Noah's flood, fountains of the deep

[Staropramen]

Question - Is it the raven or the dove?

Why either or? Two different birds, no?

[Staropramen]

Question - The flood lasted for 40 days or for 150 days?

From where are you getting the idea that the flood was 40 days?

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

These passages describe activity that went on from the fortieth day until a later date at which time the waters had still not abated. It would seem to me that the waters raged for 40 days, stopped and eventually dried up after 150 days. 110 days of destructive water levels is still a flood even if additional water is no longer being added to it.

[wmfinck]

Good answer, Staropramen.

Tongue in cheek, something struck me about the raven and the dove, LOL. The black raven could not find a place to land, but did not come back to the ark. The white dove was smarter.

[aleajactaest]

Tongue in cheek, something struck me about the raven and the dove, LOL. The black raven could not find a place to land, but did not come back to the ark. The white dove was smarter.

I am happy that you see some humor in the Bible, and there are many funny things written in it.
Please, keep up finding the joking side of biblical things because it is refreshing for my and others mind.

Rereading Genesis 8:7 I found that it doesn't say the ""black raven could not find a place to land, but it did not comeback to ark"". Below it's verse 7 again:

7 - And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro,
until the waters were dried up from off the land(776).

The question is: from where to where the raven went to and fro if not from the ark to the ark?
The Bible does not specify, only that the raven did so ""until the waters were dried up"".
This, ""apparently"", happened in the 601st year, in the 1st month, in the 1st day of the month
- [of Noah's life] - that the waters dried up [Genesis 8:13].
The last Flood event, Genesis 8:14, the land dried up in the 2nd month, in the 27th day of the month, of the 601st year of Noah's life.

In between, Genesis 8:8-9-10-11-12, is the story of the dove.
Indeed, with no details of the raven, the dove seems to be smarter.

==================================

Staropramen said

These passages describe activity that went on from the fortieth day until a later date at which time the waters had still not abated. It would seem to me that the waters raged for 40 days, stopped and eventually dried up after 150 days.

I am glad that you say "it would seem to me" so that there is room to discuss a bit further the flood scene.

We and almost the rest of 2.3 billions Christians have taken for granted that there was one flood only.
And I agree: only one flood ... for what concerns the Bible.
I have previously said

According to some writers, there are only 3 places that a local flood could have happened:

1 - Persian gulf and/or southern Mesopotamia;
2 - Black lake which became Black sea;
3 - Tarim basin in North-West China;

and it could have happen in all 3 places simultaneously.

If these 3 floods really happened, a problem for us would be to decide which of the 3 is the Bible's one.

Staropramen also showed the following verses

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

The very beginning word of these 4 verses is a ""conjunction"" translated in 3 different ways according, as usual, to the ""preconceived"" idea of the translator of what he/she/it thinks that the sequence of events should be.
That's fine if one decides that's good enough for the general purpose of general understanding.
Myself, also, I was contented of such rendition ... until 2012 ... when, after a couple of years of forcing myself to chew and swallow a few rules of Hebrew, I decide to investigate the matter.

These are the results:

The Strong's number 9007 וְ or וַ or וָ or וּ, {sorry I cannot type the Hebrew sign in here}

is a ""conjunction"" translated at will as

and --- and therefore --- also --- then --- yet

according to true valid relative "context" [wishful thinking] ... or ... to whatever one thinks that such true valid relative context should be according to whatever one's ""preconceived"" idea is.
Mind that the ""dotted vowels"" are for easier pronunciation only.

My suggestion to everyone is that Strong's number 9007 ""conjunction"" must always be translated as "and", first. Then, eventually, it can translated with the other choices of """possible""" meanings.

Now, Staropramen, read the same verses with the standard "and" translation:

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 And the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

As you can see, in verse 8, it makes a hell of a difference substituting "also" for "and", unless you are conceited enough to refute the grammatical/syntactical evidence.

For example, the Young's Literal Translation has it right by translating ALL the beginning ""conjunctions"" with "and" of Genesis chapter 8 to cover his ass.
Indeed, "and" disconnects the preceeding verse, while "also" connects it.

In this case, verse 8, choosing "also" instead of "and" is a mild form of eisegesis [reading into the text one's point of view].
But what should be the norm?
Exegesis [letting the text provide the meaning].

Question - If many times the Hebrew text itself has been corrupted by jews from the Babylonian captivity ------------ [500 BC] until the Masoretes [1000 AD], how can one easily decide what the true context is?

Consider also Genesis 8:4

And the ark resteth, in the seventh month, in the seventeenth day of the month, on mountains of Ararat

together with Genesis 8:13

And it cometh to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, in the first of the month, the waters have been dried from off the earth

and in between we have Genesis 8:6-7-8-9, where verse 6 says

... at the end of forty days ...

Question - where, pray tell, are located exactly these 40 days which are actually connected to previous verses of Genesis 7 where, first, Genesis 7:11 says

In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the windows of the heavens hath been opened, ... ?

Next time I will show you my graph and my view of what seems to transpire from Genesis 6, 7, 8.