[ QUOTE ]
You see the word only there because you want to, not because it's there. The pupose for bringing two is given in the verse - to keep them alive.
[/ QUOTE ]
We were not discussing the purpose for bringing two, we were discussing that the wording of the verse makes it clear that only two of each beast are to be brought. My point stands even without the word only there so we can drop this irrelevant side issue, which I am obviously not explaining well.
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't take the time to understand something about the Hebrew language you're going to come with any number of errors and contradictions that are just idiomatic Hebrew.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that human errors will occur during translation. I didn't realise you shared my view there are 'any number of errors and contradictions' in the English version of the Bible.
[ QUOTE ]
This begs the question. Why did it render it invalid.
[/ QUOTE ]
So now you're happy with the concept that a new instruction can
override an original? But you want me to explain how this is analogous to rendering it invalid? I'm sorry, but I'm growing a little tired of giving English lessons, please refer to a dictionary if you seriously don't understand this concept.
[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I'm teaching basic Hebrew here.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've lost me with this.
[ QUOTE ]
Seven pairs of beast. Two by two. Get it now?
[/ QUOTE ]
The 'harmonization' website txag007 linked to disagrees with you
Tektonics:
[ QUOTE ]
Were there seven of each clean beast, or two? The answer is, seven. The phrase "two by two" in 7:9 simply means the animals entered the ark in pairs. So the beasts with 7 representatives came in as 3 pairs and 1 oddball each, paired off male and female and one spare wheel.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have the 'harmonization' experts got it wrong?