Pyramids and the Flood: The Greatest Problem for American Young Earth Creationism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2024
- In this video, we engage the most vexing problem for American Young Earth Creationists: the pyramids of Egypt provide strong historical evidence that opposes how many creationists date the Genesis Flood. We will examine the five potential solutions that are typically offered by creationists to solve the problem, and offer a solution that we thinks best resolves the issue.
Correction: (07:00) Rohl added a total of over 300 years to the Second Intermediate Period, Middle Kingdom, and First Intermediate Periods, not 1000 years as stated in the video. However, the original point still stands that Rohl's chronological revisionism does not help YECs with the pyramid-flood problem.
We are leading an Egypt and the Bible tour on March 2025. If you want to participate in the tour or would like more information, the link is www.jcbs.org/tours/jx25031025... . The link to register is in the "Departure Dates" box.
If you feel like directly supporting the work of this channel, consider purchasing Ancient Egypt and the Bible merchandise from our store ( my-store-d6b412.creator-sprin... ) or by becoming a patron on my Patreon account ( / egyptandthebible ).
You can also support us through Paypal using the address ( davidfalk@zoho.com )
Also consider purchasing my book, “The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey.” Available now through most major book retailers.
We are raising funds for a new book project on the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In this book, we plan to delve into the Egyptian culture context of the plagues of the Exodus so as to discover what those plaques would have meant to the Egyptians.
If you would like to help us with this project or wish to support our work financially and don’t want to be a Patreon member, please consider a donation to my a crypto currency wallet for Monero XMR ( 46RXpVRn5QtK25gU1naVa72tWa1nGdfGwK8npLaAZKwKQp9i8qbe1CDS5cjVcNX4Ug47Uh5Q8kid3eDV5za9b4saQ5sEWf5 ) or Bitcoin BTC ( bc1qn4hykytwr4kh8c2z9w05mqcq040h9vgtwl0pt5 ). Or if you still trust GoFundMe, to my GoFundMe campaign ( www.gofundme.com/help-david-f... ).
If you want to continue on the conversation and meet other members of this community, you are invited to join us on our Discord community ( / discord )
The music for the open and closing credits was provided by Velocirabbit ( / velocirabbit - topic ).
Ugh, how many times do I have to debunk this?
The pyramids were recepticals for Goa'uld spaceships when they weren't using the Stargates.
Putting my Ken Ham hat on for a moment: "But David, the idea that the global flood happened between the transition between the Egyptian dynasty V and dynasty VI is not a problem. All you need is some hypothesis that God spared the pyramids of water damage by miraculously putting some type of protective barrier around the pyramids to make it look like the pyramids were not flooded. So what if this explanation requires yet another extra-biblical miracle. It easily preserves the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Why can't you see that, David?" ;-)
cuz david is believing man's word and not God's word! that why
Why can't David just read what is clear in God's word!!!! 😂😡
It doesn't matter if he has to invent extra biblical stuff, as long as he agrees with *my* hermeneutic!
@@Greatscott-gq5xmWait... Are you joking?
@@MeanBeanComedy yes, apologies if it's not obvious
@@Greatscott-gq5xm it was obvious to those of us who have enjoyed the warm "mans word not gods word!" YEC embrace 😁
You seeee!
It was aliens 👽!!!
No, wait… wrong video
Flooding upon one another… that’s what they dooooo!😂
@innes2892 A man of culture I see
@@innes2892 The eye of Horus is the leather strap of Isis!
That was an unaturally fast u-turn
@@euanthompson and if the trajectory continues……
Thoughts on historical flooding at the end of the Younger Dryas . We have geological evidence of the extent of this occurrence.
Totally learned about honorific genealogies
I love your approach here. Although I hold the view that the Earth is very old, I wouldn’t mind seeing a video from you addressing the problems with my views as well. It’s good to get perspective from both sides, no matter where you stand.
LXX is an interesting topic for a popcorn review by the same person NathanH83.
Summary of conclusion as I understand it: since we can't reliably use the toledots for dating purposes, it's entirely possible that the flood - global or otherwise - occurred a long time before Egyptian civilization began, and did not break the continuity thereof.
This allows for harmony between the historical and archeological findings regarding Egypt, and the Biblical accounts in Genesis.
This also allows for a much longer period between Adam and Eve and today, reconciling secular human historical studies with what were are told in scripture.
Adam and Eva were probably the first behaviorally modern humans
@@paradisecityX0 genetics indicates that every person alive today is descended from one man and one woman.
Secularists are at pains to point out "this doesn't mean they were the first or only man or woman!" - true, but it also doesn't exclude that option. Also, by their own estimations of the dating for mtEve and Y-chromosome Adam, the periods overlap, so it's entirely possible even from a secular view that the father and mother of all modern humans lived together.
Which of course aligns with part of the Biblical claim.
I don't think there is much case for humans existing much longer than around 12k years. I don't buy that homosapiens have been a species for tens of thousand of years and yet recorded history is limited to only ~6k+
@@bc4yt You need to read Dr. Josh Swamidass' works
@@paradisecityX0 I'll check it out. I'm guessing he's pro-evolution?
@@bc4yt He goes where the evidence leads
I really appreciate your insights and explanations. Good job! 👏👏
I agree with you entirely. What was the nature of the flood in your reckoning?
I always appreciate the information and discussion as it is much higher quality than social media.
While i myself hold to the global flood for reasons including the global nigh ubiquitous flood stories and similarities, I am open to dating shifts and that I may misunderstand the text meanings at times.
What do you think about the theory that things like Mesopotamian ziggurats being attempts to build to the heavens as a challenge and escape from the flood they were taught about as children or may even have lived through?
Whoa interesting, I haven’t heard that one before.
Thank you sir! I LOVED your “Evidence for Exodus” series and this is a question I’ve been interested in since I heard of / read Graham Hancock. If you’re familiar with his dating of the pyramids and the sphinx (being very, very old) do you take his work seriously? Thank you!
Incase Dr. Falk doesn't respond to this comment, if you go into the comment section under a comment by @Rekamusan884, he speaks a bit about Hancock.
There is another issue here: Rohl and some of his associates believe that the Israelites were in Egypt for only 215 years as in the Septugiant rather than for 430 years as in the Masoretic text.
Early daters who are fans of Rohl (like Tim Mahoney from „Patterns of evidence“) use this theory in order to postulate a historical connection between Joseph and the 12th dynasty.
This would, however, further reduce the timespan between the flood and the Exodus by 200 years, creating further problems for Young Earth Creationism.
Hi Dr Falk, do you think the concept of Sheol might have evolved from the Egyptian underworld? Also please consider doing a video comparing the two?
I know this isn’t for me but that’s probably not the case. Sheol in the Hebrew Bible is much closer to other ANE concepts of the underworld compared to Egypt.
It seems like many concepts of the underworld are similar. Sheol, Hades. Etc.
It is likely in my opinion that God shared a lot of knowledge with Adam as they "walked in the garden" together. After the fall this knowledge was diluted and corrupted over the generations into vagueries that carried over the flood and into the various subsequent cultures.
So I don't think it's a case of Sheol developing from Egyptian ideas, but rather both Egyptian and Hebrew ideas of the afterlife developing from a common "source" of the previous oral history passed down from Adam.
Though quite likely, the Hebrew version is closer, as they had renewed contact with the real God.
You can thank Plato for the Hellenistic influence on Sheol 👍
I noticed on the commandment "do not make images of things that are under the earth" that probably moses was referring to Egyptian deities of the underworld..?
Of course the pyramids were engulfed by the flood, they were obviously submarines for aliens 😂
🤣
You mentioned that there aren’t any signs of significant water damage. Are there signs of any water damage? Anything that would seem unusual or out of the ordinary?
Thank you Dr. Falk. I appreciate the subject on revisionists nonsense. If you could make more content with the problems of revisionists, I would love that!
Great work, Doc.
I am aware that YEC have some sort of genealogy confirmation of dates between the dedication of Solomon's Temple and Cyrus taking control of the Temple after the exile. I don't see a fathering age in later genealogies. How was that done?
I'm not sure, but most of the Chronicles/Kingdoms books and Major Prophets record tentative dates.
@@MeanBeanComedy In 1 Chronicles there are some genealogy lists where Titus Kennedy stated that a generation was on average 25 years. There are no fathering ages so we can't check on that.
As a young earth creationist, I really appreciate this video. It helped me to see that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are messier than I thought - both in the different manuscripts and with the honorific transpositions. Just for my understanding, what you mean by steelmaning the young earth creationist view is that the global flood happened some time before the whole Egyptian chronology, and leaving some wiggle room for what is the exact age of the Earth?
So, I would gather that by this, he means that the flood must come before the pyramids and before the Sphinx. Personally, I’m an Old Earth creationist so I think that the food was earlier than people often think, but if I had to affirm a Young Earth view, the Septuagint dating seems to fit that better than the Masoretic one.
There are no errors in the bible. People are dating the pyramids wrong, that's all.
@@JesusProtects "People are dating the pyramids wrong, that's all." Agreed, they're called young-earth creationists.
@@JesusProtects No one is saying that there are errors in the Bible. The fact that the Septuagint has different chronology dates implies that the genealogies in Genesis either are using symbolic ages between chapters 5 and 10, or are skipping generations, as the writers were more concerned with establishing heritages than giving an exact description of every single generation.
Such a suggestion is not claiming errors in the Bible, but rather stating that ancient writers had different priorities and different approaches than us in the modern day. This explains why some books in the Bible include names in the genealogies that others don’t.
Thanks!
Good work.
I would like to see a video on synchronisms.
We'll see what we can do about that.
In my opinion, the problem is not with young earth creationists, the problem is with the masoretic version of the ages. Not the septuagint version.
Of course, some say the ages are symbolic, and some say the flood is not global (i think IP holds both of these views).
If you hold either of those postions, you aren't an American young-earth creationist, though.
@@IamGrimalkin well, I believe those ages are not symbolic, but I do believe it was a regional flood. The flood was around 2950 BCE, as recorded in Sumerian legends, and this aligns if you take the Septuagint version of the Genesis 11 (but you must remove the extra Cainan).
So if it was a regional flood, then there is no need to check if there's water damage in the pyramids.
Some text critics like Henry Smith have argued for the LXX Genesis 5 and 11 years being more accurate but most who argue in this case like Smith just happen to have idealogical motives for arguing this way. Dr. Andrew Steinmann has wrote a number of articles arguing why most of the numbers in the MT are closer to the original text than the LXX. I’ll have a video on this topic soon but it’s not public yet.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYouThe problem is when the Septuagint and the MT disagree, the Dead Sea Scrolls tend to agree with the Septuagint. Not all older texts are more accurate, but that seems to be the case here.
@@MeanBeanComedy what DSS are you referring to?
We may have similar views. My problem with young earth creation isn’t the idea of it happening in 7 days but the amount of history. I’m not talking about dinosaurs or millions or billions of years. Maybe. But human history. There are definitely archaeological finds older than the 6,000 years they allow for.
Using whose measuring system?
Golbeki Tepe is another refutation of a YEC/Global Flood model
This is the first video I’ve watched of yours. Loved it. I don’t know what your world view is but I really appreciate you not clumping all Christians in with the YC crowd. Many just clump us all together
This is why I want to better understand the context of “flood” in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. I know there were literal regional floods, but “flood” is used in more than the context of just water, like in myths, but I do not have the defined context of the other uses. Is it a flood of migration? A flood of religious reforms? Flood of Hyksos style migration? This is what I think we all need better understanding in. Could you help us better understand “flood” and the contexts, and uses, from Ancient 11:52 Egypt to Mesopotamia? From 2400 BC - 1200 BC.
I don’t recommend applying a flood of English idiomatic uses to a text written nearly two millennia before English even existed.
Okay I have a kind of crazy idea about this that I call the global local hypothesis meaning that there where a bunch of local floods around the world considering the one in the Bible is the main one I haven’t really worked on details too much it’s just an idea I had one day. Evidence the myriad of flood stories around the world and all the flooded river valleys in places like doggerland the black sea flooding the drainage glacial lakes and general other stuff around the end of the Ice Age with rising sea level. There’s probably a lot against this hypothesis but I’m just putting it out there to start a conversation. Don’t worry I don’t hold to this hypothesis again it’s just an idea
Nothing against it, I think so too and its very defensable.
@@Makaneek5060 thanks
@@Makaneek5060what do you think its strongest and weakest points?
Considering the Bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, one could hypothesize that there were many local floods before the whole world eventually was covered in water. According to the account of the biblical deluge, water covered the tops of mountains. Seashells on top of mountains is proof of this.
It was more than just local floods, Noah was the only survivor because God gave him instructions for the perfect boat to withstand such conditions.. I recommend looking into Ron Wyatt's finding of Noah's Ark in modern day Turkey.
My personal theory: the first behaviourally modern humans (which were the first human population with rational souls, who were the descendants of Adam and Eve's children) initially just lived in one area and that area was subjected to a severe flood. As all humans are descendants of the survivors of a regional flood (Noe (Noah) and his family) and the children they had with creatures that were physically human but lacked rational souls.
So this chronology would not rule out the flood happening approximately 12,000-10,000 BC?
Correct.
I don't know much about Egypt only what I get from:
the English Bible, Google Maps, National Geographic, TV ,and Video Games. I am all so into Math , Science , and Art more than anything . The only one I went to is the Hotel in Las Vegas .
I like #3 the best.
Could there be a possibility that Terah died after Abram left Haran?
No, because of the consecutive-vav, "after that" used following the death of Terah in Gen 12:1.
@@ancientegyptandthebible 👍
how are the pyramids dated? I assume the easiest way to resolve this would be to imply there are possible gaps between the genealogies in Gensis.
That would make Ken Ham very annoyed.
@@Makaneek5060 Yea i think it makes it hard when you lock yourself into using the genealogies as an exact dating method. You could still hold to a young earth that isn't the exact 6k years.
@@justinjustin4605 Ya but there are limits. For example, if I were to believe that the earth is 11 thousand years old, that would still be very young compared to the conventional scientific estimate, but it would be by definition “out of bounds” for young-Earth creationism.
'The Giza pyramids were all built in the Fourth Dynasty, the ‘golden age’ of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Secular archaeologists date their building between 2589-2504 BC, which allows 85 years for their construction.1 However, according to the Hebrew Old Testament Masoretic Text (MT) timescale, this date is at or before the Flood. This cannot be possible, because even the pyramids could not have survived the massive upheavals and destructive power of this global cataclysm.
To underscore this, the pyramids themselves are standing on vast layers of sedimentary (water-laid) rock, both sandstone and limestone. In fact, most of the blocks used in constructing the pyramids are of these two types. The limestone contains large numbers of marine fossils such as seashells; like most fossils, these were buried due to this stupendous diluvial activity, with unimaginable quantities of sediment eroded, transported and dumped by the powerful forces of all that water.
In short, pyramids standing on Flood-deposited rock, and built with blocks made of the same, could never have been built before Noah’s Flood. Anything built pre-Flood would have been completely destroyed-and likely without trace, given God’s pronouncement in Genesis 6:7, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground.”
According to biblical history, the pyramids must have been built after Babel and the dispersion of humanity (Genesis 11:1-10).3 Specifically, Scripture connects Noah’s son Ham and his grandson Mizraim with the land of Egypt, who were likely Egypt’s founders.'
Has an assumption that carbon decays at the same rate throughout time. But it is very difficult to prove that things might not have been different Before the Flood
Mizraim is just the word for Egypt. This, coupled with the fact that kinship terms in the Bible can be used for larger social entities above the level of individual persons (the Israelite messengers sent to request permission for passage through Edom begin their message with "Thus says your brother Israel" in Numbers 20:14), means that there is little to no biblical requirement for any person with the names presented in the Table of Nations to have ever existed (it's called the Table of Nations after all, not the Table of Specific Individual Persons).
@@darkblade4340 "Mizraim is just the word for Egypt"
Mizraim is the name of Noah's descendent. It was he who founded the nation of Egypt and gave it its name Mizraim/Egyt. Same goes for Israel, it was founded by the man Israel. It's all clearly described in the Bible.
"Table of nations."
Again, the Bible clearly describes those nations having been founded by the men who they are named after. There is nothing unusual about that.
@@henryschmit3340 "It was he who founded the nation of Egypt and gave it its name Mizraim/Egyt" This doesn't work because the term Mizraim is a Semitic exonym. If there was this one guy who founded Egypt and gave the country its name, why would it only be foreign outsiders speaking non-Egyptian languages who use that name for Egypt?
"It's all clearly described in the Bible." No, it isn't. The Bible never claims that a specific individual human named Mizraim (or most of the other names appearing in the Table of Nations, for that matter) ever existed. It says, "The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan." There is no biblical requirement for me to interpret this as meaning anything more than saying the nations of Cush (a region south of Egypt), Egypt, Put, and Canaan are descended from Ham in some way. As already established, kinship terms can be and commonly are used for larger social entities above the level of individual persons. I already gave you the example of Numbers 20:14. There's also the phrase "father of the country" which has been used since Roman time (Paragraph 35 of Res Gestae Divi Augusti says "In my thirteenth consulship [2 BC] the senate, the equestrian order and the whole people of Rome gave me the title of Father of my Country") and continues to be used for modern figures like George Washington and Sun Yat-sen. Likewise, the country of Canada itself is described in its national anthem as having sons.
"Again, the Bible clearly describes those nations having been founded by the men who they are named after." No, it doesn't. All it describes is the existence of nations descended from the sons of Noah. It does not claim there to have ever existed any specific individual persons bearing the names seen in the Table of Nations (the Arphaxad line might be an exception).
@@darkblade4340 You said it yourself 'Mizraim means Egypt'.
*grabs popcorn*
This problem is only a problem if you accept the current timelines that are Conventional wisdom in modern archeology, which there are many experts that disagreet. I'm not saying ya or nay on the information contained here, I only argue that a theory that is accepted by a large group of experts does not mean it's a fact. It just means that there is a large body of people that accept that theory. personal bias and misdirected interpretation of the data can go a long way towards making a theory that has a bunch of holes in it sound more plausible, but it still isn't a fact.
There are others that do not accept the current timelines, and after lots of personal research, I do not believe that we know as much as we think we do about the timelines. There is enough "fudge space" or dark time periods (which essentially mean that we don't have any answers for why those gaps exist) that if you were to adjust those gaps a bit here and there, you could easily fit in the development of the pyramids in the immediate generations after the flood. And this doesn't even take into account how much time difference there could be between the current "accepted" theory and the alternative theories.
I can't go into express detail here because it's a huge pool of information you need to go through, But I just want to point out that accepted theory =/= fact. There are many evolutionists that labelled Darwinian evolution as fact a decade ago and are now looking for alternative theories due to new actual data that has been found that puts Darwinism into question. I highly recommend the video "Patterns of Evidence: Exodus" as a basic primer for some alternative theories, as well as some great discussions that actually revolve around the evidence, and not just a commonly accepted theory that is relabeled as fact.
> This problem is only a problem if you accept the current timelines that are Conventional wisdom in modern archeology, which there are many experts that disagreet.
Who are those "experts"? There are a lot of people who are running around claiming to be "experts" in chronology, but lack the training or have not done the work needed to become an expert in the field.
> I'm not saying ya or nay on the information contained here, I only argue that a theory that is accepted by a large group of experts does not mean it's a fact.
I would agree. However, in this case, I would argue that the coventional chronology is a fact. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it, and I have verified the evidence for it personally. When the evidence is that strong, it's just bad thinking to keep claiming that fringe theories have a place in the discussion.
> It just means that there is a large body of people that accept that theory. personal bias and misdirected interpretation of the data can go a long way towards making a theory that has a bunch of holes in it sound more plausible, but it still isn't a fact.
That's a caricature of the evidence as it currently stands. Chronology is not just a "theory" based upon personal bias and (mis-)interpretation of the data, it is a reconstruction based upon thousands of pieces of evidence.
> There are others that do not accept the current timelines, and after lots of personal research, I do not believe that we know as much as we think we do about the timelines.
I doubt the quality of your "personal research." You might know enough to think you are right, but not enough to know that you are wrong. I don't think you really understand the nature of the evidence, so I don't think you are really in a position to qualify your personal research.
> There is enough "fudge space" or dark time periods (which essentially mean that we don't have any answers for why those gaps exist) that if you were to adjust those gaps a bit here and there, you could easily fit in the development of the pyramids in the immediate generations after the flood.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. But I would be happy to discuss it with you.
> And this doesn't even take into account how much time difference there could be between the current "accepted" theory and the alternative theories.
One advantage we have today that we didn't have 20 years ago is that we know that with a sufficiently powerful enough computer that chronological theories can be falsified, that is, proven wrong. The vast majority of "alternative theories" have now been proven wrong.
> I can't go into express detail here because it's a huge pool of information you need to go through, But I just want to point out that accepted theory =/= fact.
That is true as long as you have warrant for saying a theory is not a fact. However, in the case of chronology, I don't think that warrant exists.
> I highly recommend the video "Patterns of Evidence: Exodus" as a basic primer for some alternative theories, as well as some great discussions that actually revolve around the evidence, and not just a commonly accepted theory that is relabeled as fact.
The theory used in the video "Patterns of Evidence" has been proven to be wrong. It is an impossible theory that has no possibility at all of being true--can I say that any more strongly? Moreover, most of the premises that Rohl has based his new chronology upon (the so-called "Four Pillars of Conventional Chronology") have also been debunked. I really wished that people who don't know anything about chronology would stop recommending that film--it's complete garbage. This is one of those "how do you say you don't know anything about chronology without saying it"--"I highly recommend the video 'Patterns of Evidence: Exodus.'"
@@ancientegyptandthebible All the explanation you need is in your second paragraph. 'Experts'
@@kenknowlton3085
> All the explanation you need is in your second paragraph. 'Experts'
That doesn't cut it. Anonymous "experts" are appeals to nothing. Name those "experts" and show their qualifications and let us know why we should regard them as having expertise.
@@ancientegyptandthebible That's why I used single quotes around experts. Claiming expertise doesn't outrank God's Word.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I always liked the saying, "Expert is where x is an unknown quantity and spurt is pressurized drivel.
Pyramid, fire in the middle, also known as Pillars in the ancient world but "an alter unto the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt" is what they are called in the OT, Isaiah 19:19. For exact dates, Jason Breshears of Archaix has them with an overwhelming amount of sources in his bibliography. It's a heck of a lot easier to point to Jason at Archaix because he spent over 25 years digging through old texts, and knows history like no one I have ever seen before. No, he doesn't subscribe to religion.
Sir, how do you not have 1,000,000 subscribers? You have really helped me on my understanding of the ancient near eastern context of biblical scripture as well as the historicity of various topics. I used to be at conflict with you because I had a mindset at the time that every Christian conspiracy must be true, but I stuck around and I learned quite a bit. God Bless you and I pray for your success in your field of research as well as the continued growth of your career and TH-cam channel. I hope you are able to reach many more followers of Christ that were like myself at that time. Keep on rockin!!
I'm please to hear that you have found the channel helpful. 😁
What I don't get about YEC is why isn't there anything remotely anything written or spoken in the bible that talks about this subject if it was that important?
The Heat Problem is probably the biggest problem. Every culture that existed in approximately 2,400 BC and continued os also a problem.
Heat problem?
The heat problem is only a problem when you apply your physics to your timeline. God can work within and without the laws of physics as we know them. He created us from dust (which science has since verified) for crying out loud.
You think God abides by the law of thermodynamics? You got no idea what civilizations predated 2400 BC and which didnt. History is absolutely insane, if you hadnt noticed.
@@fenixchief7The Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations long predate 2400 BC.
Literally one of hundred reasons why YEC is problematic
Every viewpoint has problems because we weren’t there. YEC is both well supported by science and archeology as well as being the only view explicitly stated in the Bible.
@@firstaccount888 That's not how it works. It is impossible for archaeology (defined as "the scientific study of material remains (such as tools, pottery, jewelry, stone walls, and monuments) of past human life and activities" per Merriam-Webster) to support young-earth creationism. For example, if two people disagree on when a baseball field was made, it would be inherently impossible for a record of the games played on that field to support the person who suggested the later date. Archaeology tells us how long humans have been doing certain things, not how old the planet is.
Also, how does science support young-earth creationism?
Also, the Bible does not explicitly state young-earth creationism. On the contrary, I can find an instance of the Bible indicating against young-earth creationism.
The Persian Gulf Flood happened a few hundred years before the first pyramids were built. The Black Sea Flood was several thousand years before that. Both were localized in Mesopotamia
I thought that happened around 13,000 BC
@@randomango2789 14,000 years ago give or take. Though l suspect that's when the Sons of God landed on earth
You should make more ep. against YEC
Well, I could. But it's kind of boring. I mean... if I started doing that, then I would have to go after the other views on origins that I have problems with, like theistic evolution, progressive creationism, CYEC, OEC, secular evolution, panspermia, the Re egg. Where would it end? 😂
@@ancientegyptandthebible Don't forget about Thursdayism 😂
@@The-DO 😂
I’m a younger person, and as I was growing up I never understood why some Christians stubbornly cling onto Young Earth Creationism. I always viewed evolution as part of God’s plan for humanity, and the creation account in the Book of Genesis as symbolic. Also just imagine God trying to explain evolution to early humans in the BC time period; I’m doubtful that humans would understand the concept of evolution back then.
I accept that the first 11 chapters of Genesis have some basis in history, certainly there has to be a literal Adam and Eve for the doctrine of original sin to hold, I also of course accept that God directly created the human soul, but it's obviously not written in a precise scientific manner, and I don't think genealogies can be used to date the age of the earth.
Micro Evolution has been falling apart since the theory was created. I do think there is a timeline issue in our understanding of history. Recently they claimed the Israelites were not ever held captive in Egypt and then they uncovered a stone stating they were dating to the precise time period the Bible said. There are hundreds of examples like this. So I think we just keep an open mind and keep searching. That’s me speaking to both sides.
Iv heard of an interpretation that the plagues of Egypt were also an attack on different Egyptian gods
So I wonder if God flooding the 'eretz ' is also yhwh going to battle with the cananite goddess eretz not just humans
Eg
The plague of blood was against Hapi and Osiris, the Egyptian gods of the Nile. The plague of frogs was against Heqet, the Egyptian god of fertility. The plague of dead livestock was against Apis, the god of livestock. The plague of darkness was against Ra, the god the sun.
So the flood was against eretz the cannanite Goddes of the earth .
Just like moses splitting the reed sea can be interpreted as his defeat over Egyptian gods.. Especially since water magic was so popular in Egypt..the Egyptians.might interpret moses as a sorcery of some sort
The attack on the pantheon is the correct interpretation
That's Currid's interpretation. It's not an interpretation I agree with. 🤷♂
@ancientegyptandthebible
Have you ever heard of that Genesis 1 is not recorded in chronological order but in blocks of parallels..
The first three days of creation are related to separation.
Day 1 - Separating light from darkness
Day 2 - Separating the water from the sky
Day 3 - Separating the land from the water
The next three days of creation are related to the filling of the creation.
Day 4 - Filling the light with the sun and the dark with the moon
Day 5 - Filling the water fish and the sky with birds
Day 6 - Filling the land with animals and man
That's from.' The philosophy of the hebrew language' by Jeff a Benner . An online article.
Days 1 and 4 are the same days . 2 and 5 . 3 and 6 .
So it's actually 3 days of creation
@@ancientegyptandthebible interesting. What is your interpretation of it?
And do you disagree with how @ramadadiver broke it down or do you disagree with the attack on the pantheon (spiritual warfare) angle completely?
I would’ve thought carbon dating would be young Earth creationism’s kryptonite.
They've got ways of explaining C14 away too.
@@ancientegyptandthebible -How you worded your answer says it all. They need to “explain away” evidence, because the evidence doesn’t back their claims.
I find Young Earth creationism to be captivatingly cultish-Because The Bible and Christian belief while calling for creationist belief, doesn’t call for a short timeframe.
Most Christians would tell you that the 7 Days of creation weren’t literal days, but indeterminate and variable time periods.
And Christian scholarship bears this out.
Yet, Young Earth creationists have wed themselves to a belief with no theological backing.
@@richlisola1 Yup.
I really don't understand adhering to an entire 3000 year timeline of Egypt in a strictly scientific manner, especially the earliest 1500 years which plausibly could be off by centuries, yet falling back on Terah being literally 130 years old when fathering Abraham?
Well, at least I agree with the corollary, that the geneologies are fairly useless for assessing anything
David Rohl adds 1000 years to the Middle Kingdom? Wow I had no idea, yikes.
David Rohl has his issues (and there are many), but that isn't one of them. He actually removes about 200-300 years.
@@MisterKisk He removes 200-300 years to the New Kingdom and adds 1000 years from the Middle Kingdom. That's because he hold to an early Old Kingdom.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Well, I can't find anyone else saying that, so I must ask, what is your evidence for this claim?
@@MisterKisk I've read all of his books.
@@ancientegyptandthebible That's nice, but that's not really what I was asking for. Other people have also read all of his books and have not said anything relating to him increasing the Middle Kingdom by 1000 years. Can you give a citation?
I'm not sure the honorific transposition approach really solves the problem.
It's true that Abe, nahor and haran are not listed in birth order. I've always assumed they were listed in order of importance: we know more about Abe than Nahor (father of Rebecca, Laban, and then Leah and Rachel). And Haran is the father of Lot.
The same is true of Shem (line to Christ), Ham (line to Canaan), and Japheth (ummm... Nobodies).
But in both cases, the multiple offspring are listed for comparative purposes.
In the cas of the Gen 5 and Gen 11 genealogies, only one son is listed.
What point could the author have in listing the age of parentage, independent of the son mentioned?
The resulting statement would not just be non-western; it would be factually incorrect.
Do we see this happening elsewhere (where only one son is mentioned)?
Line of Japhet becomes the Greek Hercles. Javan = Hellen, Tarshish = Perses/Dorus father of Tectauus who the constellation Taurus is named after. Nobody's who became mythical Heracles.
@@paulschuckman6604 yes.
But they play little to no role in the Bible. That's why the Bible lists them last, and That's why I said that.
@@Tim.Foster123 have you heard of the book of Jasher? I'm starting to think Tarshish is Jushur (Jasher) first king on the Sumerian King's list after the flood.
@@paulschuckman6604 I only know of it because it's mentioned in the Bible. Beyond that, I know nothing about it
There's a guy named Henryschmit in your comments that is giving you a perfectly reasonable explanation and it fits what the bible says.
Correction: It fits his interpretation of what he thinks the Bible says.
I also think there are problems with both YEC and OEC and other age of earth and age of universe theories. I think the Earth is probably older than 6k or even 10k years. I am not so sure that it's millions of years old or just looks millions of years old because God brought things about into a state of maturity.
Personally I think humanity, the Adamic era, is 6-12k years old, but the earth can be much older.
There is plenty of room for a "gap" between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
This would explain any ancient findings such as fossils, isotopes etc etc without there being any discord between science and scripture.
I think there were previous eras of creation which served other purposes, not least of all in terraforming earth ready for the age of man.
@@bc4yt It's quite possible perhaps even probable. I have started to learn towards that myself. I don't lean towards evolution really at least not in the way the mainstream tends to teach it. But I think neanderthals were a separate species God made and humanity was a special creation among all other creatures. As for death I think Genesis was saying now humans would die too where previously we wouldn't but other creatures would.
All this being said the same science that finds dino fossils and dates them 65 million years ago also says homo sapiens have existed for somewhere between 300 and 400k years. Personally i find this hard to believe since that would mean it took most of human history just to figure out writing....or even cave paintings....when we see our own children figure it out in a couple years by scratching rocks on rocks.
Dolní Věstonice has statues 25k years old, and the oldest surviving human art is over 73k years old.
But yeah, I agree with the gap theory as well.
@@davidryan8547 That analogy at the end isn’t all that good. For example, it takes a few months or years for children in the Anglosphere to learn contemporary English to an apt degree, but it took more than a thousand years (starting with Old English) for contemporary English to develop.
@@darkblade4340 Thousands but not hundreds of thousands....
Awwh I’m disappointed. I was hoping the analogy being used talking about a pigs breackfast. Because it makes me laugh !!!
😂
Too bad we didn't get a dirty sock rating!
Kind of tough to do when all are pretty much equally bad options.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Ah, that is fair haha
YECs unnecessarily lead so many people away from the Lord.
I think the problem is more the insistence that YEC is the only Biblical reading rather than YEC itself, but I see your point.
Yeah, also those idiots who keep insisting on virgin births and resurrections. Don't they know science has disproved these too?
@@ancientegyptandthebible yes i would agree with that. I guess the problem is when they anathematize others for not holding the yec view. They almost elevate the issue to being up there with the gospel. Thats what i have a problem with.
Definitely not me. The pyramid dating must be wrong, that's all.
@@JesusProtects Why must it be wrong? We have lots of corroborating evidence that suggests that it is correct. Why go with that idea when we know that a Western-style reading of Gen 11 is certainly wrong?
OK, I'm not getting how the genalogy of the LXX being 100 years longer
than the Masoretic text gets the flood to be at 3298 BC instad of 2350 BC.
Notice that a Septuagint LXX Primacy doesn't apply to 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
100 years EACH. It adds up to nearly a thousand years by the end.
14:24 I know what’s being meant here, but fathers don’t give birth. I also noticed this a few times in the last livestream.
What?!? Men can’t get pregnant?!? 🫄 Apple even has an emoji for that! 😂
Not very Progressive™ of you, I fear.
@@dannydement How did you type the superscript TM?
@@darkblade4340 ALT+0153 on the Num Pad.
@@darkblade4340 it's in the emoji gallery
Israelitesl genealogical records also skip generations.
Could also be a problem for dating the pyramids?
Why is dating for the pyramids flawless but dating for the flood faulty?
What if dating the floods is flawless but the dating if the pyramids is faulty?
Your theory is still only a theory. But what if the strongest point to your theory is actually the biggest flaw in your hypothesis.
Egyptian chronology is verified by contemporary sources outside of Egypt itself. We know who invaded what parts of the Levant around it, and this all corroborates each other piece of evidence. So that’s how we can be fairly certain about the chronology, and therefore by that also be confident about the pyramids.
But even then, if you wanted to doubt the pyramids, you would then have to wrestle with the issue of civilisations across the world that have records stretching back to the same time. So if the flood really happened in 2500 BC, why does it never seem to affect these records or movements of peoples across the globe?
Only real explanation, if you want to affirm that the flood was really global, is to say that the flood was much older than YEC affirms (which btw isn’t an issue, if generations were indeed skipped often).
I believe the pyramids were built before the flood, then after the flood and the splitting of nations at the Tower of Babel, they came across the ruins and then fixed them up. I don’t think the Egyptians had the technology to build the pyramids. Maybe just fixed them up. Nowhere do the Egyptians say they built the pyramids. Just like the megaliths in Peru, or Mexico pyramids,The Mexicans said it was there built when they came to the land.
There’s literally an Egyptian text describing how the Egyptians built the pyramids
@@darkblade4340What's that text called? And also the Sphinx ?
Mormons tend ro teach the classic 12,000 years old.
Septuagint adds a thousand years to post Flood patriarchs.
The tradition was that Arphaxad, Melchizidek and Job built it.
Three different Egyptian chronologies Rohl, Velikovsky etc.
9000 BC Graham Hancock, 10,000 BC Hollywood film thru 1800 BC not a problem.
I don't think you can steelman young Earth creationism without it becoming self-contradictory. There is lots of evidence, without having any atheistic agenda, evidence uncovered by many cultures and countries, that indicates the Earth (and universe in general) is at minimum significantly older than the extremely short period specified by young earth creationism. Because it has such a strict hypothesis for how old the Earth is, you only need one solid body of evidence that the earth is at least moderately older to disprove it (if it had the courage to treat itself as a hypothesis rather than an assumption). The reason it's so hard to steelman is because, in order to explain away so many of these evidences, you have to posit that God created a world of apparent constants and reliability that is secretly deceptive. It appears that the world is consistent and time extends into the past, and we have things like ice cores, cores from lakebeds, coral growth lines, magetics signatures in seabed lava flows, and the simple problem of the speed of light and how distant the stars are, that all indicate a world at least more than 15,000 years old. I know they indicate more than that, but to test the hypothesis we only need them to reliably indicate age beyond that measure. And all of them do (along with lots of other examples). To explain them, you could argue that God created a world that is only apparently old. That although galaxies are millions of light years away that the light from them was created in near proximity in situ around Earth, so it would only appear that they must be millions of years old because it would take that long for the light from them to reach us. That involves positing a very tricky God, one who creates an inconsistent, deceitful universe. And the whole idea of creationism is to argue for the existence of a God for whom such deceit would be entirely against his nature. The whole point of the Bible isn't to argue for any particular scientific theory, it's to argue for belief in God. Throwing God under the bus to save young earth creationism rather misses the point.
It reminds me of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where it turns out that Earth is actually not natural but was built as a living supercomputer by an alien race 7.5 million years ago (a long time but not that long geologically), and the workers simply buried fake dinosaur bones in the crust to make it look old, to stimulate the minds of humanity.
> I don't think you can steelman young Earth creationism without it becoming self-contradictory.
Oh, I think it can be easily done. But I'm not a creationist, so I'm not about to tell you how to do it.
> The reason it's so hard to steelman is because, in order to explain away so many of these evidences, you have to posit that God created a world of apparent constants and reliability that is secretly deceptive. It appears that the world is consistent and time extends into the past, and we have things like ice cores, cores from lakebeds, coral growth lines, magetics signatures in seabed lava flows, and the simple problem of the speed of light and how distant the stars are, that all indicate a world at least more than 15,000 years old.
Sure, but YEC doesn't require that the Earth is less than 15K years old. There are YECs that believe that the Earth is a million years old. That's still YEC. And there are perfectly reasonable explanation for everything you mentioned that a creative YEC could find a way around. The only problem is they just aren't very creative. But if I have though about these ways around the problems you've mentioned, sooner or later one of them will think the same. I'm just not about to help them do it.
> That involves positing a very tricky God, one who creates an inconsistent, deceitful universe. And the whole idea of creationism is to argue for the existence of a God for whom such deceit would be entirely against his nature. The whole point of the Bible isn't to argue for any particular scientific theory, it's to argue for belief in God. Throwing God under the bus to save young earth creationism rather misses the point.
No, you don't need a deceitful or inconsistent universe to do this. Just artful application of already existing scientific paradigms.
But then again, I am no fan of any concordant theory.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Young-Earth Creationism by definition “requires that the earth be no more than 10,000 years old” (National Center for Science Education).
@@darkblade4340 If that's true, what about those who believe the earth is a million years old instead of 4.3 billion years old. Are they Middle-Earth Creationists? 🤣🤣🤣
@@ancientegyptandthebible There’s probably a hobbit joke to be made here based on that hominid fossil found a few years back that everyone was calling the Hobbit, but I don’t have enough caffeine to come up with one, sorry. 🤷🏽♂
@@ancientegyptandthebible
Now that I think of it, the NCSE doesn’t cite anything to back up its definition iirc. It also doesn’t make sense that someone who believes in a 9999-year-old earth is a young-Earth creationist but someone who believes in a 10,001-year-old earth isn’t. Personally I would redraw the boundaries and add extra categories so that “young-Earth creationist” now applies to someone who believes the earth is between 25K and 500K years old (those believing in an earth under 25K years old are in the new category of “super-young-earth creationists”), a “Medium-Young-Earth creationist” believes in an earth between 500K and 10 million years old, an “Intermediatist” (couldn’t come up with any better term) belies in a 10M to 500M-year-old earth, a “Medium-Old-Earth creationist” believes in an earth between 500M and 3B years old, an “Old Earth Creationist” believes in an earth between 3 and 6 billion years old, and a “Super-Old-Earth creationist” believes in an earth more than six billion years old.
I'd suggest its not the pyramids that is their greatest challenge, my take is that greatest challenge is one of being particularly unintelligent.
I would prefer to keep this civil. I've known some secular evolutionists who were dumb as bricks too. But that's ad hominem reasoning that is irrelevant to the arguments at hand.
@@ancientegyptandthebible the world is just passing you guys by
@@billybobwombat2231 Why is it such a bad thing to be civil? If that's the world passing me by, let it pass.
@ancientegyptandthebible I'm guessing civil would be to agree with you, saying the world is passing you by and making a rational observation about a train of thought that is deficient in critical thinking is what it is , an articulated observation, I can lie and and say jolly good old chap, your theory is entirely sound and holds water if that makes it a little easier, mate do some real ground work and look at the science that just walks all over your all earth flood, there is a whole world beyond this tiny little sliver of implausible thought, have a nice day
@@billybobwombat2231 No, being civil means treating people you don't agree with decently. I certainly don't agree with YECs, but I'm willing to treat them with kindness and human respect while saying I don't agree with their ideas. But hey, if you can't do that, then this might not be the place for you.
“Let’s talk about dinosaurs, and my theme park!” Literally 😂. Some of these dudes are money grubbing jerks
I’ve heard reports of some less-than-legal activities happening at said theme park.
Septuagint
… does not actually come to the rescue.
The pyramids were built after the flood and couldn't be built without the upheaval of the earth caused by Noah's flood.
The pyramids predate any proposed date for a fictional "global flood" which never happened. The Egyptian historical record continues uninterrupted for more than 6,000 years.
This is the first problem and biggest I had with Christianity. I began to doubt the existence and reality of Christ/God/Christianity because of this.
which pyramids. the great pyramid was maybe pre deluge. there likely was two habitations of egypt. i dont know if i would trust whatever record youre referencing for timeline of egypt. either the interpretation or the record is wrong if its conflicting with what is. we know what is right. also preconceived notions are readily accepted and are only lastly questioned. i have even as of lately seen a man single handedly piece together parallel history recordings of the ancient world because it hasnt been done because people have such an inclination to use the tools handed them.
it exists to be uncovered (and will be) as it is said that there is nothing hidden that wont be brought to light. if you want to be one to uncover it, you have to have the desire to do so though. also the mind to look in the right place. exactly what is written in Scripture will be proven.
> which pyramids. the great pyramid was maybe pre deluge.
There is no possible way that the great pyramid was pre-deluge. There is an unbroken continuity of pyramids and administrative biographies from 300 years prior to Khufu's pyramid to 400 years after.
> there likely was two habitations of egypt.
No, there wasn't. That's a myth.
> i dont know if i would trust whatever record youre referencing for timeline of egypt. either the interpretation or the record is wrong if its conflicting with what is.
I'm referencing the biographies of those who lived in Egypt at the time. Who are you referencing?
> we know what is right. also preconceived notions are readily accepted and are only lastly questioned.
I don't think I'm the one with the wrong notions here, just saying.
> i have even as of lately seen a man single handedly piece together parallel history recordings of the ancient world because it hasnt been done because people have such an inclination to use the tools handed them.
There is a lot of people who cherry-pick the data and come up with crazy wrong revisions of the chronology of Egypt. Chronology is a highly complicated field that few people have sufficient command of the sources.
> it exists to be uncovered (and will be) as it is said that there is nothing hidden that wont be brought to light. if you want to be one to uncover it, you have to have the desire to do so though. also the mind to look in the right place. exactly what is written in Scripture will be proven.
That's assuming your conclusion. Are you sure you really want to do that?
"Jacob and Esau," not "Esau and Jacob."
Yup, that's honorific transposition.
@@ancientegyptandthebible But also "Cain and Abel", is that standard primogeniture, some kind of dishonorific transposition, or something else?
@@darkblade4340 This one is unclear. Abel has no offspring and forms no clan. He just does a righteous offering and then is killed. If Abel had survived and lived on to form a clan, he probably would have be mentioned first.
Iirc “Jacob and Esau” is something that we say in modern times, but I don’t remember any examples of that exact combination of words appearing in the Bible itself.
There the American piramides too.
Yes, but they aren't nearly as old as those in Egypt.
@@ancientegyptandthebible True but some how you need people to get there and make them. It's not as bad as try to show how Yellowstone eruption layers and other volcanoes fit in with some of there claims. but I don't see how it work in the time scale. Starting with 8 people getting off the ark. And the list go's on and on Easter island statues, Stonehenge, the terracotta army, The great wall of china, And Rome was at least 2 days. ;)
1. Accuses YECs of changing the subject, then changes the subject himself. Yeah, I can see where this is going.
How about questioning when the pyramids were built or the known problems of the lies of ancient documentary evidence from Egypt. They lied a lot so that their great god pharaohs never looked bad. A pharaoh's defeats in wars were erased or turned into victories.
Could you explain how he changed the subject?
Many people have questioned when the pyramids were built and he addressed those attempts. What else do you want him to do. Your right that the Pharaohs exaggerated their stories but did you not hear the part about the synchronisms.
Lets see chixulub crater.
The more than 30 super eruption
The whole ring of fire
All the impact events.
Heat problems the distortion of radio dating(nuclear fallout anyone)
Limestone
Heat problem... forget the flood the oceans would be boiling just from the volcanism.
With everything. It would vaparize the sea😂😂
And what is the point of this reply other than to inspire me to point out the inadequacies of other views besides AYEC?
@ancientegyptandthebible
Oof I think u may misunderstood me
I'm not into yec. I was tricked by ham.
I went to bed praying. One night
When I was a kid I dreamed of geology
Wanted to be a paleontologist
My point was the mass amount of issues
Yec would apply geologically
@@ancientegyptandthebible or I may be misreading your reply...
@@r.a.panimefan2109 I don't like AYEC either. And I'm not a fan of Ken Ham, but I want to keep this conversation relevant and civil. All positions on origins have problems and shortcomings. There is no perfect position in origins, so a little humility goes a long ways in this conversation.
@@ancientegyptandthebible fair.
The timeline found in the Septuagint translation of the old testament, which is older btw, has about 1500 extra years added to the patriarchs geneologies which puts the flood well before the pyramids. There are several reasons to accept the Septuagint over what we use today. It clears up many historical discrepancies and i encourage everyone to look into it
Unfortunately, reading the LXX for the extra 1500 years has the same problem as the MT text. It pushes back the problem, but does not resolve the issue.
Your reason and justification for making this video aside, the evidence for the age of the pyramids on the Giza plateau is subjective and not established. However, the evidence clearly shows that the pyramids far older then the established time line adhered too by Egyptologists and the academic community. How creationism fits in, I can’t speak too.
Every contradiction is based on an assumption. Assuming that archeological evidence 'proves' anything is biased on personal beliefs/ideology.
Instead of believing God's account, humanism will go to any length to deny Him.
If all pyramids across the entire planet predate the Deluge, then you find them just as the waters left them. If the post-date the Flood then man's time-line is incorrect. Choose who you believe, creature or Creator.
Believing mainstream YEC theory is believing the creature George McCready Price.
In the last few years credible researchers (not Egyptologists who are closed minded) reckon that Khufu had nothing to do with the pyramid building but simply did some restoration to the sphinx. It is now thought that the 3 Giza plateau pyramids were actually built pre-Flood closer to the date of the Sphinx viz. about 10,600 BC or 12,000 years ago. Don't forget that the casing stones are now missing so you won't see weathering on the stones currently showing.
> In the last few years credible researchers (not Egyptologists who are closed minded)...
Who would those "credible" researchers be? The ancient aliens crowd?
> ...reckon that Khufu had nothing to do with the pyramid building but simply did some restoration to the sphinx.
Since the Sphinx post-dates Khufu, that would be quite a feat. We know who built these pyramids by those who were buried around them. Those buried around Khufu's pyramid are related to Khufu. Those buried around Khafre's pyramid are related to Khafre... etc. Plus, we have papyri from the time of Khufu that describe the pyramid's construction. And Khufu's father before him (Sneferu) also built pyramids. You would have be incredibility dense not to realize that Khufu had his own pyramid built.
> It is now thought that the 3 Giza plateau pyramids were actually built pre-Flood closer to the date of the Sphinx viz. about 10,600 BC or 12,000 years ago.
This is fringe lunacy, of the Graham Hancock pseudohistory variety.
> Don't forget that the casing stones are now missing so you won't see weathering on the stones currently showing.
We however have the weathering of the stones from Menkaure's temple, which was build much later than the Sphinx. And it shows more weathering than the sphinx. It in no way is 10K years old or more.
You really need to rethink your ideas here.
Why “American?” Why not just present your argument as “young earth creationism?”
Because there are forms of "young earth creationism" for which this is simply not a problem, e.g., CYEC and (young earth) PC. I would rather not do a broad brush fallacy when I can help it.
You leave out the reasonable hypothesis that we will continue to gain more knowledge over time. Just as we often read headlines “we have to completely rethink…” based on new discoveries.
You release that this is not how that works, rights? New discoveries do not completely negate old discoveries. I left out that hypothesis because it is in the land of fairies and wishful thinking. Delusional thinking really has no place on an educational channel like ours.
You leave out the reasonable hypothesis that you might be misinterpreting the Bible.
I am a YEC, who rejects the Masoretic text because of the demonstrable changes by the Jews after the time of Christ. If you use the Septuagint, you can add 650 years, which is backed by the Samaritan Pentateuch and the writings of Josephus. The oldest supporting evidence for the shorter Genesis 11 timeline is the Latin Vulgate. TH-camr NathanH83 has some great videos.
You do realize that NathanH83 places the flood right smack dab in the middle of the Naqada II civilization, right? We did cover that in the video. 🙄
@@ancientegyptandthebible He also endorsed Rohl’s New Chronology and (if I remember correctly) says the Patterns of Evidence film presents a lot of evidence for a shortening of the Egyptian timeline. If I’m accurately remembering what happened when I watched Patterns of Evidence myself, the film actually provides no evidence whatsoever (good or bad) for the New Chronology and instead just hypes up this idea of there being a bunch of blank spaces in our knowledge of Egypt. He also made the speculation that the Tower of Babel was a lot bigger than the great Pyramid (and would thus need a lot more workers), and then explicitly accused me of contradicting the Bible when I noted his speculation.
If you add 650 years, you get back to around 3000 BC. This is till too late for Egyptian history. The unification of Egypt under Narmer had already happened about 150 years prior.
Ah, you kind of didn't bring any evidence! How do you prove that the Egyptian chronology is accurate? How do you prove when the pyramids were built? And do you know that there are 2 different types, one made out of huge stones and with dry built and one made with smaller stones and bricks ? E.g. In the sphinx enclosure there is massive water erosion. Then there are many building techniques found in the same place, in fact there is evidence that cassing of some parts were done on heavily eroded structures. I think you are ignoring evidence and just repeating what other so called egyptologists say. Did you know that in one of the later pyramids there is an inscription that says thay the Egyptiana are the caretakes of the great pryramids. That is the only reference to the great pyramids, the Egyptians themseves nerev said that they buit them. So, you just had a try at explaining some Bible passage but made a mess of it. Next time come up with research and evidence and pray before you have a try with the Bible.
> Ah, you kind of didn't bring any evidence! How do you prove that the Egyptian chronology is accurate?
We know Egyptian chronology is accurate because we have thousands of pieces of corroborating evidence. We have the chronicles such as the Palermo Stone, the Royal Canon of Turin, the Canon of Seti I, and of course Manetho. And the chronicles generally agree with each other. We also have thousands of pieces of evidence that support of the dates given in those chronicles, such as, wine dockets, cattle counts, regnal years on documents, stele, tomb biographies. Plus, we have synchronisms with other highly vetted chronologies in the ancient Near East that fix Egyptian chronology in time. Because that enormous mountain of evidence, we know Egyptian chronology is accurate.
> How do you prove when the pyramids were built?
There are hundreds, sometimes thousands, of tombs around each pyramid that let us know when each pyramid was built. This isn't rocket science.
> And do you know that there are 2 different types, one made out of huge stones and with dry built and one made with smaller stones and bricks ?
All pyramids are made of bricks. Some of the bricks are stone some are mud brick. However, both use bricks. I don't get your point here.
> E.g. In the sphinx enclosure there is massive water erosion.
False. There is no evidence of water erosion at the sphinx. The erosion at the sphinx is wind erosion. You really shouldn't get your info from Graham Hancock and that whole ancient aliens crowd. You do realize that they aren't real historians, right?
> I think you are ignoring evidence and just repeating what other so called egyptologists say.
I think you haven't provided any evidence to ignore.
> Did you know that in one of the later pyramids there is an inscription that says thay the Egyptiana are the caretakes of the great pryramids.
Did you know that inscription was made during a renaissance of interest in ancient monuments during the mid-19th Dynasty, long, long after anyone was building pyramids? What is your point?
> That is the only reference to the great pyramids, the Egyptians themseves
No, not true. The Egyptians made reference to the pyramids dozens times in their literature--they just referred to them by their proper names. Each pyramid had a proper name, i.e., the name of Khufu's pyramid was called the "3kht-khufu", the pyramid of Khafre was called "wr-kha-ef-re," and the pyramid of Menkaure was called "netjeri-men-kaw-re."
> nerev said that they buit them.
Except when the Egyptian workers who claimed to have done the work to build them in the Red Sea papyri. Missed that one, did you?
> So, you just had a try at explaining some Bible passage but made a mess of it. Next time come up with research and evidence and pray before you have a try with the Bible.
Perhaps, next time you should read a book by a real historian, then pray, and read another book by a real historian, because you're making your fellow YECs look stupid.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I think that a video on how we know the general beats of Egyptian chronology might be worth doing, based on some of the responses I’m seeing in this thread.
Jesus affirmed God made man at the beginning of creation:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Mt 19:4-6
Sure. Whatever. It doesn't take into account the irrefutable proof that Neanderthals and Denisovans existed.
Modern day aboriginal Australians have Denisovan DNA.
If "creation" of male and female happened, then the only species that should exist are modern day homo sapiens, with nothing else. That's *not* what we see in anthropology.
Yeah. That one didn't age so well. Like his remarks on hand washing.
@@davidhoffman6980 I don't get what you are trying to say
@@davidhoffman6980 the ancients had no idea terms existed. That was a purity thing.
That was more about affirming that marriage is eternal and not something that man just made up. That doesn’t logically follow that people were around in the beginning (besides, if it did, why aren’t they around on the first day, with that same logic?).
Regardless of if you’re young Earth of old Earth, Jesus saying that doesn’t prove anything either way, His focus was on something else completely different, since the context is about divorce.
The sons of Mitzrayim can’t be older than Mitzrayim. The historical record shows that everyone spread out from Mesopotamia. Ancient history is essential for everyone to know, especially the sixteen original civilizations… from the sixteen grandsons of Noah. It’s necessary to learn ancient history before trying to learn science.
1. The first inhabitants of Italy (K) Tubal
2. Thracians (L) Tiras
3. Siberians (N) Meshek
4. East Asians (O) Magog
5. Medes (PQ) Madai
6.. Western Europeans (R) Gomer
7. Mediterranean Greek sea people (T) Javan
8. Hebrews and Arabic (IJ) Arphaxad
9. Elamites (H) Elam
10. Assyrians (G) Asshur
11. Arameans (F1) Aram
12. Lydians (F2) Lud
13. Cushites (AB, C) Cush
14. Egyptians (E3) Mitzrayim
15. Canaanites (E2, D) Canaan
16. Original North African Phoenicians (E1) Phut
The D haplogroup descendants of Canaan migrated east through Tibet all the way to Japan. The C haplogroup descendants of Nimrod migrated to South Asia, the Pacific, Mongolia, Australia and all the way to the Americas along with Q haplogroup descendants of Madai ancestor of the Medes.
The A maternal mtDNA haplogroup belonging to the N lineage accompanied the Q paternal haplogroup in the Americas. The C&D maternal haplogroups belong to the M lineage. The B maternal haplogroup seems to have crossed the Pacific Ocean.
The Mediterranean paternal R1b and the maternal X2a also found in Galilee represent an Atlantic crossing of the Phoenicians in the days of King Solomon considering also the Mediterranean paternal haplogroups of T, G, I1, I2, J1, J2, E and B in addition to the R1b in Native American Populations. J1 and J2 is Arabs and Jews. (I1 is Dan, I2 is Asher)
Of course there is the Cohen modal haplotype of J1 P58 which identifies the IJ lineage of Hebrews and Arabs that are descended from Arphaxad. J2 M172 is the descendants of the House of David and Solomon.
I have some more historical evidence and some new genetic evidence that no one can arguing with. The Q paternal haplogroup is the descendants of the Medes. Madai ancestor of the Medes asked to marry the daughter of Shem so the Semitic A maternal haplogroup followed the Q haplogroup to America while the X and W mtDNA followed the Medes into Europe. The Semitic B maternal haplogroup most likely arrived in America by crossing the Pacific Ocean. The C and D maternal haplogroups are Eurasian.
The Semitic X2a maternal haplogroup is a European branch from the Semitic A maternal haplogroup which probably arrived in America with the R1b paternal haplogroup in the days of the Phoenicians mining the ancient copper mines of the Great Lakes. The big elephant in the room is the R1b in America as well as the X mtDNA. Besides the R1b there is also E B I1 I2 J1 J2 G and T Mediterranean paternal haplogroups as well as the X2a maternal haplogroup in America *AND* Galilee as well as the Q paternal hg which also make up the signature of the Phoenicians and Jews in the days of King Solomon and today.
The C paternal haplogroup is the descendants of Nimrod the first and Hamitic king of Mesopotamia along with his sons who became the House of Nimrod. Their descendants went as far as the Americas. It’s the reason that the Olmecs C3 y-hg appear similar to Polynesians C2 y-hg since they share the same common ancestor, Nimrod the son of Cush the father of Cushite Africans. The C3 haplogroup of Nimrod is still there in the Americas such as the Kechuas Wayuu and Waorani …and now you know the rest of the story.
TL;DR BS
@@ancientegyptandthebible I see the cat got your tongue. Can you speak plain English?
@@JungleJargon Sure, your argument (if it can even be called that) is an attempt to use word vomit to overwhelm the reader with so much verbiage that the reader cannot adequately process what is being said in order to preemptively defray criticism of your position (whatever that may be). I think this is a misuse of genetic data and I think the presentation is akin to Gish Galloping. As the cat no longer has my tongue, Feynman once "if you cannot explain something simply, you don't really understand it." You fail to explain your point simply and with brevity. The fact is that even I don't understand the point your are trying to make. Therefore, I have refused to engage an "argument" that the speaker himself doesn't appear to understand.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Suit yourself. It is really very simple once you get the right designations with reference points such as the Cohen modal haplotype (the house of Aaron) and the descendants of Cush in Asia which are of the House of Nimrod. It's not complicated.
@@JungleJargon This is what we call in the halls of higher learning "gobbledygook."
The Bible doesn't make sense if you don't take it literally because then death comes to the world before man, which doesn't make sense because the original sin started the cycle of death on earth.
Human death
@@zach2382 yeah right, God used billions of animal deaths to create an immortal man.
@@zach2382
Yeah sure, God used billions of animal deaths to create an immortal man and then excluded meat from the types of food given to man in Genesis 1:29
@@karlokulas5677 guess the big question is how do you grill the perfect steak?
@@karlokulas5677 n he used evolution to make humanity then he brought humanity to the garden and there they were immortal
I believe Shem, Ham, and Japheth were triplets. Same as Abram, Nahor, and Haran. I believe Cain and Able were twins, same as Esau and Jacob.
Why do I believe this: because the scriptures combine them under one age of their father. All other births had their individual ages of their father.
If we want to be of the Thomas mindset, having to have physical proof the LORD is real, so be it. However Yahusha Himself told Thomas those who believe without seeing those proofs shall be blessed in their faith.
They are not triplets. The fact they were born at different times is proof of that. The triplet myth is easily disproved from Scripture.
Young Earth creationists are never bothered by facts. Interessting, that other ancient cultures that already existed 5000 years bc, like China, India or Egypt itself have no reports of "Noah´s flood".
I don't need to worry or fuss with nonbelievers who think they have some proof that the Bible is wrong. I share scripture and if you do not believe I move on. There is no problem for we who believe the words of our LORD. I would rather hear you explain how nothing created everything.
He is a Christian lol , he is just pointing out that Young Earth Creationists are dumb and ignorant , you seem like the perfect example .
David Falk is a Christian who defends the Bible. I’m not sure who you’re talking about, unless this is directed towards someone else.
@@samueljennings4809 I don’t see how you’re defending the Bible by propping up man’s assumptions about history over God’s own word and I don’t find people who believe in an old earth to be as wise as those who believe in the actual age of the earth.
@@peakedmalefeminist9782God’s own word implies, in at least a few places, that the modern fundamentalist/YEC interpretation is the wrong way to read the Bible.
@@darkblade4340 maybe if you’re proof testing and thinking carnally. I did appreciate his giving an explanation that fits to his own understanding, but we all fail when we use our own understanding anyway.
You start with the first problem. “If scripture says …” and try to deny or reinterpret scripture based on man’s fallible science.
So what you are saying is that there's no such thing as Biblical inerrancy? Because to accept that the Bible is inerrant, you have to accept that there is a reality that the Bible must correspond with. If all reality is just "man's fallible science," then the Bible is not inerrant either. I don't think you've really thought this through.
It's pretty simple the pyramids were built after the flood. They're younger than you think they are.
Not a problem at all.
Except they are not younger than you assert, so yes it is a problem. The fact you are living in denial doesn't really change that.
“It’s pretty simple the pyramids were built after the flood” Thanks for confirming that the flood was before the 27th century BC.
Except Egypt has an unbroken historical record that goes back 6,000 years and continues right on through any date you want to use for a fictional "global" flood.
Damn you guys are straight up stuck in a time warp lmfao
Bible says earth is flat
No it doesn’t
@@zach2382yes it does.
@@davidhoffman6980 no it doesn’t you are reading it wrong most of your evidence comes from the book of Psalms, which is poetry and is never meant to be taken as scientific anything
False
@@davidhoffman6980 false
Frankly… You are boring the hell out of me. 🙄
Then, toodle off elsewhere. No one is asking you to stay and be bored. If you are expecting me to apply broad-brush polemics against a group you don't happen to like, this might not be a channel for you. 🤷♂