Here is a diagram of all four (4) Coverings that covered gold plated wooden framework of the Tent of the Tabernacle:
Parts are as follows (from left to right):
- Cherubim Covering (First Covering), that was made out of 10 separate sheets of fabric (Exodus 26:1-5)
- 50 Golden Taches (Clasps) that connected two sets of five sheets each of the First Covering (Exodus 26:6)
- Goat's Hair Covering (Second Covering), that was made out of 11 separate sheets of fabric (Exodus 26:7-10)
- 50 Copper Taches (Clasps) that connected two sets of five and six sheets each of the Second Covering (Exodus 26:11)
- Red Ram's Skins Covering (Third Covering), probably made out of as many separate pieces of fabric as the First Covering (Exodus 26:14)
- Tachash[dark?] Skins Covering (Forth Covering), probably made out of several separate pieces of fabric as well (Exodus 26:14)
Please see this page for the latest diagrams of the Tabernacle Coverings and other Tabernacle parts.
5 comments:
If the "tachash" is the skin of the Dugong, the color is rather grey/white. See http://www.bijbelaantekeningen.nl/gallery3/photos/620 for a photo.
It is highly unlikely that it was Dugong skins. Dugong would not qualify as "kosher" (clean) animal as per Lev. 11:9-12.
Unless of course you can provide some arguments to support your position, I hope you would agree that Tabernacle Coverings would have to be made out of "clean" animal skins...
I mean, you would probably agree that they could not have used pig's skins to make any of the coverings ;)
Btw, if you want to post pictures, check out this link: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.asp
Most blogs accept this command so that the pictures would appear right in the comments. If you want that, of'course...
Several modern translations give "sea cow" or "dugong" as possibility, see for ex. http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=exo&chapter=25&verse=5 and http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=2&chapter=25&verse=5&portion=19
That's the reason I mentioned it, because a black color is something different as a gray/white color. But I don't know from what animal the skin was.
About "kosher", according the passage you mentioned it's going about what you may eat or not, that's something different as using it for other purposes. But (again) I don't know if it was custom those days also not using skin of "not kosher" animals.
About the picture, I only want to refer to it for the color (and don't want to promote my website). But if you don't mind I can include pictures if it's useful.
Suppose something went wrong was my latest post.
I mentioned the "dugong" because this is mentioned in several modern translations (see http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=exo&chapter=25&verse=5 or http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=2&chapter=25&verse=5&portion=19) and the color of this skin is not black.
The passage you mentioned is about "kosher food", I don't know it was also not kosher for using these animals for other purposes. But if so, then you are right.
The passage you mentioned is about "kosher food", I don't know it was also not kosher for using these animals for other purposes. But if so, then you are right.
Verses that I have mentioned (Leviticus 11:9-12) simply provide definition of which sea creatures are "clean" and "unclean". Although Leviticus 11:11 says that those which "unclean" are an "abomination".
But for more direct references you can check out, say, Leviticus 11:26 or Leviticus 20:25
Post a Comment
Please try to use HTML tags, such as "a" or "b".