Try addressing what I'm actually posting instead of ignoring it, and posting misleading nonsense.
I pointed to the actual context which indicates that Lot's daughters were not raped. Go ahead and look at it yourself. Just because Lot thinks this is a good idea doesn't mean the bible is condoning it. You need to learn the difference between what the bible describes and what the bible prescribes.
No interpretation is necessary when the fact remains that the bible isn't condoning the rape of women, nor are Lot's daughters ever raped.
Look at what Peter said to Cornelius' household: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28
There's Peter's interpretation. Show us all where the bible rejects Peter's interpretation.
No, they didn't. Peter pointed out to Christ that he had never eaten anything unclean, and then while he's scratching his head wondering what this vision should mean, he hears a knock on his door. Coincidence? NOPE. He knows Christ isn't telling him to eat garbage, and by the time he gets to Cornelius' home, he understand the meaning of his vision.
By definition, a Symbol is a substitution, and cannot represent itself. Therefore God is not condoning the annulment of the dietary laws. If you can come up with ANY examples where this isn't the case, go for it.
You aren't spelling anything out. You're ignoring the actual interpretation presented in scripture.
And swine, shellfish, etc. are not considered food to begin with. Nowhere does the bible refer any of that garbage as food. In fact, the only time the bible refers to food as unclean is when the food is going bad. When food rots, or it is not slaughtered correctly, then it is considered unclean or unfit for human consumption. Swine, shellfish, etc. are unclean "ANIMALS".
You're deflecting completely from the facts presented for your own edification.
I've not only addressed your points, but refuted them as well. Obviously you have no intention of addressing that fact, or you would have by now. I've just taken each of your points, and refuted them AGAIN.