All Foods Clean?

[Rossw]

Coaspen, when you eat pork do you know where it came from or how it was fed?

[CoAspen]

[Robert]

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

God didn't say "the swine is unclean for you", unless they are grain fed.  

But then, if one wishes to ignore God on this one, thinking they are wiser....hey, it's your health.

[Tom Wetmore]

On August 7, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

It looks like the version you quote from has inserted a word that changes the meaning of the passage somewhat.  The Greek of Romans 14:17 does not seem to refer at all to what we eat or drink.  The way it is actually written seems to refer to whether we eat or drink.  That would make sense if Paul was trying to resolve the issue of whether a person should fast or not on all the traditional Jewish fast days that are not commanded in Scripture.

Not worth quibbling over, really.  If we did not insert words into an English translation from Hebrew or Greek it would be difficult to read or understand.  Even worse if we also followed the exact word order.  In the context of the whole passage, Paul is identifying that the dispute is more about the "what" of eating and drinking and what holy days and festivals to observe or not.  I can see that from some translations one could draw the conclusion that one might mistakenly conclude that Paul is referring to fasting when it is phrased to eat or not to eat.  Context tells us it is in reference to what is eaten or not. But more compelling is that there is a very specific Greek word, nēstis, that means abstaining from food for religious reasons.  That word in any of its forms does not appear anywhere in Romans 14.  Paul really was not talking about fasting.  So to describe this as only about "whether" to eat or not anything, as in total abstaining from food, as in a fast, simply is not supportable from the text.

[JoeMo]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 5:24 PM, phkrause said:

I'd like to see the quote that EGW says what your saying????

I don't have my SoP books anymore; and I couldn't find it on line (probably because I don't even know where to search).  Years back when I was a Taliban vegan, we used to use that quote in vegetarian cooking classes to "inspire" people to quit eating meat.

Has anyone else heard her quote about meat-eaters not being translated?

[Ron Amnsn]

On August 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

Not worth quibbling over, really.  If we did not insert words into an English translation from Hebrew or Greek it would be difficult to read or understand.  Even worse if we also followed the exact word order.  In the context of the whole passage, Paul is identifying that the dispute is more about the "what" of eating and drinking and what holy days and festivals to observe or not.  I can see that from some translations one could draw the conclusion that one might mistakenly conclude that Paul is referring to fasting when it is phrased to eat or not to eat.  Context tells us it is in reference to what is eaten or not. But more compelling is that there is a very specific Greek word, nēstis, that means abstaining from food for religious reasons.  That word in any of its forms does not appear anywhere in Romans 14.  Paul really was not talking about fasting.  So to describe this as only about "whether" to eat or not anything, as in total abstaining from food, as in a fast, simply is not supportable from the text.

I suppose you could view it as "quibbling" when someone brings up a point that might disallow your preferred interpretation.  It is true that words sometimes need to be added during translation from Greek in order to retain the same meaning in English.  That is quite different than adding words to create a different meaning than was in the original passage.

The different meaning that you seem to want to insert into Romans 14:17 happens to be a meaning that would make the verse disagree with several other passages where Paul's meaning is clear.  If in Romans 14:17 you make Paul say, "It doesn't matter what you eat", then it contradicts the passages where Paul claims to obey Scripture and testifies that he believes everything that agrees with the sections of Scripture referred to as "the Law" and "the Prophets" (Acts 24.14).  So the result of your insertion would make Paul a liar and a false teacher according to Scripture.  

It appears in Romans 14 that Paul is talking about two different issues related to food.  One of them does relate to "what" food will be eaten.  I think that part of the passage is referring to foods purchased in the public market that may (or may not) have been offered to idols at some point.  That would make this a parallel passage to 1 Corinthians 8 - 10 where Paul deals with that issue in depth.  Because offering foods to idols was not a practice isolated to Corinth, it would probably also be an issue in Rome. 

Romans 14 does not mention "holy" or "sacred" days at all.  It could be referring to any special kind of day, such as

• new moon days – Should the other new moon days be observed as special Sabbaths as the new moon day is observed for the feast of Trumpets? (This is still debated by some.)
• other celebrations mentioned in the Bible, but not commanded by God – Should Hanukah or Purim be celebrated, as in John 10:22-23 and Esther 9?
• extra days that were observed with the Biblical feasts – Do we need to follow the Jewish traditions to observe an extra day after Biblical feasts to "cover the bases" because we are unsure when the new month started in Jerusalem?
• traditional weekly fasting days – Do we need to fast weekly as some Jews do, as in Luke 18:12?
• traditional annual fasts – Should we observe the Fast of Esther, the 9^th of Av, and all the other traditional fasting days observed by Jews but not commanded by God, as in Zechariah 8:19)
• any new Christian holidays such as Jesus' birth or resurrection – Resurrection day always comes during the week of Unleavened Bread. Should it be observed in a special way, or treated like all the other days of Unleavened Bread?
• birthdays – Is it okay to celebrate birthdays?
• Roman holidays – Should we celebrate the Roman holidays that have pagan overtones?

Because Romans 14 speaks specifically of eating or not eating on the days in question, it is most likely that Paul was speaking of the traditional fast days.

There may be some validity to your argument from silence regarding nēstis, or more specifically nēsteuō.  However, since Paul's point was that it didn't matter whether or not a person fasted on the days being discussed, Paul may have avoided using those words if using them would have implied a greater piety on the part of those who fasted or a lack of piety on the part of those who ate.  He may have purposely used instead the generic words for eating and not eating.

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I don't have my SoP books anymore; and I couldn't find it on line (probably because I don't even know where to search).  Years back when I was a Taliban vegan, we used to use that quote in vegetarian cooking classes to "inspire" people to quit eating meat.

Has anyone else heard her quote about meat-eaters not being translated?

I don't think the quote says what you're expecting, but I expect the quote you're looking for is the following:

Quote

 Grains and fruits prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven.--T., V. II, p. 352.  {HL 78.5} 

 

[JoeMo]

Thanks, Green!

 That is the reference (Testimonies Vol. 2 p 352).  I apologize for misquoting it above (but that post seems to have been hidden...).

[Robert]

(1890) C.T.B.H. 119

651. Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat eating will eventually be done away; flesh will cease to form a part of their diet. 

[Tom Wetmore]

@Ron Amnsn

Now you have just gone to mere speculative eisegesis. And to what point?  The context of  what I was responding to and the whole point I was making is made just as well with any or all of the translations.  It does not matter.  Drop the word you started quibbling over - "what". "The kingdom of God is not [pick your preferred wording] food, drink, eating drinking, to eat or not to eat, meat or wine, a matter of eating, to eat, food, meat, or whatver translation you wish. This is not a matter of importance to our salvation or faith. That was the point I was supporting with that statement by Paul. 

But since you seem to want to make an issue of the "what" of eating, just stay with the immediate context and back up a mere two or three verses. And again it comes through loud and clear, no matter which translation you pick, that Paul is in fact talking about that which is eaten, the specific food, meat or vegetables, clean or unclean. Look at verses 14 and 15 - 

Quote

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.  

And completing the whole immediate context, framing the one verse you have chosen to quibble over, keep reading onward to verses 20 and 21 - 

Quote

NKJV	Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.  It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

 

And coming full circle to where I think I began way back at the begining of this whole topic, whatever one concludes on this issue of eating and drinking, one should keep it to oneself as a matter between you and God. It is not an issue over which one should divide  the body of Christ.  I should have remained quiet since my brothers here seem to be stumbling all over this issue.  Verse 22 - 

Quote

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

Sorry, to have made anyone stumble in their walk of faith.  I will just keep it to myself that I see no reason to worry about such things any more, since along with Paul I am convinced...