Difference of words in Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 6:17












2















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 translation-philosophy context







share|improve this question



























    2















    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 translation-philosophy context







    share|improve this question

























      2












      2








      2








      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 translation-philosophy context







      share|improve this question














      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 translation-philosophy context




      hebrew translation-philosophy context






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 5 hours ago









      PhilipPhilip

      3389




      3389






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          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.






          share|improve this answer























            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            2














            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.






            share|improve this answer




























              2














              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.






              share|improve this answer


























                2












                2








                2







                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.






                share|improve this answer













                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.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 3 hours ago









                PossibilityPossibility

                64518




                64518






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
                    Read more

                    Berlina muro

                    Image
                    La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
                    Read more

                    Berlina aerponto

                    Image
                    Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
                    Read more