The Year of the FLOOD

In every example in the Bible, it seems that God used 30 days months in prophecy. A growing number of individuals are coming to believe, as factual, the theory that a 30-day month was the norm in ancient history. Many of these same individuals believe that it will become the norm again in the near future. Even if the latter is so, and in the world tomorrow there will be 30-day months, the 30-day month simply does not exist today. Would it not behoove a proponent of something which does not exist today, when deciding about a belief relevant to history, to consider every known possible explanation or point of logic within the realm of physics as one can find? It should go without mention that one must always seek the very thoughts of God in any search for truth, regarding any conceivable circumstances or facts.

Some have theorized that "in the beginning" God established the rotation of the earth, the orbit of the moon around the earth, and the earth around the sun, in such a way so as to provide a full solar eclipse every month. One result of this situation was that for every conjunction (when the earth, moon and sun are in a direct line with each other) the resulting solar eclipse would be the sign signifying the onset of a new month. The concept further maintains that this 30 day monthly cycle continued in existence through the time of Adam, then Noah, and until sometime around the days of the Kingdom of Israel, but then ended sometime before the captivity of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. There have been any number of books written about the "360 day year" and its disappearance from the calendars of ancient Babylon and others somewhere around 800 BC.

The purpose of this article is not to "disprove" this theory, at least not in its entirety. Rather, we wish to simply present additional information for consideration for anyone forming an opinion on this subject. It is not the purpose of this article to get into a deep discussion of the laws of physics, the science of geology, or the study of astronomy although all of these areas come into play. The reader may research these on his own and draw his own conclusions. This article will contain points of simple logic based on the current physical laws in existence in the universe. This article will also present Biblical data relating to this subject and drawn from the Genesis account of the "Flood".

Oddly enough, it is this very account which is often quoted to "prove" that the 30-day month was in existence during the time of the flood. But before we address the "flood" data, let’s first review the necessities of the 30-day calendar theory.

In general, the 30-day month/ 360-day year advocate will embrace this theory as an explanation that would simplify a Biblical Sacred Calendar. Often associated with this is the concept that the beginning of every month should have been unmistakably initiated by the visible phenomena of a full and total solar eclipse as seen from the surface of our planet earth, as a sign to humanity that a new month was beginning. However, there are additional requirements that may not be fully considered as a direct result of this. First of all, since this "solar" eclipse is used to determine the first day of each month of the year, the "location" where this occurs, that is the location where the eclipse is visible and witnessed, must occur wherever it is that God wanted the "month" (first day of the month) to first begin. For example, let’s say that God had wanted to start the month or day at Jerusalem or Mt. Zion as opposed to Dallas or Tokyo, then the eclipse would have to have occurred at the very time that Jerusalem was in line with the moon and sun. This would have required that the "rotation" of the earth in its orbit around the sun to have been perfectly synchronized with the orbit of the moon around the earth. There could have been no deviation from this rotation of the earth or the orbit of the moon whatsoever, not even seconds. They would both have to have been precisely and unwaveringly synchronized, and have maintained this flawless procedure for an indefinite length of time. Furthermore, the orbit of the moon would have to have been perfectly aligned so that it came between the sun and Jerusalem at just the right distance so as to have been able to "eclipse" the sun as viewed from Jerusalem.

Also, so as to avoid confusion, the orbit of the moon would have to have been close enough to the earth to completely cover the sun during the eclipse, yet have been far enough away from the earth so as to not cast a continual shadow over too large an area outside of Jerusalem. If that were to have happened, the eclipse would have been visible from too many locations on earth, and over too long of a period of time. (It would or could start too soon, or end too late.) In which case someone would have to have been given the authority to designate just "when" the month began as well as where. Today the "trail" of the shadow of a full solar eclipse can traverse at least several hundred miles over a period of hours. This is much too long to be a simple and consistent measuring tool, even if the other factors previously mentioned were within the stated parameters required. Of course, the opposite situation then becomes a concern. If the shadow were limited to being just over Jerusalem and its local area, then what about those in other parts of the world? They would have to rely on technology of some sort to know when a month was beginning.

Perhaps the interesting point in all of this is that God may have originally "created" the universe in such a way as to make all of this the case (for an eye opening look into just what was really “created” in Genesis 1:1 please see our article, “The Genesis Creation- What and When was the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1?”. However, the very problem we experience in this physical creation today is that this scenario is completely, undeniably, and physically impossible. Today, not only is the rotation of the earth and the orbit of the moon (which is technically not an “orbit” as one normally understands it to be) "not" in sync with each other, it is impossible for it to be. Thus, we have a problem, which may be better stated in the form of a question. "When did it become impossible?" Could it have been the "earthquake" at the time of Uzziah mentioned in Amos? Could it even have been an earthquake? Could it have been the result of an asteroid hitting the earth and if so when? Is there anything in recorded history that would have been able to disrupt a perfect 30 day month synchronization? Others might think that the great flood of Noah’s time could have produced the changes necessary, thus giving us what we have today. This writer would suggest only one possible answer to this question- that there is no answer! There is nothing in recorded history, or recorded in the bible, that is of the magnitude necessary to explain the “shift” from “perfectly aligned” pathways in space for the Sun, Earth, and Moon to our present realities of wobbling planets, wavy fluctuating orbital paths, and irregular rotation. Now, was there a 30-day month before Adam? It is anyone’s guess, but based on physics, geology, astronomy (astrophysics if you will), and recorded history back to Adam, nothing exists that supports the premise of a "30 day" month. Thus, if there ever had been a 30-day month (as we count it today) then it realistically could have only existed prior to Adam, which then creates a problem for the above-mentioned theory.

Much more could be stated about just what would be required to produce a thirty day month, and 360 day year, along with just what would then be required to produce the present state, but it is hoped that this would be sufficient to stir one up to investigate more deeply on his own.

Now, let’s look at the Genesis flood account. One issue needs to be addressed before we get into the account itself. There are also a number of people who believe a theory maintaining that prior to the flood there was a "layer" of water encompassing the earth and somehow "suspended" above the atmosphere. The theory asserts that when the flood took place, this envelope of water situated high above the earth suddenly collapsed thus producing or helping to produce the "flood". This comes from a misunderstanding of Gen. 1 regarding the "water" above the firmament (heaven) which is simply the clouds in the sky. A prominent proof that there was no "envelope" surrounding our planet is found in Gen. 1:14-15. The lights were "in" the firmament of the "heaven" (sky). If there was a layer of water above the earth, how could anyone have seen the stars and used them as God gave them to be used, as signs (constellations). This would have been critical to the righteous on the planet prior to the exodus because the plan of salvation is recorded in the constellations. God designated and named them all (Orion, Leo, Pleiades, etc.). If there had there been a water layer, how could the stars have been seen as we see them today?

Some readers might ask, "What do you mean, the stars told the plan of salvation?" Since this is not the purpose of this article, the short answer follows. According to Psalms 147:4, "He counts the number of the stars", and "he calls them by their names." The Hebrew word translated "counts" means, to count, reckon, assign, number, tell, appoint, or prepare. The word for "calls" means, to call, call out, recite, read, cry out, or proclaim. The word "name" means, name, reputation, glory, fame, memorial, or monument. So, when, in Genesis 1:14, God says that one of the purposes of the lights (this includes the stars specifically) in the firmament (sky) was to be for "signs" just what did God have in mind? The original Hebrew and Arabic names of the stars in specific constellations "tell" or "proclaim" the story of God’s incredible plan for mankind. Including the birth and death of the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, and His resurrection. Also, the remarkably complete account of the events of the Day of the Lord, including the return of Christ and the destruction of the armies that He will defeat, even to the point of acknowledging the birds of prey devouring the corpses of the dead. Yes, it was very important that from Adam to Moses that man be able to "read" the stars. Since we have the written word of God today, it is no longer necessary to retain the story in the stars. As this teaching eventually disappeared into obscurity, others for their own purposes, took what they had heard or remembered and developed their own mythologies. Thus today, the beautifully magnificent memorial (remembrance) of the stars’ story is no longer read for the true benefit of man, but for the benefit of the man reading, and that man or women does not read the stars for good, but for evil, in hopes of personal gain. We call them astrologers. Now, let’s return to the flood.

If one were to assume that there was a layer of water, but that it was crystal clear, allowing people to see right through it, then other problems would arise, also requiring explanations. If the water had been in outer space then it would have been instantly dispersed by the very vacuum of space itself. In the improbable situation that it were able to hold together in some form or another, due to gravitational forces of the earth, then wouldn’t it boil in the sunlight and then freeze in the shadow of the earth? Either way it would still present an unsolvable problem regarding the observation of anything, not to mention new moons, with clarity.

If this water were at the top of the atmosphere being somehow suspended, yet contained within the atmosphere, then there would still remain a clarity problem. The slightest heating or cooling of the water would cause movement in the water due to the convection currents generated by the heating or cooling. This in turn would cause a "ripple" or "waviness" in the layer much like the surface of a lake from a breeze, or as you would see in a pot of water as it begins to heat up. Varying degrees of heating or cooling would result in varying degrees of movement and diffusion of light from the "waves". Water at different temperatures "bends" light at different degrees. This is an over simplification, but one would hope that inescapable points of logic have been expressed.

Now, what about the "Flood"? Could it have produced a change in the length of the month? Since the forces and water involved in the flood were all initiated and contained within the earth’s shell and thin layer of atmosphere (relatively speaking as it relates to the diameter of the earth [approx. 7,900 miles] in contrast with the thickness of the atmosphere [approx. 20 miles]) it would not appear to be significant enough to produce such a change. But, let’s assume for the moment that it was enough to slow the rotation of the earth. How fast would it "slow" down? Would it be instantaneous? Would it be gradually, perhaps taking years, decades, or centuries to readjust? Questions and problems, basically without answer or certainty. Not enough to maintain as a Biblical tenet, is it?

Finally, let’s consider the scriptures in a way not normally appreciated. God gave us an astonishingly detailed timetable concerning the events associated with the flood. Noah most likely recorded the events himself and the record was passed on down through the centuries until God gave Moses’ the responsibility to write Genesis as we have it today. But no matter how the record was preserved, there is no doubt that God inspired the book of Genesis and it is His Word. The following is a list of scriptures that refer to time frames or actual days of the year. They are:

Do these scriptures preserve the times and dates included in the account of the flood for a reason? Was it just to show that Noah could count? Are there reasons for the inclusion of these dates and times, which reveal a deeper meaning and purpose than simple record keeping? Why not? After all, God is a Creator God Who of necessity greatly concerns Himself with numbers and mathematics. Every letter in the Bible, including both Old and New Testaments, has a numerical value. When it comes to prophecy, it would seem that God is very precise in many instances, even to the day. There are numerous scriptures which repetitively reflect the meaning of particular "numbers", such as the numbers "40", "7", "12", "144,000", "2520", "1260", and others. God uses "numbers" to reveal and explain much more to us than just a particular "quantity" of some sort. So, could there be a story behind or associated with the numbers of Genesis 7 & 8 that transcends mere record keeping? Is there any reason to doubt it?

What we are about to present is not offered as "doctrine", or as a "proof" of anything one way or the other, with regard to anyone’s personal point of view or opinion. It is offered as something to consider in the light of the Genesis Flood account and God’s "calendar".

God is a God of "patterns" (design), "numbers", "completeness", "organization" (order), and so on. The list could go on and on. Therefore, when one looks at the "numbers" and "dates" of the flood account one would tend to "expect" a deeper purpose than the record keeping previously mentioned. One would expect some kind of overall design or pattern reflecting "order" and "purpose" relative to the numbers and dates recorded. When the flood day counts and dates are approached from the point of view or perspective that Noah operated under a "30 day" month (therefore 360-day year) nothing appears relative to the timing. There is no "pattern" that emerges. The various day counts (similar to counting to Pentecost) and dates appear to fall randomly during the week. No association can be made to any Sabbath or Annual High Days. Try this for yourself and see. Take a sheet of paper and make your own calendar for the flood. Prepare it with 7 day weeks just like God ordained it to be, but then use only 30-day months. To prepare every example possible you will need seven calendars. Simply prepare the first calendar by starting with the Genesis 7:4 day on the first day of the week and then plot out all the dates from the scriptures above. There will only be one or two numbers you may not be sure of where to place, but do all the rest and don’t worry about that at this time. The second calendar will start with Genesis 7:4 on the 2^nd day of the week, the third calendar on the 3^rd day of the week and so on until you have completed all seven calendars. Each will start on one day of the week. Do you see any pattern or anything that stands out in any way?

Now do the same thing, but this time let’s pretend that the year is patterned after the "lunar-solar" calendar as described in the Bible. For this calendar you will still compile it based on the seven day week, but instead of only using "30-day" months you will write it out using the average breakdown of 30 days followed by 29 days, followed by 30 days, followed by 29 days, and so on. The reason for the alternating months of 29 and 30 days is because the Biblical month is based on the cycle of the moon. One orbit of the moon around the earth takes approximately 29 ½ days, but since there is no such thing as one half of a day in this matter, it must be counted as either a 29 day month or 30 day month. If you need or want a deeper explanation of this for any reason, then please contact us and we will gladly discuss this with you. We know that most of our readers are already familiar with the Biblical reckoning for months and years, so we will not elaborate further in this article.

As you prepare the first calendar and the second and the third and so on, you may not readily see a pattern developing, but there is a pattern there. However, and to save your time and our space, when you complete the calendar where you begin with Genesis 7:4 on the 7^th day of the week you will discover an undeniable "pattern"! (See graph at end of article.)

Every date except for Genesis 8:5, the 10^th month and 1^st day (a New Moon) will fall on the Sabbath!

Furthermore, by using the Biblical calendar lunar months of 29 and 30 days, as they presently exist, and the solar year of 365 days (therefore, not the 360-day year) as it presently exists, we have a unique situation. Not only is every date and number of days directly "connected" to a Sabbath, but also the entire Flood account is both connected to the lunar month and the solar year! Count it out for yourself. The length of the Flood account from the start of the rain to Noah’s exit from the ark took EXACTLY 365 days, or ONE solar year. This is not a mere redundancy, rather the point is being made that within this context, both the first day and the last day of the "Flood" are Sabbaths!

There is additional support for this approach as well, contained in the very words of Genesis. In Genesis 7:4, 8:10, and 8:12 the "seven" or the "other seven days" imply that this is referring to the Sabbath. In addition, Genesis 8:4 states that the ark "rested" on the 17^th day of the 7^th month. Here the Hebrew word for rested is exactly the same as written in Exodus 20:11.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested <05117> the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath <07676> day, and hallowed it.

This word means to "cease" doing something. In Exodus it refers to God "ceasing" His "work". In Genesis 8:4 it refers to the ark "ceasing" to be afloat. In the former situation, the re-creation work restored to newness that which had been destroyed by evil, and re-growth could begin. In the latter instance, the evil and its fruit was completely washed away, and re-growth could "Genesis". A serious comparison of the two events would result in even more and deeper parallels, but that is not our purpose in this article. Nevertheless, wouldn’t it seem quite appropriate, to a student of the Bible, that the ark "ceased" (could we say its labor?) on the Sabbath? In addition, these dates would NOT be aligned with each other on the Sabbath, if one were to use a 30-day month calendar.

Finally, what about the scripture which purportedly proves that the months were 30 days in length? This "proof" is arrived at by combining two verses found in the Genesis Flood account and then associating them with a third one. The two scriptures are Genesis 7:24 and Genesis 8:3. These verses both mention a 150-day period of time. In Genesis 7:24 the 150 days is the length of time that the water "prevailed" upon the earth. In Genesis 8:3 the "end" of the 150 days appears to mark a beginning of a "decreasing" water level, thus they may be referring to the same 150 days, but from different perspectives. We will presume, for the sake of simplicity, that they are the same period of time. If they are not, then the so-called "proof" of 30 day months, provided by these verses, vanishes.

The assumption is that Genesis 8:4 and its reference to the 7^th month and the 17^th day is the same as day number 150 of the 150 days. With that scenario, one simply divides the 150 by 5 months and you have a 30-day month. This is all based on the presumption that there were 30-day months as we would count them today. There are two problems with this. First of all, it is a presumption that day 150 was also the 17^th day of the 7^th month. Maybe it was or maybe it wasn’t. If it is the 150^th day as we count them today then one is forced to completely discard the Sabbath connection as presented herein.

Secondly, it is possible that the "counting" may have been different from "real" time. For an explanation of this we refer to an excerpt from "The New Bible Commentary", published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company in March, 1960. Here it addresses the dates and day counts from the Genesis account. Quoting from page 85:

The calendar month was one of 30 days; thus from the 17^th of the second month in the 600^th year to the 27^th of the second month in the 601^st year was one calendar year and 11 days, that is 371 days. The whole of this is a purely calendar reckoning. If trouble is taken to investigate the real days as measured by the sun a remarkable fact emerges. There were only 29 ½ real days to a lunar month; but for calendar purposes the first 24 hour day of the month was counted twice, half of it belonging to the preceding month and half to the following. Twelve real lunar months were actually 354 days. If then the 11 days (from the 17^th to the 27^th of the second month) be added the figure 365 is reached. The fact then comes to light that the flood occupied exactly one solar year.

If this is accurate, then the 150^th day is the same day as the 17^th day of the 7^th month, which is also the Sabbath as previously suggested.

In conclusion, let us restate here, that this is not put forth to "prove" anything. We simply hope that this might be worthy of the reader’s consideration. When one sees patterns in God’s plan elsewhere in the Bible, then why should we not expect a pattern from God to be associated with the Flood account as well? Wouldn’t the repetitiveness of the appearance of the Sabbath be significant, especially considering the reason for the flood? What are the odds? Did God decide to destroy flesh because it was "keeping" the Sabbath? Isn’t the Sabbath the "test" commandment? Is there hope for life without keeping the Sabbath? Isn’t the Sabbath law? Maybe, just maybe, there is a much greater "connection" between the Sabbath and the flood than has ever been previously considered.