According to Genesis how long did the flood last?

[Zzyzx]

.
According to Genesis how long did the flood last?

Simple question. Straight forward answer?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 20 by Zzyzx]

Okay here is a detailed response

When Did the Flood Occur?

The Floodwaters Fall

Before we review the events of Noah’s day, you may wish to read Genesis chapter 7 verse 11 to chapter 8 verse 4. Regarding the downpour, we are told: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life [2370 B.C.E.], in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.�—Genesis 7:11.

Noah divided the year into 12 months of 30 days each. In ancient times, the first month started about the middle of our calendar month of September. The floodwaters began to fall in “the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month� and continued falling for 40 days and 40 nights during the months of November and December 2370 B.C.E.

Regarding the Deluge, we are also informed: “The waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days. . . . And the waters began receding from off the earth, progressively receding; and at the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters were lacking. And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.� (Genesis 7:24–8:4) So the period from when the waters overwhelmed the earth to the time they receded was 150 days, or five months. The ark thus came to rest on the mountains of Ararat in April of 2369 B.C.E.

Now you may wish to read Genesis 8:5-17. The tops of the mountains appeared nearly two and a half months (73 days) later, “in the tenth month [June], on the first of the month.� (Genesis 8:5)* Three months (90 days) later—in Noah’s “six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month,� or in mid-September, 2369 B.C.E.—Noah removed the covering of the ark. He could then see that “the surface of the ground had drained dry.� (Genesis 8:13) One month and 27 days (57 days) later, “in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month [mid-November, 2369 B.C.E.], the earth had dried off.� Noah and his family then came out of the ark onto dry ground. Hence, Noah and the others spent one lunar year and ten days (370 days) in the ark.—Genesis 8:14.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003361

I think it covers all the points in dispute. If not be sure to point out which ones and why and I will address them as when.


JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Okay here is a detailed response

When Did the Flood Occur?

The Floodwaters Fall

Before we review the events of Noah’s day, you may wish to read Genesis chapter 7 verse 11 to chapter 8 verse 4. Regarding the downpour, we are told: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life [2370 B.C.E.], in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.�—Genesis 7:11.

Noah divided the year into 12 months of 30 days each. In ancient times, the first month started about the middle of our calendar month of September. The floodwaters began to fall in “the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month� and continued falling for 40 days and 40 nights during the months of November and December 2370 B.C.E.

Regarding the Deluge, we are also informed: “The waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days. . . . And the waters began receding from off the earth, progressively receding; and at the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters were lacking. And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.� (Genesis 7:24–8:4) So the period from when the waters overwhelmed the earth to the time they receded was 150 days, or five months. The ark thus came to rest on the mountains of Ararat in April of 2369 B.C.E.

Now you may wish to read Genesis 8:5-17. The tops of the mountains appeared nearly two and a half months (73 days) later, “in the tenth month [June], on the first of the month.� (Genesis 8:5)* Three months (90 days) later—in Noah’s “six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month,� or in mid-September, 2369 B.C.E.—Noah removed the covering of the ark. He could then see that “the surface of the ground had drained dry.� (Genesis 8:13) One month and 27 days (57 days) later, “in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month [mid-November, 2369 B.C.E.], the earth had dried off.� Noah and his family then came out of the ark onto dry ground. Hence, Noah and the others spent one lunar year and ten days (370 days) in the ark.—Genesis 8:14.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003361

I think it covers all the points in dispute. If not be sure to point out which ones and why and I will address them as when.

According to that timeline from beginning of flood to when the waters receded enough for the ark to ground was 150 days; however, it was another 220 days before Noah and company left the ark onto dry ground. In other words, they spent seven more months aboard the ark waiting for the ground to dry.

So, five months aboard the ark when it floated, and seven more months before they got off after it grounded.

Does that make sense? Does any of the tale make sense as anything more than fable, legend or folklore of people ignorant of the size and configuration of the Earth?

Also, the elevation of Mt. Ararat is 16,854' whereas Mt. Everest is 29,035' (required depth to flood mountains and kill all life) so 12,000 feet of water had disappeared in 110 days (150 – 40) or 109 feet of drop per day or 4.5 feet per hour.

I question the claim that waters "drained off" by asking where did the water drain TO?. Remember, the entire Earth including oceans must have been covered with 5.5 mile deep water to flood "to the tops of mountains" and wipe out all life.

[JehovahsWitness]

According to that timeline from beginning of flood to when the waters receded enough for the ark to ground was 150 days; however, it was another 220 days before Noah and company left the ark onto dry ground. In other words, they spent seven more months aboard the ark waiting for the ground to dry. So, five months aboard the ark when it floated, and seven more months before they got off after it grounded. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes perfect sense, especially if conditions were not fit for them to live safely outside the ark. Here are some interesting commentaries on the matter.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, commenting on verse 13 it states "the ground or surface of the earth looked dry; but was not so dry and hard as to bear heavy bodies, or the foot to tread on it, being soft and tender, through the water so long upon it, and had left mud and slime, not yet sufficiently hardened by the wind and sun to walk upon."

Pulpit Commentary states (ver. 13), to be dried up, indicating the disappearance of the water (ver. 14), to be dry, denoting the desiccation [thorough drying out] of the ground.

CONCLUSION Whether Noah and his family were (as some have suggested)were waiting for Divine instruction to leave the ark or whether they were waiting for the conditions to become suitable for them to move outside permanently into the surrounding area, there is nothing problematic in itself with the length of time they spent living in the ark after it had ran aground on top of the mountain.

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

NOAH, KILLING and ... THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 23 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, that makes perfect sense, especially if conditions were not fit for them to live safely outside the ark. Here are some interesting commentaries on the matter.

Aside from the logistical impossibility of the arc. The living conditions on such a ship would not be good the vitamin D deficiency alone would kill or sicken a significant portion of the animals on board.

The other big problem is the brakish water from the oceans being flooded would make the ground unsuitable for growing plants as food due to the salt content in the soil as well as the low oxygen atmosphere of being over 11,000 feet.

So your essentially saying that a ship holding thousands of pairs of animals for over 7 months had to store food for thousands of animals for over 7 months without spoiling. The skeleton crew somehow managed to expel all the urine and poop from the ship for over 7 months. The crew somehow managed to get sunlight to all the animals regularly. There was enough fresh water to keep the animals and crew from being dehydrated. The crew somehow managed to keep all the animals clean and prevent parasites, bacteria, viruses, mold, and fungus from spreading in such cramped conditions.

All of which seems to be something not considered here. For me 7 months in a small ship is a problem a big problem. 150 days on the ship is already a big problem let alone the extra 220.

A simple morality tale seems a lot more plausible. The only reasonable alternative is magic, everything was magicked to happen this way. The water was magicked away as well as magicked in. The animals were magically healthy and ok. Everyone was magically fed and hydrated. And the feces and urine were magicked away.

[Zzyzx]

.

A simple morality tale seems a lot more plausible.

Of course it does; however, those with a large emotional and personal investment based on Bible stories being true often have difficulty accepting that NOTHING about the tale makes sense -- including.

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).
6) Etc, etc, etc.

If ONE thing about my position did not make sense I would investigate why and would make whatever adjustment necessary. If several things did not make sense, I would reconsider my position.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 25 by Zzyzx]

None of those questions are relevant to the question Under debate.

.
According to Genesis how long did the flood last?

Simple question. Straight forward answer?

[Zzyzx]

.

None of those questions are relevant to the question Under debate.

You have made a valid point. There is now a separate thread to discuss those items.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 164#755164

[JehovahsWitness]

There is now a separate thread to discuss those items.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 164#755164

Excellent, enjoy your time there.

Anyhoo... I've made a timeline elaborating the points in my post #21

XXX
http://wol.jw.org/fr/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003361

(yes, I know I'm such a geek)

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 28 by JehovahsWitness]

The ark grounds 73 days (2.5 months) before mountain tops become visible?

People and animals stay on the ark 220 days (seven months) after it grounds before getting off?

[JehovahsWitness]

.
[Replying to post 28 by JehovahsWitness]

The ark grounds 73 days (2.5 months) before mountain tops become visible?

QUESTION: How could the Ark come to rest on Mt. Ararat before the tops of the mountains were seen?


Genesis 8:4, 5 reads "In the seventh month, on the 17th day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters were steadily decreasing until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared."

Withing the context of ever decreasing water level, the accounts makes two clear statements in chronological order:

1. The Ark runs aground on Mt Ararat
2. "The Mountains" become visible

NOTE Genesis says that three months after running aground, the tops of "the mountains" appeared; what it does NOT say is that Mt Ararat had NOT appeared previously. Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume 1, page 148, suggests this probably refers to [...] the tops of the Armenian highlands, by which the ark was surrounded. If that was indeed the case, then Mt Ararat towers nearly 1000 feet higher than the hightest peak in this mountain range. Thus logically it would be some time before these lower peaks ("the mountains") appeared. In any case that the lower mountain ranges (which ever they were) became visible to Noah after having run aground on is no more contradictory than is saying " The man ran over a dog. Two weeks later he saw dogs."

CONCLUSION: There is nothing problamatic about the chronology of Genesis 8:4, 5 since there is no biblical statement that Mt Ararat was NOT visible to Noah before the ark came to rest on it. Further, Mt Ararat is the highest peak in the Armenian Highlands, it is entirely logical that the other peaks became visible from the ark after it ran aground on the former.