Either Jehovah made a mistake....or Moses did. (page 5)

Sunspot

Annie......remind me to never ever french kiss you ever again!
Gumbarf

Annie

Ya, but do those winged four leggers walk on two legs, or four, or do they just stand, flying when they want to go to another place? And how many wings do they have? Do they chew cud too? Anyway's, i ain't eating them either.

S

DannyBear

Wading through all the poop jokes.......still Gumman raises serious consideration as regards God's propensity for nit-picky rules and regs.

How anyone can take all the do's and don'ts found in the OT as valid for spritual edification is now far beyond my grasp.

As if the application of a 'new testament'......'new covenant' ......through a perfect sacrifice somehow ratifies all the giberish written by Moses. In some twisted convaluted way I suppose it does.

But it really is a strech by any common sense look at what was said.

One must be a willing 'gullible' candidate to buy the package. Funny we all did at one time.......I think gumman is still deciding on the whole mess!

peacefulpete

Obviously the Bible writer was observing the chewing motion of the rabbit and assumed it was ruminating like the camel or cow. Refection, re-eating feces for the nutritive value, is done by ALL mice and rats. Also other rodents like hamsters and gerbils. Yet these were not called chewers of the chud! Elephants and horses when young, many young birds are also caecotrophs (practice refection). Yet were horses and birds chewers of the chud? The Bible says that rock badgers are also chewers of the chud yet they do NOT eat feces! Some exotic animals like koalas and langurs (monkey) are coecotrophs yet clearly noone would suggets they chew the chud.

Bible inerranists are stretching to ridiculous lengths to suggest that rabbits are chewers of the chud because they eat feces. Besides the Hebrew usually translated "chewers of the chud" literally is "bringing up the chud", making clear that the writer imagined rabbits were ruminants like cows. Eating feces is not "bringing up" chud.

gumby

Hows come none of ya are followin me? Not one damn one of you gets the point. Forget about the "WRITERS", thinking the rabbit was a cud chewer. That's not the Point! The WRITERS aren't to blame cuz Jehovah is

Now I'm gonna hafta quote the whole damn thing so's maybe ya damn apostate illiterate bastages will get my point. Now then....sees if you get it. I'll even, change the font, bold type, put in red.... the answer part.

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel,

saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. There now.....do ya get it? Jehovah thought a damn rabbit chewed it's cud! That silly knucklehead!

* pours another cheap vodka mixed with white grapejuice leftover from his lower GI exam today*

Gumsmartass

Quotes

Hey, glad you are cutting Moses some slack here.

After all, it is not everyday you have to write about your own funeral:

Deuteronomy 34:5 (according to WTS, Deutornomy was written by Moses).

5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him [b] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

~Quotes, of the "Obit" class

EvilForce

ALRIGHT.....ALRIGHT

THIS SHIT HAS ME GROSSED OUT NOW.

LittleToe

Maybe the rabbit just needs an enema.
Or would that be rabbit-soup?

A Paduan

I thought twice about replying to this thread.

Such things in the text are for your benefit - that is, to make you stop and think - "why in the world would the writer put that ?"

Because it isn't about food for your flesh - the whole thing isn't about 'living by the flesh' - as it was said of all those who followed it for diet - "their god is their belly"

Rabbits don't have "hooves" either - and again it's not because the author is stupid

The one who is like the hare is aware of what is around and what the world provides but does not walk in heaven and on earth at the same time - the Jew should not be as (ie. eat) the hare.

It is this way for other animals also - so what is it that hares do specifically - d o you need it explained ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't believe I'm posting this, and I can hardly believe the bafooned audacity of the wtbts for teaching ya'll to answer like that.

Narkissos

A Paduan

As a sequel to our previous conversation about Alexandrine allegory, cf. Philo of Alexandria, Special Laws IV:

CONCERNING ANIMALS
XVII. (100) Moreover, Moses has not granted an unlimited possession and use of all other animals to those who partake in his sacred constitution, but he has forbidden with all his might all animals, whether of the land, or of the water, or that fly through the air, which are most fleshy and fat, and calculated to excite treacherous pleasure, well knowing that such, attracting as with a bait that most slavish of all the outward senses, namely, taste, produce insatiability, an incurable evil to both souls and bodies, for insatiability produces indigestion, which is the origin and source of all diseases and weaknesses. (101) Now of land animals, the swine is confessed to be the nicest of all meats by those who eat it, and of all aquatic animals the most delicate are the fish which have no scales; and Moses is above all other men skilful in training and inuring persons of a good natural disposition to the practice of virtue by frugality and abstinence, endeavouring to remove costly luxury from their characters, (102) at the same time not approving of unnecessary rigour, like the lawgiver of Lacedaemon, nor undue effeminacy, like the man who taught the Ionians and the Sybarites lessons of luxury and license, but keeping a middle path between the two courses, so that he has relaxed what was over strict, and tightened what was too loose, mingling the excesses which are found at each extremity with moderation, which lies between the two, so as to produce an irreproachable harmony and consistency of life, on which account he has laid down not carelessly, but with minute particularity, what we are to use and what to avoid. (103) One might very likely suppose it to be just that those beasts which feed upon human flesh should receive at the hands of men similar treatment to that which they inflict on men, but Moses has ordained that we should abstain from the enjoyment of all such things, and with a due consideration of what is becoming to the gentle soul, he proposes a most gentle and most pleasant banquet; for though it is proper that those who inflict evils should suffer similar calamities themselves, yet it may not be becoming to those whom they ill treated to retaliate, lest without being aware of it they become brutalized by anger, which is a savage passion; (104) and he takes such care to guard against this, that being desirous to banish as far as possible all desire for those animals abovementioned, he forbids with all his energy the eating of any carnivorous animal at all, selecting the herbivorous animals out of those kinds which are domesticated, since they are tame by nature, feeding on that gentle food which is supplied by the earth, and having no disposition to plot evil against anything.
WHAT QUADRUPEDS ARE CLEAN
XVIII. (105) The animals which are clean and lawful to be used as food are ten in number; the heifer, the lamb, the goat, the stag, the antelope, the buffalo, the roebuck, the pygarga, the wildox, and the chamois, {19}{#de 14:4.} for he always adheres to that arithmetical subtilty which, as he originally devised it with the minutest accuracy possible, he extends to all existing things, so that he establishes no ordinances, whether important or unimportant, without taking and as it were adapting this number to it as closely connected with the regulations which he is ordaining. Now of all the numbers beginning from the unit, the most perfect is the number ten, and as Moses says, it is the most sacred of all and a holy number, and by it he now limits the races of animals that are clean, wishing to assign the use of them to all those who partake of the constitution which he is establishing. (106) And he gives two tests and criteria of the ten animals thus Enumerated{20}{#le 11:3.} by two signs, first, that they must part the hoof, secondly, that they must chew the cud; for those which do neither, or only one of these things, are unclean. And these signs are both of them symbols of instruction and of the most scientific learning, by which the better is separated from the worse, so that all confusion between them is prevented; (107) for as the animal which chews the cud, while it is masticating its food draws it down its throat, and then by slow degrees kneads and softens it, and then after this process again sends it down into the belly, in the same manner the man who is being instructed, having received the doctrines and speculations of wisdom in at his ears from his instructor, derives a considerable amount of learning from him, but still is not able to hold it firmly and to embrace it all at once, until he has resolved over in his mind everything which he has heard by the continued exercise of his memory (and this exercise of memory is the cement which connects ideas), and then he impresses the image of it all firmly on his soul. (108) But as it seems the firm conception of such ideas is of no advantage to him unless he is able to discriminate between and to distinguish which of contrary things it is right to choose and which to avoid, of which the parting of the hoof is the symbol; since the course of life is twofold, the one road leading to wickedness and the other to virtue, and since we ought to renounce the one and never to forsake the other.
WHAT BEASTS ARE NOT CLEAN
XIX. (109) For this reason all animals with solid hoofs, and all with many toes are spoken of by implication as unclean; the one because, being so, they imply that the nature of good and evil is one and the same; which is just as if one were to say that the nature of a concave and a convex surface, or of a road up hill and down hill, was the same. And the other, because it shows that there are many roads, though, indeed, they have no right to be called roads at all, which lead the life of man to deceit; for it is not easy among a variety of paths to choose that which is the most desirable and the most excellent.
WHAT AQUATIC ANIMALS ARE CLEAN
XX. (110) Having laid down these definitions with respect to land animals, he proceeds to describe what aquatic creatures are clean and lawful to be used for food; distinguishing them also by two characteristics as having fins or Scales.{21}{#le 11:9.} For those which have neither one nor the other, and those which have only one of the two, he rejects and Prohibits.{22}{#de 14:10.} And he must state the cause, which is not destitute of sense and propriety; (111) for all those creatures which are destitute of both, or even of one of the two, are sucked down by the current, not being able to resist the force of the stream; but those which have both these characteristics can stem the water, and oppose it in front, and strive against it as against an adversary, and struggle with invincible good will and courage, so that if they are pushed they push in their turn; and if they are pursued they turn upon their foe and pursue it in their turn, making themselves broad roads in a pathless district, so as to have an easy passage to and fro. (112) Now both these things are symbols; the former of a soul devoted to pleasure, and the latter of one which loves perseverance and temperance. For the road which leads to pleasure is a down-hill one and very easy, being rather an absorbing gulf than a path. But the path which leads to temperance is up hill and laborious, but above all other roads advantageous. And the one leads men downwards, and prevents those who travel by it from retracing their steps until they have arrived at the very lowest bottom, but the other leads to heaven; making those who do not weary before they reach it immortal, if they are only able to endure its rugged and difficult ascent.
ABOUT Reptiles(23){#le 11:20.}
XXI. (113) And adhering to the same general idea the lawgiver asserts that those reptiles which have no feet, and which crawl onwards, dragging themselves along the ground on their bellies, or those which have four legs, or many feet, are all unclean as far as regards their being eaten. And here, again, when he mentions reptiles he intimates under a figurative form of expression those who are devoted to their bellies, gorging themselves like cormorants, and who are continually offering up tribute to their miserable belly, tribute, that is, of strong wine, and confections, and fish, and, in short, all the superfluous delicacies which the skill and labour of bakers and confectioners are able to devise, inventing all sorts of rare viands, to stimulate and set on fire the insatiable and unappeasable appetites of man. And when he speaks of animals with four legs and many feet, he intends to designate the miserable slaves not of one single passion, appetite, but of all the passions; the genera of which were four in number; but in their subordinate species they are innumerable. Therefore, the despotism of one is very grievous, but that of many is most terrible, and as it seems intolerable. (114) Again, in the case of those reptiles who have legs above their feet, so that they are able to take leaps from the ground, those Moses speaks of as clean; as, for instance, the different kinds of locusts, and that animal called the serpentfighter, here again intimating by figurative expressions the manners and habits of the rational soul. For the weight of the body being naturally heavy, drags down with it those who are but of small wisdom, strangling it and pressing it down by the weight of the flesh. (115) But blessed are they to whose lot it has fallen, inasmuch as they have been well and solidly instructed in the rules of sound education, to resist successfully the power of mere strength, so as to be able, by reason of what they have learnt, to spring up from the earth and all low things, to the air and the periodical revolutions of the heaven, the very sight of which is to be admired and earnestly striven for by those who come to it of their own accord with no indolence or indifference.
CONCERNING FLYING Creatures(24){#le 11:10.}
XXII. (116) Having, therefore, in his ordinances already gone through all the different kinds of land animals and of those who live in the water, and having distinguished them in his code of laws as accurately as it was possible, Moses begins to investigate the remaining class of animals in the air; the innumerable kinds of flying creatures, rejecting all those which prey upon one another or upon man, all carnivorous birds, in short, all animals which are venomous, and all which have any power of plotting against others. (117) But doves, and pigeons, and turtle-doves, and all the flocks of cranes, and geese, and birds of that kind, he numbers in the class of domestic, and tame, and eatable creatures, allowing every one who chooses to partake of them with impunity. (118) Thus, in each of the parts of the universe, earth, water, and air, he refuses some kinds of each description of animal, whether terrestrial, or aquatic, or a'rial, to our use; and thus, taking as it were fuel from the fire, he causes the extinction of appetite.

Either Jehovah made a mistake....or Moses did.