John A. Broussard

I might as well throw my guess in the pot, since we're talking about something that never happened anyway.

Clean animals were the kind that the writer of this passage considered to be suitable for human consumption.

Unclean animals were those that he felt weren't suitable for human consumption.

Since I really have no idea whether that is correct or not, I welcome emendations.

Llyricist

The simpler answer is that that version of the story (p) was written post Leviticus.

Roller

Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible" briefly mentions what constitutes a "clean" animal on p. 59. Clean animal is the one fit for sacrifice. This might be connected with eating habits since, from what I know, sacrificed animals would be eaten by priests.

The problem is, however, that no such classification as to what constitutes a "clean" animal existed at Noah's time. So the answer to this question is most likely the P source that "read" this into flood story.

Similar problem occurs with the name "YHWH." One part mentions the name and says how this name was unknown to any previous generation. However, there are earlier passages that talk about YHWH being known.

John A. Broussard

Right. I wasn't talking about Noah's time. I was talking about the time when that segment of the bible was written. Big difference.

Back at the time of Noah, there was no written Hebrew language.

Of course, I'm just going by the hypothetical dates of the flood and assuming (but solely for argument) that Noah actually existed.

Roller

Word.

premjan

clean animals are just animals that don't have very messy eating habits (e.g. scavengers not allowed). I believe shellfish and pigs are both scavengers (and shellfish are usually eaten without the digestive tract and wastes removed today, which is probably another disgusting thing). Then again before the invention of cheese or beer, the very idea would have been disgusting (and the first types may well have been objectively disgusting though edible).

Amaleq13

[pedantic aside]Beer is as old as civilization, amigo. In fact, unless things have changed, I believe one of, if not the oldest example of ancient writing is a recipe for beer! [/pedantic aside]

Sheshbazzar

OK, I'm willing to grant you that, yes, I should have chosen better phrasing for my initial post, so here is my revised statement;

Revised by Sheshbazzar
There is no conflict between these two verses, Gen.7:2 is the express command to DO the action, and Gen. 7:8-9 is the record of the action being DONE, and carried out in compliance with the previously given explicit instructions.
Carefully analyze what GEN 7:2 instructs, and it will be acknowledged that the first section commands seven PAIRS of animals from each of the "clean" species, and the second section commands one PAIR (two) of the animals of from each of the "not clean" species, thus each grouping would consist of fourteen individual animals from each "clean" species, consisting of seven males, and seven females, together with two animals, "the male and his female", from a "not clean" species.
Thus the command is to gather the animals together by groups of sixteen (16), consisting of seven males of each "clean" species, with seven females of the same "clean" species, together with one male, "with his female", of a "not clean" species;
altogether comprising sixteen (16) individual animals to a group.

and,
Thus far you have totally omitted to provide your interpretation of the wording of Genesis 7:2, which IS the subject of this thread, and is why I inquired after each section of my previous post;

[QUOTE=Sheshbazzar]
Genesis 7:2 first clause;
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female:"
Is this really too difficult for you? OK, Let's say the "clean" animals of the "same species" are in this instance, sheep, "seven pairs" would be fourteen individual sheep, seven males, and seven females.

>End of clause one, do you understand it? do you wish to dispute whether this is the proper interpretation of the written words?"<

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
and the second section commands one PAIR (two) of the "not clean" animals of the same species

Genesis 7:2 second clause;

"and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Is this really too difficult for you? OK, Let's say the "beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." are in this instance, the swine, two making one pair, or two individual swine, one male, and one female.
the "same species" indicating that both unclean animals must be of the same species, ie, not pairing a male swine with a female horse (mare) though both are unclean.

>End of clause two, do you understand it? do you wish to dispute whether this is the proper interpretation of the written words?<

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
thus each grouping would consist of fourteen individual animals of each "clean" species,
Do you wish to dispute whether this is the proper interpretation of the written words?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
, and two "not clean" animals of a species, one "not clean" male, and one "not clean" female of each "not clean" species.


See clause two above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Thus the command is to gather the animals together by groups of sixteen (16),

The above examples total sixteen individual animals, a "group"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
consisting of seven males of each "clean" species, and seven females of the same "clean" species,

This would comprise the "seven" pairs of clean animals of a species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
and one male of each of the "not clean" species with his mate, one female of the same "not clean" species,

And this would comprise the "by two, the male and his female."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
altogether comprising sixteen (16) individual animals to a group.

The total number of individual animals above delineated is sixteen (16), being in the example fourteen "sheep", or seven rams, and seven ewes,
And two "swine",- a pair-, the "male and his female". - the boar and his sow.
So in the above example the "sheep" and the "swine" form a single grouping; NO OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES IS INCLUDED,.......

Thus the set or group is limited as defined to ONLY sixteen individual animals. this is a grouping of fourteen and of two, not one more, not one less, and the the gathering "of every living thing of all flesh", indicates that more than just an initial the two species were thus gathered, but that all the subsequent species were likewise gathered together in groups of sixteen, comprised of fourteen animals, or "seven pairs" from each "clean" species, and two animals, "one pair" from each "not clean" species.
Do you wish to dispute or to "debate" whether this is the proper interpretation of the written words?

You want to "debate"? I have carefully and at length analyzed what the text of Genesis 7:2 says and what it implies, You have thus far chosen NOT to "debate" the subject, but only to make the claim that my explanation "is tortuous apologetics". yet you have not backed up your claim with any evidence or explanation that is able to refute the analysis that I have provided.
In fact, quoting from one of your own previous posts;
It is evident that you are recognizing the fact of the "one pair" and the "seven pairs", and if indeed "one pair" and "seven pairs" is the correct understanding, then there is NO "tortuous apologetics" involved, nor have I been "creating the quite artificial "grouping" of sixteen animals".
The Original Post in this thread was very clear in its premise or position, and it was that particular incorrect premise and position that I responded to.
Up to the point of my post, both the original post, and the argumentation that was being provided, indicated that the verses under consideration were being misunderstood. ApostateAbe, the original poster, as much as admitted to having misunderstood Gen. 7:2 and since has not at all attempted to defend his original mistaken impression.
funinspace, whom no one reading this thread could rightly accuse of being sympathetic to my views, stated that the OP was;
"not a very viable contradiction to hang an argument on,....this is pretty slim pickings" (Post # 58)
As for being biased, Nope, don't suppose there would be any bias to be found anywhere on IIDB, just keep telling yourself that.
I wholeheartedly agree, and have previously posted statements to that effect.
You chose to take it up as an insult, its intent was to be an observation that would cause the preceding writers to take a second look at the fallacy of the OP that they had engaged in augmenting.
This is sometimes referred to as the practice of "preaching to the choir", wherein the leader makes an erroneous statement and "choir" all joins in with their amens. And that essentially was all that was going on prior to my entering in of my objections.
And it is my hope that this disagreement can be likewise resolved, even as it has apparently already been resolved between the original poster and me.

Sheshbazzar

That is true for sure, as there obviously were yet no "Hebrew" people, to have a written language of their own.
But were you intending to imply that there was no "written language" at all? because that is the impression that your short statement gives.

Sheshbazzar

The problem here is the assertion "that no such classification as to what constitutes a "clean" animal existed at Noah's time."
There is no proof that all of the cultures preceding the Hebrew's never held any laws that designated certain foods as "clean" and "unclean".
Given the diversity of religious practices among the ancients, such an assertion is a rather fantastic stretch, and as surely at risk as was Wellhausen's accepting and asserting that writing had not yet been invented at the time of the Exodus.
He also did not lack for an audience ready and willing to argument and to 'amen' all of his incorrect assertions.
As it is, only a minute fraction of the ancient tablets that have already been unearthed have been translated, and no man knows of a certainty the contents of what is yet untranslated, or is yet to be uncovered.
Now I am not here asserting the otherwise either, just pointing out that over confidence in this brash assertion could prove to be an embarrassment to your cause in the future, and is therefore not a good or strong position to be offering supporting argumentation to.