John,

How are you? I hope all is well. I haven’t heard from you, and I thought I might not. Let me explain. You said the
following:

“So you see that ones own testimony should never be considered fact. Something that seems to
escape the author of Faith on Trial. Four biased accounts are still four biased accounts.”

I responded with:

“You made mention of the book Faith On Trial, did you read this book from cover to cover? I
would be somewhat surprised and elated at the same time. What did you think when she
mentioned the older account of Simon Greenleaf’s endeavor in the same area? I would be
surprised if you actually read some positive evidence. You say I am biased, which is true, but I
have many books written by skeptics of Christianity that “disprove” my faith. I wonder if you
actually are un-biased enough to spend some time answering the hard questions from the other
side? Say… the following two books (one of which I have the on order for you, so it will be free,
the later you will have to buy): 1) The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh
McDowell; and 2) Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About
the Christian Faith, by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino.”

I took a gamble that you haven’t actually read the book Faith On Trial, and I figured I would challenge you on that
point by asking a simple question: “What did you think when she mentioned the older account of Simon
Greenleaf’s endeavor in the same area?” This question was meant to drive the point home that you commented on
a book (matter of fact’ly) that you haven’t actually read. I of course could be wrong, but I figured if I weren’t
wrong, you would discontinue to write. Realize, though, I may still be mistaken.

I asked this question in order that, if you in fact did not read this book all the way through, that your true colors
(bias) would be revealed. In other words, you stated that, “Something that seems to escape the author of Faith on
Trial,” but if this book is not read, you are implying something to it (and the author) that you really don’t know if
she dealt with or not. You are assuming a problem in the text, and then rejecting the text and it’s premise on
your assumption. This is called a “straw man” attack, and most attacks on the Christian faith are of this sort:
hearsay, straw men, Documentary Hypothesis, etc..

I don’t mean to be brash, but I hope, if anything, that you see your bias controls what you accept as truth, rather
than letting truth subject your bias to change.

How Can Genesis 6:19 Be Reconciled With Genesis 7:2?

Genesis 6:19 relates God’s command to Noah: “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and
female, to keep them alive with you” (NIV). Genesis 7:2-3 records God’s additional instruction: “Take with you
seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its
mate, and also every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.”

Some have suggested that these diverse numbers, two and seven, involve some sort of contradiction and indicate
conflicting traditions later combined by some redactor who didn’t notice the difference between the two. [See for
instance pp. 60-61 of the book Don’t Know Much About the Bible, by Kenneth C. Davis. He refers to flood
accounts as J and P. This is from the Documentary Hypothesis, and was thrown out about 100 years ago.]

It seems strange that this point [two vs. seven] should ever have been raised, since the reason for having seven of
the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the flood had receded (as
indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20: “Then Noah built an alter to the Lord and taking some of all the
clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it”). Obviously if there had not been more than two
each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the alter. But in the
case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood
sacrifice.
To claim, as many have done, that Genesis 6:19-20 came from a priestly [P] source around 450 B.C. and that
genesis 7:2-3 came from an earlier Yahwistic source [J] around 850 B.C. is to say that the editor of the material let
the contradiction stand. There is no need for such extravagant theories of origins (that have no factual basis outside
of presupposition), especially since we have a second-millennium flood story from Mesopotamia, the Gilgamesh
Epic, with many of the same details. The Gilgamesh Epic could hardly have incorporated the so-called priestly [P]
and Yahwistic [J] sources from the fifth and ninth centuries B.C., having been written and buried long before then.
Why then must we suppose that genesis incorporates such allegedly later sources?

The truth is that there is no inherent incompatibility between the two texts as they presently stand. Genesis 7:2-3 is
just more precise that Genesis 6:19-20 on the question of the types and numbers of animals and birds that would
board the ark.

Noah’s first instruction was to admit pairs of all kinds of creatures on the ark to preserve their lives. That was the
basic formula. Then he was given more specific instructions about admitting seven pairs of each of the clean
animals and seven pairs of each kind of clean bird. The purpose of this measure was to become clear only after the
flood. Birds would be needed to connoiter the earth (Genesis 8:7-12), and the clean animals and birds would be
offered in sacrifice to the Lord (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only one pair of each and then offered each of
these pairs in sacrifice, these species would have become completely extinct.

But again, this is all from the German schools of theology during the early and mid 1800’s. In the early to mid
1900’s, archaeological and historical evidence threw out this premise known as the Documentary Hypothesis. For
an in-depth discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, I suggest the book The New Evidence That Demands a
Verdict, by Josh McDowell.