Noah's Flood: Biblical Archaeology

Summary

The video script explores the historical plausibility of the Great Flood, suggesting it may have been a regional catastrophe rather than a global event. It discusses geological evidence supporting a rapid deluge in the Persian Gulf and Arabian region around 13,000 to 8500 years ago, correlating with ancient Sumerian and biblical accounts. The script also touches on the Younger Dryas period, a climate shift that could have caused global flooding, and genetic evidence indicating a population bottleneck at the time, possibly explaining the lineage claims in Genesis. It concludes by emphasizing the differences between the biblical and Mesopotamian flood narratives, suggesting the former could be an independent tradition rather than a direct copy.

Takeaways

• 🌊 The script discusses the possibility of a global flood, suggesting that it might not just be a Mesopotamian myth but an actual historical event.
• 📜 It mentions that the land of Eden could be a lost habitable area now beneath the Persian Gulf, which was gradually submerged post-Ice Age due to rising sea levels.
• 🔍 Dr. Mohammed El Basta Huazi's 2014 paper provides evidence for a sudden deluge between 13,000 and 8500 years ago, affecting not just the Persian Gulf but also ancient Sumer and parts of Arabia.
• 🏞 The formation of wadi canyons and extensive alluvial fans suggests a rapid and not gradual sea-level rise, indicative of a mega flood in the region.
• 🌧 Geologist Ward Sanford's research supports the idea of a wet period in southern Arabia caused by Indian monsoons, aligning with the biblical '40 days and 40 nights' of rain.
• 🌿 The script also touches on the Younger Dryas period, suggesting a comet impact could have caused rapid ice melting and global flooding.
• 🧬 Genetic studies indicate a population bottleneck around the time of the flood, with a sharp decrease in the male population, potentially explaining the 'Table of Nations' in Genesis.
• 📝 The use of Akkadian loanwords in Genesis suggests the biblical account may have originated from the region of Sumer, where Akkadian was spoken.
• 🏔 The script debates the location where the ark came to rest, suggesting 'Ararat' might be a mistranslation and the actual location could be the Arathi mountains further south.
• 🌐 It highlights that while there are similarities between the biblical flood account and Mesopotamian flood legends, there are also significant differences, indicating independent traditions.
• 🎭 The biblical account of the flood is considered simpler and less mythological compared to other ancient versions, possibly originating from an earlier time period.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the provided script?

The script explores the possibility that a great flood described in many ancient cultures, including the Biblical account, was a real historical event rather than just a myth, with particular focus on evidence from the Persian Gulf region and comparisons to Mesopotamian flood legends.

What evidence does Dr. Mohammed El-Basta Huazi present regarding the flood?

Dr. Mohammed El-Basta Huazi presents evidence of a sudden and rapid deluge that occurred between 13,000 and 8,500 years ago, which filled the Persian Gulf and surrounding regions, forming a mega-lake and carving deep canyons and overflow channels in the area.

How does the Genesis flood account align with the evidence presented in the script?

The Genesis flood account aligns with evidence such as the regional flood in the Persian Gulf, the creation of a mega-lake, and the pattern of monsoons that could have caused the flood, suggesting that the Biblical narrative may be based on real events rather than a purely mythological origin.

What does the script say about the population bottleneck that occurred during the Younger Dryas period?

The script mentions that genetic studies indicate a population bottleneck occurred during the Younger Dryas period, with a sharp decrease in the global male population, which could correlate with the Genesis account of a few male ancestors repopulating the region after the flood.

How does the script address the argument that the Biblical flood story was plagiarized from Mesopotamian myths?

The script argues that while the Biblical flood story shares similarities with Mesopotamian myths, it also has significant differences and could represent an independent tradition based on a real flood event, rather than being a direct copy of Mesopotamian legends.

What alternative explanation is given for the Ark coming to rest on the mountains of Ararat?

The script suggests that the term 'mountains of Ararat' might be a mistranslation and could actually refer to the Arathi mountains further south, specifically around Mount Judi, which aligns better with the location of the regional flood described.

Why does the script argue that the flood account in Genesis might be more plausible than other ancient flood legends?

The script argues that the Genesis account is simpler and less mythological than other ancient flood legends, focusing on human actions rather than divine creatures, and better aligning with geological and climatic evidence of the time.

What role do Akkadian loanwords play in understanding the Genesis flood narrative?

The script notes that several words in the Genesis flood narrative appear to be Akkadian loanwords, indicating a possible connection to ancient Sumerian traditions, but also suggesting that the Genesis account could be an independent tradition rather than a copy of Mesopotamian myths.

How does the script explain the presence of similar flood myths across different cultures?

The script suggests that similar flood myths across different cultures may stem from a shared memory of a real catastrophic flood event that occurred during the Younger Dryas period, rather than being purely mythological or copied from one source.

What does the script conclude about the relationship between the Genesis flood account and historical events?

The script concludes that while the Genesis flood account cannot be definitively proven, the evidence suggests it could be based on real historical events, possibly passed down through oral traditions and reflecting a regional flood in the ancient Near East.

Outlines

00:00

🌊 The Great Flood: Myth or Reality?

This paragraph explores the historical accounts and myths surrounding a catastrophic flood, often depicted as the Great Flood in various cultures, including the Bible. It discusses the potential origins of these flood legends, focusing on the Persian Gulf region and recent geological findings. The paragraph suggests that a sudden and massive deluge occurred between 13,000 and 8,500 years ago, reshaping the landscape and influencing human civilization.

05:02

☄️ The Younger Dryas and Global Flooding

This paragraph examines the Younger Dryas period, a time of abrupt climate change and its potential link to global flooding events. It discusses the theory of a comet impact causing rapid melting of ice, leading to rising sea levels and widespread flooding. The paragraph also touches on the population bottleneck in humans, particularly among males, possibly due to high levels of violence and polygamy during this period.

10:04

🏺 Akkadian Influences on the Ark's Construction

This paragraph delves into the linguistic and cultural connections between the biblical account of Noah's Ark and ancient Mesopotamian traditions. It highlights how certain terms used in the Bible for the Ark's construction materials might be Akkadian loanwords, suggesting a deeper connection to the Sumer region. However, the narrative flow and unique aspects of the biblical account indicate it could be an independent tradition rather than a direct copy of Mesopotamian flood myths.

15:06

⛰️ The Ark's Resting Place and the Biblical Tradition

This paragraph explores the possible location where Noah's Ark came to rest, traditionally associated with Mount Ararat. It argues that the biblical text may refer to a different mountain range, possibly in the region of Aratu, based on older pronunciations and historical references. The paragraph suggests that the choice of this location in the biblical narrative supports its authenticity as a historical account rather than a myth.

20:08

📜 Genesis: A Unique and Early Tradition

This paragraph argues for the plausibility of the Genesis flood account being an early and independent tradition, distinct from other Mesopotamian flood legends. It compares the simplicity and brevity of the Genesis narrative with more elaborate Sumerian and Akkadian versions. The paragraph also highlights the ancient origins of names and occupations mentioned in Genesis, suggesting that the biblical account may have roots in the second millennium BC, rather than being a later Iron Age creation.

Keywords

💡Great Flood

The Great Flood refers to a catastrophic event described in various ancient cultures where a massive flood wiped out much of the known world. In the video, it explores whether this flood was a real historical event or a myth, particularly focusing on the biblical account of Noah's Ark and comparing it with similar flood legends from Mesopotamia and other cultures.

💡Mesopotamian Myth

Mesopotamian myths, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, include stories of a great flood similar to the one described in the Bible. The video discusses whether the biblical flood story was influenced by these earlier Mesopotamian myths or if it represents an independent tradition. This concept is central to the video's exploration of the origins and authenticity of the flood narrative.

💡Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf is suggested in the video as the location of a lost habitable area that could have been the biblical 'Land of Eden.' The video examines geological evidence that indicates the region was rapidly flooded during the end of the last Ice Age, potentially forming the basis for the flood legends.

💡Wadi Canyons

Wadi canyons are dry riverbeds that fill with water during heavy rains. The video mentions the formation of these canyons in the Arabian Peninsula as evidence of a sudden and massive flood, rather than a gradual sea-level rise, supporting the theory of a catastrophic event that could be the source of the flood legends.

💡Younger Dryas Period

The Younger Dryas Period refers to a sudden and brief return to glacial conditions around 12,800 years ago, which ended abruptly, causing rapid warming and sea-level rise. The video discusses this period as a time when major flooding events could have occurred globally, potentially explaining the widespread flood myths.

💡Population Bottleneck

A population bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events or other factors. The video connects this concept to genetic evidence suggesting a significant decrease in the human population around the time of the flood, possibly supporting the biblical account of repopulation by Noah's descendants.

💡Akkadian Loanwords

Akkadian loanwords are words borrowed from the Akkadian language, an ancient Semitic language spoken in Mesopotamia. The video points out that certain terms used in the biblical flood narrative might be Akkadian in origin, suggesting a connection to Mesopotamian traditions, though it argues this does not necessarily indicate direct borrowing.

💡Oral Tradition

Oral tradition refers to the passing of stories, history, and knowledge through spoken word across generations. The video suggests that the biblical flood narrative could have originated as an oral tradition, possibly independent of Mesopotamian myths, and later written down in the Bible.

💡Mountains of Ararat

The Mountains of Ararat are traditionally believed to be the resting place of Noah's Ark. The video examines the possibility that this might refer to a different mountain range, potentially located further south in the ancient land of Urartu, challenging the common interpretation and supporting the historical accuracy of the flood narrative.

💡Cultural River

The term 'cultural river' in the video refers to the shared pool of knowledge and traditions that ancient cultures drew from when recording historical events. The video uses this concept to argue that similarities between the biblical flood narrative and Mesopotamian myths might be due to a common cultural memory of a real event, rather than direct literary borrowing.

Highlights

The possibility of a historical flood event that inspired various flood myths, including the Mesopotamian one.

The land of Eden's description fitting a lost habitable area now beneath the Persian Gulf.

Dr. Mohammed El Basta's 2014 paper suggesting a major sudden deluge between 13,000 and 8500 years ago.

Geomorphic evidence of sudden flood formation in wadi canyons instead of a gradual sea-level rise.

The extent of the mega flood covering a large regional area including Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Geologist Ward Sanford's findings supporting a gradual flood being insufficient to account for geological data.

Evidence of Indian monsoons reaching southern Arabia and creating a wet period around 10,000 to 6,000 years ago.

The Genesis account aligning more with monsoon patterns than polytheistic flood narratives.

The idea of global flooding supported by oral traditions from various cultures worldwide.

The Younger Dryas period marking significant climate changes and potential global flooding events.

Genetic studies indicating a population bottleneck around the time of the flood, affecting male populations more.

The correlation between the population bottleneck and the increase in polygamy and violence as described in Genesis.

The plausibility of the Table of Nations in Genesis given a reduced male population post-flood.

Dr. Joshua Swamidass's research supporting a recent common ancestor of all people aligning with the flood timeline.

Interpretive problems in Genesis 6:14 suggesting Akkadian loanwords and a connection to Sumer.

The argument that the biblical flood account is an independent tradition, not a copy of Mesopotamian legends.

The geographical and cultural significance of Mount Ararat in relation to the flood narrative.

The differences between the biblical and Mesopotamian flood accounts suggesting independent origins.

Kenneth Kitchen's view that the Genesis account is simpler and less mythological than other versions.

The linguistic and cultural evidence suggesting the Genesis flood account may originate from an earlier time period.

The conclusion that the biblical flood account likely reflects an ancient oral tradition rather than a plagiarized myth.

Transcripts

long ago many cultures say great

catastrophe happened the entire known

world was destroyed by a flood wiping

out all known life except for a few that

survived in an arc but did this event

actually happen or was it simply a

Mesopotamian myth that was plagiarized

and added to the Bible

where we left off in this series was on

the location of the land of Eden which

fit the description of a lost habitable

area that has now beneath the Persian

Gulf however for many years he was

argued this area gradually became the

Gulf over hundreds or thousands of years

as the ice age ended sea level slowly

rose and filled in the gulf pushing

humans out of the area flood legends

were then embellished to give us the

stories we have today but in 2014 dr.

mohammed el basta huazi published a

paper with new evidence suggesting there

was a major in sudden deluge that

occurred at some point between 13,000

and 8500 years ago

in fill in not just the Persian Gulf but

also the region of what would become

ancient Sumer in parts of Arabia he

notes the formation of several wadi

canyons fits the description of a sudden

flood instead of a gradual sea-level

rise the formation of several wadi

canyons and funnel cuts along the entire

extent of to wake clearly suggests that

the breaching of this conspicuous

escarpment was sudden and rapid as the

northern outlet of this mega lake was

insufficient to discharge the water the

overflow arms have developed extensive

alluvial fans on the Arabian coast the

fan of Wadi Albertan covered

approximately 60,000 square kilometres

in South Iraq Kuwait in northeastern

parts of Saudi Arabia the paper

highlights the geomorphic 'el structure

of overflow channels and how several

deep canyons were carved these were

found throughout Arabia Kuwait and Iraq

meaning the extent of the mega flood

would have covered a large regional area

in fact the overflow channel reaches or

several kilometers and width and

attained tens of meters in depth

however the area was not sufficient to

drain the water as fast as it filled and

so for a short period of time a mega

Lake would have existed in the region

dr. Postel huazi concludes his paper by

noting therefore it can be attested that

the early Holocene pier in Arabia has

drastically reshaped the floovio systems

groundwater and indeed the early human

civilization similarly before basta waz

E's paper geologist Ward Sanford noted

the current research of his day that

suggested it was a gradual flood was

insufficient to account for the

geological data in Mesopotamia he also

found evidence in a 1998 paper that

between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago

Indian monsoons reached into southern

Arabia and created a wet period now the

monsoons typically lasted for about four

weeks which is closer to what Genesis

records that it rained for 40 days and

40 nights whereas the polytheistic

versions of the flood say it only rained

for seven days and seven nights so the

Genesis account more aligns with what we

would expect with the monsoon patterns

of that region thus we do have evidence

that correlates with the biblical

account long ago a great flood reshaped

the entire region and cut off humans

from the Gulf of a sis

known later to the Hebrews as the land

of Eden however could there have been

global flooding in other words as the

Persian Gulf flooded could there have

been massive floods along coastal

regions in a global sense the idea is

not inconceivable numerous oral

traditions do in fact support this

notion several cultures from around the

world report they experienced a sudden

and catastrophic flood in the distant

past one study on Aboriginal oral

traditions argues that corroborating

evidence indicates Australia experienced

catastrophic flooding that affected the

coastal regions of the continent

correlating with the same time as this

prehistoric Mesopotamian flood big

changes were happening to Earth's

climate this is known as the younger

driest period about twelve thousand

eight hundred years ago the last ice age

came to a sudden and abrupt end and

recent studies have suggested evidence

of a comet impact which could have been

the likely caused the sudden melting of

ice would have caused sea levels to rise

rapidly and this correlates with 75% of

the megafauna disappearing as well as

the end of the Clovis culture in North

America but some researchers have

suggested the beginning of the younger

driest period was not a sudden and

catastrophic change as previously

thought however at the end of this

period the earth's temperature rapidly

increased one study said the younger

driest period ended extremely fast

causing a second rapid increase in sea

level 10 million square miles of land

were lost in the global climate

transition to a warming period what

caused this is still disputed but this

would have caused catastrophic global

flooding events and due to the climate

warming it likely would have caused

massive rain storms around the world

correlating with the research with

regards to the deluge in the Gulf of a

sis so it is likely there were several

global flooding events just never a

point where every piece of land was

completely underwater also correlating

with the flood account is the fact that

studies into genetics note that roughly

about the same time a population

bottleneck occurred within our species

of the people that survived the Younger

driest period meaning the amount of

humans decrease rapidly before a

repopulation event occurred however the

bottleneck shows more of a sharp

decrease in terms of the male population

not the female population with estimates

claiming there was on average one man

for every 17 women

some have suggested this was due to a

high rate of polygamy whereas a more

recent study says such a factor could

not alone account for the high disparity

and another factor has to be looked at

namely a high level of warfare and

violence

which historically has decreased the

male population more than the female

population but this correlates with what

we read in the early chapters of Genesis

that at the time of the flood the

practice of polygamy began to increase

in violence was on the face of the earth

thus what was happening at the time

period when this regional flood occurred

does correlate to what is described in

the Bible in this bottleneck could also

explain what we see right after the

flood account which is the table of

Nations some skeptics have scoffed at

the idea that Genesis could claim that

several nations within the region could

trace back to just a few males but if

there was a population bottleneck that

greatly reduced the global male

population this would make the claims of

the lineages in Genesis more plausible

and that many of the nations of that

region they came after this bottleneck

could actually go back to just a few

males as Genesis 4 counts however is

Paul copán and Douglas Jacobi note the

table of Nations doesn't have to mean

all the sons that trace back to Noah are

necessarily biological sons to quote in

ancient times sonship could refer to

several kinds of relationships by blood

adoption or treaty the sons of ham are

not necessarily biologically related

political bonds linguistic commonalities

and other social connections often

constituted sonship in the biblical

sense

but either way the existence of a male

bottleneck within our genetics does

correlate with the Genesis account that

many later in populated nations could

trace their lineage 'as back to just a

few males recently dr. Joshua Swami oz

published a book arguing from computer

simulations and genetic studies at the

most recent common ancestor of all

people today most likely existed just a

few thousand years ago so the idea of

many nations of that region could trace

their lines back to just a few males is

not inconceivable and this data would

correlate with the Genesis record also

other correlations can be found as well

to support this account John Walton and

Tremper Longman know Genesis 6:14

contains the instructions on building

the ark but the verse has several

interpretive problems the word used to

describe the type of wood only occurs

here and nowhere else in the entire

Hebrew Bible the following phrase make

rooms in the ark is lacking Hebrew

preposition and the word for rooms only

occurs here as well and finally the word

for bitumen or pitch is not the Hebrew

word for pitch so the verse seems to be

out of place in the Hebrew Bible however

long men and Walton point out all three

of these words seem to be Akkadian

loanwords specifically this would mean

the second term is probably not

referring to rooms but to reeds this

also seems to fit more with the context

as the verse is addressing the building

materials that are needed not the

interior design of the Ark so given the

meaning of these words in Akkadian the

verse would actually be saying make

yourself a vessel of stocks from a reed

hut with the reeds you will make the

vessel and tar it inside and out with

bitumen this makes more sense with the

context and Akkadian cognates but this

also shows more affinity to the location

of where the flood actually took place

which was in the region of Sumer where

Akkadian was a dominant language

so it is plausible the biblical authors

were citing an ancient oral tradition

handed down to them however Walton and

long men also note this doesn't actually

show they were copying Mesopotamian

flood legends as it seems to be its own

independent tradition if we are correct

that the biblical account uses three

Akkadian loanwords in the description of

the materials used to build the ark that

could add reasons to think that the

biblical author is aware of the

Mesopotamian traditions against that

claim however is that the narrative flow

concerning the building materials does

not specifically follow any of the

Mesopotamian traditions in other words

although the biblical description has

connections to Akkadian it also seems to

be an independent tradition concerning a

narrative flow of the building materials

thus showing the flood account could be

an oral tradition handed down to the

Hebrews it goes back to an ancient time

in the region of Sumer instead of it

just being a copy of other Mesopotamian

flood legends some argue that if the

flood was just regional he would not fit

the description of the ark coming to

rest on Mount Ararat is that would be

too far north and too high for the

regional flood to reach well this is

true but the text says the ark came to

rest on the mountains of Ararat not

specifically the mountain of Ararat plus

Ararat might be a mistranslation the

word might actually refer to the arathi

mountains further south edward Lapinsky

notes based on older pronunciations the

text might actually be referring to the

mountains of Ararat ooh he says the old

pronunciation hujrat is it tested by the

spelling hujrat in Isaiah 37 38 right in

the great Isaac manuscript from Qumran

furthermore several later works refer to

the area where the ark came to rest to

being around Mount Judi which is in the

mountains of aratu as Irving Finkel says

biblical Ararat corresponds to the

ancient name oorah - which was the

ancient political and geographical

entity due north of the Mesopotamian

heartland included in the map of the

world so it is plausible the ark came to

rest in awe - and this is also an odd

choice to place the ark if they were

inventing a myth it would make more

sense to pick a mountain significant to

Israel like Sinai or Mount Zion for

theological messaging instead they pick

an out of place a mountain region that

has nothing to do with Israel and has no

theological significance supporting the

idea they were reporting what

historically happened instead of

inventing a legend Walton and Longman's

say it is significant to note that if

the biblical account were simply

adopting a Mesopotamian one we might

expect Genesis to refer to the same

mountain if someone were to suggest that

the biblical author was borrowing but

changed the mountain to associate the

text more specifically with Israel

certainly the mountains of Ararat would

make no sense this therefore stands as

an important distinction because this is

not a matter of different

interpretations by different cultures

this is a specific detail now it is

impossible to deny that the biblical

flood account does have parallels found

in other Mesopotamian flood legends but

Walton and Longman note we cannot just

focus on the similarities as there are

also numerous differences as well that

distinguished of flood account has an

independent tradition instead of it just

being a copy of the mesopotamian legends

plus the various Mesopotamian accounts

have differences between them as well

and things unique to each account they

are all not just copies of the same

legend so given the external evidence we

went over it is possible all the flood

accounts are echoing back to a real

historical

that happened instead of just copying an

original myth as Walton and Longman's

say the reader should not jump to the

conclusion that the identification of

similarities suggests that the biblical

author has borrowed information directly

from the Mesopotamian accounts everyone

in the ancient world knows there was a

flood just like everyone today knows

there was a Holocaust it is a cultural

River Mesopotamian accounts are drawing

out of the cultural River and spinning

it according to their cultural ideas in

theology the biblical authors are doing

the same

we need not concern ourselves with

whether the Israelite authors have

access to copies of the Mesopotamian

accounts in other words the difference

is staying out as independent traditions

handed down and do not necessarily mean

the Genesis account is just a copy of

the other Mesopotamian flood legends as

it is often assumed that while in exile

and Babylon the Jewish just made their

own monotheistic version of the flood

account by plagiarizing the polytheistic

versions but James hoffmeier notes if

this movement towards monotheism

occurred during the Babylonian captivity

it seems counterintuitive to take the

polytheistic mythic literature of

Babylon and place it into the Hebrew

monotheistic writings in other words it

is unlikely for the Jews to have

borrowed from polytheistic cultures if

they were supposed to be moving away

from that idea the Genesis account is

more likely just their own oral

traditions handed down to them as well

the ancient world was very sure there

was a catastrophic flood and simply drew

out of the known cultural history when

writing down the accounts of the flood

similarities that exist tend to be

viewed by many scholars not as literary

dependency but as shared traditions or

to literary perspectives on a single

actual event Walton highlights this

point with an illustration of the

hittite and Egyptian accounts of the

Battle of Kadesh since they are

reporting about the same event we would

expect there to be similarities and each

religious and cultural perspective will

also produce differences

the similarities do not mean one copied

the other we can just equally mean they

share the same traditions about

something that actually happened in the

past

Nahum Sarna agrees it cannot be claimed

at any version of the flood account

presently known is the direct source of

the biblical narrative for the latter

has points of contact with each version

while it also contains items independent

of them all it is obvious that the

differences are too great to encourage

belief in direct connection between

Atrahasis and Genesis but just as

obviously there is some kind of

involvement in the historical traditions

generally of the two peoples Kenneth

kitchen explains that parallel

traditions about an ancient event would

be a simpler and more satisfying

explanation he then goes on to note the

Genesis account is in no way more

evolved and is actually a simpler and

less mythological account in terms of

length the flood account of Genesis

would equal about a hundred and twenty

lines of the Sumerian or Acadian

versions whereas the flood account of

the Atrahasis was originally at least

some 370 lines long in the epic of

gilgamesh the flood account is about two

hundred lines long so his kitchen says

genesis 68 was probably the simplest

ensures of all the ancient versions

possibly originating as early as they

and was certainly not a secondary

elaboration on them genesis 1 to 11 is

also simpler unless mythological in

other places like how it attributes the

development of culture and cities to

humans alone instead of divine creatures

and having a much simpler creation

account that didn't involve a cosmic

battle or war

as we noted earlier the genesis

timelines for the flood also seems more

likely over the pagan versions given how

long a monsoon would have lasted and

what would have needed to have happened

for the region to fill up and flood Alan

Miller degrees if judgment is to be

passed as to the priority of one

tradition over the other Genesis

inevitably wins in creation it's a cat

as admired for its simplicity and

grandeur its concept of man accord well

with observable facts combined with this

Richard Hess notes the names of Genesis

four and five do not show the mark of

iron age etymology and actually show

more relation to the second millennium

BC or older

many of these names have associations

with the second millennium BC or earlier

either through the names of Sumerian

cities such as Iraq and era do or

through elements that do not occur later

in personal names examples of these

include Mithu shale and the first part

of tubal-cain which may refer to the

hurrying word for Smith so the early

chapters of Genesis that are paired with

the flood account seemed to reflect

associations with the second millennium

BC making it plausible the Genesis flood

account came from an earlier time period

and not simply crafted late in the Iron

Age on a side note

metalworking in agriculture have been

shown to be much older than we thought

so the occupation of Genesis 4 are not

necessarily anachronistic thus although

this data doesn't prove there was an ark

or a man named Noah the biblical account

does seem to line with the external

evidence in the internal evidence does

show it is not necessarily just a copy

of Mesopotamian flood legends and could

be an oral tradition handed down from an

Akkadian source there reflects a real

flood in the past that was told by the

descendants of the survivors

you

[Music]