Thank you for those responses and the suggestions (open to interpretation). There is also Timothy 4:4 (open to interpretation).
Mark 7 seems to be the most interesting because so much has been inserted later in parenthesis and also that some words , from early manuscripts, have been removed. It clearly deals with ritual cleaning and the words that have been removed describe the cleaning of the couches. We can speculate on why they have been removed.
The point I am getting around to is that the 'clear' words are the in parenthesis words that have been added in later such as:
" 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.****missing words go here****)
11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God)
19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
34He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means, “Be opened!”)
Those words in parenthesis have clearly been added by
someone as explanations. For example, Jesus' words in 19 were not clearly un-banning certain foods so someone has added in a 'clarification'. If we contrast these fairly vague words with the 100% clear banning in Leviticus, it does strike me that the un-banning in Mark 7 and anywhere else is simply an interpretation and not a clear instruction.
The words in parenthesis are pretty obviously not Mark's own original words. He is unlikely to have used words which, even then, would have required an inserted definition. It is rather like me using the word 'parenthesis' (meaning words in brackets) and then putting in an explanation as I just did - that is clearly a pretty silly way of writing. My conclusion is therefore that those words are not inspired and they should never have appeared in The Bible. Similarly, the words which have been removed, should never have been removed. I dare say this has been thoroughly researched already by someone; I was hoping to have someone point me in the direction of detailed theological studies into this oddity which appears to me to be flagrant vandalism.
That takes me back to Leviticus and why(?) were some foods banned. Ritual and ceremonial? - Maybe but why was that? Are we to assume that God simply changed his mind or are we not even to think about it at all? Should we just assume that the person who wrote those words in parenthesis wrote them at the behest of God because He realized that His spoken words were a bit vague and unclear? If God didn't want anyone to insert those words, why didn't He speak clearly in the first place?
As a side issue, if we are now allowed to eat and drink 'everything', that must include alcohol - as long as we give thanks first
.
Summary: Leviticus = crystal clear, everything else = stretched interpretation.
So, why did God ban those foods? Did He really give us dominion over all animals, then ban some of them, then un-ban everything? Any ideas why He would do such a thing?
