chieftain

Dave how on Earth can these not be contradictory? Try reading for comprehension.

Version 1: Take two of every animal.
Version 2: Take seven pairs of clean animals and two of everything else.

Don't forget that version 1 specifically includes cattle as being one of the kinds you should take only two of - yet we know from Leviticus that cattle are clean animals.

How can you reconcile these?

Keith&Co.

Careful. We just don't know what the 'clean' animals were at the time of Noah. The Leviticus List was given to Moses, a thousand years later.

ericmurphy

They're not contradictory, Dave; they're inconsistent. One of them says you should have two of each. All of them. "Two of every sort," Dave. What does that mean to you? Does that verse say anything about two of one sort, and fourteen of any other sort? No. It says bring "two of every sort." And in case Noah wasn't paying attention, it says "two of every sort" twice.

Noah: "Now, did you want me to bring two of every kind of critter?"

God: "What did I just say, Noah? Were you not paying attention? I said BRING TWO OF EVERY SORT. What's unclear about that?"

And then, a few verses later...no wonder Noah always looked so long-suffering.

If one person tells you to bring two screwdrivers, and another person tells you to bring two phillips screwdrivers and fourteen regular screwdrivers, are you really going to tell us that those two instructions are not inconsistent with each other?

In one verse, God tells Noah to collect two of every critter. In another verse, he tells Noah to collect two of some critters, and 14 of others. You don't think those two instructions are inconsistent? That's just plain idiotic.

ericmurphy

How about explaining how an instruction to bring TWO OF EVERY SORT OF CREATURE is not inconsistent with an instruction to bring TWO OF SOME SORTS OF CREATURES, AND FOURTEEN OF OTHER SORTS OF CREATURES?

If one guy told you to bring two pounds of flour back to the bakery department, and another guy told you to bring two pounds of pastry flour and fourteen pounds of cake flour, are you saying that both instructions are the same? That there's no difference between them?

Dave, even you don't believe your own argument. Your desperation is showing in the beads of sweat and the clenched teeth we can all see right through our computer screens.

Do your kids read your posts, Dave? If so, what do they think of your continual mortifications here?

Dave Hawkins

Read more, post less, Eric. Then you would know my plan for addressing your 2 vs. 14 "conundrum."

Constant Mews

I did. Among others, of course. Dave will not answer any questions that would cause him to actually come to grips with the illogical, contradictory, and simply plain false account of the Bible.

That is sad.

spin

My previous attempt at this post got lost in the ether.
This is pure deception on the originator's part.

The Hebrew word TWLDWT (ie "generations") is generally found not at the ends of passages but at their beginnings.

Gen 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam..." is not strangely followed by a list of those generated by Adam.

Gen 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah..." is followed by a short list of those generated by Noah.

Gen 10:1 "These are the generations of the sons of Noah..." is followed by a long list of those generated by Noah's sons. At 10:32, we find a toledoth reference which is not one of the stereotypical toledoths and it actually comes at the end of the passage. Atypical and the one exception to the rule that toledoths come at the beginning, not at the end.

Gen 11:10 "These are the generations of Shem..." is followed by a list of Shem's generations down to Terah.

Gen 11:27 "These are the generations of Terah..." And so it goes.

PJ Wiseman ignores the significance of "toledoth" in order to redefine the use of the term, so that it doesn't point forward, but so that it can act as an end in order to propose his colophon theory, despite the fact that in all but one case the generations plainly follow the toledoth, as one would expect. PJ Wiseman is simply wrong and his tablet theory has no support from the toledoths.

ETA: This signature notion is highly strange as well, seeing as the grammar puts the name into the 3rd person, eg 11:10 "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old..." 11:27 "These are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram..." Wiseman must simply ignore the relationship between the named person and the immediate repeat of the name. There is no reason to see the name as a signature.


spin

Barbarian

Does your plan involve convincing yourself that you could address it if you wanted to, but it is not worth your time? Just asking ...

ericmurphy

I know what your "plan" is, Dave. It's to attempt to explain how one instruction to bring two animals OF EVERY KIND is somehow not inconsistent with an instruction to bring two animals of SOME KINDS, and fourteen animals of OTHER KINDS.

You're going to attempt to do this, Dave, but I don't frankly care how you attempt to do it, because your attempt will fail. You're going to attempt the impossible, which is to show how two different instructions to do two different things can POSSIBLY not be inconsistent.

I read every stupid thing you say, Dave. If you think I'm "posting too much," take it up with the moderators.

Silent Dave

Two will get you five we never hear from Dave regarding the 2/14 issue again.

Except, of course, for further assertions that he'll address it Any Minute Now.

Anyway, moving back to the main topic of the thread, I'm wondering, Dave, if you have anything to say regarding the colophon/Toledoth issue. As Dean pointed out, you haven't provided any evidence that the latter equals the former in this case, which I think is an awfully big sticking point for you.

I'd also like to point out that this whole discussion is academic in the first place, carried out for the sole purpose of humoring you, given the . . . oh, what's that word again? Starts with a "C", hard to spell, means something like scientific agreement . . . oh well, I'm sure it will come back to me.