Viewing page: 1 of 3
Next Discussion Page >
1 2 3
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Which best represents the problem with the comment?
please pray for me as i go though a tough stage in life. Thank you for your prayers.
with love everlasting,
Your theory about the protection of the swan, for royalty sake, is a possibility, yet it remains how could the same Hebrew word be used for two different types of animals. I'm sure the translators would have spent much time struggling with what to do/how to translate in such circumstances. Maybe if there was uncertainty at the original manuscript level, then it remains open as to how one chooses to translate the same word for an animal which flies and another that can only creep.
Even a look at Chabad dot org, applying these same Scriptures there, I find different animals used for the three verses (magpie, bat, mole). That being the case & the Jew who is strictly subject to the ruling & finding no problem, I think we should not stress over this one and leave it as an uncertainty. Thanks for your research.
The Most High Almighty is not a God of confusion. On the other hand man in his carnal state can confuse simple logic and commonsense. There has been reference that Charles Darwin is involved in the evolution theory of lizards evoluting into birds in the early 1860s.
So why was tanshamath injected in verse 18 as being swan then verse 30 as mole when there are two separate categories, flying fowl and creeping things. also, why didnt it say in verse 18 ... swan and after its kind which would then include the duck and geese as they are from the anatidae family. Interesting too is that "owl" is used in verse 17 running into verse 18...In my opinion the barn-owl fits the description of tanshamath in verse 18 as a greater possibility.
Barn owl is the most likely and the Ibis bird is the second other likely bird but definitively not the swan.
Why would swan be chosen? One theory is that the royal family made laws to protect the swan for their own banquet comsumption. I found this on the Royal Family site.
The Crown has held the right to claim ownership of all unmarked mute swans swimming in open waters throughout the country from as far back as the twelfth century. Historically, valuable rights of ownership were subsequently granted by the monarch to many people and organisations as swans were a prized food, served at banquets and feasts.
Thanks for the response
And then in verses 21-23, "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth...", we get a further explanation of these multiple legged flying creatures that could be eaten: the grasshopper & beetle; and what were unclean: everything else).
What is an example of a fowl that creeps on all fours ?
Hello brenda, to answer your question about a coney.
A Coney is a (Rock Hyrax) that looks like a rounded 'Meerkat' (without the black eyes)
they look so cute and adorable. however, under the mosiac law these
animals were considered unclean and shouldn't be eaten. Deuteronomy 14:7
How does the advice on what to eat and what to avoid fit in with the New Testament ? Some say we are FREE to eat whatever we please as we are under Grace and not under the Law.
So am I allowed to consume pork or prawns for example?
Still confused when reading the below verses...and still learning !
MATTHEW 15: 1-20 ( Mark 7:1-23)
ACTS 10 : 1-28
ROMANS 14 (whole chapter)
1 CORINTHIANS 8:8
who is better than god,nobody .yes nobody is better than god........