Why a literal Genesis?

[mark kennedy]

I suspect that the writer/s or Genesis were not engaged in a creative process, as one might imagine a writer of today might understand the process. I believe that he/she/they understood him/her/themselves to be 'recorders', committing to writing the story of the people as they had received it, for transmission to a generation yet unborn. These are the stories that tell us who we are, where we have come from and where we are going. The great genealogies of Genesis (sometimes called the begatitudes) are a clear indication of this sense of capture of tradition. Writing the story, which was both elite and expensive, indicated something of the value that the community placed on this record. Much of this story was captured and assembled in writing following the conquest of Jerusalem, yet the events recounted include things like the creation, Abraham and the journey to Canaan, which possibly took place 800 to 1000 years before.

The story is not there for endless argument about it's writing, thought I acknowledge the value of that pursuit, but we should be listening to the clear story of God who calls us into being, and cares for us, even when we are naughty, who travels with us on the journey leading, guiding, providing strength, and is faithful when we get there, despite our limitations. Arguing over it clause by clause seems to me to be less edifying and runs the risk that we miss the big picture - the story itself.

The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible are also known as the Law. The Levites did not have territory, they received 48 cities throughout Israel that were established for the purpose of teaching the Law. From the time of the exodus and throughout the 40 years of wandering Moses would often begin an address by reviewing the event from the exodus and the things that have happened, places visited, emphasizing what God had done for the children of Israel. Genesis is the foundational lesson, the histories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the entire history of Israel that spanned. The specific relative dates in the genealogies indicate a timeline was inextricably linked to the history that was so much a part of that Law.

Most people probably didn't read, they had a very basic numbering system but they had a definite understanding of marking time by the passing of years. As the years passed the Levites continued to chronicle the history of Israel, even after the Babylonian captivity, Ezra the scribe found the Law and read it to 40,000 Israelites is the Kidron Valley just outside Jerusalem, the same place that would be the site of Jesus inaugural sermon we know as the Sermon on the Mount. The Law required the reading of the Law, it would be read out loud to all the people.

This wasn't a bundle of scrolls gathering dust in some clerical cubby hole. It was living history, taught to the children of Israel their entire history and could be consider nothing but the history of their nation. It's inconceivable that this history should be written and taught as figurative or distant, but the basis of a vital living faith and Covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac Jacob, Moses and the nation of Israel for all generations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Philip_B]

The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible are also known as the Law. The Levites did not have territory, they received 48 cities throughout Israel that were established for the purpose of teaching the Law. From the time of the exodus and throughout the 40 years of wandering Moses would often begin an address by reviewing the event from the exodus and the things that have happened, places visited, emphasizing what God had done for the children of Israel. Genesis is the foundational lesson, the histories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the entire history of Israel that spanned. The specific relative dates in the genealogies indicate a timeline was inextricably linked to the history that was so much a part of that Law.

Most people probably didn't read, they had a very basic numbering system but they had a definite understanding of marking time by the passing of years. As the years passed the Levites continued to chronicle the history of Israel, even after the Babylonian captivity, Ezra the scribe found the Law and read it to 40,000 Israelites is the Kidron Valley just outside Jerusalem, the same place that would be the site of Jesus inaugural sermon we know as the Sermon on the Mount. The Law required the reading of the Law, it would be read out loud to all the people.

This wasn't a bundle of scrolls gathering dust in some clerical cubby hole. It was living history, taught to the children of Israel their entire history and could be consider nothing but the history of their nation. It's inconceivable that this history should be written and taught as figurative or distant, but the basis of a vital living faith and Covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac Jacob, Moses and the nation of Israel for all generations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I am not sure if you are affirming or contesting what I said. I think I agree with most of what you say, in general.

 

[mark kennedy]

Interesting predicament. Two views of early Genesis and anyone who can read and understand knows the difference. There are 'groups' (not organized as such, but loose numbers of people) who support one side more than the other. Probably some of those are unsure and there are many others who won't take a side.

But, it would seem that ALL of them are Christian, so some level or other, but a good number of either side believe in the Triune God who Created the physical Universe and the same Triune God who gave Himself as the ultimate sacrifice to prevent believers from being Eternally in Hell; away from that same God.

So one question - not the only, perhaps not even the most important - is this: Why doesn't that Triune God settle the issue? Why doesn't God convict the minds (hearts, livers, inner beings) of one of the groups to change opinion and go to the other side?

I have no doubt about the reality of the Creator working through the methods of science in the forming of the current Universe. The idea of a Universe existing 13.74 billion years now doesn't faze me a bit. God is in control and does control. Nor does this change how I recognize God's grace and saving act of self-sacrifice and granting me the innocence and nature of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, I see no real reason to believe Mark Kennedy - or any number of others - who firmly believe in the YEC theory, where the Universe was created in six 'creating' days and one day of 'rest' of twenty-four hours about six thousand years ago have any less reliance upon the Triune God for their salvation or Eternal life either.

Hang on a sec, a nice conciliatory post but I think you should know I have no issues with an old earth cosmology. Genesis 1:1 simple says that the heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning', no reference to a specific time. From Adam on the genealogies give specific relative dates. The creation week narrative isn't specific to the creation of the sphere we inhabit but rather the creation of the biosphere we share with the other created kinds.

There are a couple who I suspect for other reasons of what they say or claim to believe, but that judgment really is not my duty. (Happily.) And some of those 'questionable' folks support 'my' side and some support Mr. Kennedy's side.

All of this leads me to wonder if God Himself is all wrapped around the axle about it.

I can say I've prayed about my position and beliefs for years now. Something on the order of "Lord, show me if I'm wrong. Show me where I'm wrong." I pray this about a number of things.

I do not know if all those on the YEC side pray similar prayers, but I'm pretty sure a good number of them do.

And even if I'm the only one in the Universe so inclined (not likely) God certainly leads His own out of mis-belief, does He not?

So I've come to the conclusion - subject to change by Divine inspiration - God isn't too bothered about the difference of opinion or understanding. I can easily believe both factions are wrong enough to be errant in the matter. (I confess I have NO idea what the ultimate alternative might be.)

Of greater importance is our shared belief and understand of the God, Eternal and Omnipotent, who grants us grace on far more than one basis. Of greater importance is our shared belief and understanding to support and agapeo love for one another. Of greater importance is our shared belief and understanding in the need for communicating the Salvation of that same God to others who do not know Him at all.

Even if at times we suspect our fellow Christian wears his underwear too tight or too loose.

Early in my walk I paid little attention to the history recorded in the Old Testament. My interest early was the credibility of the New Testament as history in a day and age when skepticism abounded even in the seminaries. Internal, external, bibliographical testing and Messianic prophecy all come into play and I found the New Testament to be highly credible. My interest in apologetics lead to the bigger history spanning from Adam to the eternal state with God at the heart of this history interacting with his Creation in ways only God can. Redemptive history is not detached from the promise of the gospel but foundational to it. If for whatever reason another Christian has some issues with a global flood, the sun stopping in the sky or some of the more epic miraculous works in Scripture I think it's pretty normal to have reason for pause. I struggled with the incarnation for years but ultimately decided this was in fact what happened due to the clear testimony of Scripture.

My initial interest in creationism wasn't brought on by some desire to reconcile my faith with secular science. It was the highly emotive and contentious nature of arguments against biblical historicity. I don't encounter arguments against the resurrection, the incarnation, the Gospel accounts or the Apostles. What I have encountered is believers being inundated with harsh and condescending arguments that come in a flood. Again and again I've seen one creationist after another wander into these discussions gang tackled in an onslaught of biting personal remarks. What ends up happening is they leave, thinking somehow secular academics and natural science are somehow opposed to their faith and sacred histories. Since I have never been one to shy away from these issues I wasn't repelled by those criticisms, it made me all the more curious what the basis for this skepticism.

I've defended biblical creation both from the scientific evidence and the exposition and exegesis of the Scriptures themselves. When I pray it's not for God to change my opinion, it's always been for God to take me as I am and make me what he wants me to be. I didn't write the Scriptures and I have no motive to twist the meaning to conform to my opinions. I am limited to what it says and there is no clear indication that Genesis 1 can or should be taken figuratively. Anymore then I should take the promise of the gospel of a new heavens and a new earth at the end of the age.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not sure if you are affirming or contesting what I said. I think I agree with most of what you say, in general.

Actually it was just intending to elaborate on how the ancient Hebrews would have heard and received the text. This wasn't a static but a living history that continues to unfold in our world and in our lives.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not a broad brush, Genesis and the Pentateuch is historical in nature period. In order for it to be figurative there would have to be some basis for a comparison. The door is open at the point where you say it's figurative, simply because you decide it, that any historical narrative can be dismissed as figurative at will. Comparative is obviously a comparison of two things, there's no typology, no analogy, no precedent and antecedent, just a highly subjective inference with nothing as a basis for the comparison.

I've never said that Genesis is "comparative". You're the only one using that word. I use the broader, more generic "figurative" which simply means non-literal.

I didn't decide that the snake passage is figurative, we agreed that the snake passage is figurative. Since the author of Genesis wrote the book with elements that we know to be figurative, and did not offer any clue that it was not literal, nor did he offer anything "comparative", then you cannot say that the author intended to convey a 100% literal interpretation of Genesis. You also cannot say that the authors of the Bible are required to offer some basis of comparison or some statement acknowledging the figurative language used in order for us to claim that something is figurative as opposed to literal.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've never said that Genesis is "comparative". You're the only one using that word. I use the broader, more generic "figurative" which simply means non-literal.

Think about the term, 'figurative', it's base word is figure, thus figure of speech. Someone is strong as an ox, that doesn't mean he is an ox, it's a comparison. Literary features have key words and phrases, even if the writer used

I didn't decide that the snake passage is figurative, we agreed that the snake passage is figurative. Since the author of Genesis wrote the book with elements that we know to be figurative, and did not offer any clue that it was not literal, nor did he offer anything "comparative", then you cannot say that the author intended to convey a 100% literal interpretation of Genesis. You also cannot say that the authors of the Bible are required to offer some basis of comparison or some statement acknowledging the figurative language used in order for us to claim that something is figurative as opposed to literal.

But what you don't seem to appreciate is we are not talking about a proper name but an historical narrative. Israel comes out of Egypt on the 'wings of eagles' lets say, that doesn't mean actual eagles are involved. It should be remembered that in the pagan cultures of the surrounding nations they had gods for everything, the wind, the water, the trees. In Hebrew culture, at least in the Law, God wasn't the god of wind or trees or water, God was the Creator of the heavens and earth and all that is in them. It's simply unfathomably that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that lead the children of Israel out of Egypt was some kind of a figurative Creator because that's what it comes down to.

Try as you might you are not going to get a figurative interpretation from that text, there is nothing to base it on. If there was something that expanded the meaning or offered a figurative understanding it would be different. It's explicit and truth is there is a lot of figurative language throughout the Scriptures, but here you will find none.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Moral Orel]

Think about the term, 'figurative', it's base word is figure, thus figure of speech. Someone is strong as an ox, that doesn't mean he is an ox, it's a comparison. Literary features have key words and phrases, even if the writer used

Similes are one example of figurative language. Metaphors are another. "From the time the sun rises" is figurative language as well, but it doesn't compare the sun to something else, so not all figurative language is comparative. You're conflating terms.

But what you don't seem to appreciate is we are not talking about a proper name but an historical narrative.

We're not talking about a mere "proper name" either. For starters, your Revelation passage doesn't say, "Snake will..." does it? It describes Satan as a snake, which is not using a proper name. Secondly, you're forgetting the heel part of the passage (that's why I referred to the passage and not just the snake). So you have a figurative reference to a snake and a figurative reference to man in general when it actually means a reference to specific persons (Satan and Jesus, respectively). Now I recognize the differences between this instance of being figurative with the possibility of other parts of Genesis being figurative. Just like I recognize the differences between this instance of being figurative with the way that Jesus was figurative. What you don't appreciate are the qualifications that you have touted as being necessary to determine something is figurative. There is nothing figurative about the language in that passage whatsoever, but it is figurative nonetheless. The author of Genesis doesn't draw any comparison whatsoever anywhere in his book, but it is figurative nonetheless.

You don't need figurative language for something to actually turn out to be figurative.

It's simply unfathomably that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that lead the children of Israel out of Egypt was some kind of a figurative Creator because that's what it comes down to.

There you go trying to erect that straw man again. I never said God might be figurative, I only said the "how" might be figurative. There are other reasons in and even outside the Bible to consider a literal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe and life itself, so there is no logical reason to think this "comes down to" a figurative creator.

It's explicit and truth is there is a lot of figurative language throughout the Scriptures, but here you will find none.

There is a lot of figurative language throughout the Bible. There are also a lot of figurative elements in the Bible that are not presented as figurative. I've shown several examples that are presented as literal but are actually figurative. "It doesn't contain figurative language" is not a reason to assure yourself that something isn't figurative.

 

[Moral Orel]

Hmm... Nothing but crickets for a while now. What do you think, @2PhiloVoid, did my deductive hackery prevail this time?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Hmm... Nothing but crickets for a while now. What do you think, @2PhiloVoid, did my deductive hackery prevail this time?

I'm not 2PhiloVoid obviously, but I ran out of steam reading all the in depth replies. No one challenged my own view in a way that made me rethink it too deeply. I was very impressed with all your posts as I already said, kudos to you.

You are awesome.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm... Nothing but crickets for a while now. What do you think, @2PhiloVoid, did my deductive hackery prevail this time?

Yep, there's been a lot of crickets chirping for the last few days, and not just on your thread here.

In assessing your work, Nick... I'd have to say that I am impressed with the general direction and astute analyses you've deductively "hacked" regarding the interpretive possibilities for the "Beginning" portion of the Holy Hot Potato. So, you get a red star and a strawberry scratch-and sniff sticker to put on the top of your paper. (Unless, of course, you're questioning your own conclusions about Genesis as they stand thus far...)

2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

(Unless, of course, you're questioning your own conclusions about Genesis as they stand thus far...)

With how far back I've walked my personal conception on how directly the Bible might be divinely inspired, Genesis is the easiest book to fit into that conceptualization. I've said before, that it wouldn't matter if we proved conclusively that abiogenesis occurs, or even if we proved that multiple universes propagate themselves from quantum fluctuations, science isn't going to outright prove the Bible is 100% false in its divine claims, let alone the unfalsifiable god concept.

Now a time machine on the other hand would be a handy tool in settling all these matters once and for all...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

With how far back I've walked my personal conception on how directly the Bible might be divinely inspired, Genesis is the easiest book to fit into that conceptualization. I've said before, that it wouldn't matter if we proved conclusively that abiogenesis occurs, or even if we proved that multiple universes propagate themselves from quantum fluctuations, science isn't going to outright prove the Bible is 100% false in its divine claims, let alone the unfalsifiable god concept.

I very much agree with your evaluation as to what science can or can't do with the content of Genesis, but as you know there are arguments from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, among prominent others, which say that you and I are wrong about the divide between science and religion. (I have to emphasize this point since I've been reading Jerry Coyne's latest book on this very subject ...)

Now a time machine on the other hand would be a handy tool in settling all these matters once and for all...

Yes, it would be quite handy to have, wouldn't? Tell you what, I'll give Captain Picard a call; maybe he can put us in touch with someone who's got one to spare.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[fatboys]

There

For the record, I'll preclude it.

Plato, who popularized the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures, established the mind of the reader as the sole authority for interpreting the Bible.

With 7 billion people on the earth, that means there could be 7 billion interpretations.

And the Bible, in many cases, interprets Itself.

There is already seven billion interpretations of the Bible. You can't trust man to interpret the Bible correctly whether or not it is literal or not. Christianity has messed with not only the interpretation but outside influences have corrupted it so much that there are thousands and thousands of different denominations all saying come here or come over there. Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

 

[Moral Orel]

I very much agree with your evaluation as to what science can or can't do with the content of Genesis, but as you know there are arguments from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, among prominent others, which say that you and I are wrong about the divide between science and religion. (I have to emphasize this point since I've been reading Jerry Coyne's latest book on this very subject ...)

Never heard of Coyne. I've listened to Dawkins though. He's one you have to separate the good from the bad. He really is very intelligent and knowledgable about biology and evolution. But when he gets to talking about theology and morality, whoo-boy! Not exactly an expert. Plus he's kind of a jerk.

The separation is simple to me, and it answers the questions about a lot of the terrible, no-good, very bad stuff in the OT (and to a lesser extent the NT). God didn't tell people what to write down. Sure, He could have communicated with people, given them visions and dreams, and sent messengers from time to time, and I would still call the Bible "inspired by God" as God and His kingdom are the inspiration for the book. But He didn't say, "tell them this" and "tell them that" all specifically like most people assume. Am I right? There's a good chance I'm not. But it's the only way I can reconcile all the contradictions I see in the Bible.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Never heard of Coyne. I've listened to Dawkins though. He's one you have to separate the good from the bad. He really is very intelligent and knowledgable about biology and evolution. But when he gets to talking about theology and morality, whoo-boy! Not exactly an expert. Plus he's kind of a jerk.

The separation is simple to me, and it answers the questions about a lot of the terrible, no-good, very bad stuff in the OT (and to a lesser extent the NT). God didn't tell people what to write down. Sure, He could have communicated with people, given them visions and dreams, and sent messengers from time to time, and I would still call the Bible "inspired by God" as God and His kingdom are the inspiration for the book. But He didn't say, "tell them this" and "tell them that" all specifically like most people assume. Am I right? There's a good chance I'm not. But it's the only way I can reconcile all the contradictions I see in the Bible.

What do you mean by "The separation is simple to me"? What "separation"? Also, what contradictions do you see in the bible? (Also, 100% agree on Dawkins. He is not a philosopher, he should stick to his field).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never heard of Coyne. I've listened to Dawkins though. He's one you have to separate the good from the bad. He really is very intelligent and knowledgable about biology and evolution. But when he gets to talking about theology and morality, whoo-boy! Not exactly an expert. Plus he's kind of a jerk.

Yes, Dawkins gets a bit carried away at times with his grandiose (non-scientific) accusations about God's character, which is surprising for one as qualified in biology as he is. Coyne is an acquaintance of Dawkins, and as far as I can tell, a tad more restrained than Dawkins. Where he isn't too much different is in the effectiveness of his arguments, and thus far, as I plow through Coyne's book, I'm not finding much in the way of anything very extensive or decisively convincing, although it is fairly well written and attempts to be comprehensive on the subject.

The separation is simple to me, and it answers the questions about a lot of the terrible, no-good, very bad stuff in the OT (and to a lesser extent the NT).

The separation between science and religion/bible is simple to me too, (I take the Galileo approach), but I'm not sure the separation goes far in addressing "the bad stuff" we think we see in the bible. Rather, I think the separation's main usefulness is in delineating the "domains" in which each of these two fields of human interest respectively reside. It's still up to those working in the fields of philosophy, linguistics, and hermeneutics to try to sort out the meaning, value, and ethics of the biblical texts.

With that said, I don't want to derail your thread and get into a discussion about the separation of science and religion. Your thread seems to focus mainly on the method of hermeneutics by which we might best understand the meaning of the book of Genesis (or it's initial few chapters, anyway). And I think you've done a good job of laying out some basic ideas for an alternative approach that makes more sense and perhaps permits for deeper contemplation on several levels.

God didn't tell people what to write down. Sure, He could have communicated with people, given them visions and dreams, and sent messengers from time to time, and I would still call the Bible "inspired by God" as God and His kingdom are the inspiration for the book. But He didn't say, "tell them this" and "tell them that" all specifically like most people assume. Am I right? There's a good chance I'm not. But it's the only way I can reconcile all the contradictions I see in the Bible.

You've expressed a view of inspiration that is similar, even if not identical, to my own. The upshot is that while neither of us extols the typical Fundamentalist's view of the Bible, we unfortunately won't be able to completely know whether we are right or not about this matter on the whole. It will just seem to make more sense to us to lean in the direction you're pointing.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

What do you mean by "The separation is simple to me"? What "separation"? Also, what contradictions do you see in the bible? (Also, 100% agree on Dawkins. He is not a philosopher, he should stick to his field).

The separation of the Bible's claims about spiritual matters, and what the authors wrote in the Bible about how they viewed the natural universe.

As far as contradictions go, well that is a big broad subject unto itself. As an example, though, think about the dietary restrictions in Mosaic Law. In Genesis it says it's okay to eat every kind of animal. Then the Law shows up and says there are some kinds of animals that you shouldn't eat because they're unclean. Then Jesus shows up and says that it never worked that way to begin with, no matter what you eat it won't defile you. It seems Jesus agrees with Genesis, but not with Moses. Then, to top it off, Jesus says to follow the Law down to the last jot until the end of the world, but later Paul says people don't need to follow all of the laws anymore, just some of them. It's a whole jumble of contradictions.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The separation of the Bible's claims about spiritual matters, and what the authors wrote in the Bible about how they viewed the natural universe.

As far as contradictions go, well that is a big broad subject unto itself. As an example, though, think about the dietary restrictions in Mosaic Law. In Genesis it says it's okay to eat every kind of animal. Then the Law shows up and says there are some kinds of animals that you shouldn't eat because they're unclean. Then Jesus shows up and says that it never worked that way to begin with, no matter what you eat it won't defile you. It seems Jesus agrees with Genesis, but not with Moses. Then, to top it off, Jesus says to follow the Law down to the last jot until the end of the world, but later Paul says people don't need to follow all of the laws anymore, just some of them. It's a whole jumble of contradictions.

Ah okay. Cool. I like Dr Jonathan Welton's stuff on law-related things. I haven't got my head around everything he teaches but a lot of the seeming contradictions are based on a misunderstanding of covenants. He completed his doctorate in covenants, not just biblical covenants, but covenants made between other nations around at the same time as the Israelite nation. Also, "end of the age" doesn't mean "end of the world". I hadn't really thought about food laws in the way you presented it, but I would assume there is a logical reason. My guess is that there are no contradictions, only misunderstandings and things we haven't understood properly. I know this isn't the subject of this thread, but I would be interested in discussing these things.

 

[Moral Orel]

The separation between science and religion/bible is simple to me too, (I take the Galileo approach), but I'm not sure the separation goes far in addressing "the bad stuff" we think we see in the bible. Rather, I think the separation's main usefulness is in delineating the "domains" in which each of these two fields of human interest respectively reside. It's still up to those working in the fields of philosophy, linguistics, and hermeneutics to try to sort out the meaning, value, and ethics of the biblical texts.

With that said, I don't want to derail your thread and get into a discussion about the separation of science and religion. Your thread seems to focus mainly on the method of hermeneutics by which we might best understand the meaning of the book of Genesis (or it's initial few chapters, anyway). And I think you've done a good job of laying out some basic ideas for an alternative approach that makes more sense and perhaps permits for deeper contemplation on several levels.

Well, the way I separate them though is by thinking about just how the Bible is inspired. If it is a collection of books written by people who encountered the divine, wrote down those encounters along with the history (as well as the myths) of their people, then it's simply a matter of separating the history from the divine commands as well.

For instance, God told the Israelites where to go after they escaped Egypt. Once they were there, the Israelites decided to go on a rampage against the people that were already there. Over simplified, I know, but you get the gist. Much in the same way God allowed them to keep their custom of divorce even though He disagreed with it, He likely had to allow them to keep their more barbaric tendencies as well, or use something more than a light touch.

I don't think our ideas of inspiration are close to "identical" though. That's what we were talking about a long time ago about those missing Mosaic laws. I could see God telling Moses to write laws, and then Moses making them up, but you didn't agree with my guess, at least not then.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ah okay. Cool. I like Dr Jonathan Welton's stuff on law-related things. I haven't got my head around everything he teaches but a lot of the seeming contradictions are based on a misunderstanding of covenants. He completed his doctorate in covenants, not just biblical covenants, but covenants made between other nations around at the same time as the Israelite nation. Also, "end of the age" doesn't mean "end of the world". I hadn't really thought about food laws in the way you presented it, but I would assume there is a logical reason. My guess is that there are no contradictions, only misunderstandings and things we haven't understood properly. I know this isn't the subject of this thread, but I would be interested in discussing these things.

Ya, I don't want to derail it so much it get's closed, but it's been so quiet anyways, I figured I'd branch out a little. So here's one that's in line with the thread itself. Look at these passages from Genesis:

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.​

That happened on the third day. There were plants on the surface of the Earth, and trees with fruit in them, right? And later on the sixth day, after all these plants existed on the surface of the Earth, God created man. But then...

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.​

The other account says man was created while the surface of the Earth was still barren. Sure, there were seeds growing underground, but there certainly weren't trees with fruit in them yet. And while the Earth was in this state, God made humans.

These are the kinds of problems that pop up when the Bible tells the same story twice. Genesis 1 and 2 don't match up. Another one that I started a thread about here in the Apologetics section is Jesus' Moabite ancestry, which is a no-no.