How Long Did the Flood Last?

Short answer: One year and 10 days.

Bible Reference: Genesis 7 & 8

The Bible says that Noah was 600 years old when the flood waters came upon the earth. God commanded Noah to bring his family and all the animals aboard the Ark and seven days later, it began to rain and God shut the door to the Ark. The Bible says that it all began “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” [Genesis 7:11]

It then began to rain for 40 days and nights. As the waters rose, the Ark was borne upon the waters with it. The waters covered all of the mountains by a depth of 15 cubits [about 22 feet 6 inches; the Ark itself was 30 cubits high, or 45 feet tall.]

After it rained that 40 days and nights, the waters prevailed on the earth for another 150 days [5 months] and everything that wasn’t aboard the Ark died. God made a might wind to pass over the earth and the waters began to recede. In fact, the Bible says that at the end of the 150 days of nothing but water, the Ark grounded itself on Mount Ararat. It was the 17th day of the 7th month of that year.

The waters continued to recede for a little over 2 months more, until on the 1st day of the 10th month, the tops of the mountains were exposed.

40 days after the tops of the mountains were seen, Noah sent forth a raven and a dove to see if the flood waters were abated. The dove returned to him, unable to find land, so he waited a week and sent it out again. This time, it came back with an olive leaf in its mouth. He waited yet one more week and sent it out one last time, but it did not return.

In the 601st year, 1st month and 1st day [on Noah's birthday in other words], he looked and saw that the “face of the ground” was dry. But apparently not yet firm. On the 2nd month and 27th day, the ground was dry and God commanded Noah and those aboard the Ark to leave it.

So if we calculate the time that passed between the point where God shut the door of the Ark until God commanded them to leave it:

Year 601 Month 2 Day 27 [End date]

- Year 600 Month 2 Day 17 [Begin Date]

= 1 Year 0 Months 10 Days

27 Responses to How Long Did the Flood Last?

  1. Pingback: Most Popular Posts of 2010 |

  2. shefly says:

    Wow thnx

    • Cecil Raw says:

      The 7 days that God waited after Noah initially entered the ark often gets lost in calculation
      Gen. 7:4 Noah’s age when they entered the ark – 600 yrs / second month / 10th day
      Gen. 7:11 Noah’s age when flood started – 600 yrs / second month / 17th day
      Gen. 8:14 Noah’s age when they exited the ark – 601 yrs / second month / 27th day
      Total time on the Ark with the animals and his family would be 1 yr & 17 days
      Total time from the time the flood started to the time they exited would 1 yr & 10 days

  3. Hello I need to know the date the flood ended for a school project. I was wondering if y’all could help. Please help me I need the answer by 02.05.13 my e-mail is This is Alexandria

    • Tony Breeden says:

      Alexandria Day,

      There are two possible ways to calculate a date for the Flood. David Wright subtracts the accumulated dates of the Genesis genealogies [1656 years from Adam to the Flood] from the calculated date of creation [using Ussher's calculated date of 4004 BC] to get the year 2348 BC. On the other hand, John Ashton and David Down calculate the date from the present using a revised Egyptian chronology which adjusts Manatheo’s inflated dates with Biblical and archaeological data, resulting in 2302 BC for the year of the Flood [Arphaxad being born to Shem 2 years later in 2300].

      More information is available on the latter method in Unwrapping the Pharaohs by John Ashton and David Down

      [see especially Chapter 28 and chart following]. More details concerning the former top-down approach is available at

      Hope that helps.

  4. Roy Guiffreda Sr. says:

    God told Noah to build the ark when he was 500 years old He was 600 years old when he finish it andthe rest is history the rain came for forty days and forty nights so 99years to built 1year and2 mounts Noah was 601years old

  5. marcia says:

    hello i go to sunday school i am ten i was wondering u can help me find out the answer for this quetion. what feet was the water. and how many months are in 150 days thank u

    • Tony Breeden says:


      There are 5 months in 150 days.

      The water rose to a height of 15 cubits [20-23 feet, depending upon whether you calculate with a short or a long cubit] above the mountains [Genesis 7:20]. Keep in mind that most creationist geologists consider Psalm 104:6-9 to be a description of the Flood. Psalm 104:8 declares, “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them,” so Flood geologists believe that the mountains we see today are probably higher than the mountains of Noah’s day and that major geological changes took place beneath the flooded world. Because of this disparity between the pre- and post-Flood mountains, we have no way of determining a fixed depth for the Flood, but again we know the relative depth: it covered the mountains by at least 20 feet [which Noah probably determined by noting the Ark's draught line, or [in simpler terms] how much of the Ark was beneath the water when it floated.]

      Hope that helps. Good question. I may give this one its own article someday ;]

  6. Pingback: Noah's Ark: the scientific version | Dean Burnett | Science |

  7. Pingback: Noah's Ark: the scientific version | Dean Burnett | Digital News Daily CA

  8. Pingback: Noahs Ark, the scientific version | marketspace

  9. Steve B says:

    So, Noah received all of the 8.74 billion species of plants and animals extant today, plus all those extinct(between 1 and 4 billion), into the ark. As well as enough food for all of them for the year, 2 months, and 10 days, while they were all in the ark. How long would that have taken? And then after the great flood, the 10 to 12 billion species would have been dispersed again over the entire earth. How long would that have taken? What about the fresh-water fish in the mixed ocean and fresh water flood waters? And the ocean fish and other creatures in that mix? It would have killed them. Unless…. Something else happened before, during, or after the flood to ameliorate those issues. Unless… the biblical account is not meant to be read as history but as myth.

  10. Jhon says:

    So good

  11. Steve B says:

    hmm I’m glad to see that you have come around to endorse the obvious, well documented, and completely demonstrable fact of the evolution of species. Even if you don’t want to call it that.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      I think you’ve missed the point precisely because evolutionists aren’t always honest about the distinction between observable micro-evolution [speciation, adaptation, mutation, natural selection, etc.] and proposed but unobservable macro-evolution [eg., microbes-to-man evolution]. Theodosius Dobzhansky proposed that evos equate the two terms back when he and others proposed the Neo-Darwin synthesis. Creationists affirm the observable science.

  12. Steve B says:

    Well we could go on and on about this but I am, honestly, gratified to read that you accept the evolution of species. Now all you need is time. A lot of time. And everything else will fall into place.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      Yeah. Time is not the hero of the plot. Macro-evolution is speculation based on an all-natural just-so story. You seem to confuse inference with fact. I rejected pure naturalism precisely because it is self-defeating. Those who affirm pure naturalism [anti-supernaturalism] must also inconsistently affirm that nature can do supernatural things: that everything can come from nothing [or unobservable, unprovable comic book multiverses when the observable sample size of universes is just ONE], that life can come from non-life [when no one has ever observed that] and that a frog can really become a prince if only we give it… a lot of time. At least my worldview is consistent. But I do admire your credulity.

  13. Steve B says:

    Thanks, and the same. Both our worldviews require believing in something that we have no observable basis to believe. I think that my worldview is more intellectually honest because I say, yeah you’re right, we really don’t know where matter came from originally. We really don’t know how life began. We have theories and some people may doggedly tout their theories as absolute fact but most, including myself,admit that we haven’t got it figured all out. We’re working on it. The Bible-literalist is forced to say, “I know” absolutely based on the Bible text as he or she rigidly interprets it. That requires extreme credulity.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      Extreme credulity? This from the guy who gave us the kinds=species straw man oft-repeated by evolutionists at the outset of his comments. I was completely convinced of your all-natural just-so story at one point; have you ever seriously investigated creationism beyond regurgitated misconceptions? Who exactly is credulous here?

      And what can we say of a worldview that requires one to say “We don’t know and may never know but the answer MUST be purely natural because our methodology will only consider all-natural answers”? Science chained to pure naturalism can only give us all-natural answers that may or may not be true and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was involved; unfortunately, science chained to naturalism would never be able to detect when it was wrong and would actually make up false but wholly natural answers to fill in the spaces that should have been explained by supernatural agency.

      Now as an FYI, creationism is a framework just as evolution is a framework. We change our theories within the framework just as you do, even if we do not give up the core tenets of the framework. You are just as rigid about your scientific framework as we are. If you knew more about what you so vigorously objected to, if you knew more about this creationism you find so wrong [rather than simply accepting evolution with credulity; sorry, had to be said], you’d know this.

  14. Steve B says:

    Well one thing I don’t claim to know is who you are and your scope of knowledge/background, as you claim to know about me. You don’t know me but think you do. I think that is a replication of theism, thinking that you know someone who you don’t really know. “Have I actually investigated creationism..?” I have been all my life steeped in it. And in my defense to your argument that I don’t really know creationism, I would add that it is kind of hard to nail down since there are so many different views w/in Christianity and even w/in the creationist camp.
    Recently I’ve been approaching the Bible with a more open mind, with a willingness to ask questions that I felt I was not allowed to ask before, and therefore am more open to more possibilities than rigid literalism. That was the point of my first post: that it could be that the Bible, especially things like the flood account, was never meant to be taken as literal history. It was not written as such and was never understood that way by it’s audience until in the last couple of hundred years when a new framework was imposed on the Bible, one rising from the Enlightenment, that felt like it had to have a hermetically tight literal, infallible, intellectually plausible interpretation of the whole Bible. Anyway, that’s a whole chunk to bite off and chew!

    Now as to your point of comparing worldviews again: sure, many people have absolutely written off theistic/supernatural options, but did you read me doing that? I am only questioning your absolutism basing everything on ancient texts and using the aforementioned matrix. In other words, you are doing the same exact thing you claim that I’m doing: holding doggedly to one presupposition. Which I am not. I am open to possibilities. You are totally denying the possibility of naturalistic answers for what you read as supernatural agency, which is the inverse error of which you accuse me(denying the possibility of supernatural agency, which by the way I don’t). Wow. That was a lot to get in here! I have found this interesting, and even revealing regarding your acceptance of naturalistic evolution since that is one area that most creationists have seemed to avoid in my experience. But I get the feeling that our differing worldviews will not be reconciled. So I would like to get back to my original post again: to clarify your answer: God brought “kinds” of animals to the ark, not all the existing species. Then after the flood, those “kinds” went out and speciated in a rapid form of micro-evolution. OK. I don’t think that is what happened since I don’t think that the text was written to mean that, neither do I think that it adequately explains the current diversity and distribution of species in the world, given the time frame you seemed to indicate. But if that’s your story, and your sticking with it, we really don’t have anywhere else to go! I should have known that before posting… but it has been interesting. Signing off.

  15. mary says:

    Most enjoyable reading of you guys conversation. Im All for the BIBLE!!! Thanks Guys, its been on my mind, and NO I have not yet seen the new movie…..

  16. Tifina Casualao says:

    this is fake, in the bible and what i learnt at school says that the storm/flood only lasted 40 days. the 41st day was when God made the land dry again and everyone was safe including the animals. where did you get this information and why did you say it because it is FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s