What did the lions eat?

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Gwen

lol what was his implied question exactly? all i saw as a statement of amusement at the irony.

The implied question asks why people will readily accept their own mythology (the word myth is not used polemically) without scientific evidence but label other's mythology as ridiculous since it is also without evidence. We, lost, think it's funny of them to ridicule but we also think that other mythologies are ridiculous. For example, we may not mock the Scientologists for the their beliefs but we do find their beliefs incredible - not credible.

[Gwen]

i guess that's a possible question.... on the other hand sometimes ppl are just amused by the irony and really don't care about the "why". lol

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Snow

The verse you quote doesn't say "only" two. It says "two." One could argue that when the author wrote "two" he really meant something other than two but I doubt that is what you are trying to say.

You are correct. In my view the copmplete thought is "two of every sort" and not just "two." You can have 3 or 8 "two of every sort" sets. "Can have" being the operative in my thought... I realize it's just one of many interpretations.

Originally Posted by Snow

What's really going on is that there are two separate flood accounts by two separate authors. Those two accounts were meshed together, poorly, by a later redactor.

I'd venture to say there is more truth in this statement than I have previously given credit.

However, I believe the Bible never meant to imply only 2 of every animal were taken into the ark. The "two of every sort" can be explained, or interpreted, to mean more, the 7 (clean) and 2 (unclean) sets described elsewhere are harder to interpret as "only two." The 7 really throws a damper on it.

But, I guess that's not the point of this discussion... sorry to derail.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Justice

In my view the copmplete thought is "two of every sort" and not just "two." You can have 3 or 8 "two of every sort" sets. "Can have" being the operative in my thought... I realize it's just one of many interpretations.

If the animals were living The Principle, two could mean three or more...

[john doe]

The answer to the question 'what did the lions and tigers eat'? Whatever they felt like.