eriqbenel wrote:The first thing to be aware of is that this is NOT "exactly" 150 days, and the Scripture never says it is. The Scripture says that the "waters prevailed upon the earth" for 150 days. It does NOT say that the Ark rested on the 150th day, nor can such be logically inferred. This is explained below.
If the Scripture says 150 days, i believe it means what it says. More below.
To say this is "ONLY possible… where each month contains 30 days" is incorrect. In a lunar year, it is very possible, if not common, to have two 30 day months, one 29 day month, and then two more 30 day months after. Such is probably the case with Gen 7:11 through Gen 8:3-4.
I addressed all that in my previous post; you're basically repeating the same argument that Arnold made.
The months are not counted from the 17th to the 17th, they are counted from "chodesh" to "chodesh". This is the beginning of the error in the miscalculation here.
C'mon Eric, think about that. If there are x number of days between the same numeric dates in 2 different months, then backing up to the 1st (chodesh) of each month will give you the exact same number of days.
In addition, the Scriptures do NOT say that the Ark rested at Mt. Ararat ON the 150th day:
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Now if the waters prevailed for all 150 days, it doesn't make since that the Ark would have rested on the 150th day! Verse 3 and 4 explain.
8:1 And Elohim remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and Elohim made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
8:4 And (THEN) the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
The fact that you had to ADD the word "THEN" (which isn't in the text), shows that i could be right. On the other hand you could be right. But it doesn't make sense to me that they would keep sailing around after the waters had "abated".
It also doesn't make sense to me that the
datesgiven would have no connexion to the
number of daysOf course, there's the contradiction between verses 4 & 5, which further confuses the issue, and doesn't help either one of us, but i'll leave that for you to address if you wish.
The point is that the 150 days was just to describe the time of the prevailing of waters, NOT to indicate a calendar. And even if it WAS, I have clearly shown that the calendar definitely could have been a LUNAR calendar.
Of course it was a LUNAR calendar, and also a SOLAR calendar, because at THAT time the MOON was in perfect sync with the SUN.
The last time this was presented to me, I pointed what I believe to be three faults in this logic:
1. Just because 354 + 10 equals 364, doesn't mean that there should be a 364 day calendar "read into" the context. There is NO REASON to suggest that the "year and ten day period suggest a 364 day solar calendar".
I have no idea what you're talking about now; it seems that you have swithed to an unfamiliar topic.
Would any combination of days that add up to the numbers 364, or 360 or 354 "automatically" presume an annual calendar calculation? For instance, if you begin counting TODAY, and a series of events eventually leads to 364 days later, does that mean that we should use the days from this time until that time to theorize an annual calendar?
Still don't know where you're going.
2. Following up with that in mind, it should be noted that the passage says absolutely NOTHING about a "year". It only mentions the passing of days from one event to the next.
If you're still talking about the 150 days of the flood, it doesn't ONLY mention passing of days, it ALSO mentions the dates that those events started and (IMO) ended.
Since when do we count a "year" from the second month to the second month of the next year?! There is NO annual calendar being suggested in this time period, only the passing of days.
I disagree.
3. Again, you have yourself shown the clear possibility of a lunar count, that along with the 150 day explanation of the prevailing waters is enough to dispute adequately ANY objection the these passage conflict with a lunar calendar.
I repeat, i see no conflict with a lunar calendar; what i see is a lunar calendar that is IN SYNC with the sun, unlike our current situation. And it's going to change back again, since the Tribulation will have 42 months = 1260 days = 3 1/2 years.
I'm still not sure where the 364 day year fits in, but i'm open to any additional information.