Why in Genesis does God seperate Cattle from all other Beasts and Creeping things?

---

Clarification of Question by jeyhue-ga on 31 Aug 2004 20:50 PDT

I am most interested in the seven days of creation.  I thank you for
the new reference to Noahs time as I had not yet discovered it is
mentioned there also.

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 15 Sep 2004 11:39 PDT

In Genesis there doesn't appear to be a "God commanded separation" of
cattle in the Bible in the true sense of the word. In other words,
there appears to be no intentional segregation of cattle for any
specific reason.

The phrase that commonly appears in Genesis is "...the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth."

This statement is not intended to convery a "seperation" at all,
rather it is intended to represent a description of "ALL living
things", animals an non-animals alike:

"fish of the sea" - things that swim

"fowl of the air" - things that fly 

"cattle" - animals that safely mingle with man (ox, cattle, goats, sheep, etc)

"over all the earth" - trees, plants, rocks, water, everything

"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" - everything else
(snakes, bugs, wolves, lions, tigers, etc).

There is no seperation. This is merely a brief explanation of "all things".

Does this answer your question?

regards;
tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by jeyhue-ga on 15 Sep 2004 14:33 PDT

Well Tutuzdad-ga We must include "Beasts" Beasts of the field and
Cattle.   Here is where I believe God had a specific reason for
seperating them, I am in need of information to support the reasoning
behind this. sincerly jeyhue-ga

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 15 Sep 2004 15:33 PDT

The term "beast" used in this context in Genesis ("CHAY-AH", in
Hebrew) simply refers to living things other than man. There is no
special distinction here either exclusively relative to cattle
(bovine), but refers again in the broad sense to include all things.

THE WORD BEAST IN THE SCRIPTURES
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/ThewordBeast.html

tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by jeyhue-ga on 28 Sep 2004 13:44 PDT

To: Martinintoronto-ga, Your disbelief only shows you do not have the truth in you.

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 28 Sep 2004 14:22 PDT

So jeyhue-ga, I curious...where do I stand thus far with my
explanation? Do you anticipate a different answer from someone or does
mine suit your needs?

tutuzdad-ga

Dear jeyhue-ga;

Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question. Rather
than retrace our steps in this rather lengthy discussion I will merely
point you to the comments I have offered for the answer. I?ve enjoyed
researching your question and I look forward to next time.

I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. I welcome
your rating and your final comments. Thank you for bringing your
question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher




SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

Animals

Beasts

Bible

Biblical

Greek

Hebrew

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.?

"In the original Hebrew, the word for ?beast? and ?cattle? in these
passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate
animals in general. The word for ?creeping things? is remes, which has
a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably
refers to reptiles."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

The division is bird/reptile/land mammal.  Land mammals were either
eaten or used in some way, or both - as is the case with the cow.

As pointed out by Daytrader, the Hebrew word "Behemah" refers to a
large category of creatures: beasts of the field or domestic animals
(as opposed to birds and fish in Genesis 1). It is often translated as
"cattle."

The word "Behemah" appears in the Old and New Testament Bibles in this
context many times to broadly describe any quadraped or dumb beast. In
John 4:12 however the word Greek "thremma" (cattle raised on a farm as
stock) is used. In Joel 1:18 the word "baqar" is used to describe beef
cattle like oxen, calves and bulls. These are but a few examples of
the word translated later as "cattle" in the Bible. There are others.

tutuzdad-ga

It should be kept in mind that, during the period when the King James
Version of the Bible was being prepared, the word "cattle" referred to
four-footed domesticated animals in general, not just to cows, bulls,
and oxen. At that time, the usual term for a group of bovine creatures
was not "cattle," but "kine."

When the Bible was written, cattle, goats, and other cloven hoof
animals were used in religious rites as sacrifices.  Therefore, they
would necessarily be separated out in the Genesis story.

I disagree. The first references to "beasts" in the Book of Genesis
occurs in Genesis 1:24 - BEFORE Adam was even created and BEFORE
sacrifices were even conceived. This "seperation" of animals that you
are incorrectly reading into the scripture has nothing whatsoever to
do with sacrifices or even uncleanliness. Sacrifice had not yet
existed at this time and neither had uncleanliness been pointed out to
Adam by God. In fact, this would not occur until AFTER Adam was cast
out of the Garden. Even then (Genesis 9:3) God told Adam "Every moving
thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I
given you all things."

Clearly in Genesis God makes no distinction (read: "seperation") of
ANY animals as you incorrectly suggested. Again, I maintain that the
supposed seperation you point out was merely for the purposes of
describing "all things" and is NOT intended to make a special
exception regarding one aminal above or below another because of its
species.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

the whole question is disingenuous, as it presumes that religious text
is actually an accurate document in the scientific sense (i.e.,
verifiable, testable, refutable).

The bible meets none of these criteria for use in a 'science'
question. Myth, perhaps?

Or your Atheist bias, perhaps?

Tutuzdad-ga is hereby officially credidted as giving me the answer I
needed.  Thanks, information well sought.  I personally thank you.