A tremendous amount of water fell: two tons per square inch by one calculation, this would be like dropping a car on a caterpillar . While most calculations are based on a presumption of the mountains being as high as they presently stand, which was unlikely to have been the case, the impact of such a tremendous amount of water impacting the earth would have still have been catastrophic. Thus there can be little doubt it would have taken a miracle for the ark to have withstood the pressure of the rain. Without divine protection not even a modern vessell could withstand such pressure, any ancient boats would have been instantly flattened under such an onslaught.
www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/index.htmbooks.google.fr/books?id=bQ5OAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&lpg=PT10&dq=pressure+water+impacting+earth+biblical+flood&source=bl&ots=aifGD927mg&sig=ACfU3U2V5xKbXYJ22PpHoxf4IkdhK06apQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM7sSlqv7pAhWBAGMBHQkBDjMQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=pressure%20water%20impacting%20earth%20biblical%20flood&f=false One square inch of a (nearly) solid column of water, falling from the “firmament” which was, let’s say, a mile above, would have exerted a pressure of 2280 pounds/sq inch. The area of the Ark’s deck was 3375 sq feet. The pressure on the surface of the Ark was 1,108,080,000 pounds! Do the math (3375 * 144 * 2280). Not even modern ships could survive that kind of onslaught.
QUESTION: Is it problematic that the bible account states that the flood was “forty days upon the earth” (Gen 7:17) – but then states that it “prevailed upon earth… an hundred and fifty days" (7:24)?No. A closer look at both statements shows that their is nothing problematic or contradictory therein.
Gen 7:17 reads (NWT) "The flooding continued for 40 days on the earth, and the waters kept increasing" To understanding what was happening during this periodwe can find a parallel reference in which the expression of intention is found at Genesis 7:4 where God states "I
will make it rain on the earth
for 40 days and 40 nights" as well as verse 11 of the same chapter which states "the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
And the rain poured down on the earth
for 40 days and 40 nights". So it seemed this first statement is refering to the length of time that the rain was actually falling. Naturally then, this first period would be associated with a RISING of the water level, indeed The New Living Translation states (7:17b) that during those forty days "the floodwaters
grew deeper" and various other translations also allude to the fact that the 40 day/night period is associated with an increase in waters on the earth: "forty days the flood
kept coming" (NIV), The New Living Translation states "For forty days
the floodwaters grew deeper"
Having established then, that the 40 day/night period of Genesis 7:11 refers to the time when the rain was actually falling and the flood waters were INCREASING, let us now turn our attention to the period of 150 days to see if there is a contradiction.
Genesis 7: 24 states "
And the waters continued overwhelming the earth for 150 days." Notice here the account does NOT say it rained for 150 only that the waters overwhelmed the earth for 150 days (various other translations employ the word "covered" (NLT)or "prevailed" (ESV)). The original Hebrew word for this is "gabar" which, according to Strongs (#1396) comes from the root meaning "to exceed, confirm, be great, be mighty...", thus Young's Literal Translation puts it this way " and the waters are mighty on the earth a hundred and fifty days". So it seems reasonably to conclude (based on the lexicon employed) that the 150 day period refers to the period during which the earth was completely flooded (ie overwhelmed,inundated with water).
QUESTION: So could the 150 day period during which the earth was "overwhelmed" and the waters "prevailed" include the initial 40 days of rainfall? Yes, it can continue to rain on an already flooded area even as an area can remain flooded long after the rains that cause the innundation have stopped falling. In the Genesis flood account, we know the 150 days was inclusive because the Genesis account provides very specific dates. Thus we know exactly how long Noah and his family was in the ark (370 days) and from that we can calculate that the 40 days of rain were included in the 150 period that the earth was flooded.
QUESTION: If the 150-day period can include when the rain is falling (ie water level is rising), while the area is flooded (when the area is inundated with water), can it also include the period during which the waters are abating? Yes, if your kitchen is flooded but the water is slowing draining away, your kitchen is still "flooded"
[Genesis] v8:3 says the waters were abated and v8:4 says the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat. Wouldn’t it be impossible for the ark to land on a mountain if the waters were already abated?Notice that the account states "
by the end of the 150 the waters had subsided [abated]" , it does NOT say to what POINT the waters had subsided (abated). All we can know for certain is that, by Noah's measures the waters had abated and that the vessell ran aground. To assume in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary, that the level of the water upon which the ark floated dropped lower then the mountain upon which it would subsequently run aground and thus that the vessell jumped up out of the water to run aground at an elevated position is to make a most illogical assumption. And certainly no one based on any explicit statement in the text.
With the water gone, wouldn’t the ark have come to rest on lower land? It is clear from the account that the waters were not "gone" indeed it was another three months before, from his vantage point, any other mountain peaks were visible (compare Genesis 8:5). Well after the 150-day period the account continues to refer to the decreasing waters, so clearly the waters were still
there. Evidently the statement that "by the end of the the 150 days, the waters had subsided" was relative to total immersion.
bythebible.page.tl/The-Deluge_A-Hidden-Purpose.htmTetoniics
jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2019/05/all-about-plate-tectonics.html 
