Can Science Clean Up Swine?

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Who said the Laws of the Most High God were bad? All the reverent prophets I know say His Law is a delight. Did the Most High God say His laws were bad, or did a human insinuate it?

Faith without works is dead. If you don't have the faith that the Most High God will redeem you even if you are obedient and mess up (instead of condemning you), then you cant be saved. Why? Because you don't even start with the foundation of obedience before you extrapolate faith in this sense.

If you have the faith in the Redeemer, you [try to] do exactly what He says (i.e. follow the Father), and take advantage of grace when you slip up and fall. Without the Law, people run aimlessly on an intangibility faith alone.

What child is NOT expected to be fully obedient to their parents? How often do HUMAN parents change their fundamental family rules? How much less would the Most High God who doesnt change?

For goodness sake, there are only 1000 laws; a given nation adds that many a year - why is that acceptable to be obedient to a State, but not the Most High God?
We can settle this easily and biblically.
If you feel you have to do what you feel you have to do for the glory of God, then do it.
But don't expect everyone else to (feel to) have to do the same things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
God obviously.
God, who had to make clear to Peter 3 times that it was okay to eat 'unclean' food.
Peter had quite a hard time getting the message too.


The response of Peter in the Acts 10 incident is most enlightening. He says;

"..Not so Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." [Acts 10;14]

This response shows that before Jesus came, while he was on earth and after he had ascended, Peter still had not eaten of any unclean animals and still had a strong aversion to doing so.This also puts to rest any theories that Jesus made the unclean animals clean.

Peter was also uncertain about the meaning of the vision, which he should not have been, had Jesus declared all animals clean. [Acts 10:17] It was the arrival of the men from Cornelius and their story which allowed Peter to understand the meaning of the vision;

"And he said unto them; ye know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." [Acts 10:28; Acts 11:18]


Hence in this vision the beasts represented people from all the nations of the earth whom God had called to partake of the promise of life for those who will repent and believe on Jesus, just as was promised. [See,Isaiah 55:5-7; Amos 9:11-12; Isaiah 19:20-23; Jeremiah 12:14-17.]

The other passage which confirms that animals were still classified as being clean or unclean, after Jesus' sojourn on earth, is found in Revelation 18:1-2, in which an Angel is describing the state of "Babylon the Great." The fact that the Angel uses the term "Unclean and hateful bird" shows that animals are still to be classified as clean and unclean, whatever this bird may mean or symbolize.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The response of Peter in the Acts 10 incident is most enlightening. He says;

"..Not so Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." [Acts 10;14]

This response shows that before Jesus came, while he was on earth and after he had ascended, Peter still had not eaten of any unclean animals and still had a strong aversion to doing so.This also puts to rest any theories that Jesus made the unclean animals clean.
Technically they're still unclean, but it doesn't matter under the New Covenant.
But if it matters to you, and you feel you do good for God by not eating it, by all means, don't eat unclean food.
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
Technically they're still unclean, but it doesn't matter under the New Covenant.
But if it matters to you, and you feel you do good for God by not eating it, by all means, don't eat unclean food.

If there was a change to their status under the new covenant,then they would not have been so designated.And if they are still unclean,then they are forbidden for all who call themselves the people of God.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If there was a change to their status under the new covenant,then they would not have been so designated.And if they are still unclean,then they are forbidden for all who call themselves the people of God.
No, for it is not what enters our mouths, but what comes out of it that makes us 'unclean'.
We don't have to be physically circumcised either.
And if you place yourself under the Law, you will be judged accordingly.
 
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
We can settle this easily and biblically.
If you feel you have to do what you feel you have to do for the glory of God, then do it.
But don't expect everyone else to (feel to) have to do the same things.

Ok. I agree. Everyone is responsible for their own spiritual trajectory, and with faith the Most High God will lead all of us who are His in the right place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
No, for it is not what enters our mouths, but what comes out of it that makes us 'unclean'.

And what was that unclean in relation to?And how does disobeying the word of God,concerning what is not fit for food,not be a case of you already being unclean in your thoughts and desires for these animals?

Mat 15:
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,166
US
✟1,440,740.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It has never been a salvation issue, it is simply a "being a child of a good parent" issue. What parent would encourage their younger children that they could break the rules because their Older Brother followed them perfectly?

And yet, the parent doesn't stop loving their child because they are disobedient; they pity where they will end up because of their disobedience.

Is it a Law still
Why is this so hard to understand for some? If it comes out of His mouth, it is Law.

Actually, it was a covenant, and the difference is important.

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
....
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
-- Hebrews 8
 
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
Is it a Law still


Actually, it was a covenant, and the difference is important.

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
....
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
-- Hebrews 8

I want you to say out loud to your Father that, "we don't have to follow the Laws you personally gave to Moses because we are not Hebrew, and because Paul said so."

See if that actually sounds right, Kirk. You don't have to argue with me, and I am not saying Paul is a heretic (before people start pressing the report button). You have to choose who you serve: man or the Most High God. If you told me somethong, and it sounded in any way like it contradicted the Most High God, then I would say 1) I misunderstand you, or 2) you are terribly wrong.

No human comes before the Most High God. And, no human has the authority to change, amend, or nullify any Law except for the human know as Son of Man.

If you take the canon for what it is (inspiration by the Most High God allowed in a collection,) then what God said Law, because He never said otherwise Himself. When did He ever change laws? We are doing that, and we need to stop it. Stop following leaders who would have the audacity to say man has the authority to influence the Law of the Most High God.

The Word of God is not going to contradict the Most High God. The New Covenant is better because we have grace, and redemption now. It has nothing to do with nullifying Law while we reap the rewards of grace and salvation - the patriarch had the faith to be obedient even without those new terms in the contract, because that is what faith is. They hoped for the Redeemer, and stayed true to their Father, not letting me away them.

 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
Actually, it was a covenant, and the difference is important.

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
....
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
-- Hebrews 8

There is in fact a new covenant in place at this time.Does this mean nothing in the old covenant is applicable in the new?The writings of the apostles and statements and actions of those following the Lord Jesus are revealing.

In the book of Hebrews the following was said about the new covenant:

Hebrews 10:
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Which laws are these?Are they new laws or laws which were in the old covenant?

The writings of the apostle Paul gives some indication of what they are.He says:

Romans 13:
8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

These are all laws/commands contained in the old covenant which Paul is saying Christians should now observe.

He also speaks of another command from the old covenant in this fashion:

Ephesians 6:
1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise)
3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

This implies the command and the promise attached to it are still relevant in the new covenant.

James also refers to the law as being relevant to the believer and refers to the command to love thy neighbour in a similar way as Paul did:

James 2:
8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

Hence the believer is expected to observe all of the royal law which is summarized as

"the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"

Again this and its expansions were also contained in the old covenant.

Where eating is concerned the same pattern is seen in the book of Acts.Here the believers of Gentile origin are instructed directly from the old covenant as to what is expected of them in the new.

In Acts 15:20 we see the Gentiles, who had turned to God, being directed, by the apostles, to be careful about what they eat. They should not eat of that which had been offered to idols, animals which had been strangled, (or died of itself) and to abstain from blood. If we could eat anything then they would not have been given these instructions. In fact these instructions are found in Leviticus 17: 13-16 and were given after it was known which animals could be eaten. Hence these instructions which were taken from the law [See Acts 15:21] and which came after it was known which animals were fit to be eaten, must also have been given after the Gentiles had knowledge of what is fit to be eaten. The prophecy of the Gentiles being called to serve God in Jeremiah 12:14-17, also shows that they are called to learn the righteous ways of Israel, not some new way or to come with their own ways. It is to be noted that these instruction about what to eat, given by the apostles, are not widely observed by Christians since they, in error, say; "Nothing you eat will defile you", contrary to the Apostles instructions.

The fact that James referred all to Moses, being read in the synagogues on the Sabbath in every city, shows he was not rejecting the whole of the law, as some claim about this passage.All the things, the apostles said the Gentiles should abstain from, are those things proscribed by the law i.e these things were a part of the old covenant. [See Acts 15:20-21]

There was one important practice which was not relevant anymore and this was the main point in the Acts 15 discussion. The main dispute in Acts 15 was the vexed question of circumcision. Certain disciples were of the view that to be saved, Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses i.e. they had to keep all the commands in the Law.Note that an uncircumcised person could not take part in the Passover in the Old Covenant.[Exodus 12:45-48]

It was being explained by Peter that both Jews and Gentiles will be saved through grace i.e. God's love in allowing His Son to die for us, rather than by the sacrifices and ceremonies of the old covenant. [See Acts 15:7-11; Ephesians 2:8-13; Hebrews 9:11-14] Notice that the things mentioned in the Acts 15 discussion are closely linked to either the sacrificial systems of the Jews or that of the Gentiles and to make it clear what is expected of the new converts then these things were mentioned.This was not a comprehensive list of all that is to be practiced in the new covenant.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,166
US
✟1,440,740.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is in fact a new covenant in place at this time.Does this mean nothing in the old covenant is applicable in the new?

Yes, yes it does mean that. Nobody is under two covenants, we are under one covenant or the other--and the old covenant is now obsolete and unable to save anyone.

Let me repeat that: There is no longer any atonement of sin possible under the old covenant for anyone. The old covenant absolutely required the sacrifice of animals at the designated altar in the designated manner for the atonement of sin. There is no other way to atone for sin under the old covenant.

Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. -- Galatians 5

This does not mean that the new covenant does not contain many of the provisions of the old covenant.

But in the cases that the two covenants display the same provisions, we are obligated to them under the new covenant, not the old covenant.

The old covenant was confirmed by the blood of animals.

The provisions of the new covenant are not valid for also having been in the old covenant, they are valid because of they were confirmed by the blood of Jesus. They are therefore superior to the provisions of the old covenant.
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
I had stated and then asked the question:

"There is in fact a new covenant in place at this time.Does this mean nothing in the old covenant is applicable in the new?"

You respond by saying:

Yes, yes it does mean that. Nobody is under two covenants, we are under one covenant or the other--and the old covenant is now obsolete and unable to save anyone.

But I did say we are under a new covenant so your point above is not relevant and is not answering to the question asked.I have nowhere said we were under two covenants.

You also said:

This does not mean that the new covenant does not contain many of the provisions of the old covenant.

Which is answering to my question and is in fact agreeing with my arguments as presented in the remainder of my post which you failed to comment on.Also as I said:


"There was one important practice which was not relevant anymore and this was the main point in the Acts 15 discussion. The main dispute in Acts 15 was the vexed question of circumcision.......It was being explained by Peter that both Jews and Gentiles will be saved through grace i.e. God's love in allowing His Son to die for us, rather than by the sacrifices and ceremonies of the old covenant."

You are also in agreement when you say:

There is no longer any atonement of sin possible under the old covenant for anyone. The old covenant absolutely required the sacrifice of animals at the designated altar in the designated manner for the atonement of sin. There is no other way to atone for sin under the old covenant.

Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. -- Galatians 5

Circumcision and the sacrifices and ceremonies associated with them are no longer relevant in the new covenant.

The problem which frequently arises is the means whereby we arrive at the practices which are relevant to the new covenant.From what has been presented so far it is clear that; Jesus never made unclean animals clean,Peter was not aware of any changes in the status of said animals,even an angel still referred to animals as unclean.The eating rules of the old covenant were restated in the Acts 15 discussion so it was clear that in the new covenant we should not eat of the blood of animals which are given as food,we should not eat of those animals offered as sacrifice to idols nor those which were strangled.Theses rules could only be restated in relation to the animals to which they related in the old covenant and hence it should be clear that in the new covenant animals are to regarded in this manner also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,166
US
✟1,440,740.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem which frequently arises is the means whereby we arrive at the practices which are relevant to the new covenant.From what has been presented so far it is clear that; Jesus never made unclean animals clean,Peter was not aware of any changes in the status of said animals,even an angel still referred to animals as unclean.The eating rules of the old covenant were restated in the Acts 15 discussion so it was clear that in the new covenant we should not eat of the blood of animals which are given as food,we should not eat of those animals offered as sacrifice to idols nor those which were strangled.Theses rules could only be restated in relation to the animals to which they related in the old covenant and hence it should be clear that in the new covenant animals are to regarded in this manner also.

The four restrictions of the Acts 15 letter are prohibitions of what were specific pagan worship practices, which echos Paul's prohibition of participation in pagan worship ceremonies in 1 Corinthians 10.
 
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟656,784.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Laws concerning morality are forever. All the other laws given especially to Israel were ritual or ceremonial and pertained only to them while they were under the Sinai covenant.

Swine are among the oldest domesticated of all animals. One thing for sure those people back then didn't raise them to make footballs. Noah could eat anything he pleased.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
The four restrictions of the Acts 15 letter are prohibitions of what were specific pagan worship practices, which echos Paul's prohibition of participation in pagan worship ceremonies in 1 Corinthians 10.

This is not entirely so.As I said before:

"Notice that the things mentioned in the Acts 15 discussion are closely linked to either the sacrificial systems of the Jews or that of the Gentiles and to make it clear what is expected of the new converts then these things were mentioned."

However the clear statement of scripture says:

Act 15:
20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Which indicates Moses as the authority concerning these prohibitions.
The passages in the law where the instructions/prohibitions were found.

Exodus 34:
14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Numbers 25:
1And Israel abode in [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
2And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
3And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

Deuteronomy 23:
17There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1Kings 14:
23For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree.
24And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Leviticus 17:
10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
12Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Ezekiel 33:
25Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?

Deuteronomy 14:
21Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

The apostles did not invent the instructions they gave,they got no new revelation but have instructed us concerning the new covenant out of the law.As I said before,contrary to what some say,we cannot eat anything and still be pleasing to God based on these instructions. Also,these instruction concerning eating,could only be given in relation to the animals they were connected to in the old covenant.Hence it is clear that these animals are to be similarly classified in the new covenant.




 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
Swine are among the oldest domesticated of all animals. One thing for sure those people back then didn't raise them to make footballs. Noah could eat anything he pleased.

Not quite correct.Noah was given explicit instructions about eating.

Gen 9:
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Many make the mistake you do and believe Noah could eat even the swine based on this instruction.The very instruction and other evidence concerning what Noah knew makes clear the true situation.

Being given of,"all things",of the green herb is seen in the instructions given prior to this time and are found in the following passages:

Gen 1:
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

And

Gen 3:
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Hence there was a differentiation made among even the plants concerning what was fit to eat.So Noah could not eat every and any plant but he could eat all that had been given by God as meat even as Genesis 1:29,described.Noah also knew the difference between clean and unclean animals:

Gen 7:
2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Hence the,"every moving thing",of the instruction must be equivalent to the,"all things",concerning the herbs/plants and are regulated by the fact that Noah knew there were clean and unclean animals just as the herbs/plants were also specified and these were the ones meant for meat.This is further supported by the fact that the clean entered the ark by sevens(pairs)while the unclean only went in by two.(one pair)
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟656,784.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Safswan wrote:
Hence there was a differentiation made among even the plants concerning what was fit to eat.So Noah could not eat every and any plant but he could eat all that had been given by God as meat even as Genesis 1:29,described. Noah also knew the difference between clean and unclean animals:

I didn't read that some plants were not fit to eat, but I am sure there were. Your trying to relate herbs, fruit and veggie restrictions to the fact that God told him he could eat every moving thing doesn't add up.

Noah's knowledge of clean and unclean had to have been ceremonial in nature. Animals were used as sacrifices and never eaten. Only animals that met certain criteria could be used as a sacrifice. God never specified between clean and unclean concerning food.

It has been argued that since only two of the unclean animals were taken aboard the ark that if Noah would have eaten one of the unclean that would end the species. Those who argue that point have no idea if those animals propagated while on the ark.

Then there are all the different species of fish, some clean and some unclean. Noah was free to eat any fish that he caught according to the instructions found in scripture.
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
I didn't read that some plants were not fit to eat, but I am sure there were. Your trying to relate herbs, fruit and veggie restrictions to the fact that God told him he could eat every moving thing doesn't add up.

It is not simply relating the restrictions about plants to every moving thing.It is relating the,"every moving thing",to the fact that the instruction said:

"..even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Which means the,"every moving thing", is not every and all things even as the plants were not every and all things.Just as the plants to be eaten(separated for meat) were specified so too the animals to be eaten were specified.Noah knew the difference between the clean and the unclean.Even though the specifications were not given in this account in Genesis we know that they must have been known by Noah.


I didn't read that some plants were not fit to eat, but I am sure there were. Your trying to relate herbs, fruit and veggie restrictions to the fact that God told him he could eat every moving thing doesn't add up.

I had quoted the passage which specified the plants that were fit for food.Here is it again:

Genesis 1:
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.


Noah's knowledge of clean and unclean had to have been ceremonial in nature. Animals were used as sacrifices and never eaten. Only animals that met certain criteria could be used as a sacrifice. God never specified between clean and unclean concerning food.

You have not carefully considered the implications of your arguments. If God would not accept the unclean animals as sacrifice then would He then instruct His people to eat of them?This is highly illogical.The fact is that God created the plants and animals with particular purposes in mind and at the appropriate time those meant for food would be easily identified and used in the proper manner.Noah in his knowledge of the difference in the animals could only have partaken in the ones declared clean by the Lord and it is of the clean animals that Noah could eat of,"every moving thing".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dkh587
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟656,784.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for your input, but I totally disagree. Noah was told by God that he could eat all that moved. If God would have meant just clean He would have instructed Noah. You are adding to the passage your interpretation of very easy wording to understand. I am sure you would like to believe otherwise, but your understanding just is not there.
 
Upvote 0