Number of Animals

The flood story in Genesis offers us one of the most blatant contradictions in the bible.

Genesis 6:19-20: And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 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.

Genesis 7:2-3: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

So how many fowls was Noah to take, two or seven?

~ by globalflood on August 19, 2007.

Posted in Genesis, Genesis Flood, Global flood, Noahs Ark, The Genesis Flood

5 Responses to “Number of Animals”

  1. The text of Genesis 6:19-20 requires ‘*pairs* of every sort’ to be brought, not ‘two’ (see the LXX). The later chapter clarifies how many pairs of clean and unclean animals are to be brought respectively.

    Fortigurn said this on August 19, 2007 at 5:14 pm

  2. I see nothing about pairs in Genesis 6.

    Today’s New International Version:You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures.

    King James Version:And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring.

    New International Version:You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures.

    globalflood said this on August 19, 2007 at 5:57 pm

  3. I’ve already given you the reference to pairs (the LXX, and the NLT says the same). But it’s good to see you using translations other than the KJV for a change. Is there a reason why you’ve been using a Bible translation which is 400 years old, not in the vernacular, and which is plagued with a host of translation and textual errors? Is there a reason why you’ve chosen to represent the Biblical story using a out of date translation?

    Fortigurn said this on August 19, 2007 at 11:12 pm

  4. So every single one of these translations is incorrect?

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20&version=31

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=49;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=65;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=45;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=9;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=47;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=46;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=50;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=78;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=48;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=8;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=15;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=16;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=74;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=77;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=76;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=64;

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=72;

    Even this Spanish translation says two not pairs.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=60;

    I would even contest your claim to the NLT, it says “a pair”, not “pairs”.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:19-20;&version=51;

    Now lets count up the score:

    “two of every kind”: 19

    contested: 1

    “pairs”: 1

    globalflood said this on August 20, 2007 at 3:07 am

  5. No, they’re not necessarily incorrect. But they’re translating the Masoretic Text, so I would expect them to differ from the LXX. Do you know what the difference is between the Masoretic Text and the LXX?

    Is there a reason why you’ve been using a Bible translation which is 400 years old, not in the vernacular, and which is plagued with a host of translation and textual errors? Is there a reason why you’ve chosen to represent the Biblical story using a out of date translation?

    Fortigurn said this on August 20, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Leave a Reply