New Article regarding the Global Flood of Noah

by jwfacts 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Jeffro
    Place a teaspoon of salt in a freshwater tank and watch the fish die.


    Should I also run over some puppies?

  • mP


    I was always under the impression that it rained continually for 40 days and nights but the waters didn`t recede until 150 days after the event.



    Thats because xians are liars for the Bible and God. The text does not actually say that. Both figures are given and the truth thoughts behind the text is the flood was around for both. Of course the only wah to rationalise this is to well make stuff up. The simple answer is of course there are two stories, and thats why its a pair of animals and in other parts 7. Two stories which got out of sync or evolved differently.

  • mP


    MP - Genesis says it rained for 150 days and 40 days.

    The flood account is generally accepted by scholars to have been redacted from two different flood legends, hence a few areas that it has these apparent contradictions. It is similar with the two different creation accounts in Gensis 1 and 2.


    Exactly, once you realize that you will see lots of other doublets in Genesis.

  • haboob48

    really enjoyed your article......thanks so much. makes sense to me. even dicussed it. ready for more......

  • Ticker

    Wanted to clear up one misconception here with 40 days and 150 days. This is a common error in basic bible theology and we can confuse these two dates as contradictory when they actually are not.

    Genesis 7:12 "And rain fell upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights"

    1. Prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious: "it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion".
    2. Be widespread in a particular area at a particular time; be current: "an atmosphere of crisis prevails".

    Genesis 7:24 "And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days"

    This is a common misunderstanding as violent(geshem) rain lasted for 40 days and nights but the flood waters continued to rise. This can be easily observed, for example after any hard rainfall rivers will continue to rise and swell days later after the rain dissapates. The waters were powerful and widespread for 150 days. The inhabitants were in the ark for over 1 year and stayed in the ark 7 months after it landing on the mountains of Ararat because the conditions outside the ark were yet hostile.

    I know the argument for it being contradictory is based off of Genesis 7:17. This verse though only states how long it rained not how long the waters were upon the earth. Then we also have the sub-terranean waters mentioned and in another point is in Hebrew literary they use "chiasm" in which series of statements are mirrored in subsequent statements resulting in a symetrical structure. In my opinion this gives credit that the bible does not contradict itself on the timeline of the flood duration.

    Forgive me if this was already covereded in the article as I'm not wanting to be repetitive but since the 40 days vs. 150 days was mentioned in the thread I thought I would also highlight this point in argument for the bibles credability.

  • cantleave

    Wow - Ticker is that your only comment on the whole article. You surely don't believe in the global flood and Noah saving all species of animal do you?

  • Searril
  • konceptual99

    I was under the impression for years that the flood was true. Now I know it's booshee. What worries me most is that I must have sounded a least as mental as anyone I speak to now who defends it.

  • Yan Bibiyan
    Yan Bibiyan

    "it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion"

    Oh, the irony.....

    And pointing out that clearing this 40 days vs. 150 days thingy gives the bible credibility, despite the 199 other things that completely discredit Noah's accout, is somewhat intelectually dishonest, no?

  • Ticker

    Can'tLeave - I've briefly studied those two points in the past that you mention. There are semantics that could possibly give support for or against the first point around the hebrew word for earth('erets) which is used in this passsage. As the 'erets can mean whole earth(as opposed to part) or district, region. It would take more study on my part to fully divulge and at this point would not criticize either point although the bible seems to support it being universal - see Genesis 7:4b and 7:19-22. Some view the flood as being local and the judgement universal.

    As for Noah saving every species we have to look closely again at the wording of the verses. It says every living creature that takes breath in the nostrils - Genesis 7:22. Those who breathe through nostrils have lungs. Obviously off the start we can exclude fish, we can also exclude insects who absorb oxygen through their skin by use of tracheal tubes. I think it's plausible there would be more then enough debris and dead carcasses floating around to allow them to live, eat, and breed. Another point to remember is that God asked Noah to bring animals onto the ark after "their kind". This does not need to include all the variations within each kind as DNA would allow for this variation within their kind after the flood. It is DNA that restricts reproduction between kind to kind but not within each kind. A good example of this is the Canine. Also another Idea I've heard and it's very possible is young animals were taken rather then large mature animals. Younger animals would be stronger, healthier, more apt for procreation then older aged animal, and take up considerably less space.

    Two books that I hear are good on this subject are - "Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe and "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris.

    I don't want to hijack this thread but only wanted to defend the semantics of some of these verses in Genesis. Thank you for your questions Can'tLeave.

Share this