Christianity and Veganism

[Brickjectivity]

I assume you're trying to conclude that the author contradicts himself. If so, that is not the case because the author differentiates between the God of the Bible and the god of Christianity, and testifies that modern Christianity is not a Biblical religion.

You don't need to respond to that. I'm just hashing through it and getting a feel, trying to detect the author's waveform, sort of read the lines on their palm a little bit. That post was more of a note.

Cain and Abel's sacrifice: pp. 211, 229-230

Noah's sacrifice: pp. 269, 832-834

The book's author is expending a lot of energy to both suspend causality and also explain why Abel is blessed for offering an animal. I think that the extra energy is unnecessary. Cain and Abel are us. We all bear the mark of Cain. Are we not murderous upon occasion? How many times do the Jews say to forgive? 7 times or more. The mark of Cain is about learning to forgive. Cain fails to conquer the dragon in his heart and kills his brother. It isn't about hamburgers versus salad, and the gift Abel gives is superior to what Cain gives for reasons beyond the scope of what we are talking about (and that I myself need to look into I suppose).

As for Noah's sacrifice I think the author is again striving too hard. The divine doesn't have a nose, but people do. The sacrifice is a covenant of peace, and that is what food is about. You eat with friends not enemies. The world previous to Noah is destroyed by violence. Violence above all is to be avoided, and in the covenant of Noah we are told that murder is wrong. We are not told that eating animals is. We are told that animals must not kill people, because people are better.

This author has a clear love for animals, and at the same time they want to use the Bible to spread vegetarianism. Its obvious that the Bible is not their main focus but vegetarianism and the duct tape in their arguments is plainly gray. In Christianity they could find room for vegetarianism, and there are Christians who don't believe in substitutionary atonement. If the Bible were their focus they'd know that. There is a possible vegetarian future possible but not in literal Biblical interpretations caustically applied to daily life. Literally speaking, Noah and his family eat the animal, and the LORD likes how it smells and there must be sacrifices forever for that reason. The argument that it is the 'Stench of death' is hard to accept -- laughable. Noah and his family eat the animals for sustenance.

The future we face is one where several major religions square off over the centuries. Only a few are dedicated to vegetarianism, and these already attempt to encourage vegetarianism everywhere. They look energetically for ways of doing that even to the extreme of looking for vegetarian interpretations in other religions. There are also people who naturally feel strongly about the lives of animals who are just born that way. I think the author is such a person and is projecting their love of animals onto a Bible that loves people more than animals.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It isn't about hamburgers versus salad, and the gift Abel gives is superior to what Cain gives for reasons beyond the scope of what we are talking about (and that I myself need to look into I suppose).

It also helps when the authors are farmers and hate ranchers...

 

[Rise]

I assume you're trying to conclude that the author contradicts himself. If so, that is not the case because the author differentiates between the God of the Bible and the god of Christianity, and testifies that modern Christianity is not a Biblical religion.

Jesus quotes authoritatively from the old testament constantly, as did the apostles.
Supposed contradictions of God's character in the two testaments doesn't actually hold up once you have a more thorough understanding of the content contained in each.

The fact that the author would make such a fundamental mistake, only further shows how completely unhinged his attempts at scriptural exegesis are.

In this ideological fantasy of his own creation, the sin which caused the fall of man was eating animal flesh, the flood, the destruction of sodom, the judgement on Israel, the reason God sent prophets to correct people, and the abomination of desolation (contextually clearly to be related to the anti-christ making himself out to be God) is linked with the animal/farming industry. He then reduces the Gospel to merely being about restoring man to his intended relationship with nature. Vegan activism and ideology becomes the centerpoint that he tries to make the Bible revolve around, and none of it will stand up to closer scrutiny utilizing sound exegesis of scripture.
He's distorting the Bible to serve his agenda, rather than letting the Bible speak for itself in context.

You don't need nearly 1000 pages of rambling revisionist nonsense to talk about the true Biblical theology of our relationship with nature. I say this as someone who happens to be passionate about this topic, because the way our culture relates to animals and the land is not the way God designed it and it's having all kinds of destructive effects on people as a result. But I don't need to subvert the entire message of the Bible and rewrite it in order to make a powerful case for the need to change the way we do agriculture and livestock management in this world.

If you want to see what Bible based farming and animal stewardship looks like, check out this free film:
http://www.backtoedenfilm.com/
Paul does not need to twist or distort the scripture to justify farming God's way.
Nor does he need to do that in order to win people over to the value of these methods. He has people come from all over the world every year to learn from his garden, and this film has been viewed by tens of millions without any advertising.
Paul personally does not eat meat because it is not the ideal, but he doesn't abuse and misuse scripture to manipulate people into doing things his way by basically claiming people are going to face God's wrath and go to hell if they do eat meat. He presents an accurate Biblical account of the fall and redemption, centered around man's relationship to God. He doesn't need to rewrite the Bible to win people over to the truth about God's intended role for us in His creation.

 

[psychoslice]

I mean, if you want to be a vegan, be my guest. My brother is one. Let's not pretend that the bible forbids meat eating, though. As for living longer, here's an interesting list

None of those people are vegan.

Yes, I think vegetarians have a better chance of living longer, they have done a lot of studies with the Seventh Day Adventist, which I was once, and they show over all a better healthy life, maybe also its because they don't smoke and drink.

 

[Rise]

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.

Despite putting hundreds of footnotes at the end, he didn't even try to document the source of that claim.

Being the basis of his argument, he would first need to prove that's even true by documenting what supposed sources prove his assertion, otherwise the rest of it means nothing because it's all built on that claim.

 

[MountainPine]

Despite putting hundreds of footnotes at the end, he didn't even try to document the source of that claim.

Being the basis of his argument, he would first need to prove that's even true by documenting what supposed sources prove his assertion, otherwise the rest of it means nothing because it's all built on that claim.

All you need to do is look at a Hebrew lexicon. Lakem (לכם) does not have a Strong's reference.

 

[Rise]

Out of curiosity, did you write that ebook you posted?

All you need to do is look at a Hebrew lexicon. Lakem (לכם) does not have a Strong's reference.

Your reasoning is twisted and makes no sense.

Strong's in a 19th century reference book for english translations. Its not a lexicon. By the nature of what a concordance is not every preposition is going to have a Strong's word attached to it.
Notice you can find other examples of this being the case with difference prepositions: http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/51-1.htm

Furthermore, and more importantly, Strong's is not the basis you use for determining what Hebrew words were or were not in the original text.
You claimed lakem was not in the original text, yet have made no attempt to actually go back to ancient copies of Genesis 9 to determine if there is any evidence of that being true.

Logically it is absurd for you to try to claim that just because a word is not represented in Strong's concordance that it does not exist in ancient copies of Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. Especially when we have so many ancient witnesses to the scriptures you could turn to in order to establish what was originally there.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When I was growing up as a Roman Catholics we had fish and chips on a Friday instead of a meat dish. Sorry, that's all I have.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yes, I think vegetarians have a better chance of living longer, they have done a lot of studies with the Seventh Day Adventist, which I was once, and they show over all a better healthy life, maybe also its because they don't smoke and drink.

And then you have the folks who drank and smoked and ate fried foods their entire lives and lived well after 100.

 

[psychoslice]

And then you have the folks who drank and smoked and ate fried foods their entire lives and lived well after 100.

Yes that is true, but you don't see many, we sort of remember the ones who made it, and this gives us some sort of false hope to continue with a life style that we know deep down is not good for us.

 

[MountainPine]

The argument that it is the 'Stench of death' is hard to accept -- laughable.

[Jude 1:17-19] But you, beloved ones, remember the words spoken before by the emissaries of our Master יהושע Messiah, because they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own wicked lusts. These are the ones who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Out of curiosity, did you write that ebook you posted?

No, but I know the person who did.

Strong's in a 19th century reference book for english translations. Its not a lexicon. By the nature of what a concordance is not every preposition is going to have a Strong's word attached to it.
Notice you can find other examples of this being the case with difference prepositions: http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/51-1.htm

Furthermore, and more importantly, Strong's is not the basis you use for determining what Hebrew words were or were not in the original text.
You claimed lakem was not in the original text, yet have made no attempt to actually go back to ancient copies of Genesis 9 to determine if there is any evidence of that being true.

Logically it is absurd for you to try to claim that just because a word is not represented in Strong's concordance that it does not exist in ancient copies of Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. Especially when we have so many ancient witnesses to the scriptures you could turn to in order to establish what was originally there.

Ok, for one, the ancient copies of Genesis were written in Paleo-Hebrew on stone. What are you expecting? A photograph? Even if I could find such an image, what use is it going to be to you? Can you read Paleo-Hebrew glyphs? LOL. How hard is it to look into this yourself? Do you even care to look into this, or do you just want to argue? My money is on the latter. But since you asked for a source, here it is.

Notice that on the Hebrew lexicon on the left the words are highlighted in red (representing Strong's), green (suffixes) and yellow (prefixes). Notice in Gen. 9:3, לכם (lakem) has the lamed highlighted in yellow and the kaf and mem highlighted in green. This means that the word lakem was created by combining a prefix and a suffix together, which isn't a real word. This is evidence of tempering and addition.

You can find more evidence of tampering in 9:27 where it supposedly says that Canaan was to become Shem's servant as it says: "Elohim shall enlarge Yefet (Japeth) and he shall dwell in the tents of Šëm (Shem) and Cænä`an (Canaan) shall be his servant." If you look to the Hebrew lexicon at the left, you'll see that there isn't a Hebrew word for 'his,' and that lamo (another prefix/suffix "word") is the last word of the sentence which isn't translatable. The context is that Canaan is to become their servant if you read the Hebrew correctly without reading lamo in the passage.

Anyway, I get the impression that you're one who only focuses on details so much to the point that you miss the point. You're simply dismissing a book because of some minor detail and you're judging the author just because he didn't cite a source to some information that you could have easily verified yourself. Judging by your ridicule, I think you're just a naysayer and a mocker.

 

[Brickjectivity]

[Jude 1:17-19] But you, beloved ones, remember the words spoken before by the emissaries of our Master יהושע Messiah, because they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own wicked lusts. These are the ones who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

What about the shruggers? Does it say anything about us? *shrugs*

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

"Thou shalt not kill." led me to vegetarianism....
yep not a christian

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

"Thou shalt not kill." led me to vegetarianism....
yep not a christian

But the plants died ...

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

But the plants died ...

Oh yes for quite some time after baby lambs ran across my mount of mashed potatoes
and fell dead a chops among the valley of peas, became almost a frutarian,
not killing plants but harvesting its produce .. peas, beans, sprouts, eggplant, etc

 

[Rise]

Ok, for one, the ancient copies of Genesis were written in Paleo-Hebrew on stone. What are you expecting? A photograph? Even if I could find such an image, what use is it going to be to you? Can you read Paleo-Hebrew glyphs? LOL. How hard is it to look into this yourself? Do you even care to look into this, or do you just want to argue? My money is on the latter. But since you asked for a source, here it is.

Notice that on the Hebrew lexicon on the left the words are highlighted in red (representing Strong's), green (suffixes) and yellow (prefixes). Notice in Gen. 9:3, לכם (lakem) has the lamed highlighted in yellow and the kaf and mem highlighted in green. This means that the word lakem was created by combining a prefix and a suffix together, which isn't a real word. This is evidence of tempering and addition.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense because you don't know how the Hebrew language works.

The letters seen in a Hebrew manuscript are lamed kaf mem. Our english equivalent would be L Kh M.
The markers under the letters show what vowels are used between the consonants. In this case A and E.
Thus, it spells lakhem.

It was also complete ignorance for you to try to claim that Strongs concordance determines whether or not a word existed in the Hebrew manuscripts.

Lakhem is the word found in every Hebrew manuscript at Genesis 9:3 - even in the link you posted.

We have one that goes back to the 9th century. We have the dead sea scrolls from before Christ too.
So if you want to claim that lakhem was not originally in the text, there are ample manuscripts that you could turn to in order to see whether or not that is true. But thats not what you'll find.

Anyway, I get the impression that you're one who only focuses on details so much to the point that you miss the point. You're simply dismissing a book because of some minor detail and you're judging the author just because he didn't cite a source to some information that you could have easily verified yourself.

Like your fallacy about lakhem, that ebook is full of patently false statements and twisted logic. None of it will hold up to serious scrutiny by people who know the scriptures.

You should let your friend know that if he wants to put himself in the position of teaching be will need to be a lot more honest and thorough in his exegesis of scripture, rightly dividing the word of God, and not just look to twist the scripture as a tool to advance his vegan agenda. 2 timothy 2:15, James 3:1.

 

[MountainPine]

You're not listening. Explain to me how you can create a word by combining a prefix and a suffix.

 

[Rise]

Do you not realize that Lakhem is a real word with a real meaning in Hebrew?
It's a preposition that basically means "to".

Type it into any Hebrew to English translator and it will come out "to you".

It also exists in every ancient copy of Genesis 9:3 available, so there's no reason to believe it was inserted at a later date.

You're trying to come up with a theory that says it can't be a real word because it's structure doesn't make sense to you. The fact that it confuses you is not, in itself, proof of anything, other than your own ignorance. The fact remains that lakhem exists in the scripture going back thousands of years and has a real meaning to it that is still known today.

We can go even further to prove how nonsense your supposition is:
Let's look at the Septuagint. A Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture that originated in the 3rd century BC:
NET translation: You may eat any moving thing that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

We can also look at an english translation of the Aramiac Targum:
Every moving thing which liveth to you shall be for food: as the green herb have I given to you the whole.

Even further, an english translation of the Latin Vulgate:
And everything that moves and lives will be food for you. Just as with the edible plants, I have delivered them all to you,


There is no real linguistic or historical basis for you to claim that lakhem means something other than what is being translated. Everyone who has ever translated the Hebrew scripture into any other language, even more than two thousand years ago, has translated Genesis 9:3 to say the same basic thing that we have it in our English Bible - because that's what the Hebrew means.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You're not listening. Explain to me how you can create a word by combining a prefix and a suffix.

Does "ambient" count?

 

[Brickjectivity]

vegan-ism