Dietary Laws

[handy]

My point about animals not being eaten until after the Flood is not an argument made from silence. Genesis 1:29-31 specifically states that God gave all, both men and animals, plants, fruits and grasses for food. Then, in Genesis 9, God specifically states that He gave all the animals (not just the "clean" ones) for food.

Doesn't matter if there were a thriving economy for wool products or not... to simply assert that the flocks were for food is to ignore what the Scriptures clearly state and definitely make and argument from silence. However, the population probably grew exponentially and people lived for a very long time. I'm sure wool for clothing was a much needed item.

I do know understand your points about Genesis 6:5 and agree with you. And, if I'm understanding correctly, you are basically making the assertion that Noah had the Law if anything written upon his heart by God, or at the very least by strong oral tradition from Adam (who died not all that long prior to Noah's birth) and Adam would have had it straight from God. Noah probably knew plenty of people who knew Adam personally.

Which, very well could be the case except that we see, at least in the case of dietary laws, God not expecting people to follow the dietary laws until set forth by Moses and then repealed after Christ's fulfillment of the Law in full.

If God had expected Noah to eat only the "clean" animals, He wouldn't have told him "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

That there would have been enough "clean" animals is clear because God had Noah bring plenty extra of them. There are, according to one list I have, at least 33 "clean" animals and birds and 7 of each were on the ark. A number of these animals are quite large, so that would have been plenty of food for Noah and his family. So, God didn't allow for the eating of unclean animals just because of a lack of food.

But, it's clear that God allowed for the eating of unclean animals (Every moving thing, I give all) and it's also clear that God had not given any animal at all for eating until that moment. Even the animals themselves were herbivores according to Genesis 1:29-31.

As far as the grain offering is concerned, I agree that grain offerings were made, but was not the offering for the atonement for sin an animal?

Running out of time here and following the Law as a means of salvation by works is a totally different subject, but to answer your question, no... salvation has always been by faith (and that not of ourselves, but a gift from God). However, I see the Law as a means of grace in that it is our tutor of what God's standards were for men...without which man would be in ignorance. Perhaps we can chat another time on a different thread about the tutorial nature of the Law and how God meant it for our good. I've come to my views on this via Romans 7 and Galatians 3.

As far as turkey bacon is concerned...horrors!!! The very idea! :D

 

[rstrats]

In Isaiah, before the new heavens and new earth are established, God speaks about a rebellious people which walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts; a people that provoke Me to anger continually to My face, (65:2,3). One of the reasons these people provoke the Lord is because they eat swine's flesh, and broth of unclean meat is in their pots, (65:4).

Also, God declares that He will consume those people who eat swine's flesh, detestable things, and mice. (Isa.66:17). The context of this prophecy is the end times, right before the new heaven and new earth. This would certainly seem to suggest that the Lord will still expect an obedience to His dietary laws.

And Revelation talks of unclean birds which doesn't make sense if all animals have been made clean.

 

[Webb]

Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 11:5-10.

 

[rstrats]

Webb,

re: "Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 11:5:10"

There have been over 10 posts that have mentioned/discussed those Acts refrences. What is your purpose in referencing them again?

 

[By Grace]

Well, actually this predates Gen 9...

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Gen 7:2 Of 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.

Clean and unclean were well know before the flood.

The point is that there are deeper spiritual lessons to be learned from the dietary laws than just what is fit to put in one's mouth.

While arguments from silence, there can be a logical extrapolation from what is known from Scripture.
I think that applies here:

Genesis 3: 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
​

Killing animals is not mentioned in the above process, but the fact that A & E wore animal skin coats. Therefore, it is fair to extrapolate that they killed animals. (What a DOH! statement!) But what became of the animals which they killed? I believe that they ate them. The reason for that is that neither vegetarianism not meat eating was neither specifically prohibited, nor specifically endorsed (therefore a silence on both) it is my opinion that the skinned carcases of those animals were left to fester and rot. This happened before they were cast out of Eden.

After Cain slew his brother Abel, he was cursed to be a nomad, and by definition, it is impossible for nomads to be farmers. Therefore there must have been a culture of "ranchers" who wandered about to feed their flocks. From the wanderers, came the first city, Enoch, named after the man Enoch.

But to clarify your position, it seems as if you are assuming that the word translated as "clean" is a synonym of "kosher". That is not the case.

792d טָהוֹר (ṭāhôr) clean, pure.

The root ṭhr is cognate with Ugaritic ṭhr (variant zhr), used of gems of lapis lazuli (UT 19: no. 1032); cf. S. Arabic ṭhr “pure†and Arabic ṭahara “to be pure, clean.†The verb occurs ninety-four times in the Qal, Piel, Pual, and Hithpael stems. It is used almost exclusively of ritual or moral purity. Once, however, in the Piel it refers to the cleansing of the skies by the winds in Job 37:21, “sweeps the clouds away†(NAB), and once as a Piel participle it refers to the purifying of silver (Mal 3:3).

All told ṭāhēr and its derivatives occur 204 times. In the great majority of cases they appear in the priestly literature: about forty-four percent in Lev and Num, about sixteen percent in Ex (especially of the pure gold for the cult), and about fourteen percent in Chr and Ezk.
​

Yamauchi, E. (1999). 792 טָהֵר. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (343). Chicago: Moody Press.

So what I am suggesting is that your interpretation of this word to be a parallel to kosher dies not correspond with the reality of the situation. In fact it is anachronistic because the priesthood had bot been established until well after the Flood, when Aaron, the brother of Moses was appointed the high priest. Therefore your picking the word clean to be a symbol or spiritual meaning has no basis in the historical usage and the particular usage of the word. Anoother way of stating it is because the priesthood had not yet been established, any attempt to make "clean" into a Levitical symbol or spiritual matter is impossible. That means that your argument for that word is indeed an argument from silence.

I hope this clarifies some things for you.

 

[handy]

ByGrace,

You stated:

"The reason for that is that neither vegetarianism not meat eating was neither specifically prohibited, nor specifically endorsed (therefore a silence on both) it is my opinion that the skinned carcases of those animals were left to fester and rot. This happened before they were cast out of Eden."

I disagree that vegetarianism and eating meat were not "specifically endorsed"... vegetarianism was specifically endorsed in Genesis 1:29-31 (applying not only to man but to all the animals) and then eating meat was specifically endorsed in Genesis 9:1-4 (not just "clean" animals but every animal).

While we can only surmise what happened to the skinned carcasses of the sacrificed animals, Genesis 3:21 tells us that the Lord made garments of skin for Adam and Eve. Since "skin" would quickly deteriorate, it makes sense that the Lord would have shown Adam and Eve how to properly tan the hides (and most likely helped them understand the benefits of the wool from the flocks) so that Adam and Eve could remain properly clothed, which became a necessity once leaving the Garden. Obviously the Lord, while casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden did not abandon them completely because the Lord spoke to Cain. Adam and Eve and their children would need education on how to survive in the world outside the Garden, how to till, how to make proper clothes, what was to be sacrificed, how the sacrifice was to be done in order to be acceptable, etc.

But, if the Lord allowed for the eating of the animals, and mankind up to Noah were in the habit of eating the animals, then why make a special proclamation in Genesis 9 to Noah that He was giving all the animals (not just clean) to eat? Considering how many clean animals and fowls there are (as I mentioned earlier, one lists 33) and considering that Noah brought seven of breeding pairs of each clean animal, there would have been at least 231 animals, many of which are rather large breeds upon which a family could eat for a number of days, that would be available for food. So again I ask, why the special proclamation in Genesis 9:1-4?

 

[eddif]

By posting these following scriptures, the discussion will be complicated. However, we all claim to follow scripture so we will have to deal with them:

Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Without the law there is no knowledge of sin. That just means,IMHO, there is no definition of sin till the law arrived. Did sin exist before the law? Yes. Was it defined so conversation could exist? No (IMHO).

++++++++++++++++

Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

IMHO, again, this is not an evil wink; but a shaking of the head closing of the eye that comes as we realize the person does not know what is going on and a certain frustration that causes a temporary closing of the eye (my definition only and may not be totally correct).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where we stand today? Wow.

Probably best looked at here.
Romans 5:15
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Much more we can look to Jesus as the solution to the problems.

eddif

 

[Ryan]

My point about animals not being eaten until after the Flood is not an argument made from silence. Genesis 1:29-31 specifically states that God gave all, both men and animals, plants, fruits and grasses for food. Then, in Genesis 9, God specifically states that He gave all the animals (not just the "clean" ones) for food.

Doesn't matter if there were a thriving economy for wool products or not... to simply assert that the flocks were for food is to ignore what the Scriptures clearly state and definitely make and argument from silence. However, the population probably grew exponentially and people lived for a very long time. I'm sure wool for clothing was a much needed item.

My bad and my apologies. My assertion I stated animals were on the menu was wrong I believe. You were correct and animals only came onto the menu in Genesis 9. That is from the literal text of the passage, and I can't find any other evidence animals were food otherwise prior to that. But, I will still assert not all animals were declared food. If God in Genesis 1:29-31 stated all plants, foods and grasses for food, then did that include poisonous berries? Did that include poison ivy? Devil's nightshade? Hemlock? Nightshade? Those are all plants. So using the reasoning all plants, are those not for our consumption then? It couldn't be.

Same thing when Noah knew the differentiation of clean and unclean animals. What does clean and unclean mean first? Clean means proper, pure, clean in the general sense. Unclean means contaminated, defiled, filthy, unclean in the general sense to. So God essentially told Noah to take 7 of these proper animals and 2 of these contaminated, polluted animals. So when God told Noah he could now eat of the animals, which one did you think he meant? Same reasoning used with plants. All plants could not mean all poisonous plants. If you were a guest in my house and I told you could help yourself to anything in my fridge to eat, does that mean the insulin? The baking soda? I guess you could, but it may have unpleasant results. Think how absurd it would be God proclaiming to Noah behold all these polluted animals are for you to eat now.

I do know understand your points about Genesis 6:5 and agree with you. And, if I'm understanding correctly, you are basically making the assertion that Noah had the Law if anything written upon his heart by God, or at the very least by strong oral tradition from Adam (who died not all that long prior to Noah's birth) and Adam would have had it straight from God. Noah probably knew plenty of people who knew Adam personally.

Which, very well could be the case except that we see, at least in the case of dietary laws, God not expecting people to follow the dietary laws until set forth by Moses and then repealed after Christ's fulfillment of the Law in full.

If God had expected Noah to eat only the "clean" animals, He wouldn't have told him "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

That there would have been enough "clean" animals is clear because God had Noah bring plenty extra of them. There are, according to one list I have, at least 33 "clean" animals and birds and 7 of each were on the ark. A number of these animals are quite large, so that would have been plenty of food for Noah and his family. So, God didn't allow for the eating of unclean animals just because of a lack of food.

But, it's clear that God allowed for the eating of unclean animals (Every moving thing, I give all) and it's also clear that God had not given any animal at all for eating until that moment. Even the animals themselves were herbivores according to Genesis 1:29-31.

I believe I explained this above.

As far as the grain offering is concerned, I agree that grain offerings were made, but was not the offering for the atonement for sin an animal?

There were many sacrifices of a voluntary nature completely unrelated to sin, and without the shedding of blood.

Turkey bacon is disgusting, I know.
My views from Psalm 119 particularly verse 152 "Long ago I learned from your instruction that you established it forever."
All Psalm 119 is devoted to The Torah and Law, and we know David was a man after God's heart.

 

[By Grace]

ByGrace,

You stated:

"The reason for that is that neither vegetarianism not meat eating was neither specifically prohibited, nor specifically endorsed (therefore a silence on both) it is my opinion that the skinned carcases of those animals were left to fester and rot. This happened before they were cast out of Eden."

I disagree that vegetarianism and eating meat were not "specifically endorsed"... vegetarianism was specifically endorsed in Genesis 1:29-31 (applying not only to man but to all the animals) and then eating meat was specifically endorsed in Genesis 9:1-4 (not just "clean" animals but every animal).

There was no death prior to the fall. Therefore vegetarianism had to be the case. (ASIDE there are some who believe that the perfection lasted less than 48 hours. I think the reasons are discussed at the Answers In Genesis site.) The death of animals was dictated by death as a process of A & E. Notice also in the phrase in 1:29, "...to you it shall be for meat"

This SEEMS to specify two things:
1) eating meat was a part of the original plan for A & E to have nourishment
2) the nature of that tree was a meat substitute

While we can only surmise what happened to the skinned carcasses of the sacrificed animals, Genesis 3:21 tells us that the Lord made garments of skin for Adam and Eve. Since "skin" would quickly deteriorate, it makes sense that the Lord would have shown Adam and Eve how to properly tan the hides (and most likely helped them understand the benefits of the wool from the flocks) so that Adam and Eve could remain properly clothed, which became a necessity once leaving the Garden. Obviously the Lord, while casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden did not abandon them completely because the Lord spoke to Cain. Adam and Eve and their children would need education on how to survive in the world outside the Garden, how to till, how to make proper clothes, what was to be sacrificed, how the sacrifice was to be done in order to be acceptable, etc.

A well-reasoned response; however it seems that you may be using the word "sacrifice" to also include "slaughter". They are different. I am not being pedantic, but to use the word "sacrifice" inculcates a ritualistic and a worship element nor can an animal sacrifice itself.
But, if the Lord allowed for the eating of the animals, and mankind up to Noah were in the habit of eating the animals, then why make a special proclamation in Genesis 9 to Noah that He was giving all the animals (not just clean) to eat? Considering how many clean animals and fowls there are (as I mentioned earlier, one lists 33) and considering that Noah brought seven of breeding pairs of each clean animal, there would have been at least 231 animals, many of which are rather large breeds upon which a family could eat for a number of days, that would be available for food. So again I ask, why the special proclamation in Genesis 9:1-4?[/QUOTE]

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, aBe fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 bEvery moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the cgreen herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the dlife thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
from http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Genesis 9.1–4
​

I believe that this was a repetition rather than a new commandment, and I believe that it goes back to the Genesis 1:29 phrase "...to you it shall be for meat"

As I stated before,

So what I am suggesting is that [to make "clean"] to be a parallel to kosher dies not correspond with the reality of the situation. In fact it is anachronistic because the priesthood had bot been established until well after the Flood, when Aaron, the brother of Moses was appointed the high priest

Good discussion!

 

[handy]

By Grace,

I'm enjoying the discussion as well! I'll probably have to drop out by tomorrow, because the Miller Academy of Home Education will be back from vacation. Meanwhile, it's been good to chew the fat with folks here for the past few days.

In regards to "to you it shall be for meat"... I did a quick word study on "meat", Hebrew word 'oklah.

The Strongs definition is:

1) food
a) food, eating
b) object of devouring, consuming
1) by wild beasts (figurative)
2) in fire
3) of judgment (figurative)

So, according to the definition, while meat can mean animal flesh, it mainly just means food. While one can definitely make the conjecture that Adam and Eve were created to be omnivore, it doesn't necessarily mean exactly that. However, it was a good point and worth consideration.

I don't want to derail the subject by delving into my rather obscure views of the nature of the sacrifices in Genesis, especially since I doubt I'll be posting much after today, but I think that part of the sacrifice was to use the skin of the animal as clothing.

I look at Genesis 3:21 the first sacrifice of an animal to be a substitutionary "covering" for sin. Not only did sin cause Adam and Eve to be ashamed of their nakedness, they also needed a covering to live outside the Garden, where living conditions were much harsher. Animals had to die, so that Adam and Eve could live. Which is the nature of sacrifice in the first place, is it not?

Taking this into consideration, it would make sense that Adam and Eve were to use the skins (and certainly the wool) of the sacrificed animals for clothing.