GOD'S DIETARY LAWS AND BAT SOUP STEW - COVID 19

LoveGodsWord said:

Repetition and no discussion? Well I can understand why. As posted earlier repeating yourself does not make your words magically come true. If you disagree with posts # 292; posts # 293 and post # 294 linked then prove it. You are yet to address and reconcile the scripture contexts that proves your teachings are in error. Sorry sis seems like God's Word disagrees with you. Your welcome to show why if you disagree though with the scriptures provided in the linked posts here. Until then, what do you have to support your teachings and claims? -Nothing. So we will have to agree to disagree. As shown above the scriptures provided above do not support your view. Let's talk more when your able to address the linked posts and you can reconcile the scripture contexts and subject matter that disagrees with your claims in regards to God's dietary laws being abolished from 1 Timothy 4:3-5; Acts of the Apostles 10:1-28; Mark 7:1-23; Romans 14:14 and Ephesians 2:14-15.

Click to expand...

This does not reconcile your understanding of 1Tim 4:3-5 with Ro 14:14, 20; Eph 2:14-15. . .and Mk 7:15. . .REQUESTED in post #250.

And I repeat: You could use a good study of Leviticus.

Leviticus: Seedbed of NT Theology

The above can't be reconciled, because your understandings of Mk 7:15 and 1Ti 4:3-5 are incorrect, and a theology supported by those misunderstandings is likewise incorrect, so let's just call it quits, okay?

This whole notion of calling food unclean is so foreign to God's New Covenant order, where all food is clean (Ro 14:14, 20), and
it's really an affront to God who has declared all things good (Ge 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 1Tim 4:4).

LoveGodsWord said:

R E P I T I T I O N...again?

As posted earlier let's talk more when your able to address the linked posts that have already addressed the above scriptures from posts # 292; posts # 293 and post # 294 linked and you can reconcile the scripture contexts and subject matter that disagrees with your claims in regards to God's dietary laws being abolished from 1 Timothy 4:3-5; Acts of the Apostles 10:1-28; Mark 7:1-23; Romans 14:14 and Ephesians 2:14-15. Ignoring God's Word does not make it disappear. If you cannot prove your claims just say so. Mark 7 is addressed in detail in posts # 292 proving your claims here are not true through the scriptures. Your response was to ignore it saying it is in error without showing why while the post shows why you are in error. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. If you cannot prove your position we will have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Ro 14:14, 20; Eph 2:14-15 can't be reconciled with your understandings of Mk 7:15 and 1Ti 4:3-5 because those understandings are incorrect, and a theology supported by those misunderstandings is likewise incorrect.

This whole notion of calling food unclean is so foreign to God's New Covenant order, where all food is clean (Ro 14:14, 20), and
it's really an affront to God who has declared all things good (Ge 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 1Tim 4:4).

So I think we're done here. . .this dead horse has been beaten enough, don't you think?

BobRyan said:

Christ did not die on the cross to change the biology of animals or humans. Peter reminds us in Acts 10 that even at that late point after the resurrection of Christ - he was not eating rat or cat sandwiches. It is not something that the Gospel was trying to "fix" or "change". Still no rat-burgers or cat-burgers even after the cross.

Peter explains the vision three times in the book of Acts and never brings up the "news" about rat-burgers or cat-burgers as if it were somehow the latest/new gospel truth that has just come up.

Click to expand...

Exactly! If the health laws had changed, Peter certainly would have known it. And these animals have not changed. They are still unhealthy to eat. And the sheet was brought down 3 times and he never ate from it. People still do not understand the meaning of this.

Clare73 said:

This does not reconcile your understanding of 1Tim 4:3-5

Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding the most important part of verse 3.

I Timothy 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God had created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Unclean animals were not created to be received. They have their purposes but not to eat. God gave the health laws for just that reason -good health. And he told us which animals we could receive. And that stands today.

Christ was with the discipes after he had risen many times. They even dined with him. Wouldn't they have known if the health laws had changed?? Especially Peter. That's because they hadn't. These animals did not suddenly change and become healthy to eat. Scavangers are still the same. Bottom feeders are still cleaning up the sea. A pig today still doesn't have sweat glands and so on...These animals contain certain poisons and diseases that survive the cooking process. God wants our bodies to be healthy.

Certain blood ordinances were nailed to the cross naturally. But that did not include what we should or should not be eating health wise.

JulieB67 said:

Exactly! If the health laws had changed, Peter certainly would have known it. And these animals have not changed. They are still unhealthy to eat. And the sheet was brought down 3 times and he never ate from it. People still do not understand the meaning of this.



You're misunderstanding the most important part of verse 3.

I Timothy 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God had created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Unclean animals were not created to be received. They have their purposes but not to eat. God gave the health laws for just that reason -good health. And he told us which animals we could receive. And that stands today.

Christ was with the discipes after he had risen many times. They even dined with him. Wouldn't they have known if the health laws had changed?? Especially Peter. That's because they hadn't. These animals did not suddenly change and become healthy to eat. Scavangers are still the same. Bottom feeders are still cleaning up the sea. A pig today still doesn't have sweat glands and so on...These animals contain certain poisons and diseases that survive the cooking process. God wants our bodies to be healthy.

Certain blood ordinances were nailed to the cross naturally. But that did not include what we should or should not be eating health wise.

Click to expand...

What is this fiction about certain animals that are unhealthy to eat? Do you think chickens are unhealthy to eat because there are more cases of food poisoning from eating spoiled chicken than there are from eating pork? Given the actual statistics, I take it that you probably favor eating pork over chicken.

My view is that the old Testament laws were to be followed by Jews not Gentiles.
That the laws had both spiritual and physical meanings.
That as saved Gentiles we can glean much from the Old Testament and many good principles but that we are not under them as a law.

Q1. Are Gods' health and dietary laws important for us today?
We would be wise to look at them and understand the underlying health reasons for them. The same way we should not wash raw chicken under the tap we should be careful how certain meats are prepared and cooked and if there are other health concerns such as trans fats we would be wise to not eat in excess.
The same can be said for how the animals are kept. We are to be caretakers of the land and things like battery hens are inhumane. If I know something has been kept or killed inhumanly I would not eat it. If I don't know I simply give thanks for it.

Q2. Is COVID-19 Gods' judgement for breaking His dietary laws?
I believe it is part of the end times. I expect far more and worse pestilence to come.
Luke 21:11

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Q3. Can a "CLEAN MEAT" become "UNCLEAN MEAT" today if so how?
I believe all food is clean. Hasn't this argument of yours been done to death on the pork chop thread? Being spiritually clean is not the same as healthy.

Romans 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.

Food is simply something to fuel the body with. What we should be concerned about is causing our brother to stumble. It is people and their actions and words that can be unclean.
Matthew 15:11
What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

bbbbbbb said:

What is this fiction about certain animals that are unhealthy to eat?

Click to expand...

Again I ask, if the health laws had changed, why didn't the disciples know even after being with Christ many times after he had risen, even dining with him? They certainly would have known. And Peter never ate from the sheets that were brought down. He understood God was talking about man, not food.

And food still has to be cooked properly, that's not the issue. A good analogy is that unclean animals are kind of like vacuum cleaners. They clean up the land and the sea. And that's why we shouldn't be consuming them -because what they themselves consume sometimes can survive the cooking process. I mean, would you really want to eat an animal that had eaten another diseased animal and have that pass onto you?

It goes back again to the most important part of this verse,

I Timothy 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

He did not create unclean animals to be received.

JulieB67 said:

You're misunderstanding the most important part of verse 3.

I Timothy 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God had created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Unclean animals were not created to be received. They have their purposes but not to eat. God gave the health laws for just that reason -good health. And he told us which animals we could receive. And that stands today.

Christ was with the discipes after he had risen many times. They even dined with him. Wouldn't they have known if the health laws had changed?? Especially Peter. That's because they hadn't. These animals did not suddenly change and become healthy to eat. Scavangers are still the same. Bottom feeders are still cleaning up the sea. A pig today still doesn't have sweat glands and so on...These animals contain certain poisons and diseases that survive the cooking process. God wants our bodies to be healthy.

Certain blood ordinances were nailed to the cross naturally. But that did not include what we should or should not be eating health wise.

Click to expand...

Addressed in post #313.

JulieB67 said:

Again I ask, if the health laws had changed, why didn't the disciples know even after being with Christ many times after he had risen, even dining with him? They certainly would have known. And Peter never ate from the sheets that were brought down. He understood God was talking about man, not food.

And food still has to be cooked properly, that's not the issue. A good analogy is that unclean animals are kind of like vacuum cleaners. They clean up the land and the sea. And that's why we shouldn't be consuming them -because what they themselves consume sometimes can survive the cooking process. I mean, would you really want to eat an animal that had eaten another diseased animal and have that pass onto you?

It goes back again to the most important part of this verse,

I Timothy 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

He did not create unclean animals to be received.

Click to expand...

Let's try to look at this objectively. We know that all sin results in death - either spiritual or physical and sometimes both. Physical sin, such as tobacco use (which, BTW, is never mentioned as a sin in the Bible) will result in disease and ultimately death in most people (there are always exceptions).

Eating raw meat (meat with the blood uncooked) is dangerous and can lead to disease and death. This include all meat listed as being "clean" in the Bible. If eating "unclean" meat is a (physical) sin then the natural outcome will be disease and death. Unfortunately, for those who cling to their personal versions of the dietary law, this is not at all the case. Death and disease from eating properly prepared pork is virtually unknown today. OTOH, we now know that a significant proportion of the population suffers from celiac disease and other related diseases from eating wheat and wheat products. Is eating wheat a sin against God? Obviously not at all. Is eating wheat a sin against one's body if one suffers from these diseases? Obviously, because it results in disease and possible death.

My grandmother, sadly, was cut down in the midst of her life at the tender age of 90 as a result of avid pork consumption. My mother followed soon after, perishing at the tender age of 91. Her cousin died last summer just two days shy of 104. If only they had ceased from the sin of eating pork they might have lived out full life spans! Strangely, I remain quite unrepentant and hope that I live as long as them. Pork is excellent meat. So is beef and chicken and many other meats which God has graciously given to humanity to enjoy.

JulieB67 said:

You're misunderstanding the most important part of verse 3.

Exactly! If the health laws had changed, Peter certainly would have known it. And these animals have not changed. They are still unhealthy to eat. And the sheet was brought down 3 times and he never ate from it. People still do not understand the meaning of this.

Click to expand...

JulieB67 said:

Again I ask, if the health laws had changed, why didn't the disciples know even after being with Christ many times after he had risen, even dining with him? They certainly would have known.

Click to expand...

And I ask: did they know about justification/salvation apart from works? Did they know about accounting (imputing) Christ's righteousness to those in Christ?? Did they know about the Church, the Bride of Christ and the showcase of God's wisdom? Did they know about the one olive tree of God's people, from which Israel was cut off and the Gentiles grafted in? Did they know that Gentiles and Jews are on the same footing with God? Did they know the promises were given only to Abraham and Christ, etc., etc., etc.?

And these animals have not changed. They are still unhealthy to eat.

Click to expand...

A better working knowledge of the whole counsel of God is much needed here; e.g.,

Ge 9:3 - EVERYthing that lives and moves will be food for you.

What changed?

Some animals were made unclean temporarily by the Mosaic laws, as were people, garments and houses, and as the sacrifices were also temporary--to present in patterns and shadows (Col 2:17; Heb 10:1) the meaning of spiritual defilement and its cleansing, which was to come in the new order (Heb 9:10); i.e., cleansing of spiritual defilement (sin) by the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God.

There is much in NT teaching contrary to your misunderstanding, and with which you have not reckoned.

And Peter never ate from the sheets that were brought down. He understood God was talking about man, not food. The sheet was brought down 3 times and he never ate from it. People still do not understand the meaning of this.

Click to expand...

That is correct, Peter's vision was not specifically about food.

But Jesus' words were: "NOTHING outside a man (and food is no exception) can make him unclean by going into him. . ." (Mk 7:15)

And Paul's revelation from Jesus in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5) is the same: ". . .no food is unclean in itself. . .all food is clean. . ."
(Ro 14:14, 20)

Paul reveals that "(Christ) has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility (of which the food laws were the chief), by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph 2:14-15).
The many regulations regarding clean and unclean food, persons, garments, houses and their cleansings were the barrier, dividing wall, or wall of partition by which God both separated Israel from the sin of the pagan Gentiles and governed their daily lives until the time of the new order (Heb 9:10), the New Covenant, with its new priesthood (Heb 7:11), new sanctuary (Heb 9:11, 24), and new once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 9:12, 28).

The clean and unclean foods (Lev 11), as well as the clean and unclean persons (Lev 12), clean and unclean garments (Lev 13), clean and unclean houses (Lev 14), the cleansings (Lev 12-15) and the sacrifices (Lev 1-7), all called ceremonial laws (i.e., not part of the moral or the public governing laws), were all part of the regulations which partitioned off Israel from the Gentiles, and were temporary until the time of the new order, when they were made obsolete (Heb 8:13) and abolished (Eph 2:14-15).

The Word of God says it. . .that settles it. . .I believe it.

And food still has to be cooked properly, that's not the issue. A good analogy is that unclean animals are kind of like vacuum cleaners. They clean up the land and the sea. And that's why we shouldn't be consuming them -because what they themselves consume sometimes can survive the cooking process. I mean, would you really want to eat an animal that had eaten another diseased animal and have that pass onto you?

Click to expand...

None of that is from Scripture, it is all your personal notions.
And the Mosaic law of "clean and unclean" food had nothing to do with diseases, the food was unclean with or without disease.

It goes back again to the most important part of this verse:
I Timothy 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Click to expand...

Precisely!

"meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" (God's people),
and which "receiving with thanksgiving" Jesus modeled for us--taking the five loaves and two fishes, taking the bread, etc., he gave thanks
(Mt 14:19, 26:26; Mk 8:6; Lk 9:16, 24:30), and his giving thanks had nothing to do with the food being unclean.

He did not create unclean animals to be received.

Click to expand...

Agreed. . .because he did not create unclean animals, period.

Ge 9:3 - Everything that lives and moves will be food for you.

You read into the Scriptures (eisegesis) what you want them to teach for the sake of your personal opinion.
You fail to read out of the Scriptures (exegesis) what they actually teach,
as clearly demonstrated in Ge 9:3; Mk 7:15, Ro 14:14, 30; Eph 2:14-15; 1Co 8:8, 10:25; Heb 9:9-10; Col 2:16-19.

You likewise could use a good study of Leviticus.

Leviticus: Seedbed of NT Theology

LoveGodsWord said:

It is ok this is getting no where and just going around in circles.

Click to expand...

I agree, and @Clare73 isn’t the one making them. Your reply to my post on what is and is not God’s Word, like most of your replies, ignores scriptures you don’t want to deal with and presents the controversial opinions of the SDA and Ellen White as though they were undisputed fact. I had an SDA printed Bible some place that was even called “God’s Word”, which actually does work as a title, since the Scriptures say Jesus Christ is God’s Word, and the entire Bible is about Him (see Luke, the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus).

Since Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and John 1:1 is not referring to Scripture, and since the Nicene Creed says the Holy Spirit and not Christ spoke through the prophets and since the Church believes the Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists and all other books of the Bible, but because those parts of the Bible which are not actually the speech attributed to the Lord our God in
the Old Testament, and more specifically the Father and Son in the New Testament and prophetic utterances spoken by the Holy Spirit through the Prophets are not perfect, but contain minor contradictions, for example, between the four evangelists and the Apostle Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper, we cannot reasonably call them the actual words of God, but rather inspired by the Holy Spirit. And all of the Old and New Testament is equally inspired by the Holy Spirit. But what was spoken by God is a specific category. There are also minor contradictions even in how the words of God are recorded, for example, in the aforementioned case of the Lord’s Supper, there are four different versions of what Jesus said.

There are also some places where some people think contradictions exist, but I believe they were separate events or artifacts of incomplete recording, specifically, I believe God said everything in the Beatitudes in both Matthew and Luke, even though the two versions are quite different.

So when we talk about the Word of God, I believe that phrase should apply only to Jesus Christ, the only begotten and uncreated son of the Father, by whom all things were made, and who is God incarnate. And we should remember the only way to the Father is through Him; all speech attributed to God not specifically attributed to the Father should, I think, be presumed to be that of our Lord Jesus Christ. And while the SDA does have images of Jesus, which I admire (at an Adventist Hospital, in my youth my mother was rushed there with acute food poisoning, and in the waiting room there was a photograph showing someone who resembled the standard depiction of our Lord*, with his arms around a group of people, and this was very comforting), we should not assume the Ancient of Days is the Father or visually imagine what the Father looks like (there is actually a prohibition on icons of the Father in the Orthodox churches), because He is the one person of the Holy Trinity who has never revealed His appearance. It is a holy mystery. The Spirit is commonly depicted as a dove, but has also appeared as tongues of fire.

It should also be stressed that the minor variations between reportage of events in different Gospels or elsewhere in Scripture does not threaten the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, because. Errors occur only in interpretation.

And in this case I believe your interpretation is in error for the reasons stated above, and also the question is moot because covid-19’s cause is unknown and could well be the result of an accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where it is known that SARS coronavirus was being studied. I mean, its not like communist histories don’t have a history of covering up engineering failures (the KGB almost succeeded in suppressing the truth about Chernobyl and how bad it was, and they did cover up most failures of the Soviet space program, like the N1 Luna Rocket, which crashed spectacularly on one occasion, doing a 180 and slamming at full power into the launch pad at Baikonur Cosmodrome.

LoveGodsWord said:

I am sorry dear friend but I reject your theory that the scriptures are not God's Word. Jesus certainly believed they were when quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 and stated our salvation is only found in believing and following what God's Word

Click to expand...

He is talking about what is proceeding from His own mouth, for Christ is the Lord God Incarnate, as well possibly, as the handful of statements we can authoritatively attribute to the father, (specifically, “This is my son, in which I am well pleased.”), although this seems less likely for the Father is incorporeal and therefore lacks a mouth. The mere mention of the mouth of the Lord makes it clear to me these are references to what Jesus taught, for Jesus Christ is God in the prosopon of the incarnate Logos.

You do accept the Godhood of Christ thanks to Ellen White, and one consequence of that is statements referring to the Lord or God apply to Him. And they also apply to both His human and Divine nature because of the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum, which is required to avoid the kind of ugly Nestorianism we see in the poetry of Mar Narsai, for example.

Have you ever read Mar Narsai? If not, you should, and you should read his Orthodox counterpart Jacob of Sarugh, and the writings of St. Cyril compared to the ugliness of Nestorius. Good theology has to be beautiful. If God made His child, who was a creature, and not himself God, die for our sins, that would be ugly, but the scriptural doctrine, that God himself has three persons (prosopa, a word which also has the sense of theatrical mask or face in Greek, but which I think is best translated as “person” because it fundamentally refers to a unique identity), and that God the Son willingly allowed himself to be crucified to restore us in His image for the glory of His father and the Holy Spirit, who sent Him, and who He would then send to be our paraclete, is much more beautiful. I don’t want a God who kills his son in lieu of killing me, to paraphrase Billy Graham, I want a God who willingly will die for me, and then after resting in a tomb, rise again on the third day, trampling down death by death, and that is the God we actually find in the Bible.

This is why I think, personally, that the Sabbath now includes Friday and Sunday, because the Paschal Triduum is so heavily interconnected. Christ our God is crucified, dies and is placed in a sepulchre, and on the third day, the stone has been rolled back and He has risen from the dead.

bbbbbbb said:

Let's try to look at this objectively. We know that all sin results in death - either spiritual or physical and sometimes both. Physical sin, such as tobacco use (which, BTW, is never mentioned as a sin in the Bible) will result in disease and ultimately death in most people (there are always exceptions).

Eating raw meat (meat with the blood uncooked) is dangerous and can lead to disease and death. This include all meat listed as being "clean" in the Bible. If eating "unclean" meat is a (physical) sin then the natural outcome will be disease and death. Unfortunately, for those who cling to their personal versions of the dietary law, this is not at all the case. Death and disease from eating properly prepared pork is virtually unknown today. OTOH, we now know that a significant proportion of the population suffers from celiac disease and other related diseases from eating wheat and wheat products. Is eating wheat a sin against God? Obviously not at all. Is eating wheat a sin against one's body if one suffers from these diseases? Obviously, because it results in disease and possible death.

My grandmother, sadly, was cut down in the midst of her life at the tender age of 90 as a result of avid pork consumption. My mother followed soon after, perishing at the tender age of 91. Her cousin died last summer just two days shy of 104. If only they had ceased from the sin of eating pork they might have lived out full life spans! Strangely, I remain quite unrepentant and hope that I live as long as them. Pork is excellent meat. So is beef and chicken and many other meats which God has graciously given to humanity to enjoy.

Click to expand...

Many meats, including cured ham, beef and certain types of seafood can be eaten raw. I prefer sushi and sashimi to cooked seafood in general.

The Liturgist said:

Many meats, including cured ham, beef and certain types of seafood can be eaten raw. I prefer sushi and sashimi to cooked seafood in general.

Click to expand...

I agree. There are so many varieties of sushi (raw, cooked, with fish or meat, or vegetarian) that it is really tough to make a decision. I also enjoy sashimi. I am adventurous in my food selection.

The Liturgist said:

I agree, and @Clare73 isn’t the one making them. Your reply to my post on what is and is not God’s Word, like most of your replies, ignores scriptures you don’t want to deal with and presents the controversial opinions of the SDA and Ellen White as though they were undisputed fact. I had an SDA printed Bible some place that was even called “God’s Word”, which actually does work as a title, since the Scriptures say Jesus Christ is God’s Word, and the entire Bible is about Him (see Luke, the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus).

Since Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and John 1:1 is not referring to Scripture, and since the Nicene Creed says the Holy Spirit and not Christ spoke through the prophets and since the Church believes the Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists and all other books of the Bible, but because those parts of the Bible which are not actually the speech attributed to the Lord our God in
the Old Testament, and more specifically the Father and Son in the New Testament and prophetic utterances spoken by the Holy Spirit through the Prophets are not perfect, but contain minor contradictions, for example, between the four evangelists and the Apostle Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper, we cannot reasonably call them the actual words of God, but rather inspired by the Holy Spirit. And all of the Old and New Testament is equally inspired by the Holy Spirit. But what was spoken by God is a specific category. There are also minor contradictions even in how the words of God are recorded, for example, in the aforementioned case of the Lord’s Supper, there are four different versions of what Jesus said.

There are also some places where some people think contradictions exist, but I believe they were separate events or artifacts of incomplete recording, specifically, I believe God said everything in the Beatitudes in both Matthew and Luke, even though the two versions are quite different.

So when we talk about the Word of God, I believe that phrase should apply only to Jesus Christ, the only begotten and uncreated son of the Father, by whom all things were made, and who is God incarnate. And we should remember the only way to the Father is through Him; all speech attributed to God not specifically attributed to the Father should, I think, be presumed to be that of our Lord Jesus Christ. And while the SDA does have images of Jesus, which I admire (at an Adventist Hospital, in my youth my mother was rushed there with acute food poisoning, and in the waiting room there was a photograph showing someone who resembled the standard depiction of our Lord*, with his arms around a group of people, and this was very comforting), we should not assume the Ancient of Days is the Father or visually imagine what the Father looks like (there is actually a prohibition on icons of the Father in the Orthodox churches), because He is the one person of the Holy Trinity who has never revealed His appearance. It is a holy mystery. The Spirit is commonly depicted as a dove, but has also appeared as tongues of fire.

It should also be stressed that the minor variations between reportage of events in different Gospels or elsewhere in Scripture does not threaten the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, because. Errors occur only in interpretation.

And in this case I believe your interpretation is in error for the reasons stated above, and also the question is moot because covid-19’s cause is unknown and could well be the result of an accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where it is known that SARS coronavirus was being studied. I mean, its not like communist histories don’t have a history of covering up engineering failures (the KGB almost succeeded in suppressing the truth about Chernobyl and how bad it was, and they did cover up most failures of the Soviet space program, like the N1 Luna Rocket, which crashed spectacularly on one occasion, doing a 180 and slamming at full power into the launch pad at Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Click to expand...

Question: what is your understanding of 2Ti 3:16: "All Scriptures is God-breathed" (theopnuestos)?

And of Lev 1:1, 4:1, 5:14, 6:1, 8, 19, 24, 7:22, 28, 8:1, 10:8, 11:1, 12:1, 13:1, 14:1, 33, 15:1, 16:1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1, 20:1 21:1, 22:1, 16, 22:1, 17, 23:1, 9, 23, 26, 33, 24:1, 13, 25:1, 27:1?

That's 36. Is the whole book the words of God himself?