Did you also read this part? Pages 196-198 (note: all Hebrew words are spelled left to right due to a copy/paste error):
It is no exaggeration to say that the Jewish scribes have literally added the word םכל (
lakem ‘unto you’) where it suited them, and that it is missing from the original Hebrew manuscripts. This is incredibly significant to the proper understanding of the text, because without “unto you,” there is no indirect object: the possession is inferred as “I give to you.” Of course, it is also inferred from a proper reading (the possession necessitates an object), but what is actually given to Noah as his possession is made a whole lot clearer when we realize that
lakem has been manually inserted to change the meaning. It is no wonder, considering that the second instance of the insertion in Genesis 9:3 is followed by תא (
ayt, H853), the untranslatable primary article (i.e. “a,” but it really should not be translated as anything at all), which the translators have rendered “you.”
Recall our earlier discussion of the word םחל (
lekhem, H3899), signifying
plants as foods (or solid plant-based foods), and the other words which we have already demonstrated were subverted by the translators, in order to show their willful intent to destroy the meaning of other passages related to dietary restrictions. The difference between םכל (
lakem) and םחל (
lekhem) is slight enough to almost go unnoticed, but for the fact that it is followed by the word הלכאל (
le’aklah, from H402). This same word is translated in Jeremiah 12:9 as “to devour,” elsewhere (e.g. Exodus 16:15) as “to eat,” and in other places (e.g. Ezekiel 15:4,6) as “for fuel.” The
lamed distinguishes it from
aklah (H402), meaning ‘food,’ thereby giving it the meaning of ‘for food,’ while the
kaf at the beginning of the next word, קרי (
ka’yereq, from H3418)—and this is the only use of קריכ in Scripture—signifies that this is the word which is taking the property of the object. (As a prefix, kaf has the meaning of ‘like’ or ‘as.’)
This necessarily means that the punctuation which the translators have added is arbitrary, and that the passage makes more sense without it, both grammatically and syllogistically, as God was simply reiterating to Noah what he had said to Adam, in the context of what he is to do with the animals which have been put under his charge. Imagine that; God has not actually changed his mind between sending the Flood to destroy carnivorous men and telling Noah immediately afterward that he is okay with that now—the Jews and the Christians changed it for him. Compare the NIV’s rendering to a literal rendering of Genesis 9:3, without anything added:
Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (NIV)
Everything that breathes shall take for food of the green plants I have given all.
A comparison between the NIV’s rendering of the whole context (9:1-6) and a literal translation is as follows:
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.” (NIV)
And (the) Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, and said, “Bring forth much fruit to fill the land [
ha’aresh].
Dread and terror shall be on every creature of the land [
ha’aresh],
and on every bird of the heavens, on everything that creeps of (those of the) earth [
ha’adamah—i.e. the “serpents”],
(and) on all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they shall be given. [And now that dominion is given, here are the rules for stewardship:]
Everything that breathes shall take for food of the green plants I have given (to) all, but flesh that has spirit [
nephesh],
which (is its) blood [ומד,
damow]
, eat not. And surely (those) poor [םכמד,
dimkim]
like yourselves [
lenapsotaykim]
I will require by the hand (of) every beast. And I will require by the hand of man [
ha’adam]
, by the hand of (a) man’s brother, (he) who sheds (the) blood [םד
, dam]
of man [
ha’adam]
; by man [
ba’adam]
(his) blood [
damow]
shall be shed. For in the likeness of (the) Elohim man [
ha’adam]
(has been) made.”
Notice there are three separate words that are translated as “blood” or “lifeblood” (properly םד or
dam, H1818) in this context. The main cause for contention here is with what God requires.
Damow indeed means ‘blood.’ In other words, “whatever has had blood in it”—not what still has blood in it—“and whatever looks like you (has a face): do not eat.” However, the
dalet in
dimkim signifies a prefix, ‘that’ or ‘which,’ and the final
mem indicates a plural, without which the passage makes no sense. The only word in Hebrew which even begins with
mem and
kaf is
myk (H4134), and that is the whole word—meaning there is no other plausible alternative to supposing that the word rendered “blood” (or “lifeblood”) here means anything other than
mykim, which is to say, ‘the poor (plural)’ or ‘the lowly,’ or ‘the oppressed.’ In other words, “If you disobey me, I will require your blood for the blood of the victim.”
As for the fish issue, I have already given an explanation for that above.
... but he goes completely off the rails when he tries to make the entire story of sin and redemption in the Bible revolve around man eating animals, and claim that God forbids it today for us. That doesnt remotely hold up to a proper exegesis of scripture. He spends nearly 1000 pages rambling nonsense in attempt to rewrite the message of the entire Bible to revolve around his vegan ideology. And he does an extremely poor job at it.
Can you explain how he did a poor job? Honestly I don't think you've read the book. Your response sounds like you're having a moment of cognitive dissonance. Typical response from someone who has no conscience and a complete disregard for scripture.
