Are There Two Flood Stories in Genesis? 

@@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?

Wow you were so smart, what a genius child you were. What have you gone on to accomplish with your superior intellect?

@@Sehon13Ultd Appeal to ridicule, try again. (I annoy internet trolls by pointing out their fallacies.)

@@acem82 Wow, I’m impressed you have such an expansive knowledge of fallacies. What have you gone on to accomplish with your superior intellect?

@@Sehon13Ultd A good wife, 2 beautiful children, and the knowledge that it's not a great intellect that's worth bragging about, but only the Son of God, crucified, dead, buried, and risen again! My sins are forgiven! Not because of who I am or what I've done, but in spite of it, because of who he is and what he's done! All praise to him, both now and forevermore!

@@acem82 if it’s not worth bragging about intellect, then why did you do exactly that?

But it's not the word of god. It's written by men.

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. :)

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

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.

Just curious, but is it the Oxford Study Bible (1885RV) or New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV)?

@@mr.starfish4965 new oxford annotated NRSV

J Cc

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.

@@fordprefect5304 I really don't pay attention to the Noah story. For all I know Abraham could of learned one story from his elders in Ur then passed it on. Eventually when the Israelites were captured and taken to Babylon, they heard a similar story. There they tried to put both together. There isn't need for a full P and J to exist. As for the mana and quail of Exodus (ch. 16) and in Numbers (ch. 11) I show that they are the same event in my Exodus video. Proved by there being only one event in Psalms 78, 105 and 106. And that was before they reach Mt. Sinai. But it you think the Bible is just made up in 6th Century Babylon it doesn't matter what is said in Psalms. I also think the attack by king Arad is at the wrong time Num. 21:1. It should be during the spy mission into the Negev in the second year. The Num. 33 list of camps may not be complete. No name is listed twice even though several were camped at twice. They may be missing or another name was substituted.

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 !

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?

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.

That is a false dichotomy. You can reject the DH and not think Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

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.

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.

The clean/unclean distinction could have existed for a long time prior to being formally codified (perhaps even revealed prior to the fall) and the law just reiterated what was already being practiced. The knowledge and practice could have become less common after the time spent in Egypt which may have been the reason that it became necessary to write it down.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

Do it!

the B source power level is too powerful to be discussed

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?

@@lukecox6317 It's not just based on the names. It was also originally based on other word choices, other matters of linguistic style & language evolution, distinct and sometimes contradictory sets of symbolism, theme & imagery, and occasional plot contradictions like when he tried to kill Moses right after telling him what big plans he had for him (and failed because he got stopped by a woman throwing a magic foreskin at him). In the years since the idea was first published, we can also now add archeological finds and the writings of the Hebrews' close cousins who were still around in the Bronze Age and Iron Age and spoke & wrote almost the same language and believed in & worshipped the same pantheon of gods (just like how, for example, the people who spoke the closely related languages Old English & Old Norse also had versions of the same religion with versions of the same gods: Tiwaz/Tues/Tyr, Woden/Weden/Odin, Thur/Thor, Friya/Frig). Taking everything into account together, it becomes clear that the Northwest Semitic people (the family including Hebrews and others like the Canaanites) were originally polytheistic, with El as the king/patriarch of the gods and Yahweh as one of his 70 or 72 children. Different tribes or cities often had their own favorite one of them, and Yahweh was particularly favored in the south and among nomadic tribes, while El was more favored in the wealthy & powerful cities in the north, particularly Ugarit. One part of how you can still see this distinction in the Old Testament is that El is said to live in a great mansion/palace (the prevalent idea of how a king should be to people in a rich & powerful city), while Yahweh is said to live in a tent (nomads' idea of how their own tribe's particular patron god should be). Some time after the nomads settled in the south, both kingdoms started shrinking their god count. When they got it down to just El and Yahweh, neither side could win and get the other to switch over, so they started acting like those were the same character with different names. That meant some older stories which made the distinction clearer had to be changed or dropped, but a few bits & pieces of the original concepts still snuck through, like the mansion/tent thing. This mish-mash of what started as multiple gods or concepts of how to conceive of a god would also explain other aspects of how they are presented in the Old Testament, like when he switches multiple times in Genesis & Exodus between being too dangerous to look at or listen to so people need to stay far away or avert their eyes or such (even giving Moses's face a permanent sunburn/glow which he spent the rest of his life covering with a veil), to having nothing in particular noted about his voice or appearance as if he were just another person walking around on the ground like us, to turning into a volcano for a while. Other parts of the Old Testament also mention the other gods in ways that acknowledge their existence (such as Chemosh/Khemosh, who actually defeated God in battle in the second book of Kings) and talk about what a struggle it was to get the people of Israel to quit worshipping their other gods, particularly Baal and Asherah. That included installing an asherah pole in the Temple at Jerusalem, which a monotheist (I think Sampson or Solomon) had to drag out. Other Bible verses depict God as one member of a council of the gods. Sometimes, when you're trying to edit lots & lots of writing, especially without a computer, you miss a few little details. Other stuff outside the Bible clears up what's behind these odd scattered fragments of older ideas left in the Bible. Artifacts written in Hebrew identify their owners with Hebrew names and state which of several different gods they're devotees of. Sometimes Yahweh and Asherah are mentioned together as a pair, and there are temples with two altars and two incense burners, one for each of them. There are writings and paintings depicting a trio of gods (whether as the only ones left or as just the main most important ones): Yahweh, Asherah, and Baal, the last ones that the Bible tells us the monotheists still needed to try to get rid of. But my favorite bit is from the texts that were found at Ugarit. It describes El, the king/patriarch of the gods and leader of the divine council, dividing up the world into pieces for the lower gods, including Yahweh, to each rule their own piece. Yahweh's assigned piece was the Hebrews. Not only does this pretty clearly demonstrate that they were originally two separate characters in the pantheon because one of them is giving the other one orders, but it even makes sense out of the "big picture" of much of late Genesis and pretty much the whole book of Exodus, which never made sense on its own. God spends that whole time begging & pleading with this one little tribe to let him be their patron god. There's no way the sole god and creator of the universe would act like that, but it fits together perfectly in light of the Ugaritic texts: late Genesis and Exodus were the story of how Yahweh went about carrying out & following his king's orders! So, bottom line: the documentary hypothesis, and the similar but slightly competing "fragmentary" and "supplementary" models, are all versions of the same general concept of fusion of multiple sources in one way or another, and they started out as a broad-scoped, multi-faceted, "internal" assessment of what was written in the Old Testament itself, but these days it's hard to talk about them without fleshing it all out more with some stuff that got excluded from the Bible too.

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

@@fordprefect5304 so when do you think these authors wrote this and more importantly Leaving aside the question of miracles which obviously can’t be proven and are a matter of faith,do you think they made up the story of the patriarchal period and the slavery and eventually the exodus from Egypt to Canaan?

@@fordprefect5304 Thanks for your response.Let’s be objective for a moment.The phrase “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm “ is a phrase found in Egyptian infrastructure works dated to somewhere between 1200 and 1500 bc.Every time that the pharaoh did something meaningful this expression is used.This is the exact expression used in The Torah in describing God’s actions during the exodus period.(thanks Joshua Berman)It is not used in the Torah outside of this timeframe.It is part of the Passover Seder to this day.So if you say the authors made up the myth how did the authors know of this phrase,and how did they know to only use it in the Torah portion relating to the exodus and nowhere else.I want to be very precise and limited in what I am saying, it is extremely unlikely that what huge swaths of the Torah were written in the period 500 to 700 bc.The language belies a far older period much closer to the events themselves.There are many more examples but I don’t want to bore you.

@@fordprefect5304 you think that the Israelites never were in Egypt.For 35 dollars on EBay you can buy a replica of the Brooklyn papyrus.I have one .It was dug out of the ground.The best kind of proof.It lists 95 slaves belonging to one Egyptian slave master.I can see shifra,feminized versions of menachem,yakov(Jacob).other Hebrew names.I keep it handy in my house when I have family and guests over and they tell me they were no Hebrew slaves in Egypt.Here are the facts, Archaeological evidence shows there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt. We have proof of an Israelite nation some time later. So relax,the archeological evidence is still being discovered.So far,the 30 Thousand clay tablets dug out of the ground at Mari,Ebla,and nuzi in Syria and Iraq have strengthened the authenticity of the patriarchal period. I am sure that you biblical minimalists will continue to move the goalposts forward as proof after proof will be found to contradict your rather extreme positions.

Can you cite papers discussing the Burckle crater hypothesis? Specifically evidence that an impact or impacts occurred, the location(s) of the impact(s), the date of the event, and its effects on various regions? As for the _Atra-Hasis_ ("Noah") myth, that's known to have been inspired by an extreme flood along the lower Euphrates River in 2900±50 BCE. This is well documented in the archaeological record. [Citations on request]

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 RU-vid 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

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.

Thank you

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1SZZzuweVEs.htmlsi=0SjHgyhwO7kXEvb6

@@InspiringPhilosophy I'm sorry, you are under the mistaken opinion that your uneducated videos matter to me. I am actually FAR more qualified in this subject than you are

Except there is physical proof of a great flood all over the earth.

@@joeloden9466 Suppose there was definitive evidence there was never a worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years, would that be some good evidence Christianity is false?

@@joeloden9466 If there was definitive evidence there was no worldwide flood in the last 10K years, would that be some good evidence Christianity is false?

No P is P and non-p is J

lol..

Thank you