The bible says to not strain at a gnat, but a parable is not a gnat ;)

[Vicomte13]

Is that why, when God's angels visited Abraham, (Genesis 18:8), "He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree."?

It's an excellent example! Abraham was not a Jew. The law of Sinai was explicitly and exclusively for Jews. Not one word of that law ever applied to anybody else in the world, not before it was made, and not after. Abraham was not a Jew, the law given to Jews had nothing to do with him.

It also had nothing to do with the Romans, who were not Jews either.

God himself gave all animals to men to eat after the Flood, and he never changed that law. He gave a special law, exclusively to Jews, with food rules. Those laws did not change the general law, which was that pork was good food (for example). Pork was unclean, from the time of Moses until the time of Jesus, exclusively for people at Sinai and their lineal descendants in Israel, and nobody else.

Every other word in the law of Sinai, including the Ten Commandments, only ever applied to Jews from Moses until the destruction of the Temple. The destruction of the Temple didn't change that law, but made it permanently unobeyable by Jews.

Gentiles never sinned by eating pork. Eating pork and everything else except living animals (or blood) was never a sin from the Flood onward. It was only a sin for Hebrews. Nobody else.

Now, God gave other laws to mankind before Moses. The law against murder is explicit. The law against adultery in implicit. The law against lying is also implicit. They are not codified in Scripture separately because those pre-existing laws were also incorporated into the Law of Sinai, for Hebrews, and are part of that law. But it is not the fact that they were pronounced at Sinai that made, say "Thou shall not kill" the law for mankind. That commandment at Sinai was for the Hebrews. The general law against killing was made implicit at the time of Cain, and overtly explicit to Noah after the Flood.

That's why the Ten Commandments are bad shorthand for God's law for us. God never imposed a prohibition of work on the Sabbath on anybody but Hebrews.

 

[ScottA]

I recall many a time a pastor would say to not use parables for teaching reasons, especially when it went against his thesis. If there is no disagreement, then fine.
.
But you know, science and it's observations are very parable worthy.

"All things come in parables." Mark 4:11

 

[pescador]

It's an excellent example! Abraham was not a Jew. The law of Sinai was explicitly and exclusively for Jews. Not one word of that law ever applied to anybody else in the world, not before it was made, and not after. Abraham was not a Jew, the law given to Jews had nothing to do with him.

It also had nothing to do with the Romans, who were not Jews either.

God himself gave all animals to men to eat after the Flood, and he never changed that law. He gave a special law, exclusively to Jews, with food rules. Those laws did not change the general law, which was that pork was good food (for example). Pork was unclean, from the time of Moses until the time of Jesus, exclusively for people at Sinai and their lineal descendants in Israel, and nobody else.

Every other word in the law of Sinai, including the Ten Commandments, only ever applied to Jews from Moses until the destruction of the Temple. The destruction of the Temple didn't change that law, but made it permanently unobeyable by Jews.

Gentiles never sinned by eating pork. Eating pork and everything else except living animals (or blood) was never a sin from the Flood onward. It was only a sin for Hebrews. Nobody else.

Now, God gave other laws to mankind before Moses. The law against murder is explicit. The law against adultery in implicit. The law against lying is also implicit. They are not codified in Scripture separately because those pre-existing laws were also incorporated into the Law of Sinai, for Hebrews, and are part of that law. But it is not the fact that they were pronounced at Sinai that made, say "Thou shall not kill" the law for mankind. That commandment at Sinai was for the Hebrews. The general law against killing was made implicit at the time of Cain, and overtly explicit to Noah after the Flood.

That's why the Ten Commandments are bad shorthand for God's law for us. God never imposed a prohibition of work on the Sabbath on anybody but Hebrews.

Well said! A great explanation.

 

[pescador]

"All things come in parables." Mark 4:11

That's not true. Cereal comes in boxes. 8^)

Please don't apply single verses out of context to prove universal biblical principles. Mark 4:11 says, "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables". Jesus used parables so that only those whose eyes have been opened by God and whose ears have been opened by God would understand the truths contained in them.

It is obvious to anyone that by far the largest part of God's word is not told in parables. Almost all of it was written so that the meanings would be plain to the reader. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[ScottA]

That's not true. Cereal comes in boxes. 8^)

Please don't apply single verses out of context to prove universal biblical principles. Mark 4:11 says, "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables". Jesus used parables so that only those whose eyes have been opened by God and whose ears have been opened by God would understand the truths contained in them.

It is obvious to anyone that by far the largest part of God's word is not told in parables. Almost all of it was written so that the meanings would be plain to the reader. God is not the author of confusion.

Ah, but He is the Author of confusion: Genesis 11:7. ...Do you not know that He did not speak, except in parables? Psalm 78:2, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, John 6:63.

But quoting that single verse is simply getting to the point, not that there are not many other scriptures...because there are.

 

[pescador]

Ah, but He is the Author of confusion: Genesis 11:7. ...Do you not know that He did not speak, except in parables? Psalm 78:2, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, John 6:63.

But quoting that single verse is simply getting to the point, not that there are not many other scriptures...because there are.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

You quote Genesis 11:7 where God made it that people wouldn't understand each other, yet here we are communicating in a common language -- English -- that many, may people understand worldwide.

Two verses later in Psalm 78 it says "We will not hide them [the things our ancestors have told us] from their descendants; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord"

Mark 4:11 says "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables"

Luke 8:10 says "He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables"

John 6:63 says "The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life". He wouldn't say that if he spoke to them in parables. He didn't.

Please put away your concordance and try to understand what the Bible says. I can't go on explaining it to you.

 

[ScottA]

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

You quote Genesis 11:7 where God made it that people wouldn't understand each other, yet here we are communicating in a common language -- English -- that many, may people understand worldwide.

One at a time then:

No...God confused all language...not merely to stifle people's ability to understand each other...but as it explains in the previous verse: to stifle our ability to attain the things of heaven by our own name. Which is exactly my point - God has told us all things, but not in such a way to allow for abuse or unauthorized use, i.e., His word is spirit and otherwise in parable.

But...it would not be correct to call what we have here communication either.

 

[ScottA]

Mark 4:11 says "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables"

Luke 8:10 says "He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables"

Given that the words of Christ are spirit (as He said), up until that time, no one had ever been born again of the spirit of God (Christ is the First and only begotten) and could not receive the things of the spirit. He, in fact, still needed to explain even to His apostles - until such a time He sent another Helper (to guide them into all truth). John 16:13

 

[pescador]

One at a time then:

No...God confused all language...not merely to stifle people's ability to understand each other...but as it explains in the previous verse: to stifle our ability to attain the things of heaven by our own name. Which is exactly my point - God has told us all things, but not in such a way to allow for abuse or unauthorized use, i.e., His word is spirit and otherwise in parable.

But...it would not be correct to call what we have here communication either.

What would you call it then? Communication: (from Latin commūnicāre, meaning "to share") is the act of conveying intended meanings from one entity or group to another through the use of mutually understood signs and semiotic rules.

 

[ScottA]

What would you call it then? Communication: (from Latin commūnicāre, meaning "to share") is the act of conveying intended meanings from one entity or group to another through the use of mutually understood signs and semiotic rules.

You are evading the actual point. But, your definition of communication assumes that there is actual "sharing" going on. So, without "share"..."to" is indeed what I would call this.

Back to topic then?

 

[-57]

I don't really pay attention to them.

Regarding science, it is simply making observations about the creation, these observations when used to explain some Godly piece of wisdom ... is a parable.

But Genesis....the creation story....isn't presented as a parable. Genesis is presented as historical literal history.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But Genesis....the creation story....isn't presented as a parable. Genesis is presented as historical literal history.

The flow of Genesis seems to be similar to the flow of Revelation. I agree that Genesis speaks of events that actually happened. However, each element of the creation has a figurative/spiritual literal meaning ... similar to when Jesus says "soon comes the night when no one can work" the night was coming, but he also spoke of what it was like after his crucifixion.

 

[Open Heart]

These verses display how thorough God is when laying down rules so we don't get sick eating what cannot be preserved without the right technology. The levite wasn't only a health worker but also inspected buildings to ensure they were safe to dwell. All scripture is useful in some way or another, in this case it shows me the compassion of God to not let them die from their ignorance being slaves straight outta egypt.

The kosher laws have nothing to do with health. For example, not boiling a kid in its mothers milk is repeated three times in the Torah, so its doggone important. Yet there is nothing unhealthy about boiling a kid in its mother's milk.

 

[Open Heart]

But Genesis....the creation story....isn't presented as a parable. Genesis is presented as historical literal history.

No it's not. And strictly speaking, the genre isn't parable either, but creation myth. Like all myths, it teaches eternal truths about the nature of the divine and man, in this case, that God created, and that mankind knows good from evil but is "fallen" meaning there is something intrinsically corrupt about mankind on a moral level. Most people are uneducated about myths, and think they are "lies." This most definitely is not the case. One needs to understand the difference between a truth and a fact: truths are abstractions and facts are not. Myths teach truths, but not facts.

 

[Open Heart]

Good point. The Israelites did not have refrigeration. YHWH was keeping His flock from getting sick.

So unrefrigerated beef and sheep (except the hind portion) are safe to eat?

 

[Vicomte13]

So unrefrigerated beef and sheep (except the hind portion) are safe to eat?

For a day, yes, which is what the Torah limit is.

 

[Open Heart]

For a day, yes, which is what the Torah limit is.

If you think that beef spoils less than pork you are mistaken.

 

[Hank77]

One good example is that Jews don't mix milk and meat. It has to do with symbols of life and death, so that is a taboo to mix the two. THat taboo of considering dead bodies unclean is also easy to understand, it has to do with separating death and life.

Do not boil/cook the kid in it's mother's milk.
The Karaite Jews do not believe that one cannot eat diary and meat together as other sects of Jews do. They say that God's Word meant just what it said. It is thought that the above practice was something done by pagans.

 

[Vicomte13]

If you think that beef spoils less than pork you are mistaken.

In New England, when we cook meat or pork, or chicken or fish, if there are leftovers, we leave it on the stove in the pan and eat it again the next day for lunch. If we haven't eaten it by the end of the next day, we throw it out.

We do exactly the same thing in my wife's family down in the West Indies, where it is much hotter.

None of us, or the family, has ever gotten sick from this practice, which has been done for over a century of living memory, and was certainly being done well before that.

It amounts to the Biblical standard in the Torah: once you've cooked meat, you eat it today or the next day at the latest, but not after that.

100 years of living memory doing that with pork, beef, mutton, chicken and fish in the tropics and nobody ever getting sick is a pretty good indication that God really did know what he was doing when he gave that rule to the Hebrews.

 

[Vicomte13]

Do not boil/cook the kid in it's mother's milk.
The Karaite Jews do not believe that one cannot eat diary and meat together as other sects of Jews do. They say that God's Word meant just what it said. It is thought that the above practice was something done by pagans.

The Karaites are right, of course.