Summations Only

I suppose you can show where in Gen 7:3 it mentions clean (or unclean) fowl or in Gen 7:2 where it says fowls should be included in beasts; and if the later were true then why even mention fowl separately?What you suggest is that folk should read what is not there but should be there.You do understand that all the commentary were added because there are so many contradictions and falsehoods in what was written and so it was necessary to make shit up to explain the problems away.

Give me the bible verses to show how Noah knew the difference.

No, they should read every passage in the light of every other passage instead of reading every verse as if it existed in a vacuum as you read it. Um, no, Commentaries were written for the purpose of making the Bible clear, by people who have greater knowledge than the rest of us, of the Bible itself but also the historical context and everything else that pertains. They were written for the same reason the Creeds were written, to clarify, and the Confessions of Faith and the Catechisms, and for that matter the sermons of every preacher -- to elucidate the Bible text.Rather than bury it under idiotic manglings as you do.

While your looking that up.Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for youHow does that factor in to the unclean/ clean deal.
What do the apologists say about that?

I can show you THAT he knew the difference:

Need to redo this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know what the commentaries say about this, but there is no distinction between clean and unclean food until God makes an issue of it for the Israelites, where it is one of the rules by which they are to keep themselves separate from the heathen nations. But all us heathens have always eaten every kind of food possible and that is what God is telling Noah is now to be practiced.But the context is clear that only clean animals are to be SACRIFICED. This is because they are representative of the unblemished Messiah who has been prophesied since the Fall.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Same thing. Show me how he knew the difference between the two. It's defined later. How did he know!Two verses above your Gen7:3 . That is on 7:1 god calls Noah righteous.What do the apologists say about this:
Romans 3:10. No man, no one is righteous.

There you go, you got it now. There is no way for Noah to know the difference.

You can read the commentaries yourself, you don't need to run me ragged tracking it all down for you. The term "righteous" is used of Noah as the most righteous of his generation, not in the sense of a perfect righteousness which is only possessed by God and which Noah clearly failed by getting drunk.When the Bible doesn't STATE something, like how Noah knew the distinction between clean and unclean, we can only infer that it was passed down from generation to generation.You can nitpick anything to death you know, but all you succeed at with that practice is depriving yourself of the knowledge available if you just read it normally.

You are as reading-challenged as jar. When God commanded the eating of meat it's clear that Noah understood that we can EAT all kinds of animals, clean and unclean, but only SACRIFICE the clean and it is very clear that Noah DID know the difference for that purpose.

You just said he defined the difference in Leviticus. You haven't yet explained how he knew the difference. The point is he can't know. You are logically challenged.

What made some animals clean and others unclean (Genesis 7)? | GotQuestions.org Read more: What made some animals clean and others unclean (Genesis 7)? | GotQuestions.org

I'll say it again. You don't know how to read in context so you miss the whole meaning of the Bible. Too bad for you, but for me it's not worth the effort to keep up such a discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi GolfflyI'm not ignoring you I just don't have time to respond. I'll be away from the computer for a week. If this is still thread is still active I'll get back to you then and show you the error of your ways. Cheers and thanks for the discussion.