Mixing
Difference of words in Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 6:17
Why did Moses used 2 different words in Genesis 6:7 and 17 when writing about the consequences of the Great Flood?
The first one is "machah" meaning "to exterminate". The next one is "shachath" meaning "to ruin".
hebrew genesis translation-philosophy context
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
add a comment |
Why did Moses used 2 different words in Genesis 6:7 and 17 when writing about the consequences of the Great Flood?
The first one is "machah" meaning "to exterminate". The next one is "shachath" meaning "to ruin".
hebrew genesis translation-philosophy context
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
Curious why you are so convinced it was Moses who said these words. I understand this is the general consensus but have you another reason other than that the majority believe it to be so?
– Autodidact
Jan 26 at 4:58
1
The only reason I ascribe the Torah to being written by Moses is that when Jesus quoted the Law He referred to it as "the Law of Moses". I am open to other proper sources and criticisms that would say otherwise. If you had links to those, I would greatly appreciate them. :)
– Philip
Jan 27 at 11:35
add a comment |
Why did Moses used 2 different words in Genesis 6:7 and 17 when writing about the consequences of the Great Flood?
The first one is "machah" meaning "to exterminate". The next one is "shachath" meaning "to ruin".
hebrew genesis translation-philosophy context
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
Why did Moses used 2 different words in Genesis 6:7 and 17 when writing about the consequences of the Great Flood?
The first one is "machah" meaning "to exterminate". The next one is "shachath" meaning "to ruin".
hebrew genesis translation-philosophy context
hebrew genesis translation-philosophy context
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
edited Jan 26 at 3:38
Philip
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
asked Jan 25 at 2:16
PhilipPhilip
347110
347110
Curious why you are so convinced it was Moses who said these words. I understand this is the general consensus but have you another reason other than that the majority believe it to be so?
– Autodidact
Jan 26 at 4:58
1
The only reason I ascribe the Torah to being written by Moses is that when Jesus quoted the Law He referred to it as "the Law of Moses". I am open to other proper sources and criticisms that would say otherwise. If you had links to those, I would greatly appreciate them. :)
– Philip
Jan 27 at 11:35
add a comment |
Curious why you are so convinced it was Moses who said these words. I understand this is the general consensus but have you another reason other than that the majority believe it to be so?
– Autodidact
Jan 26 at 4:58
1
The only reason I ascribe the Torah to being written by Moses is that when Jesus quoted the Law He referred to it as "the Law of Moses". I am open to other proper sources and criticisms that would say otherwise. If you had links to those, I would greatly appreciate them. :)
– Philip
Jan 27 at 11:35
Curious why you are so convinced it was Moses who said these words. I understand this is the general consensus but have you another reason other than that the majority believe it to be so?
– Autodidact
Jan 26 at 4:58
Curious why you are so convinced it was Moses who said these words. I understand this is the general consensus but have you another reason other than that the majority believe it to be so?
– Autodidact
Jan 26 at 4:58
1
1
The only reason I ascribe the Torah to being written by Moses is that when Jesus quoted the Law He referred to it as "the Law of Moses". I am open to other proper sources and criticisms that would say otherwise. If you had links to those, I would greatly appreciate them. :)
– Philip
Jan 27 at 11:35
The only reason I ascribe the Torah to being written by Moses is that when Jesus quoted the Law He referred to it as "the Law of Moses". I am open to other proper sources and criticisms that would say otherwise. If you had links to those, I would greatly appreciate them. :)
– Philip
Jan 27 at 11:35
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Not a complete annihilation
The first term refers to an action against man and the animals - exterminating or eradicating the individual creatures currently living. ‘Exterminating’ does not wipe out a species - it only removes the living creatures.
The second term refers to an action against flesh in general - ruining flesh as a whole. To ‘ruin’ something is also not to permanently remove it, but to take away its ability to function as before.
The impression I get is of intention:
Extermination: living creatures not species
While God sought to eradicate the actual, individual creatures that were currently living, He had no intention of eliminating any species in general.
This is demonstrated by the ark, which protected one breeding pair of each species.
Ruin: influence not existence
While God sought to destroy or ruin the influence that ‘flesh’ wielded on the earth, He had no intention of eradicating or exterminating flesh altogether, let alone eliminating it.
This is also demonstrated by the ark, which protected certain flesh under the influence of Noah and his family (who listened to God instead of being led by the flesh).
Conclusion
So the intention behind the Flood was not to annihilate species or flesh in general, but to remove the influence of ‘flesh’ (evolutionary instinct, fear, hatred, anger, etc) on the world, and provide a new opportunity for the Spirit of God to lead the way through Noah.
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function () {
StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
});
}, "virtkeyb");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "320"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38539%2fdifference-of-words-in-genesis-67-and-genesis-617%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Not a complete annihilation
The first term refers to an action against man and the animals - exterminating or eradicating the individual creatures currently living. ‘Exterminating’ does not wipe out a species - it only removes the living creatures.
The second term refers to an action against flesh in general - ruining flesh as a whole. To ‘ruin’ something is also not to permanently remove it, but to take away its ability to function as before.
The impression I get is of intention:
Extermination: living creatures not species
While God sought to eradicate the actual, individual creatures that were currently living, He had no intention of eliminating any species in general.
This is demonstrated by the ark, which protected one breeding pair of each species.
Ruin: influence not existence
While God sought to destroy or ruin the influence that ‘flesh’ wielded on the earth, He had no intention of eradicating or exterminating flesh altogether, let alone eliminating it.
This is also demonstrated by the ark, which protected certain flesh under the influence of Noah and his family (who listened to God instead of being led by the flesh).
Conclusion
So the intention behind the Flood was not to annihilate species or flesh in general, but to remove the influence of ‘flesh’ (evolutionary instinct, fear, hatred, anger, etc) on the world, and provide a new opportunity for the Spirit of God to lead the way through Noah.
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
add a comment |
Not a complete annihilation
The first term refers to an action against man and the animals - exterminating or eradicating the individual creatures currently living. ‘Exterminating’ does not wipe out a species - it only removes the living creatures.
The second term refers to an action against flesh in general - ruining flesh as a whole. To ‘ruin’ something is also not to permanently remove it, but to take away its ability to function as before.
The impression I get is of intention:
Extermination: living creatures not species
While God sought to eradicate the actual, individual creatures that were currently living, He had no intention of eliminating any species in general.
This is demonstrated by the ark, which protected one breeding pair of each species.
Ruin: influence not existence
While God sought to destroy or ruin the influence that ‘flesh’ wielded on the earth, He had no intention of eradicating or exterminating flesh altogether, let alone eliminating it.
This is also demonstrated by the ark, which protected certain flesh under the influence of Noah and his family (who listened to God instead of being led by the flesh).
Conclusion
So the intention behind the Flood was not to annihilate species or flesh in general, but to remove the influence of ‘flesh’ (evolutionary instinct, fear, hatred, anger, etc) on the world, and provide a new opportunity for the Spirit of God to lead the way through Noah.
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
add a comment |
Not a complete annihilation
The first term refers to an action against man and the animals - exterminating or eradicating the individual creatures currently living. ‘Exterminating’ does not wipe out a species - it only removes the living creatures.
The second term refers to an action against flesh in general - ruining flesh as a whole. To ‘ruin’ something is also not to permanently remove it, but to take away its ability to function as before.
The impression I get is of intention:
Extermination: living creatures not species
While God sought to eradicate the actual, individual creatures that were currently living, He had no intention of eliminating any species in general.
This is demonstrated by the ark, which protected one breeding pair of each species.
Ruin: influence not existence
While God sought to destroy or ruin the influence that ‘flesh’ wielded on the earth, He had no intention of eradicating or exterminating flesh altogether, let alone eliminating it.
This is also demonstrated by the ark, which protected certain flesh under the influence of Noah and his family (who listened to God instead of being led by the flesh).
Conclusion
So the intention behind the Flood was not to annihilate species or flesh in general, but to remove the influence of ‘flesh’ (evolutionary instinct, fear, hatred, anger, etc) on the world, and provide a new opportunity for the Spirit of God to lead the way through Noah.
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
Not a complete annihilation
The first term refers to an action against man and the animals - exterminating or eradicating the individual creatures currently living. ‘Exterminating’ does not wipe out a species - it only removes the living creatures.
The second term refers to an action against flesh in general - ruining flesh as a whole. To ‘ruin’ something is also not to permanently remove it, but to take away its ability to function as before.
The impression I get is of intention:
Extermination: living creatures not species
While God sought to eradicate the actual, individual creatures that were currently living, He had no intention of eliminating any species in general.
This is demonstrated by the ark, which protected one breeding pair of each species.
Ruin: influence not existence
While God sought to destroy or ruin the influence that ‘flesh’ wielded on the earth, He had no intention of eradicating or exterminating flesh altogether, let alone eliminating it.
This is also demonstrated by the ark, which protected certain flesh under the influence of Noah and his family (who listened to God instead of being led by the flesh).
Conclusion
So the intention behind the Flood was not to annihilate species or flesh in general, but to remove the influence of ‘flesh’ (evolutionary instinct, fear, hatred, anger, etc) on the world, and provide a new opportunity for the Spirit of God to lead the way through Noah.
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
answered Jan 25 at 3:25
PossibilityPossibility
67318
67318
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38539%2fdifference-of-words-in-genesis-67-and-genesis-617%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Curious why you are so convinced it was Moses who said these words. I understand this is the general consensus but have you another reason other than that the majority believe it to be so?
– Autodidact
Jan 26 at 4:58
1
The only reason I ascribe the Torah to being written by Moses is that when Jesus quoted the Law He referred to it as "the Law of Moses". I am open to other proper sources and criticisms that would say otherwise. If you had links to those, I would greatly appreciate them. :)
– Philip
Jan 27 at 11:35