The flood in Genesis

[Just_me_Mike]

I noticed studying the story of the flood that Noah entered the ark at a certain date, and then exited the ark at a certain date. According to my calulations it was exactly 370 days from the time they entered to the time they exited.

What was curious about this to me, was the fact the land had become dry 2 months and 27 days prior to then exiting. Why dos the story have them hanging out another 2 months and 27 days before exiting.

Any Genesis buffs here, want to shed some light?

Thanks...

 

[Tristesse]

I noticed studying the story of the flood that Noah entered the ark at a certain date, and then exited the ark at a certain date. According to my calulations it was exactly 370 days from the time they entered to the time they exited.

What was curious about this to me, was the fact the land had become dry 2 months and 27 days prior to then exiting. Why dos the story have them hanging out another 2 months and 27 days before exiting.

Any Genesis buffs here, want to shed some light?

Thanks...

My honest conclusion, is that the story was most likely made up. And if you follow that reasoning it leads to the inconsistencies you see with the story. Not to mention we have no evidence for a flood of that magnitude ever occurring.

 

[themadhair]

Kind of like asking why Uranus and Gaia gave birth to six males and six females rather than seven females and seven males…

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well it was intended for those who study the books, whether or not they believe in them. Thanks though.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

I noticed studying the story of the flood that Noah entered the ark at a certain date, and then exited the ark at a certain date. According to my calulations it was exactly 370 days from the time they entered to the time they exited.

What was curious about this to me, was the fact the land had become dry 2 months and 27 days prior to then exiting. Why dos the story have them hanging out another 2 months and 27 days before exiting.

Any Genesis buffs here, want to shed some light?

Thanks...

Don't know if i'd call myself a 'Genesis buff' but i've read it a fair few times. It doesn't actually reference your calculations in the story, but i've always been under the impression that Noah used a system of doves and ravens to discern wet from dry...I was under the impression that when the dove didn't return, Noah released the 'crew' from the Ark.

But I mean you seem like you've spent more time studying this than me, so I can but assume that it's yet another case of the bible being contradictory when taken to be literal truth.

Nice story though, just badly written where novels are concerned.

GhK.

 

[Tristesse]

Well it was intended for those who study the books, whether or not they believe in them. Thanks though.

Sorry, thought I'd shed some light on the subject. I find religion fascinating, but only if you don't take it in a literal sense.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Greetings



Don't know if i'd call myself a 'Genesis buff' but i've read it a fair few times. It doesn't actually reference your calculations in the story, but i've always been under the impression that Noah used a system of doves and ravens to discern wet from dry...I was under the impression that when the dove didn't return, Noah released the 'crew' from the Ark.

But I mean you seem like you've spent more time studying this than me, so I can but assume that it's yet another case of the bible being contradictory when taken to be literal truth.

Nice story though, just badly written where novels are concerned.

GhK.

Here is what I find in Gensis ch 7 v 11
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.

Then ch 8 vs 13
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

We see here that it was dry, yet Noah did not exit.

Then finally
ch 8 vs 14-16
14: And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
15: And God spake unto Noah, saying,
16: Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.

I can explain the next part if need be, but I believe in that era a month was exactly 30 days. So a full year would have been 360 days, but they exited 10 days after a full year, which led me to 370 days.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I understand your reasoning I just disagree that it is truth. From what i've read (Just re-read the verses to check) it doesn't seem to say anything about why he waited so long...Although if I could loosely apply logic (Which in context seems ironic, but nevertheless), think about how long it might take to organise all the animal species and subspecies that have ever existed on the entire earth to get off the arc, not to mention finding a way of re-growing all the plants.

But sorry I cant be of more help than saying it's just another contradiction where a literal interpretation is taken. It's just a good story that's been badly written.

GhK.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Out of curiosity, do you believe that Genesis is literally true? I guess, in other words, are you a creationist?

GhK.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I understand your reasoning I just disagree that it is truth. From what i've read (Just re-read the verses to check) it doesn't seem to say anything about why he waited so long...Although if I could loosely apply logic (Which in context seems ironic, but nevertheless), think about how long it might take to organise all the animal species and subspecies that have ever existed on the entire earth to get off the arc, not to mention finding a way of re-growing all the plants.

But sorry I cant be of more help than saying it's just another contradiction where a literal interpretation is taken. It's just a good story that's been badly written.

GhK.

No problem, thanks.
I guess I am a little confused on what is contradictory here. I mean I get you think the whole book is prone to error, just didn't know if you were saying there was a contradiction with what I posted. Thanks...

And note I didn't conclude any reason as to why they waited myself, I was just asking.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree with Tristesse. This legend is so far fetched that it hardly merits any serious consideration from a logical standpoint.

Maybe there is some numerical significance that may suit your query.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Out of curiosity, do you believe that Genesis is literally true? I guess, in other words, are you a creationist?

GhK.

I can be, but at times I also just look at something for a literature perspective. The latter was in view for this post.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I can be, but at times I also just look at something for a literature perspective. The latter was in view for this post.

Sure

You can be? Well...Are you or aren't you? Do you believe some elements of creationism and not others?

GhK.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Sure

You can be? Well...Are you or aren't you? Do you believe some elements of creationism and not others?

GhK.

I think science and rational thought has done wonders for the world. It has also served very well when we approach something that is unknown.
Do I completely discredit the notion that God could have crafted a book? No not really. So when it comes to these matters, I very much enjoy reading from different perspectives. I think errors abound, either with science at times, and with creationist. More so with creationist, because faith gets in the way of facts for some people.
So I listen to everyone and follow my heart.

I think there is a pit to fall into for certain minds though that get trapped into looking at old literature and religion and looking for facts only in them. Which is fine sometimes, but to ignore the depths of wisdom that can be obtained from them is a tragedy. Some say I don't need no stinkin book to teach me morals. Well that is just silly for someone to say they don't need to be taught morals.

Anyway that is how I think...

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I think science and rational thought has done wonders for the world. It has also served very well when we approach something that is unknown.
Do I completely discredit the notion that God could have crafted a book? No not really. So when it comes to these matters, I very much enjoy reading from different perspectives. I think errors abound, either with science at times, and with creationist. More so with creationist, because faith gets in the way of facts for some people.
So I listen to everyone and follow my heart.

I think there is a pit to fall into for certain minds though that get trapped into looking at old literature and religion and looking for facts only in them. Which is fine sometimes, but to ignore the depths of wisdom that can be obtained from them is a tragedy. Some say I don't need no stinkin book to teach me morals. Well that is just silly for someone to say they don't need to be taught morals.

Anyway that is how I think...

I concur, although I think more like the hypothetical person in your last paragraph regarding morals. I don't think you need a book to teach you morals I think you need decent parent/s. If the bible can change somebody from being a criminal into being a decent member of society I think that's great, but I don't believe it's necessary. I don't think you have to be taught morals, you can learn them without having to have them pounded into you - Just common sense mostly.

Just because Jesus says something doesn't mean he's the only person to have ever said it

GhK.

 

[Autodidact]

I can answer this for you,itwillend. It's because there never was any such flood. You are welcome.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I concur, although I think more like the hypothetical person in your last paragraph regarding morals. I don't think you need a book to teach you morals I think you need decent parent/s. If the bible can change somebody from being a criminal into being a decent member of society I think that's great, but I don't believe it's necessary. I don't think you have to be taught morals, you can learn them without having to have them pounded into you - Just common sense mostly.

Just because Jesus says something doesn't mean he's the only person to have ever said it

GhK.

Well off topic, but you say your parents should teach you morals. We can go backwards for many years. It eventually ends up back in a book or some orally passed on wisdom of how we should live.
In a society as complex as ours today, we HAVE to be taught morals to some degree. If at the very least proper behaviour in social settings.
It is easy to say we could just sit back and observe and learn from that. The problem is what we are observing had its source somewhere. Anyway this is a silly side tract part of the discussion.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Well off topic, but you say your parents should teach you morals. We can go backwards for many years. It eventually ends up back in a book or some orally passed on wisdom of how we should live.

Forget the book, just stick with orally passed on wisdom I guess if I ever have kids I will pass on my wisdom by teaching them what I have learned rather than what I have been told be a book about morals.

In a society as complex as ours today, we HAVE to be taught morals to some degree. If at the very least proper behaviour in social settings.
It is easy to say we could just sit back and observe and learn from that. The problem is what we are observing had its source somewhere. Anyway this is a silly side tract part of the discussion.

Ok.

But yeah as to your OP about Genesis my answer is that it's just a badly written story.

What's your view?

GhK.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then ch 8 vs 13
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

We see here that it was dry, yet Noah did not exit.

Then finally
ch 8 vs 14-16
14: And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
15: And God spake unto Noah, saying,
16: Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.

In the NIV, verse 13 is translated as saying "the surface of the ground was dry", and in verse 14, it says "the earth was completely dry." I would presume that verse 13 would refer to a dried-out crust on top of mud.

Or maybe the answer's in verse 15: they just waited in the ark until God told them they could leave.

 

[rusra02]

At Matthew 24:37-39, Jesus Christ made a comparison between the days of Noah and the last days, where we now find ourselves. He said: “Just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
It the flood were a mere myth, Jesus words would have no real significance. There is evidence for a global deluge, including quick-frozen mammoths with green grass still in their mouths.
The strongest evidence is the testimony of God and Christ that the flood was real. None of us should ignore the signficance of that event.
Second Peter 2:5, 9 refers to the survival of Noah and his family when it says: “He [God] . . . kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people. Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial.” Jesus drew a comparison between Noah’s day and the last days to show that people in general would not heed God’s warning message. Nevertheless, in doing so he also confirmed that Noah and his family obeyed Jehovah God, entered the ark, and survived the great Flood. Survival by Noah and his family points to the survival of God’s faithful servants at this world’s end.