• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Eating Pork is a Sin

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not according to me, but according to the Bible:

Deuteronomy 14:8 said:
The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses.
Some people say the unclean meat "ban" was revoked in a vision shown to Peter:

Acts 10:10-15 said:
10. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
11. and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12. and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14. But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15. Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
But Peter did not take this vision to mean it's now ok to eat unclean meat, in fact he didn't know what the vision meant at first:

Acts 10:17 said:
Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;
By the next day, after he met with Cornelius, Peter realized exactly what the vision was telling him:

Acts 10:28 said:
And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
The unclean animals in Peter's dream did not represent animals at all, but they represented foreigners - non-Jews. Thus, the unclean meat ban was not lifted, and eating unclean meat is still not permitted. Have I missed something?
 

GetVictd

New member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Thank you!

I agree with this as I pointed out in post name "For Christians"

I still wonder myself ...I personally think it's about foods that are healthy and agree with the body/our digestive system. I feel that God set these rules as a way of taking care of us.

Still I heard a saying (Asian I believe), "If its back points toward heaven its edible" LOL giving us a whole buffet of delectables

http://www.pointsoftruth.com/foodlaw.html

here's a site to look on though I like how the person puts as he grew closer to God he began to see things differently.
 
Last edited:
S

sebastiansdreams

Binary_Digit said:
Not according to me, but according to the Bible:


Some people say the unclean meat "ban" was revoked in a vision shown to Peter:


But Peter did not take this vision to mean it's now ok to eat unclean meat, in fact he didn't know what the vision meant at first:


By the next day, after he met with Cornelius, Peter realized exactly what the vision was telling him:


The unclean animals in Peter's dream did not represent animals at all, but they represented foreigners - non-Jews. Thus, the unclean meat ban was not lifted, and eating unclean meat is still not permitted. Have I missed something?
Okay, let's assume for a moment that Christ did not say that one should not worry about what one eats, but rather the state of the soul, and say that you are right about this one. Let's say that eating pork is a sin according to Bible. What is your point? What is the debate? What are you trying to prove? That Christians, because they eat pork, are themselves sinners? The irony is that the entire premise of Christianity is that we are all sinners and in need of a Savior. So, regardless of whether eating pork is a sin or not, it does not change anything. Remember the passage that asks God to forgive us for the sins we may commit that we do not know are sins? What if that applies? Christians take the guidlines as they are given to them, and attempt to act in a manner that is pleasing to God. That is the point. Do we screw up? Of course. But what does that change? Nothing. In fact, it only goes to show further that we as humans (Christian or not) need a Savior and the blood of the Sacrifice to wash away our sins. Those we know of, and those we may not.
 

GetVictd

New member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
sebastiansdreams said:
Those we know of, and those we may not.

But what about hardening the heart? What if you found out for sure that we were not supposed to eat pork, shellfish, catfish, frogs etc. would you continue to eat them thereby continuing to sin and continuing to crucify Christ?

There are some Christians who do abstain because there is no direct lifting of that law.

Debate: Can unclean meats be eaten without guilt? (there lol).
 
S

sebastiansdreams

GetVictd said:
But what about hardening the heart? What if you found out for sure that we were not supposed to eat pork, shellfish, catfish, frogs etc. would you continue to eat them thereby continuing to sin and continuing to crucify Christ?

There are some Christians who do abstain because there is no direct lifting of that law.

Debate: Can unclean meats be eaten without guilt? (there lol).
Matthew 15:
10 Summoning the crowd, He told them, "Listen and understand: 11 It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

That is Jesus laying down the laws of food. But, also consider this: the diatribe that includes these dietary laws ends this way: 8 The flesh of these you shall not eat, nor shall you touch their carcasses, because they are unclean to you.
Firstly, the word unclean simply means not clean, or unhealthy. It is very likely that it is because these animals were unhealthy in that period of history (due to limited resources of preperation) and therefore should not be eaten. Secondly, notice that it says "for you." Is it not reasonable to argue that by specifying the audience (the Jewish people at that time), God is not suggesting that this be a law that will always be, but rather that it is a law for the Jewish people of that time so that they are protected from unhealthy foods?

If I was convinced that eating any of the above listed were sinful, then I personally would cease eating them. I will follow the commandments of my God, because He created this world and He knows the best path to follow. But, in this case, there is no reason for guilt due to the consumption of these foods.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Binary_Digit said:
Not according to me, but according to the Bible:
The prohibition on eating pork was given to the Jews at the time of Moses. If God had wanted it to be a law for all man, for all time, then He'd have given it to Adam.

Secondly, the majority of Christians don't believe that all that is "Christian" is contained in the Bible. The two largest denominations; Catholics and Orthodox believe that Christian 'rules' are contained in the Holy Bible as interpreted in the context of tradition, so any appeals strictly to what is, or isn't in the Bible applies only to a minority of Christians.

Thus you miss your target.

However, for we Orthodox we are encouraged to fast from meats on particular days, and this tradition can be traced back to the Didache. It is not an absolute ban on pork.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ROMANS 14:14 I know, & am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. ROMANS 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

ACTS 10:9-15 (I won't type all this...you'll have to look it up)



Also note that it's not a bad thing to keep the laws of the Old Testament but not to force that on your brother/fellow man. There have also been some studies done & a diet book written based on what a Biblical diet might be...one thing that was mentioned is that maybe we shouldn't be eating "bottom feeders" or "shelled" fish. These are sea creatures that swim in & eat the crud at the bottom of the ocean...probably not the best stuff to put in our bodies. There also used to be a movement that promoted eating only what is native to the area in which you live. EXAMPLES: bananas don't grow in the northern USA...probably for a reason...we're probably not plagued with a potassium deficiency, at least not naturally...as opposed to those living in tropical areas. I think this only holds true if people don't move from place to place; at least in extreme climate changes.

Just some "food" for thought...
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
GetVictd said:
I still wonder myself ...I personally think it's about foods that are healthy and agree with the body/our digestive system. I feel that God set these rules as a way of taking care of us.
I'm not sure that the case for health stands up. Beef and pork are comparable in both positive and negative effects, while buffalo is MUCH more healthy. Of these, only pork is considered "unclean". Bottom-feeding carp is "clean" but bottom-feeding catfish is not. Grasshoppers and crickets are "clean", but crabs and lobster are not. On the topic of the Hebrew word unclean (tame), the same word was used to describe a man and woman after normal sexual intercourse. That doesn't imply health to me, but maybe more along the lines of spiritual purity.

sebastiansdreams said:
Okay, let's assume for a moment that Christ did not say that one should not worry about what one eats, but rather the state of the soul, and say that you are right about this one. Let's say that eating pork is a sin according to Bible. What is your point? What is the debate? What are you trying to prove?
That some things in the Bible simply aren't true (therefore not from God), and we have to use our better judgment regarding everything it says.

sebastiansdreams said:
Matthew 15:
10 Summoning the crowd, He told them, "Listen and understand: 11 It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

That is Jesus laying down the laws of food.
No, that is Jesus' words taken out of context. Verse 2 tells us what He was actually responding to, that the Pharasees didn't wash their hands before eating bread. Verse 20 reconfirms: "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

sebastiansdreams said:
Firstly, the word unclean simply means not clean, or unhealthy.
No, the word unclean in Ancient Hebrew meant "defiled" or "impure"; it did not mean "unhealthy".

Montalban said:
The prohibition on eating pork was given to the Jews at the time of Moses. If God had wanted it to be a law for all man, for all time, then He'd have given it to Adam.
The Ten Commandments were also given to the Jews at the time of Moses, instead of Adam. Are the Ten Commandments equally irrelavent?

Montalban said:
Secondly, the majority of Christians don't believe that all that is "Christian" is contained in the Bible. The two largest denominations; Catholics and Orthodox believe that Christian 'rules' are contained in the Holy Bible as interpreted in the context of tradition, so any appeals strictly to what is, or isn't in the Bible applies only to a minority of Christians.
I completely agree with you on that one.

Arthur Fonzarelli, you quoted from my favorite chapter in the entire Bible. (Romans 14) Hat's off to you, friend!
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Binary_Digit said:
That some things in the Bible simply aren't true (therefore not from God), and we have to use our better judgment regarding everything it says.

Arthur Fonzarelli, you quoted from my favorite chapter in the entire Bible. (Romans 14) Hat's off to you, friend!


Are you suggesting that the Bible is not the divine words of God? If you do not believe the entire Bible there is no sense in believing any of it.

JOHN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, & the Word was God
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
Are you suggesting that the Bible is not the divine words of God?
Yup. Some of it at least. I believe the following assumptions, which I also believe is very well supported by factual evidence:

- The authors of the Bible were human and often made mistakes in their writing.
- Biblical writers attempted to explain their beliefs about God and His will for humanity. Being imperfect humans, they sometimes wrote things that were contrary to the will of God.
- Some parts of the Bible are not suitable as a guide to modern living and should be ignored as such. (i.e. allowing and regulating slavery, restricting the roles of women, ordering genocide, torturing prisoners, allowing the rape of female prisoners of war, requiring the murder of religious and sexual minorities, and requiring the burning of some prostitutes alive)
- The authors were limited by the tribal nature of their culture, their theocratic or dictatorial political structure, and their lack of scientific knowledge.
- Accidental and intentional errors have occurred in copying and translation.
- Modern versions of the Bible are reasonably accurate translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but still reflect the prejudices of the translators, and the belief systems of the religious institutions that sponsored them. (especially the KJV)
- Bible passages must be interpreted according to the beliefs of the writers and the culture in which they lived. They may or may not be valid today.

(special thanks to www.religioustolerance.org for helping me articulate these)

Arthur Fonzarelli said:
If you do not believe the entire Bible there is no sense in believing any of it.
That's not necessarily true. It assumes either the Bible is totally perfect or totally false. I believe the Bible is only partially wrong on certain things, but that doesn't mean everything is wrong. There are still many valuable life lessons which God wants us to learn.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." - 1 John 4:1
 
S

sebastiansdreams

That some things in the Bible simply aren't true (therefore not from God), and we have to use our better judgment regarding everything it says.
So your argument is that because eating pork is possibliy a sin, the Bible is therefore untrue? That's a flawed logic. Eating pork is sinful therefore the Bible is untrue is simply not a

Binary_Digit said:
No, that is Jesus' words taken out of context. Verse 2 tells us what He was actually responding to, that the Pharasees didn't wash their hands before eating bread. Verse 20 reconfirms: "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.
Not taken out of context. Yes, He was specifically addressing the issue of unclean hands, BUT, the statement is a broad one. He is clearly saying that one is not defiled because of what goes into the him, but what comes out of him. Just because the issue addressed in different than that we are discussing, does not mean that the statement cannot apply.

-
No, the word unclean in Ancient Hebrew meant "defiled" or "impure"; it did not mean "unhealthy".
No. The closest translation we have of this word means "unclean." Take from that what you want. But either way, at that point, it would have been harmful for them. And you certainly didn't address the second part of that argument, that it was unclean "for [them]." You argument just doesn't hold up in proving the Bible is untrue or that eating any certain food is sinful.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Binary_Digit said:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." - 1 John 4:1

We're not talking about "every spirit" ... we're talking about the infallible word of God. We are not talking about David Koresh or Jim Jones...these men merely interpreted the Bible. We each must come to the understanding of God's Word individually. We can each read & come to different conclusions, or even no conclusion at all except that which we force. That is not "understanding" but rather a "meaning" in which we desire even if it's not of God.
 

GetVictd

New member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
If the Bible were not true wouldn't God have removed it from our lives by now?

BTW not only would eating pork be a sin, so would touching it (football) or using any pork products (makeup )
 

GetVictd

New member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Here are the rules given to the Gentiles/Christians about how to behave

Acts 15:28-29
15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

There no meats offered to idols (is this pork?)
No drinking blood (sorry no steak tar tar?)
Things strangled (can't wring the chickens neck?)
Fornication (get married :mrgreen: )

Gentiles being not raised as Jews but believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God were given these set of rules by the apostles/elders and the Holy Ghost
 
Last edited:

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
sebastiansdreams said:
So your argument is that because eating pork is possibliy a sin, the Bible is therefore untrue?
No, my argument is here's an example where the Bible is plainly wrong, therefore it is not completely infallable.

sebastiansdreams said:
Not taken out of context. Yes, He was specifically addressing the issue of unclean hands, BUT, the statement is a broad one. He is clearly saying that one is not defiled because of what goes into the him, but what comes out of him. Just because the issue addressed in different than that we are discussing, does not mean that the statement cannot apply.
Can you show me where else Jesus invalidated an Old Testament law by making a point regarding a different kind of situation? I understand it could be taken as a parable, with a broader lesson to learn, but this involves a renige of God's origional law. Jesus answered a question about hand washing before a meal, He explained why it's not that big of a deal. It seems very presumptious to say He effectively reversed a law that God put forth, when the circumstances behind Jesus' answer didn't have to do with eating unclean meat, but eating with unclean hands.

sebastiansdreams said:
No, the word unclean in Ancient Hebrew meant "defiled" or "impure"; it did not mean "unhealthy".
No. The closest translation we have of this word means "unclean."
The word being translated into "unclean" is the Ancient Hebrew word "tame". It is also translated as foulness, dirtiness, filthiness, moral impurity, defilement by sin, sinfulness, lewdness, and incontinence.

http://www.praise4thee.com/shw/Page98.htm

The same word is used to describe a woman who is menstruating, when a man and woman have had sexual intercourse, a newborn child, a mother after giving birth, and (to be fair) people who have diseases. Given all these different contexts where the word is used, how can we be so sure that "unclean" invariably means "unhealthy" when referring to animals that are not to be eaten? You said it simply means unclean or unhealthy. I'm saying that's not the whole picture, or even half the picture, and is not necessarily the case as it pertains to "unclean" animals.

Arthur Fonzarelli said:
We're not talking about "every spirit" ... we're talking about the infallible word of God.
Ignoring the assumption that the Bible is infallible, what do you think it means by "every spirit"? Does it mean every person who calls himself a prophet of God? I assert that every Biblical author falls directly into that category.

If the Bible were not true wouldn't God have removed it from our lives by now?
No, because God has a "hands off" approach on the world. IMO

BTW not only would eating pork be a sin, so would touching it (football) or using any pork products (makeup )
Ya, that's a good point. :)
 
Last edited:

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
sebastiansdreams said:
And you certainly didn't address the second part of that argument, that it was unclean "for [them]."
I did address it. I said the Ten Commandments were also given to them, via the same person no less. Does that make the Ten Commandments just as irrelavent as the unclean meat laws?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Binary_Digit said:
No, my argument is here's an example where the Bible is
plainly wrong, therefore it is not completely infallable.
I understand what you are attempting, but your train of logic is far derraled.
Assuming that you can in fact succesfuly prove that eating pork is a sin
accoring to the Bible, then that is the extent of what you have proven. Whetherthe Bible states that eating pork is a sin or not, it does not mean that theBible is wrong. At very best is proves that Christians do not always act as Goddesignated them to do in the Bible. Nothing more. If you want to prove the Bibleis not infallible, then try another method because this cannot prove that oneway or another.

Can you show me where else Jesus invalidated an Old Testament law bymaking a point regarding a different kind of situation? I understand it could
be taken as a parable, with a broader lesson to learn, but this involves a
renige of God's origional law. Jesus answered a question about hand washing
before a meal, He explained why it's not that big of a deal. It seems very
presumptious to say He effectively reversed a law that God put forth, when thecircumstances behind Jesus' answer didn't have to do with eating unclean meat,but eating with unclean hands.
Even if there were no examples of Him setting a bigger standard regarding one
single instance, (I'll quote some when I get home to my Bible) He is certainly doing it here. He is Christ, He is the fulfillment of the law and the Son of the Creator of the law. It takes nothing more than one mention to show us that the law has changed. And by saying that it is not what goes into the body but what comes from it that we should concern ourselves with, He is not being vauge.

The word being translated into "unclean" is the Ancient Hebrew word
"tame". It is also translated as foulness, dirtiness, filthiness, moral
impurity, defilement by sin, sinfulness, lewdness, and incontinence.

http://www.praise4thee.com/shw/Page98.htm

The same word is used to describe a woman who is menstruating, when a man and
woman have had sexual intercourse, a newborn child, a mother after giving birth,and (to be fair) people who have diseases. Given all these different contextswhere the word is used, how can we be so sure that "unclean" invariably means"unhealthy" when referring to animals that are not to be eaten? You said it simply means unclean or unhealthy. I'm saying that's not the whole picture, oreven half the picture, and is not necessarily the case as it pertains to "unclean" animals.
Okay, perhaps you are confused about what translation is. It is not a science, but a tool for understanding. In cases such as this, translation is nothing more than attempting to understand a message in one language that is written in another. There is no exact science of saying that one word must mean one of a list of words. It can mean something in itself, based on context. And the context here is the consumption of animals. Contextually, it simply makes more sense to suggest that in speaking of uncleanliness of animals that are to be eaten refers to the consequence of what eating them might entail. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but God's laws all serve a purpose. They are not arbitrary. God does not ask us to hop on one foot everytime we say the alphabet. He gives us laws and rules that make our lives safer and better and more fullfilling. Having said all that, I ask you, why would you think that the word suggests something regarding the moral state of these animals?

I did address it. I said the Ten Commandments were also given to them, via the same person no less. Does that make the Ten Commandments just as irrelavent as the unclean meat laws?
You didn't say that did you? If so, I certainly didn't catch it. Either way, the Ten Commandments you could say don't really matter so much, yes. We have the commandment for Jesus saying love your God first, and love others as you love yourself. If you adhere to those things, then you will be following the Ten Commandments, but not because of Mosaic law but because of Christ's Law. But regarding the issue of eating, again I point to Mathew 15.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

- The authors of the Bible were human and often made mistakes in their writing.
The authors of the Bible were indeed human. There is no evidence that they made mistakes in their writing. Show proof of this if it is the case.

- Biblical writers attempted to explain their beliefs about God and His will for humanity. Being imperfect humans, they sometimes wrote things that were contrary to the will of God.
I dissagree, and again ask for your evidence.

- Some parts of the Bible are not suitable as a guide to modern living and should be ignored as such. (i.e. allowing and regulating slavery, restricting the roles of women, ordering genocide, torturing prisoners, allowing the rape of female prisoners of war, requiring the murder of religious and sexual minorities, and requiring the burning of some prostitutes alive)
So then you are suggesting a new covenant? Oh wait, you're about two thousand years late.

- The authors were limited by the tribal nature of their culture, their theocratic or dictatorial political structure, and their lack of scientific knowledge.
Where as you are not at all influenced by the society you live in and you are a key scientist who can prove things regarding God.

- Accidental and intentional errors have occurred in copying and translation.
Again, you forget that translation is an attempt to convey one message written in a language to another. There are issues where words can mean multiple things and ironically, our language is constantly changing as well, so what meant one thing in English five hundred years ago means something different now. Does that mean that the Bible was translated incorrectly? No, just that there is often many perspectives regarding a verse and each is considered through the line. But, for those of us who are willing to look into the original text, your argument fails. As far as intentional error, there is no such thing. If you are suggesting that someone translated something in a way that they felt led, then welcome to the world of literature. That is why there are so many different translations of the Bible. Furthermore, you are taking the Holy Spirit and His influence out of the equation completely, which is just not the reality of it.
- Modern versions of the Bible are reasonably accurate translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but still reflect the prejudices of the translators, and the belief systems of the religious institutions that sponsored them. (especially the KJV)
Thus why we do not use the Bible ALONE in our search for answers and truth, but also seek the Holy Spirit to lead us to what is pleasing to God. However, this is only a proposition, and you provide no evidence that would prove it.
- Bible passages must be interpreted according to the beliefs of the writers and the culture in which they lived. They may or may not be valid today.
Again, this is suggesting that the Holy Spirit has absolutely no influence on maintaining the Word, and that is where your argument falls apart.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You're right about the unclean thing. It does make the most sense in that context. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

I understand what you are attempting, but your train of logic is far derraled. Assuming that you can in fact succesfuly prove that eating pork is a sin accoring to the Bible, then that is the extent of what you have proven. Whetherthe Bible states that eating pork is a sin or not, it does not mean that theBible is wrong. At very best is proves that Christians do not always act as Goddesignated them to do in the Bible. Nothing more. If you want to prove the Bibleis not infallible, then try another method because this cannot prove that oneway or another.
Yes, this doesn't prove the Bible is imperfect - unless you believe that eating pork is and was not really a sin in the eyes of God, like I do. Otherwise, if eating pig IS a sin, do you plan to stop eating it? If not, why?

Even if there were no examples of Him setting a bigger standard regarding one single instance, (I'll quote some when I get home to my Bible) He is certainly doing it here. He is Christ, He is the fulfillment of the law and the Son of the Creator of the law. It takes nothing more than one mention to show us that the law has changed. And by saying that it is not what goes into the body but what comes from it that we should concern ourselves with, He is not being vauge.
The bolded part is still under debate, and we're going in circles, hehe! Jesus could have easily meant what comes out of the body is simply more important than what goes in. That does not automatically mean the Old Testament law was revoked and we can all eat pigs etc.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Binary_Digit said:
Yes, this doesn't prove the Bible is imperfect - unless you believe that eating pork is and was not really a sin in the eyes of God, like I do. Otherwise, if eating pig IS a sin, do you plan to stop eating it? If not, why?
Let me ask you this: What do you think sin is? My understanding of sin is an act that is commited that is against the will of God. So, if God is telling them not to eat these things, then is that not His will? And if one is eating these things, is he not acting against God's will? Therefore, he is sinning.
If something arose that made me beleve that it was indeed the will of God that I not eat these things, then yes, I would stop. Because I know that God knows what is best for me.

Jesus could have easily meant what comes out of the body is simply more important than what goes in.
Then wouldn't He have said "it is more important what comes out of the man than what goes in the man" instead of stating solidly that no matter what it is that goes in the mouth, it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.
It's all in the wording. But it is certainly enough to convince me. And so for my case, I honestly believe that I am not sinning by eating these things, but rather I watch what comes out of my mouth.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
New post, since it's kinda a new topic now hehe. I thought it would be easier to keep the 2 debates separate, but who knows, this might turn into 5. :p

- The authors of the Bible were human and often made mistakes in their writing.
The authors of the Bible were indeed human. There is no evidence that they made mistakes in their writing. Show proof of this if it is the case.
"When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." - Luke 3:23-38

This are the only verses in the Bible that tell the entire genetic lineage from Adam to Jesus in a single breath. The list is 76 generations long. Because we know approximately when Jesus walked the earth, we can use this list to calculate the age of the earth to be approximately 5729 years. This number assumes each father was 30 years old unless the Bible specifies his age when the son was born. If we assume an average age of 969, the oldest age recorded and arguably too liberal to be realistic, the earth is less than 85,000 years old.

If you don't believe in potassium argon dating techniques, that's ok. Greenland ice cores prove beyond any doubt that the earth is at least 160,000 years old, which is enough to prove that Luke did in fact make a mistake in his writing.

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/ancientice.html

As a side note, you might be surprised if you compare the list side-by-side, name-for-name with the list in Matthew 1:2-16.

There are others. I'd be happy to share them too if you'd like.

- Biblical writers attempted to explain their beliefs about God and His will for humanity. Being imperfect humans, they sometimes wrote things that were contrary to the will of God.
I dissagree, and again ask for your evidence.
"Withhold not correction from the child: for if you beat him with the rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from hell." - Proverbs 3:13-14

"Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it." - Exodus 12:43-44

et. al

- Some parts of the Bible are not suitable as a guide to modern living and should be ignored as such. (i.e. allowing and regulating slavery, restricting the roles of women, ordering genocide, torturing prisoners, allowing the rape of female prisoners of war, requiring the murder of religious and sexual minorities, and requiring the burning of some prostitutes alive)
So then you are suggesting a new covenant? Oh wait, you're about two thousand years late.
At least two of these are encouraged in the New Testament. Slavery (Philemon 1:10-18) and oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). This is after the new covenant, is it not?

- The authors were limited by the tribal nature of their culture, their theocratic or dictatorial political structure, and their lack of scientific knowledge.
Where as you are not at all influenced by the society you live in and you are a key scientist who can prove things regarding God.
That's not the point. My beliefs and writings are not taken as the infallable word of God. Their writings are. Thus, for some at least, when science and the Bible disagree, the Bible is said to be right and science is wrong.

- Accidental and intentional errors have occurred in copying and translation.
Again, you forget that translation is an attempt to convey one message written in a language to another. There are issues where words can mean multiple things and ironically, our language is constantly changing as well, so what meant one thing in English five hundred years ago means something different now. Does that mean that the Bible was translated incorrectly? No, just that there is often many perspectives regarding a verse and each is considered through the line. But, for those of us who are willing to look into the original text, your argument fails. As far as intentional error, there is no such thing. If you are suggesting that someone translated something in a way that they felt led, then welcome to the world of literature. That is why there are so many different translations of the Bible. Furthermore, you are taking the Holy Spirit and His influence out of the equation completely, which is just not the reality of it.
In answer to the bold question, YES it means an incorrect translation. If the word or phrase doesn't accurately communicate the same idea the author was trying to get across, it's a bad translation.

"Those of us" willing to look into the origional text? That's not fair, you know I consider the origional text too because I've already talked about the meaning of Hebrew words in this thread. You forgot about me already. :(

:mrgreen:

- Modern versions of the Bible are reasonably accurate translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but still reflect the prejudices of the translators, and the belief systems of the religious institutions that sponsored them. (especially the KJV)
Thus why we do not use the Bible ALONE in our search for answers and truth, but also seek the Holy Spirit to lead us to what is pleasing to God. However, this is only a proposition, and you provide no evidence that would prove it.
What should I do when the Bible and the Holy Spirit disagree?

For evidence:

1 Cor 13:8a

"Love never ends;" (RSV)
"Love will never come to an end" (NEB)
"Love never fails." (NIV)
"Love shall never pass away" (Con)
"Charity never faileth:" (KJV)
"Love never disappears" (Mof)

Did charity mean the same thing 500 years ago as it does today? All the other places where the KJV mentions the word "love", yet we have charity here in itstead. Hmm...

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/index.htm

I gotta run for now, bbl. :)
 

apathetic fools

New member
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
In deserted ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, anything we give thanks over is clean. We are not under the old law. Jewish folk are. They insist Christ is yet to come! All things are clean with prayer, except potatoe chips(just joking). Christ cleans our hearts from the inside out"It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, But what comes out" He who has an ear , let him hear.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Binary_Digit said:
There are others. I'd be happy to share them too if you'd like.
You're going to have to pull them out. Because most of us agree that the world is older than Adam (the argument of the word yohm). This is just a geneology of man. Now you can also argue that mankind predates that, but I have an intersting theory I'm working on regarding that. Basically it boils down to since God said we are made in His image (let's just assume for a moment that He didn't mean he has two legs and two arms and) that He was discussion the soul. So what if the animal man existed before God gave it a soul and it became "man" as we are now? Could that not be an explanation of why Adam was, indeed the first man.


"Withhold not correction from the child: for if you beat him with the rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from hell." - Proverbs 3:13-14

"Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it." - Exodus 12:43-44

et. al
But who are you to say these things were not the will of God for the people involved? Seems a bit presumptious to argue that God willed one thing we the Bible clearly states that He willed this.

At least two of these are encouraged in the New Testament. Slavery (Philemon 1:10-18) and oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). This is after the new covenant, is it not?
Slavery is not encouraged. What is encouraged is that you remain where you were when you were saved so that you may be a witness to the world around you. Slavery is a social mechanism that had taken place long before the Hebrew people ever got around to it, and it is certainly not the Bible's purpose to change the social mechanisms of the world. Rather, it is the Bible's purpose to change the souls of the people in the world. What would be the point of the Bible going into a diatribe of how the world should be a democracy? The Bible specifically says to love your neighbor as yourself, so really, whether you are "owned" in the sense of a slave was or not, you are still to be loved and cared for. And through this love, through this freedom of the soul, the social ills of the world will crumble (look at America). As far as women's voices in the church, at that point they were uneducated. Again, it would be out of place for Peter to go into how women should be educated the same as men as so forth, but rather he just suggests that they allow their husbands to teach them matters of faith. Nothing wrong with that. Especially if it was indeed the will of God. And again, you have no evidence that would show that that is not the will of God for those people at that time.
That's not the point. My beliefs and writings are not taken as the infallable word of God. Their writings are. Thus, for some at least, when science and the Bible disagree, the Bible is said to be right and science is wrong.
Yes, there writings are believed to be the infallable word of God. Thus far there has been no evidence to prove otherwise. But, you also have to take into account that the Holy Spirit does indeed play a role in all of this. And it is very possible for Him to have mantained the validity of the Word throughout history, don't you think? Especially if it is indeed the Word of God as written by man.

In answer to the bold question, YES it means an incorrect translation. If the word or phrase doesn't accurately communicate the same idea the author was trying to get across, it's a bad translation.
But remember, the Bible wasn't written in verses, it has just been transcribed that way. Each book of the Bible has a purpose, a message. Perhaps a few words lose their precision after being translated into a different language, but the message, ultimately stays the same. So then, the Bible certainly communicates the idea that its authors were attempting to give.

"Those of us" willing to look into the origional text? That's not fair, you know I consider the origional text too because I've already talked about the meaning of Hebrew words in this thread. You forgot about me already
.
Those of us, like you and myself, aside from a great deal of Christians, do look to the original manuscripts. Alot of Christians read the King James and just assume that THAT is the ultimate word of God. But when it comes to language translation, messages do change or certain elements are lost. The King James gives an incredibly accurate depiction of the events of Christ and such, but when you want to get into the nitpicky stuff, like that that is addressed in this forum, then you do have to be familiar with the text as it appears in its original language.
What should I do when the Bible and the Holy Spirit disagree?
If you are sure that it is the Holy Spirit, then by all means, the Holy Spirit is right. But I do not think that the Holy Spirit and the Bible are conflicting, I think that the Holy Spirit is only there to further show us the path of Christ.

For evidence:

1 Cor 13:8a

"Love never ends;" (RSV)
"Love will never come to an end" (NEB)
"Love never fails." (NIV)
"Love shall never pass away" (Con)
"Charity never faileth:" (KJV)
"Love never disappears" (Mof)

Did charity mean the same thing 500 years ago as it does today? All the other places where the KJV mentions the word "love", yet we have charity here in itstead. Hmm...
If my memory serves me correctly, charity was, at the time of KJ a way to say love in a verbal sense. I will check the OED for you in the next couple of days and let you know. But it seems that it is love, just love as in verb form.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
sebastiansdreams said:
You're going to have to pull them out. Because most of us agree that the world is older than Adam (the argument of the word yohm).
I don't need to pull them out quite yet. It is written in Genesis that the earth is five days older than Adam. That does not account for the other 74,999 years (and 360 days), so the point still stands. Luke made a mistake in his writings.

sebastiansdreams said:
Then wouldn't He have said "it is more important what comes out of the man than what goes in the man" instead of stating solidly that no matter what it is that goes in the mouth, it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.
It's all in the wording. But it is certainly enough to convince me. And so for my case, I honestly believe that I am not sinning by eating these things, but rather I watch what comes out of my mouth.
Okay, bear with me. Let's assume there was an Old Testament law from God that commanded us to bathe with soap everyday. (representing the unclean pig law) And let's assume Jesus' diciples decided one day to smear mud on themselves (to help against mosquitos, maybe), but this broke a tradition of the elders and the Pharisees complained to Jesus about it. (an elder tradition unrelated to the bathing law, this represents not washing their hands) Now hypothetically if Jesus answered them, "It is not what pollutes the skin that defiles the man, but what pollutes the heart, this defiles the man.", how could you interpret that to mean we can stop bathing everyday?

apathetic fools said:
We are not under the old law.
Do you mean to say that none of the Old Testament laws apply unless the New Testament reaffirms them? I thought it was the other way around, all the old laws still apply unless they're specifically revoked by Jesus and/or His teachings. (like no more animal sacrifices for sin, etc)
 
Top Bottom