Thursday, September 8, 2011

Noah's Flood Chronology: Day by Day


The chronology of Genesis 7 and 8 shows us the Creator left us a celestial timepiece of two interwoven years; the lunar, which has 354 days, and the solar, which has 365 days. These two timepieces must work in harmony to find the appropriate time for meeting with IAUA.

In order to better understand the chronology of the flood, as well as the lunar-solar calendar, I've created a simpler graphical representation showing the flood chronology DAY BY DAY.

The chart simplifies the counting of days of the flood scenario; 40 days of rain, 150 days of the flooded earth, 30 days of the waters decreasing until mountain tops seen, 40 days of waiting, 21 days of sending forth messengers, 28 days until the beginning of the next year (Noah's 601st year), and the final 56 days until the 27th day of the second month of the following year.

In this chart, you will see alternating 29 and 30 day months, to compensate for the 29.53 days of the lunar cycle. Six of the months have 29 days, and six of the months have 30 days. The reason that specific dates in months are given, is to show where the period of days is anchored. For instance, the 1st day of the tenth month shows where to anchor the 40 day period that Noah waited for the water to decrease. 

Proponents of the 30 day month, 360 day year will find an inherent problem trying to reconcile the the 360 day year with the chronology of the flood.

The entire flood period, from the 17th day of the 2nd month, at the beginning of the flood, until the 27th day of the 2nd month the following year, is a period of 365 solar days, which includes 354 lunar days. The flood chronology accounts for the difference of 11 days between the two calendars, the lunar and solar.

If you add in the additional 30th day in the other six months, the result will be a 371 day solar year. 
Click on images for larger view

PDF available here:


  1. Scripture says that the 40 days and nights was included in the 150 days. So your chart is off. Also, the 150 days was exactly 5 months. So your count is off. The only way 5 months becomes 150 days, is if every month is a perfect 30 days.

    1. Shalom Ted;

      Thank you for your opinion on the flood chronology. I recognize that there are many opinions and interpretations floating around regarding this chronology.

      Respectfully, I would encourage you to examine these scriptures a bit closer. At first, it may appear that the 40 days and nights are part of the 150 days, but I believe there is a clear distinction. I think one has to examine the overall picture in order to see this distinction.

      Secondly, could you please point out where you see the words five months in the flood chronology? I don't see the words five months there, but maybe I'm missing something.

      Consequently, if the words five months are not there, then one cannot interpret that the 150 days is 5 months. It would be the case if you place the 150 days on a solar 30 day month calendar.

      If one says there is 150 days, and the word months does not exist, then one has to ask the question, which calendar, lunar or solar, is the 150 days on? To say that there is 150 days that equal 5 months of 30 days each, one is pointing to a calendar that currently does not exist, and if it did, it would undoubtedly be a solar calendar.

      In addition, if every month is 30 days, then then one is operating by a solar year, because one cannot operate within a lunarsolar calendar framework and still have a 360 day year.

      Now, I realize that you, as many others do, suggest that there is something out of harmony in the solar system, in which there used to be a 360 day year, and will be again in the future. I used to think this way until coming to an understanding of the flood chronology.

      I am of the persuasion that correctly understood, the calendar of the flood chronology is clearly a lunarsolar calendar, the currently understood biblical sacred that many of us are following.

      Having said all that, I also reserve the right to be wrong.

      Thanks again Ted, for your opinion.