Vegetarians Before the Flood

[Stan B]

Look it up in the original Hebrew. It reads "skin" not "skins." I just checked it out again in the original Hebrew. You can believe what you want, but I know what the original says.

I don't see the point in your argument. I just checked 50 different translations, and 35 of them have translated the word as skins. I am satisfied that these translators probably have a better grasp of Hebrew than you.

 

[Enow]

I don't see the point in your argument. I just checked 50 different translations, and 35 of them have translated the word as skins. I am satisfied that these translators probably have a better grasp of Hebrew than you.

Thanks for sharing, brother.

 

[Stan B]

What kind of sacrifice did Abel offer?

Abel kept flocks, but species he brought is not identified. He probably had sheep, cattle, etc. which he raised for food.

It is important to note that for the sacrifice, he brought the fat portions:
Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering;
Gen 4:4 which is the traditional sacrifice, the fat, entrails, kidneys and liver. The remainder of the animal was kept for consumption, as revealed in the practice of the Levites.

"Then Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood on all sides of the altar. And from his offering he shall present an offering made by fire to the LORD: the fat surrounding the entrails, all the fat that is on them, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the lobe of the liver, which he is to remove with the kidneys.…Lev 3:13-16

Another important observation from Genesis, is that the first animals were slaughtered as a result of sin. So God provided an atonement [a covering] for Adam and Eve via the shedding of blood, and the skins were used to provide the covering.

 

[bbyrd009]

from Esau's pov, maybe, ya

contemplate Abel as a shepherd of people, maybe

and note no animals were slaughtered in Genesis, per se

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't see the point in your argument. I just checked 50 different translations, and 35 of them have translated the word as skins. I am satisfied that these translators probably have a better grasp of Hebrew than you.

hey Stan, I’m mobile right now; how did the other 15 xlate it? ty
Strong's Hebrew: 5785. עוֹר (or) -- a skin

 

[Stan B]

hey Stan, I’m mobile right now; how did the other 15 xlate it? ty
Strong's Hebrew: 5785. עוֹר (or) -- a skin

Most of the remainder said skin. There is some oddball stuff like God made them leather clothes.

 

[bbyrd009]

Most of the remainder said skin. There is some oddball stuff like God made them leather clothes.

well i guess the orig term does not xlate exactly? Im noticing even "body" in...Job, i think it was

 

[Enow]

Abel kept flocks, but species he brought is not identified. He probably had sheep, cattle, etc. which he raised for food.

More like for fleecing to have wool or to have skins to make clothes or for using as means for farming and hauling etc. and even milk from goats and cows The animals for consumption for meat as food was not applied until after the flood.

It is important to note that for the sacrifice, he brought the fat portions:
Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering;
Gen 4:4 which is the traditional sacrifice, the fat, entrails, kidneys and liver. The remainder of the animal was kept for consumption, as revealed in the practice of the Levites.

"Then Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood on all sides of the altar. And from his offering he shall present an offering made by fire to the LORD: the fat surrounding the entrails, all the fat that is on them, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the lobe of the liver, which he is to remove with the kidneys.…Lev 3:13-16

Yes, the Levites did that as instructed, but as they were allowed to eat, Abel was not since his murder was before the global flood.

Genesis 9:1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

It is important to note that when mankind was allowed to eat, they were given instructions of what was forbidden to eat. So it is reasonable to me that Abel did not eat of the offering to the Lord but just offered a burnt offering for which the smelling of fat burning is sweet savour to the Lord when you cross reference Noah's offering with Abel's.

Course, with Noah's offering as it was after the flood, he and his family would be allowed to eat meat then per those instructions what what not to do because they have not eaten meat of animals before.

Another important observation from Genesis, is that the first animals were slaughtered as a result of sin. So God provided an atonement [a covering] for Adam and Eve via the shedding of blood, and the skins were used to provide the covering.

Good observation. So like the offering of the Son that puts His robe of righteousness on us. Amen.

 

[Enow]

well i guess the orig term does not xlate exactly? Im noticing even "body" in...Job, i think it was

I believe God set the example for where mankind was to get their coverings for their nakedness from. Since we know they take it from animals all down through out history when living in the wild, not sure how you can say there is no connection there that the skins came from animals to infer that in His words.

 

[Giuliano]

I don't see the point in your argument. I just checked 50 different translations, and 35 of them have translated the word as skins. I am satisfied that these translators probably have a better grasp of Hebrew than you.

Translations often follow past translations. It can be the blind following the blind. I am not an expert at Hebrew; but I can tell the difference between singular and plural. Look up the original Hebrew for yourself. If it was plural, it would have be plural in Hebrew. The matter is not in dispute, really. It's singular. If you want to believe it's plural because so many translators thought it must be, you can.

Many translations also mangle "side" in Genesis, rendering it as "rib" giving rise to the idea that Eve was formed out of one of Adam's ribs. Ha. If you fall for that idea, you will never notice how the "feminine" church is formed from the "side" of Jesus on the cross when blood and water came out.

It may interest some people that "skin" in Hebrew is almost the same word as "light." We have the link to "skin" from bbyrd00 already. Here is the link to "light": Strong's Hebrew: 215. אוֹר (or) -- to be or become light They are so similar, they seem to pronounced the same although spelled differently.

Is anyone catching my drift about Adam and Eve being originally clothed in light -- specifically white light? Does anyone connect this with how the saints are supposed to be "clothed" later in "white garments" or how sin soils those white garments? Ha, Adam and Eve may have been naked if you look at the physical side of things, but were they naked in spiritual terms.

Ecclesiastes 9:8 Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.

Revelation 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

People say they believe Adam and Eve walked with God -- so were they "in white" then? Had God "clothed" them the way He wanted them to be, the way He can clothe us?

Luke 12:27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

There seems to be something of a pun in Genesis: They lost their garments of "light" but then God gave them other garments of "skin."

 

[Giuliano]

I believe God set the example for where mankind was to get their coverings for their nakedness from. Since we know they take it from animals all down through out history when living in the wild, not sure how you can say there is no connection there that the skins came from animals to infer that in His words.

I would say there is a problem if you have to alter the original Hebrew text to make it plural in order to fit your belief system.

 

[Giuliano]

I believe God set the example for where mankind was to get their coverings for their nakedness from. Since we know they take it from animals all down through out history when living in the wild, not sure how you can say there is no connection there that the skins came from animals to infer that in His words.

Why worry so much about physical clothes? What kind of "skin" are we all in? Can it inherit eternal life? Or do we need a "new kind of skin"? Was it possible that Adam and Eve originally had the proper kind of "skin" and not the wrong kind?

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

 

[Stan B]

Enow says>>"Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

That merely states that meat can be eaten, as long as the blood is first drained.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make, Nowhere does the Bible ever say you can't eat meat, and you haven't provided a single phrase from Genesis that states otherwise. The only proof you have provided comes from a total silence, which is the classic Argumentum ex silentio ["argument from silence"] is a type of logical fallacy. An argument from silence attempts to demonstrate something as true in the absence of evidence, or more specifically, because of the lack of evidence. This a classic flawed approach to Scripture.

 

[Enow]

I would say there is a problem if you have to alter the original Hebrew text to make it plural in order to fit your belief system.

Not when there is nothing to limit that translation from being plural. It still all goes to how it is applied in the verse in the message of the context given.

 

[Enoch111]

Was it possible that Adam and Eve originally had the proper kind of "skin" and not the wrong kind?

Looks like people are making a mountain out of a molehill. While the Hebrew is singular for skin, idiomatically it would be skins for two individuals, meant to cover their nakedness. Adam and Eve had human skins, just like the rest of us. People have also used animals skins for ages to make clothing.

 

[Enow]

Enow says>>"Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

That merely states that meat can be eaten, as long as the blood is first drained.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make, Nowhere does the Bible ever say you can't eat meat, and you haven't provided a single phrase from Genesis that states otherwise. The only proof you have provided comes from a total silence, which is the classic Argumentum ex silentio ["argument from silence"] is a type of logical fallacy. An argument from silence attempts to demonstrate something as true in the absence of evidence, or more specifically, because of the lack of evidence. This a classic flawed approach to Scripture.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

That is the diet spoken by God during creation week.

Genesis 9:1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

After the flood, was when God declared WHY the dread of man will now appear on the earth from all living things for they will also be meat for them now.

So the change from that diet in creation week to after the flood pretty much tells me that no man nor living thing ate any other for meat other than plant life and herbs for meat. The global flood had changed that diet significantly in scripture.

 

[bbyrd009]

I believe God set the example for where mankind was to get their coverings for their nakedness from. Since we know they take it from animals all down through out history when living in the wild, not sure how you can say there is no connection there that the skins came from animals to infer that in His words.

sure, I understand. My premise there would Be that the Bible is a spiritual book, a book about the spiritual, and while I don’t know I suspect that Yah would have explained Or at least mentioned the killing and the tanning process if in fact that was what had happened.

How is it you did not know that I was not talking about bread?

But don’t get me wrong, my suspicion is that it was written to work both ways; for those who are still Esau, and for those who have become Jacob, Hence the ambiguity

 

[Stan B]

Genesis 1:29
So the change from that diet in creation week to after the flood pretty much tells me that no man nor living thing ate any other for meat other than plant life and herbs for meat. The global flood had changed that diet significantly in scripture.

The Bible says nothing about eating meat during the time of Cain and Abel. So the next place one would look, is the Book of Jasher, which is used in Scripture as an authority:

"Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"--Joshua, 10-13.
"Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."--II Samuel, 1-18

And the Book of Jasher gives us the answer! Yep! He confirms that they ate meat!

18 And Cain approached his brother Abel in anger, and he said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou comest to dwell and bring thy flock to feed in my land?
19 And Abel answered his brother Cain and said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou shalt eat the flesh of my flock and clothe thyself with their wool?
20 And now therefore, put off the wool of my sheep with which thou hast clothed thyself, and recompense me for their fruit and flesh which thou hast eaten, and when thou shalt have done this, I will then go from thy land as thou hast said? Jasher 1:18-20

Moral: Don't argue from silence!

 

[Enow]

sure, I understand. My premise there would Be that the Bible is a spiritual book, a book about the spiritual, and while I don’t know I suspect that Yah would have explained Or at least mentioned the killing and the tanning process if in fact that was what had happened.

How is it you did not know that I was not talking about bread?

But don’t get me wrong, my suspicion is that it was written to work both ways; for those who are still Esau, and for those who have become Jacob, Hence the ambiguity

Thanks for sharing.

Although some scholars mock the Bible for the historical accounts in it, like one of the cities Abram had lived in did not exists until they discovered it later on. ( Forgot which one that was Ur or Haran. Not sure )

Since Jesus confirmed scripture as testifying of Him in the O.T., you may find it is more than just a spiritual book, and maybe one day you will know that the global flood did indeed happen since Jesus warned believers of what is to come by referencing the global flood and Sodom & Gomorrah to be motivated to be ready like in Luke 17th chapter. Peter talked at length in 2 Peter 3rd chapter for believers to endure to the end to escape the fire coming on the earth, and he even referenced the global flood as a historical event for why believers should be ready for a real future calamity.

Thanks again for sharing, brother.

 

[Enow]

The Bible says nothing about eating meat during the time of Cain and Abel.

Right. I did not say they ate meat at all because they lived in the times before the flood. It was after the flood is when the meat from animals was why they dread mankind from that point on.

So the next place one would look, is the Book of Jasher, which is used in Scripture as an authority:

"Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"--Joshua, 10-13.
"Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."--II Samuel, 1-18

And the Book of Jasher gives us the answer! Yep! He confirms that they ate meat!

18 And Cain approached his brother Abel in anger, and he said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou comest to dwell and bring thy flock to feed in my land?
19 And Abel answered his brother Cain and said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou shalt eat the flesh of my flock and clothe thyself with their wool?
20 And now therefore, put off the wool of my sheep with which thou hast clothed thyself, and recompense me for their fruit and flesh which thou hast eaten, and when thou shalt have done this, I will then go from thy land as thou hast said? Jasher 1:18-20

Moral: Don't argue from silence!

Don't argue from unaccepted scripture either. The Book of Jasher is a fraud and here is why at that link in showing how it does not line up with accepted scripture.

Book of Jasher: God’s word or fraudulent?

If you scroll two third down you will see that list of errors.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

That is why the lost books and that Book of Jasher are not considered scripture at all, but a fraud.