Noah's Flood: the Beginning and the End

How words tell the truth and can yet deceive with age

Published on August 9, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

This article is meant to give a quick idea of the events of Noah's flood and what the story is really about. A more full-featured essay will follow, but not very soon, as I am still working on some details.

Genesis 7:6 The Beginning of the Flood

ונח בן־שש מאות
שנה והמבול היה
מים על־הארץ

VeNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Two words in this are difficult, or at least go against the traditional English reading of the Bible.

The first is the word "shana", which in modern Hebrew (and in the last 3000 years or so) means "year". But that's not what the root of the word means.

Thinking about the word and the ridiculous age of Biblical characters it occured to me that it cannot mean "year".

So I researched a bit and read the dictionary and followed Hebrew grammar and its rules and found the following interesting details:

1. The word "shana" is the absolute form of the word "shanat", the root is Shin Nun Tav.

Both Hebrew and Arabic have a special form of the letter Hei to differentiate a Hei standing in for a Tav in the root of the word. In Hebrew a dot in the middle of the He shows that it stands for a consonant, not a vowel before a missing Tav. But that dot was only introduced in the middle ages. In Arabic the letter Hei with a certain punctuation stands for a missing Tav (and is even called a type of Tav).

So I looked up the word "year" in Arabic and found several words, including one written Sin Nun He. "Sin" is a variant of "Shin" used when the letter is pronounced /s/ rather than /sh/ (like in "Israel" or "Sarah"). And the Hei is indeed a missing Tav. So the root is likely Shin Nun Tav.

2. The verb based on the root Shin Nun Tav is "lishnot" and means "to change".

3. "shana" is hence, literally, a "change".

4. Genesis and Exodus use the Babylonian calendar.

This is important because the Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, based on years. The calendar Genesis and Exodus use is based on months. While a "change" in a calendar based on years is clearly a "year", an "alteration" in a calendar based on months is equally clearly a month.

And it turns out if the numbers given in Genesis are read as months rather than years, most ages mentioned seem very normal. And Noah was 600 months, that is 50 years old when he built the ark.

The second difficult word is "haAretz".

It's not actually difficult but a change in the English language (and most others) has made it so. The King James Bible translates "haAretz" variously as "the earth" or "the land". A Latin translation translated "haAretz" as "terra". "Terra" means in Latin exactly what "eretz" means in Hebrew. It also translates as "earth" another Hebrew word, which means something slightly different: "adama".

What is "haAretz" (and "eretz", the same word without the definite article)? This seems to be very difficult for some to understand.

During the age of exploration unknown land was marked as "terra incognita". "Terra incognita" means "unknown land". The Germanic word "earth" (or "Erde" in German) meant the same. It's the thing at our feet, the opposite of the heavens.

"Adama" is the sandy material that the surface is mostly made of. Man was made out of it, hence man was called "Adam". Man contains blood, and blood is "dam". The Bible loves a good word game.

About 500 years ago the word "earth" was more and more used to mean "earth, the planet" rather than "earth, the surface". And 100 years ago science fiction writers started using Latin "terra" to mean our planet (the actual Latin word for planet earth is "tellus").

In English the meaning of the word "earth" has changed almost completely. British English still uses "earth" to refer to the surface (which Americans call "ground"). But in German the cognate "Erde" still means "earth, the surface" in normal conversation, and the south-African animal "Aardvark" ("earth piglet") was named for digging in the surface rather than for being peculiar to planet earth.

Since the meaning of the English word "earth" has changed since the Bible was first translated into Germanic languages, and since the meaning of the Latin word "terra" has likewise changed since then, translating "haAretz" as "the earth" is now nearly a mistake. (It is not really a mistake because "earth" still has the meaning "land" or "earth, the surface", but it's widely used to mean "earth, the planet".)

But if one reads "the earth" as "the planet earth" rather than "the land", the meaning of the Hebrew text is no longer reflected in the translation.

In ancient times people also didn't know that the earth (the planet) was round. They thought of "the earth" as being something flat to live on, under the heavens, surrounded by waters or more land. The image of a ball completely covered with water is a relatively recent invention, it is not what the authors and readers of the Bible then had in mind. They saw a flooded land, surrounded by mountains that defined the limits of the land. (A land is usually defined by mountains and rivers at its borders.)

With this being cleared up, we can now have a look at the text again:

veNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Translation (literal):

"And Noah (is) son-six hundreds change and the flood was water on the land."

Hebrew doesn't have forms of "to be" for the present tense (they are implied). "Son [some number] [some unit]" is the normal way to say an age of a person in Hebrew.

Genesis 8:4 The End of the Flood

ותנח התבה בחדש
השביעי בשבעה־עשר
יום לחדש על הרי
אררט

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

The first word is really difficult and I didn't figure it out for a while. It's spelt Vav Tav Nun Het. A Vav at the beginning of a word usually means "and". And the King James Bible indeed translates "And the ark rested in the seventh month [...]". However, that translation doesn't explain the Tav.

Tav Nun Het is no word. So what does the Tav mean?

I wondered for a while and then remembered that a Vav at the beginning of a verb can also, mostly in Biblical Hebrew, change past tense to future tense and future tense to past tense. (What really happens is that in Hebrew an "and" before a verb negates the tense of the word and it presumably makes sense in Hebrew that it does so.)

There should be a word for "rest" or "land" (as in "the ark rested" or "landed") in the sentence. There is no such word after haTiva ("the ark") and Hebrew is gerally Verb-Subject-Object (at least Biblical Hebrew is).

So I looked up possible verbs and found "lehanachit" ("to land", "to bring about"). I looked up the root in "501 Hebrew Verbs" and found that Nun Het Tav is the word I am looking for.

But Tav Nun Het is not Nun Het Tav. So what was I missing?

501 Hebrew Verbs also mentions that there is a colloqial form of Nun Het Tav which skips the Tav. Hence "nach" (Nun Het) alone is a usable verb for our sentence and means "to land".

In this case the Tav is simply a part of the conjugation and makes the word "nach" future tense (third person singular masculine). And the Vav makes it past tense.

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

Translation:

"Landed the ark in the month the seventh at the seven-ten day in the month on the hills of Urartu."

Biblical Hebrew is written without vowels. Later Biblical Hebrew is written with long vowels where the letters Vav and Yud (/v/ and /y/) are also used to represent long vowels (/u/ and /o/, /i/ and /e/ respectively). But Genesis doesn't use Vav and Yud that way. (Arabic and Aramaic also use Aleph (glottal stop) for a long vowel (/a/), but Hebrew doesn't.)

I put in the vowels according to an easy algorithm:

1. If I knew the word, I'd simply use the correct vowels.

2. If I didn't know the word, I'd guess the vowels.

The first method worked for "tiva" ("ark") and "hodesh" ("month"). It also worked for "urartu".

Urartu was a kingdom existing in today's north-eastern Iraq (in the Kurdistan autonomous region) just behind Arbil (as seen from the south-west). Today's Mount Ararat is at the northern tip of the region. In 1200 BCE the kingdom was possibly well-known, but at Noah's time it didn't exist.

Hebrew "har" is not a mountain, it's a hill. And Noah did not land on the top of the mountains or a mountain but simply "on the hills". Northeastern Iraq is a mountainous region, but the relative height of the hills of Urartu wouldn't be that impressive. "Urartu", written without vowels, can be read as "Ararat". The two are the same word. (The word begins with an Aleph, a silent glottal stop: 'RRT. Fill in /u/ /a/ /-/ /u/ and you get "Urartu", fill in /a/ /a/ /a/ /-/ and you get "Ararat".)

So here we go. The Bible tells the story of a man and his family and animals living in a valley region in northern Mesopotamia, where floods happen a lot, who when he was 50 years old built a boat to rescue his family and animals when the land was flooded. And he landed on the hills next to the flooded valley land.

That is, literally and word for word, what the Bible tells us.

And that is exactly what I believe to be totally true.

To read "change" as "year" or "earth, the surface" as "earth, the planet" is an assumption we cannot safely make, a non-literal interpretation of the original text. Both came into use a long time after the events and are based on the changed meanings of words. For the English word "earth" we can easily see how and when the meaning of the word changed, but with Hebrew "shana" it was a bit more difficult.

Updates:

There are two roots Shin Nun Tav. One was Tav Nun Tav originally. Their meanings are closely related: "to repeat" (Tav Nun Tav) and "to change" (Shin Nun Tav).

The Aramaic survivor of the Tav Nun Tav root, "tana" (Tav Nun Aleph, the Aleph standing for the vowel /a/) means "teach".

The Arabic version of "shana" (سنة) shows the original Hei-for-Tav spelling of the word. (A Hei with two dots refers to a missing Tav that reappears in construct forms.)

Both Aramaic and Arabic spell "two" ("Shnaim") with a Tav rather than a Shin suggesting that the word for "two" derives from the Tav Nun Tav root.

Planned next:

The long version of the reading of Noah's story with comparisons with Sumerian legend. (Was Noah a Sumerian king?)

The story of Abraham and how it fits into the history of Aram and Canaan and why Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew.

The story of Adam and Eve and whether to read it literally or not. (Is a snake a snake or is it symbolic for the devil? What else is symbolic?)

The story of Ishmael and his descendants after being sent into "midbar" (the "wilderness") as per Arab legend and Quran.

The relationship between Sumar and Semitic tribes and Iranians and Kurds and Semitic tribes and how it affected Judaism and Zoroastrianism. (Did G-d sent prophets to the Israelites and the Iranians?)

I can assure you that you will be surprised!

Comments (Page 2)

Leauki

on Aug 11, 2008

St.Jerome was a linguistic genius...(IMO, it was by God's providence that he was the one given the job.)

From the details you gave me us about him his knowledge seemed to be very much on par with mine. He was an educated man, surely, but not much more so than anyone who went to high school in Germany in the 20th century. (Although I learned French instead of Greek.)

If it is as you say that "shana" ultimately means "alteration", then why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Could he have known something you don't?

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, that's why I asked for texts that address the point.

But I explain WHY I translate "shana" as "alteration", and he didn't explain why he translated "shana" as "year". From that I deduce that he translated "shana" as "year" because that was what "shana" meant at the time.

It probably didn't occur to him that meanings of words change over the centuries. That fact only becomes obvious at an age where lot of text was written down over lots of centuries. It is easier to see today than at his time.

If Jerome had noticed what I have noticed and disagreed, I am sure he would have made notes to the effect. But it looks like he didn't notice it.

And sometimes it's best just to leave it as playing word games.

Which is exactly what I did when I decided to use the oldest possible meaning for the word. I _left it_.

"shana" = "alteration" is not a word game. It's the base meaning of the root of the word.

Incidentally, English "year" comes from an Indo-European root *yerom which meant "year" and "season". It appears in Greek as ὥρα (as KFC might be able to confirm), where it means "year", "season", "period of time", whence the Latin "hora" and ultimately English "hour".

So don't tell me that it is entirely clear that we are talking about 365 days rather than 30. The Indo-European word for the concept has changed its meaning within the range of "hour" and "year" in the last 3000 years for no reason! That's a lot more than the change I am talking about which is also associated with a specific reason for why the meaning changed (the calendar).

Leauki

on Aug 11, 2008

As far as stop-religionism goes, I stop with the Catholic Church...and I fully understand this doesn't make sense to many people.

First of all, that doesn't make sense to me. And I think it doesn't make sense to anybody here, including KFC.

Second, the Catholic Church accepts evolution and encourages its teaching. Do you pick and choose which Catholic teachings to accept?

Rather than rely upon myself or others in religious matters of faith and morals, I rely upon the Church and her teachings and contrast all others to that.

Oh, very good. So what is the Catholic Church's opinion on Noah's flood?

I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Suffice it to remark that the text of Genesis 8:4 mentioning Mount Ararat is somewhat lacking in clearness, and that nothing is said in the Scripture concerning what became of the Ark after the Flood. Many difficulties have been raised, especially in our epoch, against the pages of the Bible in which the history of the Flood and of the Ark is narrated. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01720a.htm

I rely on myself.

And if you follow Catholic teaching, you are, as a Catholic, completely free to accept my translation readily, since it does fall within the realm of "the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition" and it does certainly have "the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable".

I think it's not Catholicism that makes you reject my translation. Catholicism doesn't explain your stance on evolution, or your anti-Semitism, and it doesn't explain why you would reject my translation.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 11, 2008

It should be no surprise that there are scientists who believe the literal interpretation of the Genesis Flood and that it's possible the early human beings could have lived for a very long period of time.

The months/years findings by you wouldn't mesh with the geneologies and you're going to run into some pretty significant problems. There is a definite difference of ages before the flood and after the flood.

According to Scripture, those Patriarch's life span before the time of Noah's Flood....

Adam lived 930 years.....Gen. 5:5
Seth lived 912 years...5:8
Enosh lived 905 years....5:11
Kenan lived 910 years..
Mahalaleel lived 895 years...
Jared lived 962 years ..
Henoch lived 365 when he was taken up to Heaven 5:23
Methuselah lived 969 years..5:27
Lamech lived 777 years ..5:31
Noah lived 950 years...9:29

After the Flood...which began in the year of the world 1656

Shem lived 600 years..Gen. 11:10-11
Arpachshad lived 438 years..
Shelah lived 433 years..
Eber lived 464 years..11:16-17
Peleg lived 239 years..
Reu lived 239 years..
Serug lived 230 years..
Nahor lived 148 years..
Terah lived 205 years..11:32
Abraham lived 175 years...25:7
Isaac lived 180 years..35:28
Jacob lived 147 years..47:28
Joseph lived 110 years...50:26

It's clear that there was a downward decline in post Flood life spans. That would beg the question why? Some scientists suggest that man's environment underwent a drastic change which reduces our life span.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 11, 2008

And if you follow Catholic teaching, you are, as a Catholic, completely free to accept my translation readily, since it does fall within the realm of "the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition" and it does certainly have "the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable".

I agree and said as much:

Whenever I read or study Sacred Scripture, it's always in light of Catholic Church teaching on the interpretation. To my knowledge, while the Church has spoken definitively about Genesis 1-11, she hasn't spoken as to longevity of the Patriarchs, so it's open to discussion.

It's open to discussion....

I have given reasons why I disagree with your conclusion and one reason is where I always start, namely with the Church...

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, wrote that the literal and obvious sense must be believed unless reason or necessity forces us to reject that in favor of an exclusively figurative inpterpretation.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 11, 2008

My post # 18, btw, is the geneology of Jesus Christ (St.Luke 3:23-38) which traces His lineage through Shem in v. 35-36.

Leauki

on Aug 11, 2008

Actually that would be surprising and it would really surprise me of those "scientists" managed to create an environment in the lab that would cause any animal, let alone a human, live 12 times the lifetime of a normal specimen.

Luckily this can easily be checked. Just ask one of the "scientists" to explain what climate causes what age and why and then test it in a lab.

Until then we can ignore those "scientists".

It's clear that there was a downward decline in post Flood life spans. That would beg the question why?

If you look at the numbers you will notice that the flood is a somewhat arbitrary point.

My translation suggests that the real difference is the use of the calendar. I believe that some of these ages are given in "shana" = "month", some are in "shana" = "season", and some in "shana" = "year", depending on the calendar used at the time.

Some scientists suggest that man's environment underwent a drastic change which reduces our life span.

It's possible, but I would look for a simpler explanation.

Leauki

on Aug 11, 2008

Incidentally, Islam sees a local flood, not a world-wide flood.

This suggests that speakers of Arabic and Aramaic read the legend as referring to a territory rather than the entire world and that Ishmaeli legend recorded the flood like that.

And if you tell me that Islam is wrong by definition (despite the fact that we are talking about Semites understanding Semitic language) you will be unhappy to hear that Islam does believe in the 900-year age of the patriarchs, meaning that Islam confirms at least one of my theories, and you can choose which.

Leauki

on Aug 11, 2008

Well, then go ahead and believe the literal and obvious sense.

The literal translation of "shana" is "alteration".

And the obvious translation is one that gives us believable lifetimes.

My translation is both literal and obvious.

Sodaiho

on Aug 11, 2008

It's clear that there was a downward decline in post Flood life spans. That would beg the question why? Some scientists suggest that man's environment underwent a drastic change which reduces our life span.

Only so if we completely ignore changes in how "years" were counted. Many traditions uses long spans of time to support the greatness of someone or something. Its part of how we construct powerful stories. It doesn't mean the numbers are accurate or that they actually reflect measures as we understand them today. I think Lula and other liiteralists miss the spiritual point in the story.

Be well.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 11, 2008

I think Lula and other liiteralists miss the spiritual point in the story.

What are some of the spiritual points that you take away from the Great Flood of Noah?

I'd say it was God's punishment of the wicked to whom a period of 120 years had been allowed for repentance.

Unlike the Ninevites to whom also a period of repentence was allowed, the sinners of Noah's time paid no heed to the warnings available to them or of the time it took Noah to build the Ark.

The Flood was also the means of freeing "the sons of God" from the danger of corruption all around them. Wisdom 4:14 has God "hastened to bring them out of the midst of iniquities". The Flood is one part of ALmighty God's providential election and preparation of Israel.

Following Noah was God's order to Abraham to leave pagan enticements of Mesopotamia and restart nomadic life in a new land of canaan. Moses afterward with the people was delivered from Egypt to enter as a nation to enter into the land destined to be their home.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 11, 2008

Lula posts:

SoDaiho posts:

I think Lula and other liiteralists miss the spiritual point in the story.
Be well.

Thinking back to Adam, what could be the spiritual explanation of why man's life span now limited?

God started the human race with one couple, Adam and Eve. He told them to be fruitful and multiply. Chapter 5 tells us about Adam's gene pool. It says Adam lived 930 years and had many sons and daughters to whom he taught the law of God. His immediate descendants also lived to a very great age.

When God created Adam and Eve it was not intended that they would die or that the aging process or degenerative conditions would take place. They were in a highly perfect state of health in body and mind, in other words, their genetic material was free from defects of any kind. As a result of their perfect genes, and along with ideal living environment, the actual aging process may have taken a long time to take effect.

For the gene pool to become contaminated with an accumulation of bad mutations, such as it is today, would have taken a long time, perhaps centuries to develop.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 11, 2008

Thinking back to Adam, what could be the spiritual explanation of why man's life span now limited?

God started the human race with one couple, Adam and Eve. ....It says Adam lived 930 years and had many sons and daughters to whom he taught the law of God. His immediate descendants also lived to a very great age.

So, perhaps a long fruitful life was considered a blessing, a reward of faithful service to God. The gradual shortening of man's lifespan was in direct keeping with evil in the world. Genesis 6:13 tells us that in Noah's day, evil was so rampant that God said He would destroy all flesh. As a result God punished man by the Great Flood and reduced his life expectancy by hundred's of years. So another spiritual point is the God's chastisment shows His hatred of sin and gave a reason for the evil of man's short lifetime.

So, here we might take the long lifetimes of the Patriarchs as having a religious implication.

Leauki

on Aug 11, 2008

So, perhaps a long fruitful life was considered a blessing, a reward of faithful service to God.

That completely contradicts either reading.

You said before that you noticed that people lived longer before the flood than after. Those were the people G-d punished. So why did they have such a long timespan? He could have reduced their individual lifespans and no flood would have been needed if His point was about the lifespan. It obviously wasn't.

With the literal reading, of course, the whole point becomes moot as the patriarchs before the calendar change did not live longer than the people after the calendar change.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 11, 2008

So, perhaps a long fruitful life was considered a blessing, a reward of faithful service to God.

That completely contradicts either reading.

Note that the patriarchs were all God's people.

Scripture said that Adam lived 930 years and had many sons and daughters to whom he taught the law of God.

That's the difference...God bless those who were faithful.

You said before that you noticed that people lived longer before the flood than after. Those were the people G-d punished.

Read the Scripture, it says that the Patriarchs died before the Flood, not by the Flood. Noah and his family were the only ones God found faithful..all the others were punished.

Leauki

on Aug 11, 2008

Scripture said that Adam lived 930 years and had many sons and daughters to whom he taught the law of God.

Well, we know what G-d taught Adam and how well he listened. What exactly might he have been teaching his sons and daughters?

Incidentally, Adam lived 930 alterations, not years. If you don't want to use the literal translation, just say "shana" instead.

I have never met a human being who lived for longer than 120 or so years. Hence, to me, translating "shana" as "month" in this context makes more sense.

I am applying here the Catholic principle: read literal ("shana" = "alteration") and then use whichever meaning creates the fewest problems (the "alteration" is a month).

Read the Scripture, it says that the Patriarchs died before the Flood, not by the Flood. Noah and his family were the only ones God found faithful..all the others were punished.

Now you are saying that only the patriarchs grew so old and not everybody did?

Those others who were punished, would they have grown to be 900? Did their fathers?

How many could they have been? Noah came nine generations after Adam. How many children did a 900-year-human being usually have? And when Adam died at 930 did that include the 20 or so years he was already old when he was created or was he 950 when he died after 930 years?

So people after the flood had shorter lifespans because people before the flood (except Noah and his family) were sinners? Why didn't G-d simply shorten the lives of the sinners instead of those that came after the flood?

And why, oh why, did G-d not simply tell us that it was a global flood and wrote instead that it was a local flood? Did he rely on someone translating haAretz into another language where the meaning of the word would change from "land" to "planet" several hundred years later? What if the word "earth" hadn't changed its meaning? Does Biblical truth really depend on changes in the Germanic languages? What if the word "earth" in 200 years means "cave"? Would that change Biblical truth again?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!