Evidence that Genesis is History and Not Myth

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I realized after I didn’t articulate the last section properly. I agree the authors of genesis did draw on early sources to compose genesis (Not a documentary hypothesis version), which is why the base-60 number system is only utilized in the early chapters of genesis. But I suspect an early form of genesis was put together around 1000 BC, which is why it is internally consistent, and they did so by drawing on lost Akkadian sources. The section on internal consistency combined with other biblical references would suggest it was put together earlier than the exile. However when it was being put together they drew from old Akkadian sources and traditions.

[@smilingarcher5093]

IP, could you try to have a conversation with Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin, not the ancient monarch) on theology? Thanks.

[@Peter-kl8jg]

Michael, now that i've been able to put a face to the voice - can I just say to you how absolutely incredible and remarkable your videos are. "Inspiring" is an understatement. I can't imagine the work you've put in to this 'online ministry' but seriously, well done to you. Keep up the good work and God bless.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

Do you think any of the info could have been given by God directly? After all, we do believe Moses was a real figure and the text says he had several occasions, face to face, with the preincarnate Christ.

[@danpaulisbitski]

IP is a great apologist but when it comes to Genesis he becomes a mental gymnastics Olympian. I agree that Genesis contains figurative and metaphorical language but largely it is a historical account. “It’s clearly using symbolic numbers because 10 people can’t all die at ages ending in 0,2,5,7,9” That is compelling argument, Not. Considering that Michael rejects the lifespans given and assumes lifespans less than the averages we see in modernity, that makes the date of the flood much more recent than 3000BC. Considering multiple cultures have dated the global flood to about 3000BC and considering all written history and civilizations ALL begin after 3000BC and spread out from the same place the Ark just happened to land, I wonder if IP has calculated the probability of that coinciding with taking the ages in Genesis at face value? Is there any evidence of even a regional flood after 2500 BC? I realize that many Christians attribute death to not being able to take from the tree of life, but scripture doesn’t make that claim. To use IP’s reasoning, am I supposed to believe that a fruit can make you live forever? Man brought death into the world from sin. The wages of sin is death. God provides everlasting life, not a fruit tree! The order of the birds argument was strange to me.I don’t see how knowing the direction of land is relevant because they had no means to maneuver the ark. The dimensions given in Genesis of the ark and the table of nations showing the lineages from the people on the Ark is a much stronger argument to support it’s authenticity. The Nephilim are the children of the fallen Angels and human women. Get over it brother. Peter and Jude make it absolutely clear without having to bring in extra biblical sources such as Enoch and mythology from cultures around the world such as the Titans. Again, I wonder what the probability of ancient Israelite literature like Enoch which is undisputedly an elaboration on Genesis 6 just happening to be completely wrong? I feel like IP is in some strange kind of denial about parts of Genesis.I can’t help but say that he is trying to make Genesis conform to secular dogma. The problem with this is that we can be almost certain that secular dogma will be overturned.IP has it bass ackwards. Trust that God inspired an accurate account of history and then look to secular sources to provide evidence for the skeptics. If it makes you feel better brother, you deserve a gold medal in mental gymnastics.I know you like to attribute criticism from YEC to misinterpretation and anger towards you and my favorite “ lacking cultural context” , but I have no hate or anger for you.I not only welcome criticism, I count on my fellow Christians to let me know if they think I’m off track. God bless you.

[@ChristianConspirator]

@@danpaulisbitski IP is scientifically illiterate. He tried to argue that Noah would freeze because the water was over the mountains even after I pointed out the ark would be at sea level.

[@Pseudoornitologist]

This is so random, but I hate that his door is open behind him. It gives me horror movie vibes 😣😱

[@winstonbarquez9538]

It would be useful to note that these stories originated in oral traditions that were later written down and perhaps consolidated in the version we have today during the exile.

[@sticky59]

Have you heard of the clay tablets ?

[@chadkincham]

They originated from Moses spending 40 days on the mountain with God, face to face.

[@peli_candude554]

Thank you for this video and I will need to watch it several times since it was a bit dry at times. A few times I found myself zoning out without the otherwise mind focusing graphics that IP usually provides but his otherwise informative offerings kept me mostly in the flow. As someone interested in the OT and the previous civilizations I have been searching for more information on both and have stumbled upon some interesting videos that I would recommend to anyone. With the caveat that they contain opinions and information that may or may not contradict other opinions and to keep an open mind... One of the more recent videos I watched and took extensive notes on was the YaleCourses series featuring Christine Hayes. It is a 24 part series and pretty much covers what IP just went through but in more detail for those interested. I'm sure there will be more from IP on this and I have watched his recent offerings on Genesis, Moses, and others. Anyway, what I wanted to say here was Christine Hayes goes into specifics about many things like the writing of Daniel being fairly recent based on current Biblical study consensus (but I think Daniel was written earlier and may have been revised but who has evidence of anything??). She also spent a bit of time explaining the sources of J, P, E, and D which were a bit of a mystery until I found that section. Essentially, J stands for Jahwey, P is Priestly, E is Elohim, and D is Deuteronomy. I won't elaborate on any of that since anyone running into it for the first time needs to dig deeper and I'm simply not qualified to elaborate. Just thought SOMEONE might like to know where to start looking for that if they don't have access to the many Books Michael uses for his research. Thank you again...for the video and allowing IP to keep going...:)

[@AtamMardes]

"When someone is fooled & indoctrinated to consider an invisible imaginary God or a glorified religious figure or a man-made book sacred & pray to, you'll constantly find motivated ignorance, dogma & mental acrobats trying to defend the sacredness."

[@peli_candude554]

@@AtamMardes Jesus wasn't imaginary or invisible during his life. Thank you and good night...

[@AtamMardes]

@@peli_candude554 No offense, but you are not saying anything intelligent. You are just parroting the made-up nonsense the religion scam has indoctrinated in you by exploiting your gullibility and emotions obviously without the benefit of your intellect and critical thinking.

[@peli_candude554]

@@AtamMardes And no offense to you either but Jesus being a real person and your claims of his life and works being a scam are nonsensical. Do you think we all go to a page like this one, grab a few sound bites and rush off to inflict others with our anger and hatred? Actually, I have posted on many atheist websites over the years and try at least to be somewhat respectful of the topics they are covering even if I disagree with the concepts. Take for instance Sabine Hossenfelder and her physics talks. I am not a physicist but I understand the basics and when she says that the multiverse theory is not science because we've never seen one and cannot prove they exist like religion. That doesn't mean they do not exist, only that we've never seen them but we have theories that fit what we see happening and so it is a belief until proven. You cannot prove God doesn't exist so your statement becomes a truth claim that you cannot possibly back up with anything other than your opinion. If you look in the mirror when you say "parroting", "exploiting", and "gullibility" you will know why I question your critical thinking and your intellect. Speaking of parroting, you have been trolling with the same post to several others on this forum and I suspect anyone who bothered to reply got the exact same post content as you just gave me. Sorry about your unhappiness in life and your need to express your inner feelings to everyone who will listen but this is not the place for getting either sympathy or anyone agreeing with you.

[@AtamMardes]

@@peli_candude554 Jesus' existence as a person and being crucified are not an extraordinary claims, but Jesus the Messiah and the resurrection of Jesus are made-up extraordinary claims. You fail to understand that the sin-sacrifice story of Jesus implies a superstitious God who values blood-sacrifice, which was common back then - e.g. sacrificing a goat for a new home. Obviously, the superstitious hoaxer Christian writers created the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples & others have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus. If Jesus had Godly powers he would still be living on earth today performing miracles for every generation to prove his Godly powers. Resurrection & ascendance to heaven is a hoax that easily fools the gullible suckers.

[@gyldandillget4813]

I cant even believe that was an hour it felt like 5 minutes, so thrilling!!!

[@bijoythewimp2854]

IP quarantine version Featues: more beard, more theology, more philosophy, more science

[@malvokaquila6768]

And minimal to zero smiles.

[@justintherhino6585]

What's the proper way to greet someone named Adam? "Hey Man!" I'll be here all week..

[@Mr.H-YT42]

"Dusty" ?

[@RichyK]

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘MADE them male and female". MIke said that Jesus was talking about the creation of marriage. Not so. He MADE them male and female, even though the context was marriage, he was saying the two of them were created and they were created as male and female.

[@NewYorkCityStreetPreachers]

In Hebrew, he spelled Seraphim backwards by mistake...it’s supposed to be read from right to left, not left to right. Minor discrepancy but awesome video regardless. Every time I see these videos I feel like there’s so much more reading that I need to do.

[@johnfoppiano7058]

Your right! There's alot more reading the whole planet needs to do my friend🙃

[@magicker8052]

@@johnfoppiano7058 or.. you can just watch an actual expert take IP apart : kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmTElKmIgc6Agrc

[@stephencastro4723]

Genesis being myth as a genre of literature doesn't mean Genesis is fictional or untrue. Street definition of myth and scholarly definition are not the same.

[@carllennen3520]

Can you elaborate more on that?

[@stephencastro4723]

@@carllennen3520 it means that Genesis is not written as an eye witness account but rather in a symbollic way. Myth in literature means to represent the world view of a culture.

[@tanner955]

I appreciate his point of view, though I wholeheartedly disagree.

[@latinmoses8417]

Are you a Christian

[@martinglennon4282]

What reasons do you have to disbelieve?

[@jeffreyeggstein329]

well i for one appreciate your positive vibes!!!!

[@tomplays334]

i don't think I've seen IP smile this much in anything he's done. Love you guys!

[@Martijnvw83]

It's always amazing to me how much you apologists have to bend and twist and contort what your scripture actually says to fit whatever your agenda you want to push. What kind of stupid God would ever come up with such a system, that requires so much pseudo intellectual gymnastics to actually fit with reality? It's mind boggling to me how you people can actually believe this nonsense.

[@richardronan6660]

Great video. But your guest thoroughly demonstrates that Genesis is indeed mostly Mythology. Misleading titles are not helpful. But I still give this a 9/10. Thanks for the work.

[@redmed10]

What makes it deserve 9/10 for you? I only ask because your comment is the only one I've found here that is even minutely critical of the video. But then you gave it an almost perfect score. Which leaves me puzzled.

[@Jim-Mc]

Ziggurats: "There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold, and she's buying a stairway to heaven."

[@aramisy.cajigas744]

Who's that? Katy Perry?

[@mxm1766]

Is there a bustle in your hedge grow?

[@shellythompson9455]

Aramis Y. Cajigas LED Zeppelin

[@aramisy.cajigas744]

@@shellythompson9455 Hahaha good one. That line reminded me of Katy Perry on the pyramid in one of her videos.

[@jeffreyeggstein329]

rippin' off bill and ted dust in the wind

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

Great Job IP on that Tedtalk. I disagree with your position but I was amazed at how natural you sounded and looked under pressure. Bravo.

[@devarim6239]

Great job? You must have no clue about scholarly works

[@porteal8986]

what's your position?

[@andrewhinson4323]

You cant simultaneously poopoo YEC asserting that Cain married his sister, because its outlawed in the LL, and then appeal to lack of law being why Abraham could eat bacon... because of a lack of law. The the prohibition against marrying ones brother or sister comes much later in human history than Cain and Abel. So by your own logic, illustrated not 20 seconds later, Cain would have done nothing wrong or sinful in marrying his sister.

[@kathyh.1720]

Don't forget that there wouldn't have been the genetic mutations that we have today. It was only one generation away, so there was no need to have any prohibition there.

[@lucasbarth6079]

Kathy H. Whoosh

[@collegepennsylvania837]

“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭53:3-12‬ ‭NLT‬‬ "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4vHp2CKqc6Aock For evidence for Christianity and answered questions, check out kzbin.info and kzbin.info because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever! God bless y’all!!

[@joshjeggs]

From Dust you came and dust you will return.

[@joshjeggs]

@Religionisevil I think that argument works against evolution because of the other supposed "sub human" species that are nowhere to be found. so its kind of funny when an evolutionist says that.

[@joshjeggs]

@Religionisevil Could you summarise how this argument was answered in the video? because I did not find relevant information in it

[@joshjeggs]

@Religionisevil to clarify, i know the video says Darwin explains in detail why, bla bla bla... but it never tells us why nor does the description on the video slide. it merely asserts the same

[@mgsgamer8340]

Exactly.

[@thiccmcchicken550]

I ligit read this as Durst like Fred Durst

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

God is holy as well.

[@JellyBellyButter]

Thanks to Randall Carlson, I’m the only atheist I know who thinks a global flood likely occurred (Younger Dryas Impact Theory). It seems to fall into the same timeline discussed here. Interesting and thorough presentation!

[@oilscience9808]

You aren't the only atheist that thinks there was a global flood by far. I've worked in the oil industry for a large portion of my life. In stratigraphy it's somewhat known to the people in the field that there is a silt layer that corresponds to around 5500 years ago in the middle East. It's uniform and all over, and indicative of a flood; well, one of the stages of deposition during and after a flood. It's not widely known outside of firsthand accounts (doesn't make it into books) because is has no productive impact (no oil). To be clear, my anecdote doesn't prove the Bible. I'm just saying that there are quite a few people, in the know, who believe that there was a great flood during the time the Bible claims that there was one, and a good portion of those people are atheist. I've seen some crazy things while punching holes in the ground looking for oil; a great flood is one of the most believable of those things. Oh, the Hebrew term used for " the whole earth" was something like "poleratz"(spelling), there are other instances that lead you to believe the Genesis writer might not of meant the entire earth was flooded. I tend to think it was the whole earth, but there is the possibility for some ambiguity in the Hebrew. Take care.

[@JellyBellyButter]

Robert Andersson-I wasn’t talking simply of meltwater pulses (1a-b) and in my circle, global flood evidence of any kind is immediately dismissed and mocked as belief in an ark.

[@devarim6239]

Lmao you are dumb as a YEC. Please, a global flood on earth is impossible

[@oilscience9808]

@@devarim6239 hmm? Impossible based on what? Isn't there more water inside of the crust of the earth than on top of the crust? That accounts for the water, therefore making it possible, maybe not probable, but at least possible. Therefore, in curious about the information you are drawing from to claim that it is "impossible". I'm trying to not be dumb, maybe you can help me out here. Take care

[@JellyBellyButter]

Vishoth 911 A global flood doesn’t mean all earth is covered in water. It simply means the flood was experienced globally. But thanks for the kind words.

[@KenAmmi-Shalom]

Jones stated, "I do not think the Nephilim were fallen angels" but virtually no one has believed that, historically, they are the offspring of the fallen Angels. Perhaps, "in the early Acadian source...sons of kings were referred to as sons of God" but most specifically in Job 38:7 the "sons of God" are most certainly not human. He also noted, "I'm not convinced that fallen angels ever had became physical and had inner relations with women I don't find any support for that in the biblical text" and I could not agree more but for a different reason: that Angels, fallen or not, ever "became physical" is not even anywhere hinted at in the Bible because they have always been, ontologically, physical (yet, with access to other dimensions/realms) which is why every time they are described, they are described as looking just like human males (no wings).

[@gideonfisk553]

Most epic response to "why didn't God just make it obvious?" I have ever heard! All the internets are belong you IP!

[@dongadon8697]

Always interesting listening to IP.

[@christiangadfly24]

I started fundi. Went atheist, then became a christian later but basically, even as a Christian, denied any sort of historical claim in the OT before David. Inspiring Philosophy is pushing me from denying to agnosticism.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

What makes you feel the OT was unreliable historically?

[@TrevoltIV]

@@benjaminwatt2436 Probably the same things that make everyone else doubt. The lies that we came from monkeys and naturalism in general. Fossil record proves a flood, not evolution.

[@Martijnvw83]

​@@benjaminwatt2436how about the order of creation which makes no sense? Or the impossibility of a global flood, or the lack of evidence for one? A complete lack of evidence for the assertion that we were created? The fact that your God is undetectable in any meaningful sense? Your scripture conflicting directly with known reality in countless ways?

[@soylatte1288]

@@Martijnvw83so you basically didn’t watch the video. Please give us a source on how a creator was “disproven”. And how abiogenesis happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also if you dislike Christianity why watch videos about it? Rent-free

[@Martijnvw83]

@@soylatte1288 your creator wasn't disproven, there is no good evidence that he exists. And I don't need a comprehensive naturalistic explanation for the existence of life to dismiss your little creation myth as nonsense.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

As an atheist, this video weakened the case for divine inspiration of the Bible.

[@apowave]

Glad someone said it

[@who-lo-lolee-oh1079]

That might of been the point.

[@billygri4176]

I can't remember what video but IP addresses how some of his stuff might be contradictory to the divine inspiration, he say I'm paraphrasing here, that the first bible was the only divinely inspired bible in history.

[@johnfoppiano7058]

Once he polishes his delivery he could be a successful Apologist🤫

[@rayzas4885]

How

[@tskjesusfreak]

Starts at 2:00

[@edwardtbabinski]

So what? Rewriting ancient regional lore to suit some new retelling of creation and flood stories after the Babylonian exile adds up to what? It adds up to later rewritten ancient lore. That’s all.

[@onethdasanayake3689]

IP's in depth research capabilities is just amazing

[@HollowHusk404]

Seems logical.. And looking into other verses discussing Adam being the first man, I found that the word man means many things in Greek and Hebrew, not just a human male. But.. What about Original Sin?!

[@beardedroofer]

This may sound silly at first, but bear me out. IMO, we have no idea what "math" Yahweh uses. Even at mankind's best, we use quantum mechanics, whilst our Lord seems to be using a quantum reality based system. A thousand of our years could be but a minute, or a day. Applying our idea of math to it doesn't define it, but it does help to give it some meaning. Mankind's inherent bias towards anything outside our understanding limits imagination and, inadvertently, counter-intuitive cognition. I guess I'll have to ask him when he calls me home.

[@helenbekind8486]

Time was made for man, not man for time. Yah is outside of our time. He is not confined to time matter and space because all of those are created by him. Quantum physics has only just scratched the surface of the wonders created. Our Heavenly Father has created everything seen and unseen including the spiritual realm. Man used to the smaller particle was an atom but after discovering the quantum world they now know that quarks are even smaller and make up an atom. It’s absolutely amazing how little mankind knows yet they still try to disprove His existence based on their fragmented knowledge.

[@helenbekind8486]

You do not sound silly at all!! Many of us who are called by our Father have been belittled and made to feel “stupid”, but that was just a tool of the enemy to keep us silenced and prevent us from seeking the truth. A lot of us probably didn’t do well in school but that wasn’t because we were stupid. It was because Yah put the truth in us and it didn’t align with the lies or indoctrination taught to us when we were younger.

[@omnitroph1501]

This isn't so much dealing with a mathematical system as it is measurements of time: modern science has confirmed that it's possible for time to run at different rates for different observers, so I'd say this theory is plausible, if perhaps unsubstantiated. However, you can't really hypothesize an alternate mathematical system, even if it is possible. If 2+2 could equal 5, reasoning wouldn't just be difficult or counter-intuitive, it would be impossible: any contradiction could be explained away, and any logical necessity could be worked around - all of our attempts to determine truth, falsehood, or even meaning would just fail. Occam's razor won't allow it under any circumstances

[@benjaminwatt2436]

As a Christian who believes in a global flood, i would like to hear from someone who believes it was local, how do you address the evidence of a global catastrophe? I'm especially referring to research done by YEC, some of which i find very compelling

[@S0larflar3]

@InspiringPhilosophy Michael Jones - do you know Hebrew? Several of your slides have Hebrew words written backwards, which makes me think you haven't studied it in much detail...

[@richy11ify]

What would you say about, and be the weaknesses of the Pentateuch being in Oral form and then being written down either in stages or when they come back from exile in the following years?

[@stephendianda1543]

God bless all who are going the good work of defending the faith.

[@bradleyjenks]

Why should we assume Mosaic authorship of the text as we have it? Why could Moses not have written the proto-Torah, and the Torah as we have it be a more fleshed out text including fuller traditions, some editing, etc?

[@spectre8533]

I think IP believes it.

[@vivahernando1]

The issue is known history and archeology don’t support the Genesis account. Were the people in China, India, The Americas, and Sub Saharan Africa just unaware that their civilizations were destroyed during Noah’s flood? There is archeology of these civilizations dating to the time this flood would roughly have happened and there is no evidence of a flood

[@XD-wm9ss]

vivahernando1 Look up the evidence for a world flood in the past, I find answers in genesis convincing

[@vivahernando1]

@@XD-wm9ss There is no such evidence. Can you give me the dates of the Genesis flood? We have archeological evidence of civilizations from over 10k years ago. Nothing suggest a global flood. PS the Exodus story didn't happen either

[@XD-wm9ss]

vivahernando1 How did they determine it was 10k years ago?

[@XD-wm9ss]

vivahernando1 And like i said you should check out answers in genesis

[@vivahernando1]

@@XD-wm9ss I think argon dating to like 12k years ago shows artifacts from civilizations in the Americas. No mainstream archeologists believe in the global flood. If you want to be Christian that is awesome. I was one until my late 20s. I just stopped believing it was true. Different strokes for different folks.

[@edwardtbabinski]

Gunkel, an Old Testament scholar, pointed out that early Israelite authors made up names for people or things in Genesis 1-11 that were sometimes based on words that simply sounded like words from nearby cultures rather than etymological knowledge of a word’s true origin, or they invented names simply to fit what went on in the tale being told. Adam is basically a name like mud man, man of the earth, to fit the myth that he was made of animated earth. The name Eve was invented for the mother of all living, and her story involves being born from Adam’s side which reflects an earlier Sumerian myth in which the pun is obvious. In that earlier tale she who gives life and lady of the rib are indeed a pun in the Sumerian tongue. Gunkel writes about other such cases:. “To the ancient Israelites names were not so unimportant as to us, for they were convinced that names were somehow closely related to the things. It was quite impossible in many cases for the ancient people to give the correct explanation, for names were, with Israel as with other nations, among the most ancient possessions of the people, coming down from extinct races or from far away stages of the national language… Early Israel as a matter of course explains such names without any scientific spirit and wholly on the basis of the language as it stood. It identifies the old name with a modern one which sounds more or less like it, and proceeds to tell a little story explaining why this particular word was uttered under these circumstances and was adopted as the name. We too have our popular etymologies. How many there are who believe that the noble river which runs down between New Hampshire and Vermont and across Massachusetts and Connecticut is so named because it ‘connects’ the first two and ‘cuts’ the latter two states! Manhattan Island, it is said, was named from the exclamation of a savage who was struck by the size of a Dutch hat worn by an early burgher, ‘Man hat on!’… Similar legends are numerous in Genesis and in later works. The city of Babel is named from the fact that God there confused human tongues (balal, Gen 11: 9); Jacob is interpreted as ‘heelholder’ because at birth he held his brother, whom he robbed of the birthright, by the heel (Gen 25:26); Zoar means ‘trifle,’ because Lot said appealingly, ‘It is only a trifle’ (Gen 19:20,22); Beersheba is ‘the well of seven,’ because Abraham there gave Abimelech seven lambs (21:28 ff.); Isaac (Jishak) is said to have his name from the fact that his mother laughed (sahak) when his birth was foretold to her (18:12), and so forth. “In order to realize the utter naĩveté of most of these interpretations, consider that the Hebrew legend calmly explains the Babylonian name Babel from the Hebrew vocabulary, and that the writers are often satisfied with merely approximate similarities of sounds: for instance, “Cain” (Kajin) sounds like the Hebrew for “gotten” (kaniti, ‘I have acquired/gotten,’ hence the legend arose that when Cain was born to Eve she said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord” (Gen 4:1); Reuben from rah beonji, ‘he hath regarded my misery’ (Gen 29:32), etc. Every student of Hebrew knows that these are not satisfactory etymologies.”

[@aramisy.cajigas744]

Interesting!

[@bradbrown2168]

Unseen Realm Dr Michael Heiser a great scholarly work making sense of Antediluvian period. Naked Bible podcast as well.

[@jorgel.4406]

Genesis is the word of God.

[@carl5438]

Same god who watched as humans made slaves of other humans. Assaulted children, displaced families, allowed cancer to ravage children and other atrocities to occur.

[@degaussingatmosphericcharg575]

Only if the word god equals ignorant men.

[@mtpta4947]

Great Video Cameron and very Informative Video Michael keep up the good work.

[@BannorPhil]

The mere fact that this is even a topic for discussion demonstrates the paucity of the believer's position. If there really was an all-powerful creator of the universe, the evidence for this would be as abundant, demonstrable, indisputable, measurable and irrefutable as the evidence for gravity.

[@BannorPhil]

@yarn rav Does Satan have direct knowledge of the existence of god? Yes. Does Satan have free will? Take your time answering......

[@BannorPhil]

@@JM-19-86 Yeah - which means that TWO thirds of the world's population is NOT christian - using the same 'evidence'. And it's even worse - followers of all the other religions claim to have evidence that THEIR religion is the One True Religion™.......

[@Notmyproblem79]

“And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah;” ‭‭2 Kings‬ ‭23:21-22‬ ‭KJV‬‬ Josiah restoring true Worship would indicate that a book was written prior to the Babylonian captivity. The Talmud was written during the captivity. Genesis is history and a great read to boot. Well done IP!

[@riru363]

Love IP.

[@ArielManxx]

18:22 it's only my assumption, but I think they used the thumb to count with it: it's the first thing I naturally did and found very conveniet :)

[@AtamMardes]

"When someone is fooled & indoctrinated to consider an invisible imaginary God or a glorified religious figure or a man-made book sacred & pray to, you'll constantly find motivated ignorance, dogma & mental acrobats trying to defend the sacredness."

[@blusheep2]

It goes both ways. Those that predetermine that God is imaginary will constantly be plagued with motivated ignorance and mental acrobatics.

[@AtamMardes]

@@blusheep2 I'm not saying God exist or not. I'm saying evidence shows man made The God Of The Bible, Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, Romulus, Zalmoxis, Osiris, etc.

[@AtamMardes]

@@blusheep2 Also, based on science, you're hallucinating if you think an invisible being is watching you or giving you comments / commands.

[@blusheep2]

@@AtamMardes How does science prove otherwise?

[@CH-ek2bm]

23:57: I might be wrong, but I could swear that word is the wrong way round. I learnt some basic Hebrew a few years ago and, since Hebrew is written right to left, those three letters are pe, resh and shin in that order. Surely it would make more sense if they were the other way round? Perhaps someone who actually speaks Hebrew could confirm or deny that.

[@daniellinzel1994]

I've followed two semesters of hebrew online at the master's seminary youtube channel and am studying modern hebrew as well, and you're completely correct. It should have been שרף instead of ףרש. It's not really 'professional' if I may say so to put the hebrew backwards. I wonder if IP has studied hebrew?

[@AtamMardes]

Genesis Contradictions: Genesis 1:1 Adam was created on the 6th day after all plants were created. Genesis 1: 2 Adam was created before any plants were created. Genesis 1: 3 God made light on the first day. Genesis 1:16 God made the sun & stars on the 4th day.

[@mackdmara]

You just pointed out a poem is a contradiction. What day did he make the seas? What day the fish? They are intentionally put that way to give layers of information, not to give a strait historical account. You just said a poem is history & therefore has these contradictions. Wrong literary style there, your linchpin premise in your argument is false; Therefore, your conclusion is false.

[@bemusedatheist5706]

@@mackdmara I thought you told me that it was history, so exactly what genre is it?

[@mackdmara]

@@bemusedatheist5706 I never said it was all history or all spiritual truth or all poems or all instruction. Still, God is giving you a spiritual account. The first account is a poetic version. It has intentional word usage that indicates this in the ancient Hebrew. Right. It also gives you structure for the calendar. It has number sequences to indicate other aspects of spiritual importance. Etc., Etc., Etc. Right. *Why are you just making up things I didn't say?* You are talking about people here, have some respect.

[@bemusedatheist5706]

@@mackdmara If I can quote you, you told me in our little chat "This historical account is just that", so don't talk to me about respect. I respect people, but I will not respect bad ideas or beliefs.

[@mackdmara]

@@bemusedatheist5706 Don't cross the streams. It has a historical account, but I didn't use that here. The *other point in the other conversation* would merit that statement. Did I say that? I don't recall. As to respect, I meant the text not me. Given it is a human (because you know a man wrote it, true), then to mischaracterise their meaning is disrespectful to the author. You wouldn't read Harry Potter & then claim she failed to properly show an accurate historical account, given when she wrote. That intentionally misunderstands the authors intent. It is disrespectful to the author. It is also intentionally dishonest. You know literary style or your in elementary school. On the other hand, If this was a human writing from God in part directly &/or imparting knowledge from God interpreted by this man & some history to preserve the record, then you disrespect the man & God to misunderstand them. So much the worst is your state. Now you have 2 parties you have wronged & one has authority. Although you might disrespect me & you know you shouldn't, you more importantly know you shouldn't do that to this person that cannot defend themselves or to a person you will need to justify your actions to later (God). I respect a judge as a person, more so for the office they hold. Even if you don't think someone's beliefs are true, that doesn't give you the right to disrespect that person. If the idea is wrong, *Why can you make personal attacks because of it?* Are you your ideas? To be fair, since I am agnostic as to your claim, the book has history in it, but if I gave you the idea it was simply a historical account, then I amend that now to include the further bits. Either way, I said no such thing here. So, no I didn't say that here & that was the implication of your meaning. If you meant the other thread, say so. Each argument I give is only contiguous if you give the background. That way I could defend my past claims. Thank you.

[@paradoxelle481]

Nice I guess I'm rad then. Thanks for the video!

[@sqlblindman]

IP focuses on secondary differences between the narratives in order to claim that one cannot be a transcription of the other. If this were the case, we would have to conclude the West Side Story is not based on Romeo And Juliet, because of all the differences. It's a truly simple-minded conclusion that he comes to, and he does it based on convenience for his worldview rather than on any merit. Similarly, he states several times that a culture adopting monotheism would not be expected to adapt polytheistic mythology, but in fact this is not only exactly what we would expect, it is what we observer. One need only point out the Christmas, Easter, and Halloween are monotheistic adaptations of polytheistic/pagan rituals. Once again, the fact that he jumps to the conclusion that fits his worldview without bothering to check for contravening facts demonstrate that IP is not a philosopher, but merely another run-of-the-mill apologist.

[@Insane_ForJesus]

Atheism is false

[@sqlblindman]

@@Insane_ForJesus I accept your concession that you cannot refute a single point that I made. Christianity is a delusion.

[@Insane_ForJesus]

@@sqlblindman I accept your concession that naturalism is false and you can't provide a single argument in favor of the position

[@sqlblindman]

@@Insane_ForJesus Child, you didn't even challenge Naturalism. You xtians sure are a funny lot. The argument for naturalism is that every single thing we have ever been able to explain, including the phenomena once attributed to Gods, turned out to have a natural explanation. Got any examples of supernatural causes?

[@Insane_ForJesus]

@@sqlblindman That's not an argument it's question begging and also conflates naturalism, which is a metaphysical thesis, with science. Give an actual argument.

[@Israel2.3.2]

16:38 interesting probabilistic argument against hardline fundamentalism. 29 of the 30 values are congruent to 0 or 2 modulo 5. Can't believe I've never noticed that.

[@Israel2.3.2]

@@JM-19-86 Good luck convincing fundies that that's the case.

[@mgsgamer8340]

Took god 6 days to make the universe. Took like the rest of eternity to plan out the universe because he didn’t want humans to look like bibically accurate angels

[@mgsgamer8340]

@Jose Ok, so this isn’t going to be a “baseless assertion” but a question. Why do you believe in a deity of some sort? Is it easier than accepting that you don’t know what’s out there?

[@mgsgamer8340]

@Jose mhm.

[@kathyd456]

Unable to watch live, but I am content to be rad. 😀 Thank you gentlemen, this has been incredible and enjoyable. Keep on keeping on.

[@josephscala6707]

Of course I believe that snakes can talk and people can have babies when they're 500 years old. What sane person wouldn't??

[@aramisy.cajigas744]

And men can have babies too!

[@tompaine4044]

Also, I'm not sure I've ever heard someone argue against the reliability of the Bible or Genesis by bringing up the talking snake. If that Jehovah fellow were real, a talking snake doesn't seem as if it's much of a stretch. Instead, I tend to hear the snake story brought up to shed light on and mock the extraordinary nature of an otherwise sacrosanct claim. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice that mockery of a ridiculous belief can often be an antecedent to emancipation from it.

[@josephscala6707]

@Ναζωραῖος I would agree with you if I understood what you said.

[@tompaine4044]

@@josephscala6707 I think what that person said is while billions of people have experiences they attribute to other gods, those experiences are not a reliable method for knowing what is true, but his or her own experience _is_ a reliable method for knowing what is true because it really _feels_ true, which is always reliable. That's just my guess. ☺️

[@Mr.H-YT42]

@@tompaine4044 By that logic, wouldn't we have to conclude flying reindeer are not much of a stretch if that Santa fellow were real?

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

During king Hezekiah reign a book was found.

[@jacoblee5796]

I suppose if you ignore all modern science and discoveries.....nope, this doesn't make any sense. What did i just watch!? People actually take this seriously?

[@mackdmara]

Did you have a specific problem or just a general dislike? I don't see what you are at with this. Can you give me more information?

[@sqlblindman]

@@mackdmara You are asking him whether he had a problem with an argument that posits other-worldly serpentine beings?

[@mackdmara]

@@sqlblindman If that was his meaning, yes. I just found his comment nebulous & thought it might hold something of interest. If you don't know, ask. Right. As to what you just said. A metaphorical understanding of a spiritual being isn't a literal snake spirit. I don't see the issue with the metaphor unless you choose a wooden reading of this spiritual passage. In that case, that is a textual misunderstanding of others beliefs. Intentional or not, it isn't appropriate. Right.

[@sqlblindman]

@@mackdmara Son, if you are saying the story is metaphorical, then you'd seem to be disagreeing with IP's claim that the stories are historical, not myths. Pick a side, ok?

[@mackdmara]

@@sqlblindman William Lane Craig goes with Shopenhowers (butchered last name sorry) view that it is Mythohistory. It is a historic account with mythical elements. There is a third option you didn't consider. Your options shave off parts. There are spiritual elements & I couldn't deny that, Right. There are claims of a historical nature also & I cannot deny that, Right. Then Genesis as a whole is Mythohistory, not either respective bucket. Is a Liger a lion or a tiger? Neither & both. You keep asking me to say it is one or the other. You are wrong in that classification. *No Son,* I can choose whatever is true regardless of your stated choices. It looks like Mythohistory. You over simplified it in an effort to misunderstand the text or me or both, Right.

[@MrWholphin]

Why would you expect to find evidence for Eden if there was a global flood? If would be completely destroyed.

[@drakejoy2902]

We can find residue. Remember Eden was massive and we have found some sort remnants towards that giant space. we have enough archaeological and geological evidence to actually draw conclusions right now.

[@jeffreyeggstein329]

@@drakejoy2902 you might find fruit trees

[@SohanDsouza]

Comparing God clearly demonstrating his existence to a math teacher giving you the answers? Now I've heard everything. 🤦‍♂️

[@joels310]

While I fully understand his perspective and can understand how he arrived at his conclusion but his presuppositions of uniformitarianism is directly Rebuked in 2 Peter 3:4-7 “Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6through which the world of that time perished in the flood. 7And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. Referring to the Tower of Babel, If your Great Great Great Grandpa told you about a worldwide flood that was so devastating it wiped out all life on the planet wouldn't you build a Tower as high as you could??? Regardless of that, The time scales you're dependent on is based on Absolute Lies from Secular Anti-Christ Atheists who Loath God, who lie to Rationalize their rejection of the God and the Bible. They refuse evidence that is in anyway antithetical to their worldview and have outright destroyed Fossil and Archeological Evidence that disagrees with their theories. Do not put your trust in them and then try to rationally justify your faith by their lies purposely concocted to try to discredit the bible.

[@johnfoppiano7058]

What fossils did the Atheists destroy?? I've never heard that before!

[@carl5438]

@@johnfoppiano7058 Hopefully we can get more people to think/behave rationally before they drink the coolaid or blow themselves up.

[@sabhishek9289]

@@carl5438 Nothing much to do with the subject here, but just directly responding to your comment: Thinking and behaving irrationally and drinking the coolaid or blowing themselves up does not exclusively apply with stereotypical religious people alone like Islam etc. Godless Atheists, Communists, Marxists, National socials etc have promoted more dogmatism and bigotry and have done more damage and destruction and devastation to humanity and contributed least benefits towards humanity than any so called religion.

[@cnortham7109]

Former YEC creationist, now an atheist with a background in biology, at 4:04, and I have the popcorn out. This ought to be good. Admittedly curious how he's going to deal with the fossil record. Am also expecting to hear the mantra that mutations do not create new information, but we'll see.

[@cnortham7109]

5:02 Already concerned that only 1 out of the 4 points (external evidence) seems at all relevant to me.

[@cnortham7109]

17:50 Actually impressed that he considers the concept that the genealogies may not be completely literal. Surprisingly open-minded. I would of considered it heresy when I was a Christian.

[@cnortham7109]

26:23 I'm getting concerned. Talk of otherworldly serpentine beings is reminding me of the alternate history channel.

[@cnortham7109]

30:49 It is definitely beginning to seem like he's not a literalist in the strict sense. It looks like he's going to advocate for a local flood (admittedly much more plausible than a global flood). I am also predicting that he is going to advocate for a long-ages interpretation of the creation account.

[@cnortham7109]

39:53 Yep, definitely not interpreting a global flood.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

If you do include thumb that covers Ephraim and Manasseh.

[@sabinpanta4002]

Just found IP has a wife. I always thought he was single😂😂

[@Archangel657]

He has a kid as well ^^

[@sabinpanta4002]

His kid probably knows more bible than me. No doubt about that.

[@learnearn1728]

Ho ra 😂😂

[@repentandfollowjesus3474]

@@sabinpanta4002 hahah

[@aidan-ator7844]

I always thought michael was like 20 or 21.

[@fyrerayne8882]

expert

[@abhbible]

1) Jones says that the Table of Nations lacks references to Israel's later neighbors, but Canaanite groups that the people of Israel would not encounter until the monarchic period are mentioned (Jebusites, Girgashites, and Hivites, who are referenced in conquest narratives), and the Philistines are mentioned, despite not being in the land until the 12th century BC following the late Bronze Age Collapse. Sidon is mentioned throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, so it is not evidence of an early composition. The Medes are identified by the Neo-Assyrian empire (10th century) and did not exist as a collective people group until then. 2) Jones talks about old Akkadian cognates in Genesis (of course there are cognates, they're similar language groups) but downplays the force of Aramaic-like features in Genesis which are best explained as originating in the northern kingdom of Israel during the monarchic period, and which would not enter vernacular until the switch from Akkadian to Aramaic in the 10th century BC. 3) Jones splits the authorship of Samuel and Kings for reasons of ideosyncratic numbering, a move that no contemporary biblical scholar would do. Samuel and Kings are understood to be composed by the Deuteronomist, or members of a shared Deuteronomist school and share an overwhelming number of features in common. 4) Jones seems unaware that 1 Chronicles is one of the latest texts in the Hebrew Bible, as it has the name Havilah in it just like Genesis. The presence of the word does not indicate when it was written. He seems to think that 1 Chronicles is early and 2 Chronicles is later, since he divided the mentions of Havilah and Arabia in this way. But 1 and 2 Chronicles are both 4th century at the earliest.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

This is easily addressed because either you misunderstood or I didn't articular properly " 1. I specifically mentioned the Jebusites in early texts from the bronze age, see Wiseman's paper. There are indications the philistines were in Canaan long before the 12th century: biblearchaeology.org/research/patriarchal-era/3640-the-genesis-philistines I did not say because Sidon is mentioned in Genesis 10 that means it is early. I said it had to do with the primacy of Sidon to represent the Phoenicians instead of Tyre which was more prominent in the 1st millennium. I also agreed the Medes are mentioned in iron age texts. I never denied that and specifically noted it. So I feel like you are taking me out of context. 2. I said there were Aramaic cognates. This would be expected given an exilic community would be unable to understand old Akkadian. But if Genesis was entirely written in this period, and was not drawing from older sources, it would lack the Akkadian cognates like what we see in Genesis 6:14. See here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHqyhp1nrN6dnMk 3. I did not split the authorship of Samuel, or that was not my intent. I am pointing out different periods they would be drawing from and stay consistent with the customs from each of these time periods. Obviously Samuel and Kings is its own work, but that doesn't mean it didn't lack earlier sources that used idealized numbers, unlike later time periods that used more literal numbers. 4. The same applies here. The authors of chronicles show us they are working with earlier sources and do not just call it the land of Arabia the whole time through the book, but rely on earlier traditions or material to accurately portray when the change the name of the region happened. This shows a reflection of reporting how things were in the past, instead of just making things out of nothing. Also, Chronicles probably has several authors, as all the books of the Bible did.

[@abhbible]

@@InspiringPhilosophy You don't seem to understand the significance of these points. Let me try to narrow this down and explain it again at a bit more length. With respect to the Akkadian and Aramaic features of the text: The presence of Akkadian features in the text is obviously indicative of the text antedating the usage of Akkadian as a vernacular language. Similarly, the presence of Aramaic features in the text is indicative of the text antedating the usage of Aramaic as a vernacular language. Aramaic did not become a vernacular language in Canaan until the 10th and 9th centuries, and as a result, the text must follow that date. The presence of Akkadian features, like cognates, cannot be used to date the text by itself. Substantially more would need to be said in order for that argument to get off the ground. Hebrew exhibits features in common with Akkadian because they are from the same linguistic family. Even modern Hebrew spoken today has words that are technically Akkadian cognates, but you obviously could not use that simple fact to date modern Hebrew to the 2nd millennium BC. Several of the examples you give aren't even specific to Genesis. Gan is just the generic word for garden in Hebrew, even to this day, and there are dozens of examples outside Genesis. The same is true for remesh, koper, qi'nim, and qanah. It's also evident that you can't read Hebrew (you don't list the words by their roots, and you misidentify the cognate root for qaniti). That's not a big deal, but I think if you're going to make presentations like this that engage with linguistics you might want to either get a basic knowledge or find someone who does know to double check your findings. Scholars who do try to date the Hebrew of different sections of the Hebrew Bible and track their development over time (Avi Hurvitz, Robert Polzin, Robyn Vern, etc.) have not ever, so far as I'm aware, dated these chapters in Genesis to the earliest strata of Biblical Hebrew, so-called Archaic Biblical Hebrew, which is only evident in a handful of passages like Genesis 59, Exodus 15, Judges 5, maybe Deuteronomy 32-33). These chapters in Genesis are consistent with classical or standard biblical Hebrew, which is the Hebrew of the monarchic and immediately pre-exilic age, with some potentially exilic features thrown in. Again, the presence of Akkadian cognates does not indicate the age of the text, merely that it descends from the same linguistic family, whereas Aramaic features obviously shows that Aramaic must have existed, pushing the date well into the monarchic or exilic age.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

A H you are doing exactly what I said skeptics would do in the opening of this presentation. You pick one thing, which I said on its own doesn’t amount to much, and then say that by itself is not sufficient. But I already agreed with that and was clear all the pieces have to work together. If you don’t think language is not used to help date texts then I recommend you look up James Vanderkam on Linguistics of Enoch. Also, did I not say several times the final form didn’t come until the exile? I have also made a video detailing this:kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHqyhp1nrN6dnMk However, it still would obtain remnants of an older time. Something we don’t find in later books like Enoch, jubilees, or Daniel.

[@abhbible]

@@InspiringPhilosophy I am not saying that your argument from Akkadian cognates is "insufficient." I am saying it is incorrect. I believe most of your points are, I just thought it would be easier to go through them one at a time rather than post a giant wall of text. I am not a "skeptic." I am a Christian. I'm completing my PhD in biblical interpretation and I teach philosophy and biblical studies at a university. None of this is motivated by a skeptical worldview. I did not say that "language is not used to help date texts." In fact I gave several examples of scholars doing exactly that. I did say that "The presence of Akkadian features, like cognates, cannot be used to date the text by itself," before giving several examples of how your argument from Akkadian cognates was incorrect. It would be incorrect if it was a stand alone argument and it is incorrect in the context of a cumulative argument as well. When scholars do use Hebrew linguistics to date texts, the common consensus is that Genesis 1-11, like almost the entirety of Genesis, is not the earliest Hebrew. Incidentally, Daniel, being substantially written in Aramaic and having a literary setting in Babylon, has a bunch of Akkadian cognates and loan-words. But as you say, it is late.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

@@abhbible Once again, I fully acknowledge it utilizes late Hebrew and the final form came about during the exile. This is why I keep linking you to this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHqyhp1nrN6dnMk No one in the exile would have found it easy to read if it wasn't. That is not my point though. There are still remnants of earlier sources.

[@plasticvision6355]

IP. Your apologetics are becoming ever more implausible. Why does an intelligent man like you believe this clap trap? You might kid yourself it’s based on logic and evidence, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who would beg to differ. Why put yourself through this Michael? You are making yourself look stupid, and that’s a great shame.

[@edwardtbabinski]

Internal evidence in the text of Genesis 1-11 argues strongly that it was composed after the Israelites returned from being exiled in Babylon. And they changed and altered earlier ancient Near Eastern lore to suit their purposes. So what? The vocabulary Certain vocabulary in Genesis 1-3 is used elsewhere only in books written during the monarchy or later, such as ʾēd (source of water, Genesis 2:6), neḥmād (pleasant, Genesis 2:9; 3:6), tāpar (sew, Genesis 3:7), ʾēbāh (enmity, Genesis 3:15), šûp (bruise/wound, Genesis 3:15) ʿeṣeb (labor, Genesis 3:16), tĕšûqāh (longing, Genesis 3:16). The word Shinar (Genesis 10:10; 11:2), was used by nations outside Mesopotamia “to designate the Kassite kingdom of Babylon (ca. 1595-1160 B.C.E)”; consequently its use here indicates Genesis 11 was written no earlier than the date of that kingdom. The Hebrew phrase for “breath of life” used in Genesis 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22, is not found anywhere else in Scripture. However, it is found in the Eridu Genesis, a Sumerian text which was copied and read by the Babylonians. Certain names appear only in Genesis 1-11 and books written during or after the Babylonian exile; typically they appear later in 1 Chronicles 5 or later books as personal names, and in Isaiah and Ezekiel as place names. Some names appear as personal names before the exile, but as place names only during or after the exile. A few names appear only in Genesis 10. Gomer (Genesis 10:2-3, 1 Chronicles 1:5-6, Ezekiel 38:6, Hosea 1:3). Magog (Genesis 10:2, 1 Chronicles 1:5, Ezekiel 38:2; 39:6). Madai (Genesis 10:2, 1 Chronicles 1:5). Javan (Genesis 10:2, 4, 1 Chronicles 1:5, 7, Isaiah 66:19, Ezekiel 27:13). Tubal (Genesis 4;22; 10:2, 1 Chronicles 1:5, Isaiah 66:19, Ezekiel 27:13; 32:26; 38:2-3; 39:1). Meshech (Genesis 10:2, 1 Chronicles 1:5, Psalm 120:5, Ezekiel 27:13; 32:26; 38:2-3; 39:1). Tiras (Genesis 10:2, 1 Chronicles 1:5). Togarmah (Genesis 10:3, 1 Chronicles 1:6, Ezekiel 27:14; 38:6). Dodanim (Genesis 10:4). Dedan (Genesis 10:7; 25:3, 1 Chronicles 1:9, 32, Jeremiah 25:23; 49:8, Ezekiel 25:13; 27:20; 38:13). Akkad (Genesis 10:10). Erech (Genesis 10:10). Calah (Genesis 10:11-12). Resen Genesis 10:12). The geography Some verses in Genesis 1-11 use place names which help date the text. In particular, several verses in Genesis 10 indicate the chapter could not have been written until after the reign of Solomon. Genesis 2:14; 10:11. These verses refers to Assyria, which did not exist until the reign of Assuruballit I (1363-1328 BCE). The city of Assur was built earlier (around 2,500 BCE), but was ruled over by Akkadians, Amorites, and Babylonians in succession. Assyria did not become an independent state with Assur as its capital reign of Assuruballit I. Genesis 10:11. This verse refers to Nineveh as part of Assyria, but it was not until the reign of Assuruballit I (1363-1328 BCE), that Nineveh became part of Assyrian territory. Note that Nineveh is mentioned in Genesis 10:11-12, but not mentioned again until 2 Kings, written during the exile; this supports the conclusion that Genesis 11 was not written before the exile. Genesis 10:11-12. This refers to the city of Calah as “that great city”. Calah did not exist until 1750 BCE, and was a mere village until the ninth century BCE, when it became "that great city" during the reign of Assurnasirpal II, who made it the capital of Assyria. It could not have been called “that great city” until after the reign of Solomon. Genesis 10:19. The boundaries of Canaan described here did not exist until 1280 BCE by a peace treaty between Ramses II and Hattusilis III in 1280 BCE; it is therefore unsurprising that the borders of Canaan described here do not match the description of Canaan in Genesis 15:18 or Numbers 34:2-12, or any text of Moses' time. This verse could not have been written earlier than 1280 BCE. Genesis 10:19. This verse refers to Gaza, but this location was first called “Gaza” during the reign of Thutmose III (1481-1425 BCE); it was not called “Gaza” before this time. It would have been known as “Gaza” by the time of Moses, but not in the time of Abraham. Genesis 11:28, 31. These verses refers to “Ur of the Chaldeans”. The Chaldeans did not occupy Ur until around the tenth century (1000 BCE). The only pre-exilic use of the phrase “Ur of the Chaldeans” in the Old Testament is in Genesis 15:7, which was clearly written at least as early as the eleventh century (possibly by Samuel), by which time the term “Ur of the Chaldeans” was already the common term for the area. The only other use of “Ur of the Chaldeans” is in Nehemiah 9:7, a post-exilic book. The break When we look closely at Scripture we find the people and events of Genesis 1-11 are cited rarely in the Old Testament, and virtually only by books dating to the Babylonian exile or later. Nowhere in the entire Law of Moses are Adam and Eve or the events of Eden ever referred to, despite the significant emphasis on sin, death, and sacrifice. Since the Law deals in considerable detail with the consequences of sin, the complete absence from Exodus to Deuteronomy of any reference to these people and events is extraordinary. Although genealogies in Genesis 4-5 start with Adam, all the genealogies from Genesis 12 through to the end of 2 Kings only extend as far back as Abraham. Outside Genesis 1-11, Adam is first referred to in 1 Chronicles 1:1. The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1 (written after the Babylonian exile), is the first genealogy after Genesis 5 to refer to Adam. In the Chronicles genealogy Adam is introduced without explanation, and the reader is expected to be familiar with him and his immediate descendants, suggesting they had already read a document introducing and explaining Adam and his family. After Genesis 6-8, the flood is not referred to again until Isaiah 54:9. The first use of the word Eden outside Genesis 1-11 is in Isaiah 51:3. The next is in an exilic document (Ezekiel 28:12-19), taking the audience's familiarity with Eden for granted; the reference to Eden in Joel 2:3 dates either to the exile or shortly after. This chapter also contains attacks on Babylonian theology, and explicit use of the Genesis cosmogony and the fall. The term ‘garden of the Lord’ is only used in two passages in the Old Testament; Genesis 13:10 and Isaiah 51:3, supporting the idea that the garden of the Lord was only known as ‘Eden’ during or after the exile. The break between Genesis 11 and 12 is extreme. In Genesis 11:31 we are told Terah set out with his family (including Abram and Sarai), to travel from Ur to Canaan, but we are given no explanation for this whatsoever. In contrast, Genesis 12:1 opens with the divine call issued to Abram, providing details of the promises and the trip to Canaan; Genesis 11:31 presupposes the reader's knowledge of why Abram is travelling to Canaan, indicating it was written after Genesis 12. Joshua is aware of the Mesopotamian origin of Abraham, but it is just as clear he knew of nothing earlier. If Genesis chapters 1-11 did exist as early as Abraham (or at least Moses), then we must explain why they are ignored by most of the books of the Bible, and only suddenly referred to by the post-exilic books. From Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings, book after book after book shows no awareness of these chapters at all.

[@lucasbarth6079]

Silly atheists, it wasn’t a talking “gardner” snake (whatever the hell that is) it was a talking snake from another world!

[@richardgamrat1944]

Yes, talking snakes from other worlds are... not so silly, ehm.

[@PresbyterianPaladin]

You can be as indignant as you like but essentially the text is pointing to a spiritual reality.

[@derekallen4568]

The reliability of genesis. Hahaha! Good band. Especially Phil Collins!

[@lucasbarth6079]

Jacob Brown Mocking indignant.

[@tke7986]

You don't know what a gardner snake is? lol

[@Greg_Schubert]

Michael, the thumb wasn't included in the system, b/c the thumb was the pointer to the segments of the fingers that were counted.

[@andreaspriantono6791]

Genesis was a story from parents to their kids who love to question anything like what normal kids do nowadays, and put rules to control their kids behaviour within stories. Passed from generation to generation. Added, improved, and on and on.

[@Pseudoornitologist]

I hate that his door is open behind him. It gives me horror movie vibes 😣😱

[@dcelton1]

So after sitting through all of that, no evidence whatsoever! What a joke!

[@Jesus_is_Lord-]

I disagree with the Nephilim answer. This actually is supported by the Biblical text. Read/Watch Dr. Michael S. Heiser's content regarding the supernatural side of the Bible and be enlightened.

[@Nkosi766]

Word salad to make genesis into history. Good job

[@easeupthoughts4399]

Bruh, I would give him a chance I wouldn't just shoot down

[@Nkosi766]

the professional , I would take your advice ,but why? Did genesis claim to be a history book?

[@easeupthoughts4399]

Well yeah, u could go the Jordan Peterson route and say its allegory. But most Christians don't believe it is. It doesn't come off as that when u read the context of the stories.

[@Nkosi766]

the professional , listen to the end. Still can’t make it historical. And was disappointed I listened to you and to the end

[@easeupthoughts4399]

Chill the hell out

[@RichyK]

There was no law against marrying a sister in Genesis, so nothing wrong with it. The law against it didn't come till a long while later in Leviticus. And as you said, there is no sin without the law. Adam and Eve sinned because they broke God's command, which is essentially the same as God's law, but no sin for marrying a sister, which is what they obviously did.

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

"There was no law against marrying a sister in Genesis, so nothing wrong with it" - O ok, those are some noice backflips you got there

[@RichyK]

@@frankvandermerwe1487 backflips?

[@mmore242]

@@RichyK IP believes in evolution so I doubt he subscribes to an inbreeding theory.

[@newtonarori7344]

Genesis is not a myth. All Homo Sapiens around the globe spoke the same language until.. the tower of Babel

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

Wait are you kidding? You actually think this happened?

[@newtonarori7344]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll yes man. I also believe snakes used to talk. For some strange reason they no longer do

[@spectre8533]

yes. How did you discover it?

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

arori newton oh good. I thought you were serious.

[@spectre8533]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll that's because you are gay

[@HarryHafsak]

I wonder IP just regurgitates research of other people or does he research the topics himself. “According to” and “ so and so notes” is used a lot. He says genesis was written 300 bc possibly and then proceeds to say there’s evidence it’s an older text.

[@selderane]

I find it weird that athiests complain that God made it hard to understand or believe in Him, but somehow literally billions of people across the globe, across cultures, and across time, have done just that.

[@hawkxlr]

Understand? You think Christians understand God? Even Christians don't think most Christians understand God...

[@selderane]

@@hawkxlr Respectfully, it seems to me you're projecting your non-belief onto Christians to justify it.

[@hawkxlr]

@@selderane Projecting my nonbelief? I never said Christians don't believe in God. I simply said they don't *understand* God. I'm assuming that you're a Protestant, but do you think Catholics understand God?

[@selderane]

@@hawkxlr Absolutely they do. I may differ with them on some doctrines, but they're certainly Christian.

[@hawkxlr]

@@selderane So all Christians understand God? If they do, why do they come to such different conclusions about what God wants/is?

[@markanthony3667]

Perhaps it is 𝑛𝑜𝑡 helpful to seek out the geography of the antediluvian world. It was utterly destroyed: "𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑢𝑝, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑛𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠." Gen. 7 11-12 . It is obvious however, from the way the rivers of Eden were spoken of in Genesis, that the Garden was somewhere near Mesopotamia (for whereas it says this river was, and so and so; then that river was, and so and so . . .; finally, the fourth river was the Euphrates, period; as if the author were using the Euphrates of Mesopotamia as a well known reference point). . Secondly, the antediluvian age is best understood as 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗱𝘀, an other-worldly era of giants, men of renown, from which Noah descended as if from some divine place, from the very top of a mountain (i.e. Ararat), not from the sky in a spaceship, but in an ark from another time to a new heaven and earth and waters driven back into oceans. . All this was told to make the point that the Father of Israel, Abraham, the chosen of God, had an illustrious genealogy and to explain the reality thenceforth described. The historical and accessible archaeological narrative really begins with him and his call out of Babylon. Start there, and you will find the evidence you seek. Whatever was before, is a matter of faith reserved for the believer. . ///

[@joshjeggs]

i dont understand why people love spreading heresies. this guy is just an evolutionist trying to mix with Christianity It makes me so angry. From dust we cam and to dust we will return

[@carsonwall2400]

"Evolutionists" exist solely in the minds of young earth creationists.

[@CapturingChristianity]

IP loves spreading truth.

[@JH-dp9zk]

Capturing Christianity exactly, his series on jesus and the new testament show me that defending jesus isnt a lost cause.

[@utopiabuster]

I'd be very interested as to how you're able to identify heretics who are avowed Christians believing in, and defend, Christ's Divinity and Ressurection. Is interpreting ancient texts using our God given reason a threat to one's salvation?

[@ea-tr1jh]

Why is evolutionism a "heresy"? What's your definition of a "heresy"? Also, have you done any biblical research on this topic, particularly reading scholarly work on this subject, or have you just assumed young earth creationism is the only possible interpretation because you were taught that interpretation?

[@winstonbarquez9538]

It is possible that the oral traditions borrowed from ancient creation myths based on the similarity of the stories and the final redactor put them together in the text we have today.

[@dannyd1098]

this is just embarrassing

[@buckaroo3589]

The three cubes are very important. The Holy of Holies of the First Temple, the Kaaba of Islam, the New Jerusalem of Revelations. All cubes. The American Catholic bible notes that the New Jerusalem is 1500 miles on a side. Huge. But what happens when I multiply the volume of the New Jerusalem by the holy number 77? I get the exact volume of planet Earth. To better than .99999. It is effectively a perfect match.

[@blusheep2]

Why would you multiply it by 77?

[@Josiah_Cornett]

This whole video is patently absurd. The stuff he is saying is equivalent to believing Egyptian myths are history or Greek mythology is history. Just ridiculous

[@Josiah_Cornett]

JKM every Christian I’ve ever know until now (and that’s a lot because I grew up Baptist) has denied the existence of pagan deities. I think I may have been told that some of them were demons and others were just made up. But that doesn’t even matter because I don’t believe you that we have “every reason to believe they are rooted in history”. You can’t just say that that is the case. That’s something you have to demonstrate. If your demonstration of these things is anything like the guy in the video, I’m not interested. That was the most unconvincing “evidence” I’ve ever heard. How would you ever demonstrate that these creation myths weren’t just made up? Many societies have VASTLY different creation myths. They can’t all be right. So you have to conclude that at least some of them are made up. How did you conclude that yours is the right one that isn’t made up?

[@leahhicks8657]

There should be no number systems though if this is a historical text???? I’m a Christian but confused???

[@sqlblindman]

"Was it a talking snake? It was an other-wordly serpentine being." Oh. Wow. That's SO much more plausible. LOL. Dude believes in Noah's flood.....

[@stevendelucas6311]

How about that Noah had kids at 500 and lived to 950. Don't get me started.

[@sqlblindman]

@@stevendelucas6311 No, that's history, not myth!!!!!!! LOL

[@stevendelucas6311]

@@sqlblindman How dare it be questioned by anyone!! LOL

[@mackdmara]

You can prove there is no God? How about that the supernatural doesn't exist?

[@sqlblindman]

@@mackdmara You can prove there is a God? How about that the supernatural exists? Forget proofs....how about some evidence for either one?

[@karcharias811]

Can anyone explain this "Mytho-History" genre concept as put forth by William Lane Craig. It sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

[@clovismerovingian7764]

Homers epics are Greek myth. The Trojan War also actually happened in history. The idea behind the term mythohistory for Genesis 1-11 are that they are historical events that actually happened in the region of Mesopotamia but are wrapped in the language, symbolism, hyperbole, and dreamlike style of myth and shouldn't be pressed too hard for its literalness. That is, it may be fun to try and work out exactly what happened but that the meaning of the events and the theological messages its trying to put forward are more important than what actually happened. And it is trying to put forth a theological message. The whole thing is a scathing polemic against Babylonian religion. It's a blending of the two genres of history and myth and theres no contradiction in the two because 1. The term myth does not mean something that is false but a story that points to a greater truth than what is literally portrayed in the story and 2. You can mix any two genres of literature that you want to. The only limit is your creativity and in the Ancient Near East they seemed to mix the genres of myth and history like in the Eridu Genesis named such because its so similar to Genesis in regards to what we are talking about.

[@fordprefect5304]

@@clovismerovingian7764 Creation "The view of light and darkness as physical entities that cause day and night can be found in at least one ANE text as well. In a fragmentary Sumerian tablet (NBC 11108) from Nippur during the Ur III period (21st cent. BCE), we find the following: When Anu, the lord, made heaven shine, made earth dark… Heaven and earth he held together as one… Day did not shine; in night, heaven stretched forth. Earth, bringing forth plant life did not glow on its own… "

[@bemusedatheist5706]

Is this really the best evidence for Genesis? I mean otherworldly snakes?

[@mackdmara]

This historical account is just that. If you demand past civilizations to write history as your current culture does, you are not treating the text fairly. *What Historical evidence do you have that it is wrong?* Otherwise, this is enough to understand the parts that are historical in nature. If you can't evidence it as false, you don't have reason to deny.

[@lucasbarth6079]

mackdmara This quite literally may be the worst take I’ve seen on here. “If you can’t disprove it you have no reason to deny”. Umm no no no. That is the folly of an ignoramus.

[@bemusedatheist5706]

@@mackdmara If you want to insist that it is an historical account and not a myth, then what do you say about the earth being made in such a short amount of time? Or the flood narrative that defies all scientific and geological evidence and is predated by other similar flood narratives?

[@mackdmara]

@@lucasbarth6079 So you think a case with *some Evidence* is less acceptable than a denial *Without evidence?*

[@mackdmara]

@@bemusedatheist5706 This isn't an easy subject for anyone to tackle. From what you said you over simplified the text. Let me explain a bit. Genesis isn't a book of just one textual style. The snake spirit is an approximation of how this spiritual being is, not a literal physical snake. Same with the creation account. The Genesis account of creation has layered information & isn't intended to be literal. So claiming it has discrepancies or is literally a weeks work with a rest day, isn't right either. I tend towards thinking of it as William Lane Craig does, but not absolutely inline. That would be calling this mytho-history. You do have historical elements & a spiritual guild to being with God. You couldn't just read it as an absolute history, because that denies the authors intent. You couldn't dismiss the historical elements either, as that also misses the authors intent. It isn't like Psalms where I can just say it is poems & songs (1 literary style). Genesis is a book that has some elements of instruction, spiritual description, order of the world, poems, & historical elements. You have to be careful when you read it. I think what you asked is overly simple. You shaved off needed things to properly describe Genesis, with either take. Saying it must be all in one bucket or all in the other is a false dilemma. You gave two wrong answers & asked me to pick. The third option is right & you didn't list it. Right.

[@TheIgnoredGender]

9:50 An African or European swallow?

[@Krubbz]

About sin not being sin before the law: Why make the law then if it would condemn your people to be punished/judged?

[@tompaine4044]

3:25 "But as like a side quest, I've also been collecting data to argue for the reliability of Genesis." I realize Michael is speaking off the cuff, but this struck me as oddly phrased. It seems to imply he started with the belief that Genesis is reliable and went looking for confirming evidence, otherwise he should have said he went looking for data to _determine_ whether Genesis is reliable. If instead he started with the belief that Genesis is reliable, why did he have to go looking for more data? Didn't he have the data that convinced him? Or was he not convinced by data? (In which case, why should data convince me?) If he thought he needed more data to convince other people, why was he convinced by the amount of data he had? Maybe I'm being pedantic and reading much more than what was said, but the phrasing intrigued me.

[@ibeamy]

I don’t see how multiple flood accounts would invalidate themselves or one another. It just seems several cultures across the world experienced the flood and recorded it differently.

[@tinadeburiet8086]

Ik, and it would have been hard to try and get word around to spread the story. All the cultures would have gotten them after the Tower of Babel. A lot of atheists say that all the other flood stories prove the Bibles flood didn’t happen is just weak, it actually helps give evidence for it. And ALL of them have a boat and a Man and his family while everyone is being punished. I find it hard to see how that’s a coincidence.

[@BurnBird1]

The fact that there was no global flood is what makes it clear that the stories are related.

[@coltonsheets1414]

If anyone was wondering why they don't count their thumb it's because they use it to count their fingers

[@EricHernandez]

Great video guys!

[@johnphelan8999]

The claim regarding the use of birds for determining land seems very poorly thought out.Vikings used ravens precisely BECAUSE they cannot fly long distances & will therefore return when no land is found as they cannot land on water.Pigeons on the other hand have been known to fly vast distances - recorded as over 700 miles in one day.

[@DieElect]

So you agree with what this guy is saying

[@johnphelan8999]

@@DieElect No.The purpose of using birds is to determine whether there's land nearby.If a bird can fly 700 miles in a day,the likelihood of it telling you anything useful is pretty low.

[@DieElect]

@@johnphelan8999 he said they use a raven to find land

[@johnphelan8999]

@@DieElect I'm not convinced that pigeons are less capable of long,sustained flights than ravens.Equally,carrion on which ravens will feed is likely to be found at the same elevations as the seeds likely to sustain a dove.Indeed,I can't find any examples historically of navigators using doves for marine navigation.

[@supercoupe86]

Why would you connect our technological view of the world to a book of ancient myths and mortal stories?

[@Drp_br_]

Why would u think that science is the truth when it’s just a method and tool for discovering the physical world? And why would you want philosophy to no longer be around?

[@russianbot8423]

how is 2, 5 and 7 based on a base 60 ideal number system????

[@gigahorse1475]

24:18 Not to be nit picky, but שרף is backwards.

[@blamtasticful]

Can we actually get real OT scholars on? Maybe reach out to Digital Hammurabi and his contacts.

[@TrontaviousKatarina]

I don’t know about this guy one….

[@mjdillaha]

Epoch