The Length of the Flood: For Sara

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

THE LENGTH OF THE FLOOD: FOR SARA

Sara Jansky:

I may have some exciting news about the length of the Flood in Genesis.

You correctly pointed out in another thread that the flood waters swelled for 150 days. But then how long did it take for these flood waters to fully recede and the land to become completely dry? And why are these numbers so exciting?

A. The Flood

How long did the Flood last? In particular, how long did the waters swell, and how long did it take until they had fully receded and the earth was COMPLETELY dry?

Chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis are quite secretive about this basic information, but with some digging, I think we can figure it out. But we have to start in an odd place -- the Jewish calendar.

1. The Jewish Calendar

The original Jewish calendar had twelve 30-day months. When this quickly got way out of sync with the seasons, leap years were added, with each leap year having thirteen 30-day months. Eventually, the Hebrews reluctantly had to put in several 29-day months in both the regular and leap years. But when the 6th century Hebrew scribes wrote about the Flood, it is likely that they thought of the Flood as having occurred in a perfect leap year -- thirteen 30-day months -- having 390 days, rather than a modern Jewish leap year of 385 or 386 days.

Why would the terrible Flood occur in a leap year, and thus occur in a year having 13 months? Why do you think 13 is the unluckiest number in the West today? 12 is the best number in the Hebrew Bible -- 12 tribes of Israel (and arguably 12 constellations in the heavens), so it makes sense for the terrible Flood to have occurred in a 13 month year. (As if to keep an important secret, Genesis itself never tells us whether the Flood occurred in a leap year, or how many days there were in the year in which the Flood occurred.)

2. Length of the Flood

If the Flood occurred in a 390-day leap year (a perfect, that is to say, perfectly bad, leap year), then all of the numbers in Genesis regarding the length of the Flood immediately lock perfectly into place, as we shall now see.

We know from Genesis 7: 11 and Genesis 8: 14 that the Flood lasted a year and ten days. [Sara, you focused on 8: 13, but I think 8: 14 is more important, because it is only in 8: 14 that we find out when the earth was COMPLETELY dry after the flood waters had fully receded.] If the year in question was a perfect leap year of 390 days, then the Flood lasted exactly 400 days. (390 + 10 = 400) [40 x 10 = 400. 40 means a long time, at last completed, such as the number of years of King Solomon’s reign, the number of years the Hebrews spent wandering in Sinai after the Exodus, etc. 10 means the law, like the 10 Commandments.]

And we know from Genesis 7: 24 that the waters swelled exactly 150 days. So super-simple math shows that the waters receded and the land became completely dry in 250 days. (400 – 150 = 250)

So the numerical relationship between the number of days the flood waters receded and the land became fully dry, to the number of days the flood waters swelled, is 2.5 to 1.5 [250 days to 150 days, in the total 400 days of the Flood period].

Does this slightly odd numerical relationship of 2.5 to 1.5 have an important symbolic meaning? For that, we must turn to the Ark of the Covenant!

B. Ark of the Covenant

The Ark of the Covenant is arguably the single most important and holy physical object in the Hebrew Bible. Wouldn’t its dimensions be expected to have symbolic significance? What two key figures jump out at us from the Ark of the Covenant’s dimensions?

Exodus 25: 10 “They shall make an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high.”

Well, the two figures are sure obvious: 2.5 and 1.5.

Hey, that’s the EXACT numerical relationship as we saw above in Genesis for the Flood!.

Now I ask you: Is that nifty or what?

Sara Jansky

Thanks for the post. It is nifty. I will have to take more time later to go over what you have found.

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

Interesting about the number thirteen, Jim. I think the Egyptians were the first to develop a superstition for the number thirteen, but for them the number brought good luck. They believed that there were twelve steps on the ladder to eternal life and knowledge and to take the thirteenth step meant going through death into everlasting life. Thirteen, for the Egyptians, was associated with immortality. You think the Hebrews were bashing the Egyptians by giving the number thirteen a bad reputation?

In Roman times the number thirteen was associated with ill omens, like death and destruction.

For Christians, the number thirteen is associated with bad luck. The superstition stems from the Last Supper where Judas Iscariot became the thirteenth guest to sit at the table and would later betray Jesus, leading to his execution. While nowadays it is acceptable to look at the number thirteen as just a number that comes after twelve, still to this day it is considered very bad luck for thirteen people to sit down for dinner together. It is believed that one of the dinner guests will die within the year.

The number was adopted by witches for their covens, which always number thirteen. An obvious sign of rebellion and defiance.

Still, to this day, the superstition lives on. Most hotel chains have no room number thirteen and many skyscrapers are without a thirteenth floor.

Sorry to go off track. Let's get back to what you were saying.

By Jim S:

quote:

Well, the two figures are sure obvious: 2.5 and 1.5.

Hey, that’s the EXACT numerical relationship as we saw above in Genesis for the Flood!.

Now I ask you: Is that nifty or what?

That is interesting and intriguing.

I have just one concern. It's probably nothing but I was just wondering. I think there is a comparison of apples to oranges. You have a numerical relationship of the days of the flood and the dimension of the Ark of the Covenant, and then establish a correspondence between the two. Would you find if there is correspondence between the dimension of Noah's Ark and the dimension of the Ark of the Covenant? I'm just curious and I wonder if that is more a comparison of apples to apples. I think it would be cool if a correspondence is discovered.

This post is intriguing.

Nobby

Hey Ryck,
I was born Jan. 13th on a friday "ooooooh"!!
Does that make me lucky or unlucky?
I'm a born again Christian & I don't believe in luck! If things go well with me I give all the credit to God. If things don't go well with me I still praise the Lord who is in complete control!

God Speed,
Nobby

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Nobby:

quote:

I was born Jan. 13th on a friday "ooooooh"!!
Does that make me lucky or unlucky?

I'll have to defer that answer to your mom. Will she answer that you were a PAIN? LOL!

And are you one still? LOL!!!!

All in good fun, Nobby.

Nobby · Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:32 pm Post subject: The Length of the Flood: For Sara

quote:
Originally posted by Ryck:
By Nobby:
I'll have to defer that answer to your mom. Will she answer that you were a PAIN? LOL!
And are you one still? LOL!!!!
All in good fun, Nobby.

Hi Ryck,
She would! I'm still one! Fun is good for the soul!

(anyways it makes you feel good)
Gods Speed,

Nobby

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Ryck:

I liked your interesting comments about the number 13.

As for comparing apples to apples, that depends on your view of the Bible's descriptions of the Flood and the Ark of the Covenant. Wouldn't one expect the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant to have an important symbolic meaning? Why would such dimensions be purely arbitrary? And a similar analysis could be applied to the length of the Flood.

And that even brings us back around to the subject of my real concern. Wouldn't one expect that the peculiar stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah to have an important meaning? Why does the eldest son always come out on the short end of the stick? Isn't the Bible trying to tell us something important here? Ishmael is banished to the desert with inadequate provisions; Esau is swindled out of his leadership position and even falls outside of the Covenant; Reuben gets a curse instead of a blessing; Er, the first-born son of the leading tribe of Israel, Judah, is so bad that Yahweh kills Er. And twins are born on Er's behalf, although they are also the sons/grandsons of Judah; the "older" twin is Zerah, who sticks his had out first, but the "younger" twin Perez gets the ultimate revenge of younger brothers by managing to get himself born first, and it is Perez who is the ancestor of King David, King Solomon and Jesus. And even Joseph's oldest son Manasseh comes out with the short end of the stick when his grandfather Jacob gives Manasseh's younger brother, Ephraim, a better inheritance, despite the objections of their father, the heroic Joseph. One leading pro-Bible scholar, Robert Alter, in translating the Book of Genesis, drops this footnote as to Genesis 38: 7: "'And Er his firstborn was evil in the eyes of the lord.' The nature of [Er's] moral failing remains unspecified, but given the insistent pattern of reversal of primogeniture in all these stories, it seems almost sufficient merely to be firstborn in order to incur God's displeasure: though the firstborn is not necessarily evil, he usually turns out to be obtuse, rash, wild, or otherwise disqualified from carrying on the heritage."

It just seems to me that all these stories are in the Bible for a purpose. I don't think the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant, or the length of the Flood, are arbitrary. And I don't think that it "just happened" that all the firstborns in Genesis, beginning with Abraham's firstborn son, come out losers.

Of course, the question of who is telling these stories, and for what purpose, is extremely controversial. But I don't think these stories are arbitrary and meaningless.

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Jim S:

quote:

I liked your interesting comments about the number 13.

Thanks!

quote:

As for comparing apples to apples, that depends on your view of the Bible's descriptions of the Flood and the Ark of the Covenant. Wouldn't one expect the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant to have an important symbolic meaning? Why would such dimensions be purely arbitrary? And a similar analysis could be applied to the length of the Flood.

Well, you made a relationship between the length of the flood to the demensions of the Ark of the Covenant. I was wondering if you have any answer to my question if there is a relationship between the demensions of Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant. Is there? Are the two compatible?

quote:

Why does the eldest son always come out on the short end of the stick? Isn't the Bible trying to tell us something important here?

Always? No, not always. I think I explained elsewhere on this board.

quote:

Ishmael is banished to the desert with inadequate provisions;

Not according to Genesis 21:14. Remember, that it was God that approved of her separation from Abraham's household due to her contentions. God did send his angel and provided for her. And she was promised that her son will become a great nation. And they prospered.

quote:

Esau is swindled out of his leadership position and even falls outside of the Covenant;

Esau wasn't destitute. He came in tired and hungry from the field, yes. Yet, he sold his birthright for the convenence of a ready-made bowl of stew. If you sold me your family's inheritence in exchange for my McDonald's Happy Meal, then you didn't deserve to keep it.

quote:

Reuben gets a curse instead of a blessing; Er, the first-born son of the leading tribe of Israel,

Reuben disgraced his father by committing incestuous adultery with his father's concubine. In those days, to have sexual relations or rape a man's women is a very grave offense.

quote:

And twins are born on Er's behalf, although they are also the sons/grandsons of Judah; the "older" twin is Zerah, who sticks his had out first, but the "younger" twin Perez gets the ultimate revenge of younger brothers by managing to get himself born first, and it is Perez who is the ancestor of King David, King Solomon and Jesus.

Technically, Perez was born ahead of Zerah.

quote:

And even Joseph's oldest son Manasseh comes out with the short end of the stick when his grandfather Jacob gives Manasseh's younger brother, Ephraim, a better inheritance, despite the objections of their father, the heroic Joseph.

Perhaps indicating that Ephraim was to become greater than Manasseh.

quote:

I don't think the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant, or the length of the Flood, are arbitrary.

Agreed.

quote:

And I don't think that it "just happened" that all the firstborns in Genesis, beginning with Abraham's firstborn son, come out losers.

But the firstborn of Sarah didn't.

Really? All of them? I'll have to study this one of these days. Assuming this is true, you have any theories why this is?

Interesting thread.

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Ryck:

1. I'm afraid I have no insights about Noah's ark.

2. You mention Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. But AFTER that, Isaac was deciding which son to name to be the new leader of the Hebrews. Isaac's wife Rebekah came up with the plan of dressing Jacob up like Esau, and having Jacob pretend to be Esau (which even Jacob thought was perhaps going way too far), so that when Isaac gave ut his irrevocable blessing, which is what was going to determine who the next leader of the Hebrews was, Isaac would inadvertently give it to Jacob, even though Isaac clearly wanted to give it to Esau. All this trickery occurred AFTER Esau had sold his birthright.

Do you think that the ancient Hebrews in the real world would have approved of Rebekah's audacious actions here? The Bible itself certainly never criticizes Rebekah. Even Isaac doesn't criticize Rebekah for bamboozling him! What's going on here? What's the real point of this unforgettable story? Isn't this story being told from the (biased) perspective of a younger son?

3. Isaac is the firstborn son of Sarah. But Ryck, that's not what counts in the Bible, for better or worse. Of the three Patriarchs and the leading tribe of Israel, we are only told the name of one daughter, Jacob's daughter Dinah, and that only because of the unfortunate situation concerning her proposed marriage to a Gentile. Otherwise, we are NEVER told how many daughters the Patriarchs had or any of the names of any daughters. (And likewise in the New Testament, we know the names of Jesus's brothers, but not the names of Jesus's sisters.) What counts in the Bible, for better or worse, is whether a son is the firstborn son of his FATHER.

That is not to say that women are not important in the Bible. They are. The author of Genesis thinks that the next Hebrew leader must be a son of the old leader's royal wife #1, thereby giving very strong blessing to the sanctity of that particular marriage. Thus even though Jacob NEVER loved Leah or treated her kindly, nevertheless, when the chips are down and it has come time to select the leading tribe of Israel, Jacob picks Judah, a younger son of his royal wife #1 Leah, not his heroic and favorite son Joseph, who is a son of royal wife #2 Rachel, the wife whom Jacob had always loved. And the author of Genesis fully approves of the very pushy actions of both Sarah and Rebekah: (1) Sarah ordering Hagar and Ishmael to be exiled into the desert (where, as you point out, Yahweh takes pity on them), and (2) Rebekah in bamboozling her husband Isaac into naming as the next leader of the Hebrews the son that Isaac clearly did NOT want to name as leader. So women are important in the Bible, even to the extent that this does not seem to square with how the ancient Hebrews in the real world would have viewed the proper role of women. But as to firstborns, what counts is whether it's the father's firstborn. Beginning with Ishmael, no Hebrew leader's firstborn son does well in Genesis. WHY?

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Jim S:

quote:

1. I'm afraid I have no insights about Noah's ark.

No problem. I was wondering if there was something there.

quote:

Isaac's wife Rebekah came up with the plan of dressing Jacob up like Esau, and having Jacob pretend to be Esau (which even Jacob thought was perhaps going way too far), so that when Isaac gave ut his irrevocable blessing, which is what was going to determine who the next leader of the Hebrews was, Isaac would inadvertently give it to Jacob, even though Isaac clearly wanted to give it to Esau. All this trickery occurred AFTER Esau had sold his birthright.

Evidently because Isaac preferred Esau anyway. Or that knowing that Esau sold his birthright would have broken his heart. But it was evident that Esau was not going to honor his "sale" because he expected to get it anyway. So Rebekah's plan did go into operation. And the prophesy regarding Esau and Jacob came true.

quote:

Do you think that the ancient Hebrews in the real world would have approved of Rebekah's audacious actions here?

I don't know. I suppose they would have to know the situation better and both boys closely. Perhaps judge which of the two is more worthy. It would naturally fall on the firstborn. But for Jacob to ask such an outragious price of Esau's brithright for his bowl of stew was superceded by Esau's outragious acceptance of the terms of the transaction along with his contempt of his birthright!

quote:

The Bible itself certainly never criticizes Rebekah. Even Isaac doesn't criticize Rebekah for bamboozling him! What's going on here?

Esau didn't care about this his birthright in a spiritual way. He looked at it from a materialistic viewpoint. So, it looks like events moved along so that the birthright fell upon the right man.

quote:

Otherwise, we are NEVER told how many daughters the Patriarchs had or any of the names of any daughters. (And likewise in the New Testament, we know the names of Jesus's brothers, but not the names of Jesus's sisters.) What counts in the Bible, for better or worse, is whether a son is the firstborn son of his FATHER.

Agreed. The culture was male centric.

quote:
Thus even though Jacob NEVER loved Leah or treated her kindly, nevertheless, when the chips are down and it has come time to select the leading tribe of Israel, Jacob picks Judah, a younger son of his royal wife #1 Leah,

That was sad. But bearing children was important to women in those days. Being barren was a great dishonor and humiliation. I'm glad Leah was honored.

quote:

Beginning with Ishmael, no Hebrew leader's firstborn son does well in Genesis. WHY?

I hadn't noticed. One of these days I'll have to research this. Interesting points.

Thanks!