|
Author
|
Topic: Were the animals on the ark only the fowls, cattle and creeping things?
|
Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
Okay! I can definitely live with that. Even if it were because the God ordained culturing of the Hebrews let them be a little wiser in this area of cross breeding I still see the Lord as getting all the glory, however, this Scripture does imply it was by His providence that it was so and that is good enough for me...Thank you my brother
In Christ
Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Hello, Brother Paul, thanks for the info, I did read most of it. I don't doubt that Jacob was aware of which animals were strong and which animals were feeble. The shepherds handled the animals and could see which were robust and aggressive and/or feeble and timid.
But I would think that the dream that Jacob had, as described in Genesis 31, must have played a role of faith in Jacob's behavior with placing the rods, so let me add those verses to this post.
Genesis 31
5 And he [Jacob] said to them, I see your father's countenance, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father has been with me.
6 And you know that with all my power I have served your father.
7 And your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
8 For if he said thus, The speckled shall be your wages; then all the cattle bore speckled; and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be your hire; then bore all the cattle ringstraked.
9 Thus God has taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.
10 And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up my eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled.
11 And the angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lift up now your eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban does to you.
So from this it would appear that Jacob had received a dream in which he saw the ringstraked and the speckled and grisled leap upon the cattle.
And eventhough it is not mentioned in the Genesis text, it may very well be that in the dream Jacob saw peeled rods in the watering troughs and that he followed, by faith, the method that he had seen in the dream, namely to put in the peeled rods whenever a strong animal had mated or conceived.
In that case the putting in of the rods would be an act of faith similar to Paul sending out handkerchiefs from his body:
Acts 19:12
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Because in any case, it was clearly God who miraculously manipulated what color the best sheep were going to be:
Genesis 31
8 For if he [Laban] said thus, The speckled shall be your wages; then all the cattle bore speckled; and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be your hire; then bore all the cattle ringstraked.
9 Thus God has taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.
So the placing of the rods may merely be something that either God instructed Jacob to do in the dream, or Jacob saw the peeled rods in the dream and Jacob, as an act of faith toward God, followed what he had seen in the dream.
Lastly, science is always trying to find some kind of earthly equivalent for what God has done. For example, with the manna in the desert, scholars/scientists found a certain plant in the desert which had some kind of kernel or whatever which fell off the plant, blah, blah, blah, and that "was most likely the manna of the Bible", blah, blah, blah, eventhough the Bible clearly states that the manna came from heaven, etc.
And eventhough none of that would explain why the manna would rot if they collected for more than one day at a time during the week, but over the weekend they could collect for 2 days and it would not rot, and so on.
Likewise it was entirely done by miracle in Jacob's case, and Jacob probably followed a procedure that he saw done in the dream, eventhough that is not specifically mentioned in Genesis 30 as having come from the dream.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
What was interesting to me is that there are scientists who care enough to dig into these quesions...this case comes from some on-line discussion (sorry I took bad notes that day but the references are here if you care)...this is from a discussion of the role of "epigenetics" in their effect on otherwise genetic traits without changing the actual DNA
"It is only with the recent advent of epigenetics that the story can finally be understood, especially in prenatal nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation of fur color. But first, a brief excursus on epigenetics.
"Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that occur without a change in DNA sequence, and are phenomena which violate Mendelian principles. These non-DNA variations can be transmitted in the cell and organismal lineages.6 What is particularly intriguing is the extensive literature on the role of prenatal nutrition on epigenetic events.7 What is most relevant to the biblical story of Jacob and the sheep is the research on early nutritional influences on the Agouti gene affecting coat color of fur in sheep and mice.8,9
THE TREE BRANCHES IN GENESIS 30:37- The three trees whose bark was peeled were livneh lach, luz, and armon, names translated by the NJPS as poplar, almond, and plane. This botanic identification has been verified by Rabinowitz.10 The question remains whether there are specific free amino acids such as methionine and choline in their bark. Dr. Josh Klein, a plant pathologist and expert on plant fungi at the Volcani Research Institute of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture, suggested that there are fungi as filaments under the bark of these trees that would contain these specific amino acids. He stated that these fungi are very host-specific. Peeling the bark could make these fungi available for water extraction of their components."
Thus, though we are not told the details, Jacob may well have understood the chemistry here from natural experiment and experience passed on through the family (don't forget Abraham and Lot and Isaac all also had huge flocks). We cannot know exactly how one culture develops one knowledge and a neighboring culture entirely misses it...for ex. the Yaqui Indians of Mexico discovered the wheel while the other indigenus tribes right north of them in what is now the US never ever did. Apparently in Abraham's case (thus his offsring) the Lord had blessed them with this knowledge...
6. R. Holliday, "DNA Methylation and Epigenetic Inheritance," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B Biological Sciences 1990;30:329-338; R.C. Strohman, "Linear Genetics, Non-linear Epigenetics: Complementary Approaches to Understanding Complex Diseases," Integrative Physiology and \Behavioral Science 1995;30:273-282; A.P. Wolffe, M.A. Matzke. "Epigenetics: Regulation Through Repression," Science 1999;286:481-486; E. Jablonka, M.J. Lamb. "The Changing Concept of Epigenetics," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2002;981:82-96.
7. L.A. Poirier, "The Effect of Diet, Genetics and Chemicals on Toxicity and Aberrant DNA Methylation: An Introduction," Journal of Nutrition 2002;132 (8 Supplement):2336s-2339s; A.M. Oommen, J.B. Griffin, G. Sarath, J. Zempleni, "Roles for Nutrients in Epigenetic Events," Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 2005;16:74-77; S. Frisco, S.W. Choi, "Gene-nutrient Interactions and DNA Methylation," Journal of Nutrition 2002;132(8 Supplement):2382s-2387s; C.A. Cooney, A.A. Dave, G.L. Wolff, "Maternal Methyl Supplements in Mice Affect Epigenetic Variation and DNA Methylation of Offspring," Journal of Nutrition 2002;133:238; V.K. Raykan, J. Preis, H.D. Morgan, E. Whitelaw, "The Marks, Mechanisms and Memory of Epigenetic States in Mammals," Biochemical Journal 2001;356 (Pt. 1):1-10; P.A. Jones, D. Takai, "The Role of DNA Methylation in Mammalian Epigenetics," Science 293:1068-1070; I.B. Van den Veyver, "Genetic Effects of Methylation Diets," Annual Review of Nutrition 2002;22:255-282.
8. G.L. Wolff, R.L. Kodell, S.R. Moore, C.A. Cooney, "Maternal Epigenetics and Methyl Supplements Affect Agouti Gene Expression in Avy/a mice," FASEB Journal 1998;12:949-957.
9. R.A. Waterland, R.L. Jirtle, "Transposable Elements: Targets for Early Nutritional Effects on Epigenetic Gene Regulation," Molecular and Cellular Biology 2003;23:5293-5300.
I hope this has helped...though I feel we are getting a bit far out now...I know I still have not got to the face this verses that issue but I will try to address that later
Love in the Lord,
Brother Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
As I have understood this, Jacob knew the importance of careful interbreeding (something most people in most cultures knew nothing about). Now of course Jacob did not study "Genetics" but crossbreeding is basic to this later developed science (Mendel mastered it using peas). This knowledge, again in my opnion, would hsve given Jacob an edge Laban knew nothing of, which Jacob used to privledge his circumstance.
As for the sticks, I do not know whether or not they may have had some erotic effect (like the use of Spanish Fly on bulls)on these animals chemically, or it could be as you point out (and insightfully I might add), just as a means of identifying and separating the stronger types from the weaker types, but nowhere does the chapter imply this was a miraculous blessing from God...it all points to an ingenuity within Jacob.
Look at this commentary in support of the scientific sense this implies Jacob possessed, which I take from the pen of world famous Biologist, Dr. Henry Morris, from his book, The Genesis Record , Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1994, pp. 470-480.
Dr.Morris states,
"Jacob knew a great deal about sheep and goats and cattle, however - much more than Laban. He had kept his father's flocks for decades, and now had been in charge of Laban's for over fourteen years. As a very observant and intelligent man he had apparently learned something of what we now call Mendalian genetics, simply by long-continued observation of generation after generation of these animals. He knew that, even though a species of animal may have certain 'dominant' traits (such as the white color in this type of sheep). Furthermore, actual physical vigor and usefulness for man's needs are quite independent of this matter of coloration.... [Jacob selectively breeded the animals with the recessive trait of abnormative coloration with one another in such a manner as to increase their numbers even more than under normative conditions of herd life]
...A certain proportion of the solid-color animals... would be 'homozygous' [i.e., in this case with the same 'abnormative' color genes] and, if mated with other homozygous animals, would bear only solid-color offspring. The 'heterozygous' animals, which did contain in some proportion the genes for off-colored progeny, would be the ones which would have to supply his own future flocks; but by selective breeding he could eventually develop a flock of predominantly spotted and speckled animals....
Critics... [raise questions] ...about [Jacob's] ...knowledge of science. His actions in peeling white stripes in rods from trees of poplar, hazel, and chestnut (or, perhaps more likely, storax, almond, and plane trees [as rendered in the NIV], and placing them in the cattle watering troughs, have been attacked as showing his belief in the outmoded ideas of prenatal influence. The idea is that Jacob supposed, by making the animals look at striped rods at the time of conception, he could induce them to bring forth striped offspring. The doctrine of prenatal influence is, of course, believed by modern zoologists to be nothing but an old wives' tale.
It should not be overlooked, however, that Jacob was over ninety years old at this time, that he was a very intelligent and [a] careful observer, and that he had spent most of his long life raising and studying cattle, sheep, and goats. He would have been most unlikely to have been taken in by a groundless superstition....
There is a great deal, even today, that scientists have not been able to work out concerning the transmission of hereditary factors. In a certain population, there are multitudes of different characteristics which may appear in different individual animals of that species. The variational potential in the DNA molecular structure is tremendous. Exactly what it is that determines the actual characteristics a particular individual [or animal] may have, out of all the potential characteristics that are theoretically available in the gene pool, is not yet known in any significant degree. It may be that Jacob had learned certain things about these animals which modern biologists have not yet even approached.
There are, indeed, certain factors which can become prenatal influences, and which can determine to some degree the physical characteristics of the progeny. Though it is surely very unlikely that an external image can be transmitted through the visual apparatus to the brain and thence in some way as a signal to the DNA structure to specify certain characteristics to be triggered in the embryo, it is nevertheless true that certain chemicals can and do have a significant prenatal influence if they can reach the embryo or, prior to conception, the DNA in the germ cells. It is possible that certain chemicals in the wood of these trees - peeled rods of which were actually in the water which the flocks came to drink - were capable somehow of affecting the animals. If nothing else, water treated thus may have served as an aphrodisiac and fertility promoter among the cattle [and other animals]. At least one such chemical substance found in these trees has been used for such a purpose in both ancient and modern times.
Further, whether or not the sense of sight can actually 'mark' the embryo in some way, there is no doubt that what one sees may have a strong effect on certain physiologic mechanisms on his body. The phenomenon of blushing, the nauseous reactions produced by viewing gruesome sights, and the effect of pornographic pictures in stimulating the sexual apparatus are typical cases in point. The mere sight of the striped rods may have served simply as an aphrodisiac to the cattle when they came to drink. This in fact seems indicates by verse 38, in which the word translated 'conceive' in the King James Version [in heat, NIV] is actually the Hebrew yacham, meaning to be hot [i.e., to be in heat]. That is, the verse may be read:
'And he set the rods which he peeled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should become hot [or '''in heat'''] when they came to drink.' In some way not understood (but apparently confirmed by many practical animal raisers since), the sight of white-streaked rods seems to stimulate these animals to sexual activity..."
We can contrast this against the word translated "experience" in 30:27 which the NIV rightly interprets "divination", which shows that Laban depended for his wisdom on "enchantments" which is what Nachash leterally means. So Laban was a man of superstition and Jacob was a man of keen experienced observation. This gave him the upper hand.
Please understand it was not that Jacob did not deserve to get some compensation for the 20+ years ordeal that had prospered Laban so, but he still knew what the outcome would be before he made the deal and kept Laban ignorant of his devices...thus deception...albeit justifiable...
Brother Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Hi, Brother Paul, the French version by Louis Segond translates Genesis 30:40 this way:
Genesis 30
40 Jacob separait les agneous, et il mettait ensemble ce qui etait raye et tout ce qui etait noir dans le troupeau de Laban. Il se fit ainsi des troupeaux a part, qu'il ne reunit point au troupeau de Laban.
My English translation of the French:
Genesis 30
40 Jacob separated the lambs, and he put the straked together and all that were black in the flock of Laban. Thus he made flocks apart, and he did not unite them with the flock of Laban.
That makes much more sense to me than the English KJV version:
Genesis 30
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
So, Jacob was tending Laban's uniform-colored flock, and Jacob apparently separated the lambs, and he put the straked together and he put all that were black together in the flock of Laban that Jacob was tending. And then Jacob kept these 2 flocks apart, and he did not reunite them with the flock of Laban, which presumably means that Jacob did not reunite them with the uniform flock of Laban which had made the lambs.
So Brother Paul, let's continue from Genesis 30:
41 And it came to pass, whenever the stronger cattle conceived, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
42 But when the cattle were feeble, he did not put them in [before the rods]: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
This seems again a bit easier to understand in the French, which says:
41 Toutes les fois que les brebis vigoreuses entraient en chaleur, Jacob placait les branches dans les auges, sous les yeux des bebris, pour qu'elles entrassent en chaleur pres des branches.
42 Mais quand les bebris etaient chetives, il ne les placait point; de sorte que les chetives etaient pour Laban et les vigoreuses de Jacob.
My English translation of the French:
41 Any time that the vigorous cattle came into heat, Jacob placed the branches in the ??, under the eyes of the cattle, so that they came into heat near the branches.
42 But when the cattle was feeble??, he did not place them [the branches], so that the feeble?? were for Laban and the vigorous for Jacob.
Dear Brother Paul, it seems to me that Jacob has made a decision here to place the strong cattle which are in heat near the rods on purpose and not place the feebler cattle near the rods.
Now it does seem as if Jacob really thought that the peeled rods would help to conceive strong animals.
Or perhaps the rods were markers by which Jacob knew which animals in heat were the stronger animals and which animals in heat were the feebler animals and then he kept the strong offspring for himself.
However, by his agreement with Laban, Jacob was only allowed to take the ringstraked because if the lambs were still blac, even of the stronger animals in heat, Jacob was still obligated to separate them for Laban.
So what did Jacob do with the ringstraked born among the feebler animals, he could not have given them back to Laban because the agreement was that Jacob would keep ALL the ringstaked.
For, if Jacob also kept the feeble ringstraked, then Jacob did nothing wrong.
And even if Jacob only kept the strong ringstraked and gave the feeble ringstraked back to Laban, then Jacob still did nothing wrong because, per agreement with Laban, Jacob was entitled to keep ALL the ringstraked, should he so choose.
And so the Englsih KJV of Genesis 30:42 said:
42 But when the cattle were feeble, he did not put them in [that is, before the rods]: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
So Brother Paul, thus far above I don't see anywhere yet where Jacob sinned and deceived Laban?
And just to complete Genesis 30 for now:
43 And the man increased exceedingly and had much cattle and maidservants and menservants, and camels, and asses.
Okay, I'll stop here for now, so Brother Paul, please explain to me where Jacob has deceived Laban thus far? And then we'll continue later with Genesis 31:1-12.
Thanks, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Okay, Brother Paul, I've looked into it further, and I admit the narrative in Genesis 30:28 to Genesis 31:12, is a bit confusing in places, but perhaps we can figure it out.
Genesis 30:28-31:12 (King James Version)
28 And he [Laban] said, Appoint me thy wages, and I will give it.
29 And he [Jacob] said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle was with me.
30 For it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it is now increased unto a multitude; and the LORD hath blessed thee since my coming: and now when shall I provide for mine own house also?
31 And he [Laban] said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock.
32 I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.
33 So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me.
Eden here: So Laban gets the sheep and goats that are uniform in black and/or white color, and Jacob gets the sheep and goats that are speckled. My question is, though, does Jacob get the CURRENTLY speckled, or only the FUTURE speckled?
34 And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word.
35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
Eden here: I'm assuming that these are Jacob's sons, although, judging from the next verse below, they could have been Laban's sons who were put in charge of the CURRENT speckled.
36 And he [Laban] set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
Eden here: So Jacob's or Laban's sons are off feeding the speckled goats/sheep while Jacob is feeding the rest of Laban's flocks, ALL of which are uniform in color.
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Eden here: Now, if this is all we knew in the narrative, what Jacob did with the poplars would have been a SUPERSTITIOUS act which would have had NO EFFECT on the actual breeding of the uniform goats. (But wait, there is a dream later that Jacob had.)
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
Eden here: Now, I find v.40 to be very confusing and perhaps it needs to be cleared up with some other translations. What did Jacob do here, in your opinion? But let me try to figure out what I can.
I'm assuming that SOME lambs in Laban's UNIFORM flock were born ringstraked and the rest of the lambs were born uniform.
set their faces toward the ringstraked in LABAN's flock, meaning presumably that some lambs in Laban's uniform flocks were born ringstraked, right?
Let me repeat v.40 to see what Jacod did again:
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
What is the meaning of the phrase: he "set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked and all the brown in the flock of Laban"?
Earlier the ringstraked goats and sheep had been separated from the uniform goats and sheep of the flock of Laban and had been given to the sons to feed, 3 days journey away.
So is Jacob now setting the faces of the newborn LAMBS toward where he thinks the ringstraked flocks are that are being fed by the sons?
Or is Jacob setting the faces of the uniform flocks of Laban that he is tending toward the newly born ringstraked lambs in the flocks of Laban that Jacob is tending?
And, if so, what then is the meaning of the next phrase "and he [Jacob] put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle
Jacob's own flocks were the ringstraked and if ringstraked lambs were born among the uniform flock of Laban, how can he have put them by themselves, and not with Laban's uniform flock anymore and yet have "the faces of the flocks set toward the ringstraked of Laban's flock"?
Maybe I'll stop here for now, and have you tell me what you think v.40 means, and then we'll continue with Genesis 30:41-31:12.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Hi, Brother Paul, whether Jacob would have understood genetic breeding around 1600 B.C. (or thereabouts) or not is open to question.
As for whether Jacob was able to manipulate the black and white sheep to mate, I need to review the account in Genesis again and see what it says again, so I'll get back with you on that.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
Eden,
Jacob's deception of Laban is a response to Laban's being deceptive of him...(Genesis 29-31)
Jacob trusts Laban for his daughter Rachel twice and Laban decieves Jacob twice. So Jacob, using the understanding of cultural obligation that since Jacob is taking Laban's daughters off his hands (an unfortunate but common perspective in many ancient cultures...only boys had "value"), says to Laban that since he is working so hard and intends to care for his daughters let it be that Laban can keep all the white sheep and the black sheep, but that for his service Laban would allow Jacob to keep all the speckled sheep...
Now Jacob understood something Laban did not (genetic crossing or hybridization within a species). He knew how to get the white sheep and the black sheep to mate so much that speckled sheep became the probability and after a while Jacob's flocks far out numbered Laban's
Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
hey, thanks Brother Paul for the "behema" ref, I guess I was thinking the underlying word was "mikneh", I think which is used for "small cattle" like sheep and goats, etc. That's what I get for not checking ...
Genesis 6:20
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Strong's Concordance
Gen 6:20 Of fowls 5775 after their kind 4327, and of cattle 929 after their kind 4327, of every creeping thing 7431 of the earth 127 after his kind 4327, two 8147 of every [sort] shall come 935 unto thee, to keep [them] alive 2421 .
929 bhemah, from an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); properly, a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collective):--beast, cattle.
Well, I guess that solves that problem, heh, heh ..
Brother Paul, you also said quote:
... the pairs were basic essential pairs necessary to hybridize all the variety we now enjoy…Jacob used these ancient genetic principles to deceive Laban.
Please explain to me how you think Jacob deceived Laban?
Thank you, Eden the merchant of Chilmad
IP: Logged |
|
|
Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
A couple of things I think may help you reconcile one issue with the text. To begin with most translations correctly interpret this word “Cattle” as “Beasts” (from the Hebrew ‘behema’). The reason being that the meaning of the word cattle has changed drastically since the KJV days. For example, only as far back as 1828, Webster defined “cattle” as “any fourlegged beast used in the service of man” and so it included all donkeys, camels, dogs, elephants, oxen, and more. Strong’s defines “behema” in the original Hebrew (used 190 times in the Old Testament referring to many different creatures) as “any large quadraped or animal”. Behemoth being a gigantic form of creature which could be anything from Giraffes to Elephants to as some believe…giant land Lizards (dinosaurs), where the words “lavyatan” and “ceto” refer to giant sea monsters or creatures from such as the one that swallowed Jonah to giant twisting coiling sea serpents (again some of these are from before written records…thus pre-history…thus prehistoric).
So the passage you refer to more accurately says, “Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you, to stay alive. (now this “two” only refers to there being pairs of male and female, i.e., 1+1=2, and not that only one pair of each creature came in)…but one must keep reading to get the contextual application…look at these passages from the NASB:
7: 2 Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate;
7:3 likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female. Thus you will keep their issue alive over all the earth.
7:13 On the precise day named, Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of Noah's sons had entered the ark, 14 together with every kind of wild beast, every kind of domestic animal, every kind of creeping thing of the earth, and every kind of bird. 15 Pairs of all creatures in which there was the breath of life (neshamah, i.e., meaning vitality or life force as opposed to nephesh or “soul”) entered the ark with Noah. 16 Those that entered were male and female, and of all species they came, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
There is one more piece however, according to the ancient practice of “bahaminology” the pairs were basic essential pairs necessary to hybridize all the variety we now enjoy…Jacob used these ancient genetic principles to deceive Laban…
Modern geneticists for example, working backward, have determined that all the variety of dogs we now enjoy came from no more than 9 basic root pairs or types and canines and as molecular genetics refines the understanding of the genomic gene package relationships and functions, I am sure it will boil down further to a only a few…however the point is made that as long as the basic types were included the rest is a matter of sexual curiosity and circumstance (the be fruitful and multiply command along with our Lord created and ordained drive to mate… which by the way was the first command that was also a blessing).
For humans Mitochondrial DNA studies have been done indicating all human beings alive on the earth today, all come from a single “human” mother (not australopithicene which actually means “southern ape” like as in Lucy)…they are calling her “Mitochondrial Eve” (the mother of all living)…Cool huh? Look her up!
Geological and Anthropological evidences indicate what we call the Noahic flood was not local (as many believe) but in fact global (I have collected 40 pages of evidence from many fields of study) and I will share some of that information in an other post as this one is already long for a response…
The peace of the Lord be with you brother...
Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
The LORD told Noah in Genesis 6:20 that only the following pairs of animals would come to Noah and the ark:
Genesis 6
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after their kind, two of every sort shall come to you.
Please note that only three kinds of animals would come to the ark in pairs: birds, cattle, and creeping things of the ground.
But, then were the beasts of the field NOT included? That is, were the elephants and lions and hyenas and panda bears and tigers not included?
Worldwide in modern time, there are about 4,000 species of mammals, 9,000 species of birds, 3,500 species of reptiles, 2,000 species of amphibians, 20,000 species of fresh and sea-water fishes; 100 million species of insects and 100 million species of invertebrates like shrimps, spiders, ticks, worms, sponges, jelly fish, and protozoans, etc.
But Genesis 7:22 also says that only dry land animals died in the flood:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died.
Since this was a FLOOD, were the water animals like fish and frogs and whales and dolphins and sea lions and seals not affected by the flood?
Note also that if Noah's flood was a worldwide flood, then the following pairs of land animals would also be coming to the ark:
4,000 pairs of mammals would come to the ark, including elephants, giraffes, hyenas, lions, cheetahs, wild dogs, bears, antelopes, boars, cows, camels, donkeys, monkeys, wildebeests, rhinos, and many other pairs of animals would come to Noah and the ark.
And if the flood was worldwide, 9,000 pairs of birds would come, including storks, gulls, ravens, doves, sparrows, parrots, hawks, flamingos, vultures and hummingbirds, and many other pairs of birds would come to Noah at the ark.
And 3,500 pairs of reptiles, including rattlesnakes, vipers, adders, cobras, king snakes, and many, many more pairs of reptiles, would come to Noah at the ark.
And 100 million pairs of insects would come, including mosquitoes, beetles, flies, bees, fleas, lice, spiders, ants, and many, many more pairs of insects would come to Noah at the ark.
But if only land animals would come, there would be [b]no pairs of amphibians, nor any pairs of freshwater fish or saltwater fish would be coming, because only dry land animals died in the flood.
And on top of that, the LORD told Noah in Genesis 6:21 to gather all the food for all those animals and to bring all this food into the ark:
Genesis 6
21 Take to yourself of all the food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to you; and it shall be food for you and food for them.
But instead, the Word of God said in Genesis 6:20:
Genesis 6
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after their kind, two of every sort, shall come to you.
Since when do fowls, cattle, and creeping things INCLUDE the elephants and the giraffes and the lions ?
The Bible says: (1) that only dry land animals died, and that (2) only birds, cattle, and creeping things came to Noah on the ark.
So what are we going to believe here? Our own opinions or are we going to believe what the Word of God says?
Therefore the flood must not have been worldwide, because if the flood had been worldwide, then the elephants and hyenas and giraffes and other animals would also have had to come to the ark to be kept alive, because today, AFTER the flood, we still have elephants, hyenas, and lions, and they were NOT on the ark according to the Word of God.
Read it again. Only fowl, cattle, and creeping things of the ground went into the ark:
Genesis 6
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after their kind, two of every sort shall come to you.
love, Eden
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
