WORDatTheNet

Home » Forbidden Meat » Logic of words on forbidden meat

Logic of words on forbidden meat


What is the logic of forbidden meat verse in Genesis 9:4? More specifically, the subject words are accompanied by the following verses; “2All the animals, birds and fish will live in fear  of you. They are all placed under your power. 3Now you can eat them, as well as green plants; I give them all to you for food. 4The one thing you must not eat is meat with blood still in it. I forbid this because the life is in the blood. 5If anyone takes human life, he will be punished. I will punish with death any animal that takes a human life“. (Genesis 9:2-5, TEV).

:Davao City_zoo_ostrich_field

Meat of ostrich is not forbidden to be eaten. http://www.wordatthenet.com

Previously, the main issue that was posed is: “Whether not not the word “life” stated in verse 4 refers only to  “human” life,  to the exclusion of “animal” life”.

If your answer is NO, that is- both human and animal life are deemed included in the word “life” in verse 4, then it is necessary to review the accompanying verses in order to be sure on the thoughts of the One who spoke, whether or not, it is really so.

Immediately after verse 4, verse 5 states as follows:

5If anyone takes human life, he will be punished. I will punish with death any animal that takes a human life. (Genesis 9:5, TEV).

Why is it necessary to review the accompanying verses of the subject word “life”, in the first place? Of course, this is to logically know whether or not the meat and blood being stated in the same verse refer only to human or to both human and animal.

This will finally guide the reader to the real intention of the prohibition “not to eat meat with blood still in it”.

Going back to verse 5. Why verse 5? Because of its close proximity to verse 4.  Verse 5 will be very helpful in the determination of the scope of the former, whether or not animal life is impliedly intended in it (verse 4). Clearly, verse 5 speaks only of human “life”. It does not refer to “animal” life. It even specifically states the mode of punishment if taken by animals.

Upon the other hand, the preceding verses 2 and 3 designate animals for foods. In short, animals are sine-qua-non to foods. Technically, foods have no life. They are intended to sustain human life.

2All the animals, birds and fish will live in fear  of you. They are all placed under your power. 3Now you can eat them, as well as green plants; I give them all to you for food.

Preceding premises considered, the “life”, which is stated in verse 4 , would only refer to human life to the exclusion of animal life. Otherwise, there would be a gross inconsistency of verse 4 to verses 2 and 3 and verse 5. That being so, it follows that the meat and blood, which are stated in the  same verse (verse 4), would only refer to human. Therefore, the prohibition is logically “eating human meat with human blood still in it”, which is equivalent to “sexually eating human meat” as in “oral sex“or Filipino language idiom, which is “kumain ng hilaw na karne” (sexually eating the other’s genital).

If one would try to interpret the word “life” as inclusive of animal life, then, to be consistent, it is suggested that an amendment be done to verses 2, 3 and 5, as follows:

2All the birds and fish will live in fear  of you. They are all placed under your power. 3Now you can eat them, as well as green plants; I give them all to you for food. (Note: animal was deleted)

5If anyone takes human and/or animal life , he will be punished. I will punish with death any animal that takes a human and/or animal life. (Genesis 9:5TEV).(Note: animal was added)

Note: You are free to amend these verses to satisfy your own interpretation. Of course, at your own risk because you are amending someOne’s Words.

Click to The Oral Sex Theory to have a comprehensive understanding. (Next article: Forbidden Meat: Circumstances when Spoken).

Related articles:

 >>>To Home Page to also proceed to The Forum

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. […] successfully diverted the society away from correctly understanding the morally prohibited “eating meat with blood still in it“. Consequently, if sodomy was the cause of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, then […]

  2. […] “Same-sex marriage” in other countries was thus modified by Filipinos to  Reproductive Health Law, but more severe because  said law allows multiple same-sex partners.  In the same manner that sodomy was innovated by Filipinos to “eating uncooked meat” (Kumakain ng hilaw na karne), which is a violation of morally prohibited “eating meat with blood still in it“ […]

  3. […] The critical questions: Are the verses consistently referring only to human life? Specifically, is the term “life” stated in verse 4 refers only to human life? What is the significance of knowing the operational definition of “life” in verse 4? This is an introductory discussion on “eating meat with blood still in it“. (Next article: Logic of words on forbidden meat). […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Archives

Categories

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 195 other followers

%d bloggers like this: