The case for meat consumption before the Flood

[Calminian]

This is an issue where almost all creationists disagree with me.

The case against this is usually based on Gen. 9:2-4. I'll proceed to layout my case. Please feel free to comment.

In my personal and study of Genesis I came across this interesting text.

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, —Gen. 7:2 ​

The word for "clean" here is tahowr in the hebrew. In researching it I found it appears in several other places in the old testament. It often speaks of purity in the sense of pure gold. But when it is used in relation to animals it only in reference to one thing—animal consumption.

Lev. 11:46 "This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, 47 to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.' "

Lev. 20:24 But I have said to you, "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any kind of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.​

When used in referrence to animals, the word tahowr (clean) is only used in the distinguishing of animals for consumption. Some suggest the clean animals on the ark were merely for animal sacrifices, but the term is never used to distinguish animals in that way. Clean animals are used for sacrifice, but the requirements for sacrifice go way beyond cleanness.

Now let's look at the reference in Gen. 9.

Gen. 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.​

Is this a license for men to eat meat who were previously vegetarians? Or is this a license to now hunt and consume all animals and not just be restricted to the eating of clean ones? As I've shown, clean animals in scripture only refers to consumable animals. It's never used for anything else.

There is one other portion of scripture in the New Testament that may shed more light on this. Peter had a vision where he saw a blanket come down from heaven.

Acts 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."​

But Peter was disturbed and refused to eat.

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."​

Peter was most certainly referring to the dietary laws outlined in Leviticus. He was faithful to God in not consuiming unclean animals. But God responded,

Acts 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."​

Peter was right to refuse eating unclean animals, but God revealed to him that these particular animals were now cleansed, and there were no longer any restrictions on them.

Looking at this, an interesting parallel can be drawn between mosaic law times and post-mosaic law times, and antediluvian and postdiluvian times. In both cases we go from a restricted animal consumption to unrestricted animal consumption. In both cases we go from permission to eat a few kinds of animals to permission to eat all kinds of animals. I find it an interesting parallel.

Some other things to consider. Before the flood flocks and herds were kept, and animal sacrifices were made. In mosaic law times, sacrifices were often consumed by men. In fact according to Josephus and his historical sources, Naoh and his family feasted on the sacrificed animals immediately after exiting the ark (Antiq. 1:92). Now that doesn't prove my case, but it suggests that the ancients agreed with me.

One really should ask themselves what would be the point of keeping flocks and herds apart from the need for food? Just for sacrifices? Just for clothing? So God was ordaining the killing of animals, but wanted them to waste the meat? Perhaps for milk? But if man didn't need animal protein, why would he need milk protein?

What I think was likely going on was not a mandate against meat, but against hunting. God provided men with clean animals for food, along with plant based foods. Men kept herds and flocks of the clean animals, and the others were to be left alone.

After the flood, God explained that going forward animals would come to fear man. For they would soon learn that men would prey on them, as was not the case before.

That's my take.

 

[juvenissun]

What's wrong with your view in the eyes of "most creationists"?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

This is an issue where almost all creationists disagree with me.

The case against this is usually based on Gen. 9:2-4. I'll proceed to layout my case. Please feel free to comment.

In my personal and study of Genesis I came across this interesting text.

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, —Gen. 7:2 ​

The word for "clean" here is tahowr in the hebrew. In researching it I found it appears in several other places in the old testament. It often speaks of purity in the sense of pure gold. But when it is used in relation to animals it only in reference to one thing—animal consumption.

Lev. 11:46 "This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, 47 to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.' "

Lev. 20:24 But I have said to you, "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any kind of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.​

When used in referrence to animals, the word tahowr (clean) is only used in the distinguishing of animals for consumption. Some suggest the clean animals on the ark were merely for animal sacrifices, but the term is never used to distinguish animals in that way. Clean animals are used for sacrifice, but the requirements for sacrifice go way beyond cleanness.

Now let's look at the reference in Gen. 9.

Gen. 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.​

Is this a license for men to eat meat who were previously vegetarians? Or is this a license to now hunt and consume all animals and not just be restricted to the eating of clean ones? As I've shown, clean animals in scripture only refers to consumable animals. It's never used for anything else.

There is one other portion of scripture in the New Testament that may shed more light on this. Peter had a vision where he saw a blanket come down from heaven.

Acts 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."​

But Peter was disturbed and refused to eat.

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."​

Peter was most certainly referring to the dietary laws outlined in Leviticus. He was faithful to God in not consuiming unclean animals. But God responded,

Acts 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."​

Peter was right to refuse eating unclean animals, but God revealed to him that these particular animals were now cleansed, and there were no longer any restrictions on them.

Looking at this, an interesting parallel can be drawn between mosaic law times and post-mosaic law times, and antediluvian and postdiluvian times. In both cases we go from a restricted animal consumption to unrestricted animal consumption. In both cases we go from permission to eat a few kinds of animals to permission to eat all kinds of animals. I find it an interesting parallel.

Some other things to consider. Before the flood flocks and herds were kept, and animal sacrifices were made. In mosaic law times, sacrifices were often consumed by men. In fact according to Josephus and his historical sources, Naoh and his family feasted on the sacrificed animals immediately after exiting the ark (Antiq. 1:92). Now that doesn't prove my case, but it suggests that the ancients agreed with me.

One really should ask themselves what would be the point of keeping flocks and herds apart from the need for food? Just for sacrifices? Just for clothing? So God was ordaining the killing of animals, but wanted them to waste the meat? Perhaps for milk? But if man didn't need animal protein, why would he need milk protein?

What I think was likely going on was not a mandate against meat, but against hunting. God provided men with clean animals for food, along with plant based foods. Men kept herds and flocks of the clean animals, and the others were to be left alone.

After the flood, God explained that going forward animals would come to fear man. For they would soon learn that men would prey on them, as was not the case before.

That's my take.

WEl-l-l...guess what?

You know what history book tells us that Abel, the sheepherder, kept sheep for food and clothes, and Cain ate Abel's sheep and dressed himself in the garments made from them, and so on....? Take a guess!

It also tells us that Lamech -descended from Cain- was hunting in the field with a grandson when he was old and had bad eyesight and thought he saw an animal, and shot Cain with an arrow, instead, then in his consternation over it, he accidentally killed his son [but I digress] -first recorded hunting accident.

26

And Lamech was old and advanced in years, and his eyes were dim that he could not see, and Tubal Cain, his son, was leading him and it was one day that Lamech went into the field and Tubal Cain his son was with him, and whilst they were walking in the field, Cain the son of Adam advanced towards them; for Lamech was very old and could not see much, and Tubal Cain his son was very young.
27

And Tubal Cain told his father to draw his bow, and with the arrows he smote Cain, who was yet far off, and he slew him, for he appeared to them to be an animal.
28

And the arrows entered Cain's body although he was distant from them, and he fell to the ground and died.


29

And the Lord requited Cain's evil according to his wickedness, which he had done to his brother Abel, according to the word of the Lord which he had spoken.
30

And it came to pass when Cain had died, that Lamech and Tubal went to see the animal which they had slain, and they saw, and behold Cain their grandfather was fallen dead upon the earth.
31

And Lamech was very much grieved at having done this, and in clapping his hands together he struck his son and caused his death.
32

And the wives of Lamech heard what Lamech had done, and they sought to kill him.


33

And the wives of Lamech hated him from that day, because he slew Cain and Tubal Cain, and the wives of Lamech separated from him, and would not hearken to him in those days.
34

And Lamech came to his wives, and he pressed them to listen to him about this matter.
35

And he said to his wives Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice O wives of Lamech, attend to my words, for now you have imagined and said that I slew a man with my wounds, and a child with my stripes for their having done no violence, but surely know that I am old and grey-headed, and that my eyes are heavy through age, and I did this thing unknowingly.
36

And the wives of Lamech listened to him in this matter, and they returned to him with the advice of their father Adam, but they bore no children to him from that time, knowing that God's anger was increasing in those days against the sons of men, to destroy them with the waters of the flood for their evil doings.
37

And Mahlallel the son of Cainan lived sixty-five years and he begat Jared; and Jared lived sixty-two years and he begat Enoch.

Jasher Chapter 2 - The Book of Jasher Published by J.H. Parry & Company 1887

 

[yeshuasavedme]

And then, the Jews knew the "totemic" dream visions of Enoch and there were Jews who did write of the nations as unclean animals [Barnabas wrote of that, later, also], and Peter understood the vision, after three times, not to mean eat unclean foods, but to go with the men he considered unclean and thought that God, through Abraham, had commanded them not to even eat with or go with, which is in a book they were using as an authority at that time, but which is not corroborated in the Tenach, Jasher, or in Enoch.

Jesus did not worry about telling Peter he was believing error, while he walked with him on earth, but when it was time, the LORD gave Peter the dream vision of the unclean animals in the sheet let down, and tied them totally to the Gentiles and loosed Peter from false doctrine which many Jews believed, for he quoted the passage attributed to Abraham in that book, to the household of Cornelius.

 

[juvenissun]

WEl-l-l...guess what?

You know what history book tells us that Abel, the sheepherder, kept sheep for food and clothes, and Cain ate Abel's sheep and dressed himself in the garments made from them, and so on....? Take a guess!

It also tells us that Lamech -descended from Cain- was hunting in the field with a grandson when he was old and had bad eyesight and thought he saw an animal, and shot Cain with an arrow, instead, then in his consternation over it, he accidentally killed his son [but I digress] -first recorded hunting accident.

Except the hunting implication, what else is wrong with Calminian's idea of consuming meat?

 

[juvenissun]

WEl-l-l...guess what?

You know what history book tells us that Abel, the sheepherder, kept sheep for food and clothes, and Cain ate Abel's sheep and dressed himself in the garments made from them, and so on....? Take a guess!

It also tells us that Lamech -descended from Cain- was hunting in the field with a grandson when he was old and had bad eyesight and thought he saw an animal, and shot Cain with an arrow, instead, then in his consternation over it, he accidentally killed his son [but I digress] -first recorded hunting accident.

How do you know Abel was eating his sheep? May be it was only for clothing.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Except the hunting implication, what else is wrong with Calminian's idea of consuming meat?

I did not say there was anything wrong with it.
I showed corroboration for the fact that man ate meat before the flood.
Before I discovered the true history book, I had already seen that in fossils frozen in time by the mud of the flood, fish and animals were caught by the mud that entombed them from the flood with the food in their mouths. Fish ate fish, and animals ate animals.
Now that was not because of corruption, because angels ate meat with Abraham, in Genesis 18, and Jesus ate meat after He rose from the dead, and said He would keep the Passover celebration with the Apostles in the kingdom of God, which is to be established on earth in the Millennium.
Ezekiel writes of the millennial temple and the sacrifices of food that will be offered in it, and shared among the royal priesthood as part of their sustanance.
They will eat meat, and the LORD will dine with them.

PS: Why did Abel keep sheep? -For meat, drink, cheese, tunics, wool; to feed and to clothe mankind -just for the same reasons as today.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

How do you know Abel was eating his sheep? May be it was only for clothing.

I added the answer to my last post before I saw this....but the pre-incarnate LORD Jesus Christ, in the Person of God the Word, taught Adam how to make tunics from killed animals in the Garden of Eden, in heaven's realm of earth.
So Abel was a sheepherder, and sheepherders breed sheep for meat, wool, milk, cheese -and tunics. Nothing like a nice tanned deerskin tunic.
Also the skins can make good portable tents, when sewn together and waterproofed.

 

[ChetSinger]

This is an issue where almost all creationists disagree with me.

Yeah, you may be right. Theologians such as Basil have long argued that men were vegetarians until after the flood.

I suspect that men did eat meat before the flood, but am not convinced that it was blessed. Abel kept animals for clothing, certainly, but the text is silent as to whether he also ate them.

The single passage that I accept may point to God-approved meat eating is the mention of "clean" animals. I agree with you that the term usually refers to animals that can legally be eaten.

So I'm on the fence on this one. I lean toward vegetarianism, but the mention of clean animals keeps me from confidence.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I added the answer to my last post before I saw this....but the pre-incarnate LORD Jesus Christ, in the Person of God the Word, taught Adam how to make tunics from killed animals in the Garden of Eden, in heaven's realm of earth.
So Abel was a sheepherder, and sheepherders breed sheep for meat, wool, milk, cheese -and tunics. Nothing like a nice tanned deerskin tunic.
Also the skins can make good portable tents, when sewn together and waterproofed.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

When God killed an animal and made tunics for the fallen Adam persons in the Garden of Eden, and drove them out and cast them down to earth below, they took the understanding with them of how to make a skin tunic.

Children born to the husband and wife had to have tunics, too....
To have a skin sheepskin tunic, you harvest the wool [card it and spin it for garments and other items] kill the animal, eat the meat, tan the hide, and fashion the garments and other items from the skin and wool.

So Abel was a sheepherder.

Genesis 4:2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.

Now in the history book [behold is it not written in the Book of Jasher!], we do read this:

chapter 1:18-22 [the highlighted portion is Abel's prophecy, which made Abel a prophet and the first prophet whose blood was spilt by one who accepted and acted upon the lies of the devil: Luke 11: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation [the one wicked generation of children of wrath, who are all brothers in treachery].


Jasher 1: 18-22 Jasher Chapter 1 - The Book of Jasher Published by J.H. Parry & Company 1887
And Cain approached his brother Abel in anger, and he said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou comest to dwell and bring thy flock to feed in my land?
And Abel answered his brother Cain and said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou shalt eat the flesh of my flock and clothe thyself with their wool?
And now therefore, put off the wool of my sheep with which thou hast clothed thyself, and recompense me for their fruit and flesh which thou hast eaten, and when thou shalt have done this, I will then go from thy land as thou hast said?

And Cain said to his brother Abel, Surely if I slay thee this day, who will require thy blood from me?

And Abel answered Cain, saying, Surely God who has made us in the earth, he will avenge my cause, and he will require my blood from thee shouldst thou slay me, for the Lord is the judge and arbiter, and it is he who will requite man according to his evil, and the wicked man according to the wickedness that he may do upon earth.
And Abel answered Cain, saying, Surely God who has made us in the earth, he will avenge my cause, and he will require my blood from thee shouldst thou slay me, for the Lord is the judge and arbiter, and it is he who will requite man according to his evil, and the wicked man according to the wickedness that he may do upon earth.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

The case for meat consumption before the Flood This is an issue where almost all creationists disagree with me.

This is yet another topic that is shaped more by TRADITION than by scripture.

Much as with "weeds and thorns" EXISTING before the fall but being unknown to Adam and Eve because all of their pre-fall existence had been lived in an atypical garden reserve which God had planted, many believers get confused about the differences inside the Garden in the Land of Eden versus the rest of the world at that time. Yes, to Adam and Eve they would tend to think of life BEFORE the fall and AFTER the fall being very different. But the WORLD OVERALL had not changed. Their ENVIRONMENT and place of residence did.

So without taking the time to dissect the relevant verses one by one (as surely most readers are already familiar with this common sense reading of Genesis), we shouldn't have to fall into the tradition-bound trap of thinking that something which happened once or some custom which was practiced in a particular place and time applied EVERYWHERE on the planet. (Of course, that myth led to all sorts of ideas the Bible never taught---such that God created all sorts of NEW things after the fall, such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [my side-splitting favorite] and weeds and thorns. Oh yes, and the myth that lions didn't have nasty teeth and claws until Adam sinned! I wonder if that lion-transformation was similar to movie-werewolves?!)

 

[yeshuasavedme]

This is yet another topic that is shaped more by TRADITION than by scripture.

Much as with "weeds and thorns" EXISTING before the fall but being unknown to Adam and Eve because all of their pre-fall existence had been lived in an atypical garden reserve which God had planted, many believers get confused about the differences inside the Garden in the Land of Eden versus the rest of the world at that time. Yes, to Adam and Eve they would tend to think of life BEFORE the fall and AFTER the fall being very different. But the WORLD OVERALL had not changed. Their ENVIRONMENT and place of residence did.

So without taking the time to dissect the relevant verses one by one (as surely most readers are already familiar with this common sense reading of Genesis), we shouldn't have to fall into the tradition-bound trap of thinking that something which happened once or some custom which was practiced in a particular place and time applied EVERYWHERE on the planet. (Of course, that myth led to all sorts of ideas the Bible never taught---such that God created all sorts of NEW things after the fall, such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [my side-splitting favorite] and weeds and thorns. Oh yes, and the myth that lions didn't have nasty teeth and claws until Adam sinned! I wonder if that lion-transformation was similar to movie-werewolves?!)

"A weed is a flower out of place"

Well.....God cursed the earth when Adam fell, and His Glorious presence was withdrawn from the creation when Adam lost the Glory....
Corruption/Death/Destruction were given dominion over the dust of the ground [and over all flesh which is created from the ground and the waters] and every created thing in it and in the sea.

So because all "natural order" is cursed by the Creator and Belial has the reign over the natural order until He who has ransomed it by His blood takes His authority to Himself and reigns, and puts down every opposing force to His Will, then we do have thorns and thistles coming up when we plant a nice lettuce or bean plant, or etc....and the rains are withheld and the droughts are extended, and the sun and rot blast our crops, and the rain drowns them...and plagues and pestilences devour them.... and we start all over....

But when the creation is restored, and Israel is restored as the head of the nations for the millennial reign, then what blessings the earth will have!

Hosea 2


14 “But then I will win her back once again.
I will lead her into the desert
and speak tenderly to her there.
15 I will return her vineyards to her
and transform the Valley of Trouble into a gateway of hope.
She will give herself to me there,
as she did long ago when she was young,
when I freed her from her captivity in Egypt.
16 When that day comes,” says the Lord,
“you will call me ‘my husband’
instead of ‘my master.’[c]
17 O Israel, I will wipe the many names of Baal from your lips,
and you will never mention them again.
18 On that day I will make a covenant
with all the wild animals and the birds of the sky
and the animals that scurry along the ground
so they will not harm you.
I will remove all weapons of war from the land,
all swords and bows,
so you can live unafraid
in peace and safety.
19 I will make you my wife forever,
showing you righteousness and justice,
unfailing love and compassion.
20 I will be faithful to you and make you mine,
and you will finally know me as the Lord.

21 “In that day, I will answer,”
says the Lord.
“I will answer the sky as it pleads for clouds.
And the sky will answer the earth with rain.
22 Then the earth will answer the thirsty cries
of the grain, the grapevines, and the olive trees.
And they in turn will answer,
‘Jezreel’—‘God plants!

and in Joel 2 when Israel is restored and the curse removed from the earth:

Surely he has done great things!
21 Do not be afraid, land of Judah;
be glad and rejoice.
Surely the Lord has done great things!
22 Do not be afraid, you wild animals,
for the pastures in the wilderness are becoming green.
The trees are bearing their fruit;
the fig tree and the vine yield their riches.
23 Be glad, people of Zion,
rejoice in the Lord your God,
for he has given you the autumn rains
because he is faithful.
He sends you abundant showers,
both autumn and spring rains, as before.
24 The threshing floors will be filled with grain;
the vats will overflow with new wine and oil.

“I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—
the great locust and the young locust,
the other locusts and the locust swarm

 

[ChetSinger]

"A weed is a flower out of place"

Heh! True, that. My wife has said that the only difference between a flower and a weed is that she wants the flower there.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Heh! True, that. My wife has said that the only difference between a flower and a weed is that she wants the flower there.

It isn't my own quote....I read it somewhere and always remembered it.

Even [some] dandelions are good greens when picked young and are there for free to harvest, and the seeds are necessary food for some wild birds, but best of all, my chickens love the dandelion greens and devour them when they are in season....but most people treat them as weeds.

 

[ChetSinger]

It isn't my own quote....I read it somewhere and always remembered it.

Even [some] dandelions are good greens when picked young and are there for free to harvest, and the seeds are necessary food for some wild birds, but best of all, my chickens love the dandelion greens and devour them when they are in season....but most people treat them as weeds.

When I was a kid my mother made salads out of young dandelion greens. Nothing went to waste back then.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

When I was a kid my mother made salads out of young dandelion greens. Nothing went to waste back then.

My daughter's mother-in-law is French [a war bride from WW11 and in her 90's now [my daughters husband is older than my daughter, to explain why her MIL is in her 90's], and she eats dandelion greens, but only one of the kinds, and when they are young and right out of her back yard. She also eats other greens that grow wild, having grown up doing that, in France.
Actually, those greens are so rich in the vitamin that makes blood thick [is that K? -I forgot] that she had to stop eating them regular a couple years ago cause her blood was too thick for some medical condition she has, now]

 

[Calminian]

This is yet another topic that is shaped more by TRADITION than by scripture.

Much as with "weeds and thorns" EXISTING before the fall but being unknown to Adam and Eve because all of their pre-fall existence had been lived in an atypical garden reserve which God had planted, many believers get confused about the differences inside the Garden in the Land of Eden versus the rest of the world at that time. Yes, to Adam and Eve they would tend to think of life BEFORE the fall and AFTER the fall being very different. But the WORLD OVERALL had not changed. Their ENVIRONMENT and place of residence did.

So without taking the time to dissect the relevant verses one by one (as surely most readers are already familiar with this common sense reading of Genesis), we shouldn't have to fall into the tradition-bound trap of thinking that something which happened once or some custom which was practiced in a particular place and time applied EVERYWHERE on the planet. (Of course, that myth led to all sorts of ideas the Bible never taught---such that God created all sorts of NEW things after the fall, such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [my side-splitting favorite] and weeds and thorns. Oh yes, and the myth that lions didn't have nasty teeth and claws until Adam sinned! I wonder if that lion-transformation was similar to movie-werewolves?!)

Well, let me just be clear, I'm not agreeing that the vegetarian view is born out of tradition. There is a textual case to be made, based on Gen. 9:2-4, that God's blessing was not on meat consumption. And most creationists would agree that some men hunted and ate meat prior to the Flood, but it was not God ordained, and they did it against His will.

What I wanted to do was to show a textual argument from the Bible for the consumption of "clean animals" as being ordained by God before the flood. The mention of "clean animals" doesn't necessarily seal the case, but does make a strong argument. For I don't know of any other occasion where the term applies to animals and is not in regards to consumption.

Sometimes I think christians and creationists miss the brevity in which Genesis is written. Unlike any other accounts in scripture, the Genesis accounts cram a lot of information into very few words. This may be because of the pre-flood writing methods, or it just may have been the style of that day. Thus I think sometimes we underestimate just how much information has been left out of those accounts. But if you look closely at the text, there are sometimes little clues that can point to additional information usually missed at first reading.

 

[Calminian]

WEl-l-l...guess what?

You know what history book tells us that Abel, the sheepherder, kept sheep for food and clothes, and Cain ate Abel's sheep and dressed himself in the garments made from them, and so on....? Take a guess!

It also tells us that Lamech -descended from Cain- was hunting in the field with a grandson when he was old and had bad eyesight and thought he saw an animal, and shot Cain with an arrow, instead, then in his consternation over it, he accidentally killed his son [but I digress] -first recorded hunting accident.

Well this may be history. The jews themselves don't seem to think so. I feel safer with Josephus' works, and he's been authenticated as a true historian.

I wish there was more information about this particular book of Jasher so we could rightly evaluate its value. It's an interesting read, but ultimately I need more proof of authenticity.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Moses redacted the Torah historical records because "Behold, Was it not written in Sefer HaYashar: TK - Best authentic account of Jewish History in existence.Ben Haim

For writing, Moses did not re-lay foundational history or foundational doctrines which were already written and used and believed. The history itself is a redaction of the lives of the Patriarchs from Adam to Joshua going into the promised land, with those lives histories shortened from their own testimonies left behind [and corroborated as being their own in the DSS manuscripts], which Moses had full access to, and with Moses own history itself given in great detail in Sefer HaYashar, which was not needed to be re-write for Torah, but which Torah refers to as if the readers are well aware of what is said in relation to what is written in Sefer HaYashar.
Personally, I totally believe that Moses compiled those redacted histories and expanded his own in that book, which, like Deuteronomy, was completed by Joshua.

Joshua entering the promised land began writing a new history centering only on and beginning with the Namesake people entering Canaan.
After Joshua completed his, then the histories continued to be written as Israel went through the period of the Judges, Samuel's birth and life, the kings, their chronicles, and the histories of Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Maccabees, and so on.
The Histories are not, themselves, "Thus saith YHWH", like Torah and all the prophets are, but we can corroborate the histories with the Torah and prophets to compare for what lines up in truth....and learn much about what is not re-said in Torah and the prophets and later histories, but which, together, totally complement and corroborate one another.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Well this may be history. The jews themselves don't seem to think so. I feel safer with Josephus' works, and he's been authenticated as a true historian.

I wish there was more information about this particular book of Jasher so we could rightly evaluate its value. It's an interesting read, but ultimately I need more proof of authenticity.

Josephus makes many errors -documented- because he worked from faulty material and offered lots of undocumented opinions. His work is in my library, and though I enjoy reading his work, I read with the understanding that he was not fully informed and made many errors.

Sefer HaYashar on the other hand, is also in my library, and I enjoyed it from the first, because it totally answered lots of questions I always had about things written in the Tenach, and gave me understanding of many more things that are written, unlike the Book of Jubilees which I also own, and which totally contradicts Torah and the prophets and Enoch and Jasher -though it, itself was compiled using many other historical documents in possession of the author of it as proved by the manuscript collections discovered in the DSS.

Not having Sefer HaYashar, the author of Jubilees makes up lots of stuff, interweaving it as a fable actually contradicting Torah, but many of the Jews of Jesus day seemed to totally accept it -and even Peter did [Paul did not, who also had Sefer HaYashar and wrote from the accounts in it, believing his readers also did, but they all did not.
Jesus delivered Peter from the fables of Jubilees in one fell swoop at the time of the unclean foods let down in the sheet visions, and knowing Jubilees and reading what Peter said to the household of Cornelius gives one that understanding of what went on and when Jesus delivered Peter from believing a fable.