Correcting Brandon Robbins on Some Things Flood-Related

Correcting Brandon Robbins on Some Things Flood-Related · On Adam and Eve and their Whenabouts

The SHOCKING Truth About NOAH & the ARK
Brandon Robbins | 19 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwIa88vZ6wA

1:35 Genesis 5:29 fulfilled after the Flood.

This is when we have the Upper Palaeolithic. Lower Palaeolithic would be pre-Flood Neanderthal cultures, relating to the Nodian civilisation as Indians to Versailles. Meaning Indians like Chingachgook, not Indians like Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah. However, Upper Palaeolithic was really hunting gathering as common condition of man, except Noah did some hobby farming (with viticulture).

2:49 I think you are wrong here.

I think Noah was not a Nodian, so it refers to Genesis 3:17.

If it had been Genesis 4:11 to 12, it would have made more sense if Noah's family had been Cainites, which they weren't. Also, an earth that for centuries yielded no crop would have, by the Flood, nothing to get new crops from. Also, Genesis 5:29 presupposes that "we are labouring" (which they wouldn't have been if the earth had ceased yielding crops) and does not refer to oneselves as cursed, as per Genesis 4:11, but to the earth as cursed, as per Genesis 3:17.

3:38 Reproducing and eating from the land were done pre-Flood too.

Even Cain ate from the land, just he wasn't able to till it himself. He had to barter for whatever fruit of the ground he was used to from before.

Is the land without crops from 130 / 230 post-Creation to 1656 / 2262 post-Creation from Book of Yasher? I can't recall it from Josephus.

5:17 Genesis 7:11 Would you agree with me and lots of other YEC that the splitting open affected not only water flow up to form a global Ocean, but also lava, to form lots of volcanic activity during the Flood?

6:49 We have, apart from Noah's story in the Bible with its prequels and apart from Mahabharata (which is highly deformed in theology, but gives details for the action in Genesis 6:11), no indication of what people in Noah's days believed.

Ancient Near East sources outside certain Genesis chapters are post-Babel.

Also, we must not suppose that the Bible expresses things in incorrect beliefs, if the Bible says there were windows in the sky, there were.

I'd reconstruct the physical factuality of these in this way:

1) Waters above or mostly gas, either H2O or, at least as typical H2.
2) The windows opening describes a level barrier between a thicker oxygen layer and a thicker hydrogen layer giving way to a mixing of the two gasses, appropriately to Oxyhydrogen (also referred to as Brown's gas, though the meaning of this phrase carries inaccurate notions of chemistry). At the first flash or sometimes meteorite (like in Yucatan, but not exclusively), this catches fire or explodes and adds water to the water cycle.

Note also, "vaulted dome" is arguably a very bad mistranslation of to stereoma or ha raqia' ... or you would have to assume that during the Flood, the world changed shape, as Tolkien wrote in the account of the sinking of Numenor. As he was a Christian, he was probably on the side also looking at ways to make Genesis make sense from his Old Earth perspective (which was allowed but not mandatory in Catholicism in his time, and at least up to 1992, and still isn't mandatory , if "John Paul II" wasn't the true Pope).

7:30 You have mis-given the reference. The actual one, Genesis 6:4, need not translate "and also afterwards"

Here is Douay Rheims:

Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown
[Genesis 6:4]

Probably the words you describe as "and also after that, when" could be described as "verily, after the occasion when" ...

But even if we accepted the translation in King James
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

It is still not necessary to assume that "after that" means post-Flood. Not as to the specific nephelim giants.

8:00 I think you are hasty about taking Numbers as proof for survival.

And they spoke ill of the land, which they had viewed, before the children of Israel, saying: The land which we have viewed, devoureth its inhabitants: the people, that we beheld, are of a tall stature There we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac, of the giant kind: in comparison of whom, we seemed like locusts
[Numbers 13:33-34]

The ones who described Sons of Enac as "nephelim and descendants of nephelim" were weakhearted people, not persons whose judgement could be trusted.

One can indeed imagine Moses knew they were lying by them presuming the nephelim had survived. Anakim were giants, but not Nephelim.

8:56 I agree on the sentiment.

In 2001, when I began my carreere as internet writer, and one of my themes already back then was Young Earth Creationism, I had no idea I would return to Genesis 10 and 11 and find them matching detail after detail in Göbekli Tepe.

9:10 I can so far neither endorse nor refute your book. It's arguably incomplete, in scope or interpretation, or you would be Catholic, but beyond that, I have so far no clue.