- Thread starter
- #61
glorydaz said:
I noticed a few things right off. The noun used to describe every moving thing can be translated as 1.) creeping creature, 2.) swiftly moving creature, 3.) any moving creature and 4.) a reptile. Point 1, 3 and 4 all bear the same implications, but point 2 can mean wild game. At any rate, let's disregard what is permissible for a moment and just take a look at what is right.
We see from the context that there is a distinction even at this point in time from what animals are clean and from what animals are unclean. It has been said that this terminology of clean and unclean only denotes what is sacrificially acceptable and what is sacrificially unacceptable. But there is no Scripture to prove this. While the context seems to uphold the idea that clean animals are the only animals acceptable to be sacrificed it does not dismiss any further implications that we later find in Leviticus 11:44. That is, touching unclean dead animals or eating unclean animals is unholy behavior.
Was there a standard of clean and unclean back then? Yes. Were clean animals the only animals acceptable to God as a sacrifice? Yes, it seems that way. Would what God deems as holy also be holy for us? He is the ultimate standard, so yes. We should be holy as God is holy, right? Yes, God said as much. Did God later reveal that eating unclean animals was unholy behavior? Yes. So if God declared some animals unclean back then, revealed that eating such animals was unholy behavior and we know there was no evidence to the contrary in Noah's time, then would it be unholy behavior even back then to eat unclean animals? Yes.
In Deuteronomy 14:21 we see that God allows his People to sell impermissible meat to those who are not his People. So he seems to allow for the flaws of those who are not his People as he had all along. However, God's standards are holy and are for all mankind (e.g. Sodom & Gomorrah). It's not that the Gentiles and unbelievers were not held to the standard of his Law. If that were the case then no Gentile or unbeliever would need Christ. Rather, the Gentiles and unbelievers simply did not know the full extent of God's Law and could not conduct themselves in a holy manner. He meant for his People to be an example to the lawless of how they should live (Deuteronomy 4:6). But we, who know what is holy behavior, should not act in an unholy fashion.
I cannot speak with certainty on this passage without knowing for sure that all animals did not refer to all untamed, swift-moving game. However, the context seems to suggest that all animals includes that which is unclean. So in this instance I believe that God would understand if you ate an unclean animal to keep from starving. I would have a tendency to do as much, myself. ;) But his allowance to eat meat comes with stipulations in the same way that his allowance to eat plants came with obvious stipulations. For example, we should not eat Poison Ivy or Holly berries. In the same way we should not attempt to eat poison dart frogs or puffer fish, both of which are unclean. One of the stipulations that came with the allowance to eat meat was abstinence from unclean animals. So God never intended for us to make a habit out of eating mice, crabs, lobsters or arachnids. Nor, I think, did he view it as acceptable, holy behavior.
Should we have our Eastre goddess ham or our Passover Lamb? Your thoughts?
not blood thats called myoglobin as relative of hemoglobin that carries oxygen to muscles cells. when its red it oxygen rich and when its grey it oxygen depleted, both hemoglobin and myoglobin are iron based.
When I used to eat steak, a properly cooked medium steak had blood in it. At least I think it did. Maybe it was just the color of the flesh that made me think there was blood in it? When you've got just a raw cut of meat, isn't there blood in it?