Clearly most English Bibles say Noah was 600 years old when the water landed. Gen 7:6.

It’s intriguing that one Bible in English differs quite a bit from others, if only in the words written. That is the Young Literal Translation Gen 7:6:

and Noah is a son of six hundred years, and the deluge of waters hath been upon the earth

Beyond the YLT, others along the way have had “son” or "som" mentioned for Gen 7:6.
E.G.Pulpit Commentary, Barnes' Notes on the Bible, NASB Lexicon

Did original Scripture say Noah was a "son" of 600 years when the water landed? That could cause a big difference in time yet explain a math concern. Did it have the words “hath been” also?

  • 2
    Haven't we had this question several times already?
    – fdb
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 12:32
  • @fdb I‘ve changed the question slightly, and removed a lot of detail. Thanks. Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 13:02

1 Answer 1


Gen. 7:6 says that Noah was (literally) ‘the son of 600 years’ ( בן שש מאות שנה) when the flood began. This is an idiom in Hebrew, and in other Semitic languages (e.g. Arabic and Syriac) meaning ‘600 years old’, that is: in the year beginning with his 600th birthday.

You can compare the Syriac translation (Pšīttā) of John 8:57, which has ܥܕ݂ܰܟ݁ܺܝܠ ܒ݁ܰܪ ܚܰܡܫܺܝܢ ܫܢܺܝܢ ܠܳܐ ܗ݈ܘܰܝܬ݁ literally: ‘you have not yet been the son of fifty years’, translating πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις literally: ‘you do not yet have fifty years’, that is: you have not yet celebrated your 50th birthday.

In Arabic too ibnu khamsiina sanatan (literally: ‘son of 50 years’) means ‘50 years old’, i.e., between one’s 50th and 51st birthday.

  • Thank you. Here's what I still have as a problem; it has Gen 7:6 being the one verse that doesn't fit the others mathematically. When the floodgates were opened, early in his 600th year of life, only 599 years, 1 month, 16 days of his life had gone by. By the time all was dry again, only 600 years, 1 month, 26 days of his life had gone by. His being 600 years old when the water first landed doesn't fit there. Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 13:43
  • @JohnMartin, I'm not certain why you subtract 1 from each part of his age (600th year, 2nd month, 17th day -> 599 years, 1 month, and 16 days).
    – Frank Luke
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 14:52
  • @Frank Luke If a child were born exactly 1 year ago (yesterday), today he's into his 2nd year, 1st month, 1st day after birth. Therefore, he’s had 1 year, 0 months, and 0 days go by. Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 15:07
  • 1
    Yes, he is in his second year but he is only one year old.
    – fdb
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 15:16
  • 1
    @JohnMartin, I think you are forcing idioms to be more exact then they need to be.
    – Frank Luke
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 15:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.