Sorry Arnold, you're not making sense. You obviously didn't read what i said.BrotherArnold wrote:Arnold> How can you prove that the 17th day of the 2nd and 7th moon/month was the 1st day of a solar month????
Chuck> I never said it was. I believe that the sun & moon were in sync at that time, so the 17th day of the lunar month would be the SAME as the 17th day of the solar month.
Arnold> RESPONSE; your answer seem confusing you said you did not say it was then said it was.
I can't prove it, just like you can't prove Lunar Sabbaths; i just believe it, because of the 5 30-day months in a row.Next question, how can you prove they were in sync?
I see your point, IF the count was Inclusive, but i don't believe it was, so that one's a stalemate. I have more about 30-day months in my other post. (1260 days = 42 months)BrotherArnold wrote:not so, draw it out on a sheat of paper and counting the 17 of the 2nd month through the 17th of the 7th month is 150 days fo corse I have had people try to argue that eather the 1st 17th when the water started or the last 17th when the ark rested wos not counted which would make 149 but when both 17th are counted it is 150. Do the math.
Neither have i. But YOU are the one who brought it up; i was just using your terminology.as for the solar month you mentioned, I have never seen or heard of a solar month in scripture.
If the Scripture says 150 days, i believe it means what it says. More below.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.
I addressed all that in my previous post; you're basically repeating the same argument that Arnold made.To say this is "ONLY possibleâ€¦ 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.
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.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.
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".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.
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 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.
I have no idea what you're talking about now; it seems that you have swithed to an unfamiliar topic.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".
Still don't know where you're going.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?
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.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.
I disagree.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 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.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.
ErichMatthewJanzen wrote:Here we see that the rain of the flood began on the 17th day of the second month. Let me now point out that the word month here in the Hebrew language is the word chodesh, which according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has the meaning of the new moon; by implication a month What this shows is that we are dealing with lunar months here, because of the use of the word chodesh. Lunar months consist of either 29 or 30 days; please remember this.
chuckbaldwin wrote:ErichMatthewJanzen wrote:Here we see that the rain of the flood began on the 17th day of the second month. Let me now point out that the word month here in the Hebrew language is the word chodesh, which according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has the meaning of the new moon; by implication a month What this shows is that we are dealing with lunar months here, because of the use of the word chodesh. Lunar months consist of either 29 or 30 days; please remember this.
Greetings Matthew, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Before addressing the main body of your post, i would point out a misconception in the above statement. The lunar months of a 360-day year are exactly 30 days each. For an Enochian year (364 days) they would be 30+1/3 days each (91 days or 13 weeks per quarter).
By calculation, if the orbital speed of the earth were increased enough to make a 360-day year, the lunar cycle (w/o changing its orbital speed) would automatically become 30 days. The 364-day year would need the moon's speed to change as well as the earth. I believe that "wormwood" (aka "planet x" aka "nibiru") may effect these changes. (Dan.2:21)
As for the flood chronology, there's room for interpretation of the SOME of the dates and durations. However, with the exception of 8:1-3, i believe everything is in sequence. Here's the timetable that i see:
2/17 - 7/17: the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days. This includes the 1st 40 days that it was actually raining; otherwise the prevailing would\'ve gone past 7/17.
7/17: the waters had abated enough for the keel of the ark to rest on a mountain.
7/18-10/1: waters continued to decrease.
10/1 - tops of mountains were seen (in addition to the 1 they rested on).
10/1-11/10: after 40 more days Noah opened the window, and sent the raven & dove.
11/10-11/16: 1st flight of the dove (7 days), dove returned.
11/17-11/23: 2nd flight of the dove (7 days), dove returned with olive leaf.
11/24-11/30: 3rd flight of the dove (7 days), dove didn't return.
12/1-12/31: they partied all month.
1/1: Noah looked out, face of ground was dry.
2/27: Earth was dried; they left the ark.
Notice that there is NO possible "wiggle room" between the waters abating and the ark resting, because as long as the waters prevailed the ark couldn't find rest. And since the ark rested on 7/17, that was exactly 150 days after the waters started prevailing. As far as i can see the 150 days are fixed and unmoveable.
How come when i say something, it's a "contradiction", but when YOU say the exact same thing, it's not?? Because that's exactly what you did. And i agree with your last 2 sentences, because both of our statements above say the same thing.eriqbenel wrote:You wrote
Notice that there is NO possible "wiggle room" between the waters abating and the ark resting, because as long as the waters prevailed the ark couldn't find rest.
That is a contradiction. The waters were still "prevailing" on the 150th day! The ark could not have "rested" on a day the waters were still "prevailing".
You're right i didn't address it, so i'll do it now. I just went back and looked at it and it is 1 day short. 2/17 - 7/17 inclusive should be 151 days, not 150, because the 150th day was 7/16 as i explained above.Of course there is no "wiggle room" on YOUR VERSION! So when you say "as far as I can see..." it seems that the distance is what you believe in your mind. Also, you did not address the timeline of 150 days that I layed out that clearly shows a 150 count in a lunar based calendar.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest