Jude 2

Rather than hijack Gerald's thread on Jesse Dupe-antics I decided to ask this in a new thread.
*an aside to Gerald - Welcome home my friend.*

Given the Bible scripture that FQ and on love were talking about:

Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 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.

Just how crowded was the Ark?

For the sake of this discussion let's assume that there are 100 species of animals, 50 clean and 50 unclean. Exactly how many animals would have then been on the Ark?


TW

TW wrote:*an aside to Gerald - Welcome home my friend.*

You were on my mind during your recent health problem.

TW wrote:Just how crowded was the Ark?

For the sake of this discussion let's assume that there are 100 species of animals, 50 clean and 50 unclean. Exactly how many animals would have then been on the Ark?


TW

1st Kings gives us the example of a jug of oil that did not run dry and a barrel of meal that did the same.

How much oil and meal did they contain, if they did not run dry?

IN other words a miracle made them contain more than they were physically able.

THis idea is never considered when discussing the Ark, so I'm just throwing it out there.

The bible speaks of "kinds", which does not necessarily equate to our modern designation of species. So, 50 species isn't necessarily 50 kinds. 7 sheep is all that would be needed, for instance, not 7 of every kind of sheep. Simply put, the ark may have been much less populated than is often assumed, with adaptation serving to give us the diversity we see today from that point forward.

Gerald your point is well taken. What makes the Ark even more miraculous is that the ark contained not only Noah, his family, and all the animals; but also the provisions that sustained them for over a year.

Chris, your point is well taken also. And that brings us to the question of how many of each type of animal did Noah take on board the Ark? Was it seven and two, or was it fourteen and four?

I am somewhat surprised to hear you state a modified Theory of Evolution.


TW

TW wrote:Chris, your point is well taken also. And that brings us to the question of how many of each type of animal did Noah take on board the Ark? Was it seven and two, or was it fourteen and four?

I think it was seven and two, respectively. The emphasis on a male and a female regarding the unclean by two, seems to make that clear. Either way, 2x7 or 4x14, the amount of animals and supplies needed is significantly less than one would assume if we were talking two and seven, or four and fourteen, of every species.

I am somewhat surprised to hear you state a modified Theory of Evolution.

Interesting.

I affirm adaption, aka micro-evolution, as scientific fact and divine creative design. One species can divided into related (sub) species (aka wolf to dogs). However, I do not affirm macro evolution, or the theory of evolution (non-life to life, monkey to human, etc.).

I don't know many Christians who would deny adaptation, as it can be visibly observed in one's own life. However, I know lots who not being educated on the scientific terms and differences would eschew the word evolution, even if in reference to adaption, because they don't know any better and would likely assume such refers to the theory of (macro) evolution.

Poimen wrote:I think it was seven and two, respectively. the emphasis on a male and a female, regarding the unclean by twos, seems to make that clear. Either way, the amounf of animals and supplies needed is significantly less than one would assume if we were talking two and seven of every species.

Then please explain to me how you can pair-up seven animals and not have one without a mate? Let's use sheep as an example. Was it three rams and three ewes plus a spare, for a total of seven? Or, was it seven rams and seven ewes for a total of fourteen?


TW

TW wrote:

Poimen wrote:I think it was seven and two, respectively. the emphasis on a male and a female, regarding the unclean by twos, seems to make that clear. Either way, the amounf of animals and supplies needed is significantly less than one would assume if we were talking two and seven of every species.

Then please explain to me how you can pair-up seven animals and not have one without a mate? Let's use sheep as an example. Was it three rams and three ewes plus a spare, for a total of seven? Or, was it seven rams and seven ewes for a total of fourteen?

Well, I can't say how it was definitively, for Scripture does not. I can give you my rationale for why I believe it was just seven, and that's because the text makes it clear (IMO) that two meant just two.

My guess would be the seven was one male and six females, enabling him to sire a lot more of the same for sacrificial and food supply purposes. But that's just a guess. I can go no further. Sorry.