by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Fisherman said: "But the person who does something deliberately, whether he is native-born or a foreign resident, is blaspheming Jehovah and must be cut off from among his people..."
"That goes for an Israelite intentionally eating a dead or torn animal"
You must be asserting that Leviticus 17:15 involved a hunter unintentionally eating a dead or torn animal, then? Otherwise you are not making any sense.
Fisherman said :"I do not understand Cofty's point that you are referring to. Explain"
This is from the very first post of this thread. I knew you hadn't read the whole thread..
Food
When an Israelite killed an animal for food he was required to acknowledge that it's life belonged to god. By pouring out it's blood on the ground the life of the animal was symbolically returned to the life-giver.
Sacrifice
The principle behind all of the sacrifices under the Law was vicarious punishment. The penitent was acknowledging that they deserved to die for their sins, but god was willing to accept the life of an animal in his place. The blood that was poured out on the altar represented the life of the sacrificial animal being offered to god.
In both cases blood was only sacred once a life had been taken.
If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with impunity. - Lev.11:38,39. Once an animal has been dead for more than a few minutes it is physically impossible to bleed it, so under these circumstances the Law is giving permission to eat unbled meat.
If an Israelite was to bleed an animal without killing it - as the Maasai do - and take the blood to the altar, the blood would have no sacrificial value for the simple reason that no life had been taken.
This is the important detail that the Watchtower have overlooked.
Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken.
Fisherman - Slow down. It is an important topic, it's not a game. It has already cost countless lives.
By the way, please stop calling me sir.
You have admitted that an Israelite could eat unbled meat of an animal "found already dead". (Lev.11:38,39)
I have provided an answer to how this can be reconciled with the Law, that otherwise prohibited eating blood. My answer is simple, succinct and compatible with every other reference to blood in the entire bible.
Now your challenge is to do the same.
You must be asserting that Leviticus 17:15 involved a hunter unintentionally eating a dead or torn animal, then? Otherwise you are not making any sense.
(Leviticus 17:13-16) 13 “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” 15 If anyone, whether a native or a foreigner, eats an animal found dead or one torn by a wild animal, he must then wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash them and does not bathe himself, he will answer for his error.’”
Verse 15 is not referring to the hunter but to anyone. Since, God's Law prohibited Israel from eating dead or torn animals and since the punishment for deliberately violating God's law is death, the logical conclusion is not deliberately. The verse is not a decree to eat dead animals but a provision in case a dead one was eaten.
Could eat unbled meat of an animal "found already dead"
I have already shown that God's Law prohibited Israel from intentionally violating it (Death) and I have already shown that it was a violation of God's Law for Israel to eat dead or torn animals. What I meant to say was that it was not the same as eating blood and for that reason God could sometimes allow it without demanding death as in the cases shown but it does not mean that they could intentionally violate God's law and eat a dead animal.
I knew you hadn't read the whole thread..
You are wrong. I did. read that.
If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with impunity. - Lev.11:38,39.
I have shown that to be false.
You have shown no such thing.
You have cobbled together bits and pieces of texts and used them out of context to fit a conclusion you arrived at a priori.
An Israelite could eat the unbled flesh of an animal found already dead with impunity.
Lev.11:38,39
If he buried the dead animal he was unclean and if he ate it he was unclean.
Despite all your bluster and out-of-context proof-texting, you have still to explain this.
in both cases blood was only sacred once a life had been taken
(2 Samuel 23:15-17) 15 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 16 At that the three mighty warriors forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but he refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 17 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! Should I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their lives?” So he refused to drink it.. . . (reposted)
Fisherman - Your frenetic proof-texting demonstrates little interest in real conversation.
Let me give you a scenario.
You are an Israelite shepherd. One morning you go out to check your sheep and find that one of them had died during the night. It has fallen over a precipice and broken it's neck. It has been dead for a few hours and bleeding it is not an option. It has not yet been touched by scavengers.
The carcass is only a short distance from dwellings and it is going to be yet another very hot day and it won't be too long before is starts to stink.
What are you going to do?
What are the legal consequences of your decision?
