(June 22, 2023 at 6:53 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(June 21, 2023 at 5:15 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: nope. It's just a plausible explanation supports by the original hebrew text. meaning if one were so inclined one could interpret the original text to include eggs/baby mammals. as the words originally used do not have a straight modern taxonomical word or phrase that it translates to.
If you look at the raw translation it simply says "Everything living made of flesh take two of, into the ark" this would obviously support the offspring of those animals.
There is no original hebrew. You're thinking of greek my dude, the original greek.
The Masoretic/Hebrew texts are the foundation of the majority of English OT. because they are the source material that makes them the original Hebrew text. So when ever a critical examination of the OT is needed the original Masoretic/Hebrew text are examined.
While the greek Septuagint is about 1300 years older and the Masoretic texts were translated from the older Septuagint Again, the fact that the English translations are taken from the masoretic text makes them the source material for the majority of the English bibles.
