According to Genesis how long did the flood last?

[Zzyzx]

.
According to Genesis how long did the flood last?

Simple question. Straight forward answer?

[Ancient of Years]

.
According to Genesis how long did the flood last?

Simple question. Straight forward answer?

May I just request again, what (if anything) is the question for debate.

Thanks

JW

It seems to be...

.
According to Genesis how long did the flood last?

Simple question. Straight forward answer?

If that is really the question to be answered perhaps this thread should be in TD&D?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

Given these figures does it make it seem more of a morality tale rather than a literal event?

Could you clarify how the figures provided make that interpretation more likely?

Thanks

Because with those figures multiple questions come to mind.

1. Where did all the water go?
2. Where did all the sediment go?
3. Given that morality tales do exist in the bible what is more plausible that this is a morality tale or a real global event that happened at a catastrophic scale yet we have no evidence for?

[Zzyzx]

.

Does the Earth contain mountain ranges of higher elevation than the Armenian Highlands?

Probably, but I don't see the relevance of that, since the point being made is what could Noah logically see from the point where the Ark ran aground* - I'm pretty certain one cannot see Mount Everest from Turkey.

Nice try. However:

According to Genesis God said that he would flood the whole earth to the tops of mountains and kill all living things.

Presumably the God who is proposed to have created the Earth and to be all-knowing would "see" more than Noah would.

The bible account doesn't give information as to how long the water took to drain in other areas of the globe (one can reasonably assume that the waters drained from top of Mt Everest before the Armenian Highlands but evidently the boat wasn't anywhere near Tibet so that point while interesting is irrelevant.

* contextually the previous verse had referred directly to the location of the Ark, so it is logical to conclude that to be from this location that references to visibility be made.

To WHERE did the flood waters drain? Remember that to flood the earth to tops of mountains and kill all living things, water would have to be 5.5 miles deep over the entire Earth. Picture the Earth with a blanket of water that thick (including over the oceans) – and then explain where it went after the flood.

May I just request again, what (if anything) is the question for debate.

Refer to your post #3, which seems to indicate understanding the question for debate.

Also from post three, kindly substantiate "According to bible chronology, the rains started late November 2370 BCE."

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by Zzyzx]

To WHERE did the flood waters drain? Remember that to flood the earth to tops of mountains and kill all living things, water would have to be 5.5 miles deep over the entire Earth. Picture the Earth with a blanket of water that thick (including over the oceans) – and then explain where it went after the flood.

That would also increase the gravity of the earth and significantly increase the atmospheric pressure.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

Given these figures does it make it seem more of a morality tale rather than a literal event?

Could you clarify how the figures provided make that interpretation more likely?

Thanks

Because with those figures multiple questions come to mind.

1. Where did all the water go?
2. Where did all the sediment go?
3. Given that morality tales do exist in the bible what is more plausible that this is a morality tale or a real global event that happened at a catastrophic scale yet we have no evidence for?

They questions may well come to mind, but what exactly in the figures provided are are bring them to mind? For example, are you suggesting it would take longer for the waters to recede? If so could you present the rationale for that.

Sorry if I'm missing something.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Refer to your post #3, which seems to indicate understanding the question for debate.

Yes, but I wasn't sure and I wanted to satisfy myself that the question was according to the bible how long did it rain, so I could be sure I had fully answered the question before taking my leave.

ie. How long does the bible say it rained?
Answer: The bible says 40 days.

End of debate (unless someone would like to counterargue that the bible DOES NOT say 40 days/nights etc in which case I'll hang around to deal with that.

I didn't understand the debate question to be, was the bible flood account scientifically believable, only what does Genesis say.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]

It's not just how long it would take the waters to recede. Having 5.5 miles deep of water deposited over the earth in a 40 day period would be geologically catastrophic, even if the water was magicked away somehow there would still be a massive sediment deposit covering the globe.

For reference see the K-pg boundary when an asteroid struck the earth 65,000,000 years ago it scattered ash over the earth with a very specific isotope. That does not exist for the flood with a sediment layer?

There is also the matter of where did the water drain to? If it only occurred 4000 years ago according to your figures where is the water? Ever see a centrifuge separate blood the heavier ingredients seperate from the lighter ones? Water is lighter than granite stone and most metals it will sit on top of them not sink beneath them.

[Zzyzx]

.

Because with those figures multiple questions come to mind.

1. Where did all the water go?
2. Where did all the sediment go?
3. Given that morality tales do exist in the bible what is more plausible that this is a morality tale or a real global event that happened at a catastrophic scale yet we have no evidence for?

They questions may well come to mind, but what exactly in the figures provided are are bring them to mind? For example, are you suggesting it would take longer for the waters to recede? If so could you present the rationale for that.

Sorry if I'm missing something.

WHERE did all the water go? (Not how long did it take).

Refer to your post #3, which seems to indicate understanding the question for debate.

Yes, but I wasn't sure and I wanted to satisfy myself that the question was according to the bible how long did it rain, so I could be sure I had fully answered the question before taking my leave.

ie. How long does the bible [/u]say it rained?
Answer: The bible says 40 days.

Correction: Genesis gives several different durations for the flood (while claiming that rain lasted forty days).

Note that in order to flood the Earth "to tops of mountains" (5.5 miles deep) in 960 hours (forty days and nights) would require a rainfall rate of thirty FEET per HOUR on every square foot of the Earth surface (oceans included).

End of debate (unless someone would like to counterargue that the bible DOES NOT say 40 days/nights etc in which case I'll hang around to deal with that.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read Genesis closely.

I didn't understand the debate question to be, was the bible flood account scientifically believable, only what does Genesis say.

Okay, go ahead and address the question as you've modified it to "what does Genesis say" – and account for the several different durations mentioned.

We can then discuss whether the account is "scientifically believable" in a separate thread.

[JehovahsWitness]

Correction: Genesis gives several different durations for the flood (while claiming that rain lasted forty days).

Can you please substantiate this claim. Indeed you'll need to actually explain your point better. When you say "flood" are you refering to how long it rained? Are you refering to the length of time the entire planet (tops of the mountains were covered)? Are you referring to the length of time Noah was in the boat? how long the earth was wet? how long before the ground was suffeciently dry to leave the boat? When you say the word "flood" what precisely are you refering to. Details are required in order for me to address this point properly.

In a similar vein, I noticed a list of numbers was provided earlier (some of which are mentioned in the actual text, others not) but without any context - starting point, or explanation of why each figure were supposed to be problematic.

Here is a time-line established by Genesis:

47 days, dove discovers land (v8:10-11)
150 days, waters were abated (v8:3)
150 days, ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat (v8:4)
253 days, to see tops of mountains (v8:5)
314 days, waters dried up (v8:13)
370 days, earth dried (v8:14)

Correction: That is your understanding of the timeline established by Genesis, which may or may not be accurate (as I said without your explaining how you came to the figures and at the very least having a starting point, it would be impossible for me say if your understanding of the scriptures in question is accurate. For example you say "47 days, dove discovers land (v8:10-11)" forty-seven days FROM WHAT?! (ditto for all the other figures).

In short if you are claiming there is something problamatic in Genesis first you have to give me enough information so I can see if you are interpreting the numbers correctly and then you yourself have to articulate on the perceived problem. Only then can I reasonably be expected to address it.

"

account for the several different durations mentioned.

(see above)

We can then discuss whether the account is "scientifically believable" in a separate thread.

Then you can post a thread with that debate question and if anyone is interested in discussing it, I'm sure someone somewhere will discuss it with you.

Regards,

JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Correction: Genesis gives several different durations for the flood (while claiming that rain lasted forty days).

Can you please substantiate this claim. Indeed you'll need to actually explain your point better. When you say "flood" are you refering to how long it rained? Are you refering to the length of time the entire planet (tops of the mountains were covered)? Are you referring to the length of time Noah was in the boat? how long the earth was wet? how long before the ground was suffeciently dry to leave the boat? When you say the word "flood" what precisely are you refering to. Details are required in order for me to address this point properly.

In a similar vein, I noticed a list of numbers was provided earlier (some of which are mentioned in the actual text, others not) but without any context - starting point, or explanation of why each figure were supposed to be problematic.

Here is a time-line established by Genesis:

47 days, dove discovers land (v8:10-11)
150 days, waters were abated (v8:3)
150 days, ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat (v8:4)
253 days, to see tops of mountains (v8:5)
314 days, waters dried up (v8:13)
370 days, earth dried (v8:14)

Correction: That is your understanding of the timeline established by Genesis, which may or may not be accurate (as I said without your explaining how you came to the figures and at the very least having a starting point, it would be impossible for me say if your understanding of the scriptures in question is accurate. For example you say "47 days, dove discovers land (v8:10-11)" forty-seven days FROM WHAT?! (ditto for all the other figures).

I'm glad to help Christians understand what their bible says (since many seem unfamiliar).

First, Genesis 7 and 8 can be found at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7 and https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

In short if you are claiming there is something problamatic in Genesis first you have to give me enough information so I can see if you are interpreting the numbers correctly and then you yourself have to articulate on the perceived problem. Only then can I reasonably be expected to address it.

"
Okay. Here is a detailed analysis

The account of the great flood and all verse references below are from the book of Genesis. To mathematically compute duration, it is important to understand that day references are provided in two ways: number of days; and dates corresponding to Noah’s age (e.g. in his 17th month, 17th day). Verse 7:11 states that Noah’s age is 600 years, two months and 17 days when the flood began. We will take this age at face value for the basis of determining the duration of the flood. [We won’t get into the absurdity of a man living more than 600 years. That’s an article topic of its own.]

We begin with the following verse which provides the starting point of the great flood and duration references:

7:11 – In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:17 – And the flood was forty days upon the earth;
7:24 – And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
8:3 – And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

From the above, it’s confusing that the flood was “forty days upon the earth� – but then “prevailed upon earth… an hundred and fifty days�. Some have argued that v7:17 was just an interim period, that upon 40 days, the ark lifted. And, that the true duration that the “waters prevailed� was 150 days. Let’s reserve judgment and assume this is true for a moment (even though this contradicts what is taught in most Churches about a 40 day flood). Moving on, we immediately find a contradiction to this assumption.

8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Assuming the above month reference refers back to Noah’s age in v7:11, the ark rested on the 150 days [(7 months + 17 days) – (2 months + 17 days for Noah’s age) = 5 months; 5 months x 30 days = 150 days)]. So, this agrees with v7:24 by again stating 150 days. However, v8:3 says the waters were abated and v8:4 says the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat. Wouldn’t it be impossible for the ark to land on a mountain if the waters were already abated? With the water gone, wouldn’t the ark have come to rest on lower land?

The very next verse contains a new contradictions:

8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Verses 8:3 & 8:4 both reference 150 days. However, v8:5 indicates that the waters were still receding continually and it wasn’t until 253 days that the tops of the mountains were seen. [(10 months + 30 days) – (2 months + 17 days for Noah’s age) = (8 months + 13 days) = (8 month x 30 days) + 13 days = total of 253 days). HOW COULD THE ARK COME TO REST ON MT. ARARAT AFTER 150 DAYS IF THE TOPS OF MOUNTAINS WEREN’T SEEN UNTIL 253 DAYS?

Continuing on, v8:6 & v8:9 say Noah sent out a raven & dove after 40 days, but the dove came back finding no land.

8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth…

Then, in v8:10-11, he waited another 7 days for a total of 47 days and the dove came back with an olive leaf indicating land. Doesn’t this contradict both previous accounts of 40 days and 150 days.

8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Next, v8:13 says that the waters didn’t dry up until Noah’s age was 601 years, 1 month, 1 day. That makes 314 days [(601 years + 1 month + 1 day) – (600 years + 2 months + 17 days) = 314 days]. This doesn’t agree with any previous accounts.

8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

And, It gets worse. Verse 8:14 says that the earth wasn’t dried until Noah’s age was 601 years, 2 months, 27 days. That makes 370 days [(601 years + 2 months + 27 days) – (600 years + 2 months + 17 days) = 370 days). It strains our logical reasoning that one verse says the waters were dried up at 314 days and the the very next verse says the earth dried at 370 days.

8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

Summary of Biblical Accounts of the Great Flood:

40 days, length of flood (v7:17)
47 days, dove discovers land (v8:10-11)
150 days, waters were abated (v8:3)
150 days, ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat (v8:4)
253 days, to see tops of mountains (v8:5)
314 days, waters dried up (v8:13)
370 days, earth dried (v8:14)

After reexamining the account in Genesis, we are left with even more confusion and contradictions than when we began. Let’s take a little liberty here and provide our simplified version:

The flood lasted for 40 days until the dove discovers land on the 47th day. But then, it wasn’t until 150 days that all the waters were abated. Then, on the 150th day, the ark mysteriously came to rest on Mt. Ararat instead of a lower altitude. It was a miracle that the ark landed on the mountain because all the waters were already gone. For some reason, nobody could see the tops of mountains until the 253rd day because of the water, even though it was long gone and the ark had landed. Finally, at 314 days the water was all dried up, but the earth wasn’t dry until 370 days. It’s another miracle that the earth wasn’t dry until 56 days after the water was all dried up.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/dura ... flood.html

What part of that is difficult to understand? What part, if any, is in dispute?

We can then discuss whether the account is "scientifically believable" in a separate thread.

Then you can post a thread with that debate question and if anyone is interested in discussing it, I'm sure someone somewhere will discuss it with you.

Many seem hesitant to discuss the "scientific believability" of the flood tale; however, I have a strong background in Earth science that helps understand the UN-believability of one billion cubic miles of water (three times the Earth's total water supply) appearing in 960 hours and then disappearing from the Earth hydrological system post-flood – and the 30 feet per hour of rainfall (or water increase / rise) required to flood the Earth "to tops of mountains" (5.5. miles deep) in that length of time.

Anyone who wishes to verify (or challenge) the figures mentioned, calculations are relatively easy. Mt. Everest (which must be flooded to meet the Genesis description) is 29,035 feet in elevation above sea level – approximately 5.5 miles. Divide that by 960 hours (40 days and nights) to determine rainfall rate / increase in water depth (29,035 / 960). That equals thirty (30) FEET per HOUR on every square foot of the Earth's surface (oceans included).

Total water required = surface area of the Earth in square miles (available with Internet search) times 5.5. miles deep, minus area of continents (also available) times average elevation of continents (2500' – half mile) – also available / verifiable.