Interesting Pitch: ICR Says NO to Plain Reading of Noah's Ark

Why would a young-earth creationist organization work so hard to argue that the “pitch” Noah used to seal the ark wasn’t tar after all? In this video I look at a short ICR article by geologist Timothy Clarey that uses a 2,000-year-old Roman shipwreck to reinterpret a single Hebrew word in Genesis 6:14. Clarey argues that the ark’s waterproofing was tree resin and beeswax rather than bitumen — and he’s candid about why: flood geology needs the world’s oil and bitumen to be products of the Flood, so there couldn’t have been any petroleum around before it. I walk through the Hebrew word kofer and its Akkadian cognate kupru, the bitumen-sealed boats of the Gilgamesh epic, and the rare word tevah that links Noah’s ark to the basket that saved baby Moses. Along the way I show how the “plain reading” ICR usually champions is exactly what gets set aside here, and why the real pressure isn’t coming from the text at all. Chapters 0:00 Introduction — Clarey’s ICR article on pitch 0:23 What “pitch” means and why it matters 1:51 The Hebrew word argument: kofer as “money” 2:44 Is bitumen a modern reading smuggled in? 4:33 Kofer, Akkadian kupru, and the Gilgamesh flood 6:54 The “money” reading and Hebrew homonyms 9:16 Two arks: Noah and baby Moses 12:18 The irony of the “plain reading” 13:51 Why flood geology needs oil from the Flood 14:42 Roman dates accepted, Mesopotamian dates waved away 15:45 The faithful move: trust the text ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Duff (aka Dr. Duff or The Natural Historian) resources: About: https://joelduff.org Blog: https://thenaturalhistorian.com Twitter:   / naturalhistoria   Facebook:   / thenaturalhi.  . Photography "Portraits of Creation:" https://www.beechnutphotography.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------