Two diverse streams of research have both arrived at strikingly similar dates for the Flood - 3298 BC and 3290 BC. The difference is only 8 years! This is even more striking when one considers that the standard deviation for the 3290 BC date was 100 years.
One date is based on astronomical data. This date lends support for the Hydroplate Theory. The other is based on ancient documents.
Basically, per HPT, comets are formed from material that clumped together gravitationally. This was possible largely because the material - tiny bits - was traveling largely at the same or very similar speed, with very small relative motion to each other. Why was this cluster of tiny bits of material traveling more or less at the same speed? It had been ejected from earth when the fountains of the great deep eroded the crust and carried much finely eroded material at high speed into space - much of which would have been traveling at similar speeds.
If this was so, and if that material clumped together to form comets, then we ought to be able to back-track the orbits of comets to the earth. This is because we know the forces that would have affected those orbits. Of course, we would need sufficient data from observations of the comet's orbit.
Two comets were selected and the observational orbital data for them was used to backtrack to the time when BOTH of them, at the same time, would have been near the earth. This is likely to have been the time of the Flood - that is, the time they both were ejected from the earth - or, rather, the time when their constituent material was ejected from the earth. (HPT does not claim that fully-formed comets were ejected from earth at the time of the flood; merely that material, which later coalesced to form comets, was ejected from earth.) Anyway, the result was that the comets' material would both have been near the earth at about 3290 BC. 1 Thus this is how the "astronomical" date was calculated.
How this calculation supports HPT
This calculation shows that the comets both would have been near earth only a few thousand years ago. This is quite different from showing they came from the Oort cloud! But this is what one would expect if the Hydroplate Theory is true.
Ancient documents date
How was the other date for the Flood, based on ancient documents, derived? To explain this in detail would take a lot of space. Briefly, in summary, the chronology of the Old Testament was used to determine the date, relying largely on the Greek translation of the Old Testament know as the Septuagint or LXX. You can read more about this chronology in the article by Henry B. Smith, THE CASE FOR THE SEPTUAGINT'S CHRONOLOGY IN GENESIS 5 AND 11 , at https://biblearchaeology.org/research/topics/biblical-chronologies/4353-the-case-for-the-septuagints-chronology-in-genesis-5-and-11. 2
So, the astronomical date supports HPT. This date is 3290 BC.
The LXX date agrees amazingly well with the astronomical date, so therfore it lends support to the astronomical date and therefore, also to HPT.
The result is that the date derived from the chronology of the ancient documents, or LXX, lends support to HPT, while the date derived from astronomy / HPT lends support for the ancient LXX's chronology.
To reiterate and in summary, it is very amazing that research in an ancient document should agree so well with research from modern astronomy. And both agree with what one would expect per HPT!
- 1Hurlbutt, T (2015) Global flood astronomical date range. TASC website. https://tasc-creationscience.org/article/global-flood-astronomical-date-range
- 2Smith HB (2019) THE CASE FOR THE SEPTUAGINT'S CHRONOLOGY IN GENESIS 5 AND 11 Associates for Biblical Research website. https://biblearchaeology.org/research/topics/biblical-chronologies/4353-the-case-for-the-septuagints-chronology-in-genesis-5-and-11