'Its Blood You Must Not Eat'--Not Jus...

'Its Blood You Must Not Eat'--Not Just For Slaughtered Animals

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 43
Next Last

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#1 Dec 1, 2012
In reading over Genesis 9:3,4 I finally figured out why Marvin is having such trouble understanding it. He is trying to apply verse 4 ONLY with the permitted food of verse 3. But a closer reading demonstrates that his reasoning is in error. Let examine it closely once again.

Genesis 9:3,4 reads: "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."

But often we write it like this to connect the animal blood that cannot be eaten with the animal flesh that can be eaten: "3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU.... 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."

Notice the permission to use vegetation as food is left out when we write it like this. Not that there is anything wrong with doing this but apparently it has led to Marvin getting confused about exactly what Noah was told and what was NOT permitted as food.

Noah was told he could eat two types of food: "every moving animal that is alive" and "green vegetation: But notice that the green vegetation is thrown in there between the permitted animal flesh and the forbidden animal flesh with blood. Why is this significant?

It is significant because it is actually starting another train of thought if you will. Otherwise Noah would have been told "3 As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat." But its not written like that at all.

What does this indicate? This:

First Noah is told what he is permitted to eat:

1. animals that are alive that can be killed
2. vegetation

Next Noah is told what is not permitted to eat

1. animal flesh with blood

He is NOT told that this applies ONLY to the animals that are alive that he can kill. He is told this of ALL animal flesh. The scripture doesn't even continue the train of thought about slaughtering live animals but is interrupted by the statement that vegetation is permissible.

"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat." thus applies to all animal flesh. We have no reason to think otherwise.

This is why the Mosaic Law forbid God's holy nation of people from eating unbled animal flesh whether killed by man, torn to pieces by wild beasts, or that died of themselves. And this is why the apostles said to abstain from blood and things strangled or unbled animal flesh.

The Noachian Decree, the Mosaic Law, and the Apostolic Decree are all in agreement about abstaining from blood and unbled animal flesh of every sort.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#2 Dec 1, 2012
-

From post 1[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
In reading over Genesis 9:3,4 I finally figured out why Marvin is having such trouble understanding it. He is trying to apply verse 4 ONLY with the permitted food of verse 3. But a closer reading demonstrates that his reasoning is in error. Let examine it closely once again.
…
What does this indicate? This:
First Noah is told what he is permitted to eat:
1. animals that are alive that can be killed
2. vegetation
Next Noah is told what is not permitted to eat
1. animal flesh with blood
He is NOT told that this applies ONLY to the animals that are alive that he can kill. He is told this of ALL animal flesh. The scripture doesn't even continue the train of thought about slaughtering live animals but is interrupted by the statement that vegetation is permissible.


Thirdwitness,

Thanks for sharing that “closer reading” with everyone. It’s telling. Very, VERY telling.

Since it apparently escaped your notice,

Verse 4 reads:“Only flesh with its LIFE—its blood—you must not eat.”—(NWT ftn)

Guess what, Thirdwitness?...

LIFE speaks to animals that are ALIVE and BREATHING. Right?

If that’s not sure evidence that verse 4 is speaking to LIVING and BREATHING animals that would have to be KILLED in order to eat their flesh then I’ll eat my hat.

May hat’s in my hand. What say you, Thirdwitness?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 1: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#3 Dec 1, 2012
In case it escaped your notice all animals were alive before they died. Try again. You can do better than that. Even I have a better argument for you than that.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#4 Dec 1, 2012
-

From post 3[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
In case it escaped your notice all animals were alive before they died. Try again. You can do better than that. Even I have a better argument for you than that.


When speaking to what the Noachian Decree to abstain from blood literally speaks to Watchtower admits it’s said of KILLING animals for food.

Do you DISAGRE or AGREE with what Watchtower teaches on this point?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 3: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#5 Dec 1, 2012
-

More from post 3[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
In case it escaped your notice all animals were alive before they died. Try again. You can do better than that. Even I have a better argument for you than that.


If verse 4 is NOT SAID of verse 3 then verse 3 asserts a very, very brutal notion.

Verse 3 says:“Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you”.

If verse 4 is NOT SAID of the living and breathing animals of verse 3 then the living and breathing animals of verse 3 can have their flesh eaten without being killed first because verse 3 tells Noah LIVING animals MAY serve as food.

Your “closer reading” is so very telling of what Watchtower’s influence has done to you.

Are you sure you don’t want to AGREE with Watchtower on this point, that when speaking to what the Noachian Decree to abstain from blood literally speaks to it’s said of KILLING animals for food?

Or, are you going to insist on DISAGREEING with Watchtower on this finer point?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 3: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#6 Dec 1, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
More from post 3[1]:
<quoted text>
If verse 4 is NOT SAID of verse 3 then verse 3 asserts a very, very brutal notion.
Verse 3 says:“Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you”.
If verse 4 is NOT SAID of the living and breathing animals of verse 3 then the living and breathing animals of verse 3 can have their flesh eaten without being killed first because verse 3 tells Noah LIVING animals MAY serve as food.
1. Living animals have blood in them which is not to be eaten.

2. Verse 4 is said of the flesh of all animals, living and dead, thus living animals are included.

Try again.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#7 Dec 1, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
From post 3[1]:
<quoted text>
When speaking to what the Noachian Decree to abstain from blood literally speaks to Watchtower admits it’s said of KILLING animals for food.
Do you DISAGRE or AGREE with what Watchtower teaches on this point?
Agree. It is most definitely said of killing animals. It is also said of animals that have been killed or died.

Thus the command to abstain from things unbled/strangled because they have been torn by wild beasts, died of themselves, or slaughtered by men with their blood left in them.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#8 Dec 1, 2012
"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."

If we take the Genesis account of the decree literally then the text of Genesis 9:3,4 represents permission from God for Noah to eat ALL OR EVERY SORT OF FOOD including dead animal flesh if he wanted or needed to, with one exception of course namely he could not eat the blood or flesh with blood.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#9 Dec 1, 2012
Genesis 9:3: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you EVERYTHING."--RSV.

If we take the Genesis account of the decree literally then the text of Genesis 9:3,4 represents permission from God for Noah to eat EVERYTHING OR EVERY SORT OF FOOD since creation including dead animal flesh if he wanted or needed to, with one exception of course namely he could not eat the blood or flesh with blood.

“I luv Jesus ”

Since: Oct 12

Blessed city

#10 Dec 1, 2012
every moving animals that is alive can be eaten?

eat rats,snakes,croc, weird animals?.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#11 Dec 2, 2012
Thus the scripture shows us two specific items that Noah is permitted to use as food. Additionally it is said to Noah that all food items or everything that is eaten 'since creation' is given to him as food which includes all animal flesh. What Noah cannot eat is the blood or the flesh with blood.

The command does not apply ONLY to animals he kills and the scripture does not say that at all.
diogenes

United States

#12 Dec 2, 2012
Does this include donor blood?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#13 Dec 2, 2012
-

More from post 1[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
He is NOT told that this applies ONLY to the animals that are alive that he can kill. He is told this of ALL animal flesh.


That conclusion is what you want readers to believe. Right?

Yet other than your speculation you’ve produced zero evidence supporting that view of Genesis 9:4.

You’ve admitted verse 4 addresses the living and breathing animals of verse 3. In fact, verse 4 is so important to verse 3 that aside from verse 4 Noah had express permission to eat flesh of animals without killing them first.

So how to you attempt to avoid this problem? You write[2]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
1. Living animals have blood in them which is not to be eaten.


Well, of course living animals have blood in them. But guess what? You can bleed flesh removed from a living animals just as well as you can bleed flesh removed from an animal you’ve killed.

Hence your response does not remove the utter necessity of verse 4 to be speaking to not just the blood of the living animals of verse 3 but equally to the life of the living animals of verse 3.

If everything in verse 4 does not apply to the living and breathing animals of verse 3 then the text of verse 3 gave express permission to Noah to eat flesh of living animals without killing them. It’s a very barbaric practice, and your reading would give express permission for it.

So how do you attempt to avoid this problem? You write[2]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
Verse 4 is said of the flesh of all animals, living and dead, thus living animals are included.
With that statement you’re right back to your original speculation. Yet you’ve offered it as premise of that original speculation. That makes your entire argument one big circle.

Circular reasoning is fallacious.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 1: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 6: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#14 Dec 2, 2012
-

From posts 7 and 8[1-2]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
Agree. It is most definitely said of killing animals. It is also said of animals that have been killed or died.
.
Thus the command to abstain from things unbled/strangled because they have been torn by wild beasts, died of themselves, or slaughtered by men with their blood left in them.
That’s another instance of your circular argument. As evidence in support of your conclusion your using what the conclusion says.

The conclusion you’re attempting to prove is:“He is NOT told that this applies ONLY to the animals that are alive that he can kill. He is told this of ALL animal flesh.”[3]

Here the premise you assert in support of that conclusion is:“Thus the command to abstain from things unbled/strangled because they have been torn by wild beasts, died of themselves, or slaughtered by men with their blood left in them.”[1]

Your premise and your conclusion are saying the exact same thing using other words.

Your argument is circular.

Circular reasoning is fallacious.
Thirdwitness wrote:
If we take the Genesis account of the decree literally then the text of Genesis 9:3,4 represents permission from God for Noah to eat ALL OR EVERY SORT OF FOOD including dead animal flesh if he wanted or needed to, with one exception of course namely he could not eat the blood or flesh with blood.


This is the same circular reasoning because it asserts the conclusion you want readers to believe as premise in support of that very same conclusion.

Moreover, if we accept what you write this time around saying “…ONE EXCEPTION of course namely he could not eat the blood or flesh with blood” then verse 3 represents express permission for Noah to eat flesh of living animals without killing those animals first, that is so long as he BLEEDS the flesh he barbarically removes from living animals to eat that piece of flesh.

There’s no way around it for you. If EVERYTHING said in verse 4 is not said of the living and breathing animals of verse 3 then you’re left with an insurmountable conundrum. This leaves you with ONLY your SPECULATION that verse 4 says anything whatsoever of animal flesh that is outside the specified food of living and breathing animals. Your speculation presumes God took time to specify living and breathing animals as a food source and did not take time to specify naturally occurring dead carcass flesh.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 7: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 8: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

3. Post 1: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#15 Dec 2, 2012
A lot of ramblings that say nothing because I have not said that verse 4 is not applicable to animals Noah kills. It most definitely is. It is applicable to everything Noah would eat.

Consider

Leviticus 17:14. the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood

This is not a law in the mosaic law. This is God's view.

If the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood is the soul of an animal that died of itself its blood?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#16 Dec 2, 2012
-

From post 15[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
A lot of ramblings that say nothing because I have not said that verse 4 is not applicable to animals Noah kills. It most definitely is. It is applicable to everything Noah would eat.
1. That verse 4 is applies to the living and breathing animals of verse 3 is agreed upon.

2. It’s that last statement of yours that “[Verse 4] is applicable to everything Noah would eat” requires proof.

3. It’s that last statement of yours that “[Verse 4] is applicable to everything Noah would eat” that you’ve asserted as BOTH your conclusion AND premise in support of that same conclusion, which makes your argument circular.[2-3]
Thirdwitness wrote:
Consider
.
Leviticus 17:14. the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood
.
This is not a law in the mosaic law. This is God's view.
.
If the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood is the soul of an animal that died of itself its blood?
Last I checked the biblical book of Leviticus was part of the Mosaic Law.

Regardless…

The “SOUL of every sort of flesh” in the text you cite is said of animals that are CAUGHT, which means it’s said of LIVING SOULS.—(Lev 17:13)

The text you cite is not said specifically of animal carrion flesh dead of natural cause.

Specifically of animal carrion flesh dead of natural cause Leviticus 17 says,“As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.”—(verse 15)

Leviticus 17:15 speaks directly to animal carrion dead of natural cause and it does not suggest blood of this flesh as representative of a soul that NO LONGER EXISTS hence cannot be taken by killing.

As it turns out, Leviticus 17:14 undermines your argument here because it literally says “the soul of every sort of flesh IS its blood” BY ITS SOUL. Guess what? Animal carrion flesh is NOT SOUL.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 15: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 13: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

3. Post 14: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#17 Dec 2, 2012
"the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood"

Last I checked dead flesh is a sort of flesh and

I do not see where God gave an exception to "flesh with ... its blood you must not eat"

The onus is on you to prove that the scriptures do not say exactly what the scriptures say.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#18 Dec 2, 2012
Genesis 9:3: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you EVERYTHING."--RSV.

If we take the Genesis account of the decree literally then the text of Genesis 9:3,4 represents permission from God for Noah to eat EVERYTHING OR EVERY SORT OF FOOD since creation including dead animal flesh if he wanted or needed to, with one exception of course namely he could not eat the blood or flesh with blood.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#19 Dec 2, 2012
-

From post 17[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
"the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood"
.
Last I checked dead flesh is a sort of flesh and
.
I do not see where God gave an exception to "flesh with ... its blood you must not eat"
.
The onus is on you to prove that the scriptures do not say exactly what the scriptures say.


If we rip a statement from its accompanying context we can make it say something it would not suggest in accompaniment with that context.

In this case you’re asking readers to accept the statement you quote above completely aside from the context it accompanies as evidence. What kind of evidence must be accepted out of context to support a claim? Poor evidence.

Regardless,

Verse 14 begins with:“For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it.”

“…because every creature's blood is its soul,…”—(BLE, published by Watchtower, 1972)

“…because the life of every creature is its blood.”—(NIV)

1. As rendered in Watchtower’s NWT verse 14 begins with the conjunction “For”. This conjunction requires what follows to express THE REASON for WHY what is said in verse 13. Verse 13 speaks to LIVING and BREATHING critters and NOT carrion meat found dead of natural cause.

2. Alternate translations, including one copyrighted and published by Watchtower, makes the conjunction even more apparent by use of the term “creature” or “creature’s.” A creature is a LIVING SOUL and not carrion dead of natural cause. Watchtower teaches this. Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with this Watchtower’s teaching?

So far you’ve not evidence your claim of Genesis 9:4 beyond your own circular assertions.[2-3]

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 17: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 13: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

3. Post 14: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#20 Dec 2, 2012
Of course, all creatures are living souls until they die and "the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood".

Noah was told concerning his food "flesh with ... its blood you must not eat."

That's really simple to understand, don't you think?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 43
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do Christendom make Jesus name sounds so di... 1 hr rsss1 564
Another earthquake in Mexico 2 hr EL C - GSB 1
Trinity...why does it matter?! 2 hr rsss1 1,846
Would Jehovah take me back? 2 hr Honey Bee 447
Speaking out of both sides of their mouth 2 hr NorthPeace 1
What MUST I do to be saved? 3 hr Alank 36
Another REASON why the NWT is the best Bible ever! 3 hr Super Glue 13
If Jesus is NOT Your Mediator, How Can you Pray... 14 hr rsss1 561
More from around the web