You have much more homework to do. The Hebrew word translated 'serpent' is not simple, and the context tells us this was not a member of the animal kingdom.The Bible says he is, so therefore it is still on topic.
You have much more homework to do. The Hebrew word translated 'serpent' is not simple, and the context tells us this was not a member of the animal kingdom.The Bible says he is, so therefore it is still on topic.
No, the killing of animals is unlawful, and not the Will of the Father.
The commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." not only prohibits humans from commiting adultery with humans, but it also prohibits bestiality. So, in like manner, the commandment: " Thou shalt not kill." not only prohibits the killing of humans, but it also prohibits the killing of animals. The commandments are not just talking about humans. That is why both bestiality and the killing of animals are unlawful.
-The killing of an ox is equated to murder, both are abominations:
Isaiah 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
-And food is not an excuse for murder, because the Father gave us the herbs and fruit for food, not animals:
Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
-There is also the abomination which the Lord hates: shedding the innocent blood of the animals:
Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
-The Father doesn't want us killing each other:
Isaiah 65:25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.
You have much more homework to do.
I wasn't suggesting that you couldn't. There's more to learning than reading though.Don't worry I can read the Bible, it's not a particularly difficult book, and that part is not particularly far into it.
I wasn't suggesting that you couldn't. There's more to learning than reading though.
God told the truth in Hebrew and Greek. That truth doesn't necessarily come through to English with the same clarity.God told the truth, even about the father of lies, cursed above all cattle is he, praise the God that will kill the animal, that pathetic old serpent.
God told the truth in Hebrew and Greek. That truth doesn't necessarily come through to English with the same clarity.
So, tell us, if he forbade them from touching dead bodies, how could they skin them, cut them, cook them and eat them, without touching them?He later forbade the Israelites from touching a carcass
They are not food. The herbs and fruits are food since the beginning, and God can't change. Neither the Law changes. So, why would you shed innocent blood, when you have herbs and fruits for food? -It isn't necessary to shed innocent blood, you do it because you lust after flesh, and are not contented with the food Father gave you. Let it be known, whosoever tastes flesh, eats the body of death.It is not a transgression to kill animals for food
You have to decide if you believe Abel was righteous, or if you believe he shed innocent blood, you can't have both.Abel
Is not the KJV 1611 Scripture, the Bible? Or is it only part Scripture, part "not Scripture"? Are you partially rejecting the KJV 1611, and the Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagint? Anyways, do you actually believe the Law changes? Can murder be "legalized"?Baruch
That is not what it is written, He made coats of skins, you are assuming He kill the animals, it could have been wool of sheeps, or maybe the animals died of natural causes.God Himself killed an animal to cover Adam and Eve.
1. Jesus cannot sin.Jesus killed and ate fish.
Right, you don't have any witness within the Word to testify eating flesh is healthier. However I do have in Daniel a positive result with vegetables within ten days. So, let's stick to the Word and discuss the Bible. There is no need for the witness of men, when we have the clear Witness of the Word.Don't
When you get around to reading Scripture for yourself, you will find the answers; they are all there.So, tell us, if he forbade them from touching dead bodies, how could they skin them, cut them, cook them and eat them, without touching them?
Asked and answered already.Is not the KJV 1611 Scripture, the Bible? Or is it only part Scripture, part "not Scripture"? Are you partially rejecting the KJV 1611, and the Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagint?
We aren't discussing murder.Anyways, do you actually believe the Law changes? Can murder be "legalized"?
I am not obligated to come up with additional reasons to refute an already thoroughly-refuted premise.Right, you don't have any witness within the Word to testify eating flesh is healthier. However I do have in Daniel a positive result with vegetables within ten days. So, let's stick to the Word and discuss the Bible. There is no need for the witness of men, when we have the clear Witness of the Word.
God's Word says they are. Take it up with Him.They are not food.
God didn't change; His instructions to humans did. Deal with it.The herbs and fruits are food since the beginning, and God can't change. Neither the Law changes.
You have badly misinterpreted Scripture and forced your personal opinion on it. Your position is wrong.Now, I will show you how killing animals is a transgression, specifically murder:
You are confused. It was added, and some reject the addition because the books were not inspired. Jerome clearly identified certain books of the older Old Latin OT version as apocryphal – or non-canonical He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias, stating that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews." Some of the authors of the books of the Apocrypha themselves state they are written during a time when there were no prophets. There is a lot in the Bible not declared inspired when you add in study notes and introductions and maps etc. Including the addition of chapter headings...The Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and the KJV 1611 all have Baruch in them, are these three not the Word? Don't you call them "the Bible"? The Apocrypha is in the Bible. It was part of the Word in 1611, it was only later that they removed it.
Can the Law change? Can murder (for example) be legalized ?His instructions to humans did.
That is not how it works, you saying I'm wrong proves nothing, it is just one witness.Your position is wrong.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong. Because you only have responded to the Baruch tangent, it must be my flaw for sure, since you didn't respond to my actual arguments, I guess I wasn't wrong on that. And just so you know, you will never convince me Sirach is not Scripture, nor Ezra, nor Enoch, nor the Wisdom of Solomon. Sirach because it saved me, Ezra because of understanding, and Enoch and Solomon because of Jesus.We distinguish between these holy books and the apocryphal ones
Asked and answered.Can the Law change? Can murder (for example) be legalized ?
You're still wrong.That is not how it works, you saying I'm wrong proves nothing, it is just one witness.
You are free to believe what you like. However, you will not get agreement on these matters here, and you will be corrected and even rebuked. That's what you get when you choose to be wrong... especially on such an important matter.Ok, maybe I'm wrong. Because you only have responded to the Baruch tangent, it must be my flaw for sure, since you didn't respond to my actual arguments, I guess I wasn't wrong on that. And just so you know, you will never convince me Sirach is not Scripture, nor Ezra, nor Enoch, nor the Wisdom of Solomon. Sirach because it saved me, Ezra because of understanding, and Enoch and Solomon because of Jesus.
I am well aware that the Lord hates the shedding of innocent blood. However, we are talking about killing animals, which is a distinct subject.Anyways I would rather we discuss the subject in question, have you realized already that the Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood? That He won't delight in the blood? -Because these topics are far more important.
Asked and answered.
You're still wrong.
You are free to believe what you like. However, you will not get agreement on these matters here, and you will be corrected and even rebuked. That's what you get when you choose to be wrong... especially on such an important matter.
I am well aware that the Lord hates the shedding of innocent blood. However, we are talking about killing animals, which is a distinct subject.