Today we're going to turn to another one of Ellen White's Biblical contradictions. This is a contradiction of not only Ellen White but this is also one of the theological doctrines of the SDA church. It's found near the beginning of the Bible and involves food. Here it is.
"God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. Everything had been destroyed upon which man could subsist, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark." (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 373)
This is certainly a true statement God did give man permission after the flood to eat the clean animals, but it's what is implied here that is wrong and unbiblical. You see, Ellen White gives the impression that man was given permission by God to eat clean animals ONLY. According to her the unclean animals were still off limits. This is one of her constant themes throughout her writings and it's also the official position of the SDA church on food. Is this true however?
Well,here's what the Bible says in reference to what God gave man permission to eat after the Flood.
The Bible:
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. (Gen. 9:1-3)
Now notice carefully the immediate context of Genesis 9:1-3 because SDA's in trying to defend Ellen's contradiction and their clean food doctrine will want to take you all over the place in Bible to get out of this. They'll try to redefine terms' meanings like "every" and "all" by taking you to other texts. They'll also offer other excuses as to why those terms really don't mean what they say. It's a diversionary tactic and once again it's just an attempt to cloud the issue.
Frankly, it's not necessary. We have everything we need here in the IMMEDIATE context to make a sound judgment on what this passage is saying. And according to Isaiah that is exactly how you are supposed to properly exegete a passage. First you start with the immediate context, "line upon line". If it's not clear only then are you to move on to "here a little, there a little".
Unfortunately for Ellen White and SDA's this passage is abundantly clear enough to make a judgment on what it is saying without the need of going elsewhere.
Let's now deal with the immediate context of Genesis 9:1-3.
Vs. 2 is where I want to draw your attention first. Notice what it says.
"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."
Vs.2 provides the immediate context for what follows in verse 3, "line upon line" remember. Look carefully at how the Bible uses the terms "every" and "all that moveth" in vs. 2.
Would you agree with me that when the Bible uses those terms here in vs. 2 that it means exactly what it says? I.E. it means ALL the animals including the unclean ones? Certainly in vs.2 God wasn't referring to the just the clean animals was He? When God said, "the fear and dread of you shall be upon every beast" Was He referring to the clean animals only? When He said "upon all that moveth". Was He referring to just the clean animals only again? Of course not! ALL the animals would be afraid of man and ALL the animals were delivered into his hand! That's what the terms mean there. "Every beast" means the clean as well as the unclean animals here and "all that moveth" also means the clean as well as the unclean.
But notice carefully,what SDA's will do. When you get to vs. 3 they all of a sudden want to change the meaning of those terms to mean ONLY the clean animals and thus violate the immediate context of those terms' usage in vs. 2. They would have you believe that suddenly "every moving thing" and "all" in vs.3 now only means the clean animals. How utterly inconsistent!
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." Gen 9:3
Clearly based on the usage of the terms previously in vs. 2, God is saying literally to Noah and his family that they can eat ANY animal they choose and that would include the unclean ones. Not only that but vs.3 coincides with the sentiment expressed earlier in vs. 2. God said in vs. 3 that he had given them "all things" and in vs. 2 He said, "into your hand they are delivered". Who's the "they" there? Well obviously ALL the animals listed previously in that verse which included unclean ones. Therefore when vs. 3 reads "I have given you all things" it means ALL the animals including the unclean ones as defined by vs.2.
Ellen White contradicted the Bible here.
The clean/unclean food laws didn't come until after the exodus and were specifically given to Israel as part of the Old Covenant. Previous to this God had allowed man to eat unclean animals. The only stipulation from the passage in Genesis was that they not eat something with blood in it. And strangely enough that is the same stipulation the New Testament put on the Gentile converts in Acts.
But I want to deal with an SDA objection regarding this passage as well. I want to be fair and answer all their objections. So I'll deal with it briefly as follows.
SDA's will point out how Noah brought the clean animals into the ark by greater numbers(which is true), but then they'll make a faulty logic jump that because of this we should read into vs.3 that it's only referring to eating clean animals! Their reasoning? Why else would God tell Noah to bring the clean animals into the ark by greater numbers if not for food later?
Well there's several good reasons why the clean animals were brought into the ark in greater numbers and these reasons have nothing to do with food usage later. 1)Some of the clean animals would be used in sacrifice and 2)clean animals generally DO NOT procreate as well as unclean animals. Thus, God needed more clean animals to come along to insure the species survival.
Think about it. How many offspring do dogs produce? Several at a time right? How about pigs? Also several at a time. How about snakes? Also several at time. How about rabbits? many many at a time right? You see, unclean animals were perfectly ok to come in by just two's. They would survive due to their higher procreation rates. Clean animals are a totally different story however. Think about cows. How many calfs do they produce at a time? Usually one right? How about Goats? 1 or 2 kids at a time. How about deer? Usually one fawn at a time. You see, clean animals were not brought into the ark in greater numbers for food primarily! It was because these animals needed greater numbers in order to survive as a species! Therefore, the SDA argument that the greater numbers equal food usage later and thus reading into vs.3 that "every" and "all" means just the clean animals is wrong again.
Sorry SDA's you're still out of luck on this one and Ellen White plainly contradicted the Bible here.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Some Adventists teach that God had to allow us to eat meat because we messed up and so "plan B" went into action. They believe eating meat STILL isn't good for us.
I would suggest that there is another way of thinking about this-- in addition to your very good post!
The world fundamentally changed after the flood. There are scholars who believe that radiation from the sun became greater, the climate and soil was changed. The plants may very well have not produce all the needed elements for our diet in this new environment. Meat may have become a necessity in our diet from then on. What if God's words were not a suggestion--but a command?
Whether God suggested or commanded it, I doubt he would give us anything that wasn't the RIGHT thing for our diet.
I would like to add that the Adventist denomination does not abstain from the "unclean" meats because of what the Bible says (Lev. 11), but rather simply for "health reasons". I discovered this fact when I read Questions on Doctrine (QOD) which was the official Adventist response to the Evangelicals in the fifties. In fact, the Adventist leadership in QOD comes right out and says that Christians are not bound to the dietary laws of Moses (my paraphrase, it's been a long time since I read it). Needless to say, at the time that I read this, it came as quite a shock, especially after reading so much Ellen White!
Hey Lex,
How about adding a title to each of your posts?
It would be easier to tell them apart.
See? I just added a nifty little title to this post. ;~)
Teresa Beem,
In line with what you're saying the earth at that point had been cursed 3 times. The first time it had been cursed(i.e. it wouldn't bring forth foods as abundantly as before) was after man sinned. It was later cursed by God a second time after Cain killed Abel. Then a third curse rested on it after the flood.
God at that point and I do believe there's credence to what you're saying told man he could eat from the animal kingdom. And I also think the reason for it is because plant life just did not offer enough nourishment alone anymore. Therefore, I do believe God was encouraging the inclusion of meat into the diet.
On a side note I am staunchly against veganism(not to be confused with lacto-ovo vegetarianism which I believe is healthy enough).
I believe veganism is an unhealthy lifestyle and has been shown scientifically to lead to health problems. One of them being a lack of vitamin b12 which can lead to mild schizophrenia and mind disorders. B12 is only contained in animal products. Also another malady is osteoporosis. And also lack of zinc has also been reported(promotes healthy immune system and other repair processes) without enough zinc you get sick and can't fight off infection. Those are just 3 dangers. There are more.
Ellen White promoted a vegan diet at times(plant foods only-no animals products whatsoever) under the guise that this was man's original diet and therefore we should return to it. What she failed to comprehend is what I just mentioned. The earth has been cursed 3 times and plant food simply is not what it was back in Eden.
Furthermore, if Jesus wanted us to live that kind of lifestyle then why did He go around eating meat? Why didn't He say anything about this to his disciples? Furthermore, why did He FEED his disciples fish and eat it in front of them? He could have just as easily cooked them a vegetable meal instead. I think it's obvious. Ellen White and her unhealthful vegan diet is wrong.
In fact, the bible says the one who eats vegetables only is weak(spiritually).
Jesus is our example in all things. Since He was not only eating meat Himself but also supplying it as food to people then I think it's safe to assume that Jesus wanted us to eat meat.
David, actually they do. Read something more up to date:-)
Here's the church's official position on unclean foods. Notice their reasoning involves Lev.
Fundamental belief #22
22. Christian Behavior:
We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the principles of heaven. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)
In other words they STILL use Leviticus 11 as the reason for why they don't eat it.
Hmm...
Sounds as if this was another area that the SDA denomination pulled a "fast one" on the Evangelicals.
Thanks for that!
Post a Comment