Eating the fruit of your body

[doubtingmerle]

That's what you take away from this? Alrighty then, that explains everything

Of course! That is exactly what Dueteronomy says.

Read chapter 28. It says if you don't observe to do all the commandments in this book, you will end up eating your own children.

What does the book command? See, for instance, chapter 14:

22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.

23 And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.

24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee:

25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose:

26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

27 And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.

28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:

29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.​

And how about chapter 18?

3 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.

4 The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him.
​

So yes, it does command to give meat to the priests. And since the book says that if you don't do all the commands here, then you will eat your own children, then yes, the book is saying if you don't give huge gifts to the priests, you will eat your own children.

Interesting. Only the priests had the book and read it to the people. The book said to give food to the priests or you will end up eating your own children. Interesting. Could it have been a scam?

Have you ever read Dueteronomy? You don't get the same message from this book?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It a warning not to disobey, not a command to eat babies.

Correct. It is a warning to do everything in this book--such as the command to give meat to the priests--or you will end up eating your own children.

 

[Zbigge1031]

the book says that if you don't do all the commands here, then you will eat your own children, then yes, the book is saying if you don't give huge gifts to the priests, you will eat your own children.

Interesting. Only the priests had the book and read it to the people. The book said to give food to the priests or you will end up eating your own children. Interesting. Could it have been a scam?

You're stretching things a bit here. The priests were forbidden from having a regular job or inheritence. Their survival was based upon tithes. 10% is not the huge amount you make it out to be. And even in the passages you quoted, it also stated this money was to help the poor: the foreigner, the fatherless (no inheritence either!), and the widows. We don't have sufficient evidence to believe priests were getting rich and living lavish lives at this particular moment, though that did happen later. It would be foolish to assume a scam is happening without evidence of it.

As far as the requirement that everything in this book be followed, I do believe that makes sense. A crime is not just determined by what you are doing, but also by who you are committing it against. We have laws the punish more strictly for attacking a child, or the elderly, or import public service figures like firemen and police officers. Hate crimes also carry a large punishment. How much worse it would be then, to commit even a minor crime against a holy and perfect God! For even the tiniest crime against Him is worse than the most heinous crime against a fellow man. The punishment fits the crime.

Have you ever read Dueteronomy? You don't get the same message from this book?

No I don't, and these books were not meant to be read in a vaccuum. Even though the people at the time did not have access to the rest of the story, we do now and would be wise to include it. I find deutoronomy to be setting up God's standards for us and showing how nobody can perfectly obey God. Anyone who reads this book can understand how hard it is to follow all these rules. This is the perfect set up for Christ, so that He may fulfill them and free us from our guilt, bringing us together with God on a totally new level.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're stretching things a bit here. The priests were forbidden from having a regular job or inheritence. Their survival was based upon tithes. 10% is not the huge amount you make it out to be.

And the priests were told this by whom exactly? By the books that they read to the people? Could it be they wrote those books to say what they wanted, and that God had never told them to write this?

10% of the gross revenue from farming is a lot. I wonder how much "bang for the buck" they got for the 10% they gave to the priests.

And even in the passages you quoted, it also stated this money was to help the poor: the foreigner, the fatherless (no inheritence either!), and the widows.

Oh, of course. I am glad they helped the poor, but I have no idea what percent went to the poor. My point was that the priests earned their living by reading this book to the people telling them that they were to give meat to the priests (and also to the poor). I didn't say that the priests never did good things with that money.

We don't have sufficient evidence to believe priests were getting rich and living lavish lives at this particular moment, though that did happen later. It would be foolish to assume a scam is happening without evidence of it.

I said nothing about the priest living rich and lavish lives. I said this is the way they earned their living.

If one earns his living by producing a book saying that God wants people to give you money, and there is no evidence that God wants people to give you all this money, then it would be a scam. That is why I asked if it could have been a scam.

As far as the requirement that everything in this book be followed, I do believe that makes sense.

I see. Even the commandment not to wear clothes made of two different materials? Does that one make sense to you? Does "everything in this book" include the need to follow this commandment?

A crime is not just determined by what you are doing, but also by who you are committing it against. We have laws the punish more strictly for attacking a child, or the elderly, or import public service figures like firemen and police officers. Hate crimes also carry a large punishment. How much worse it would be then, to commit even a minor crime against a holy and perfect God! For even the tiniest crime against Him is worse than the most heinous crime against a fellow man. The punishment fits the crime.

If I wear a shirt made of two materials, have I committed a crime against God?

these books were not meant to be read in a vaccuum. Even though the people at the time did not have access to the rest of the story, we do now and would be wise to include it.

How do you know that the writer(s) of Deuteronomy intended this book to be interpreted in the light of what future people would say or write?