That's a great retort. At least your taking the text seriously - no other post did. Of note here is that the criteria is not about wild animals but clean and unclean. Also, the translation may not be accurately understood of the ancient Hebrew writings, and maybe such birds were housed for other reasons which I am not aware of. Many birds are ritually clean from the text's pov, namely it is referring to 'kosher' animals or those permissable; of note the pig is not mentioned - sorry pig!
Only the life forms in Noah's household/possessions were called for [the text]; only these entered the ark [the absence of any wild animals in the text].
Present supporting texts.
IamJoseph writes:
This was an agricultural epoch of humanity, its people having large Texas style lands with a host of life forms utilized for food and trading. They usually never ventured outside their towns for most of their lives; many never even knew there were other lands or nations. This regional flood appeared to them as a global one, and the writings reflect this authentically of its period - aka 'SPEAKING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE".
Present supporting text.
IamJoseph writes:
All anti-creationists focus on what they can impound on and connect with their agenda, while playing 3 blind mice of millions of stats introduced for the first time to humanity in the Hebrew writings.
There are no anti-creationists period.
Everyone believes in creation.
There are those who believe in the creation account in the Bible and there are those who believe in the creation of everything from an absence of anything. But everyone believes in creation as science teaches the universe had a beginning they just don't know where it came from or how it began to exist.
IamJoseph writes:
The Hebrew writings are NOT a Walt Disney story.
Neither was it a IamJoseph or Watchman Nee story.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Its not about 'and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth'.
quote:Genesis Its not about 'and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth'.
The Hebrew word כל translated every is a preposition that means all.
What part of every (all) living substance excluded?
Where is that part it excluded?
quote:6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
What part of all flesh is excluded?
Where is that part excluded?
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
No sir, it does not say 'from the face of the earth'.
quote:7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Are you saying that verse does not say "from off the face of the earth"?
IamJoseph writes:
It points only to those outside of Noah's possessions [the text you ignored].
Where in the above verse does it mention anything in or outside of Noah's possessions?
IamJoseph writes:
Every living creature in Noah's region.
Where does any of the text say in Noah's region?
IamJoseph writes:
Alexander: "I will destroy the Persian king Darius from off the face of the earth".
Tasmania excluded.
Tasmania was not included to be destroyed or it would have been.
Something has to be excluded to not be destroyed.
Only the things in the ark was preserved from being destroyed that had the breath of life (breathed air) and was not destroyed.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
That's a great retort. At least your taking the text seriously - no other post did. Of note here is that the criteria is not about wild animals but clean and unclean.
Are there any other kinds of animals.
Either an animal is clean or unclean there is no other description.
IamJoseph writes:
namely it is referring to 'kosher' animals or those permissable; of note the pig is not mentioned - sorry pig!
But the text does not specify 'kosher' animals.
quote:Genesis 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
If you will notice Noah and his wife, Noah's son's and their wives went into the ark.
None of them had anything to do with the animals or birds that came into the ark.
The animals arrived and boarded the ark all by themselves.
There was clean beasts, unclean beasts, fowls, and everything that creepeth upon the earth that boarded the ark.
Now where is any wild animal left out?
Give the text that excludes any species of animal that was on the earth at the time of the flood of Noah.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
quote:Genesis 7/1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark.
Of note, you left it out!
Where in that does it say household and household pets?
The Hebrew word translated house could have been translated humans in house.
God does specify what He means.
quote:Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
This specifies who Noah is responsible to make sure they are in the ark.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
quote:Where in that does it say household and household pets?
The Hebrew word translated house could have been translated humans in house.
God does specify what He means.
Absolutely it does. Thy household refers to Noah's possessions, which applies to life forms - these are qualified in the text by the account of live stock in additional to his family. A host of other verses also align with it. Once this is accepted, all the rest makes sense; the reverse applies with its rejection.
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This specifies who Noah is responsible to make sure they are in the ark.
Either an animal is clean or unclean there is no other description.
IamJoseph writes: namely it is referring to 'kosher' animals or those permissable; of note the pig is not mentioned - sorry pig!
But the text does not specify 'kosher' animals.
Clean refers to kosher, namely ritually clean for consumption, not that those animals are bad or inferior to other animals, but only prohibited for consumption; usually, these animals are scavangers and will eat any and everything and can have toxic effects. Pigs are not kosher because they do not meet the criteria. In Hebrew, the term clean animals is kosher animals in the text - its where the word comes from.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that verse does not say "from off the face of the earth"?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. It means from all the face of the earth in the designated region of Noah. I gave tacit examples of the same book which concerned Lot and his two daughters in the matter of Sodom. Everyone disregards the text to align with their own illformed agenda.
Is the fable mount ararat, introduced for the first time in its correct geographical location, a fable? Are the geneologies listed in error? Are the foods listed in contradiction of its period?
This book is not about Zeus, Jupiter and Lord Venus!
™ Version 4.0 Beta
