Blog closed!
Come see me at As Bereans Did

Comments are again being allowed.
I figure there may be someone who needs my help, and posting a comment may be easier than emailing me. I would prefer an email, but I am here to help those in need.

**Do you have history in the Worldwide Church of God? Are you still attending one of its offshoots? Do you see cracks in the doctrine and want more information, or do you not know why you're still there anymore? Is there a hole in your heart and just don't know why God isn't granting you the happiness you were promised would come through tithing and following a man? Do you find that no matter how hard you try you cannot live up to your own standards, and you feel like a failure? Do you find your pursuit of God to be based on fear?
Investigate with me the answers to these questions and more!

Friday, September 12, 2008

Clean/Unclean For Noah?

I certainly wonder how I came to believe what I did while I was a practicing Armstrongist.  One of the biggest parts of my life was following the meats laws.  One of the last things I studied before the scales fell from my eyes was meats laws.  I could not prove it without referring to my own (HWA inspired) thinking.  One popular argument was, "Meats laws were kept by Noah; therefore we must keep them."  Directly springing from this is the claim "Pig was never meant for human digestion."  Is this true?  Please look through this with me.

In the beginning, God created all things very good.

(GEN. 1: 31) “31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.”

Many people claim certain animals were an abomination to God from the start, but that isn’t Biblically so.  God proclaimed all things ‘very good’. This claim is to bolster the case that clean and unclean meats for food were known from the beginning.

Originally, both man and animal were only given plants as a food source by God.

(GEN. 1: 29-30) 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God gave Adam and Eve every tree that grew in the Garden of Eden to eat from, except one.

(GEN. 2: 15-17) 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Because Adam and Eve did not obey, the ground’s productivity was cursed.

(GEN. 3: 17-19) 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

The error persists that God gave Adam animals for food.  This is absolutely not determined from a reading of the Bible text.  Three times God tells Adam that he may eat plants.  He allows Adam to eat animals zero times. This persists until the day Noah came out of the Ark.

Why would Abel have flocks if not for food?  We don’t know.  Perhaps God allowed them to be milked and shorn and used as beasts of burden, but not eaten.  It doesn’t say; except that the words of the Bible do not show that any animal was given to man for food at this time.  Abel used the animals for sacrifice – that is shown.  Abel sacrificed only animals, and only his best, and with faith.  Cain sacrificed plants, but not his best, and without faith.

(GEN. 4: 3-5) 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Here, the word "flock" is Strong's 6629, which almost always refers to sheep/goats (as opposed to pigs or cows, etc).  Notice that Cain’s sacrifice was otherwise acceptable to God.  It was the lack of faith in his attitude that really caused the issue.  
(HEB. 11: 4) “4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”.  It was a lack of faith that caused Cain to disregard the sacrifice.

Many people claim that Cain was not accepted because he did not sacrifice sheep.  God doesn’t indicate that anywhere.  Grain and wine were often offered as burnt sacrifices, for example in the Grain Offering, Peace Offering, Sin Offering, and the New Moon Offering.  But this wasn’t a burnt sacrifice like we see being given by the Levitical Priesthood.  This was  most likely a freewill offering.  All freewill offerings included flour and oil.  Perhaps when we read that Cain brought the “fruit of the land”, we think “he brought fruit.”  That is not necessarily so.  He merely brought what the land produced.  That could have been wheat and oil and grapes.  We simply don’t know.  Point being, to say “Cain didn’t bring sheep, so God was angry” is not Biblically sound.

God taught Adam and his family the ways God desired to be worshiped for that time, including what is right from wrong for that time, and those same ways were moved forward thousands of years later.  This is completely in line with all Jewish understanding of the Torah.  Even the Jews, who have studied and preserved the Torah for 4,000 years, say Noah had no meats law given to him.

The xCOGs often quote Romans 3: 2 when they wish to bolster a belief they hold.  However, I doubt they will hold that verse up in this instance.  I do not claim the Jews are always right by any means.  But in this case, there is no evidence to doubt them with.

Why would Abel sacrifice the exact animal Moses was told to sacrifice over two thousand years later?  We cannot know for sure.  The logical answer is not that the laws of Moses existed at that time.  Paul tells us the law was given 430 years after Abraham (GAL. 3: 17), and God tells us the sacrifice laws were added after that (JER. 7: 22).  The logical answer is because God knows what symbol He prefers to use for Jesus Christ’s sacrifice.

The story of Noah displays the knowledge of clean and unclean animals prior to the flood.

(GEN. 7: 1-3) 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean [ceremonially pure; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean [not clean; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

CLEAN [Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).
[Strong’s 2891, Heb. Taher]: to be bright, i.e. (by implication) to be pure (physically sound, clear, unadulterated; in Leviticus uncontaminated; morally innocent or holy): be (to make, make one’s self, pronounce) clean, cleanse (self), purge, purify (-ier, self).

Everyone knows Noah took the animals two-by-two, but what’s usually omitted is that he took 7 pairs of “clean” animals but only 2 pairs of “unclean” ones.  These animals on the Ark may have been filthy with mud and what not, but that isn’t what God was referring to here by “clean”. Obviously it was a condition of un-holiness, or rather ceremonial un-cleanliness, in which they existed.  There was indeed the knowledge both of ceremonially clean and unclean animals before Sinai, but they were for sacrifice (although the purpose of the sacrifice is not specified).  The Bible simply does not give animals for food yet.

These animals are not to be understood as unclean for consumption; no animal is given to man at this point in history for food, clean or otherwise.  What Noah ate – his food law – just as it was for Adam, was plants.  This indicates that the ceremonial impurity of animals for sacrifice existed before the Law was given to Israel, but after Adam sinned. 

(GEN. 6: 21) “21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.”

Now pay close attention to the very first thing that Noah does when he steps off the Ark:

(GEN. 8: 20-21) 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

These animals were not clean for food, they were clean for sacrifice!  And they pleased God’s heart.

Still yet, up to this point, God had only given plants to eat.  This was the law for both man and animal.  When the flood receded, Noah left the Ark and sacrificed clean animals to God.  Only then did God give animals to man for food.

(GEN. 9: 1-4) 1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing7431 [from 7430 a reptile or any other rapidly moving animal: - that creepeth, creeping (moving) thing.]  that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

God gives “everything that lives and moves” as food to mankind, except that nothing with its blood still in it may be eaten.  Many argue, “Everything… except the unclean animals.”  There are no such exceptions here.  “Moving thing” comes from a root word that specifically includes reptiles – all of which are forbidden in Mosaic law.  The clean animals were clean for sacrifice; clean for food does not factor in here.  He clearly says “everything”.  The original Hebrew word for “everything” really means “whole”, meaning the total sum, and is often translated “all” and “every”.  Anyone who says otherwise is not letting the Bible interpret the Bible.  God makes certain in the next verses that a misinterpretation cannot be made here, that perhaps someone might think this includes the right to cannibalism.  Man, therefore, is the only exception.

The xCOGs would never fail to argue, “God didn’t mean everything when He said ‘everything’.  Obviously He didn’t intend Noah to eat Black Widow spiders.  God gave all the green herbs, but did He mean poison ivy?”  Perhaps not.  Do we know those terrible things even existed back then?  In all honesty, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.  Comparing pigs which do not so much as have a poison gland to something poisonous which undoubtedly will kill you if you ingest it is not a fair comparison.  But this is all human reasoning, not relying on the Bible.  If we want to be semantic about it, the Bible says “as the green herbs”.  Were there clean and unclean green herbs?  No.  So when Armstrongism argues we shouldn't eat poison ivy, don't forget that poison ivy is not unclean!

Before the flood, no animals were given to man as food.  Now, ALL animals are given to man as food.  No exceptions are mentioned by God but man himself.  This was done by necessity, as there were few plants to eat.  It should be pointed out, however, that a few pairs of the clean animals would have been eaten first, since there were enough pairs to spare, until the rapidly-mating unclean animals could multiply.  Don’t forget that predatory animals would also need those clean pairs (they can’t eat the unclean ones or if they did you wouldn’t ever know they existed).  And 7 pairs, minus one pair used in sacrifice, minus one more pair that must survive, leaves 4 pairs of animals to last them and all the predatory animals.  That’s not a lot.  Eating unclean meats would have been a necessity.  This does not affect the ceremonial status of “unclean” animals for the purposes of sacrifice, however.


Seeker Of Truth said...

Great post, again. Your posts have been taking me places I hadn't given a lot of thought to previously. It's refreshing. I'm glad your here!

Bill said...

That Cain's sacrifices were unacceptable due to a lack of faith is only partially true. The narrative shows that Cain had an issue with his brother Abel, where Cain hated his brother. Note therefore that Jesus states that if one was giving an offering at the temple and had some unresolved issue with a brother, they were to forgo the offering and be first reconciled to the brother. God was not accepting Cain's offering because Cain's heart was not right in relation to his brother.

Regarding animals and man eating only plant life prior to Noah, it would seem there is a contradiction here regarding predatory animals who, by nature, ate other animals. It should be taken into account that an argument through silence regarding no one or no animal eating meat prior to this does not constitute proof.

Bill Hohmann

xHWA said...

I kid you not, someone posted a great comment here and I published it, but *pouf* it's not here. So sorry! It has to be me accidentally clicking the wrong thing. SO..... I'm going to have to go on like it was here even though it's not.
Here's the gist:
Why 4 periods of food? Creation-flood veggies; flood-Moses everything; Moses-Jesus clean only; Jesus-now everything. If Jesus is the same, why this change? Great question!

Here's my reply:
First of all, I don't claim to have every answer, nor am I the final stop for Biblical understanding. I welcome questions and encourage everyone to study this with me so we both come to a better understanding!

Now, I agree that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Jesus hasn't changed at all - His requirements have. I also had trouble with that until I understood other changes:
Creation-flood: no priesthood?; flood?-Moses: Melchizedek priesthood; Moses-Jesus: Aaron priesthood; Jesus-Millennium: [Melchizedek] Christ priesthood; Millennial period: Christ & Zadok Levites & Saints priesthood (JER. 33: 18; EZE. 43: 19; EZE. 48: 11).

Or consider this other change: flood-Moses: animal sacrifices; Moses-Christ: greatly increased animal sacrifices; Christ-Millennium: no animal sacrifices; Millennial period: resumed animal sacrifices (ISA 56: 7; JER. 17: 26; JER. 33: 18; EZE. 40: 38-43).

(Keep in mind, also, that during Moses' time, those food laws were for Israel only, not for the whole of mankind.)

If I may totally borrow a great explanation from Seeker of Truth, it appears to us that God's Old Covenant is binding even today and into the Millennium... but only on those who refuse Christ in their carnal minds (ROM.2: 12; ROM. 3: 19; ROM. 8: 7; ROM. 10: 4; GAL. 3: 11). Those people will be again in the future be subject to this physical law, including its holy days, to either bring them to maturity (GAL.3: 23-24) and into the New Covenant, or to convict them in sin to death because the strength of sin is the law (I COR. 15: 56).
Take the lesson of the Egyptians for example (ZECH. 14: 16-19). Though Christ will be there, they will be subject to lessons, just like children, to bring them to maturity.

So, I propose that even though it may look like what I say about meats is against the continuity of Christ, it is actually no discontinuity at all. It is the continual and unbroken stages of the maturing process for all of mankind as a whole.

xHWA said...

I've listed 2 "changes" Christ has initiated (even though I don't see them as changes but rather as planned stages in one continuous flow towards the common goal of the fullness of Christ). I can think of others. I want to challenge you friends and welcome visitors to find more.

xHWA said...

Hi Bill! Welcome, and thanks for participating!

I would agree that Cain had an issue with his brother. But using the evidence of the scriptures I conclude it was a symptom and not the cause. The lack of faith part is the heart of the cause. If Cain truly had faith as he should, he never would have disregarded the sacrifice, and he never would have had an issue with his brother. If Eve truly had faith, she never would have eaten the fruit. Faithlessness is the root and conflicts are the branches.

If I may make an observation, so far as the Bible itself explains, it does not say his sacrifice was rejected due to his issues with his brother. In fact, it appears to say his issues with his brother resulted from his rejected sacrifice. Now, perhaps you're on to something. I would think it's a great observation! But I caution everyone about reading into the Bible what it does not say, especially when it actually says something on the subject.

About the argument to silence, I cannot say you are wrong; the Bible is mute about those details. However, we have no authority to add words into it either and say you are right. Do we know there were predatory animals at that time? The Bible does not say. I take the stance that it is neither here nor there. Animals are not men, and their diet is not regulated in the scriptures. What the scriptures do say is in the beginning men were given plants to eat. Also, what it does say is when Noah got off that boat he was given all things to eat. And there is nothing but man's reasoning to contradict that.

Anonymous said...

The main point here is that the laws of clean and unclean in regards to meats, and the bathing rituals, are the wrong focus once you come to the New Covenant(ie, Mk.7:15-Christ says that "nothing" we put in our mouth can defile us)
So then why did this law exist in the first place? and the answer is that it points out the necessity of not partaking of the "unclean" doctrinal concepts of men and organizations(ie, Jim Jones was deadly for his followers; the healing doctrine in the WCG was deadly for those who were afraid to seek medical help when they had the need)
The Word of God(the Scriptures)cleanses our souls(John 15:3)and that is our connection with Christ-the Word.

xHWA said...

anonymous poster, I cannot disagree. :)

Here's how I see it. At the time of the giving of the meats laws to Moses, the Jews were meant to be separated physically from the world as a lesson to us afterwards who must also be separated from the world spiritually. After Peter went to Cornelius, the first words from his mouth bear witness to this. Food laws and marriage laws really were the front line in that physical separation. Now with the New Covenant, God's Spirit separates us, and that Spirit is manifest in our works (not the other way around). It's an odd thing that the Jews were of the world but not in it (from a certain point of view), and we were in the world but not of it.

Thank you for your input!

Bill said...

"If I may totally borrow a great explanation from Seeker of Truth, it appears to us that God's Old Covenant is binding even today and into the Millennium... but only on those who refuse Christ in their carnal minds (ROM.2: 12; ROM. 3: 19; ROM. 8: 7; ROM. 10: 4; GAL. 3: 11)."

Not so. You cannot be bound to the conditions of a covenant you were not a party to. Also:

Romans 2:12  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

One could sin and perish without ever having been under that covenant law. There was sin before there was that law.

Bill Hohmann

xHWA said...

Bill said "You cannot be bound to the conditions of a covenant you were not a party to."

You say 'not so' but I don't see your post as disagreeing with me. People who agree to the Covenant are bound by it, which means the Covenant is still in full force someplace on this earth.

We clearly see the terms of the Old Covenant returning in the future, which means some people in the Millennial period will be bound by it.

Plus, I didn't mean to say the Old Covenant was the sole means by which sin enters into the world or convicts men. I was speaking to the undeniable presence of the stages in God's plan, and to that alone. If I made that impression upon you, I must apologize.

Bill said...

Cain and faith... I should have been more specific, as you are right about faith being the causative factor here. But it was faith that led to Cain envying/hating his brother, and God shows Cain that the rectification of the problem is for Cain to be reconciled to his brother, seeing as faith expresses itself through love. Interesting then that God points Cain to the result of faithlessness, and not the issue of faith itself. Could God be saying that a = b and b = a?

Bill Hohmann

Bill said...

You say 'not so' but I don't see your post as disagreeing with me. People who agree to the Covenant are bound by it, which means the Covenant is still in full force someplace on this earth."

This covenant, like a marriage covenant, had two parties to it; God and Israel.

What happens when either party dies? The covenant ends. Es ist kaput!

Did God in the personage of Jesus die? Yes. Is Jesus identified as the God of Israel incarnate? Yes.

Did those who were formerly under the law die to the law through baptism in order to come under the new covenant? Yes. Technically then, that covenant is long gone and over, regardless of whether some people today try to keep any or all of the conditions of that covenant. Sin is still sin. The law made sin "utterly sinful."

Is that law then gone? Yes. Is sin still in the world? Yes.

The law showed those under the law who thought they were good that they were truly far from it. The law was a witness against those who were under the law. Israel was pretty much always in denial concerning their relationship to God, even as attested to in Psalms 44.

The problem and issue is not law; it is about the condition of the human "heart" one is born with, being a son or daughter of Adam.

Until one is "born again" thereby being in receipt of the new "heart of flesh" one is still of Adam and under sin and the law that was extant from the beginning; the law of faith, the spiritual law of which the law of Moses was itself a shadow of this law of faith.

Man is condemned by his nature; his inherent faithlessness.

Bill Hohmann

Bill said...

"We clearly see the terms of the Old Covenant returning in the future, which means some people in the Millennial period will be bound by it."

Some conditions may well be incorporated into another covenant, but I think it is improper to claim the "old covenant" is returning.

Circumcision was incorporated into the old covenant. This did not make the old covenant the covenant of circumcision.

I hope you see the distinction.

Bill Hohmann

xHWA said...

"Some conditions may well be incorporated into another covenant, but I think it is improper to claim the "old covenant" is returning."

OK. I can see your point here. It's a fine distinction, but not one I would say is baseless. It makes a lot of sense, actually. I will modify my view to fit that, if it pans out after a brief study. A point of this blog bring that we all should learn, I am in no way above that.

I would like to point out that, even if it isn't "the Old Covenant" technically, when a person binds themselves to the law in existence during the Old Covenant period, they are bound to that whole and entire law (not a cherry-picked version of their own conjuring). Perhaps not as "the Old Covenant" per se; but not very different from it.

xHWA said...

"Some conditions may well be incorporated into another covenant"

I was thinking about what you said and trying to see it from your perspective. I will have to mention I see nothing stating there will be a third covenant. If the people who attempt to keep the old law are bound to keep the whole law, then that could be seen as a covenant. You take the position that it isn't the "Old Covenant", and with that I cannot conclusively disagree at this time. But don't think I see a "newer covenant" or a "third covenant" or any such thing in the future. The current one is final and eternal. I wouldn't think those people in the future will be bound by any other covenant any more than the people who attempt to bind themselves do in this age. At least, there is no mention of a third covenant that I am aware of.

If the people who attempt to keep the terms of the Old Covenant are bound to keep the whole law, then those people in the future are bound to that as well.. but as you say, it's not "the Old Covenant".

Anyone else got any insight into this dilemma?

Bill said...

There can be concurrent covenants.

Bill Hohmann

xHWA said...

Sure thing, Bill. No disagreement here. That takes it back to where I was at the first. You and I only differed semantically in that I called it "the Old Covenant" and you thought that was incorrect to call it such. I'm good with that!

But to follow what you said, and I'm respectfully trying to follow it from what I think is your perspective, I don't see anywhere written that a third general covenant will be made. I only see two general covenants in the entire Bible.

xHWA said...

I want to point something out to everyone who reads this blog.

Do you see Bill's posts there? Even though we disagree, he is respectful. He is sharing what he knows, I am sharing back, we are both thinking and growing, and it's all to Christ's glory. I LOVE that. THANKS to everyone who is sharing and posting here... even if we disagree.

xHWA said...

at the risk of going on an on...

I don't know everything. You don't know everything. I'm bound to be wrong sometimes. You're bound to be wrong sometimes.
There are people out there who know more than I do. Those are the people I want to meet! I need to learn! Even the wise (which I'm not) accept correction. I'm new at being out of Armstrongism and I could use the help; just like the people I'm trying to help could use the help.

I deeply appreciate your input!

Questeruk said...

Hi xHWA,

It sounds from your reply that it was my post that disappered earlier on. As it happened I had written it off-line, so this is a copy of it:-

Interesting but….

If I understand what you are saying the scenario goes like this.

Sacrifices – Pre flood, animals were keep and sacrificed – presumably only ‘clean’ animals. This carried on after the flood e.g. Noah, and was formalised in Israel from Moses onwards, and then following the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, animal sacrifices no longer apply, as Christ is our sacrifice.

That is consistent, logical and Biblical.

But what you are suggesting about animals for food is:-

Pre-flood animals could not be eaten. Vegetarian only. Flocks were kept, but presumably only used for wool and milk, and the occasional sacrifice to God. They could not be eaten, either those sacrificed to God, or the older, unproductive animals, which presumably just had to be killed and buried once they had outlived their usefulness.

Then comes the flood. Immediately following that all animals can be eaten, clean or unclean – no problem.

Then comes Moses – no more eating unclean animals – but not a complete ‘getting back on track’ to vegetarian only – the clean animals could still be eaten.

Finally comes Jesus Christ, and we are back to post flood but pre Moses rules – i.e. all animals can be eaten.

So we have four eras – no animals, then all animals, then clean animals only, and then all animals. And for what reason – sounds like just some whim of God – although He is consistent in wanting clean animals to be sacrificed to Himself at all times up to the time of Jesus.

I believe that God and Jesus Christ are the same yesterday, today, and forever – and do not flip-flop continually in what they require of mankind, and for no real reason, unless you are suggesting that God actually changed the way the individual animals systems worked, during the four distinct eras?.

Something like this is rather similar to WCG’s flip-flops on make-up – from having no policy, to not allowed, then allowed, then not allowed and finally allowed.

WCG may flip-flop, but I don’t believe that God does.

xHWA said...

Yeah, questeruk, it was your post. Sorry bout the mix up. I think that was my fault, and it probably had something to do with my not being quite awake yet at that time.

Thanks for re-posting!

Bill said...

I frankly have no problem with the whole world keeping the FOT or any of the other feasts, should they be in practice during the rule of Christ. Some things don't add up too well though when you stop and think about it.

Sacrifices at that time? For what purpose? If they foreshadowed Christ, and Christ is there ruling the nations. . .

It just might be possible the language is culturally based from the perspective of Israel.

We shall see. That is still the future, and not the present, and there is enough to worry about now.

Bill H.

xHWA said...

I know what you're saying about the sacrifices, Bill. It doesn't make much sense.

Questeruk said...

Sacrifices before Christ were looking forward to what Jesus was going to do. Surely sacrifices in the Millennium are reminders of what He did – in the same way as Passover, where Jesus said to ‘Do this in remembrance of me”.

Animal sacrifices never did take away sin, were never meant to, so why should there be a problem with them being used after Christ has returned, as an additional reminder of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made.

Just like photos enhance out memories of past people and events, so sacrifices in the millennium could help people to focus on the reality of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made on His first coming to earth, to live, die, and be resurrected, on behalf of humanity.

Dual said...

My ten cents worth –

>Animals are not men, and their diet is not regulated in the scriptures.<

Gen 1:30 – “And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every GREEN PLANT for food."

>What the scriptures do say is in the beginning men were given plants to eat.<

GEN. 1: 29 – “ Then God said, "I give you EVERY SEED-BEARING PLANT on the face of the whole earth and EVERY TREE THAT HAS FRUIT WITH SEED IN IT. They will be yours for food. And it was so.”

The above two verses sound very specific to me, and they differ between animals and humans!

>Were there clean and unclean green herbs? No. So when Armstrongism argues we shouldn't eat poison ivy, don't forget that poison ivy is not unclean!<

So, shall we all go ahead and kill ourselves then? GOD FORBID!

God was very specific in what He allowed humans and animals to eat . The terms “clean” and “unclean” are irrelevant when referring to plants. It is only necessary to know what God allowed.

Fwiw, Poison Ivy is not on God’s list for us to eat anyway as it does not fulfil the criteria of Gen 1:29 and is clearly meant for the animals (v30). It is neither a SEED-BEARING PLANT nor is it a TREE PRODUCING FRUIT WITH SEED IN IT. It falls between two stools, being a PLANT that produces SEED within FRUIT.

2) So, is it OK to eat stones, because everything is clean? Jesus clearly didn’t expect any man to give his son a snake for dinner [or a stone] [(Matt 7:9–10). So, why would our heavenly Father give His children a snake or a stone for food?

3) It looks like mouse is off the menu then (and piggy) before Christ’s return!? If so when would that be? Isa 66:15-18 –“For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.”

Sorry about the CAPITALS – they are for emphasis, not to shout at anyone!


xHWA said...

Thanks for the input, Dual. Don't be afraid to disagree! We're here to investigate and ask tough questions.

I still don't see the Bible as being a regulation for animals, as they can't read. It's informational for us about them, and those verses do tell us how God originally ordained foods for both man and animal. Some of the Bible regulates our interaction with animals. But to say the Bible is a manual for man and animal is really stretching it. I can safely say my unflinching opinion is that the Bible was written for mankind.

"God was very specific in what He allowed humans and animals to eat . The terms “clean” and “unclean” are irrelevant when referring to plants. It is only necessary to know what God allowed"
Glad we agree on that. God was very specific when Noah got off that boat, too. So far as the words of the Bible say, animals were not on the menu until then. 'Clean' and 'unclean' are shown, but only in the context of sacrifice. Therefore I take the position those words are irrelevant to animals for food as well.

Now, some may think the analogy of eating poison ivy was something HWA came up with on his own. It is not. In the second century, immediately after the time of the Apostles, Justin Martyr debated with Trypho the Jew on this very topic. I suggest you read his argument.
He really explains it better than I can.

"So, is it OK to eat stones?" Yes. It's OK to eat stones.
Everything needs salt; salt is a mineral (or 'stone' if you will be so loose in the definition). We are the salt of the earth, after all. Try living without iron. Etc. Now, I'm not saying "go chew a stone", but I'm saying we do ingest those things regularly. If they were off-limits, no portion of them would be acceptable to us.
Every time people ground at the mill with a stone, bits of stone got into the wheat and wore down their teeth. Plus, living in a desert area, sand gets into your food. God mentions nothing in the Bible about these things being wrong.
God didn't give birds the right to eat stones (or dogs the right to eat vomit; or goats the right to eat books, etc), however if many birds didn't, they couldn't digest.
Taking the full weight of the Bible about 'stones' and 'stone' derivatives, I see nothing against stones.

I specifically said that Genesis does leave great gaps of things out. It's not the Encyclopedia Genesis. However, the point I'm getting at isn't to debate eating stones, or drywall, or hair, or glue or whatever we can think of. My point was dual: 1) God never says "clean" and "unclean" in relation to food in Genesis. No one has yet shown any Biblical reason for me to rethink that. 2) Noah is indeed given all animals to eat in the first verses of Genesis 9. Again, no one has given me any Biblical reason to rethink that.

ISA. 65 & 66 are prophecies, not laws. And even though I have much to say about those chapters, I will leave those for another time and place.