Biblical definitions

[shnarkle]

Most people are familiar with some of the basic distinctions between what is accepted as food and what is not within the dietary laws of the Mosaic code. The terms "clean" and "acceptable" are synonymous. What is clean is (from the Hebrew "tame") considered food and what is "unclean" is not.
Given that one needn't point out what is not food when no one in their right mind would ever consider to place it in their mouth in the first place, it needn't be articulated that things like feces, hair, ashes, rotting corpses, etc. are not considered clean, or acceptable as food. This is why they aren't articulated in the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law does point these things out when it becomes popular though.

However, it may be necessary to point this out when it comes to a parenthetical remark in Mark's gospel where a scribe has inserted: "(Thus he declared all food clean)". This remark is usually found in parenthesis due to the fact that it was originally penned by a scribe in the margins of the Codex Bezai around 400 AD, and found its way into the text of later translations.

What is disturbing is in noting that were this statement to be taken at face value, it would mean that rotting meat which is definitly not clean or acceptable would be now considered acceptable for consumption.

Most people would never consider such an idea, but fail to come to this conclusion when it is applied to swine, shellfish, catfish, etc. The scribe's remark is not precise enough to make any meaningful sense, except to those who already view swine, shellfish, etc. as food.

The problem here is in not noting that the bible doesn't view these things as food to begin with. They are categorized on the same level as feces, or rotting vegetable or animal material.

The sad fact is that if we are to take the injunction listed in 1 Timothy 4:4 "nothing to be refused being recieved with thanksgiving" seriously, then those who make these claims simply can't refuse a plate of rotting feces along side their peas and carrots.

To the modern ears of the gentile world this seems ridiculous, but the fact remains that the authors of the bible were all well aware that swine, shellfish, and feces are all detestable things if consumed. The parenthetical remark in Mark could only have been penned by a gentile ignorant of the biblical usage of these terms.

When Paul speaks of those who choose to eat "herbs" rather than a normal diet, he is in no way referring to the Mosaic law as the dietary laws do not restrict one to vegetarianism, therefore this is also of no use in supporting the idea that the dietary laws have been done away with.

When Peter's vision is interpretated by Peter, there is nothing from any of the texts that indicate the revelation he has just received is in any way false or incorrect. Therefore, given that the interpretation is explicitly referring to the fact that God has determined that Peter no longer refer to gentiles as 'unclean', there simply is no authority to pretend that the interpretation includes the negation of the dietary laws. Moreover, the symbols used in Peter's vision cannot refer to themselves as this renders the definition of a symbol meaningless. Symbols are signs, and a sign never refers to itself. Pedestrian crossing signs do not indicate pedestrian crossing signs up ahead, but instead they point to pedestrians crossing in cross walks.

When Paul refers to "the liberty we have in Christ" he cannot be referring to licensiousness. Even the most corruptable pagan knows that license is the lowest form of liberty there can be. For someone to take this meaning from Paul's words is not just patently false, it indicates a level of corruption and depravity that is frankly incomprehensible to me.

When Christ points out that the truth sets one free, he isn't suggesting that the truth allows one free will, but that one is freed from sin. It simply isn't a choice any more.

Redefining what God explicitly defines as sin is in itself an abomination along with any justification for it

[shnarkle]

Leviticus 11:26 “The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.�

Not what I asked for. Earlier I pointed out that "unclean" fails to make the distinction between "forbidden because it's not considered food" and "forbidden food." You then said it is explicitly spelled out in the dietary laws, so you need to produce something more than the same old non-explicit "unclean" verses.

Here's the definition of the word translated as "unclean":

2930 tame' taw-may' a primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated):--defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.

2931 tame' taw-may' from 2930; foul in a relig. sense:--defiled, + infamous, polluted(-tion),

Notice "to be..." "X utterly" Do you see anything anywhere to indicate food?

The burden of proof is actually on you to provide some explanation as to why is should be referring to food. Given that the context explicitly points out that these things are not to be eaten, it doesn't then follow it would be considered food.

If someone informs you that the bottle in your hand is poison, would you then concluse that they are suggesting that it is food?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 11 by shnarkle]

Food is divided into permissible and not permissible based on ceremonial status and not on any absolute basis.


Genesis 9:2-4 New International Version (NIV)

2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.



Deuteronomy 14:21
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. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk

Exodus 12:43
[ Passover Restrictions ] The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal: “No foreigner may eat it.

Leviticus 22:10
“‘No one outside a priest’s family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it


Numbers 18:9-11 New International Version (NIV)

9 You are to have the part of the most holy offerings that is kept from the fire. From all the gifts they bring me as most holy offerings, whether grain or sin[a] or guilt offerings, that part belongs to you and your sons. 10 Eat it as something most holy; every male shall eat it. You must regard it as holy.

11 “This also is yours: whatever is set aside from the gifts of all the wave offerings of the Israelites. I give this to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it.

Numbers 6:1-4 New International Version (NIV)

The Nazirite
6 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the Lord as a Nazirite, 3 they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or other fermented drink. They must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4 As long as they remain under their Nazirite vow, they must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

[shnarkle]

Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Thanks for clearing that up. I always knew it was okay to eat hemlock and nightshade. Now I know the bible agrees with that assessment.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

The word "meat" here is better translated as "food", but here again swine is not considered acceptable as food, therefore this law doesn't apply to swine or anything else that isn't considered food including human flesh.

Deuteronomy 14:21
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. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk

This is clearly done away with as it is not listed in the New Testament, therefore eating human flesh with the lifeblood is acceptable as food.

Exodus 12:43
[ Passover Restrictions ] The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal: “No foreigner may eat it.

This is also done away with as Christ himself pointed out that we are not to treat the foreigner as a foreigner anymore.

Leviticus 22:10
“‘No one outside a priest’s family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it

This is also done away with as there is no longer a temple for the priest to present sacred offerings.

[Bust Nak]

Here's the definition of the word translated as "unclean":

2930 tame' taw-may' a primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated):--defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.

2931 tame' taw-may' from 2930; foul in a relig. sense:--defiled, + infamous, polluted(-tion),

Notice "to be..." "X utterly" Do you see anything anywhere to indicate food?

No, I don't. I also don't know how to read "X utterly," I presume the "X" is some sort of notation?

Do you see anything anywhere to indicate non-food? Also note the "especially in ceremonial or moral sense" clause which undermines your point.

The burden of proof is actually on you to provide some explanation as to why is should be referring to food...

Incorrect. You made the claim that it explicitly referred to non-food, you have the burden of proof, you back it up. In contrast, I have not claimed that verses in question referred to food.

Given that the context explicitly points out that these things are not to be eaten, it doesn't then follow it would be considered food.

Doesn't it? Consider this example: "Do not eat this pie, I am saving it for Bob's dinner." Explicitly pointing out that the pie is not to be eaten, doesn't imply it is considered non-food.

If someone informs you that the bottle in your hand is poison, would you then concluse that they are suggesting that it is food?

No. But then I also wouldn't conclude that they are suggesting that it is non-food either, as it could be "food, but poisoned."

If someone hands you an apple and say it's dirty, would you then conclude that they are suggesting that it is non-food? Or maybe he is telling you to wash it first?

[shnarkle]

Here's the definition of the word translated as "unclean":

2930 tame' taw-may' a primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated):--defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.

2931 tame' taw-may' from 2930; foul in a relig. sense:--defiled, + infamous, polluted(-tion),

Notice "to be..." "X utterly" Do you see anything anywhere to indicate food?

No, I don't.

Therefore it has nothing to do with food QED

I also don't know how to read "X utterly," I presume the "X" is some sort of notation?

it is unacceptable x utterly, or utterly unacceptable. Take your pick, it is utterly unacceptable. When something becomes rotten it is utterly unacceptable.

Do you see anything anywhere to indicate non-food?

It is not my burden to prove a negative. So good luck with this endeavor of yours.

Also note the "especially in ceremonial or moral sense" clause which undermines your point.

How? Especially given that the term doesn't negate any other sense of the word. To be ceremonially unclean meant that one could no longer participate in the central feature of the cult of Israel, namely coming close to their God. This is tantamount to death if they continue to remain in this state of defilement. Far from undermining the point, it reinforces it.

The burden of proof is actually on you to provide some explanation as to why is should be referring to food...

Incorrect. You made the claim that it explicitly referred to non-food,[/quote]

I'm not referring to it as "non-food". I'm simply pointing out that it isn't acceptable as food.

I have not claimed that verses in question referred to food.

Great. Then there's nothing left to argue as you have just admitted my point of view again.

Given that the context explicitly points out that these things are not to be eaten, it doesn't then follow it would be considered food.

Doesn't it?[/quote]

No, it is explicilty stating that it isn't acceptable as food.

I also wouldn't conclude that they are suggesting that it is non-food either, as it could be "food, but poisoned."

Here again, you're now taking my position.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 13 by shnarkle]


Ok. The Bible is absurd. I get it. However your insisting that the dietary law defined food for everyone is also just as absurd.

1 Timothy 4:2-4 New International Version (NIV)

2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

[postroad]

[Replying to post 13 by shnarkle]


Interesting that you have no problems with the concept of "set aside" except for the dietary code.


Hebrews 7:18-19 New International Version (NIV)

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

[Bust Nak]

Therefore it has nothing to do with food QED

If you know this has nothing to do with food, why did you insist that it was explicit saying pork is not food?

it is unacceptable x utterly, or utterly unacceptable. Take your pick, it is utterly unacceptable. When something becomes rotten it is utterly unacceptable.

Okay, mere "unacceptable" doesn't get you to "unacceptable as food." Again, it's not explicit.

It is not my burden to prove a negative.

Incorrect, it is your burden because it was your claim, position or negative.

How?

Ceremonially unclean is not the same thing as physically unclean. Something that is merely ceremonially unclean could still perfectly fine as non-ceremonial food.

To be ceremonially unclean mean...

None of that imply pork is not considered food. It's irrelevant to your point.

I'm not referring to it as "non-food". I'm simply pointing out that it isn't acceptable as food.

You seemed to have forgetton that you've also claimed "not acceptable as food" means the same thing as "it isn't food."

Great. Then there's nothing left to argue as you have just admitted my point of view again.

I don't know where you are getting this impression from. You seemed to be conflating "it doesn't say it's food" with "it says it isn't food." Are you proposing that they are the same thing?

No, it is explicilty stating that it isn't acceptable as food.

So give me a quote. Remember, you claimed it is explicit; so I am looking for something explicit, a general "unacceptable" wouldn't do, you need "unacceptable as food."

Here again, you're now taking my position.

Then you have contradicted yourself, you claimed pork is not considered food on multiple occasions.

[shnarkle]

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

Note that God didn't create everything to be received. In fact, animal meat wasn't even created to be receive initially. It was only later that clean animals were allowed to be eaten.

Note also that it is only those who "believe and know the truth". Where is the truth found? The bible points out that unclean animals are not to be eaten. Therefore we know that they aren't to be recieved with thanksgiving because they are explicitly referred to as "unclean" "unacceptable" "filthy" etc.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 19 by shnarkle]

1 Corinthians 10:25-30 New International Version (NIV)

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.�[a]

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,� then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?