Eating Pork is a Sin

[sebastiansdreams]

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.

Apparently you are not as familiar with the OT as you are with the NT as far as original language goes. The word yohm can mean "day" as in a twenty four our period. BUT, it can also mean a period of time undetermened. If you translate yohm to me day then yes, the argument is incorrect, BUT, if you assume that yohm means a period of time undetermined, then it fits contextualy and scientifically. If there is any fault, it goes to the English translators at the time of the introduction of the KJV who did not consider the other translation of the word yohm (because really, at that time, nor now, it doesn't really make any difference how long God took to create the world, only that He did in fact create the world).

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?

That was a horrible analogy. BUT, yes, it would mean that it appears that it is God's will that you pay attention to your heart rather than your skin. Does it mean you have to stop bathing? Of course not. But it appears that it is no longer a guideline that God wishes Christians to concentrate on.

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)[/QUOTE]
No. He fulfilled the covenant with when He came to earth. Therefore, He got rid of the "old law" and gave us new guidelines by how to live. The reality of the matter is that we are all still sinners, and that is unavoidable, but that we now have a set of guidelines more fitting to our place in history, with a new covanent between God and ourselves.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Have you compared the lineages given by Matthew and Luke yet?

Matthew			Luke
...			God
...			Adam
...			Seth
...			Enos
...			Cainan
...			Maleleel
...			Jared
...			Enoch
...			Mathusala
...			Lamech
...			Noe
...			Sem
...			Arphaxad
...			Cainan
...			Sala
...			Heber
...			Phalec
...			Ragau
...			Saruch
...			Nachor
...			Thara
Abraham			Abraham
Isaac			Isaac
Jacob			Jacob
Judas			Juda
Phares			Phares
Esrom			Esrom
Aram			Aram
Aminadab		Aminadab
Naasson			Naasson
Salmon			Salmon
Booz			Booz
Obed			Obed
Jesse			Jesse
David			David
Solomon			Nathan
Roboam			Mattatha
Abia			Menan
Asa			Melea
Josaphat		Eliakim
Joram			Jonan
Ozias			Joseph
?			Juda
?			Simeon
?			Levi
Joatham			Matthat
Achaz			Jorim
Ezekias			Elezer
Manasses		Jose
Amon			Er
Josias			Elmodam
?			Cosam
Jechonias		Addi
?			Melchi
?			Neri
Salathiel		Salathiel
Zorobabel		Zorobabel
Abiud			Rhesa
Eliakim			Joanna
Azor			Juda
Sadoc			Joseph
Achim			Semei
Eliud			Mattathias
Eleazar			Maath
?			Nagge
?			Elsi
?			Naum
?			Amos
?			Mattathias
?			Joseph
?			Janna
?			Melchi
?			Levi
Matthan			Matthat
Jacob			Heli
Joseph			Joseph
Jesus			Jesus

They are 93% similar from Adam to David, and 9% similar from David to Jesus. The lineage in Chronicles stops with Salathiel, and after Salathiel Matthew and Luke only agreed on three names - Zorobabel, Joseph and Jesus. They even disagree on the number of generations between Zorobabel and Joseph, in fact Luke claims more than twice as many. Chronicles and Genesis also reveal that Luke added an extra person named Cainan between Arphaxad and Sala:

"And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber." - 1 Chronicles 1:18

"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah" - Genesis 11:12

How can we conclude that they're all correct at the same time?

 

[Binary_Digit]

BTW there are a lot more discrepancies in the lineages when you compare every Biblical source to the others (Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, Matthew, and Luke). I wrote an essay in college and I'd be more than happy to email you the Word document if you PM me with your address. It's taking a really long time to format the chart into HTML code blocks because the tab widths are different and the names don't like to line up, otherwise I'd post the whole thing here.

Apparently you are not as familiar with the OT as you are with the NT as far as original language goes. The word yohm can mean "day" as in a twenty four our period. BUT, it can also mean a period of time undetermened. If you translate yohm to me day then yes, the argument is incorrect, BUT, if you assume that yohm means a period of time undetermined, then it fits contextualy and scientifically. If there is any fault, it goes to the English translators at the time of the introduction of the KJV who did not consider the other translation of the word yohm (because really, at that time, nor now, it doesn't really make any difference how long God took to create the world, only that He did in fact create the world).

Sure it could mean "period of time" instead of "day", but then why would God make the Sabbath every seven days? If "day" doesn't really mean "day" then why would that tradition have carried down to us that we still worship once a week?

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?

That was a horrible analogy. BUT, yes, it would mean that it appears that it is God's will that you pay attention to your heart rather than your skin. Does it mean you have to stop bathing? Of course not.

No! It was an excellent analogy. Everything that's different between my analogy and what actually happened has a direct relation back to the origional. If you disagree, then please explain why. I need more sustinance just than your opinion that it was "horrible".

No. He fulfilled the covenant with when He came to earth. Therefore, He got rid of the "old law" and gave us new guidelines by how to live.

Where is that supported in Scripture please?

Oh, and I meant to link you this site when you mentioned earlier about quoting from your Bible at home:

http://unbound.biola.edu/

We were discussing if any other Old Testament law was revoked by Jesus using a parable to respond to a situation that was unrelated to the OT law.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I need to correct something I posted above about Matthew and Luke being 93% similar etc. That statement applies to comparing ALL the Biblical lineage accounts, not just Matthew and Luke. I copy/pasted it from the essay without realizing that it no longer applies with just those two. So I want to retract that statement, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Binary_Digit]

One more, I was re-reading the conversation and I missed a couple of your points.

"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.

You said yourself that all God's laws serve a purpose. What purpose does racism, slavery, sexism, and child abuse serve, but the purpose of evil?

Slavery is not encouraged.

Yes it is.

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." - Ephisians 6:5-9

"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles." - 1 Timothy 6:1-2


"And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. "Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. "But if that slave says in his heart, `My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." - Luke 12:42-48

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.

Can you please explain why you think that?

 

[Montalban]

The Ten Commandments were also given to the Jews at the time of Moses, instead of Adam. Are the Ten Commandments equally irrelavent?

I stated that the laws of Moses were given at the time of Moses.

Some laws pre-date the 10 Commandments, and are re-inforced by them.

When Cain slew Abel, we have an idea that murder is not part of God's plan. Likewise it is condemned in the 10 Commandments and also in the Christian faith.

You would need to see if these laws were in force before, and after.

 

[apathetic fools]

No,no,no! Murder Is A Sin(the Word Sin Means To Miss God's Intended Mark), Eating Pork Is Yummy! Shredded Pork And Ribs Are The Bomb! Christ Fulfilled The "law", We Now Live Under Grace Until The Return Of Christ.

 

[geekgrrl]

The explanation I heard growing up was that pork, without the benefit of modern food handling, processing and cooking techniques, was more than likely to be contaminated with trichinae (trichinella spiralis). Since this nematode can thrive and reproduce in both pigs and humans, consuming undercooked pork in the old days could lead to trichinosis. Even here and now, pork should be well cooked. In more primitive parts of the world where medication to treat an infestation is hard to come by, the prohibition against pork consumption, biblical or koranic or not, is still good advice.

 

[Montalban]

The explanation I heard growing up was that pork, without the benefit of modern food handling, processing and cooking techniques, was more than likely to be contaminated with trichinae (trichinella spiralis). Since this nematode can thrive and reproduce in both pigs and humans, consuming undercooked pork in the old days could lead to trichinosis. Even here and now, pork should be well cooked. In more primitive parts of the world where medication to treat an infestation is hard to come by, the prohibition against pork consumption, biblical or koranic or not, is still good advice.

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.
http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/

 

[geekgrrl]

Marge: Homer, the plant called. They said if you don't show up tomorrow don't bother showing up on Monday.
Homer: Woo-hoo. Four-day weekend.

Thanks for the URL! Great site!

 

[Rev.]

No,no,no! Murder Is A Sin(the Word Sin Means To Miss God's Intended Mark), Eating Pork Is Yummy! Shredded Pork And Ribs Are The Bomb! Christ Fulfilled The "law", We Now Live Under Grace Until The Return Of Christ.

Only those who have accepted Christ as Savior are under Grace.

 

[Montalban]

Only those who have accepted Christ as Savior are under Grace.

What's your take then on Romans 2 which says all are judged according to the law in their own hearts?

 

[Rev.]

What's your take then on Romans 2 which says all are judged according to the law in their own hearts?

Not all, but "all who sin apart from the law."

Paul was addressing the Jews in the Roman church and laying the foundation for why they should accept the Gentile believer. No, they didn't have the law, but even though they were pagans, they recognized the fact of a Creator just through their observations of nature. They had a sense of good and evil...and at the final judgement, they will be judged according to that voice of concience. Don't confuse that with a code that man reasons out...man can reason that lots of things are right that in his heart he knows is wrong.

The Jews, however, had the Law. They were trying to judge the Gentiles by the Law. And Paul is saying, "You're telling people who had no Law 'Do not steal'...and what's that in your pocket?" The Jews who have the Law will be judged by the Law, and of course will be condemned by it.

But Jew and Gentile alike can be under grace. Under grace means we will not suffer the penalty of death required by the Law. Jesus has paid that penalty for us. But that is NOT some kind of divine "Get out of jail free" card which allows us to do anything we like. We are no longer slaves to sin and death, but we have become slaves to righteousness. Righteousness is a heart holiness...a circumcision (removing of 'sin') from our hearts by the Spirit that allows us to be righteous (in right standing before God).

The "don't eat pork" Law was a shadow of the purity of heart that grace allows us to have. Abstaining from pork does not make our hearts righteous...it never could. The Law is a teacher...an object lesson...a shadow of things to come. Through Christ, we have the real deal. The Law was the road sign to point the way. It does not give us what we need, but shows us what we're looking for so we can recognize it when we get there...JESUS!

 

[Binary_Digit]

The explanation I heard growing up was that pork, without the benefit of modern food handling, processing and cooking techniques, was more than likely to be contaminated with trichinae (trichinella spiralis). Since this nematode can thrive and reproduce in both pigs and humans, consuming undercooked pork in the old days could lead to trichinosis. Even here and now, pork should be well cooked. In more primitive parts of the world where medication to treat an infestation is hard to come by, the prohibition against pork consumption, biblical or koranic or not, is still good advice.

If that were truly the reason, why aren't there laws preventing us from eating anything that might infect us with salmonella? All raw foods of animal origin may carry salmonella. Cooking thoroughly prevents both salmonella and trichinella.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafety/pathogens/index.cfm?parent=6&articleID=44
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichinae/docs/fact_sheet.htm

The "don't eat pork" Law was a shadow of the purity of heart that grace allows us to have. Abstaining from pork does not make our hearts righteous...it never could. The Law is a teacher...an object lesson...a shadow of things to come.

You could say the same thing about ANY law in the Bible: just following them blindly doesn't automatically make us righteous because our motive to obey the Law should be our love for God and for one another. When it says "thou shalt not commit adultry" that was just a shadow of the purity of heart that grace allows us to have, and abstaining from adultry does not make our hearts righteous.

Still wondering, where is the Biblical evidence behind saying the Old Testament laws don't apply to us today?

Sebastiandreams, do you still believe the Bible is inerrant and contains no human errors? I acknowledged when you were right and I was wrong - will you afford me the same respect? Or have you stopped eating pigs yet? :2razz:

 

[Rev.]

If that were truly the reason, why aren't there laws preventing us from eating anything that might infect us with salmonella? All raw foods of animal origin may carry salmonella. Cooking thoroughly prevents both salmonella and trichinella.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafety/pathogens/index.cfm?parent=6&articleID=44
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichinae/docs/fact_sheet.htm

What does this have to do with anything?

You could say the same thing about ANY law in the Bible: just following them blindly doesn't automatically make us righteous because our motive to obey the Law should be our love for God and for one another. When it says "thou shalt not commit adultry" that was just a shadow of the purity of heart that grace allows us to have, and abstaining from adultry does not make our hearts righteous.

Right! And your point is...?

Still wondering, where is the Biblical evidence behind saying the Old Testament laws don't apply to us today?

Start with Galatians.

Sebastiandreams, do you still believe the Bible is inerrant and contains no human errors?

Of course the Bible is inerrant...it reveals the whole will of God and there is no mistake that God wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of Him. There is no mistake that the ONLY way to eternal life is through His Son, Jesus Christ. Are there errors in translation, grammar etc? Yes. Do those errors prevent us from understanding the message? No. Therefore, the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Have you compared the lineages given by Matthew and Luke yet?

They are 93% similar from Adam to David, and 9% similar from David to Jesus. The lineage in Chronicles stops with Salathiel, and after Salathiel Matthew and Luke only agreed on three names - Zorobabel, Joseph and Jesus. They even disagree on the number of generations between Zorobabel and Joseph, in fact Luke claims more than twice as many. Chronicles and Genesis also reveal that Luke added an extra person named Cainan between Arphaxad and Sala:

"And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber." - 1 Chronicles 1:18

"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah" - Genesis 11:12

How can we conclude that they're all correct at the same time?

Well, thre are a couple of issues here you are not taking into account. Firstly, the name game that seems to be a cultural thing for the Hebrew/Isrealite people. For instance,
Acts 1:23 So they proposed two: Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
Acts 10:18 They called out, asking if Simon, who was also named Peter, was lodging there.
Ac 13:9 Then Saul--also called Paul--filled with the Holy Spirit, stared straight at the sorcerer

And if the personalized name game wasn't confusing enough:

De 2:11 They were also regarded as Rephaim, like the Anakim, though the Moabites called them Emim.

Even different peoples had different names for each other as a group.
The point in all this is simple. Just because the name doesn't match up in the lineage doesn't necesarly mean that the lineage is not correct. Futhermore, there are more than one offspring per parent. So, in the OT when the lineage is being presented, they are not yet linking it all the way to Christ, therefore may be speaking of siblings of the lineage that ended in Christ. It is hard to track the forks of a lineage when you're unsure where it is leading.
Let's look at your example of Shela and Salah. Firstly, are you aware that there are no vowels in Biblical Hebrew? They were added in as they were spoken, but they were not written. That having been said, when translating this to Greek, you have a very interesting situation of figuring out the actual pronunciatation. My guess is that Shela and Salah are the same person, and that is just how it got translated originally. But the difference is little more than translating Krista instead of Kristen. Does it change the meaning of the message? Not in the slightest.

 

[Binary_Digit]

If that were truly the reason, why aren't there laws preventing us from eating anything that might infect us with salmonella? All raw foods of animal origin may carry salmonella. Cooking thoroughly prevents both salmonella and trichinella.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/fo...=6&articleID=44
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichi.../fact_sheet.htm

What does this have to do with anything?

Um, it has to do with the title of this thread. It was my reply to Geekgrrl. Have you been following the conversation or did you just jump in at the end?

The "don't eat pork" Law was a shadow of the purity of heart that grace allows us to have. Abstaining from pork does not make our hearts righteous...it never could. The Law is a teacher...an object lesson...a shadow of things to come.

Ok, and your point is...?

Still wondering, where is the Biblical evidence behind saying the Old Testament laws don't apply to us today?

Start with Galatians.

I just read the entire book of Galations. Twice. I see how Peter called Cephas a hypocrite for promoting the Jewish lifestyle while secretly wanting to live like the Gentiles. I see how Peter explains that man is not justified by the works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus instead. But Peter didn't nullify the old law, he nullified the belief that simply following the old law makes a man righteous. He makes a clear distinction between following the law to be righteous and following the law because you're righteous:

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" - Galations 3:2

That does not mean the old laws don't apply to us anymore.

I also see where Paul says this:
"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." - Galations 3:23-25

Since the Law became our tutor, and we are no longer under a tutor, then we are no longer under the Law, right? Not exactly:

"What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." - Galations 3:17

Paul seems pretty clear in this verse too:
"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law." - Galations 5:3

Then what about this this statement:
"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." - Galations 5:18

Does that mean we are no longer under the old law? Not exactly:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." - Galations 5:22-23

Now it's obvious what Galations 5:18 means. Paul has a consistent theme. He's making the same point over and over. He never said the old law doesn't apply anymore. He's only saying that blindly following the old law (without the spirit of Jesus) does not a righteous man make.

Of course the Bible is inerrant...it reveals the whole will of God and there is no mistake that God wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of Him. There is no mistake that the ONLY way to eternal life is through His Son, Jesus Christ. Are there errors in translation, grammar etc? Yes. Do those errors prevent us from understanding the message? No. Therefore, the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God.

Ok, we need to define "inerrant".

in·er·rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-rnt)
adj.
1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inerrant

Now I agree this shouldn't include grammar, translation, and interpretation errors. Those aren't the Bible's mistakes, but mistakes by its users. But I don't agree that actual errors and specific contradictions are tolerable and that we can still call it "inerrant" in the face of such errors. It doesn't matter if the overall will of God is accurately revealed or not. That's like saying 90% is the same as 100%, it's simply not true. Perfect is not the same as somewhat-perfect. If there is any error in the Bible, it is not inerrant. Can we agree on what inerrant means? With this definition in mind, do you still bellieve the Bible is inerrant?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Let's look at your example of Shela and Salah. Firstly, are you aware that there are no vowels in Biblical Hebrew? They were added in as they were spoken, but they were not written. That having been said, when translating this to Greek, you have a very interesting situation of figuring out the actual pronunciatation. My guess is that Shela and Salah are the same person, and that is just how it got translated originally. But the difference is little more than translating Krista instead of Kristen. Does it change the meaning of the message? Not in the slightest.

No, wait. I agree that Shela and Salah are the same person, that's not my argument. I also agree that Luke's Seth is the same as Chronicles Sheth, Luke's Noe is the same as Genesis Noah, etc. Those are reasonable assumptions.

What about the extra person named Cainan? Chronicles and Genesis reveal that Luke added an extra person named Cainan between Arphaxad and Sala:

"And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber." - 1 Chronicles 1:18

"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah" - Genesis 11:12
"Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber;" - Genesis 11:14

Obviously this is not a case of one person having two different names.

What about the other discrepancies? After David, Luke goes his own way and records the lineage through Nathan instead of Solomon. Kings, Chronicles, and Matthew all traced it through Solomon. Did Luke go through Mary's lineage instead of Joseph's? Then why does Luke record Joseph above Jesus instead of Mary? And why does Luke's account stem away after David, come back into agreement with the others at Salathiel and Zorobabel, then stem away again?

If all these are the same people, just with different names, then why does Luke's account have 6 more generations than Matthew?

There's more proof of errancy within the Old Testament alone, comparing Kings and Chronicles. But it's a little more involved, so one thing at a time.

 

[Rev.]

Um, it has to do with the title of this thread. It was my reply to Geekgrrl. Have you been following the conversation or did you just jump in at the end?

I read the thread...and I know who you were replying to. But I don't understand what laws against food containing salmonella has to do with whether or not eating pork is a sin.

I just read the entire book of Galations. Twice. I see how Peter called Cephas a hypocrite for promoting the Jewish lifestyle while secretly wanting to live like the Gentiles.

1) Peter and Cephas were the same person.

2) Peter did not secretly want to live like a Gentile. His hypocrisy came in when he had accepted the possibility of Gentiles being saved without the Law, but then wanted them to keep kosher. Peter was a Judiazer.

I see how Peter explains that man is not justified by the works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus instead. But Peter didn't nullify the old law, he nullified the belief that simply following the old law makes a man righteous. He makes a clear distinction between following the law to be righteous and following the law because you're righteous:

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" - Galations 3:2

That does not mean the old laws don't apply to us anymore.

In the case of the Galatians, the Law had never applied to them. They were Gentiles. So there isn't any "anymore" because there never was. It's like telling someone to put their jacket back on when they never had it on to begin with.

Thus the crux of Paul's arguement: you were saved without the Law, why do you now want to turn to the Law to keep saved?

I also see where Paul says this:
"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." - Galations 3:23-25

Since the Law became our tutor, and we are no longer under a tutor, then we are no longer under the Law, right? Not exactly:

"What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." - Galations 3:17

The part about Abraham is significant here. God made a covenant with Abraham before He made the covenant with Israel and gave them the Law. To Abraham, God promised that all nations would be blessed through him, referring to the fact that Jesus would descend from Abraham, and that through Jesus the world (including Gentiles) would be saved. The Law, with its rules and regulations, does not nullify the previous promise made to Abraham of salvation by faith alone.

Paul seems pretty clear in this verse too:
"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law." - Galations 5:3

Paul is going head-to-head with a group who insisted that before Gentiles could be Christians, they must convert and become Jewish first. Paul is saying, "If you become Jewish (get circumcised) you will have to keep the whole Law too." It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Gal 5:1 Read chapter 5 again. Paul is pretty blunt there...(love verse 12!)

Then what about this this statement:
"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." - Galations 5:18

Does that mean we are no longer under the old law?

Yes

Now it's obvious what Galations 5:18 means. Paul has a consistent theme. He's making the same point over and over. He never said the old law doesn't apply anymore. He's only saying that blindly following the old law (without the spirit of Jesus) does not a righteous man make.

No, he's saying Gentile believers do not need to put themselves under the Law in order to be saved. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Gal 5:6

Now I agree this shouldn't include grammar, translation, and interpretation errors. Those aren't the Bible's mistakes, but mistakes by its users. But I don't agree that actual errors and specific contradictions are tolerable and that we can still call it "inerrant" in the face of such errors.

Could you refer to the contradictions in question?

It doesn't matter if the overall will of God is accurately revealed or not. That's like saying 90% is the same as 100%, it's simply not true. Perfect is not the same as somewhat-perfect. If there is any error in the Bible, it is not inerrant. Can we agree on what inerrant means? With this definition in mind, do you still bellieve the Bible is inerrant?

You have to keep the purpose of the Bible in mind. When you say "The Bible is inerrant" you have to also say what the Bible is inerrant in. Is it inerrant in spelling? No Translation? No Grammar? No...but we've already agreed on that. Is it inerrant in purpose? Yes!

And what is the purpose of the Bible? To be a science book? No, so scientific inaccuracies may be excused. History book? No, so historical inaccuracies may be excused. It's purpose is to reveal God and his plan for us. THAT it does without error. So yes, the Bible is inerrant.

 

[flip2]

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

I love it. :beer:

 

[sebastiansdreams]

If all these are the same people, just with different names, then why does Luke's account have 6 more generations than Matthew?

There's more proof of errancy within the Old Testament alone, comparing Kings and Chronicles. But it's a little more involved, so one thing at a time.

Okay, look. I could go to the cage with you on this. I could show you how generations, especially within one community, can weave in and out. How the OT might have taken one course of "begottens" while Luke took another. There are plenty of hypothetical scenarios that could account for this. But the end point is that we know that Luke had a different source in his studies than Matthew. It was a historical lineage as recorded by these men. They obviously did not live through it, so they were going based on outside source. The fact that they recorded the outside source as it was given to them, does not mean that the Bible is flawed, because as Rev pointed out, the point of the Bible is not to be a history lesson. It is to show us the relationship between God and mankind. It is to show us the way to the kingdom, and the intentions of God. It makes me even stronger in that conviction to know that Luke reported the message just as he got it, instead of attempting to fit it into some sort of agenda, because that means that he was much more likely to report verbatim the events of Christ as they were witnessed, and to do some from a Gentile Doctor's perspective.

 

[akyron]

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 14:8
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.


Since this is all now subject to interpretation I will choose to interpret this way.


"You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses without a good barbecue sauce."

 

[Binary_Digit]

I read the thread...and I know who you were replying to. But I don't understand what laws against food containing salmonella has to do with whether or not eating pork is a sin.

You didn't follow the conversation very well then. Geekgrrl was told that the REASON for God's unclean meat laws was to keep people from getting trichonella. I said if that were the case, then there should also be laws against eating chicken to keep people from getting salmonella. This is basic stuff, comparing one hypothetical scenario to another. You seem smart, so I can't believe you gave an honest effort to follow along and yet you STILL didn't understand my point.

In the case of the Galatians, the Law had never applied to them. They were Gentiles.

Oh yea I forgot. The Jews are God's chosen people, so He just made the Law for them to live by and left everyone else to their own vices. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. :roll:

The Galations argument is turning into differences of interpretation and opinion. I'm not going to nit-pick and try to argue what Paul meant by this or that anymore because it's pointless. I feel as though you've taken some verses out of context (I love how you only used Galations 5:18 while ignoring the main point in 22-23), and you probably feel as though I've done the same thing (Abraham and the covenant, et. al). So it may not be a sin to eat pork, but disproving either point of view using the Bible doesn't seem possible, because people read the Bible differently and develop different opinions about what it means. Which often results in trying to fit a square peg (the Bible) into a round hole (a pre-concieved belief).

Now I agree this shouldn't include grammar, translation, and interpretation errors. Those aren't the Bible's mistakes, but mistakes by its users. But I don't agree that actual errors and specific contradictions are tolerable and that we can still call it "inerrant" in the face of such errors.

Could you refer to the contradictions in question?

You have got to be kidding. Didn't you say you've been following the conversation? No offense, after the salmonella thing I had my doubts, but now I'm convinced it was a blatent lie. You haven't been following jack.

For the third time now....

Specific contradiction #1:

Here we have Luke saying that Shelah was the son of Cainan:

"the `son' of Serug, the `son' of Reu, the `son' of Peleg, the `son' of Eber, the `son' of Shelah, the `son' of Cainan, the `son' of Arphaxad, the `son' of Shem, the `son' of Noah, the `son' of Lamech," - Luke 3:35-36

Here we have the Chronicles saying that Shelah was the son of Arphaxad, not Cainan:

"And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber." - 1 Chronicles 1:18

Here we also have Genesis saying that Shelah was the son of Arphaxad, not Cainan:
"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah" - Genesis 11:12

Sebastiandreams said there are plenty of hypothetical scenarios that could explain this. I don't believe there are any, so I'm curious to see how it can be explained without redefining the laws of physics. Please explain how a person can exist in a family tree and not exist in a family tree at the same time. Please explain how Shelah is the son of Cainan and the son of Arphaxad at the same time. Please explain how Arphaxad is Shelah's father and grandfather at the same time.

Specific contradiction #2:

This is a comparison of the lineage accounts between Kings and Chronicles, starting with Kings. First we start with Azariah the king of Judah:
"All the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah." - 2 Kings 14:21

Next, Azariah's son Jotham became the King of Judah:
"And Azariah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, and Jotham his son became king in his place." - 2 Kings 15:7

Sometime after that, Uzziah became the king of Judah:
"Shallum son of Jabesh became king in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigned one month in Samaria." - 2 Kings 15:13

Just like Azariah, Uzziah had a son named Jotham who became king of Judah:
"In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah became king." - 2 Kings 15:32

And Jotham son of Uzziah is the one who carries the lineage through Ahaz, Hezekiah, etc:
"And Jotham slept with his fathers, and he was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Ahaz his son became king in his place." - 2 Kings 15:38
"So Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and his son Hezekiah reigned in his place." - 2 Kings 16:20.

But according to the the Chronicles, the father of Ahaz was Jotham son of Azariah, not son of Uzziah:
"Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son," - 1 Chronicles 3:12-13

Chronicles says one thing, but Kings says another. Perhaps Uzziah and Azariah were the same person? Nope. Both names are used independently within five verses of each other (2 Kings 15:8, 13), as well as throughout the two chapters. Every Bible translation I know makes a distinction between both names. They don't even have the same number of syllables. They are obviously not the same person. Two different family trees in Kings must be overlapped in order to trace the lineage from Azariah through Jotham to Ahaz in Chronicles. How do you explain that?

And what is the purpose of the Bible? To be a science book? No, so scientific inaccuracies may be excused. History book? No, so historical inaccuracies may be excused. It's purpose is to reveal God and his plan for us. THAT it does without error. So yes, the Bible is inerrant.

I couldn't disagree more with the bolded statements. God does not lie, and if the Bible is truly inspired by God then its words would not lie either. Historical and scientific inaccuraces should NOT be excused, they should be regarded as further evidence that some things in Bible were not inspired by God.

I agree with your main point above, that the Bible is not a science or history book. It's main purpose is to reveal the will of God to us.

But in learning the will of God, we have to assume the authors were truly writing what God intended. Now if there are historical inaccuracies, such as the lineage contradictons above, then it's reasonable to conclude that God did NOT dictate every word in the Bible. He allowed SOME mistakes to happen. These mistakes call the Bible's credibility as a whole into question. If God allowed historical and/or scientific mistakes in the Bible, then what other kinds of mistakes did He allow?

Stupid man-made laws that support racism, sexism, and slavery? Yep. Stupid man-made laws like don't eat pig and don't wear linen and wool in the same garment? Yep. Stupid man-made concepts like having a specific race of humans as "God's chosen people"? Yep.

To say the Bible is inerrant is to say that God supports (or at least supported) racism, sexism, and slavery. It is to say that God lied (or at least made mistakes) about historical events like who was who'se father. To say that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God, in spite of historical or scientific inaccuracies, is to make a HUGE assumption about God's approach on selectively dictating the Bible while allowing certain falsehoods to remain.

You might say the historical or scientific inaccuracies are irrelavent, because they aren't related to the Bible's true message. But they ARE relavent, because they proove the possibility that some or all of the Bible's other teachings are also fabricated mistakes.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Rev, I'm sorry for losing my patience and taking personal jabs at you. It's just frustrating to make an argument when people forget about certain key premises that were already established. It tends to come across as convenient dishonesty. I apologize for assuming that you were being conveniently dishonest. There's no way I could know that for a fact, so I shouldn't have responded like it was a fact. :3oops:

 

[Rev.]

Apology accepted

You didn't follow the conversation very well then. Geekgrrl was told that the REASON for God's unclean meat laws was to keep people from getting trichonella. I said if that were the case, then there should also be laws against eating chicken to keep people from getting salmonella. This is basic stuff, comparing one hypothetical scenario to another. You seem smart, so I can't believe you gave an honest effort to follow along and yet you STILL didn't understand my point.

I really felt I tried to understand. I even read that part through three times. I think I was distracted by the idea that God made eating unclean animals against His law because of Trichonella...because I was thinking the whole time "huh?" Now your statement makes sense, and I agree with you.

The Galations argument is turning into differences of interpretation and opinion. I'm not going to nit-pick and try to argue what Paul meant by this or that anymore because it's pointless.

That's too bad. I was enjoying the discussion.

I feel as though you've taken some verses out of context (I love how you only used Galations 5:18 while ignoring the main point in 22-23), and you probably feel as though I've done the same thing (Abraham and the covenant, et. al).

I didn't address your treatment of Galatians 5:22-23 because you seemed to handle it okay. I wasn't ignoring the verse. Nor did I take any scripture out of context. The purpose of the entire book of Galatians is to convince the Galatians that it is unecessary to turn to the Law since they already had the Spirit. In that context, Galatians 5:22-23 is not Paul's main point, but summerizes his position. When the Holy Spirit comes on the believer, He writes the Law of Love on the believers heart, the result of which is the fruit of the Spirit. It is this Law, resulting in the fruit of the Spirit, that the believer should "follow" rather than the Mosaic Law.

So it may not be a sin to eat pork, but disproving either point of view using the Bible doesn't seem possible, because people read the Bible differently and develop different opinions about what it means. Which often results in trying to fit a square peg (the Bible) into a round hole (a pre-concieved belief).

I think the Bible has ONE truth, which we should strive to understand. If we have different ideas of what the Bible teaches, one of us is wrong. But we can agree on the truth, and apply it to ours lives differently.

You have got to be kidding. Didn't you say you've been following the conversation? No offense, after the salmonella thing I had my doubts, but now I'm convinced it was a blatent lie. You haven't been following jack.

I'm sorry about this. While I was writing my post, Sebastian was writing his. I never saw it until after I posted. I never meant for you to have to repeat yourself.

Specific contradiction #1:

Here we have Luke saying that Shelah was the son of Cainan: Luke 3:35-36

Here we have the Chronicles saying that Shelah was the son of Arphaxad, not Cainan: 1 Chronicles 1:18

Here we also have Genesis saying that Shelah was the son of Arphaxad, not Cainan: Genesis 11:12

Sebastiandreams said there are plenty of hypothetical scenarios that could explain this. I don't believe there are any, so I'm curious to see how it can be explained without redefining the laws of physics. Please explain how a person can exist in a family tree and not exist in a family tree at the same time. Please explain how Shelah is the son of Cainan and the son of Arphaxad at the same time. Please explain how Arphaxad is Shelah's father and grandfather at the same time.

Are you familiar with the ancient adoption custom? Men would have their grandchildren and great-grandchildren "on their knee" and those children would be counted as that man's offspring. Consider Jacob in Genesis. His son Joseph's two son's Mannasah and Ephriam were placed on Jacob's knee...and after they were considered as Jacob's sons. They recieved equal inheritance as Jacob's other sons when the Israelites claimed the Promised Land. Depending on how long a man lived, his "children" could number several hundred by the time he placed all his kids and grandkids on his knee!

Specific contradiction #2:

This is a comparison of the lineage accounts between Kings and Chronicles, starting with Kings. First we start with Azariah the king of Judah:
"All the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah." - 2 Kings 14:21

Next, Azariah's son Jotham became the King of Judah:
"And Azariah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, and Jotham his son became king in his place." - 2 Kings 15:7

Sometime after that, Uzziah became the king of Judah:
"Shallum son of Jabesh became king in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigned one month in Samaria." - 2 Kings 15:13

Just like Azariah, Uzziah had a son named Jotham who became king of Judah:
"In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah became king." - 2 Kings 15:32

And Jotham son of Uzziah is the one who carries the lineage through Ahaz, Hezekiah, etc:
"And Jotham slept with his fathers, and he was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Ahaz his son became king in his place." - 2 Kings 15:38
"So Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and his son Hezekiah reigned in his place." - 2 Kings 16:20.

But according to the the Chronicles, the father of Ahaz was Jotham son of Azariah, not son of Uzziah:
"Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son," - 1 Chronicles 3:12-13

Chronicles says one thing, but Kings says another. Perhaps Uzziah and Azariah were the same person? Nope. Both names are used independently within five verses of each other (2 Kings 15:8, 13), as well as throughout the two chapters. Every Bible translation I know makes a distinction between both names. They don't even have the same number of syllables. They are obviously not the same person. Two different family trees in Kings must be overlapped in order to trace the lineage from Azariah through Jotham to Ahaz in Chronicles. How do you explain that?

Those two books also have different calendars. You do know that Kings and Chronicles documents Israel history from the Northern and Southern Kingdom? They would each have their own names for things, their own way of keeping track of time. Like northern and southern newspapers during our Civil War would have different accounts of the same event.

Meanwhile, I will look more into the references you cite here.

I couldn't disagree more with the bolded statements. God does not lie, and if the Bible is truly inspired by God then its words would not lie either. Historical and scientific inaccuraces should NOT be excused, they should be regarded as further evidence that some things in Bible were not inspired by God.

No, God does not lie. And I personally don't believe He dictated the Bible. I believe he moved on men, and His message came through their personality.

I agree with your main point above, that the Bible is not a science or history book. It's main purpose is to reveal the will of God to us.

But in learning the will of God, we have to assume the authors were truly writing what God intended. Now if there are historical inaccuracies, such as the lineage contradictons above, then it's reasonable to conclude that God did NOT dictate every word in the Bible. He allowed SOME mistakes to happen. These mistakes call the Bible's credibility as a whole into question. If God allowed historical and/or scientific mistakes in the Bible, then what other kinds of mistakes did He allow?

Stupid man-made laws that support racism, sexism, and slavery? Yep. Stupid man-made laws like don't eat pig and don't wear linen and wool in the same garment? Yep. Stupid man-made concepts like having a specific race of humans as "God's chosen people"? Yep.

How do you know those are man-made laws? How do you know that part wasn't dictated?

To say the Bible is inerrant is to say that God supports (or at least supported) racism, sexism, and slavery.

If one of my kids wants to go to the store to buy candy, and I say "Stay on the sidewalk" that does not mean I support my kid's desire to buy candy. Positive commands regarding certain conducts should not be construed as support of that conduct.

It is to say that God lied (or at least made mistakes) about historical events like who was who'se father. To say that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God, in spite of historical or scientific inaccuracies, is to make a HUGE assumption about God's approach on selectively dictating the Bible while allowing certain falsehoods to remain.

And of course I don't believe God dictated the Bible...except the parts that are direct quotes (like the Law).

You might say the historical or scientific inaccuracies are irrelavent, because they aren't related to the Bible's true message. But they ARE relavent, because they proove the possibility that some or all of the Bible's other teachings are also fabricated mistakes.

I don't know what to say to this. It's an issue if you make it one. And if you keep your focus on the big picture, it's not.