"Two" or "Seven" each animals on Noah's Ark
Jim Wildman
Gen 6 is the general instruction. Gen 7 is the details. "Do your
math homework" "Do the odd numbered problems on pages 100-101." They
don't contradict, they enhance.
Jim Wildman
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:56:03 -0600, "Jack Nation"
<jna...@cedarnet.org> wrote:
>How can Bible verses Genesis 6:19 and Genesis 7:2 be reconciled?
>GEN 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of
>every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and
>female."
>GEN 7:2 "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male
>and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his
>female."
>In Christian Love,
>Jack Nation
>New: http://www.cedarnet.org/jnation/
>
>
>
Ken Winters
Jack Nation wrote:
>
> How can Bible verses Genesis 6:19 and Genesis 7:2 be reconciled?
> GEN 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of
> every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and
> female."
> GEN 7:2 "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male
> and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his
> female."
The distinction is between clean and unclean animals. 2 of every kind,
and 7 of the clean. The latter verse is simply a specific instruction
(for clean animals) that doesn't negate the first instruction.
Ken
--
*************************************************************
* LarKen Software Inc. http://www.larken.com/ *
* *
* Wholesome children's software that Teaches AND Entertains *
*************************************************************
Phil Stratton
Actually, with the GEN. 7 passage, it makes sense that it was 7 of EACH,
male and female (I know that's not how it reads. This is my interpretation
of how it would make sense to read it for ME).
I know, if you follow that approach, it means 4 of each unclean and 14
clean, but why only 7 clean when only male animals were sacrificed? That
would be either 3 or 4. And also, the Gen. 7 passage says a male and his
female. How can you do that with 7? Someone gets left out of that
equation.
Anyone out there with another opinion/interpretation?
As an aside, has anyone noticed (more than likely you have, but I just
recently did) that there seemed to be a prohibition on eating meat until
after the flood? In GEN. 1:29 it says: Then God said "I give you every
seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has
fruit with seeds in it. They will be yours for food." And in Gen. 9:3 it
says "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
you the green plants, I now give you everything." I guess this along with
the previous 2 verses in Gen. 9 explain how Noah got those animals into the
arc. They weren't afraid of him, because they weren't considered food.
Phil Stratton
Just you average home-schooling bible "scholar"
Ken Winters wrote in message <34CCBA...@olympus.net>...
Bill & Joi
>Actually, with the GEN. 7 passage, it makes sense that it was 7 of EACH,
>male and female (I know that's not how it reads. This is my interpretation
>of how it would make sense to read it for ME).
>
>I know, if you follow that approach, it means 4 of each unclean and 14
>clean, but why only 7 clean when only male animals were sacrificed? That
>would be either 3 or 4. And also, the Gen. 7 passage says a male and his
>female. How can you do that with 7? Someone gets left out of that
>equation.
>
>Anyone out there with another opinion/interpretation?
>
>As an aside, has anyone noticed (more than likely you have, but I just
>recently did) that there seemed to be a prohibition on eating meat until
>after the flood? In GEN. 1:29 it says: Then God said "I give you every
>seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has
>fruit with seeds in it. They will be yours for food." And in Gen. 9:3 it
>says "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
>you the green plants, I now give you everything." I guess this along with
>the previous 2 verses in Gen. 9 explain how Noah got those animals into the
>arc. They weren't afraid of him, because they weren't considered food.
>
>
If you read carefully you will see that in the Bible, 7 is the number
of perfection, or God's number. It is used many, many times in the
Bible, especially in prophetic passages, much like the number 3. God
would not send 6 animals, because 6 is the number of man, of
imperfection, sin , and death. I don't know why God uses the number 7,
that's one of those things we'll have to write on a five by seven and
take with us when we meet Him. Also, there could be no meat eaten
before the flood because there was no death until after the fall of
man. Why he waited to lift the ban on eating meat until after the
flood is not clear, but it does make for some interesting speculation
about when dinosaurs and man lived. I believe they had to live
together. If dinosaurs ate meat then they could not have done so until
after the flood, which means Barney and his Mrs. were probably on the
boat! If you think about it, though, God killed animals to make skins
for Adam and Eve when he through them out of the garden (Genesis 4:21)
so even if they weren't eating the animals for food, they used their
skins for clothes. That means some animals had to die. Perhaps God
took away their fear of man in order to save the species. Or perhaps
they were not yet totally afraid of man. Interesting, isn't it?
Bill & Joi
On 26 Jan 98 19:13:30 GMT, "Garth Ball" <ji...@deepsouth.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>Jack Nation <jna...@cedarnet.org> wrote in article
><6agq8m$99t$1...@team2.teamnet.net>...
>> How can Bible verses Genesis 6:19 and Genesis 7:2 be reconciled?
>> GEN 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring
>two of
>> every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be
>male and
>> female."
>> GEN 7:2 "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal,
>a male
>> and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and
>his
>> female."
>
>Two of everything with an extra six of the CLEAN animals.
>On the other hand, if it were a regional flood, were the animals also
>regional?
>So what do you teach your homeschooled children?
I teach mine that no one knows for sure what happened because no one
was there to witness it, except God and Noah. We know only what the
Bible tells us. Then we examine the Bible, talk about what discoveries
have been made about the flood, and what could possibly have happened.
It makes for interesting schoolroom discussions!
John & Teresa Egge
Phil Stratton wrote:
>
> Actually, with the GEN. 7 passage, it makes sense that it was 7 of EACH,
> male and female (I know that's not how it reads. This is my interpretation
> of how it would make sense to read it for ME).
>
> I know, if you follow that approach, it means 4 of each unclean and 14
> clean, but why only 7 clean when only male animals were sacrificed? That
> would be either 3 or 4. And also, the Gen. 7 passage says a male and his
> female. How can you do that with 7? Someone gets left out of that
> equation.
>
> Anyone out there with another opinion/interpretation?
>
of animals. However, God wanted more of the clean animals, both for
sacrifice and for eating (see below). They would still have only needed
2 animals (1 pair) to propagate the species, which was why the unclean
animals were put on the ark. I guess I wasn't there personally, so I
don't know for sure! :-)
> As an aside, has anyone noticed (more than likely you have, but I just
> recently did) that there seemed to be a prohibition on eating meat until
> after the flood? In GEN. 1:29 it says: Then God said "I give you every
> seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has
> fruit with seeds in it. They will be yours for food." And in Gen. 9:3 it
> says "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
> you the green plants, I now give you everything." I guess this along with
That's right. When God created Adam and Eve, he gave them plants to
eat...which also explains why there was no death in the Garden of Eden,
until God killed that animal to make clothes for Adam and Eve after they
sinned. God did not give them meat to eat until after the flood, when
plant life would be a little scarce at first. (Makes you wonder if we
should all be vegetarians! :-))
> the previous 2 verses in Gen. 9 explain how Noah got those animals into the
> arc. They weren't afraid of him, because they weren't considered food.
>
> Phil Stratton
> Just you average home-schooling bible "scholar"
Actually, I believe Noah didn't need to go out and herd the animals. If
I read it correctly, God *sent* the animals to Noah (I personally
interpret that to mean that God also sent the correct number of animals,
which some people might disagree with). Noah had to build the ark and
round up a whole lot of plant life to feed everyone, and then just got
the animals on the ark and in their right places. Incidentally, the
animals were also vegetarians until after the flood. Also...just to
vent a personal pet peeve...it was God that closed the door on the ark,
not Noah, and the ark also did not look anything like that cutesy
rounded boat you see in children's books! (Whew, I feel better! :-))
Teresa E.
Bill & Joi
Nah, if we were we wouldn't have teeth designed to tear and chew meat.
God has already said there is nothing forbidden to us to eat, so that
means meat as well as vegetables (and Starbucks Espresso Swirl Ice
Cream!) I think God never intended there to be death, animal or
human, but when man chose death over life it brought death to all
things.
Kangamaroo
> God did not give them meat to eat until after the flood, when
>>plant life would be a little scarce at first. (Makes you wonder if we
>>should all be vegetarians! :-))
>>
>>
>Nah, if we were we wouldn't have teeth
>designed to tear and chew meat.
and there wouldn't be stories of Jesus roasting fish at the seashore, and
parables of the father roasting the fatted calf for the prodigal son, and
Abraham wouldn't have told Sarah to prepare meat and bread for the angelic
visitors, and fried chicken wouldn't taste so good:-)
Regards,
Kanga
My riches consist not in the extent of my possessions, but in the fewness of my
wants. --J. Brotherton
Ed Dickerson
Bill & Joi wrote:
<snip>
> I don't know why God uses the number 7,
>
Seven as the number of perfection or completion is rooted in Creation,
which was "very good" (perfect) and "completed" in seven dayx.
--Ed Dickerson
Villages don't raise people; people raise villages.
Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.
Ed Dickerson
Perhaps Garth can tell us about the Maoris, but I'm not aware of any
culture without a flood myth. Argues that the flood was universal.
The Biblical account is unambiguous. The flood is a 'de-creation', thus
covers the entire planet.
Art Kreitman
Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net> wrote:
>Perhaps Garth can tell us about the Maoris, but I'm not aware of any
>culture without a flood myth. Argues that the flood was universal.
>
There are many cultures without flood myths. You can start with
native americans and hindus
Ed Dickerson
Art Kreitman wrote:
>
> Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps Garth can tell us about the Maoris, but I'm not aware of any
> >culture without a flood myth. Argues that the flood was universal.
> >
>
> There are many cultures without flood myths. You can start with
> native americans and hindus
>
As a matter of fact, I know of several native american tribes with flood
myths. The others may as well, I'm not aware that they do not. I'll have
to look into hindu culture more.
Still the widespread distribution of these flood myths argue for some
cataclysmic event.
Julie Pascal
Art Kreitman wrote:
>
> Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps Garth can tell us about the Maoris, but I'm not aware of any
> >culture without a flood myth. Argues that the flood was universal.
> >
>
> There are many cultures without flood myths. You can start with
> native americans and hindus
Just recently I saw a program about the Mandan tribe that
mentioned their flood myth. Granted, the point of the show
was the possibility that a European man had come to live with
them during the later part of the Viking age and if that is
so the flood myth may have arrived with him. It didn't,
however, include a boat. It did include saving the animals
and people.
-Julie
Dusty...@aol.com
> Bill & Joi wrote:<snip> > I don't know why God uses the number 7,>Seven as the number of perfection or completion is rooted in Creation, which was "very good" (perfect) and "completed" in seven dayx.--Ed Dickerson Villages don't raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.
Also 7 angels, 7 golden candle sticks, etc. There were 7 seeds on the ark of Naoah. Noah's seed went throgh one of his sons, so that was the same seed (out of 8 mentioned, there were 7 seeds) Every man and woman has a seed of their own and carry a seed of an ancerstor. Your seed will travel down from generation to generation for hundreds and sometimes a thousand years before it will die out. Adama's seed lived 930 years before it died. So Adam lived THROUGH HIS CHIODREN for 930 years, not in one body. Those 7 seeds that were on the ark all ended up in the blood of Jesus Christ over the thousands of years. If you add up the years of each child starting in Genesis 5, then the generations of Seth, they will come out to 930 years, the age of Adam.