Noah's ark question...

[seebs]

How exactly was Noah to take different numbers of clean and unclean animals on the Ark, when the concept of "clean" and "unclean" animals wouldn't exist until the time of Moses?

No one before Moses knew anything about "clean" or "unclean".

Doesn't this strongly suggest that the story was written by Hebrews, who hadn't considered the question of whether or not other people knew about clean and unclean animals?

 

[Asar'el]

How exactly was Noah to take different numbers of clean and unclean animals on the Ark, when the concept of "clean" and "unclean" animals wouldn't exist until the time of Moses?

No one before Moses knew anything about "clean" or "unclean".

Doesn't this strongly suggest that the story was written by Hebrews, who hadn't considered the question of whether or not other people knew about clean and unclean animals?

Many (mistakenly) seem to think Noah sort of hunted / gathered the animals ... but read what the word of God declares:

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.

The next chapter, does, indeed, details further the numbers; but you'll note that is when God commands Noah into the ark. And at that time tells him He is bringing - surely it is obvious that God Himself brought the animals to the ark? That is, He selected them, and caused them to go into the ark. So... when you say 'No one before Moses knew ...' you are forgeting the One that told Moses also what was clean and unclean: God Himself.

 

[seebs]

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.

"Thou shalt take to thee" is bad enough, but...

Once again, God apparently talks to Noah in terms of "clean" and "unclean".

However, it will be hundreds of years before God ever uses these terms again, or explains to anyone what they mean, or why it matters. Noah is permitted to eat pigs, if he wants to; there is no Law against doing so. There is no way in which it matters to anyone which animals are clean and unclean.

So, why does God say this? Because, of course, the Hebrew writers are well aware that Noah needs food, so he brings extras of the animals he can eat...

But Noah can eat any animal he wants! There is no restriction upon him.

The story presupposes a part of the culture of the storyteller.

 

[Asar'el]

"Thou shalt take to thee" is bad enough, but...

Not sure what the bad enough is here ...

Once again, God apparently talks to Noah in terms of "clean" and "unclean".

Not once again - unless you mean your once again, not that God is once again... This (Genesis 7:2) is the first time God tells Noah about clean and unclean animals; and this is 7 days before the beginning of the flood!

However, it will be hundreds of years before God ever uses these terms again, or explains to anyone what they mean, or why it matters.

God is not explaining Himself to Noah; He is telling His servant what to do. Noah does not ask, but obeys.

Noah is permitted to eat pigs, if he wants to; there is no Law against doing so.

Actually, no. Before the flood, noone ate pigs. Only after the flood are they told that God has given them all animals for meat; before that time they had 'every herb bearing seed' and 'every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed'... Not only them, but animals also (And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.) The animals did NOT eat each other on the ark...

There is no way in which it matters to anyone which animals are clean and unclean.

It mattered to God, and it matters to us. What mattered to Noah was what God said to do.

So, why does God say this? Because, of course, the Hebrew writers are well aware that Noah needs food, so he brings extras of the animals he can eat...

Very wrong. See above...

But Noah can eat any animal he wants! There is no restriction upon him.

Again, see above...

The story presupposes a part of the culture of the storyteller.

No; your inclination to disbelieve the account makes it more acceptable to you to see contradictions where there are none...

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

How exactly was Noah to take different numbers of clean and unclean animals on the Ark, when the concept of "clean" and "unclean" animals wouldn't exist until the time of Moses?

No one before Moses knew anything about "clean" or "unclean".

Doesn't this strongly suggest that the story was written by Hebrews, who hadn't considered the question of whether or not other people knew about clean and unclean animals?

Maybe it's using those words to paint a more vivid picture for the Jews of the time?

 

[seebs]

Maybe it's using those words to paint a more vivid picture for the Jews of the time?

That's my theory... But it does rather imply that the story has been somewhat edited to make it more vivid, to make it clearer. This is no surprise; that was what people did when telling stories. But it makes it a little less like straight up history, and a little more like a Just-So Story.

 

[Asar'el]

That's my theory... But it does rather imply that the story has been somewhat edited to make it more vivid, to make it clearer. This is no surprise; that was what people did when telling stories. But it makes it a little less like straight up history, and a little more like a Just-So Story.

And that's why, imho, your theory is wrong. Because the assumptions you make are not valid, and the results drawn from it are not God-glorifying.

 

[seebs]

And that's why, imho, your theory is wrong. Because the assumptions you make are not valid, and the results drawn from it are not God-glorifying.

I don't see what's invalid about them, and I think the results are very much God-glorifying. At least, compared to the alternatives.

 

[Asar'el]

I don't see what's invalid about them,

Did you read my last reply to you? You have not addressed it.

and I think the results are very much God-glorifying. At least, compared to the alternatives.

The results you mention, unless I am very much mistaken, is to make you think less of the word of God, the bible. The alternative is to believe the God-breathed Scripture, and accept it as such - and this is what it declares about itself:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

You think it God-glorifying to say, in essence, that God is unable to preserve His words pure, and men have been editing them 'to make it more vivid, more clear'? I shall not argue here about the foolishness of 'making God's word more clear'...