Did God Allow Noah To Eat Meat?
Who's OnlineWe have 23 guests online
Did Jesus Eat Fish?
There is only one passage in the whole of the New Testament where it is explicitly and specifically said that Jesus actually ate meat. If this text is true and genuine and in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that Jesus was not and could not have been a vegetarian. But if on the other hand it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this passage in Luke 24 is actually a forgery, then it follows that Jesus must have been a vegetarian, since a lying hand felt a need to insert a lying passage in order to portray Jesus as a carnivorous being.
|Did God Allow Noah To Eat Meat?|
|Written by Administrator|
|Wednesday, 29 April 2009 08:31|
The passage of Genesis 9:2-4 was the subject of great debate and controversy. After years of study and research and virtually leaving no stone unturned on the subject, to date I have not read a commentary on the passage which is worthy of a serious consideration. Generally it is argued that here we have the first biblical passage where God explicitly told Noah that he may kill any animal he wanted to in order to eat its flesh. Even vegetarians who abhor meat eating and who practice vegetarianism on ethical grounds admit that here we are faced with a biblical text which clearly sanctions the killing of animals and eating of their flesh. All they can say is that due to the fallen and corrupt nature of humanity God gave a “concession” concerning meat diet but it was not His ideal as in Genesis 1:30 where God ideally prescribed a completely vegetarian diet. But nothing can be further from the truth.
“All the animals, birds, and fish will live in fear of you. They are all placed under your power. Now you can eat them, as well as green plants; I give them all to you for food. The one thing you must not eat is meat with blood still in it; I forbid this because the life is in the blood.”
The word “animal” does not even appear in the Hebrew text, although these translations use it in order to mislead you. The text does not say that you must not eat simply “blood” – as vast majority of Jews and Christians would want you to believe. So what does the text actually say? God here reverses the status between all animals and humans. Just before the Flood, animals became corrupt and wild and killed one another and they also killed and devoured human beings. So God now reversed the status to its original condition. He again subjected all living creatures to the dominion of man. This of course in no way means that this dominion of man gives him the right to kill, slaughter and butcher animals in order to gratify his lust after meat. All things were subjected under Adam and he had complete control and dominion over them but this authority most certainly did not give him permission to slaughter animals for food. Adam was told to be an herbivores being all his life. Please note the text as it stands in the King James Bible:
"And the dread and the fear of you shall be upon all the wild beasts of the earth, on all the birds of the sky, and on all things moving upon the earth, and upon all fishes of the sea, I have placed them under your power. AND EVERY REPTILE WHICH IS LIVING shall be to you for meat, I have given all things to you as the green herbs. But flesh with blood of life ye shall not eat."
Think for a moment. Why would God allow Noah and his family to kill any animal they desired to eat when even carnivorous animals continued to eat herbs and grass? Even carnivorous animals had to live on grass and not on living prey as later - when the change took place. Lions could not have hunted their prey nor other carnivorous animals. There were only a pair of each specie alive at that time. Or if you prefer the other version then one pair of all so called unclean animals and seven or fourteen of the so called clean. If the carnivorous animals killed and ate only one of the few so called unclean animals that specie would not have survived and God's original purpose in preserving each spcie would have been destroyed.
Verse 4 irrefutably proves that the passage under no circumstances could be interpreted that Noah was given permission to kill absolutely any animal that came out of the Ark with him. Verse 4 explicitly states:
“And the CONEY, because he CHEWETH THE CUD, but devideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the HARE, because he CHEWETH THE CUD, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Coney is a hyrax or rock badger. The hare is a rabbit. It is alleged that in this text God forbade the Israelites to eat the flesh of CONEY and RABBIT because they ONLY CHEW THE CUD but do not have a split hoof. God could have never stated that these animals actually CHEW THE CUD. The only person who could have said so is the person who did not know their biological composition and was ignorant of scientific facts. Neither coney nor the rabbit actually CHEW THE CUD, nor are they RUMINANT ANIMALS. They indeed appear to CHEW THE CUD and a person who is not aware of the scientific facts could be mislead to think they are RUMINANTS - chewing the cud.
Please note the comment on this passage quoted from The New American Bible:
“According to modern zoology, the ROCK BADGER [hyrax Syriacus] is classified as an ungulate, and the HARE as a rodent; NEITHER IS RUMINANT. They APPEAR to chew their food as the true ruminants do, and it is upon this appearance that the classification in the text is based” [page 103].
Gleason Archer, although a firm believer in the infallibility of the Bible admits the following facts in regards to Leviticus 11:
“Leviticus 11:5 refers to the sapan [or Hyrax syriacus] as an unclean animal [e.g. unfit for sacrifice or human consumption] because “thou it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof” [NASB]. Clean animals had to do both to be eligible for food. The question at issue is the chewing of the cud. Did [or does] the sapan [translated “coney” in KJV and “rock badger” in NASB] really “chew the cud” [Heb. maaleh gerah, lit., “literally raising up what has been swallowed”]? Similarly in Leviticus 11:6 the same statement is made about the ‘arnebet’ [“rabbit,” “hare”]. Does the hare RUMINATE? The answer to both statements MUST BE IN THE NEGATIVE so far as the actual digestive process is concerned. True ruminants normally have four stomachs, and that which has been worked over in these stomachs is regurgitated into the mouth when it is ready to be chewed again...NEITHER HYRAX NOR THE HARE can be called RUMINANTS, but they do give the APPEARANCE of chewing their cud in the same way ruminants do” [Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 126].
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary - although it recognises the Bible as inspired, admits the following fact:
“The description is not SCIENTIFICALLY PRECISE but one of EXTERNAL APPEARANCES” [page 138].
There is another point I want to make which also proves that the law concerning clean and unclean was not given by God. Bees are classified as unclean. Yet the Jews and all those who accept the law of clean and unclean eat bee honey. But they regard milk of a mare or camel as unclean since the animals that give it are unclean. In old times it was not known that bees actually eat the pollen and convert it as honey which they regurgitate. Honey is the product of bees just as milk is the product of mammals. But the author of Leviticus and Numbers did not prohibit bee honey because he was ignorant of the scientific facts. God would have never made such a mistake if He was the giver of the law concerning clean and unclean.
Since some would point to Mark 7 where it is stated that Jesus said that nothing can defile that enters mouth as p[roof that it is OK to eat meat - I have this to say. The passage has to be a forgery for several reasons. First, there are things that would defile if they enter our mouths. For example: human flesh. A drunkard defiles his body with alcohol. A drug addict defiles his body with drugs. A smoker defiles his body with tobacco. If the statement of Jesus as recorded in Mark 7 was authentic, then Paul would have referred to eat when he dealt with the vegetarian believers in Rome. Since he did not but rather stated that it is better not to eat meat or drink wine than to offend the vegetarian believers, this proves that Jesus never made such a statement. Otherwise Paul would have simply referred to it. Furthermore, if Jesus really taught that then the believers in Rome would not have had a reason to abstain from meat and wine. But they did so because the Twelve did the same and James, Jesus' brother was also a vegetarian from his birth. For full details regarding this read my article 'Paul had Problems with Vegetarian Believers - Here is Why.'
I need to say something about the four footed animals that Peter saw in a vision since this is used to prove that God told Peter to kill animals and eat their flesh. The vision is used to prove that even the law concerning clean and unclean has been abolished and that now we can eat all kinds of animals. However, those who follow the levitical law of clean and unclean argue that Peter refused to kill and eat because the animals were not clean in accordance with Leviticus 11. But this is not the case. In the sheet were also so called CLEAN animals. Peter could have at least selected some sheep or cattle and killed but he didn’t. Simply because he considered all flesh defiled and unclean. Peter was vegetarian as he himself states in Clementine Homilies. Acts 10:12 plainly states that the sheet contained ALL KINDS of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things and birds of the air. At creation animals were divided into four footed domesticated animals, wild animals, reptiles and birds. Since in the sheet were all kinds of four – footed animals it means that there were also sheep and goats and since there were all kinds of birds it means that there were also the so called clean and edible birds. But Peter would not kill any of them because he knew that this vision had another meaning. Peter perceived that he should not consider any man common or defiled. Any animal which is slaughtered is defiled and its meat defiles. Peter explains this in Clementine Homilies. By the way, the reply of Peter proves that Mark 7 is not authentic since Peter would not hesitate to kill an animal if Jesus taught him that nothing can defile that he eats.
For proof that Jesus did not eat fish read my article 'Did Jesus Eat Fish.' For proof that Jesus did not eat the Passover lamb read my article 'Proof that Jesus Did not eat the Passover Lamb.'
written by John Vujicic, January 21, 2011
Question regarding your explanation regarding eating of animals
written by Fernando Pineda, March 21, 2011
written by John Vujicic, March 25, 2011
written by Pozycjonowanie, November 28, 2012
written by Largo, November 29, 2012
|Last Updated on Monday, 07 July 2014 03:13|