Why Can't I Drink Blood?

[HARK!]

Sorry, they are all or nothing.

What are you saying? Are we to follow Yahshua's example of obedience to YHWH's law? Can't we just believe in him?

 

[JackRT]

Raw animal blood consumed in small quantities can be digested but consumed in large quantities it can be lethal due to iron poisoning. Various processing and cooking techniques as in "blood sausage" can render it digestible.

 

[HARK!]

It's wrong to drink, blood, brother, because God says it's wrong.

That's always been good enough for me; but some people are trying to lead me to believe that Yahshua replaced the Father's word, that the law is no longer in effect; that we can eat whatever we want, regardless of what Abba says. So you're saying I shouldn't go drink blood with them?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Hmmm...Here we have the last book of the new testament, telling us to keep YHWH's law.


Hmmmm.... maybe I had it all wrong. Maybe YHWH and Yahshua don't consider blood to be food, along with what YHWH commanded in Leviticus 11.

I guess context really is key!

Thanks for the info.

But do you know why God limited these meats in Leviticus 11, when just after the flood, before the Mosaic law, they could eat everything that moved, except its blood? And then in 1 Timothy 4 we can eat anything again (except for the blood)? Only during the Old Covenant was it limited. And before the flood only vegetarian.

 

[ilovejcsog]

In Genesis God says we can't because LIFE is in the blood.

 

[HARK!]

But do you know why God limited these meats in Leviticus 11, when just after the flood, before the Mosaic law, they could eat everything that moved, except its blood? And then in 1 Timothy 4 we can eat anything again (except for the blood)? Only during the Old Covenant was it limited. And before the flood only vegetarian.

I believe that your question is fundamentally flawed; but I'd like to see what you have to say, before I tell you why.

 

[Josheb]

Why can't I drink blood?

Assuming you could get it down and not vomit, it clogs up the bowels and can poison you (look up hemochromatosis), or cause a variety of other ailments. It also makes mockery of the foreknown sacrifice.


Just say no.



Btw, The use of the two passages creates a false equivalency fallacy (apples and oranges). The two are not talking about the same condition from the same direction.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don't want to go there either; but why wouldn't drinking blood be covered by grace along with everything else?

It is. Sin has already been paid for. People really do not understand God's ways. Nothing with God is arbitrary, unjust, unfair or harmful. God hates sin because it offends His holy nature. He also hates what it does to people. God will not condemn something done in ignorance. Grace does not give people a licence to sin. (Romans 6)

Law is a demand placed on man. "Do this and you will live". Man proved that he cannot keep the Law. Those who are born again have the life of Christ within. His life motivates, empowers, leads, directs and corrects the believer. Grace says, "You are alive! So live accordingly".

 

[HARK!]

In Genesis God says we can't because LIFE is in the blood.

How do you reconcile that with this passage?:

(CLV) Mk 7:18
And He is saying to them, "Are you, also, thus unintelligent? Not yet are you apprehending that everything from the outside, that is going into a man, can not contaminate him,

(CLV) Mk 7:19
for it is not going into his heart, but into the bowels, and is going out into the latrine cleansing all foods?"

 

[HARK!]

It is. Sin has already been paid for. People really do not understand God's ways. Nothing with God is arbitrary, unjust, unfair or harmful. God hates sin because it offends His holy nature. He also hates what it does to people. God will not condemn something done in ignorance. Grace does not give people a licence to sin. (Romans 6)

Law is a demand placed on man. "Do this and you will live". Man proved that he cannot keep the Law. Those who are born again have the life of Christ within. His life motivates, empowers, leads, directs and corrects the believer. Grace says, "You are alive! So live accordingly".

In that light, do you feel that you should honor Leviticus 11, and Leviticus 23?

 

[HARK!]

it clogs up the bowels and can poison you

(CLV) Mk 7:19
for it is not going into his heart, but into the bowels, and is going out into the latrine cleansing all foods?"

 

[CharismaticLady]

I believe that your question is fundamentally flawed; but I'd like to see what you have to say, before I tell you why.

Fundamentally flawed? In what way? I only quoted scripture, minus some I would hope you already knew.

 

[CharismaticLady]

In that light, do you feel that you should honor Leviticus 11, and Leviticus 23?

Aussie Pete is talking about the New Covenant, and you are asking him if he should also keep the Old Covenant?

 

[HARK!]

Fundamentally flawed? In what way? I only quoted scripture, minus some I would hope you already knew.

I Need Help From Those Who Are Fluent In Hebrew

I have more; but this should be more than enough to get started.

 

[PaulCyp1]

You do, every time you eat fresh meat.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Yahshua said:

(CLV) Mk 7:15
Nothing is there outside of a man, going into him, which can contaminate him, but those things going out of a man are what is contaminating the man.

(CLV) Mk 7:17
And when He entered into the house from the throng, His disciples inquired of Him concerning the parable.

(CLV) Mk 7:18
And He is saying to them, "Are you, also, thus unintelligent? Not yet are you apprehending that everything from the outside, that is going into a man, can not contaminate him,

(CLV) Mk 7:19
for it is not going into his heart, but into the bowels, and is going out into the latrine cleansing all foods?"


But then Ya'akov (James) says:

(CLV) Ac 15:20
but to write an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood.

As with a lot of the Scriptures, good interpretation calls for determining the main principle or idea of the passage and then applying that principle or idea to your present situation. Also, always consider the context of a passage, that is, the rest of the chapter, book, and the whole Bible's teachings.

As with the first passage, read and ponder the first 14 verses to help you understand the ones you quote. Jesus says that the Pharisees' ceremonial washings have to do with human rules, not God's laws. He then establishes the principle that all foods are okay and that the products of our mouths are much more important than food.

The second verse is the church's written response to the churches about their practices. I'm not sure why they include abstaining from strangled animals and blood, but I think the reason is that this was a compromise between the Jews and the Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council meeting in this chapter.

The main question was whether the churches should be required to undergo circumcision, a Jewish rite. They didn't require the Gentiles to have that ceremony, which would have made them become Jews in order to be Christians. Thus, Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) could peacefully get along together with baptism and the Lord's Supper uniting them. The principle is the need for unity in the church.

 

[HARK!]

Aussie Pete is talking about the New Covenant, and you are asking him if he should also keep the Old Covenant?

If sin is transgression of the law; and there is no law; then there is no sin.

If there is no sin; what need I of grace?

 

[CharismaticLady]

I don't want this thread to turn into a scripture battle. I don't want it to turn into a dietary discussion. This thread was created solely to gain an objective understanding of this verse from a linguistic standpoint.
If you are not qualified to provide such information either, from education, or native understanding; please observe, or seek knowledge, from those who are qualified.

That is what I'll be doing.

Shalom

I've been studying Hebrew for a few years now; but I'm far from fluent.

I generally rely on the free CLV version (Clear Literal Version) of Scripture4all to do my studies of scripture. I've found it to be the best translation I can find, so far. I appreciate that it makes use of the Critical Text, in this translation. All in all, I think that they did a very good job with this translation.

Now, my dilemma:

(CLV) Gn 9:3
Every moving animal that is alive, shall be yours for food; as with the green herbage, I give to you everything.

How can this be?

Here is, supposedly, the Hebrew original script, from left to right.

את כל יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם

Here are the CLV translations word for word.

to·you living he which moving (animal) every-of to·you I-give herbage as·green for·food he-is-becoming all

Now it appears that the word "animal" was added by the translator. If that word hadn't been added by the translator; it would seem that this verse might be saying:

"To you who lives, he which moves, I give green herbage for food. He is becoming all?"

So I looked up each word with Google Hebrew translator. Here's what I get:

to you
He lives
which
insect?
all
to you
I gave
grass
A vegetable
For eating
will be
all


Can someone give me a clear explanation of how to correctly translate this verse; and explain why the explanation, you will give, is the correct explanation?

Interesting, but still unclear. Are you saying we are still to only eat herbs? What herbs have blood? Please explain if I misunderstood you.

 

[CharismaticLady]

If sin is transgression of the law; and there is no law; then there is no sin.

If there is no sin; what need I of grace?

Do you know what the eternal laws are and what are the Mosaic laws based on it, yet not fully?

 

[HARK!]

The main question was whether the churches should be required to undergo circumcision, a Jewish rite. They didn't require the Gentiles to have that ceremony, which would have made them become Jews in order to be Christians. Thus, Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) could peacefully get along together with baptism and the Lord's Supper uniting them. The principle is the need for unity in the church.

i wasn't a compromise. It was that way from the beginning. Abraham came to faith; then came the outward sign. This is an eternal covenant. Just as Baptism, circumcision is an outward sign of what has happened within, having come to faith.

I cover this in depth in my Galatians study which starts here: Paul on the Law: Galatians 1