By using Moses’ Torah as a key to decipher New Testament texts, many kosher eating principles that would otherwise remain lost in translation become plainly evident. Not surprisingly, the same principle also applies to understanding other Old Testament accounts as well. Yet while Moses was instrumental in recording kosher principles in Bible texts, it is not difficult to see that kosher designations did not originate with Moses at Mount Sinai. In fact, kosher principles are introduced much earlier in Genesis; overt hints provided in Genesis even help show that kosher diets were introduced “In the Beginning.”
Kindergarten Kosher
Much like Adam was appointed as the world’s first taxonomist,123 naming all of the animals, so too was Noah presented with a unique opportunity to become the world’s greatest zoologist. Noah built an ark to preserve a multitude of animals many generations after Adam classified them, thus making him perhaps the foremost authority on animals that the world has ever known.
Of course, Noah’s expertise in animal management can be deduced from the story of the flood, which is more than just a miraculous deliverance of beasts and birds. Noah had an enormous part to play, and he had a lot of work assigned to him in order that the task of redemption might be achieved. After being told about the upcoming flood, Noah designed, constructed, and stocked his ark to handle and feed all types of animals—including kosher ones. These responsibilities were delegated to Noah as Elohim gave him the building plans, for Elohim expressed no intentions of putting the animals into hibernation or another type of supernatural stasis; neither did he promise to feed the ship’s passengers by manna from heaven.124
Given his responsibilities in preparing the ark, it is obvious that Noah would need to know what all of the animals ate and how much they ate—long before embarking on his historic voyage. Out of this necessity, Noah also had to know how to distinguish between clean and unclean animals long before Moses described them via quill and sheepskin, for they needed to be fed differently and loaded in different proportions.
Unfortunately for Noah, his logistical problems were multiplied in accordance with the number and types of animals that entered the ark. Contrary to popular Noachian cartoons and Sunday school projects that show animals trotting up the gangway in simple pairs, along with a few miscellaneous bird varieties perched on the rail or circling above the vessel, not all of the animal kinds boarded Noah’s ark in sets of two. The Bible account tells a drastically different story; Noah brought both clean animals and birds aboard the ark in greater numbers, according to Genesis chapter 7. Unlike the unclean animals, which were admitted only in single pairs, the clean animals and birds were brought aboard in pairs of seven! Genesis is so literal in these details that even seven-year-old children should be able to understand it if they are invited to read the text for themselves. Even contemporary English translations of Genesis make unapologetic distinctions between the required numbers of clean and unclean animals.
Take with you seven125 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 seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. (Gen. 7:2–3)
Despite the simplicity of this narrative, most media forms and paraphernalia portray a Noah’s ark far from the Genesis text descriptions; from kindergarten toy sets to museum grade oil paintings, most depictions only show the animals loading in quantities of two, irrespective of type. Furthermore, they typically exclude familiar animals while including every exotic animal imaginable. It would seem that Noah’s ark depictions are incomplete without pairs of zebras, elephants, lions, tigers, hippos, horses, panda bears, gorillas, monkeys, kangaroos, parrots, flamingos, penguins, ostriches, camels, snakes, crocodiles, turtles, and lizards. However, animal varieties from Old McDonald’s farm are few and far between—while those from Tarzan’s jungle are present in disproportionate excess.
Old McNoah Had an Ark, E-I-E-I-O
Sadly, after gleaning their theology from Noah’s ark merchandise and assorted toy sets, children are more likely to envision pairs of unicorns and purple ponies boarding the ark than a diverse collection of farm animals in their proper proportion. Still less exciting domesticated animals, such as cows, sheep, goats, ducks, and doves seem to be excluded—almost deliberately—from the toy collections and artwork. If not for exotic mammals like antelope, there might be no clean animals aboard some of the imaginary arks. From these images, children must be forced to assume that Noah’s animals came from remote places like Africa, Asia, the Amazon rainforest, or even the Galapagos Islands, while the ark lacked access to ordinary farm animals. Also, for reasons unexplained, wild and clean North American animals, such as buffalo, moose, and deer seem to miss the boat on most occasions as well—unless the reindeer figures are misplaced. While exotic giraffes, with heads towering above the rest of the animals, always find their way onto the ark, they tend to be in short supply. Giraffes are never presented in sevens as the clean, split-hoofed, cud-chewing mammals that they are; they are seen as lone couples boarding along with other foreign species of the Serengeti. If the Genesis texts were taken seriously, a small herd of fourteen giraffes would always stand out above two elephants126—wherever the ark is pictured!
Whether they are of the domesticated or wild variety, the overall shortage of clean animals on Noah’s ark is disconcerting. The clean versus unclean animal count in the ark story may sound like a trivial detail, but the tendency to misrepresent animal proportions may speak volumes. Not only does the misrepresentation undermine the magnificence of Noah’s narrative, it detracts profoundly from kosher causes.
The shortage of clean ark animals in contrast to the surplus of unclean animals presents more questions than answers. Do people portray an ark full of unclean animals as a matter of preference? How could so many coloring books, toy sets, and Sunday school classes present the story wrongly—and for so long? Is this a conspiracy concocted by toy companies, with the objective of reducing the piece count for purposes of economy? Could it be too exhausting for families to pick up playrooms if proper proportions of Noah’s clean animals clutter the floor? Or is it just too hard to teach young children how to count seven pairs? Surely, the myth of “three wise men riding on camels”127 at Christmas pales in comparison and in its implications! If nothing else, the prevalence of incomplete Noah’s ark sets and artwork testifies to the prominence of dogma, in which poor graphic media perpetuates ignorance, triumphing over original texts.
Wild Instinct Suspension
The automatic gathering of the animals prior to the flood is another detail of the Noah account that hints to kosher animal categories already present prior to the flood. In particular, the normal instincts of wild animals—as opposed to kosher ones—is described as being divinely transformed or suspended at the time of the flood. Prior to the flood, Genesis describes a supernatural ingathering of wild animal pairs.
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. (Gen. 6:19-20)
Needless to say, a miraculously cooperative wild animal population would save Noah a great deal of difficulty in loading his ark. This being the case, perhaps the ark cartoons do convey an element of truth. They depict wild animals cooperatively mustering before the ark in a single file line; even the animals that are otherwise ferocious appear friendly, such as lions, tigers, and bears, smiling ear to ear beside Noah—with no intention of eating him! Yet when the miracle ark ride was over, the wild animals’ special disposition and relationship of necessity seems to come to an end. Immediately after the flood as Noah and his sons were blessed, they were told that “fear and dread” would return to the animals.128 Thus, the change and restoration of animal behavior could be perceived as described below.
Wild animals with fear of man
(before the flood)
-to-
Wild animals not hostile toward man
(during time of the ark)
-to-
Wild animals with fear of man
(after the flood)
It is also of note that the suspension of wild animal behavior described in the Genesis text cited above seems to have applied only to the animal pairs of two—appearing to correspond with the unclean varieties. However, there is good reason to believe that the wild instinct suspension described above did not apply to the clean animals.
Clean ‘Livestock’ for Food
Immediately after informing Noah about the pairs of wild animals that would arrive before the flood, Elohim also told Noah about his responsibility in gathering “food” for his animal cargo.
You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away129 as food for you and for them. (Gen. 6:21)
Beginning an entire week before the flood, Noah and family would finally begin boarding the ark along with all types of animals. In contrast with the unclean animals that showed up for the occasion with their wild instincts suspended, it is logical to surmise that Noah had already collected the multitude of clean animals that would be used to feed the animals of the unclean variety. To this point, it would appear that Noah could also simply ‘take’ the clean animals on board, with no divine prodding or assembly mentioned in the text.
Yehovah then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate...” (Gen. 7: 1–2)
Without making allusion to a miraculous clean animal gathering of seven pairs prior to this point,130 and giving specific direction for Noah to collect “food” in verses prior, these latter verses might suggest that the clean animals were taken aboard as “food” by Noah. Of greater significance, it also suggests that the clean animals were already under the control of Noah’s family, likely stored in cages or stables as livestock, readily available for the taking just before boarding. Thus, it is evident that Noah and his sons were well prepared to enjoy kosher meat while on the ark, relying on their surplus clean animal cargo in part for food.131 This “clean-livestock-for-food” interpretation best explains the otherwise grossly disproportionate 7-to-1 ratio between the animal types, and the need for more clean animals.132 Unclean animals are often carnivorous by design, and only a single pair of clean animals was really required to preserve the species and repopulate the planet. Therefore, if not loaded for the exclusive purpose of food, during and after the flood, there is no other viable explanation accounting for the offset numbers.133
Furthermore, the Scriptures indicate that following the flood, the ark landed with surplus clean animals, and that Noah and his sons used a fraction of those animals for sacrifices. The Genesis account states,
Then Noah built an altar to Yehovah and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. (Gen. 8:20)
Per the text, it is legitimate to assume that Noah still had a surplus of clean animals after the ark and after offering the sacrifice.134 Without a doubt, the remaining clean animals would continue to serve as food after the flood—both for the people and for the many unclean animal species that depended on a carnivorous diet.
Blessed to Eat—Again
Logic, of course, would preclude Noah and sons from using any endangered species for food, such as one of the last of a breeding pair of unclean animals, like pigs, horses, lions, or turtles—especially after going through such drama to save all of the animal types from extinction in a catastrophic global flood. Immediately following the clean animal sacrifice, Elohim blessed Noah and kin, saying,
Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. (Gen. 9:1–4 NIV)
At the point of this blessing, the animals’ fear of man would return to them, while Noah and kin would transform from earthy, pre-flood vegans to flesh-craving, post-flood omnivores—at least as many religious traditions would have it. Per popular religious dogma and dispensational interpretations, Noah’s generation was the first to be granted the luxury of eating “everything” set before them.
But did Elohim really expand the definition of food as Adam and Eve knew it, blessing Noah and his family differently after they disembarked from the ark? Surely it is unsound to think that Elohim would allow Noah and sons to declare open season on any beast exiting the ark, since this “all animals for food” view might implicate Noah and his family in hunting dinosaurs to extinction—while they still had clean animals to spare for food! Was this post-flood age truly a new era, like that of Peter, with Elohim essentially saying, “Get out, Noah; kill, and eat!”?
Extra Dispensational Gifts
Per the Genesis 9 citation above, the account of Noah’s blessing reads as if Elohim endowed man with two different diets—an omnivore one under Noah after the flood, and an earlier vegetarian one under Adam. However, the New International Version begins to appear suspicious when compared to older translations, like the one cited below.
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. (Gen. 9:3 KJV)
Likewise, in the original Hebrew, the text makes but a single reference to “giving.”
(Gen. 9:3 ISA)
In the original Hebrew, as well as in the King James Version, verse 3 has but one occurrence of 
135 or “I give,” or “I have given,” which, if alluding to Adam and Eve’s blessing—where man was first given green things to eat—might also be interpreted in the past tense form. Doubling the Hebrew gave/give verb count and juxtaposing the two resulting English verbs into past and present tenses—as the NIV citation does several pages prior—gives the account a grossly exaggerated and strong dispensational slant. Likewise, the NIV text adds to the confusion by including an extra present-tense adverb, i.e., “I now give” to further bolster the dispensational distinction between past and present eras. In slight contrast, the single occurrence in the King James text uses the passive “have I given” phrase, which inclines a reader to associate the event with Noah, assuming a recent past-tense rendering of the verb phrase. But how does this affect the meaning of the message, and which view is correct?
The Vegans of Eden
To resolve this give/gave verb tense question in Noah’s account, the details of both Adam’s and Noah’s blessings must be examined and compared. First introducing the permissive fruits-and-vegetables dietary statements for Adam and Eve, the blessing of Genesis 1 is cited below.
Elohim blessed them and said to them, ”Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Then Elohim said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
“And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. (Gen. 1:28–30 NIV)
According to the contemporary translation above and nearly every English interpretation of this Genesis text, humanity was originally commissioned through Adam and Eve to eat as vegans. From that standpoint, it is logical to infer that Elohim would recall the earlier blessing of plants and fruits given to Adam and Eve as he blessed Noah after the flood.
Vegan Animal Kingdom Anomalies
Adding a bizarre twist to the story, English translations of Genesis 1 text present all of the animals as having similar green plant-based diets. They are even translated as if Elohim disallowed any animal to eat fruit—or as if Elohim created mammals capable of multiplication without mothers’ mammary glands. Even the King James Version seems to reinforce the traditional views of Eden as a vegan animal kingdom.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat:136 and it was so. (Gen. 1: 30 KJV)
However prominent such Genesis 1 interpretations may be, the vegan animal kingdom views implied by English translations present a number of logical conflicts. For example, why would Elohim speak to man in the preceding verse, giving mankind a blessing of multiplication, and a blessing of dominion, and then immediately afterward begin to issue instructions for animal diets? Surely, it is nothing less than strange for Elohim to grant humans dominion over the animal kingdom, while then articulating the diet of the entire animal kingdom in the very next breath. Since animals far outnumber mankind, it’s not as if Adam and Eve would be able to exercise their dominion by managing diets of all of the animals. Moreover, they would not need to oversee animal diets, as animals were instilled with instincts and appetites to govern their behavior, and they were endowed with the apparatus and aptitudes to acquire and process whatever food is fitting for them. Clearly, governing over animal diets or feeding every living species hardly qualifies as humanity having dominion over the animals. To the contrary, Adam and Eve were assigned to work on a garden plot, not in a free-range petting zoo created for the sake of animal feeding. Elohim did not establish Eden as a welfare state for the sake of animal dependency. Such an arrangement would be one of human servitude, not of human dominion.
Also, there’s the matter of timing in the Genesis account as it might pertain to an exaggerated human dominion over the animals. Would Elohim expect the birds and fish created on day five to go hungry waiting for food until man arrived on day six?137 Did animals on day five need to wait another day until Elohim finished creating and blessing the balance of the animal kingdom before they began to eat the green herbs?
Finally, if the entire animal kingdom was created vegan, why would Elohim include the birds while excluding the fish from his vegan animal kingdom as listed in verse 30? Surely, Elohim would not be so careless as to create the waters without green plants or simple algae to feed the aquatic life!
Generous Translators and Translation Addendum
Strangely enough, to resolve all the inconsistencies arising from vegan animal kingdom views of Genesis 1 is to also resolve the open questions emerging from Noah’s confusing omnivore diet blessing in Genesis 9; the exact same error confounding the translation of Noah’s dietary blessing is repeated in the case of Adam’s dietary blessing. In comparing the Hebrew text below to traditional English versions, it is clear that the translators generously “gave” or interjected an extra and presumptuous “I give” () verb to verse 30, presuming that the verb from verse 29 may be doubled and inserted into the next verse for clarity and without ill effect. Once again, for the reader’s edification, the word-for-word interlinear Hebrew text is provided below.
(Gen. 1:29–30 ISA)
By not adding a second (I give) verb to verse 30, it is both simple and logical to derive a notably different translation from the Hebrew text, as suggested by the interlinear English text cited above. Moreover, by considering alternate definitions from Strong’s Concordance in place of certain versatile Hebrew words, a unique and more informative translation is possible, as shown below.
And Elohim says, behold, I have given to you each plant generating seed which is on the face of the whole earth and each tree which in its tree fruit generates seed—for you it is existing for food; and for each animal of the earth, and for each bird of the heavens, and for each moving animal on the earth—which in him there is a soul sustained by all green plants—for your food it is therefore existing. (Gen. 1:29-30 Author’s Translation)
Given that the original Hebrew language does not include punctuation, the possibility for a different sentence structure and word association becomes evident when an extra (I give) verb is not interjected into verse 30. To better illustrate this, Tables 1a-2b are provided to allow for side-by-side translation comparison.