The period Creation to Exodus is primarily factored around the death of
the two notable men of the old world, Noah and Shem.
CREATION --- 1st
| 1,648 yrs
FLOOD --- 1649th
| 1 yr
ARPHAXAD BORN --- 1650th --- ---
(Start of | | |
2nd year) | 350 yrs | | 350 yrs
| | |
| | 500 yrs |
FATHER DIES --- 2000th | --- Noah Dies
| 1 yr |
ABRAHAM CALLED --- 2001st |
(from Haran) | 90 yrs |
JACOB BORN --- 2091st |
(Abraham 160) | |
JACOB 60YRS - 2150th 400 yrs --- Shem Dies
(flees Esau) |
EXODUS --- 2491st
The Flood occurred after 1648 years in the 1649th year.
Noah lives past a further 350 birthdays after the 1649th year.
If he dies a shortly prior to what would have been his 351st,
he would die early in the 2000th year.
In the following year, in the 2001st year, Abraham was called by God
to enter the Promised Land.
Shem died 500 years after the birth of Arphaxad, ie in the 2150th year.
430 years after the covenant with Abraham (and Isaac) and 400 years
after the birth of Jacob, God in the 2491st year brought the enslaved
descendants of Jacob out of Egypt.
REFLECTION ON THE 1649TH FLOOD YEAR
The determination of the Flood year always has to be firstly based
on the information provided by Scripture.
While the year 1656 has been the well accepted year of the Flood,
it had always represented a simple utilisation of the numbers
presented in Genesis chapter 5. No attempt being made to consider
the Hebrew counting system or the cumulative effect of months.
Indeed it is only the setting of a prophetic duration between Exodus
and the start of the Great Tribulation, along with the delimiting of
the overall intended chronology to 6,000 years, that there arose a
need to tighten the Adam to Exodus duration. This in turn having the
effect of restricting the Adam to Flood duration.
Yet is somewhat puzzling as to why God chose to have the Great Flood
occur in the 1649th year.
The Flood event, while it is an extremely important biblical event,
does not have the year of its occurrence associated with a prophetic
period. (Unlike the Exodus event or the time of Jesus Christ.)
So a question that can therefore be asked is, "Why the year 1649?".
Why did God not instead opt for the year 1650. (Or 1645 or 1655.)
Upon reflection it seems there was a reason why the Flood was timed
to occur in the year 1649.
What was that reason?
The number 1649 does not appear to have any special properties.
It is not a 'triangle number'. (Refer Google search.)
[NB: Interestingly other New Testament numbers are triangle numbers.
The number '666'.
The number '153' (John 21:11 - number of large fish caught)
The number '276' (Acts 27:37 - total number of people aboard
a distressed ship). ]
The number 1649 is the product of the multiplication of 17 and 97,
but this does not seem to have any relevance.
So why the year 1649?
[NB: That is, apart from God wanting to have Noah die in the 2000th
year. So that Abraham could be called into the Promised Land
in the year 2001. ]
If we stop and think about this for a moment we can begin to realise
that any numeric association to the year 1649 should be to the numbers
linked to the Flood account.
In Genesis chapters 7 and 8 we encounter the following durations;
four mentions of '40', four mentions of '7' and two mentions of '150'.
This discussion of the Timeline of Noah's Ark emphasizes and explains
how to understand these various periods in the context of the unfolding
of the Flood year.
What is perhaps particularly interesting about the final compilation
is that it clarifies that the 40 days (upon which the Flood was upon
the Earth - Gen 7:17), were 40 weekly Sabbath days!
Advising that the devastating Flood lasted 280 days (40 x 7 days).
Stretching from the 17th of the 2nd month to late in the 11th month.
(Being followed by almost 3 weeks during which the waters continued
to abate, and then followed by 2 weeks of drying of the ground.)
Hence the Flood itself can be strongly associated with the numbers
'40' and '7'.
Can these numbers be seen in the number 1649?
The first step is to split the number into 1600 and 49.
Do you perceive the connection?
(This association can be seen as somewhat unexpected - but perhaps
this is an indication of the depth and subtle complexity of God's