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 "clean" animals of the same species, and the second section commands one PAIR (two) of the "not clean" animals of the same species, thus each grouping would consist of fourteen "clean" individual animals of a species, consisting of seven males, and seven females of each species, and two "not clean" animals of a species, one "not clean" male, and one "not clean" female of each "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, and seven females of the same "clean" species, and one male of each of the "not clean" species with his mate, one female of the same "not clean" species, altogether comprising sixteen (16) individual animals to a group.
Gen. 7:8-9 does NOT refer to the same event (the selecting, dividing and gathering into groups) rather it is the record of the command in GEN. 7:2 being completed as instructed. "there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female,- "AS G-D HAD COMMANDED NOAH" (the final statement precludes the previous section being interpreted in any way contrary to what had been "..commanded Noah".)
I decided to delete the rest of this post that dealt with the subject of reading skills and comprehension, suffice it to say that this threads premise and argumentation has thus far displayed an appalling lack of either.

gregor

Yeah, right. There's no contradiction.

And the multitude of scholars reading a single pair are all wrong.

Let's decide again on who has the reading comprehension problems. And you misspelled "God."

rob117

To respond to a comment that's being made about whether these stories were taken literally, they probably were. While the modern fundamentalist phenomenon of inerrancy down to the syllable was probably not present, there's no reason to believe these stories were taken as metaphors either. Ancient peoples generally believed their own myths to literally true- this was a phenomenon of all cultures, not just the Hebrews.

John A. Broussard

How did those kangaroos get to Ararat?

Sheshbazzar

"The multitude of scholars reading a single pair..." umm, who are these, umm.... "scholars" to whom you are referring? by all means please do cite your sources, but "appeals to authority aside", by what possible linguistic interpretation could you get Gen 7:2 to read as a "single pair"?
And No, I did not misspell "G-D". I made the quotation deliberately avoiding writing in the substitute pagan appellation, as has been the custom of many generations.

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps this question may be addressed after the verses here under consideration are treated honestly.

John A. Broussard

What do you consider an honest treatment of the verses?

If someone insists that these verses depict no actual events but are merely a metaphor for mankind overcoming adversity, will you dismiss that as being dishonest?

Sheshbazzar

Mr Broussard, we might start with consideration of what the verses are actually saying, For example Mr Broussard, do you read Gen. 7:2 as referring to a "single pair", as "gregor" has here intended to imply? Do you agree with his statement that a "single pair" is the reading of a "multitude of scholars"? Will you support this assertion?
I for one, do not consider such an oversimplification to in anyway convey the sense of the wording as actually recorded, and am here calling you and him with regard to defending any such an interpretation or assertion.
As to an insistence on these verses being "merely a metaphor for mankind overcoming adversity". you are welcome to explain in what way you find the actual words written down in these three verses to be a "metaphor" for anything. However if you are overly "creative" with your explanation, you will be in the same boat as the Fundies who also contrive fanciful and elaborate
"explanations" to defend their otherwise unsupportable positions.

gregor

shes
It's good to see your missing sense of humor accompanies your reading comprehension problems. Of course I know the anachronistic "God" spelling. Perhaps you should have used "J-h-v-h" instead.

Please let us know the title of your peer-reviewed article you have prepared to dispute the documentary hypothesis and the amalgam that is the noah myth.

And JB has set forth a position that he and I agree with - the reading justifies an amalgamation. The explanation is set forth more than adequately in Friedman (1987) pp. 53 - 60. If you wish to dispute this, feel free.

John Kesler

The following verses better demonstrate the differences:

Aside from the fact that the deity is referred to as God (elohim) in the first passage and Yahweh in the second, there is also a difference in the number of animals to be taken aboard--a pair of all animals versus seven pairs of "clean" animals and one "unclean" pair.

The biblical authors weren't stupid or careless. Rather, I think that they respected each tradition and conflated them rather than eliminating one.