Genesis 1: 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Mankind and the animals were to eat fruits and seeds.
vs.
Genesis 9:
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
God now gives the animals for food.
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
God gave mankind animals to eat -- Genesis 9:3 -- but in Genesis 7 there is a distinction between clean and unclean animals.
Were people allowed to eat "unclean" animals in Noah's day?
Did "unclean" mean something other than the non-kosher foods forbidden the Israelites?
Thanks.
Genesis 9:3 vs Genesis 7:2
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
Re: Genesis 9:3 vs Genesis 7:2
I found an answer by a Jewish friend of mine.
The clean/unclean distinction in Genesis most likely had to do with offerings (see Genesis 8:20). Later it had to do with dietary Law, and offerings.
The clean/unclean distinction in Genesis most likely had to do with offerings (see Genesis 8:20). Later it had to do with dietary Law, and offerings.
Re: Genesis 9:3 vs Genesis 7:2
If we accept the four source theory to how the first five books of the Bible were created then the unclean animal addition in Genesis 7:2 can be seen as part of the editorial work of the Priestly writer.
The Priestly writer was interested in ritual purity and the idea of clean and unclean animals would be second nature to him. Genesis 8:20 again could be down to his editorial work and therefore doesn’t add to the debate.
However Genesis 9:4 could be more interesting – “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is interpreted by John Vujicic (http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss/ge ... -4-jv.html) as all animals you shall not eat contrary to verse 3!
The whole section 9:1-17 is part of the Priestly source, however if verse 3 allows meat to be eaten then verse 4 has been interpreted to mean the same as Leviticus 3:17c “that you eat neither fat nor blood” which is part of the food laws of Moses.
Even if Noah was an historical person it is likely that if he had eaten meat he wouldn’t have been concerned about unclean food, and would have eaten any animals he could get hold of. The concern about what you can eat was added to the Noah traditions by the Priestly writer.
The Priestly writer was interested in ritual purity and the idea of clean and unclean animals would be second nature to him. Genesis 8:20 again could be down to his editorial work and therefore doesn’t add to the debate.
However Genesis 9:4 could be more interesting – “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is interpreted by John Vujicic (http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss/ge ... -4-jv.html) as all animals you shall not eat contrary to verse 3!
The whole section 9:1-17 is part of the Priestly source, however if verse 3 allows meat to be eaten then verse 4 has been interpreted to mean the same as Leviticus 3:17c “that you eat neither fat nor blood” which is part of the food laws of Moses.
Even if Noah was an historical person it is likely that if he had eaten meat he wouldn’t have been concerned about unclean food, and would have eaten any animals he could get hold of. The concern about what you can eat was added to the Noah traditions by the Priestly writer.
Romans 1:3-4 "concerning His Son, who was became of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,"
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
Re: Genesis 9:3 vs Genesis 7:2
I read the article. It looks like it comes from an animal rights site:Amalric wrote:If we accept the four source theory to how the first five books of the Bible were created then the unclean animal addition in Genesis 7:2 can be seen as part of the editorial work of the Priestly writer.
The Priestly writer was interested in ritual purity and the idea of clean and unclean animals would be second nature to him. Genesis 8:20 again could be down to his editorial work and therefore doesn’t add to the debate.
However Genesis 9:4 could be more interesting – “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is interpreted by John Vujicic (http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss/ge ... -4-jv.html) as all animals you shall not eat contrary to verse 3!
The whole section 9:1-17 is part of the Priestly source, however if verse 3 allows meat to be eaten then verse 4 has been interpreted to mean the same as Leviticus 3:17c “that you eat neither fat nor blood” which is part of the food laws of Moses.
Even if Noah was an historical person it is likely that if he had eaten meat he wouldn’t have been concerned about unclean food, and would have eaten any animals he could get hold of. The concern about what you can eat was added to the Noah traditions by the Priestly writer.
Our Philosophy:
All of God's creatures have rights, a fact that most people don't seem to recognize. This includes both human and non-human animals, but not all of them can speak for themselves. There are many organizations that speak for humans, but there are few with any power that speak for the animals; most are small "grass-roots" operations. This page and the associated links are presented to assist these "grass-roots" organizations, but most of all to help the animals, to stop their pain and suffering, and give them peace, the same peace we desire.
He did make one point though:
It is most absurd to believe that God told Noah to kill and eat any animal that came out of the Ark when we know that there were only a pair of each specie – a male and female - and that they were spared from the Flood in order to be able to propagate their species. Imagine if Noah wanted to kill a pig and roast it on fire. That would have been the end of the swine specie. The same is true of host of other species. God could not have told Noah to kill and eat any animal that came forth from the Ark since that would have defeated God’s purpose of saving them in order to repopulate the Earth.
I will have to check the following out with a Jew who knows Hebrew:
The Hebrew word translated in the KJV “moving things” or “animals” in the Good News Bible is actually “remes” which most certainly refers to “reptiles.”
I use the Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi's comments. He seemed to disagree with John Vujicic.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi/true
As to the four source theory, this could explain how Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. He didn't.
Thank you.