notice what God told Noah regarding the food he was to take on the ark:
Genesis 6:21 And as for you, take for yourself every sort of food that is eaten; and you must gather it to yourself, and it must serve as food for you and for them.”
The food here is only vegetation...noah had to take enough to feed his family and the animals on board.
'the food that is eaten' distinguishes between what?
Do you believe the Wolves, Lions, Crocodiles, and Komodo Dragons were fed plants? You should be aware that the word Maakal is often translated as "meat".
who's to say they did? The only sacrifices mentioned prior to the mosaic law were the ones offered by Abel from the flocks, and the one offered by Noah from the flock.
Okay, so therefore how would Noah have known that the clean birds were to be sacrificed? We're kinda back to square one.
the fact that the scriptures show a command given to Adam to eat all green vegetation and fruits means we dont have to speculate or assume anything:
Geneis 1;29 And God went on to say: “Here I have given to YOU (man) all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To YOU let it serve as food.
Okay, so you believe that G-d gave Adam hemlock and poison ivy "For food", I'll let the reader decide on that one. As for "Surface of the whole earth", it's "surface of the whole land" which probably does in fact refer only to the garden.
And the next verse specifies the diet of the animals: 30 And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it came to be so.
Does that mean ONLY the vegetation for food? Only in presumption land.
and then the command to Noah to take only green vegetation and fruits on the ark to feed his family AND the animals is a pretty clear indicator that they were only eating such foods as God specified to them in the beginning:.
Genesis 6:21 And as for you, take for yourself every sort of food that is eaten; and you must gather it to yourself, and it must serve as food for you and for them.”
Again, the word "Food" is often translated as "meat", so we're dealing with more presumptions and assumptions, which make up practically ALL of Pegg's arguments. But many of my own views rely on a few presumptions as well, because the text is not exactly clear either way. I try to base my presumptions in a consistent manner though with the text.
And if you still have doubts, keep reading the full account of what happened when Noah came out of the ark... ie
Genesis 9: 2 And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will continue upon every living creature of the earth... Into YOUR hand they are now given. 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.
As in the case of "Green vegetation" indeed. Pegg here wants the reader to believe that G-d gave Poison Ivy and Hemlock to Man "for food" by this logic. If not, then obviously the same kind of meaning for "All" applies to animals. To go by Pegg's interpretation, you must believe that Hemlock was given "For food" to Noah. Do you, the reader, believe Hemlock would be given "as food"? Do you believe Noah was told he could eat Vultures?
Every moving animal that is alive MAY SERVE AS FOOD FOR YOU. This was a totally new command regarding the diet of man for God goes on to say "AS IN THE CASE OF GREEN VEGETATION, I DO GIVE IT ALL TO YOU"
Then he gives the condition that the blood be poured out of the animal first.
So again, for Pegg's use of "every" to apply, she must accept that she believes that Hemlock was given to Adam for food. I will repeat this point as necessary. Pegg, if you wish to believe that man was given Hemlock for food, I can't stop your presumption, but I will say I disagree with your interpretation to say the least. Many Rabbis have said similarly.
i think it means it was an abomination for any of the sons of Isreal to do so because they had entered into a contract with God. That contract laid out specific requirements of them and if they failed to obey them, they were being disobedient to God.
Does that in any way explain WHY it is an abomination? No. All Pegg is doing here is restating the basics that we already know. No details about why the foods are abominations. In Pegg's view, it's basically arbitrary. What does "Abomination" and "Defilement" mean to Pegg? I've asked. No answer yet. Maybe we'll get one next post.
During those days there may have been a specific reason why God did not want them to eat certain foods... or use them in worship.
If it was just for "those days" it wouldn't say FOR ALL GENERATIONS. The word "Abomination" means "a horrible horror to be avoided at all costs". In Pegg's view, what is an abomination one day, is not an abomination another? I disagree. However, Pegg has yet to offer her own take on what exactly the Jewish concepts of "Abomination" and "Defilement" are, I've given my explanation, she hasn't yet. Perhaps her lack of explanation has something to do with her answer.
So its not necessarily the sacrifice that pleases God but rather the condition of the heart of the one offering it.
That's right. That's a step in the right direction. Context sure changes things, doesn't it.
I think that shows that sacrifices are a waste of time because it is the heart of mankind that brings us close to God or keeps us far from him....sacrifices do not make our hearts good, nor are they acceptable to God if our heart is not good.
So then, Pegg is saying that the elaborate Sacrificial System that G-d commanded was just a "Waste of time". I wouldn't want anything to do with this god who spends hours describing intricate 'wastes of time" that you aren't supposed to do.
Abel was a good righteous man and that is why his sacrifice was pleasing... But cain had a hard heart and for that, God said to him
More assumptions. The traditional idea is that Cain didn't offer the finest of his fruits while Abel did.
"if you turn to doing good will there not be a reward?"
The sacrifices are unable to bring us closer to God or redeem us in any way for the sins of our hearts.
So then, Pegg is in de facto calling God a liar, hasn't read Leviticus, or both.
So if you think the sacrifices should remain along with the mosaic law, why are no sacrifices offered today?
There is no temple. Thus, we are in a similar situation as in the Babylonian Exiles. However, as I've said on numerous threads, which is rarely if ever answered for some reason, the book of Zechariah and Ezekiel squarely plain out say there will be sacrifices again in the end days. Thus, Pegg will have to come up with some kind of "metaphorical" meaning for those passages.
If God needed those sacrifices, surely he would still have a means for Isreal to offer them? But why not??
It says they will be there in the end days. Until then, I believe it has something to do with the Moshiach serving as a temporary Guilt offering as outlined in Isaiah 53.
justice. The only way to make an unjust situation just in the law of Moses, was to repay like for like.
That's still how it is.
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life'
Those harsh penalties under the mosaic law are to teach us how the scales of justice are balanced.
Exactly.
Adam lost perfect human life for every one of us, Jesus was sent to repay what Adam had lost. Jesus gave his life in exchange for Adams. Thus the scales of divine justice are balanced out.
Okay, and?
firstly, think about the laws found in the nations around Isreal who did not have the mosaic law. There are similar laws to be found in those ancient nations and even modern tribes people have laws against rape, murder, violence etc
Your point?
Paul spoke of the inner conscience intune with Gods laws:
Romans 2;14 For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused
Relevance?
