Here is the direct link to this week's study:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/06d/less05.html

Let this study and discussion begin.

I found the dialogue in the Sabbath Afternoon section very interesting:



Kind of brings it to our day.

A cheap shot against those who think that: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

I disagree. I think the shot was aimed at those who don't think that: "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

You see, it is true that we are not justified by works. But the story shows one who did not believe that we are justified for works. As Paul said, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10)

I think that was very well the reaction of the people to Noah's warning as they watched him buiding an ark on dry land, presumably far, far away from the nearest body of water.

They missed the boat then, as they missed the birth of Jesus Christ, and are not even heeding the signs, the warnings, in relation to the soon 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ.

They? What if "they" is more inclusive than it sounds? (not saying that it nessessarily is so). Is it possible that some of us would be included in
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.
Joh 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said unto him, Are we also blind?
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.

None need reply in the thread but all ought to consider for themselves. Do we tell Jesus we are blind or that we see?

/Thomas

There are works and then there are works, as is clear from reading the following.

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Am I reading three kinds of works here:

1 - Bad works?
2 - Good works?
3 - Dead works?

As far as Noah's warning goes, how many heeded the warning and were saved from the Flood?

I hope this isn't an indication as to how many will actually be saved at the time of the 2nd Coming.

It is paramount that each one answer that question honestly.

The ark's door was open to all, but only those who walked through the door were saved. Beyond expounding on the God's graciousness for making a way of escape, we must take the way of escape.

I agree. No kind of work can ever merit justification, save for Christ's work. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saves us.

But God's justification always leads to works of rightouesness. We should walk as He walked.

Works of unrighteousness always come from Satan. And that includes every work done for the purpose of gaining merit for salvation.

As it said in Monday's study, Noah's faith was manifested by his works.



This shows the importance of faith and works.

I think Tuesday's study brings in an element of the animals that Noah was obviously acquainted with.



The above quoted text clearly distinguished between clean and unclean animals long before there ever was a Jewish nation, which makes me wonder why Christians say this was only for the Jewish people.

Tuesday's study also points out that this was a world-wide flood, rather than a localized flood.

The following text shows that the Flood covered the whole earth, not just a localized portion of the earth:



All means all and not just some.

It becomes more intriguing when you read in later chapters what Noah did with some of those clean animals after the flood. Note; he isnt recorded as eating them.

I was thinking about what clean/unclean meant to Noah, since he didn't eat animals. The chapters in Lev and Deut teach clean/unclean in terms of what's OK to eat, but perhaps they meant something else in Noah's time. Maybe it defined which animals were OK to sacrifice?

Very probably. However, the ratio of 7:1 in the ark indicates that God had also alimentary purposes in mind, for the period after the flood.

6:1 after Noah had made the offerings.

Here is where the first sacrifice took place since the Flood.



Here is where God adds the animals, birds, etc. to the food chain for human consumption.



There isn't any differentation of the clean from the unclean in this verse, however, seeing that only one pair of each of the unclean entered into the Ark, it would seem logical that they were not to be eaten.

It would seem logical the first year, maybe the secound, but hardly anymore the 10th or 50th year.

If God had intended the unclean to have been eaten with the clean, He would have had more than one pair of them entering into the Ark as He did with the clean ones, therefore, the logic is good for the first year, the second year, the tenth year, the fiftieth year, etc.

Wednesday's study changes the focus from The Flood itself to The Lost Generation.

Why was there a lost generation?

There's another possibility.

Was that first sacrifice the only one Noah was supposed to make? It is possible that the rest of the clean animals were to be used for those. If there was a sacrifice every other month, the animals will have difficulty keeping up. If there was one every Sabbath, Noah would have had to limit himself to one animal at a time.

When God told them it was OK to eat meat, I'm not so sure that the unclean animals were in danger of extinction. When people hunt for pigs in the woods today, there's no guarantee that they will catch one, even though there may be hundreds of pigs running around in the bushes. Consider how difficult it would be to catch one of those two pigs from the ark, especially since they can run wherever they want. Even catching one of those 6 chickens would be a feat. So, even though God allowed them to eat meat, man probably wouldn't have tasted any for a long time after the Flood.

Furthermore, Noah's immediate family probably would have found the thought of eating flesh disgusting. Consider how Americans generally feel about eating snails, monkeys, or dogs - delicacies in other parts of the world.

Because though that generation had a way of escape, they did not take it.

Daryl, besides agreeing with asygo, I will add that the contents of this quoted post is not logic, it is the ostrich technique. Ignore it and hope it goes away...
Take rabbits for example. They live for some 10 years, have between 5-8 young at a time and in a good year could breed several times in one year. So lets say every pair of rabbit have ten young every year and these young are ready to mate the year after, also assuming that noone is eating them. In 9 years we pass 20 milion rabbits, in 12 years we have 4.3 bilion rabbits and after 50 years we have up to, hmm, no, earth could not contain that many rabbits. Somewhere in the early 32nd year an uncontrolled growth of rabbits would equal the weight of earth, here using the assumption that each rabbit weighs 1 kg which is a bit in the low. To say that Noah and family could not eat rabbits becourse they might go extinct is, well, unfeasible.

Thomas,

That is also why we take the whole Bible into consideration, rather than a single incident.

Why would Thursday's lesson study be very important as part of this week's study?

Thats a good point about taking the entire bible into consideration Daryl. What does Jesus words in Matthew 15 and Pauls in Romans 14 mean in the light of Genesis 9?

It means that eating without washing your hands several times doesn't make the food you eat unclean, and that if some of the meat in the market was sacrificed to idols, you should follow your conscience as to eating it or not.

Noah had to eat meat until the first crop, not necessarily after that. Ellen White says, additionally, that he also took with him in the ark his stock of cattle.

The key question is: Why were the israelites given instruction as to clean/unclean animals? For reasons of sacrifice or for health reasons?

I believe it was for health reasons.
God Bless & Happy Sabbath,
Will

Washing of hands is the imediate context. Are we to understand from this that it is exclusively applicable in this context and that no principle of truth may be learned from this beyond that good hygiene is not a salvific requirement?

Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Limited to sacraficial meat or not?

In either way, Rosangela, it did not seem to me that you where considering one text in light of another but that you read each of them alone.

About that EW statement, Noahs stock of cattle? Did he take more than 7 pairs of cattle on that ark?

Israel was obviously given instruction about clean/unclean animals in context of food. The question however is if this is the context of clean/unclean that has been at all times?

Double posting

It doesn’t have to do with good hygiene. It has to do with pharisaical requirements. The principle of truth we should learn is that man-made rules have no value for God.


The context of the chapter is offending a brother by eating meat which was sold in the market, which could have been sacrificed to idols. Verse 7 says that "none of us lives to himself." By our unconscious influence others may be encouraged and strengthened, or they may be discouraged, and repelled from Christ and the truth. Even if you see nothing wrong in doing something, “it is good [to not] do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.”


According to EGW, he brought his private herd.


But for what reasons? For health reasons or for other reasons?

Good, so, how do we know if a rule is manmade or not?Does she write anything about if Noah was welthy or not? Would this herd be about tens of animals or hundreds of animals or thousands of animals or more?Good question, specially considering that there doesnt appear to be any punishment on breaking these (at least not in the main capter of lev 11)

Religious rules of people’s own devising are man-made.


It was a small herd:

“Noah had come forth upon a desolate earth, but before preparing a house for himself he built an altar to God. His stock of cattle was small, and had been preserved at great expense; yet he cheerfully gave a part to the Lord as an acknowledgment that all was His. In like manner it should be our first care to render our freewill offerings to God. Every manifestation of His mercy and love toward us should be gratefully acknowledged, both by acts of devotion and by gifts to His cause.” {PP 106}


In fact, when a person became unclean, there was a prescribed ritual regulation which could remove the uncleanness, but God speak of unclean meats in the OT as “an abomination” and of those who eat them as “abominable.” The word “abomination” is much stronger than the word “unclean” and was not applied to ceremonial uncleanness, but to something which was extremely repulsive to God.

The question related to whether the clean/unclean distinction was given for health reasons is an extremely important one, because if it was given for health reasons, there is no way something unhealthy could suddenly become healthy.

Yes, but how do we know if a rule is manmade or not?This sounds to me as a pararell to
Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Noahs stock of cattle was the seven pairs that had been with him on the ark. So which is it and how do we know?

As I was pondering this question, I came across this:



So, even the flesh of clean animals is unhealthful. There's a quote that's even more pointed.



Here we find that God allowed flesh to be eaten as a way to execute man.

It looks like all meat, clean or unclean, is unhealthy, even deadly. Although there are various levels of unhealthiness, it's just a matter of degrees.

Interesting thought.

It is obvious that man's life was shortened shortly after they began eating flesh food.

Here's another one:

Is the judgement on mans initial longevity to be found in genesis 6:3? In such case it would seem to have been made about 100 years before meateating started.
Also, is there evidence that vegetarians or vegans generally live longer than others?

What I see is that we have: 1) the best food, 2) acceptable food, and 3) unacceptable food.
So, at the time God permitted meat to be eaten, although clean meats were not the best food, they were still acceptable as food, while unclean meats were decidedly unacceptable.
Today, the use of even clean meats is becoming unacceptable:

“Flesh was never the best food; but its use is now doubly objectionable, since disease in animals is so rapidly increasing” (MH 313).

I think quality and quantity should be considered. God permitted, and even required (according to the sanctuary service) a moderate consumption of meat in a time when the quality of meat was not so objectionable as today.

But unclean meats were never acceptable:

“This command [Deut. 14:8] was given because swine's flesh is unfit for food. … Never, under any circumstances, was their flesh to be eaten by human beings” (MH 314).

Some research seems to point in that direction.

http://www.alanlam.demon.co.uk/dyk2f.htm

http://www.killian.com/earl/rfv/LifeExpectancyOfVegetarians

Actually, meat-eating started before the flood.



If you chart the lifespan of men as listed in the Bible, you'll find that there was a steep drop-off after the flood. It eventually levels off at around threescore and ten.

If we consider the fact that men started poisoning themselves with dead animal flesh before the Flood, we should realize that sin brings its own judgment upon its practitioners. If Gen 6:3 refers to man's longevity, it constitutes a huge change. That's equivalent to the modern lifespan dropping to about 10 years.

But another possibility is that Gen 6:3 refers to the coming Flood. God allowed them the benefit of Noah's preaching for 120 years before pulling the trigger.

I agree. And as I understand it, after man's fall, that translates to 1) fruits, nuts, grains, vegetables, 2) clean meat, 3) unclean meat. Furthermore, although clean meat became acceptable after the Flood, it is inherently unhealthy.



Yes. And my meat-eating friends inform me that Jesus ate fish, and that there are uncivilized societies that must include meat (even unclean) in their diets. Strangely, these city-dwellers don't limit themselves to eating fish or bloodless, fatless, kosher sanctuary animals. I have a feeling they are driven by factors other than necessity. Maybe they just can't find the grocery's produce department....

As I think of the priest's obligation to eat life-shortening meat, it makes even more vivid the truth that Jesus took upon Himself our curses that we might have His blessings. We should study the sanctuary more often.

That might have been, if the time between God telling Noah to make the ark and the beginning of the flood had acctually been 120 years. But it seems that Noah built that ark in 100 years, does it not?

Although I believe in the benefits of vegetarianism, and have been experiencing them for 35 years now, I consider some facts intriguing, like the angels and the Lord eating meat with Abraham, Jesus eating meat, the miracle of the multiplication, Jesus preparing fish for the disciples, the priests having to eat the sin-offering, and all the people having to eat the Passover lamb.
Don’t you think that if we classify meat, at that time (as opposed to our times), as an unhealthful article of food we create a problem in view of the above incidents? I mean, would Jesus, for instance, multiply something unhealthful for the people to eat? Would He prepare something unhealthful for His disciples to eat?

Those are some good points. Godordained meat eating is difficult to match with a view that meat is slowly working poison. A view that eating meat would make anyone less a christian is difficult to match with Jesus eating meat.

I'm not sure. I haven't dug deep enough to get a solid answer to that. And I'm not sure that such an answer exists, since it would be based on "WWJD" rather than "Thus saith the Lord."

But I have a couple of questions for you that will help me see where you're at.

1) Based on PC 1.3, do you agree that one reason flesh-meat was allowed by God was to shorten man's life?

2) Do you agree that meat after the Flood (just a few generations removed from Eden) was LESS UNhealthy than meat during Jesus' life (4000 years removed from Eden)?

Isnt this reply most of all due to careless quoting? There is a "thus saith the Lord" in Rosangelas complete post, or even two...

I’m not sure where I’m at.


As I see it, God allowed flesh meat to be eaten because this became necessary at that time, although He knew beforehand that man wouldn’t consider this a temporary measure, but would adhere to the meat diet permanently, and would commit excesses in meat eating, which in turn would lead to the shortening of his own life. So it seems to me that the main factor involved in the shortening of man’s life-span is probably his intemperance. But, granted, meat has a stimulating effect on the body, so its consumption, even moderately, wouldn’t seem to be entirely free from objections.


I understand that there are two factors which make meat-eating dangerous. The first, as I said, is that it easily leads to excesses; and the second is the diseases which afflict the animal kingdom. But until Jesus’ time, and even many centuries after that, the animals seemed to be relatively free from diseases. This is basically a modern problem.

“A very serious objection to the practice of meat eating is found in the fact that disease is becoming more and more widespread among the animal creation. The curse because of sin causes the earth to groan under the inhabitants thereof, and every living thing is subject to disease and death. Cancers, tumors, diseases of the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, all exist among the animals that are used for food. Until late years we have never heard of anything approaching to the variety of diseases now apparent in the animal creation. It is stated that out of a herd of twenty cattle, the inspectors accepted only two; from another herd of one hundred, only twenty-five were accepted as having no apparent disease. The only way to avoid contracting disease from the use of flesh meats is to discard them altogether. Persons will do this much more readily if they have an intelligent knowledge of the dangers that attend the eating of the flesh of dead animals.” {7MR 421.1}

I vehemently disagree. Sure, there are several "Thus saith the Lords" mentioned, but none answers the questions. If you think they do, please lay them out for me because I don't see it.

What I see is that the questions are fundamentally of the form, "Would Jesus do...?" I much prefer questions of the form, "Did God say...?"

Question: Did God say meat should be eaten?
Answer:
Exo 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
Exo 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
Exo 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Exo 12:9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
Exo 12:10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.

Lev 10:12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy:
Lev 10:13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons' due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded.

I see now why you thought the questions were answered by a Thus saith the Lord. You had a totally different question in mind.

I agree with your answer to your question. God did command meat to be eaten.

Consider this. If we ate meat only under the circumstances that God commanded meat to be eaten, we should have been vegetarian 2000 years ago. Moreover, before Jesus was sacrificed, meat would have been eaten by the general public only once a year, and the priests only in the line of duty. Even then, it would only have been specific animals prepared in very specific ways.

Obviously, that has not been the history of meat-eating. I'm guessing that the presence of flesh in many people's diets do not stem from the divine injunction, but rather from the desire to gratify the flesh. IMO, that is more fatal than all the meat ever consumed.

Good to hear that. It's much more profitable to travel with one who is still on the journey, than with one who has already arrived.



I don't see it that way. To me, the SOP quotes lay the blame on the meat itself, not to intemperance. But of course, intemperance also gets a share of the blame.



I can accept that, with the caveat that it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus' animals had less disease than Noah's animals.

But this point confirms my contention that meat, regardless of the disease it carries, is inherently life-shortening. Even the disease-free animals of Noah's time had that effect.

Is Ellen White infalliable regarding meat?

This topic isn't about the infallibility of EGW, or even the Bible, therefore, let us NOT go there.

The SDA Church in its Fundamental Beliefs accepts the inspiration of the writings of EGW, which is sufficient for her quotes to be used authoritatively in this topic.