Please Explain to me....

[OzarkWoman]

OK, the SDA denomination seems to make a big deal about the eating of clean versus unclean meat. The question I have is how you explain Genesis 9:3 when it comes to the teaching of unclean animals.

[cricket]

I also would like to hear this answer. But, I have one thought regarding the happenings in Genesis 9:3. If Noah and his family were to have eaten at least one unclean animal of all the pairs of unclean animals, then we wouldn't have any unclean animals left...would we?

[Naomi]

What does the rest of the chapter indicate?

[OzarkWoman]

I also would like to hear this answer. But, I have one thought regarding the happenings in Genesis 9:3. If Noah and his family were to have eaten at least one unclean animal of all the pairs of unclean animals, then we wouldn't have any unclean animals left...would we?

I was taught that there were 2 of each of the unclean animals and 7 of the clean ones. Is that wrong?

Gen. 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen. 7:8-9 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

[cricket]

That's what I was taught too. But if the "she" was eaten from the unclean, then the "he" wouldn't be able to reproduce.

[cricket]

What does the rest of the chapter indicate?

The rest of the chapter just says to not eat any animal with the blood still in it. (Or, something to that effect.)

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: Naomi

What does the rest of the chapter indicate?

The rest of the chapter just says to not eat any animal with the blood still in it. (Or, something to that effect.)

Yes, that is what bothers me really. I don't eat any blood, or consume it in any way. That is just nasty anyway, IMO.

[phkrause]

I believe they use Leviticus 11 for that.

[Tobiwan]

IMO we as a church have made a much bigger deal then was God's intention concerning food. We have also used "counsels on diet and food" in a way to make God seem to be more concerned with what goes in our mouth then what comes out of it.

I was taught original diet was fruits, grains, and nuts. Then flesh was allowed after the flood to shorten the life span from hundreds of years to the time of Abraham when humans were to old to keep the prime directive at the age of 70-75.

What I take from the info is God's considerable interest in our health and well being. He is presenting the best ways for us and He is saying some foods are better then others, and it will be better if you consume this and not this other.

The record was put to pen and such when a large group of people were recently set free from a very oppressive time, and most likely had very little education, so very simple instructions were given. These are Clean and those are Unclean. And since you have doubts of My being able to get you to the promised land, I will give you a fresh portion of the same food My angels eat. None of the disease of this world will fall on you, I will protect you.

What a giant of a God we are invited to listen to.

[Ted Oplinger]

Logically, taking the clean in by sevens makes sense, if God was to follow through on His plan to allow Noah and family to begin eating meat regularly.

It also says in Genesis 8:20 "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."

One for the sacrifice, then 3 pairs to reproduce the populations/feed Noah's family.

Considering the size of some of the clean animals (ox, elk, red stag, greater kudu - any of these would supplement the food for a family of 8 for a fairly lengthy time, properly prepared), populations would be well underway to recovery before any of the clean species would be endangered.

That Noah knew what clean animals could be sacrificed to the Lord as burnt offerings, is a mute testimony that Leviticus was a recovering (and refinement, in the case of the burnt offerings) of what was once common knowledge among the faithful in Abraham's day.

I can say that because Abraham had a very famous ancestor who was very much alive as Abraham began his journey in the Promised Land. This famous ancestor lived long enough to see the time Isaac was born, so Abraham could have conceivably have visited this person, and his famous family, to verify what God had shown him.

Of course, that famous ancestor was...Noah himself.

Blessings,

[Tom Wetmore]

A strict reading of the Genesis account of Noah indicates the extra clean animals were for the purpose of making a sacrifice to God. It seems clear that Noah knew what they were for since that is what he did upon exiting the ark.

It was not until after the sacrifices were made that God gave him the directive that he could eat animals. The instruction was clear that he could eat "everything that lives and moves will be food for you." There does not appear to be a dietary distinction between clean and and unclean at this point.

[olger]

Scorpions move..

g

[doug yowell]

A strict reading of the Genesis account of Noah indicates the extra clean animals were for the purpose of making a sacrifice to God. It seems clear that Noah knew what they were for since that is what he did upon exiting the ark.

It was not until after the sacrifices were made that God gave him the directive that he could eat animals. The instruction was clear that he could eat "everything that lives and moves will be food for you." There does not appear to be a dietary distinction between clean and and unclean at this point.

Yes, many people interpret these verses that way in order to relegate the "clean animals only" instructions to the Jews alone. They combine this text with Acts 11:9 in order to reach their conclusion. This naturally raises the question as to why God would impose such restrictions on His special people if there was no identifiable reason to do so? And, as has been mentioned already, if God's instructions allowed for the eating of the unclean animals as well as the clean animals it would conflict His statement (Gen.7:3)about the need to keep the species alive (after all that's why they went on the boat in the first place).

Also lost in the most attempts to understand the text is the fact that Noah apparently already knew the difference between the unclean and the clean. Why was one considered clean and the other unclean?

[cricket]

I guess God just gave up on expecting humans to eat the stuff that is good for them. Kind of like when I say to my kids, "Well, I'd really rather that you finish those veggies, but you're so annoying--go right ahead, eat that ice cream, see how you feel in the morning."

[7daysadventist]

Context, it's about context. Pulling one verse out to make a point is not always good I've learned the hard way. For those that haven't read the verse at hand, here is Genesis 9:3 in the KJV

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

On the surface, I can see where OzarkWoman and others might feel permission to chomp on anything that moves. LOL.

I like Wesley's interpretation on this subject:

"But the flood having perhaps washed away much of the virtue of the earth, and so rendered its fruits less pleasing, and less nourishing, God now enlarged the grant, and allowed man to eat flesh, which perhaps man himself never thought of 'till now. The precepts and provisos of this charter are no less kind and gracious, and instances of God's good - will to man. The Jewish doctors speak so often of the seven precepts of Noah, or of the sons of Noah, which they say were to be observed by all nations, that it may not be amiss to set them down. The first against the worship of idols. The second against blasphemy, and requiring to bless the name of God. The third against murder. The fourth against incest and all uncleanness. The fifth against theft and rapine. The sixth requiring the administration of justice. The seventh against eating flesh with the life. These the Jews required the observation of, from the proselytes of the gate. But the precepts here given, all concern the life of man. Man must not prejudice his own life by eating that food which is unwholesome, and prejudicial to his health."

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-9-3/

[phkrause]

I guess God just gave up on expecting humans to eat the stuff that is good for them. Kind of like when I say to my kids, "Well, I'd really rather that you finish those veggies, but you're so annoying--go right ahead, eat that ice cream, see how you feel in the morning."

That's not at all the case, when they got off the Ark they had no other food more than likely. So God allowed the eating of meat, but there obviously was a distinction already in place.

[Woody]

When they got off the ark - God could have provided manna - but He instead chose something far more tasty.

[Tom Wetmore]

Scorpions move..

g

Yep, and as tasty and appealing as the "clean" grasshoppers that also move.

What part of the word "everything" is hard to understand.

[cricket]

Originally Posted By: cricket

I guess God just gave up on expecting humans to eat the stuff that is good for them. Kind of like when I say to my kids, "Well, I'd really rather that you finish those veggies, but you're so annoying--go right ahead, eat that ice cream, see how you feel in the morning."

That's not at all the case, when they got off the Ark they had no other food more than likely. So God allowed the eating of meat, but there obviously was a distinction already in place.

Sorry, I was being a bit snarky.

Why didn't they have other food? From what I understand, they took all the "food that was" to be eaten by themselves and the animals into the ark. (Including stores of wine, apparently.) And the animals survived the flood while eating those foods, as did Noah and his family.

But...when the flood was over and the doors to the ark were opened, where did the animals go to get food? Who fed the animals then? Was there enough to eat on the ground of the Earth? Obviously they ate something or we wouldn't have animals today.

Was there not enough food on the ground for Noah and his family too? Why would God have allowed them to eat anything that creepeth, and yet provide manna for those who were hungry in the desert? Were the stores of manna insufficient for just 8 hungry people?

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, many people interpret these verses that way in order to relegate the "clean animals only" instructions to the Jews alone. They combine this text with Acts 11:9 in order to reach their conclusion. This naturally raises the question as to why God would impose such restrictions on His special people if there was no identifiable reason to do so? And, as has been mentioned already, if God's instructions allowed for the eating of the unclean animals as well as the clean animals it would conflict His statement (Gen.7:3)about the need to keep the species alive (after all that's why they went on the boat in the first place).

Also lost in the most attempts to understand the text is the fact that Noah apparently already knew the difference between the unclean and the clean. Why was one considered clean and the other unclean?

As already noted, the purpose of the distinction related to worship of and sacrifice to the Creator. Why was one animal clean and another considered unclean? The lists written down by Moses have a number of inexplicable inconsistencies if argued from purely a health/dietary standpoint. There isn't any consistent common denominator of one group not also present in some part of the other group, especially if analyzed purely from a dietary standpoint.

The centrality of the distinction for worship of the Creator is born out in the Levitical rules of purification and purity. As I understand it, the more precise meaning of the original Hebrew word was "pure" in the sense we use it currently when referring to a purebred animal. The blood lines are uncorrupted by interbreeding and can be traced back to an original notable example of the breed, multiplied "after its own kind". For me the most plausible explanation is that the "clean" animals is that they were the purebred animals tracing their pure lineage back to the hand of the Creator. They remain uncorrupted by interbreeding, or perhaps the effects of sin and were just as the Creator had made them before sin entered Creation. Those animals that changed as adaptations to a sinful predator vs prey ecosystem, they were the "creation" of sin and not as the Creator had designed them.

From that perspective, God asked an offering, a returning to Him, only that which was pure and uncorrupted by sin. He asked for only that which belonged to Him as He created them to be. Why extend the purity idea to the Jews? Certainly it is clear that those engaged int he temple service and those entering into its holy area must also be purified symbolically. And the Israelites were to be pure vessels to draw all people back to the worship of the Creator of all that was pure.

And the message to Peter and the mission of Paul recognized that these dietary rules were for the Jews and not necessarily for the gentiles.

[Gibs]

On leaving the ark and eating, they well knew what to eat and not to eat of animal or plant. Deadly night shade plant here in this locale we would not eat of course. I think Sister White saw this in the right light,

"Previous to this time God had given man no permission to eat animal food. Every living substance upon the face of the earth upon which man could subsist had been destroyed; therefore God gave Noah permission to eat of the clean beasts which he had taken with him into the ark. God said to Noah, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all things." As God had formerly given them the herb of the ground and fruit of the field, now, in the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed, he permits them to eat animal food. Yet I saw that the flesh of animals was not the most healthful article of food for man. {1SP 79.1}

The whole surface of the earth was changed at the flood. A third dreadful curse now rested upon it in consequence of man's transgression. The beautiful trees and shrubbery bearing flowers were destroyed, yet Noah preserved seed and took it with him into the ark, and God by his miraculous power preserved a few of the different kinds of trees and shrubs alive for future generations. Soon after the flood, trees and plants seemed to spring out of the very rocks. In God's providence seeds were scattered and driven into the crevices of the rocks, and there securely hid for the future use of man. {1SP 79.2}

The waters had been fifteen cubits above the highest mountains. The Lord remembered Noah, and as the waters decreased, he caused the ark to rest upon the top of a cluster of mountains, which God in his power had preserved and made to stand fast all through that violent storm. These mountains were but a little distance apart, and the ark moved about and rested upon one, then another, of these mountains, and was no more driven upon the boundless ocean. This gave great relief to Noah and all within the ark. As the mountains and hills appeared, they were in a broken, rough condition, and all around them appeared like a sea of roiled water or soft mud. {1SP 80.1}

Do you suppose the Lord didn't want Noah and his to eat up all the unclean for a reason? They probably could have. The Lord God has more than one reason that they were not to be eaten I do believe.

Anyway, we know Noah didn't eat em, we got em!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[OzarkWoman]

Previous to this time God had given man no permission to eat animal food.

Then I am guessing that you are ignoring Genesis 9:3. OK, that means that I can't trust what you say since you are picking and choosing.

[Gibs]

I posted what EGW had writen of that time Ozark Woman and for me to believe from that time on it is ok to eat whatever suits our palates that I will leave to you. Well for me I am a total vegan except for some fresh water fish I can catch yet in a pristine stream or lake and some wild caught Alaskan Salmon and on the Salmon one can't trust all that say it is wild caught Alaskan Salmon.

I gave what EGW had to say as it looks as though she believed they knew Gods recommendations on that.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Ted Oplinger]

A strict reading of the Genesis account of Noah indicates the extra clean animals were for the purpose of making a sacrifice to God. It seems clear that Noah knew what they were for since that is what he did upon exiting the ark.

It was not until after the sacrifices were made that God gave him the directive that he could eat animals. The instruction was clear that he could eat "everything that lives and moves will be food for you." There does not appear to be a dietary distinction between clean and and unclean at this point.

Tom, I'm going to have to go with the other posters above this reply.

By your construction, there could be no Fall from Innocence.

Genesis 1:29 - "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed; it shall be food for you....I have given every green plant for food." This command was given to man first, then the beasts (context).

Yet, in Genesis 2, we see God selecting out ONE particular tree.

Adam, appealing to the first declaration, tries to nullify what God spoke afterward...just like what is tried to be done with clean vs. unclean animals today.

I guess if God couldn't make the list clear enough, He had this to say about diet in Leviticus 11:47 - "to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, between the edible creature and the creature not to be eaten." Noah knew which animals God intended to be eaten, versus those He didn't.

I am still convinced much of what we find in Leviticus is a recovering of enlightenment, that which we note the ancestors of the 12 tribes took for common knowledge.

Blessings,

[OzarkWoman]

I posted what EGW had writen of that time Ozark Woman and for me to believe from that time on it is ok to eat whatever suits our palates that I will leave to you. Well for me I am a total vegan except for some fresh water fish I can catch yet in a pristine stream or lake and some wild caught Alaskan Salmon and on the Salmon one can't trust all that say it is wild caught Alaskan Salmon.

I gave what EGW had to say as it looks as though she believed they knew Gods recommendations on that.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

EGW is not God!!!