I simply don't waste my time on mythvision, unless they're interviewing serious history academics. Your lack of selectivity in choosing mythvision videos says more about your erudition & lack of the quality that brings me here
Ah, Van Seters. That brings back memories of first semester freshman year at Chapel Hill. Everyone's parents were sort of worried that we were going to lose or faith after taking him, sort of like Bart Ehrman who followed him, whom they love/hate in the land of the NCAA runner's up in basketball. Now it seems like old hat but back then it was like, what's with all of these letters and different writers and it makes perfect sense to me as do a lot of the things related to the Old Testament which well, not like you of course but I read straight through the entire Protestant Bible cover to cover and then by the best chronology of the time. I have found that making it through even once, marks someone as a scholar compared to most Protestants. We never read the Catholic apocrypha which basically didn't exist for us as scripture so that's a real gap in my background and there's a really sharp sort of a division without those books because those seem to be the years most influenced by offshoots of Indo-Iranian monotheism. We were told in school growing up that monotheism was a great achievement of the Jews but now I note that like most things, it seems they were copying the Persians and the Egyptians. One of my interests is linguistic evidence to follow "history" and this mostly means the Indo-European groups and the idea of Iran being one has sort of been lost over time and via script changes and because the Jews and Christians claim to have created all of these concepts, many if not most lost in the Judaism that survived but basically after the exile, one might say that Cyrus invented Judaism and derivatively Christianity which meld with Roman ways of local organization to eclipse the other religions, sort of the IBM of religions. Also as part of this, I love for people who can grow heavy beards, well the males anyway and this is also linked to several genes involving baldness and perhaps testosterone levels. But while these folks tend to be either Semitic or Indo-European speaking, why do some of these bearded, lighter-skinned men (nothing racial, just observational) derive from? Could there have been Berber-speaking sub-straights that were in Egypt and this placed when agriculture made Egypt the "it" sort of place? The language that takes hold and that "wins" is not always that of the last dominant group but some times it is. So the Gothic peoples first lost their languages in spite of conquering most of the Roman empire into North Africa but Latin held firm and it was one somewhat close language losing to a contemporary group but then Islam destroyed most of the Greek culture in the Eastern Roman Empire and came pretty close to eradicate Christianity stopped by the people in the Balkans and Austria quite late while the threat in Spain and France was largely extinguished by say 1,000 AD. Greeks abhorred circumcision and it was close to being the most important topic in the N.T. and modern Christians essentially pass over these verses having no idea why they are so "earthy" and it's like, "why does this matter?" But circumcision seems to crop up again with Islam supporting it and many Christians now almost seem to believe the opposite about Christianity in the U.S. and maybe Canada as opposed to Europe where it was largely not done except by Arabs at the school in France that I attended. Your writings always make me want to read more and they relate to many of my interests. How about more things on hair, beauty and the Goddess ideal in the lands of the bearded ones prior to AD 370 maybe? The Bible has many "hair" verses which used to antagonize me because they went against the religion of my fathers, George, Paul, Ringo and John. They got me into Buddhism which is also Indo-European and right where the bearded ones seem to stop and meld with the Asiatic peoples. Why not Hinduism? Americans don't like the caste system which did not bother George so many of us chose the next closest thing. Buddhism appears to arise more peacefully via apostles and trade routes but without the mass killings among the bearded ones related to religion. The Mediterranean "male" gods seem to vary much more than the female gods which are usually either mother, fertility or love goddess, sometimes overlapping. It seems difficult to bridge El, but much less so than Yahweh while Astarte, Ishtar (famous movie!) and Asherah all seem linked to Aphrodite but the ones of most interest to me now are Dione, Selene, Hecate and well, all Venus and Aphrodite all of the time. I am probably your biggest fanboy which is why I write so much. You have an amazing style and mind and you look for links and bridges that have helped me crystallize a lot of this in my mind and gotten me partially back to the Church. I hope you are working on some things to post soon but some times you have to wait for the Breath of God to descend. Of course, anything linking Mater Dei to that slew of goddesses is welcome and anything related to dark goddesses and Celtic goddesses is fascinating since we know so little.
I find the conclusion of two sources for the Biblical flood story interesting, however I do have my doubts on it. Those ancient narratives often repeated details, to remind the listener/reader of important details. Also, from a careful reading, you can easily explain the supposed contradictions. I'll give a example of a supposed contradiction, the duration of the flood: 40 days is referring to the rain, while 150 days is referring to the floodwaters. Obviously, I am no scholar here, but I think the idea of a single narrative is also possible.
Thanks for the comment, GamePlayerZ. That has always been a possibility, and something some scholars have argued for - especially during the earlier periods of biblical scholarship. And there are other passages where doublets are intentional by the author. (An example would be the two miraculous feedings in the Gospel of Mark.) In the case of the flood story, there are additional factors that make the two-source hypothesis so compelling - to the point where it is a near-universal consensus in the field. (1) Fundamental differences in vocabulary align closely with the two sources. (2) Fundamental differences in theology align closely with the two sources. (3) You cannot create a coherent chronology that matches all the dates in the text unless you separate it into (at least) two different timelines. (I explain these in the follow-up video.) (4) The same two-source pattern with distinguishable terminology and theology is found in other passages, like the creation story and the plagues of Egypt. At the end of the day, all possibilities are on the table. The main question to ask is, does this hypothesis explain the state of the biblical text, or do we need a better one?
@@InquisitiveBible yes, all possibilities are on the table. Who knows, maybe one day someone finds a "new" copy of the Biblical flood story. The Dead Sea Scrolls already gave some interesting variations, like the sacrifice happening inside the Ark, rather than after Noah leaves it.
Chronologically, that isn't plausible. The Gilgamesh flood story and its predecessors, the Atra-hasis story and the Sumerian flood story, go back to the early First Dynasty in Babylon, several hundred years before Moses would have lived (if he were a historical figure).
@@InquisitiveBible fair comment.. But I declare to you so when the appointed day breaks all & the eternal books are opened - Moses was commanded to write things shown him that were, that are, & beyond the worlds even time itself : it is written : "ensure to diligently make everything according to the pattern I show thee" - only those that are given ears will hear EX 24.4 / 25.40
@@NZCLUB_reals I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Chronologically, the Sumerian and Babylonian flood tablets are older than Moses. It is abundantly evident, even to conservative scholars, that the Genesis flood story borrows from them.
@@InquisitiveBible I know sir, for fact the God of Moses existed long before even time itself was created - Moses was instructed to write everything shown him including the bloodline of Adam thru Noah - From Noah the tribes of all the earth descended possibly the Sumerians also because its reasonable to suggest any ancient physical evidence has to be POST-FLOOD due to the cataclysmic effects as described in Genesis no matter what you believe i.e. "the fountains of The Great Deep exploded up" - levelling everything. Hence the "Table of Nations" in Genesis is an astounding record. highly recommend it - you too may be fascinated by the sheer detail it doesn't come across as something of fairytales at all.
The flood is a fact. It was recorded by survivors in every zone of the Northern Hemisphere. It was brought about by a huge comet impact in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar, in the third millennium BC, leaving the 30 km wide Burckle Crater under the sea. The massive flood silt was discovered in the excavations of Ur by Woolley in the 1920s. It was not localised. The Ark has been found, or more its wreck has, miraculously preserved in two places in eastern Turkey, on Ararat and the other near it. It is not a story it is real. Noahs wife's grave was found. She was sixteen feet tall. She was a queen. Noah was a king. Forget about Gilgamesh, it was much later.
None of these claims hold up under scrutiny, Bruce. Let me explain why. Claim 1: “Noah’s flood was recorded by survivors in every zone of the Northern Hemisphere.” Civilizations throughout the world continued their lives uninterrupted during the mid-third millennium without recording any flood. Furthermore, your claim as worded contradicts the biblical story, since Noah’s flood left no survivors. The flood traditions of Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Ugarit, Hatti, and Israel can all be traced back to the Sumerian original. They're not independent survivor stories. Claim 2: “Noah’s flood was caused by a comet impact in the Indian Ocean (Burckle Crater).” I looked into this. It turns out, no such crater has been discovered. A comet impact has been hypothesized by one researcher on the basis of disputed evidence for a prehistoric tsunami in Madagascar and Australia. Even if such an impact did happen, it did not inundate the world, but only the Indian Ocean coastline. The biblical account is also clear that rain was responsible for causing water to rise above the tops of the tallest mountains. By the way, don’t creationists nowadays claim that there was only one super-continent before the flood? Can’t have a comet hit the Indian Ocean if there’s no Indian Ocean. Claim 3: Evidence for a flood in Ur that “was not localised”. Geological evidence shows that the Persian Gulf expanded significantly between 6000 and 3000 BCE, submerging many inhabited areas, which could have inspired local flood myths. In the 1920s, Woolley found some evidence for local flooding in Ur and promoted the idea that he had discovered the remains of Noah’s flood. However, his interpretation is not backed by the evidence, which shows that there were several localized floods at different times in ancient Sumer. Any of them could have played a part in inspiring the Sumerian flood legend. (See Harriet Crawford, *Ur: City of the Moon God*, especially pp. 22-24.) Anyway, it seems very strange to cite flooding in one very specific location as evidence the flood was not localized. Claim 4: “The Ark has been found on Mt. Ararat.” There have been countless claims and legends about discovering the Ark over the past century or two. None have been verified, and no useful evidence has ever been provided. Furthermore, these claims are based on a misreading of Genesis, which states that the Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat. Ararat is the Hebrew name of Urartu, a region that corresponds to northern Iraq. Mount Ararat in Turkey was incorrectly named and associated with the biblical story only in the Middle Ages. Claim 5: “Noahs wife's grave was found. She was sixteen feet tall.” Without some really good evidence, there's no reason to address this claim.
Haha. I actually tried searching for a source of the claim that Noah had a sixteen-foot wife, but I couldn't find anything useful, and Bruce doesn't appear to be forthcoming on his sources. However, "ancient giants" are kind of a popular conspiracy theory these days, so I'll probably have to address it in a Nephilim video eventually.
@@InquisitiveBibleNoah’s ark is in Kentucky, Ken Ham found it and now it’s a tourist attraction. I can’t wait till they discover where Steven Spielberg hid the ark of the covenant in that big warehouse, it’s probably next to Noah’s giant wife.
Paul, I read your blog, so I came here expecting fun analysis rooted in solid scholarship, and I wasn't disappointed. But I have to say: the visuals and production values here are great! Usually when someone "branches out" into video, it takes some time to get up to speed with the medium, but this looks and sounds as professional as the writing! It really adds to the clarity and visual appeal of what you're saying. Well done.
Thanks. I worked in graphic design long ago, so I was able to lean on my Photoshop skills quite a bit.
I agree. The blog has amazing content and this brings it alive in a really helpful way. The dynamic highlighting in the passages is especially nice.
Agreed! I'm trying to learn from Paul.
Came here from your appearance on MythVision. My goodness what an amazing video and what a GEM of a channel this is!!! Only thing that is sad is that this amazing video with its AMAZING editing and clear presented information only has 4K views. Instant like and subscription I hope more will do the same. Good day Paul.
Thanks for the nice words!
Which video did he appear on
This was good for a regular non scholar like myself to understand what I never really understood -but had vague confused wonderings about since Sunday school. Thank you
Thanks, Miriam.
First episode shows this channel has a promising future, glad to be here from the begining.
Awesome video and awesome channel. Cant wait for more!
Excellent video. Your style is easy to follow. Thank you for your work
Thanks for the nice comment, Cyndi.
The soundtrack adds a movie/anime feel to the already exciting nerdy adventure 😁-kudos😊
Hi, thanks for putting together this video it was very clear and informative. I was surprised you didn't mention Friedman's book "The Bible with Sources Revealed" that introduces and translates the Torah with the sources color-coded. It's really useful for further exploring this understanding of the text.
Thanks for the comment. Yeah, Friedman's book is a good recommendation especially for those who are new to the documentary hypothesis. I leaned more heavily on Carr's book because of his focus on Genesis and the process by which the sources were combined.
@@InquisitiveBible Thanks for clarifying, I am new to studying the DH, myself, so I'm looking for any suggestions on the best approaches to the scholarship.
I love your blog, so I'm thrilled to subscribe to this.
Brilliant!! Commenting for the algorithm
Kudos. I used to say I believe in a Supplementary-NOT documentary-hypothesis-but your video makes it looks like it might be a distinction without far too many material differences. I'll however maintain that the non-P source account wasn't pre-Exilic-as the older Documentary theories claim-but was one stream from a common Mesopotamian source.
Studying Michael Heiser's literature on the Flood & Gen 6: 1-4 has revealed that Enochic pseudigraphia & the book of Jubilees (together with Gen 6) are 3 independent Jewish takes on the same-type of Jewish revisionist inversion of Mesopotamian peri-diluvian plotlines.
My point is that I'm willing to believe the "J" and P sources are an analogous example of multiple streams of the same Jewish-Revisionist/supercessionist reimagining of Mesopotamian theology.
The difference between Divine names may be more of a stylistic incidental choice-without theological intent-that much weight shouldn't be placed on. Similar caution with "theological interests/problems"-it is likely just be an incidental feature that Yahweh happens to have less frequent raw-emotional/anthropomorphic actions in Priestly.
Rabbinic & Early-Medieval Judaism still retained a very-much embodied & anthropomorphic God-therefore assigning such theological evolution to P is illogical
Sent by Mythvision. I shall be binge watching the rest of the videos.
Which video was he mentioned on. Is it the latest yahweh origins video
Is this material available without music. The music is a distraction to great lessons
Thanks for the comment. The text transcript is linked in the description, but I don't have an audio version without music. I'm trying to improve my audio quality and the sound mix for future videos.
Great video. Scratches an itch nothing else scratches.
Help pleeeeeeease!! So when you compared the J and P source through Gensis 6:8-9 it is yahweh in verse 8 and Elohim in verse 9. But in every translation of the bible that I took a look on my app it does not use these 2 names. It instead uses the term Lord in verse 8 and God in verse 9. What translation of the bible can I read to see what you are reading in the video?
Thanks for the comment. Almost every English Bible hides these differences. In general, if an English Bible says "God", the Hebrew is probably Elohim, El, or Eloah. If it says "LORD" with small capitals, the underlying Hebrew says YHWH (Yahweh).
The only translation I know that preserves the distinction is the Jerusalem Bible, which says “Yahweh” wherever the Hebrew uses YHWH.
@@InquisitiveBible Thank you so much for clearing that up for me! I’ve watched this video like 3 times because it’s so damn good and I seem to learn at least some small new detail every time!
Is there an English bible translation youd recommend? One that would use "yahweh" or "elohim" as opposed to "god" or "lord"
The Jerusalem Bible, if you can find it, translates Elohim as "God" and YHWH as "Yahweh". It also preserves some other names, like El Shaddai and Elyon. It's not in print any more, so you would have to get a used one.
There is a complete and detailed paper that supports this video on "thetorah"
A Textual Study of Noah’s Flood by Project tabs
I would post a link but it will be deleted.
Very informative video.
This is great!
Thanks for the comment, sev.
very well done!
You're wonderful!! You cut out the prejudiced anti-religion vitriol of Mythvision & go straight for the meat of hard data. It was interesting to learn about the Adam-Utnapishtim connection.
What's more, you study more meticulously with far more reasonable opinions than Gnostic informant & other non-scholar UA-camrs (becoming more & more difficult to distinguish you from a real scholar)
Thanks for the nice comment. My purpose with this channel is simply to learn about the Bible and share that journey with other people. It's for believers (of any religion) and non-believers alike.
Mythvision is 🔥🔥🔥, quit crying.
@@BasedKungFu I simply don't waste my time on mythvision, unless they're interviewing serious history academics. Your lack of selectivity in choosing mythvision videos says more about your erudition & lack of the quality that brings me here
@@tsemayekekema2918 "unless they're interviewing serious history academics"
Which is all the time. The channel is chock-full of great academics.
Ahem. re: 12:08, MT Gen 6:6 uses "ba-Arets" not "ha-adamah."
this is fantastic keep up the good work!
music bckground is not necessary
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it!
Ah, Van Seters. That brings back memories of first semester freshman year at Chapel Hill. Everyone's parents were sort of worried that we were going to lose or faith after taking him, sort of like Bart Ehrman who followed him, whom they love/hate in the land of the NCAA runner's up in basketball. Now it seems like old hat but back then it was like, what's with all of these letters and different writers and it makes perfect sense to me as do a lot of the things related to the Old Testament which well, not like you of course but I read straight through the entire Protestant Bible cover to cover and then by the best chronology of the time. I have found that making it through even once, marks someone as a scholar compared to most Protestants. We never read the Catholic apocrypha which basically didn't exist for us as scripture so that's a real gap in my background and there's a really sharp sort of a division without those books because those seem to be the years most influenced by offshoots of Indo-Iranian monotheism. We were told in school growing up that monotheism was a great achievement of the Jews but now I note that like most things, it seems they were copying the Persians and the Egyptians.
One of my interests is linguistic evidence to follow "history" and this mostly means the Indo-European groups and the idea of Iran being one has sort of been lost over time and via script changes and because the Jews and Christians claim to have created all of these concepts, many if not most lost in the Judaism that survived but basically after the exile, one might say that Cyrus invented Judaism and derivatively Christianity which meld with Roman ways of local organization to eclipse the other religions, sort of the IBM of religions.
Also as part of this, I love for people who can grow heavy beards, well the males anyway and this is also linked to several genes involving baldness and perhaps testosterone levels. But while these folks tend to be either Semitic or Indo-European speaking, why do some of these bearded, lighter-skinned men (nothing racial, just observational) derive from? Could there have been Berber-speaking sub-straights that were in Egypt and this placed when agriculture made Egypt the "it" sort of place? The language that takes hold and that "wins" is not always that of the last dominant group but some times it is. So the Gothic peoples first lost their languages in spite of conquering most of the Roman empire into North Africa but Latin held firm and it was one somewhat close language losing to a contemporary group but then Islam destroyed most of the Greek culture in the Eastern Roman Empire and came pretty close to eradicate Christianity stopped by the people in the Balkans and Austria quite late while the threat in Spain and France was largely extinguished by say 1,000 AD.
Greeks abhorred circumcision and it was close to being the most important topic in the N.T. and modern Christians essentially pass over these verses having no idea why they are so "earthy" and it's like, "why does this matter?" But circumcision seems to crop up again with Islam supporting it and many Christians now almost seem to believe the opposite about Christianity in the U.S. and maybe Canada as opposed to Europe where it was largely not done except by Arabs at the school in France that I attended.
Your writings always make me want to read more and they relate to many of my interests. How about more things on hair, beauty and the Goddess ideal in the lands of the bearded ones prior to AD 370 maybe? The Bible has many "hair" verses which used to antagonize me because they went against the religion of my fathers, George, Paul, Ringo and John. They got me into Buddhism which is also Indo-European and right where the bearded ones seem to stop and meld with the Asiatic peoples. Why not Hinduism? Americans don't like the caste system which did not bother George so many of us chose the next closest thing. Buddhism appears to arise more peacefully via apostles and trade routes but without the mass killings among the bearded ones related to religion.
The Mediterranean "male" gods seem to vary much more than the female gods which are usually either mother, fertility or love goddess, sometimes overlapping. It seems difficult to bridge El, but much less so than Yahweh while Astarte, Ishtar (famous movie!) and Asherah all seem linked to Aphrodite but the ones of most interest to me now are Dione, Selene, Hecate and well, all Venus and Aphrodite all of the time. I am probably your biggest fanboy which is why I write so much. You have an amazing style and mind and you look for links and bridges that have helped me crystallize a lot of this in my mind and gotten me partially back to the Church.
I hope you are working on some things to post soon but some times you have to wait for the Breath of God to descend. Of course, anything linking Mater Dei to that slew of goddesses is welcome and anything related to dark goddesses and Celtic goddesses is fascinating since we know so little.
I find the conclusion of two sources for the Biblical flood story interesting, however I do have my doubts on it.
Those ancient narratives often repeated details, to remind the listener/reader of important details. Also, from a careful reading, you can easily explain the supposed contradictions. I'll give a example of a supposed contradiction, the duration of the flood: 40 days is referring to the rain, while 150 days is referring to the floodwaters.
Obviously, I am no scholar here, but I think the idea of a single narrative is also possible.
Thanks for the comment, GamePlayerZ. That has always been a possibility, and something some scholars have argued for - especially during the earlier periods of biblical scholarship. And there are other passages where doublets are intentional by the author. (An example would be the two miraculous feedings in the Gospel of Mark.)
In the case of the flood story, there are additional factors that make the two-source hypothesis so compelling - to the point where it is a near-universal consensus in the field. (1) Fundamental differences in vocabulary align closely with the two sources. (2) Fundamental differences in theology align closely with the two sources. (3) You cannot create a coherent chronology that matches all the dates in the text unless you separate it into (at least) two different timelines. (I explain these in the follow-up video.) (4) The same two-source pattern with distinguishable terminology and theology is found in other passages, like the creation story and the plagues of Egypt.
At the end of the day, all possibilities are on the table. The main question to ask is, does this hypothesis explain the state of the biblical text, or do we need a better one?
@@InquisitiveBible yes, all possibilities are on the table.
Who knows, maybe one day someone finds a "new" copy of the Biblical flood story. The Dead Sea Scrolls already gave some interesting variations, like the sacrifice happening inside the Ark, rather than after Noah leaves it.
Is bible story false???
The biblical flood is not a historical event, but whether the story is “true” or “false” depends on what you want to get out of it.
At best a local flood. No global flood has ever been found anywhere on the planet.
It's not about a literal flood of any proportions.
@@stevedyches4635 the whoke book is a farce! The flood is just evidence of that
Probably makes more since due to it was the middle east and probably of a flood of the surrounding area and not of the whole world
So Gilgamesh just copied Moses account.. Hence Jesus warned : "I AM The Truth, I AM the only Way.."
- ignore His voice at your peril.
Chronologically, that isn't plausible. The Gilgamesh flood story and its predecessors, the Atra-hasis story and the Sumerian flood story, go back to the early First Dynasty in Babylon, several hundred years before Moses would have lived (if he were a historical figure).
@@InquisitiveBible fair comment.. But I declare to you so when the appointed day breaks all & the eternal books are opened - Moses was commanded to write things shown him that were, that are, & beyond the worlds even time itself : it is written : "ensure to diligently make everything according to the pattern I show thee"
- only those that are given ears will hear
EX 24.4 / 25.40
@@NZCLUB_reals I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Chronologically, the Sumerian and Babylonian flood tablets are older than Moses. It is abundantly evident, even to conservative scholars, that the Genesis flood story borrows from them.
@@InquisitiveBible I know sir, for fact the God of Moses existed long before even time itself was created - Moses was instructed to write everything shown him including the bloodline of Adam thru Noah - From Noah the tribes of all the earth descended possibly the Sumerians also because its reasonable to suggest any ancient physical evidence has to be POST-FLOOD due to the cataclysmic effects as described in Genesis no matter what you believe i.e. "the fountains of The Great Deep exploded up" - levelling everything. Hence the "Table of Nations" in Genesis is an astounding record. highly recommend it - you too may be fascinated by the sheer detail it doesn't come across as something of fairytales at all.
The flood is a fact. It was recorded by survivors in every zone of the Northern Hemisphere. It was brought about by a huge comet impact in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar, in the third millennium BC, leaving the 30 km wide Burckle Crater under the sea. The massive flood silt was discovered in the excavations of Ur by Woolley in the 1920s. It was not localised. The Ark has been found, or more its wreck has, miraculously preserved in two places in eastern Turkey, on Ararat and the other near it. It is not a story it is real. Noahs wife's grave was found. She was sixteen feet tall. She was a queen. Noah was a king. Forget about Gilgamesh, it was much later.
None of these claims hold up under scrutiny, Bruce. Let me explain why.
Claim 1: “Noah’s flood was recorded by survivors in every zone of the Northern Hemisphere.”
Civilizations throughout the world continued their lives uninterrupted during the mid-third millennium without recording any flood. Furthermore, your claim as worded contradicts the biblical story, since Noah’s flood left no survivors.
The flood traditions of Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Ugarit, Hatti, and Israel can all be traced back to the Sumerian original. They're not independent survivor stories.
Claim 2: “Noah’s flood was caused by a comet impact in the Indian Ocean (Burckle Crater).”
I looked into this. It turns out, no such crater has been discovered. A comet impact has been hypothesized by one researcher on the basis of disputed evidence for a prehistoric tsunami in Madagascar and Australia. Even if such an impact did happen, it did not inundate the world, but only the Indian Ocean coastline. The biblical account is also clear that rain was responsible for causing water to rise above the tops of the tallest mountains.
By the way, don’t creationists nowadays claim that there was only one super-continent before the flood? Can’t have a comet hit the Indian Ocean if there’s no Indian Ocean.
Claim 3: Evidence for a flood in Ur that “was not localised”.
Geological evidence shows that the Persian Gulf expanded significantly between 6000 and 3000 BCE, submerging many inhabited areas, which could have inspired local flood myths. In the 1920s, Woolley found some evidence for local flooding in Ur and promoted the idea that he had discovered the remains of Noah’s flood. However, his interpretation is not backed by the evidence, which shows that there were several localized floods at different times in ancient Sumer. Any of them could have played a part in inspiring the Sumerian flood legend. (See Harriet Crawford, *Ur: City of the Moon God*, especially pp. 22-24.)
Anyway, it seems very strange to cite flooding in one very specific location as evidence the flood was not localized.
Claim 4: “The Ark has been found on Mt. Ararat.”
There have been countless claims and legends about discovering the Ark over the past century or two. None have been verified, and no useful evidence has ever been provided. Furthermore, these claims are based on a misreading of Genesis, which states that the Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat. Ararat is the Hebrew name of Urartu, a region that corresponds to northern Iraq. Mount Ararat in Turkey was incorrectly named and associated with the biblical story only in the Middle Ages.
Claim 5: “Noahs wife's grave was found. She was sixteen feet tall.”
Without some really good evidence, there's no reason to address this claim.
@@InquisitiveBible Damn, I was hoping you would explain how a 16 foot wife can't be real 🤣
Haha. I actually tried searching for a source of the claim that Noah had a sixteen-foot wife, but I couldn't find anything useful, and Bruce doesn't appear to be forthcoming on his sources. However, "ancient giants" are kind of a popular conspiracy theory these days, so I'll probably have to address it in a Nephilim video eventually.
@@InquisitiveBibleNoah’s ark is in Kentucky, Ken Ham found it and now it’s a tourist attraction. I can’t wait till they discover where Steven Spielberg hid the ark of the covenant in that big warehouse, it’s probably next to Noah’s giant wife.