God To The Hebrew : Eat The Clean And Unclean Animal As Your Soul Lusts...

It would be absolutely wonderful if people would do a LITTLE RESEARCH before spouting out
rediculous claims.
Pepsi contracted with Senomyx to develop a low calorie sweetener to have in a new low cal Pepsi product that
as far as I know is not on the market yet. Most of the patents that Senomyx has are due to fetal kidney cell lines.
Thus the apparent confusion.

Irregardless, Pepsi does not have any dead baby cells, parts or extracts.

Regular pepsi contains: carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, sugar,
phosphoric acid, caffeine, citric acid, and natural flavor.
 
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0512.htm

Deutoronomy 12:
15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.
22 Howbeit as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat thereof; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike.
32 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
I'm wondering if anyone else understands that the context of this verse does not equal the conclusion listed in the title of this thread? The text is stating that unclean and clean 'people' may eat of freely. Not that people may freely eat unclean foods.

And that acts 10 is not about food but people.

Now, i'm not saying the commandments apply to believers the way they were given to Israel. I'm saying that the proof verses used to postulate that the scriptures teach believers (and in turn Jews) to eat unclean things actually do not prove this point.
 
There is not problem with us eating pigs and God does not hold it as sin against us, the Bible does not specify why God gave this commandment and specified each animal they can and cannot eat... hmmm, don't think pig is related to us :)
That verse I gave clearly specified that pigs were unclean / unhealthy to eat. Today pigs are not. I can't see or think of any reason other then health.

What I find interesting about the OT laws is that 99.99 % if not 100% of them are /were for our protection. There is nothing mystical or irrational about any. The pork law must be a 'health only' reason.
 
Exactly, the OT dietary laws were to avoid animals that were disease or parasite carriers.
Pigs can be hosts to an assortment of nasty critters.
 
I'm wondering if anyone else understands that the context of this verse does not equal the conclusion listed in the title of this thread? The text is stating that unclean and clean 'people' may eat of freely. Not that people may freely eat unclean foods.

Deu 12:15
“However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your gates, whatever you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and the deer.

this is being said only to the Israelites .. not to goyim ..
what is being addressed here is hoofed animals ..
indeed, the context is "that people may freely eat unclean foods"

the 2nd highlighted part reads like this ..
tame' tahowr 'akal
(the) unclean (and the) clean
to be eaten

note: 'akal is a verb and means "to eat"
 
Last edited:
what is being addressed here is hoofed animals ..
indeed, the context is "that people may freely eat unclean foods"

the 2nd highlighted part reads like this ..
tame' tahowr 'akal
(the) unclean (and the) clean
to be eaten

note: 'akal is a verb and means "to eat"
Your using the passive form of the verb, not the perfect tense. And your not reading the verse in context. The mention of clean and unclean is in reference to the 'you' or the people, not the meat. Both unclean and clean may eat of the meat.

tamei v'tahor yachad akal - the unclean and the clean both may eat.

In context: Deut 12:22
NASB - “Just as a gazelle or a deer is eaten, so you will eat it; the unclean and the clean alike may eat of it."

In comparison:

ASV - the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike.
BBE - the unclean and the clean may take of it.
CCB - People who are polluted and people who are purified can feast on it together.
CJB - the unclean and clean alike may eat it.
RHE - both the clean and unclean shall eat of them alike.
ESV - The unclean and the clean alike may eat of it.
KVJ - the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.
NIV - Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat.

May eat, may take, can feast, may eat, shall eat, may eat, shall eat, may eat. May eat is the common description. Not be eaten

Why is it that your definition is not mirrored in any translation or version, Jewish or Christian? Because your wrong here, sir. What you state is not proved by the text, not by linguistics nor by context.
 
The mention of clean and unclean is in reference to the 'you' or the people, not the meat.

how is it Moses is calling the Israelites clean and unclean then ???

tamei v'tahor yachad akal - the unclean and the clean both may eat.

where did you get this transliteration ???
the ancient mss read as I gave it ..
Yachad is an ADAGE ..


In context: Deut 12:22

Why is it that your definition is not mirrored in any translation or version, Jewish or Christian? Because your wrong here, sir. What you state is not proved by the text, not by linguistics nor by context.

you are one of those who believe in consensus thinking ..
why is it they punished Galileo for stating what was not mirrored in other texts ???


my nephew who has a PHD in both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew told me it was an acceptable translation .. nonetheless, you still are ignoring by your interpretation that Moses is calling the Israelites both clean and unclean then .. or that the unclean would be given this revelation from God, and that the idol worshipers would even heed God ???
 
Last edited:
the ADAGE belongs to the Vulgate .. and reads like this ..
tame' tahowr 'akal yachad
so you even reversed the order of the ADAGE ..

as to translators .. here is a good example of their consensus ..

KJV
Psa 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

NKJV
Psa 68:4 Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Extol Him who rides on the clouds, By His name YAH, And rejoice before Him.

NIV
Psa 68:4
Sing to God, sing in praise of his name, extol him who rides on the clouds; rejoice before him—his name is the LORD.

ESV
Psa 68:4 Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides through the deserts; his name is the LORD; exult before him!

ASV
Psa 68:4
Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: Cast up a highway for him that rideth through the deserts; His name is Jehovah; and exult ye before him.
 
these translators are thinking they are translating "shamayim" which means "expanse" and can be applied to space, atmosphere, desert or sea .. but the word"'arabah" means "nothingness" .. thus ALL the translators missed the context that God being spirit moves freely without means of support ..
 
Have you not read in the Torah were individuals are deemed 'unclean' for certain reasons?

Lev 15:8 -
And if the one with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, then he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.

Lev 17:15 -
And every person who eats what dies of itself or what is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean.

Lev 22:4-6
None of the offspring of Aaron who has a leprous disease or a discharge may eat of the holy things until he is clean. Whoever touches anything that is unclean through contact with the dead or a man who has had an emission of semen, and whoever touches a swarming thing by which he may be made unclean or a person from whom he may take uncleanness, whatever his uncleanness may be—
the person who touches such a thing shall be unclean until the evening and shall not eat of the holy things unless he has bathed his body in water.

Num 19:19
And the clean person shall sprinkle it on the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day. Thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.

So you see, people are considered unclean by certain actions, and clean by certain actions.

The next mentions of clean and unclean are in the verses we are discussing, Deut 12: 15 & 22.

nonetheless, you still are ignoring by your interpretation that Moses is calling the Israelites both clean and unclean then .. or that the unclean would be given this revelation from God, and that the idol worshipers would even heed God ???
It seems to be you who have not understood about clean and unclean in regards to the Torah given Yisrael. All are bound under sin, no? The Messiah does not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repent. The Torah magnified the sins, indicating to all that they can not find righteousness in 'doing' the law but through faith. The Torah sets the bar so high that it causes you to realize you can't reach it. When you get there you realize that God has given you a way, Messiah. He has reached it, and dwells in all who 'believe' in him. A sinner becomes a righteous person. You appear to have the sinner unable to approch God till he is clean. And that may be so in general, but in detail it is Messiah who comes to a fallen person and cleans them up. So at some point, the sinner does hear God right were he is at. It's this 'point' where tamei v'tahor collide. Like the point on the tire that meets the road. It moves relentlessly as time travels on. It's not a fixed point that you can remain static at. One must learn to move with God or they will be run over time and time again. Never truely understanding why this point exists or what it accomplishes.

Needless to say, you seem to have some roadblocks in your way. I don't see you understanding this properly to make the claims you have here. Israelites could be unclean, per Torah, and Deut 12:15 is about people, not meat.
 
thank you for your long explanation .. I was aware of what was in the Torah that Moses wrote some of .. leperacy and birth etc ..

here is Job's error ..
Job 14:4 “Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!

Isa 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

but the Covenant of Faith (which Abraham had) was given first, and was NOT nullified by the Covenant of the Law of Moses ..
 
the Covenant of Law coexisted with Faith ..

Mar 7:15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.

so Jesus says there is no such thing as unclean food ..
do you think God changed what He thought ???
the Law of Moses was to the hard of heart ..
in Hebrews chapter 11, Paul tells us there were many NOT hard of heart (before and after Moses) who were not under the law, but Faith .. this is why the Pharisees got mad at Jesus and even wanted to stone Him .. because He told them that the Law of Moses was for those ..

Mar 7:18 And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
 
My engagement in this thread had nothing to do with debating if believers are under the law or not. So please stop moving the goal post. Deut 12:15 & 22 can NOT be used to prove your point that Israel was allowed to eat unclean foods as stated previously in Leviticus. If your point was correct then God is double minded, giving a command to Israel through Moses to not eat unclean meat in leviticus and then commanding Moses to eat it in Deut. Do you realize the obserdity of your claim? This is it, that if what you say was true, there are other verses that prove you wrong, or God a liar.

You see, you can't discuss the command to eat or not eat unclean animals before you move past this point. Your misunderstanding, or missusing the text. I don't care about all the other debates about 'we are not under the law'. My point is your exegesis is wrong, in regards to Deut 12:15,22. It's not about food. You need to move past this, or we can not properly discuss the rest.

You may be aware of what is in the Torah but your not displaying that you understand it much.
 
My engagement in this thread had nothing to do with debating if believers are under the law or not. So please stop moving the goal post.

You may be aware of what is in the Torah but your not displaying that you understand it much.

God multitasks .. always has ..
I saw your point .. but you missed my point entirely ..
God was dealing with more then just the bad little Jews of the Exodus who also carried an ark of an Egyptian god with them (hence God muli-tasking)

and to your last statement .. I am done discussing this with you ..
 
God multitasks .. always has ..
I saw your point .. but you missed my point entirely ..
God was dealing with more then just the bad little Jews of the Exodus who also carried an ark of an Egyptian god with them (hence God muli-tasking)

and to your last statement .. I am done discussing this with you ..
Good thing too, I sence your supersessionism is about to pop out of it's box.
 
Back
Top