Theistic evolution and the nature of God

[Derf]

“Of all that are in the waters you shall eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. Deuteronomy 14:9

I mean think about it. Why would God tell the isrealites that they may eat fish with fins and scales? Didn't God already do that in Genesis 9?

Yes, but the point was to give a new command that sets them apart from from the rest of the world, I think. The rest of the world is allowed to eat all animals. The Israelites just a subset (the clean animals). How will they know clean from unclean? Fins and scales. To reiterate, those that don't have find and scales are NOT to be eaten.

The answer is that, it's not about verse 9, it's about verse 10:

And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:10

No, it's about both, since they are the positive and negative statements of the same rule.

The prohibition related to unclean fish, begins by describing that which was already permitted.

No, it begins by explaining the change in the rule...from "everything" to "just clean things", and "not unclean things".

And that's how every single dietary prohibition is written in the OT.

The change is explained. Then it's reinforced with its negative corollary.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Genesis 9:3

Which is a change.

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 9:‭-4

The change is explained further with its negative corollary. Just like "eat from every tree", "but not that one tree."

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but the point was to give a new command that sets them apart from from the rest of the world, I think. The rest of the world is allowed to eat all animals. The Israelites just a subset (the clean animals). How will they know clean from unclean? Fins and scales. To reiterate, those that don't have find and scales are NOT to be eaten.

No, it's about both, since they are the positive and negative statements of the same rule.

No, it begins by explaining the change in the rule...from "everything" to "just clean things", and "not unclean things".

The change is explained. Then it's reinforced with its negative corollary.

Which is a change.

The change is explained further with its negative corollary. Just like "eat from every tree", "but not that one tree."

They'll known clean from unclean based on the prohibition. But the point remains, they were already eating fish before the prohibition was ever given, because they were already permitted to do so in Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:3.

It's not as though isrealites had never eaten fish before Deuteronomy was ever issued.

You said it yourself, the isrealites were already permitted to eat animals back, at least as early as Genesis 9. So God when says "you may eat fish", it's not God permitting the isrealites to eat something that they were already permitted to eat.

It's God saying, "hey, I know you are already permitted to eat fish, but just so you know, from now on, make sure they have scales".

And Genesis 9:3-4 is the exact same thing. It's God saying "hey, I know you are already permitted to eat animals (see Genesis 1:28), but from now on, make sure you drain the lifeblood first".

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but the point was to give a new command that sets them apart from from the rest of the world, I think. The rest of the world is allowed to eat all animals. The Israelites just a subset (the clean animals). How will they know clean from unclean? Fins and scales. To reiterate, those that don't have find and scales are NOT to be eaten.

No, it's about both, since they are the positive and negative statements of the same rule.

No, it begins by explaining the change in the rule...from "everything" to "just clean things", and "not unclean things".

The change is explained. Then it's reinforced with its negative corollary.

Which is a change.

The change is explained further with its negative corollary. Just like "eat from every tree", "but not that one tree."

Your response still recognizes that the isrealites were already eating animals. Isrealites were not vegan before the issuing of Deuteronomy. Mankind certainly was not at large.

We could view permission as a passive kind of thing where people don't need permission to eat animals, and thus maybe they were just eating fish without permission beforehand.

I'm going to make a shift here, just out of curiosity.

What if I told you that in Genesis 9:3, remes, the animals given for permission to be eaten, is distinct and is a subcategory for all animals. That it doesn't include domesticated animals.

Would that settle your concerns?

If your response is that all animals (Genesis 9:3) shifts from all animals to a subset, that is identifying clean and unclean animals (Deuteronomy 14), I could very well point out that Genesis 9:3 could also be easily interpreted as a subset of all animals (Genesis 1:26), just the same.

In akkadian, remes, or nammasu, refers to animals that travel in herds. They are undomesticated.

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
Genesis 1:26

Here, undomesticated animals, or remes, creeping things, are a subcategory of animals identified when God gave dominion over all animals. Identified separately from domesticated cattle.

In which case, similar to Deuteronomy, we could read Genesis 9 as identifying a subclass of animals that were already being eaten, remes, and then further highlighting a prohibition, no more life blood.

9:3-4 could also be an exclusion of scavenging as well. As draining lifeblood assumes the killing of a living animal.

And that Genesis 1:30 is specific to wild plants. Not different from the trees of the garden, but different because they are wild and not sown or domestic plants of a farm

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but the point was to give a new command that sets them apart from from the rest of the world, I think. The rest of the world is allowed to eat all animals. The Israelites just a subset (the clean animals). How will they know clean from unclean? Fins and scales. To reiterate, those that don't have find and scales are NOT to be eaten.

No, it's about both, since they are the positive and negative statements of the same rule.

No, it begins by explaining the change in the rule...from "everything" to "just clean things", and "not unclean things".

The change is explained. Then it's reinforced with its negative corollary.

Which is a change.

The change is explained further with its negative corollary. Just like "eat from every tree", "but not that one tree."

"The rest of the world is allowed to eat all animals."

I think that at the end of the day, animals were being eaten. Before Genesis 9:3.

Civilizations were eating fish and birds long before Deuteronomy.

And with that, I think it's straightforward that we could say the same about Genesis 9:3.

And I would say that's probably why Noah had clean and unclean animals on the ark. Some had already been identified as clean for consumption.

Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;
Genesis 7:2

Then in 9:3, it's just focusing on a subclass of animals and presenting a prohibition related to life blood.

And there's nothing in the text that suggests that Noah wasn't already eating animals, because He was certainly given authority to do so in Genesis 1:26-28. Cain was already sacrificing animals, which typically includes eating the remaining portion of a calf or goat.

and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering,
Genesis 4:4

People were already using animals, killing them, for various purposes. Sacrifice (which typically includes eating the unburned portion), clothing. And so there really is nothing in the text to indicate that consumption for food was not one of those things. And wild animals being identified in 9:3 with a prohibition against consumption of life blood in 9:4, certainly doesn't negate this likelihood.

 

[Aaron112]

I don't understand what you mean.

Most all the time, not all the time, but mostly, whatever a man puts his hope in , not only disappoints him, even though pleasing to the flesh and worldly mind, but it destroys him too.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but the point was to give a new command that sets them apart from from the rest of the world, I think. The rest of the world is allowed to eat all animals. The Israelites just a subset (the clean animals). How will they know clean from unclean? Fins and scales. To reiterate, those that don't have find and scales are NOT to be eaten.

No, it's about both, since they are the positive and negative statements of the same rule.

No, it begins by explaining the change in the rule...from "everything" to "just clean things", and "not unclean things".

The change is explained. Then it's reinforced with its negative corollary.

Which is a change.

The change is explained further with its negative corollary. Just like "eat from every tree", "but not that one tree."

Here are some of the dietary prohibitions from Deuteronomy 14, first verse of each part.

These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep. Of all that live in water you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. You may eat any clean birds. You may eat any clean winged creature.
Deuteronomy 14:4‭-‬5‭, ‬9‭, ‬11‭, ‬20

We just can't say that the Israelites had never eaten sheep or goat or fish with scales or winged creatures prior to these rulings.

Ancient isrealites in the days of Moses were not vegans.

And for that reason, We must conclude that the Israelites viewed it as permissible to eat these animals prior to the prohibition.

Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cleft you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you. And the pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. You shall not eat their meat, and you shall not touch their carcasses. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you. But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the buzzard, the kite, of any kind; every raven of any kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, of any kind; the little owl and the great owl, the water hen and the desert owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, the stork, the heron, of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten.
Deuteronomy 14:7‭-‬8‭, ‬10‭, ‬12‭-‬19

The prohibitions were probably made specifically to address issues of people in ancient Israel that were already eating these things.

And so when we look at Genesis 9, we see the exact same thing. We see the exact same part A and part B prohibition syntax.

And so there's really no way around it, meat was already permitted for consumption, or at the very least the ancient Israelites were already consuming fish and birds and meat, prior to Genesis 9:3.

Or at the very least, the text cannot possibly suggest that various meats were not previously being eaten among Noah and/or his ancestors.

And it's just obvious given use of animals for sacrifice and clothing beforehand anyway. As if people would kill animals for clothing and kill animals for sacrifice, but then for some reason would not also eat them. Like someone would kill a goat, sheep or cow for clothing and hide, or for sacrifice, but then wouldn't cook and eat the same animal.

It's just illogical.

In which case, Genesis 1:26-28 becomes significant, because we see that God gave the ancient isrealites liberty to use cattle and fish and birds for their purposes. Which, common sense would suggest that wild fish and birds are good for eating. You're not going to make shoes and loin cloth out of fish scales. You're not going to command wild eagles to plow your field.

But you can eat them.

 

[Derf]

Most all the time, not all the time, but mostly, whatever a man puts his hope in , not only disappoints him, even though pleasing to the flesh and worldly mind, but it destroys him too.

Ok. But you lifted a small part of my post that was written to show why a position that was not mine was incorrect, and answered it with a statement that was seemingly unrelated to the topic. I guess we can move on now.

 

[Aaron112]

Ok. But you lifted a small part of my post that was written to show why a position that was not mine was incorrect, and answered it with a statement that was seemingly unrelated to the topic. I guess we can move on now.

I agree. Thanks for clarifying.... I did get mixed up ... I'm sorry I missed this which was important to understand your post:

If it was unlike our rainbows...

 

[Derf]

Here are some of the dietary prohibitions from Deuteronomy 14, first verse of each part.

These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep. Of all that live in water you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. You may eat any clean birds. You may eat any clean winged creature.
Deuteronomy 14:4‭-‬5‭, ‬9‭, ‬11‭, ‬20

We just can't say that the Israelites had never eaten sheep or goat or fish with scales or winged creatures prior to these rulings.

Ancient isrealites in the days of Moses were not vegans.

And for that reason, We must conclude that the Israelites viewed it as permissible to eat these animals prior to the prohibition.

I never suggested otherwise. The allowance of all kinds of meat has already been given.

Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cleft you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you. And the pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. You shall not eat their meat, and you shall not touch their carcasses. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you. But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the buzzard, the kite, of any kind; every raven of any kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, of any kind; the little owl and the great owl, the water hen and the desert owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, the stork, the heron, of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten.
Deuteronomy 14:7‭-‬8‭, ‬10‭, ‬12‭-‬19

The prohibitions were probably made specifically to address issues of people in ancient Israel that were already eating these things.

Probably, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn't seem to be saying them regularly, so it's hard to know. They did have camels, but probably needed them for moving their household around--we can't tell whether they were eating them.

And so when we look at Genesis 9, we see the exact same thing. We see the exact same part A and part B prohibition syntax.

And so there's really no way around it, meat was already permitted for consumption,

I disagree, as already noted.

or at the very least the ancient Israelites were already consuming fish and birds and meat, prior to Genesis 9:3.

There were no Israelites before Israel (Jacob) was born.

Or at the very least, the text cannot possibly suggest that various meats were not previously being eaten among Noah and/or his ancestors.

Yes, the text suggests exactly this.

And it's just obvious given use of animals for sacrifice and clothing beforehand anyway. As if people would kill animals for clothing and kill animals for sacrifice, but then for some reason would not also eat them. Like someone would kill a goat, sheep or cow for clothing and hide, or for sacrifice, but then wouldn't cook and eat the same animal.

It's just illogical.

In which case, Genesis 1:26-28 becomes significant, because we see that God gave the ancient isrealites liberty to use cattle and fish and birds for their purposes. Which, common sense would suggest that wild fish and birds are good for eating. You're not going to make shoes and loin cloth out of fish scales. You're not going to command wild eagles to plow your field.

But you can eat them.

No, nor rabbits or snakes or hamsters, which peoole often keep for pets without eating them. But you might command oxen to plow your fields without eating them. And perhaps tame eagles and use them for protection from enemies.

There was a new fear of man the text mentioned, too.
Genesis 9:2 KJV — And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

If that fear was not there before, the animals likely would come to the humans and be companions, of sorts. Maybe the whole animal kingdom was like pets.

 

[Job 33:6]

I disagree, as already noted.

There isn't really anything to disagree with, because the text uses the same words. And the same sentence structure. And either you can accept this reality or you cant.


Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Genesis 9:3‭-‬4 KJV

These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Deuteronomy 14:4‭, ‬7‭, ‬9‭-‬12 KJV

There's really nothing to disagree with, the same dietary prohibition syntax is plain as day. And this is a scholarly published observation of Hebrew syntax.

And that's precisely why Genesis 9:4 explicitly identifies a prohibition.

And so the logic is simple and direct, part A of the prohibitive syntax does not negate ancient Israelites from eating fish and birds in Deuteronomy, and part A does not negate the audience of Genesis 9, we can call then ancient Hebrews, from eating meat.

 

[Derf]

There isn't really anything to disagree with, because the text uses the same words. And the same sentence structure. And either you can accept this reality or you cant.


Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Genesis 9:3‭-‬4 KJV

These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Deuteronomy 14:4‭, ‬7‭, ‬9‭-‬12 KJV

There's really nothing to disagree with, the same dietary prohibition syntax is plain as day. And this is a scholarly published observation of Hebrew syntax.

And that's precisely why Genesis 9:4 explicitly identifies a prohibition.

And so the logic is simple and direct, part A of the prohibitive syntax does not negate ancient Israelites from eating fish and birds in Deuteronomy, and part A does not negate the audience of Genesis 9, we can call then ancient Hebrews, from eating meat.

When you have a young child that is constantly putting things in his mouth, you teach him what he can eat. God did that with Adam and Eve. The only explicit prohibition is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but when your parent tells you, "it's okay to eat of these things", that doesn't mean "it's okay to eat everything". Tree of knowledge would kill them. Eating animal flesh might just have made them sick..., we don't know one waybir another, because God told them what they could eat, and animals weren't included. And He told them what not to eat, and animals weren't included. Structure of Gen 9 and Deut 14 doesn't give you any information about Gen 1 permissions or prohibitions.

 

[Job 33:6]

When you have a young child that is constantly putting things in his mouth, you teach him what he can eat. God did that with Adam and Eve. The only explicit prohibition is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but when your parent tells you, "it's okay to eat of these things", that doesn't mean "it's okay to eat everything". Tree of knowledge would kill them. Eating animal flesh might just have made them sick..., we don't know one waybir another, because God told them what they could eat, and animals weren't included. And He told them what not to eat, and animals weren't included. Structure of Gen 9 and Deut 14 doesn't give you any information about Gen 1 permissions or prohibitions.

This response doesn't address the syntax of dietary prohibitions observed in Genesis 9 or Deuteronomy 14.

Your response also is simply anachronistic involving pet fish and eagles, and whale oil? and doesn't align with the Hebrew definitions of subdue and rule.

 

[Derf]

This response doesn't address the syntax of dietary prohibitions observed in Genesis 9 or Deuteronomy 14.

Your response also is simply anachronistic involving pet fish and eagles, and whale oil? and doesn't align with the Hebrew definitions of subdue and rule.

Oh, yeah. Thanks for adding pet fish to the list.

Syntax doesn't add to lists of what it's ok or not ok to eat--that's your presuppositions speaking.

 

[Derf]

There isn't really anything to disagree with, because the text uses the same words. And the same sentence structure. And either you can accept this reality or you cant.

You mean I can accept your interpretation of the Gen 1 passage or I can't? I dont accept it, because it adds to the text something the text was not saying.

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Genesis 9:3‭-‬4 KJV

These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

Right...eat A, which is exclusive of B.

These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Deuteronomy 14:4‭, ‬7‭, ‬9‭-‬12 KJV

Same here...eat A, which is exclusive from B.

There's really nothing to disagree with, the same dietary prohibition syntax is plain as day. And this is a scholarly published observation of Hebrew syntax.

And that's precisely why Genesis 9:4 explicitly identifies a prohibition.

Right. "A" is the flesh, "B" is the blood. But "B" is absolutely necessary in Gen 9, while it is not necessary in Deuteronomy. Your Deuteronomy examples have B categories that are repetitious of the A categories--"Eat A (which is exclusive of B), and don't eat B (which is exclusive of A)." Gen 9 is not so. So your Levitical pattern is already not the same as either the Adamic or Noahic patterns.

And so the logic is simple and direct, part A of the prohibitive syntax does not negate ancient Israelites from eating fish and birds in Deuteronomy, and part A does not negate the audience of Genesis 9, we can call then ancient Hebrews,

You can't, really, because the Hebrews were a subset of the world population. Noah's family right after the flood was the ENTIRE world population.

from eating meat.

Nothing I've said previously even remotely suggested that anything in Gen 9 limited the food sources made available to the people directly after the flood, just the food content. And I think I was pretty clear that Gen 9 had no bearing on people before the flood. Their prohibition of the blood was not necessary or relevant to a population who were only given plants to eat.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. "A" is the flesh, "B" is the blood. But "B" is absolutely necessary in Gen 9, while it is not necessary in Deuteronomy. Your Deuteronomy examples have B categories that are repetitious of the A categories--"Eat A (which is exclusive of B), and don't eat B (which is exclusive of A)." Gen 9 is not so. So your Levitical pattern is already not the same as either the Adamic or Noahic patterns.

‭‭not so, verse 9:4 is directly repetitious. We have to consider WHY it's important for the animal to not have its lifeblood.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9:3‭-‬4‬ ‭
[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [4] Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

That is things that live, and can have their lifeblood drained, and things scavenged that cannot have lifeblood drained.

An animal that has been killed (part A), verses an animal that is just a dead carcass that has not been killed but rather scavenged off the ground (part B).

We could write the ruling in Genesis 9 in modern language:

A. You may hunt and eat living herding wild animals. With blood originally in them when you hunt them live. And so you can drain them and return their life force to God.

B. You must drain their life blood, meaning that they must be live when you hunt them.

Because the opposite is to scavenge, which would directly exclude part A. In which case, you cannot return their life force to God.

So the categories A. and B. In Genesis 9 are mutually exclusive, just as they are in Deuteronomy and liviticus.

Let me try to summarize it this way:

The text is essentially saying, meat cannot be eaten with lifeblood in it (Part B verse 4).

Therefore, the animal must be killed in order to do this, and more specifically, the animal must be drained of it's blood.

The blood must be drained. Thereby showing that they've killed the animal in accordance with the way God wanted.

If they do not drain the blood, then they may be eating dead carcasses. Which is in direct contradiction of A, living, herding, animals that move upon the earth.

It's a matter of
A. This is living and clean
B. This is dead and unclean (you're not draining life blood)

Or we could say:
A. You shall eat animals that you can drain (living hunted wild herd animals).
B. You shall not eat animals with blood in them that have not or can not be drained (scavenged dead animals).

Living, drained or drainable vs dead, undrained or undrainable.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9:3‭-‬4‬ ‭
[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [4] Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

On scavenging:

‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭17:13‭-‬16‬ ‭
[13] “And anyone of the Israelites or of the aliens who reside among them who hunts down an animal or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. [14] For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; therefore I have said to the Israelites, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ [15] All persons, native-born or alien, who eat what dies of itself or what has been torn by wild animals shall wash their clothes and bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening; then they shall be clean. [16] But if they do not wash themselves or bathe their body, they shall bear their guilt.”

Verses similar to Genesis 9:3-4
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭12:15‭-‬16‬ ‭
[15] “Yet whenever you desire you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, according to the blessing that the Lord your God has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as they would of gazelle or deer. [16] The blood, however, you must not eat; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
[22] Indeed, just as gazelle or deer is eaten, so you may eat it; the unclean and the clean alike may eat it. [23] Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the meat.

‭‭1 Samuel‬ ‭14:31‭-‬35‬ ‭
[31] After they had struck down the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon, the troops were very faint, [32] so the troops flew upon the spoil and took sheep and oxen and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and the troops ate them with the blood. [33] Then it was reported to Saul, “Look, the troops are sinning against the Lord by eating with the blood.” And he said, “You have dealt treacherously; roll a large stone before me here.” [34] Saul said, “Disperse yourselves among the troops and say to them: Let all bring their oxen or their sheep, and slaughter them here and eat, and do not sin against the Lord by eating with the blood.” So all of the troops brought their oxen with them that night and slaughtered them there. [35] And Saul built an altar to the Lord; it was the first altar that he built to the Lord.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh, yeah. Thanks for adding pet fish to the list.

Syntax doesn't add to lists of what it's ok or not ok to eat--that's your presuppositions speaking.

More observations:

Sanhedrin
59a
The William Davidson Talmud
(Koren - Steinsaltz)
Want to change the translation?Go to translations
×

ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: ת"ר (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי
§ The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The descendants of Noah are also commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming the blood from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also
prohibited in this

You shall not eat life with its blood.

So we could also view it this way. You may eat life without its blood, (part B), but you may not eat meat that has its blood in it, such as the limb from a living animal.

So B. Requires that the animal is dead and drained. Which directly excludes A. Eating animals essentially literally while they are still alive.

 

[Job 33:6]

‭‭not so, verse 9:4 is directly repetitious. We have to consider WHY it's important for the animal to not have its lifeblood.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9:3‭-‬4‬ ‭
[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [4] Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

That is things that live, and can have their lifeblood drained, and things scavenged that cannot have lifeblood drained.

An animal that has been killed (part A), verses an animal that is just a dead carcass that has not been killed but rather scavenged off the ground (part B).

We could write the ruling in Genesis 9 in modern language:

A. You may hunt and eat living herding wild animals. With blood originally in them when you hunt them live. And so you can drain them and return their life force to God.

B. You must drain their life blood, meaning that they must be live when you hunt them.

Because the opposite is to scavenge, which would directly exclude part A. In which case, you cannot return their life force to God.

So the categories A. and B. In Genesis 9 are mutually exclusive, just as they are in Deuteronomy and liviticus.

Let me try to summarize it this way:

The text is essentially saying, meat cannot be eaten with lifeblood in it (Part B verse 4).

Therefore, the animal must be killed in order to do this, and more specifically, the animal must be drained of it's blood.

The blood must be drained. Thereby showing that they've killed the animal in accordance with the way God wanted.

If they do not drain the blood, then they may be eating dead carcasses. Which is in direct contradiction of A, living, herding, animals that move upon the earth.

It's a matter of
A. This is living and clean
B. This is dead and unclean (you're not draining life blood)

Or we could say:
A. You shall eat animals that you can drain (living hunted wild herd animals).
B. You shall not eat animals with blood in them that have not or can not be drained (scavenged dead animals).

Living, drained or drainable vs dead, undrained or undrainable.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9:3‭-‬4‬ ‭
[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [4] Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Actually, just an update on this. It's probably easier to just defer to the Sanhedrin quote above about life drained of blood being contrasted with life with its blood still in it.

The reason that Sanhedrin is saying what it is, is because in ancient times people didn't have refrigerators and freezers like we do today, so to preserve meat, sometimes animals were kept alive longer. So ancient people might try to eat a limb but keep the animal alive to preserve the meat.

And so it follows, you shall or may eat living meat, but make sure you have drained it's blood.

Animals with blood, contrasted with animals without blood. Life in the animal, versus life returned to God.

‭‭‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9:3‭-‬4‬ ‭NRSV‬‬
[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [4] Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

At the end of the day, the ancient Hebrews very clearly understood this text as a dietary prohibition. The dominant purpose of the prohibition is focused on verse 4, it's not about verse 3. And that's what it boils down to.

B. Animals drained of blood is exclusive of A, animals with blood in them. A. Animals with blood in them, is exclusive of B. Animals drained.

A. Is moving.
B. Is not moving.

A. Is alive.
B. Is not alive.

A. Has it's life in it.
B. Does not have its life in it.

A. Life blood is in it.
B. Life blood is drained.

And it is a sin to eat an animal that is still moving and alive with it's life blood in it.

And it is permissable to eat an animal that is not moving and not alive with its life blood drained (properly sacrificed in the name of God).

And that's the exclusionary language.

 

[Mercy Shown]

If you want to have a primitive ancient society, use their mythology as your today's science.

An inspired mythology is still not science.

Today's, origin science, is today's mythology. To pretend that it is scientific fact is misguided. Today's origin theories are influenced by politics, money, and power. The fact is, the current establishment has its hands around the throat of real science just as firmly as the church did in Galelao's day.

Indeed, if we turn the spotlight on Darwinism, Lamarckism, orthogenesis, structuralism, catastrophism, vitalism, or theistic evolution we find them all shriveling to a theoretical black box generating more questions than answers and each requires as much an axiomatic faith in its output as does the sternest fundamentalist preacher pounding his pulpit.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Evolution flies in the face of the nature of God. We understand that God is gracious, merciful, defender of the helpless, loving, caring and vitally involved in life on earth. Evolution is impersonal, ruthless, random, uncaring and destroys the weak. If evolution is true, then everyone is simply a product of random combinations of mutations or whatever mechanism the evolutionist claims to be the case. Yet God holds this random collection of cells to account for its actions. This seems utterly unfair, if indeed we are evolved. One individual "evolves" into Osama Bin Laden while another "evolves" into Billy Graham. Who is right and who is wrong? With evolution, the concept of right and wrong is meaningless. Theistic evolution is the worst of both worlds. "In the beginning God" is just fine by me.

Theistic evolution makes a mockery of Christianity. It is the proverbial thread in the sweater and only those who can simultaneously hold mutually exclusive ideas in their mind without the slightest awareness of the cognitive dissonance can hold to such a rough slide down the fence.

 

[trophy33]

Today's origin theories are influenced by politics, money, and power. The fact is, the current establishment has its hands around the throat of real science just as firmly as the church did in Galelao's day.

Provide names, proofs, what establishments exactly, what power, whose money etc.

Also, define "today's" - Origenes? Darwin? Or something from this century?