Is the fourth commandment a moral issue?

[RND]

You can read.

Yes, yes I can.

This covenant was for longer than the time it takes for animals to reproduce.

Hmm, how do we know that ricker?

I don't think they were health laws. There are only about 5 places in the new testament saying it's OK to eat any meat, but that is off the subject at hand.

Well, I certainly think that Noah was given some knowledge by God of the aspect of healthy living and right attitude about food. Considering that the re-population of earth depended upon a healthy lifestyle by Noah and his family then I'm inclined to belief God had that same outlook.

I think I get it. We can look at the term "law" or "commandment" and decide whether it is speaking of moral commands or not.
Is moral law.
Is ceremonial law.
Is moral law.
Is the ceremonial law.
Is the moral law.
Is the ceremonial law.
Is the ceremonial law.
Is the ceremonial law.
Is the moral law.
Is the ceremonial law.
Is the moral law.
Is the moral law.

Is this what you mean? Thanks! Ricker

You can read!

Yes, ricker that exactly what I mean!

 

[ricker]

Quote:
This covenant was for longer than the time it takes for animals to reproduce.

Hmm, how do we know that ricker?

Because the Bible tells me so!

God's Covenant With Noah

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." 8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you

He then gave the sign of the covenant, the rainbow.

BTW this answers your objection of whether it is OK to kill and eat men, also, according to this covenant. (No)

You can read!

Yes, ricker that exactly what I mean!

[/quote]
At least we got that behind us! It is simple when you get used to it. Just figure out which law it has to be!
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

Because the Bible tells me so!



He then gave the sign of the covenant, the rainbow.

ricker, was god's covenant regarding what food Noah could eat, or possibly something else?

Gen 8:20 ¶
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Gen 8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

God's covenant's are always based on what God promises.

BTW this answers your objection of whether it is OK to kill and eat men, also, according to this covenant. (No)

But that's not what the verse says that you quoted ricker.

Gen 9:3
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Humans in Noah's day, especially after the flood, lived and moved. Why weren't they allowed for food? Was there a "law" against murder and canibalism ricker?

At least we got that behind us! It is simple when you get used to it. Just figure out which law it has to be!
God bless! Ricker

Praise the Lord that you now understand that there are two distinct and separate laws. He does hear and answer prayer.

 

[ricker]

ricker, was god's covenant regarding what food Noah could eat, or possibly something else?

Are you saying God didn't tell Noah he could eat any animal right there in God's covenant?

Gen 8:20 ¶
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Gen 8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

This is nice. Does it invalidate the command God gave later?

But that's not what the verse says that you quoted ricker.

I will quote it again:

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

This is written just after the eat anything that moves passage. It doesn't take a mensa member to see God doesn't mean for us to kill and eat people, but animals.

Humans in Noah's day, especially after the flood, lived and moved. Why weren't they allowed for food? Was there a "law" against murder and canibalism ricker?

It's kinda disturbing you would want to do this, but read the passage carefully again that I just quoted. (Verse 5,6).

Praise the Lord that you now understand that there are two distinct and separate laws. He does hear and answer prayer.

God is good! My spiritual life is a journey.
Ricker

 

[RND]

Are you saying God didn't tell Noah he could eat any animal right there in God's covenant?

Um, not exactly. What I am saying is that God's covenant with Noah wasn't based on what foods Noah ate or didn't eat or what foods he was allowed or not allowed to eat.

Now you mentioned that the Bible told you that Noah's covenant with God revolved around what food Noah ate. Do you still believe this?

This is nice. Does it invalidate the command God gave later?

I don't think what God did respecting the food Noah could eat was regarding the specifics of God's covenant with Noah.

I will quote it again:

This is written just after the eat anything that moves passage. It doesn't take a mensa member to see God doesn't mean for us to kill and eat people, but animals.

Thanks again for your clarification ricker, I appreciate it very much. Looks as if we have a commandment not to kill, a prohibition against murder, before Mt. Sinai.

One of the Ten Commandments stated clearly before Mt. Sinai.

It's kinda disturbing you would want to do this, but read the passage carefully again that I just quoted. (Verse 5,6).

I have no desire to eat other humans ricker! Stop being so jr, high melodramatic! I just wanted to you to come to the very real notion that there were laws in place before Sinai.

God is good! My spiritual life is a journey.
Ricker

Now not only has the Lord helped demonstrate the difference between the laws, but the Lord has now shown you conclusively that they were in place before Sinai.

He how that works ricker.

 

[ricker]

[

quote=RND;43395392]Um, not exactly. What I am saying is that God's covenant with Noah wasn't based on what foods Noah ate or didn't eat or what foods he was allowed or not allowed to eat.

Now you mentioned that the Bible told you that Noah's covenant with God revolved around what food Noah ate. Do you still believe this?

I'm not sure of what you mean by "revolved around" and I don't remember specifically saying that, but the issue of eating animals was sure in the covenant.

I don't think what God did respecting the food Noah could eat was regarding the specifics of God's covenant with Noah.

It was specifically in God's covenant with Noah. Do you deny this? Read it again. It is not a peripheral issue in God's covenant, and even if it was, would that invalidate it?

Thanks again for your clarification ricker, I appreciate it very much. Looks as if we have a commandment not to kill, a prohibition against murder, before Mt. Sinai.

No problem, and it is forbidden under the new covenant also.

9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I

have no desire to eat other humans ricker! Stop being so jr, high melodramatic! I just wanted to you to come to the very real notion that there were laws in place before Sinai.

Your idea of trying to invalidate one of God's rules by crying "what about cannibalism" is sophomoric at best. I suppose I shouldn't have lowered myself to your level.

Now not only has the Lord helped demonstrate the difference between the laws, but the Lord has now shown you conclusively that they were in place before Sinai.
He how that works ricker.

[/quote]
There is no question God had rules before the law was given at Siani. The prohibition of eating certain animals wasn't one of them after Noah.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

I'm not sure of what you mean by "revolved around" and I don't remember specifically saying that, but the issue of eating animals was sure in the covenant.

No, God's covenant with Noah involved not flooding the earth again, it had nothing to do with eating animals. Remember, I showed you?

Gen 8:20 ¶
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Gen 8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Gen 9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Gen 9:12
And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:

Gen 9:13
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

God's covenant with Noah's was the promise not to flood the earth again. Notice in all of God's covenant's that they are established by His promises and what He is going to do.

It was specifically in God's covenant with Noah. Do you deny this? Read it again. It is not a peripheral issue in God's covenant, and even if it was, would that invalidate it?

Yes, I catagorically deny that God's covenant with Noah was based on what Noah ate or didn't eat.

No problem, and it is forbidden under the new covenant also.

Jer 31:33
But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I

Leviticus 19:18

Your idea of trying to invalidate one of God's rules by crying "what about cannibalism" is sophomoric at best. I suppose I shouldn't have lowered myself to your level.

I haven't tried to invalidate any of God's rules ricker. I merely trying to get you to understand that 1) God's covenant with Noah did not revolve around food and 2) that God did not give Noah the right to eat anything he wanted.

There is no question God had rules before the law was given at Siani.

Rules against murder and adultery? Idol worship? How many more of the Ten Commandments do you think were established before Mt. Sinai?

The prohibition of eating certain animals wasn't one of them after Noah.

Sure it was.

Ricker, you are describing a very schizophrenic God. One that tells Noah he can eat anything he likes, but then tells the children of Israel that they can't.

What do you suppose God's purpose would be in doing this, telling one thing to one and not the other? What similarities or dissimilarities between the physical make-up of Noah and the COI would cause God to make such a declaration?

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by ricker
Are you saying God didn't tell Noah he could eat any animal right there in God's covenant?

Um, not exactly. What I am saying is that God's covenant with Noah wasn't based on what foods Noah ate or didn't eat or what foods he was allowed or not allowed to eat.

Strictly speaking, God's covenant with Noah only dealt with not flooding the world again. However, what Noah could and could not eat for food was already part of their relationship B4 the flood.

There is no question God had rules before the law was given at Siani.

Rules against murder and adultery? Idol worship? How many more of the Ten Commandments do you think were established before Mt. Sinai?

Since God is the same yesterday, today and forever it would have to be all of them. Otherwise you'd have different rules for different people's depending on race, or when you were born, etc..

 

[ricker]

No, God's covenant with Noah involved not flooding the earth again, it had nothing to do with eating animals. Remember, I showed you?
Gen 8:20 ¶
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Gen 8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Gen 9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12
And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

God's covenant with Noah's was the promise not to flood the earth again. Notice in all of God's covenant's that they are established by His promises and what He is going to do.

Yes, I catagorically deny that God's covenant with Noah was based on what Noah ate or didn't eat.

Jer 31:33
But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Leviticus 19:18

I haven't tried to invalidate any of God's rules ricker. I merely trying to get you to understand that 1) God's covenant with Noah did not revolve around food and 2) that God did not give Noah the right to eat anything he wanted.

Rules against murder and adultery? Idol worship? How many more of the Ten Commandments do you think were established before Mt. Sinai?

Sure it was.

Ricker, you are describing a very schizophrenic God. One that tells Noah he can eat anything he likes, but then tells the children of Israel that they can't.

What do you suppose God's purpose would be in doing this, telling one thing to one and not the other? What similarities or dissimilarities between the physical make-up of Noah and the COI would cause God to make such a declaration?

The Bible says:

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. 22 "As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
God's Covenant With Noah

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." 17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

If you refuse to see the permission to eat any animal in this covenant, all I can do is walk away and shake my head. You use eisegesis instead of exegesis in your interpretation of scripture. This explains much of the theology of your denomination.
My God is not schizophrenic, your dismissal of clear scripture is. You have to ignore this plain passage in scripture. The responsible way of looking at is is to believe the Bible when it says the law was added to increase trespasses at Siani. (until Jesus).
May God help you take the Ellen blinders off! I'm outta here.
Ricker

 

[RND]

If you refuse to see the permission to eat any animal in this covenant, all I can do is walk away and shake my head.

ricker, I'm sorry you are having such a tough time with this, but you are unfortunately seeing things an relating them chronologically quite different from scripture. Let me give you an example.

You can read. This covenant was for longer than the time it takes for animals to reproduce.

You insist that it was several generations after the flood and that the unclean animals were able to reproduce many times over making God's permission for eating tied into their reproducing. Ok, fair enough.

Just a few of questions then:

Now, to me it seems that God declared His covenant with Moses just a short time after the flood. Hold on to this point.

What did Moses eat before there were enough reproduction cycles past that would produce enough unclean animals to eat and not effect the overall population? The obvious answer would have to be "clean animals."

Was the the covenant that God made with Noah in Gen. 9 declared after these many reproduction cycles, after there were enough unclean animals to eat? The obvious answer would have to be no.

Can you begin to see why God would not have made such a difficult rule for Noah to follow?

You use eisegesis instead of exegesis in your interpretation of scripture. This explains much of the theology of your denomination.

Well, that's a mighty fine statement ricker. Do you have any examples you'd care to share?

My God is not schizophrenic, your dismissal of clear scripture is.

I'm not dismissing what God told Noah ricker. I'm just trying to place it into proper context for you. Do you see the difference?

You have to ignore this plain passage in scripture. The responsible way of looking at is is to believe the Bible when it says the law was added to increase trespasses at Siani. (until Jesus).

May God help you take the Ellen blinders off!

Hmm, this is indeed a curious statement. So because I'm enjoyingour discourse and trying to point out the proper context of Gen. 8 and 9 with you, somehow I must have "Ellen blinders" on because we're in disagreement?

I'm outta here.

There's an old legal maxim that says, "He who leaves the battlefield first, loses the battle."

Why not stay ricker and continue to fight for you non-sensical exegesis?

 

[ricker]

ricker
You insist that it was several generations after the flood and that the unclean animals were able to reproduce many times over making God's permission for eating tied into their reproducing. Ok, fair enough.
Now, to me it seems that God declared His covenant with Moses just a short time after the flood. Hold on to this point.
What did Moses eat before there were enough reproduction cycles past that would produce enough unclean animals to eat and not effect the overall population? The obvious answer would have to be "clean animals."
Was the the covenant that God made with Noah in Gen. 9 declared after these many reproduction cycles, after there were enough unclean animals to eat? The obvious answer would have to be no.
Can you begin to see why God would not have made such a difficult rule for Noah to follow?

Great. I'll fall for your bait and come back.
The answer to your non-relevant assertion is that according to Bible timelines, the exodus was 797 years after the flood. What amount of time does it take for rabbits to repopulate?
Also, Noah used "clean" animals for sacrifices, depleting the gene pool immediately after the flood.

I'm not dismissing what God told Noah ricker. I'm just trying to place it into proper context for you. Do you see the difference?

The Bible has the context. Read my last post again. You try to interject irrelevant issues to try to confuse the matter.

Hmm, this is indeed a curious statement. So because I'm enjoyingour discourse and trying to point out the proper context of Gen. 8 and 9 with you, somehow I must have "Ellen blinders" on because we're in disagreement?

I imagine Ellen White has something to say about this issue, and you know you can't deviate from anything she says theologically, no matter what the Bible says. This explains your willful attempts at trying to confuse the text at hand with outlandish claims and detours. (canniblism, no time for animals to repopulate, etc)

There's an old legal maxim that says, "He who leaves the battlefield first, loses the battle."

I have honestly enjoyed our discourse, but your continued denial of what God said to Noah is getting old.

Why not stay ricker and continue to fight for you non-sensical exegesis?

Exegesis is not unsensical. Using eisegesis to prop up your preconcieved ideas is.
God bless! Ricker

 

[sentipente]

Why insist that the story of Noah's ark reports an actual event? What value did the flood serve in human history? What was its purpose?

 

[ricker]

Why insist that the story of Noah's ark reports an actual event? What value did the flood serve in human history? What was its purpose?

Jesus did say this:

37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

 

[sentipente]

That quote from Jesus does not make the event literal. It only means that both parties were aware of the account.

 

[ricker]

That quote from Jesus does not make the event literal. It only means that both parties were aware of the account.

I guess we will find out in heaven. We seem to be discussing the idea of covenants and laws here. At what point in history, if any, do you believe we can begin to trust the Biblical accounts?
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

Great. I'll fall for your bait and come back.

Of course you couldn't stay away.

The answer to your non-relevant assertion is that according to Bible timelines, the exodus was 797 years after the flood. What amount of time does it take for rabbits to repopulate?

So in other words you have no answer to my questions. Thanks.

Also, Noah used "clean" animals for sacrifices, depleting the gene pool immediately after the flood.

Can we assume he ate the clean animals too?

The Bible has the context. Read my last post again. You try to interject irrelevant issues to try to confuse the matter.

Clarification ricker, clarification. If there is any confusion it's shown only in the fact that you can't or won't answer the questions posed.

I imagine Ellen White has something to say about this issue, and you know you can't deviate from anything she says theologically, no matter what the Bible says.

I wouldn't have any idea frankly. Do you, or are you just guessing?

This explains your willful attempts at trying to confuse the text at hand with outlandish claims and detours. (canniblism, no time for animals to repopulate, etc)

ricker, these questions are asked for your clarification not mine. I'm not the one confused.

I have honestly enjoyed our discourse, but your continued denial of what God said to Noah is getting old.

Clarification ricker, clarification. I suspect you have to resort to this type of discourse because you've been shown that there are holes in your train of thought.

But let me see if I get this straight.

God tells Noah he can eat anything he wants. Then, God tells the Israelites they can't. Then, God tells everyone, they can eat whatever they want again.

For what purpose and why the confussion?

Exegesis is not unsensical.

This your case it is.

Using eisegesis to prop up your preconcieved ideas is.

And yet, I'm not the one who chickens out of answering direct questions am I ricker ole boy!

Look, if you want to say the questions I've posed are of my own eisegesis that's fine. If you strongly understood and believed in your exegesis you should have no problem answering questions about it.

In that you do is telling.

 

[sentipente]

I guess we will find out in heaven. We seem to be discussing the idea of covenants and laws here. At what point in history, if any, do you believe we can begin to trust the Biblical accounts?
God bless! Ricker

What do you mean by trust? I accept the messge of the Bible but not every account in the Bible is factual.

 

[ricker]

What do you mean by trust? I accept the messge of the Bible but not every account in the Bible is factual.

Sounds a little confusing, but I won't question where the Holy Spirit has led you.
God bless! Ricker

 

[sentipente]

Why confusing? Do you believe that people who die go to Abraham's bosom and talk with people in the other place?

 

[ricker]

Of course you couldn't stay away.
So in other words you have no answer to my questions. Thanks.
Can we assume he ate the clean animals too?
Clarification ricker, clarification. If there is any confusion it's shown only in the fact that you can't or won't answer the questions posed.
I wouldn't have any idea frankly. Do you, or are you just guessing?
ricker, these questions are asked for your clarification not mine. I'm not the one confused.
Clarification ricker, clarification. I suspect you have to resort to this type of discourse because you've been shown that there are holes in your train of thought.
But let me see if I get this straight.
God tells Noah he can eat anything he wants. Then, God tells the Israelites they can't. Then, God tells everyone, they can eat whatever they want again.
For what purpose and why the confussion?
This your case it is.
And yet, I'm not the one who chickens out of answering direct questions am I ricker ole boy!
Look, if you want to say the questions I've posed are of my own eisegesis that's fine. If you strongly understood and believed in your exegesis you should have no problem answering questions about it.
In that you do is telling.

Lets simplify things.
I'll ask you one simple question and then you can ask me one.

Did God say to Noah and his sons they could eat anything that moves on the earth after the flood?
God bless! Ricker