Flood: Evidence of Noah's flood

Myth or History? Investigating the Genesis Flood Account

The biblical account of the great catastrophe, called the Flood, begins in chapter 6, verse 5 and continues until the end of chapter 8, in the book of Genesis.

Due to the wickedness of man at that time, the Creator resolved to destroy all living beings on Earth. But so that humanity, as well as the animals, would not be completely destroyed, He gave instructions to Noah, a righteous man by God's standards, to build an Ark - a large rectangular box - of wood to preserve life on Earth. After the vessel was completed, with measurements God had given Noah, further instructions were given regarding food, the number, and types of animals that should be preserved. Then the order was given for Noah and his wife, as well as his three sons and their respective wives - 8 people in total - to enter the Ark.   Noah entered the Ark seven days before the Flood began - this occurred when he was 600 years old - on the 10th day of the second month (Genesis chapter 7, verse 11), and the Flood began on the 17th of the same month. The torrential rain that followed lasted 40 days (Genesis chapter 7, verse 12), and the waters rose for another 150 days, covering the earth, above the highest mountains (Genesis chapter 7, verse 24).

God sends a wind over the earth, and the waters begin to recede. In the seventh month, on the 17th day of the month, the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis chapter 8, verse 4). The mountain tops appeared on the first day of the tenth month - almost three months later (Genesis chapter 8, verse 5). Forty days later, Noah sent out a raven (Genesis chapter 8, verse 6), and three times in a row, he released a dove, and in the 601st year of his life, on the twenty-seventh day of the second month - more than a year later - the earth was dry, and he left the Ark with his family and the animals (Genesis chapter 8, verses 14 to 22). The world and its environment were now different. God promised him that as long as the Earth lasts, there will be no other Flood to destroy it. And, as a symbol of that promise, the Rainbow began to shine in the sky for the first time (Genesis chapter 9, verses 13 to 19).

The Bible allows us to calculate the approximate age of the Earth following its creation by God. According to the Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), this event occurred in the year 4004 B.C., a calculation he presented in his immense historical research work of 1,600 pages, written in Latin and published in 1600 A.D. An English translation of his book, titled *The Annals of the World*, was made in 1658, two years after his death. Recently, it was translated into modern English and republished in the United States in 2003, with 960 pages. A brief summary of Ussher's extensive research can be read here.

Similarly, it is possible to determine the date of the occurrence of the Flood according to the Bible. The Flood did not last only 40 days, as people commonly think, but 377 days, over a year! The misunderstanding about the duration of the biblical Flood likely arises from focusing only on the initial 40 days of rain mentioned in Genesis 7:12, while overlooking the full timeline provided in the account. While the torrential rain did last for 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:12), the complete duration of the Flood itself, from the time it started until the earth was dry again, was much longer - approximately 377 days or a little over a year. Here's a breakdown of the timeline:

1) The Flood began on the 17th day of the 2nd month when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:11).
2) The rain lasted 40 days and nights (Genesis 7:12).
3) The waters prevailed on the earth for 150 days (Genesis 7:24).
4) The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th day of the 7th month (Genesis 8:4).
5) The tops of the mountains became visible on the 1st day of the 10th month (Genesis 8:5).
6) The earth was completely dry on the 27th day of the 2nd month of Noah's 601st year (Genesis 8:13-14).

So, while the initial rain was 40 days and nights, the entire duration from the start of the Flood until the earth was dry again was approximately 377 days (40 days of rain + 150 days of prevailing waters + 7 months until the mountains appeared + 2 months and 27 days until the earth was dry). The misunderstanding likely stems from focusing only on the 40 days of rain mentioned in Genesis 7:12, without considering the full timeline provided in the rest of the narrative, which clearly indicates a much longer duration for the complete Flood event.

According to the Bible (Genesis: chapter 5), this event occurred 1,656 years after the Earth was created and 2,348 years before the birth of Christ. Considering the creation date calculated by James Ussher (1581-1656) as 4004 B.C., and subtracting 1656 from 4004, we arrive at 2348 B.C. James Ussher used the Masoretic text to make his calculations. This period is obtained by adding the ages of Adam's descendants, including Adam himself, at the time they had their first child. It is important to note that these calculations are based on the Bible version that uses the Hebrew text as its source, specifically the Masoretic version, which is the official version for the Tanakh in modern Judaism and for current Catholic and Protestant versions of the Old Testament.

On the other hand, there is also the Greek version of the Bible, the Septuagint, or the LXX. This Greek translation of the original Hebrew text was composed in the 3rd century B.C. by Jewish scholars in the Egyptian metropolis of Alexandria. Seventy-two scribes are said to have worked on it, hence the name Septuagint (=70) or LXX. The Septuagint presents a higher divergence compared to the Masoretic version concerning the birth dates of the first sons of the patriarchs before the Flood, as shown in the following table. It places the creation of the Earth at 5490 B.C., not 4004 B.C., as obtained in the Masoretic version. Consequently, the date of the Flood also changes to 3228 B.C. (2348 + 880 = 3228 years), and 2,242 years after the creation of Adam, including an additional 100 years until the Flood. This results in a difference of 880 years more than 2348 B.C. (Ussher's calculation). Regarding the age of the Earth, this difference amounts to 1,486 years more.

In this case, the age of the Earth in 2018 A.D., according to the Jewish calendar, is 6,014 years in the Masoretic version, which the Israeli people use. Calculated by the Septuagint version, the age of the Earth reaches 7,480 years after the creation of its habitable environment. It is important to emphasize that the planetary body itself is much older than this.



Given the discrepancies between the Masoretic Text and the Greek text of the Septuagint, deciding on the date of the Flood might seem like a matter of personal preference. However, there is a clear timeframe within which it occurred, between 2348 B.C. and 3228 B.C. The Septuagint seems to be correct in this aspect. This is partly due to findings that suggest the Masoretic Text was deliberately altered, as we will see referenced later.

Alexander Vom Stein discusses these discrepancies, stating:

> Unfortunately, there are quite significant differences between the numerical data in the two most important manuscripts of the Old Testament—the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint. While the two sources don't present major differences overall, there is a significant divergence in the genealogical data contained in Genesis 5 and 11. Generally, more credibility is given to the Masoretic text because its transmission and revision were done with incredible precision and care. However, when it comes to the years, some tend to trust the Septuagint more.

A definitive decision can only be made if the original texts of the Pentateuch, written by Moses and stored alongside the Ark of the Covenant as per his instructions, are found. The Ark was lost during the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. by King Nebuchadnezzar. If these books were found, there would be no doubt about the dates recorded by Moses.

Other occurrences also allow for establishing an upper limit or a cutoff date for the Flood, which will be present in the following sections.

The Beginning of the Mayan Calendar

Few peoples in the world have a calendar system initiated since their origin as a people. The case of the Maya is one of those examples, whose calendar begins with the destruction of a previous world and the creation of the Mayan people. According to the Mayan calendar, the beginning of the current era occurred on August 11, 3114 BC, according to the proleptic Gregorian calendar, or on September 6, 3113 BC, according to the Julian calendar. These correlations between the Maya long count and Western calendars are accepted by "the vast majority of Maya researchers (known as the GMT correlation)."

The dates for the beginning of the current era according to the Mayan calendar are known through the interpretation of their calendar systems and historical records inscribed on monuments and codices. The Maya had several interrelated calendar cycles, with the most significant being the Long Count calendar. This was a linear calendar that tracked days from a fixed starting point in the distant past. The correlation between the Mayan Long Count and the Western Gregorian/Julian calendars was achieved through careful analysis of dated historical events recorded in both Mayan and European sources.

Key evidence comes from:

1) Mayan inscriptions: Carved stone monuments and inscriptions found at archaeological sites like Quiriguá, Copán, and Palenque record specific dates in the Long Count calendar alongside descriptions of historical events.
2) Colonial-era documents: Early Spanish colonizers and missionaries, like Diego de Landa and Bishop Nuñez de la Vega, recorded information about the Mayan calendars and their correlation to the Julian calendar used by the Spanish.
3) Dresden Codex Venus Tables: This Mayan codex contains detailed astronomical observations, including tables tracking the cycles of Venus, which can be correlated to known astronomical events.

By cross-referencing these sources, scholars like J. Eric S. Thompson, Floyd Lounsbury, and others in the 20th century were able to establish the correlation constants that link the Mayan Long Count to the Julian and Gregorian calendar dates. While there are some minor disagreements, the most widely accepted correlation places the Mayan calendar start date on August 11, 3114 BC (Gregorian) or September 6, 3113 BC (Julian), marking the mythical creation of the current world according to Mayan cosmology.

Thus, we have the myth of the creation of the Mayan people, preceded by the destruction of a previous world and civilization by the Mayan gods. This myth is compatible with the destruction of the previous civilization and world by the gods, similar to what the Flood did, as narrated in the Bible, carried out by God. The initial date of the Mayan calendar, 3114 BC, falls within the minimum and maximum dates obtained from calculations made using the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, as being the date of the Flood, between 2348 BC and 3228 BC, approaching closer to the limit date of the Septuagint text. Other civilizations that still exist also have calendars dating back to their foundations, such as the Chinese civilization, for example.

The Chinese calendar

The Chinese calendar is one of the oldest chronological records known, dating back over 4,700 years. In 2015 AD, it corresponds to the year 4713 of the Chinese calendar, placing its inception around 2698 BC.  This early date for the beginning of the Chinese calendar falls between the dates given in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint for the Great Flood, which range from around 2348 BC to 3228 BC.

The Liangzhu Culture - China's Oldest Known Dynasty

In December 2007, archaeologists announced the discovery of what may be the oldest capital city of China's earliest known dynasty. The ancient city ruins were found in Zhejiang province in eastern China. The Liangzhu culture, to which these city remains belong, existed from around 3400 BC to 2250 BC according to archaeologists. The age of the discovered city itself dates back 3300-2000 BC, aligning with the approximate timeframe given for the Great Flood in ancient texts. Like the ancient Egyptian civilization, the incredible antiquity of China's earliest dynasties provides another data point suggesting an upper bound for when the Great Flood may have occurred in that region of the world. The Liangzhu culture predates the conventional dates given for the Flood by over a millennium.

Chinese Calendar: The date 2698 BC is often associated with the reign of the Yellow Emperor, a mythological figure in Chinese history, and is traditionally considered the starting point of the Chinese calendar.
Liangzhu Culture: Recent studies have confirmed that the Liangzhu culture thrived around 3300-2300 BC. The city ruins discovered in Zhejiang province are particularly significant because they reveal advanced urban planning and water management systems that indicate a sophisticated and enduring society.
Comparison with Biblical Dates: The dates given for the Great Flood according to the Masoretic text (2348 BC) and the Septuagint (3228 BC) highlight a significant overlap with the early periods of human civilization, but the archaeological evidence from the Liangzhu culture and other early civilizations like Mesopotamia and Egypt suggests continuous human habitation and development well before and after these proposed dates for the Flood.
While these historical and archaeological records do not provide direct evidence for the Great Flood, they do offer a broader context for understanding the timelines of ancient civilizations.

The Ancient Egyptian Civilization and Its Bearing on Dating the Great Flood

The ancient Egyptian civilization is one of the oldest in the world, providing indirect evidence that can help establish an upper bound for when the Great Flood may have occurred. Egypt's pre-dynastic period dates back to around 3100 BC, with some evidence suggesting human habitation as early as 4000 BC. The Sheikh Muftah culture, which developed between 3800-2900 BC according to radiocarbon dating estimates, represents one of the earliest complex societies in the Nile Valley region. The First Dynasty of united Egyptian kings is conventionally dated to have begun around 3200 BC and lasted until 2778 BC, though these dates can vary slightly by source. However, more recent radiocarbon dating of 211 samples of ancient Egyptian artifacts, plant remains, textiles and other materials allowed scientists to more precisely date the beginning of the Old Kingdom and the reign of Djoser to between 2691-2525 BC. This 3200 BC estimate for the start of Egypt's First Dynasty falls close to the 3228 BC date given in the Septuagint for the Great Flood. The older, pre-dynastic dates extending past 4000 BC are generally less certain, as they rely heavily on radiocarbon dating assumptions that become less reliable the further back in time they attempt to date. While radiocarbon has limitations, especially for very ancient eras, the weight of archaeological evidence from Egyptian civilization does seem to constrain the possible timing of the Great Flood in that region to no later than around 3200 BC at the absolute oldest. More conservative estimates would place it even earlier than this upper bound date. So the incredible antiquity of Egyptian culture, one of the oldest civilizations known, corroborates the Biblical timeframe and suggests the Flood was an event that took place well before the rise of the first dynastic Pharaohs and the Old Kingdom around 2700-2500 BC. Reconciling Egypt's archeological record with the Biblical chronology remains an active area of research and debate.

The Construction Date of the Great Pyramid

Another indirect line of evidence that can shed light on constraining the date of the Great Flood comes from one of the most renowned ancient constructions - the Great Pyramid of Giza, built as a tomb for the 4th Dynasty Pharaoh Khufu. The conventional dating assigns Khufu's reign to around 2551-2528 BC in the 26th century BC. Significantly, this timeframe falls squarely within the broader range of dates proposed for the Great Flood based on calculations from the Masoretic text and Septuagint manuscripts (around 2348 BC to 3228 BC).

An intriguing aspect of the three major pyramids at Giza is that their positioning on the plateau mimics the three stars in the belt of the constellation Orion, the Hunter. This constellation was associated with the Egyptian god Osiris in that era. Seeking to test this pyramid/Orion correlation astronomically, researchers have analyzed the alignments and galleries within the Great Pyramid itself. If their orientations were merely coincidental, they would not replicate consistently. However, multiple alignments of chambers and passages converge on astronomically significant targets around 2450 BC. For example, the southern shaft of the King's Chamber pointed toward the star Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) circa 2450 BC. Its northern shaft aligned with Thuban (Alpha Draconis) during the same era. The southern shaft of the smaller Queen's Chamber aimed at Sirius, associated with the goddess Isis, while its northern shaft targeted the star Kochab in Ursa Minor, both around 2450 BC. While this date of 2450 BC is a century earlier than Khufu's conventional reign, it suggests the Great Pyramid incorporated sophisticated astronomical alignments locked in time. Its construction appears tied to the precessional cycle and alignments only visible from the Giza plateau at that point in history. This lends weight to the view that the Great Pyramid drew upon advanced knowledge from a precedent civilization that predated the 4th Dynasty by some centuries. In turn, its apparent astronomically-derived construction date of circa 2450 BC conforms with the archaeological evidence pinpointing the Great Flood to the 3rd millennium BC, before the rise of Egypt's ancient dynastic kingdoms.

The Great Pyramid's Astronomical Alignments

Further evidence suggesting an older construction date for the Great Pyramid comes from its precise astronomical alignments and the symbolic connections to Egyptian cosmology. One key alignment allowed the bright star Sirius to shine directly down the pyramid's descending southern passage at the moment it crossed the meridian, heralding the new Egyptian year and the annual Nile flood cycle. Similarly, light from the then Pole Star entered through northern shafts. Over 30 years ago, I came across a concise astronomy book that analyzed the Great Pyramid's orientation to deduce its construction date astronomically:

"The main corridor of the Great Pyramid is aligned toward the position of the celestial north pole at the time it was built. Due to the Earth's precessional wobble, the north celestial pole - the point directly overhead the Earth's axis - traces a circular path over 26,000 years. The star closest to this moving pole position is known as the 'Pole Star.' Today it is Polaris in Ursa Minor, but 4,500 years ago, according to the Pyramid's orientation, it was the star Thuban in Draco."

Calculating backward from 1970 when the book was published, this analysis dated the Great Pyramid's construction to around 2530 BC - well within the broader window for the Great Flood derived from Biblical chronologies.

Not all astronomical date estimates for the Great Pyramid align precisely, due to varying methods and degree of precision. An astronomically-derived date carries more weight for the pyramid's true age than conventional archaeological dates assigning it to the 4th Dynasty under Khufu's reign around 2500 BC. The layout of the three major pyramids at Giza mimicking the three stars of Orion's Belt, associated with the Egyptian god Osiris, has been called the Orion Correlation Theory. While rejected by most Egyptologists as it would require redating established dynastic chronologies, this symbolic alignment between pyramids and constellations hints at a sophisticated astronomical understanding encoded into these monumental constructions.

Whether one interprets the evidence literally or metaphorically, the remarkable celestial alignments incorporated into the design and orientation of the Great Pyramid suggest its origins trace back well before the historical dating of the 4th Dynasty to a precedent civilization with advanced astronomical knowledge and capabilities. This lends credence to the archaeological and geological evidence indicating the Great Flood was an event that had likely already occurred and reshaped the region over a millennium prior to the historical period of the Old Kingdom pharaohs.



The image illustrates the proposed astronomical alignments between the orientations and shafts of the Great Pyramid of Giza and certain prominent stars like Sirius, the former pole star Thuban/Alpha Draconis, and the stars depicting Orion's Belt. While the specific "Orion Correlation Theory" that claims these alignments were intentionally encoded by the pyramid's ancient designers remains a controversial hypothesis largely dismissed by mainstream Egyptologists, the astronomical alignments themselves are factual observations. Through precise surveying and calculations, researchers have verified that certain interior passages in the Great Pyramid were oriented to track stars like Sirius, Thuban, and stars of Orion at specific epochs, likely around 2500-2400 BCE based on most analyses. This encoded astronomical knowledge reflects an advanced understanding of the precessional cycle and star movements over long timescales. So while the interpretive claims of the Orion Correlation Theory are rejected by most academics, the underlying data showing remarkable stellar alignments built into the pyramid's architecture is an established finding in archaeoastronomy. It provides evidence of the incredible astronomical insights possessed by the pyramid's architects, whoever they may have been. The image simply depicts some of those mapped alignments without necessarily endorsing any particular theory about their reasoning or purpose.

The Bristlecone Pines: Methuselah and the Oldest Trees

In 1964, a bristlecone pine tree named "Prometheus" was cut down for research purposes in the Wheeler Peak area of eastern Nevada, USA. Dendrochronological analysis revealed this particular bristlecone was an astonishing 4,862 years old at the time it was felled. This means the Prometheus tree's germination has been dated to around 2,892 BC, over 200 years before the oldest known giant sequoia called Methuselah, which germinated around 2,833 BC.

While the Prometheus bristlecone is one of the oldest accurately dated non-clonal organisms on Earth, its age of nearly 5,000 years still falls within the most recent proposed timeframe for the Biblical Flood based on calculations using the Septuagint manuscript's chronology, which dates the Deluge to around 3,200 BC. So like the ancient giant sequoias, while tremendously old, the maximum age of the oldest bristlecone pines does not explicitly preclude the possibility of a global flood occurring sometime in the 3rd millennium BC, as suggested by certain biblical chronologies.

The Heat Problem

The "heat problem" arises from the idea that if the Earth were formed through rapid processes, such as those proposed by Creation Science or Hydroplate Theory, the energy released would cause the Earth to vaporize or melt. This concern is based on the concept of thermodynamics, which describes the relationships between heat, energy, and work.

Why there is no heat problem from a scientific view

From a scientific perspective, the Earth's formation is a complex process that occurred over billions of years through the gradual accretion of material from the solar nebula. The energy released during this process was indeed significant, but it was not instantaneous. Instead, it was dissipated over a long period, allowing the Earth to cool and solidify.

Several factors contribute to the Earth's ability to regulate its temperature and avoid vaporization. The Earth formed through the gradual accumulation of material, which allowed the energy released to be dissipated over time. This process occurred over millions of years, giving the Earth sufficient time to cool and solidify.

The Earth's interior is able to transfer heat to the surface through convection, conduction, and radiation. This process helps to regulate the Earth's temperature and prevent excessive heat buildup. Additionally, the Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and crust act as thermal buffers, absorbing and releasing heat slowly over time. This helps to moderate the Earth's temperature and prevent extreme fluctuations.

Radioactive elements in the Earth's core and mantle undergo decay, releasing heat at a slow and steady rate. This process helps to maintain the Earth's internal heat budget and prevent excessive cooling. Furthermore, the Earth's interior is differentiated into distinct layers, with the core, mantle, and crust having different compositions and thermal properties. This differentiation helps to regulate the Earth's internal heat budget and prevent excessive heat buildup.

Addressing CPT and Hydroplate Theory concerns

Creation Science and Hydroplate Theory propose that the Earth was formed rapidly, which would indeed lead to significant heat release. However, these theories are not supported by scientific evidence and are not widely accepted by the scientific community.

From a scientific perspective, the Earth's formation is a well-established process that occurred over billions of years through the gradual accretion of material. The energy released during this process was dissipated over time, allowing the Earth to cool and solidify.

In conclusion, the Earth's formation is a complex process that has been extensively studied and well-explained by scientific theories. The "heat problem" is not a concern when considering the Earth's formation from a scientific perspective, as the gradual accretion of material, heat transfer, thermal buffering, radioactive decay, and planetary differentiation all contribute to regulating the Earth's temperature and preventing excessive heat buildup.

Questions and Answers Regarding the Global Flood 

1. Question: If a global flood had occurred, wouldn't all the caves in the world, including the more than 300 in PETAR, be filled with sediments and fossils? Shouldn't there be no caves left?
   
   Answer: The formation and dynamics of caves are complex processes that occur over millions of years. Even if a global flood had occurred, caves could have formed or been reformed afterward due to continuous geological activity. Additionally, sediment deposition during a flood is not uniform and can be influenced by topography, water flow speed, and obstacles, meaning some caves might not have been uniformly filled with sediments.
   
   
2. Question: Where is the diluvial mud layer that should have been left by the global flood?
   
   Answer: The absence of a uniform diluvial mud layer can be explained by the complex nature of sedimentation and erosion processes following a cataclysmic event. In some caves, there are layers of sediments that could be interpreted as results of significant local floods or alluvial events. Moreover, ongoing geological processes, such as water infiltration and the formation of stalactites and stalagmites, can modify or obscure previous sediment layers.
   
   
3. Question: Shouldn't the flood have left a consistent layer of fossils across all caves?
   
   Answer: Fossil distribution is influenced by many factors, including water movement, the density of dead organisms, and local geology. The lack of specific diluvial fossils in certain caves does not necessarily refute a global flood but may indicate variations in deposition and fossil preservation. Additionally, geological conditions specific to regions like PETAR could have affected how sediments and fossils were distributed and preserved.
   
   
4. Question: Why do we still have intact caves if a global flood occurred?
   
   Answer: Caves are primarily formed by the dissolution of limestone by water and other geological processes over long periods. The dynamic nature of these processes means that, even after a catastrophic event, caves could continue to form or be reshaped. Also, the effects of a flood would not be uniform across all geographic areas, and some caves might have withstood sediment deposition better than others due to their specific geological conditions.
   

The absence of a uniform mud layer and the presence of intact caves do not necessarily refute the possibility of a global flood. The interpretation of geological records is complex and influenced by many local and regional factors. The geology of caves and the dynamics of erosion and sedimentation processes are areas of ongoing study, and evidence must be considered within the broader context of Earth's geological history.