Peter's Vision

[justbyfaith]

1Ti 4:4, For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5, For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6, If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Keep up the good work everyone.

 

[HARK!]

Greetings, HARK.

With all due respect, I would call this exegesis "straining at a gnat." The LXX reads here, καὶ πᾶν ἑρπετόν, with the primary definition of ἑρπετόν being "every beast or animal that goes on all fours" (Liddell-Scott, P.691). If the translators of the Septuagint were using ἑρπετόν here, that would be a good indication that the intended meaning of רֶמֶשׂ was in reference to beasts of the field, would it not?

(CLV) Lv 11:21
Only this one you may eat of every swarmer of the flyers, the one going on all fours which has shanks above its feet to hop with them on the land.

(CLV) Lv 11:22
These of them may you eat: the locust, all of its kind, the bald locust, all of its kind, the cricket, all of its kind, and the grasshopper, all of its kind.

(CLV) Isa 28:10
For instruction is added to instruction, Instruction to instruction, principle to principle, Principle to principle, a bit here, a bit there.

 

[HARK!]

By the way – ALL of the following Bibles and Biblical commentaries ALSO agree with Strong’s and Vine’s.
But – I’m sure you’ll find issues with ALL of them as well . . .

Benson Commentary
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Geneva Study Bible
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Yep; but once you get outside of the biased religious sources; and look at secular lexicography, of the every day spoken language; then all of a sudden there is harmony in the scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yep; but once you get outside of the biased religious sources; and look at secular lexicography, of the every day spoken language; then all of a sudden there is harmony in the scripture.

Yup - every Hebrew scholar in the world is "wrong" - unless they agree with YOU.

That's the epitome of a man defeated . . .

 

[HARK!]

1Ti 4:4, For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

YHWH outlined those creatures in Leviticus.

 

[HARK!]

Yup - every Hebrew scholar in the world is "wrong"

Are biased indoctrinated zealots considered scholars? If so; by whom? Why do you reject those who speak Hebrew as a first language?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Are biased indoctrinated zealots considered scholars? If so; by whom? Why do you reject those who speak Hebrew as a first language?

Okay - I'll play your game.

I went to "Ask the Rabbi" at aish.com - the "leading Jewish content website".
THIS is what he had to say about Genesis 9:3 . . .

(1) The animals survived the flood only because of Noah’s efforts. Since they owed their lives to him, Noah and his descendants had gained rights over them – including the right to consume them (Ramban (1:29), R. Bechaye, Bechor Shor, Chizkuni, Ohr HaChaim, Malbim). Further, Noah and his family exerted great effort to keep the animals alive on the ark. He also offered sacrifices to God after the Flood – evoking a guarantee from God that He would never again destroy the Earth and its animal life. Thus, Noah and his descendants earned the right to use animals for their needs (Ohr HaChaim).

Ummmm, is he ALSO wrong??

 

[Hidden In Him]

(CLV) Lv 11:21
Only this one you may eat of every swarmer of the flyers, the one going on all fours which has shanks above its feet to hop with them on the land.

(CLV) Lv 11:22
These of them may you eat: the locust, all of its kind, the bald locust, all of its kind, the cricket, all of its kind, and the grasshopper, all of its kind.

Yes, some insects go on all fours. The point is that it is not only insects that walk on all fours. The beasts of the field also do, and this is the translation used in the LXX which you are retranslating to refer only to insects. You are limiting the word down to too narrow a definition.

 

[HARK!]

Yes, some insects go on all fours. The point is that it is not only insects that walk on all fours. The beasts of the field also do, and this is the translation used in the LXX which you are retranslating to refer only to insects. You are limiting the word down to too narrow a definition.

The word from Genesis, in Hebrew, is insect. The verses from Leviticus are in harmony with Genesis, when the Hebrew definition of the word is used. The Genesis verse is also in harmony with the rest of the the Torah, when the Hebrew definition is applied.

I began to study this because the scripture, as translated, didn't line up with itself. A quick look at the definitions from an objective source, brought harmony to the scripture.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The word from Genesis, in Hebrew, is insect. The verses from Leviticus are in harmony with Genesis, when the Hebrew definition of the word is used. The Genesis verse is also in harmony with the rest of the the Torah, when the Hebrew definition is applied.

I began to study this because the scripture, as translated, didn't line up with itself. A quick look at the definitions from an objective source, brought harmony to the scripture.

Have you done a comparative study of the LXX and the Masoretic on uses of the word? The LXX virtually without exception translates it using ἑρπετόν, which as I've stated carries a primary meaning of "beasts or animals that go on all fours."

How do you feel about the Septuagint. Do you regard it as inspired, or no?

 

[Hidden In Him]

The word from Genesis, in Hebrew, is insect.

I've done some checking, and the Hebrew Lexicons I possess don't limit the definition down so far. The BDB, citing Genesis 9:3, has "all animals," and also cites Psalm 104:25 as referring to "sea creatures." The TWOT meanwhile lists רֶמֶשׂ as referring to "small animals, such as rodents," also "snakes," and in other places "reptiles," which suggests the term in general referred to all smaller "scavenger species." (TWOT, V.2, P.850-851).

The LXX Greek equivalent ἑρπετόν is likewise used specifically in reference to snakes, and to hounds. I would have to dig deeper for additional specific references.

 

[HARK!]

How do you feel about the Septuagint. Do you regard it as inspired, or no?

Inspired is a loaded word. I've written secular poems that were inspired. What is the real question?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Inspired is a loaded word. I've written secular poems that were inspired. What is the real question?

Scripture.

But I've kinda moved past that already. What was your response to Post #71?

 

[HARK!]

But I've kinda moved past that already. What was your response to Post #71?

I've seen a definition of reptiles; but that definition is not in harmony with scripture.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I've seen a definition of reptiles; but that definition is not in harmony with scripture.

But I cited for you the works I quoted from, including Liddell-Scott, BDB, and the TWOT.

Your response seems to suggest you don't honor those as credible sources. Or are you simply saying you haven't seen them yourself personally yet?

 

[HARK!]

But I cited for you the works I quoted from, including Liddell-Scott, BDB, and the TWOT.

Your response seems to suggest you don't honor those as credible sources. Or are you simply saying you haven't seen them yourself personally yet?

I don't want to dismiss their overall credibility; but are they being completely objective in this case? Are they following tradition in order to pacify their customers; or are they casting caution to the wind and going with the empirical evidence? How did they reach their conclusions? Scholarship often just regurgitates what the previous scholars presented. If they were incorrect in their presentation then anyone who questions their flat earth assertion is denounced as uneducated.The fact of the matter is that they are handicapped; in that they first need to break free of their indoctrination, in order to be capable of making an objective investigation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Luk 11:41, But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

Rom 14:14, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

The rendering in Genesis 9:3 as "every living moving thing" is not inconsistent with the rest of holy scripture.

 

[HARK!]

Luk 11:41, But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

He's not talking about food here either. Context is key.

Nowhere has YHWH ever said that it was OK to eat Kevin Bacon.

 

[HARK!]

Rom 14:14, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Paul is talking about the distinction between those who eat clean meats, and vegetarians here. Paul is not telling you that it's OK to break Torah. Paul is not a heretic.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I don't want to dismiss their overall credibility; but are they being completely objective in this case? Are they following tradition in order to pacify their customers; or are they casting caution to the wind and going with the empirical evidence?

I don't think they are invested either way. They most certainly don't know about your position so as to oppose it. Your's a unique one, for starters, and the works I cited are decades old. And yes, they are going primarily on empirical evidence. That's their job, particularly in the case of Liddell-Scott. They are not deliberately excluding any meanings. They are providing the full range of meanings in Greek literature so that an overall definition of the word(s) can be arrived at.

If they were incorrect in their presentation then anyone who questions their flat earth assertion is denounced as uneducated. The fact of the matter is that they are handicapped; in that they first need to break free of their indoctrination, in order to be capable of making an objective investigation.

Where is this coming from?