Re: Re: Genesis 1:29 Was: strep throat poll

[Guest guest]

Diane wrote:

>...I disagree. The scripture simply is God speaking to the first

>people He made - ...

>Gen 1:29 ...This had nothign to do with seperatism. ...

I never said Gen 1:29 was about separatism, I said the Jewish dietary laws

were about separatism.

>...What I do think is that originally He gave us

>fruits and vegetables to eat - NOT to keep us seperate and not b/c

>these fods were clean or unclean. But simply b/c they were best for

>us.

You can think that, but Scripture does not claim that.

>The King tried to get and his men to eat the dainties (junk

>food) eating in his kingdom

How do you know it was junk food?

>but refused. He said, No, I wil

>only eat what God has told us is best....

He did not say that. It is written that he " purposed in his heart that he

would not defile himself. " Being defiled is something that happens to

something or someone that is holy. In other words, 's concern was

that he might become unholy, not that he would become unhealthy. Also

consider that the common views about being fat or skinny were different

back then. Skinny was considered unhealthy and fat was considered healthy

and a sign that one was prosperous and favored by the gods/God. The chief

eunuchs concern was probably that and friends would become skinny

and this would reflect badly on the king and the eunuch. Now look at the

test that proposes, ten days of vegetables and water. This a diet

more like they would have fed to prisoners, not to the kings men.

could have asked for clean meats and drinks other than water, so why this?

If he had asked for a clean but rich diet, it would only have proved that

he was picky. This diet is to put himself in God hands and see what God

does. What God did was a miracle, in ten days they became noticeably fairer

and fatter. To say this is not a miracle is to say that if you want to gain

weight you should stop eating meals that are like a kings feast and eat

only vegetables and water.

You can think that the eunuch learned about how healthy vegetables are. I

prefer to think that he learned that God was taking care of in

miraculous ways because was faithful. Consider the Bible and the

book of . Which is more likely the theme of the Book, the importance

of vegetables to our health, or the importance of faithfulness?

ate vegetables and water and became fatter.

was thrown in the fire and did not get burned.

was thrown in with lions and did not get eaten.

These are all miracles to prove that God is faithful to the faithful.

Back to Genesis 1:29. It is possible that this verse reflects the fact that

there was no justification for spilling the blood of animals before the

fall of man, even if they were perfectly healthy food.

Isaiah 55:2 ...Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight

yourselves in rich food. ESV :-)

notan

[Guest guest]

Diane wrote:

>But fatter often means healthier back then.

Because being fatter was considered healthier back then.

> The point is God

>wouldn't have given them this diet as He did in the garden if it

>weren't the best possible diet.

Define " best possible. " Did the food quality of the tree of knowledge have

anything to do with it being banned? Even if meat was the " best possible "

diet, God would not have to have included meat in the original diet.

>Perhaps you were teasing regarding the bonfire. I'm sorry if my

>naivity took you literally. I assumed we were kind and sincere, not

>mockers on here. My bad. :-0 That's OK, I forgive you.

I don't need to be forgiven, because I did nothing wrong. I forgive you

though for suggesting I did. :-)

Not teasing. It was just an acknowledgement that many people could be

shocked by the doctrine I presented. I was just trying to use a little

humor to lighten the point, and make people think before attacking the

messenger. However, in this case it seems to have backfired. In saying you

forgive me, when I did nothing wrong, implies I did something wrong and

that could be taken as a personal attack. But, as I said, I forgive you, so

just let it go.

notan

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/28/2004 5:08:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, jneal@... writes:

Col. 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.Jan in Western KY

Glad to hear about all these wonderful Jan's in Kentucky, we are such bright and interesting individuals!

Jan in Northern KY!

[Guest guest]

Diane wrote:

.... Not only should we not judge

anyone for

what they eat or drink but not for anythign else either. For God

alone is our judge.

That is true, but only in a very narrow scope of

the possible meanings of the word " judge " . In many more

meanings of the word judge God does want us to judge. How would one

reprove or rebuke another if one did not judge first.

I

Corinthians 6:3,7

" Do

you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters

pertaining to this life! " ... " Can it be that there is no one

among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers "

Certainly in a group like this we should

judge the health claims people are making. If a doctor is a quack I don't

have any religious reason to prevent me from deciding it is so, and

letting others know why I think so. If it was proven that a God given

diet was best for me and you knew I had no excuse for not faithfully

fallowing the diet, you would be right to judge me as wrong, or at least

to judge me as unwise.

For the record, I only

wanted to help by sharing some things I felt

I had learned about eating better for health reasons, never for

religious reasons or to judge anyone.

I can believe that.

I also hope I contributed in

just a small way with my posts.

You got people thinking which is one of the reasons

we are here.

Adios

notan