The Bible is clear that God forbade Israel to eat dead animals
How can you eat an animal unless it's dead?
Posts by cofty
-
556The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
cofty
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
cofty
Why did God allow those not under the law of Moses to eat an unbled carcass when God forbade mankind to eat animals that were not bled? - Fishy
Not only that, the law permitted Israelites who were under the Law to eat an unbled animal found already dead. The question of why is precisely what I have been answering in detail for the past two years.
You have yet to offer any possible answer.
For forty years after permission was given in Lev.17 the verse you keep quoting in Deut,14 did not even exist. Leviticus 17 was not qualifying Deut.14 it was the other way round! This is crucial and you need to deal with it.
As usual you have completely ignored facts and just keep on repeating the same dogma.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
-
-
cofty
The amino acid sequence and the nucleotide sequence of cytochrome c beautifully confirms and refines the tree of life.
What a strange topic for a creationist to raise. I can only assume it is an attempt to poison the well with one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
cofty
Earlier you asked why someone would eat an animal found dead. If you think about it the answer is obvious.
A sheep or cow was a very valuable asset to its owner. Finding it dead would have been a significant loss. Obviously they would want to salvage something if possible. In Leviticus God said that whatever they decided to do it had to be included in the long list of normal things that resulted in uncleanness. Either burying or eating the remains had exactly the same consequences. I'm sure then the decision would largely be based on the condition of the carcass and how long it had been dead.
40 years later the circumstances of the nation were changing. Now they were going to be settling down in towns and villages and living among foreigners. Keen to encourage ceremonial cleanness Moses now encourages them to choose a better option of selling the carcass to a foreigner. That way - assuming the buyer collects - they don't have to touch or eat the carcass and avoid becoming unclean.
Nowhere in any scripture is the sacredness of blood mentioned in connection with eating an animal found already dead.
This is the anomaly you have still not attempted to explain.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
cofty
Just to be clear because I know how good you are at missing the point. For the first 40 years after the Law was given the following three texts were the ONLY references to eating an animal found already dead.
If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.
Lev.11:39,40Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean.
Lev.17:13-15Direct Aaron and his sons to deal carefully with the sacred donations of the people of Israel, which they dedicate to me, so that they may not profane my holy name; I am the Lord. Say to them: ... That which died or was torn by wild animals he shall not eat, becoming unclean by it.
Lev.22:2,8For four decades these were god's only instructions regarding eating an unbled animal found dead.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
cofty
Why would such a person do that or how could he do that when the law forbade it?
As I have explained multiple times the Law did not forbid it.
The only verse you can point to to try to support your assertion is Deut.14:21 but I have fully explained the context of that verse.
You have still to make any attempt to explain why both Lev.11 and Lev.17 makes a clear distinction between eating an unbled animal that has been killed and one that was found dead. One was a crime, the other a temporary inconvenience.
But there is one other important point you also need to explain. Moses' admonition to sell a dead animal to a foreigner was not given until 40 years after the law recorded in Leviticus.
If eating an unbled animal found dead was a crime as you assert, why did it take god four decades to mention that?
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
cofty
As I have explained three times it had everything to do with avoiding temporary uncleanness and nothing to do with blood.
Have even bothered to read my detailed response?
You have still made no attempt to explain Lev.17
Why?
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
cofty
Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God. - Deut. 14:21
Of the five verses you referred to this is the only one that is interesting. The context is Moses' restating of the law following the wilderness years. This was 40 years after Leviticus. Most of Deuteronomy is copy-paste of Leviticus but there are some interesting differences and comments. Nothing that Moses says contradicts Leviticus but he does admonish the nation to be holy.
There were many ordinary things that resulted in uncleanness. Menstruation, skin disease, having sex with your wife, giving birth, burying a dead animal, eating an animal found already dead and more. None of these things were a crime or a sin but some were more avoidable than others. Moses identifies eating an animal found already dead as something that can reasonably be avoided in the interests of holiness.
Notice Moses' new instruction - "sell it to a foreigner". If the blood of an animal found already dead was sacred then this would be a very strange instruction. If the blood represented the life of the dead beast then it must be buried with the animal returning it to god.
Moses' instruction here is perfectly consistent with Lev.11 and Lev.17. The blood of an animal found already dead has no sacred significance since nobody took the life and therefore nobody can return it to god. The only issue is that eating the animal makes the person temporarily unclean. Leviticus gives permission to eat the animal with the proviso that the Israelite must bathe and change their garments. Forty years later Moses goes further and admonishes them to void unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.
Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human. If an animal died then its blood was of no significance. The only issue was the uncleanness that resulted from handling it or eating it. Uncleanness was not a sin but was to be avoided as far as practical. The only crime was to ignore the provision for cleansing.
Perhaps the Watchtower should issue new orders that it is necessary to have a bath and put on clean pyjamas after a blood transfusion.
-
99
2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.
by towerwatchman in2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
-
-
cofty
You said you would not hesitate to obey god's orders to commit mass killing of women and infants.
You think that infanticide is a moral good as long as you can convince yourself that it is god's will.
Never lecture an atheist about morality again.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-