Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

How do christians understand this verse?

sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:33:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after Deuteronomy 12:21

Nowhere in the bible does it say how you are supposed to kill the animals.
So what does it mean as I have commanded. What is that supposed to mean?
Should I guess what the commandment was?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:48:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kosher.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:49:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most of these issues can be understood if you scan though various versions, as the language in some of them is a bit archaic, a much more straightforward translation is :

"If the place the LORD your God chooses to put his name is too far away from you, you may slaughter an animal from the herds or flocks that the LORD has given you. Eat as much as you want in your city. I have commanded you to do this."

The commandment is regarding eating the meat as desired. If you read the surrounding verses it makes more sense. It just says you can eat where you are but the offerings still have to be made in the place which could be too far away, i.e, it may be to long to wait to eat until you get to the place of the offering.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 9:58:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 9:49:02 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
Most of these issues can be understood if you scan though various versions, as the language in some of them is a bit archaic, a much more straightforward translation is :

"If the place the LORD your God chooses to put his name is too far away from you, you may slaughter an animal from the herds or flocks that the LORD has given you. Eat as much as you want in your city. I have commanded you to do this."

The commandment is regarding eating the meat as desired. If you read the surrounding verses it makes more sense. It just says you can eat where you are but the offerings still have to be made in the place which could be too far away, i.e, it may be to long to wait to eat until you get to the place of the offering.

It doesn't say what to do it just says kill or slaughter the animal as I commanded you. So what was the command how do you slaughter. there is no further clue.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 10:02:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The commandment was to not fast until offering, it was not in regards to how to kill, though in the verses that follow it talks about how to kill in regards to blood draining.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 10:06:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 10:02:00 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
The commandment was to not fast until offering, it was not in regards to how to kill, though in the verses that follow it talks about how to kill in regards to blood draining.

Where did you get your version from.
Shouldn't you use the original.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 10:18:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is from the God's Word translation, it is also very clear in the Basic English version which removes the formal language.

As for the "original" version, it is in Hebrew, not English and like all to-english translations there are disputes because no two languages offer direct translations.

This is why there are many,many translations.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 10:20:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you wanted to know where kosher comes from, it is from the restriction on eating blood which is mentioned many times as something to be avoided. If you kill an animal without stunning it and just cut major arteries, then you get maximum blood flow from the body, especially if you do it so the blood drains from the cut. Hence kosher practices of a very sharp knife and throat cuts.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 10:37:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 10:20:55 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
If you wanted to know where kosher comes from, it is from the restriction on eating blood which is mentioned many times as something to be avoided. If you kill an animal without stunning it and just cut major arteries, then you get maximum blood flow from the body, especially if you do it so the blood drains from the cut. Hence kosher practices of a very sharp knife and throat cuts.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the way jews slaughter.
I don't know where you got your version from but all the ones that I looked up it says that you should slaughter it as I commanded you.
Your explanation is very nice but its just a theory.
Here is one that comes with hebrew.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 10:57:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I noted the quoted version I used, it is not a theory - it is a translation, just like you are using a translation, I noted why there are disputes among the translations because hebrew and english are not identical languages. If you want to debate the meaning of the hebrew verse directly then by all means continue. If you simply want to understand, the read a bunch of the translations and put them all together and it will make sense rapidly - or - just pick one of them and focus on that as if that was the only way to read it because that fits some bias you wish to support.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 11:14:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 10:57:56 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I noted the quoted version I used, it is not a theory - it is a translation, just like you are using a translation,

I don't see how the commandment of how to slaughter has to do with blood.
I noted why there are disputes among the translations because hebrew and english are not identical languages. If you want to debate the meaning of the hebrew verse directly then by all means continue.

Its dumb to debate the hebrew meaning if you can just learn hebrew.

If you simply want to understand, the read a bunch of the translations and put them all together and it will make sense rapidly - or - just pick one of them and focus on that as if that was the only way to read it because that fits some bias you wish to support.

I have no problem understanding, there is no contradiction. Just the commandment how to slaughter is not there.
I can give you other examples.
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Exodus 31:14
How do you keep sabbath. what does that mean don't work does that mean earn money? You can't just make up what work means here it comes with the death penalty.
Again some important details are missing.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:02:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org...

This might clear some things up.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:57:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 9:33:23 PM, sal wrote:
If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after Deuteronomy 12:21

Nowhere in the bible does it say how you are supposed to kill the animals.
So what does it mean as I have commanded. What is that supposed to mean?
Should I guess what the commandment was?

These instructions are for JEWS under the LAW.. they apply to NO-ONE else..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:04:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 11:14:41 PM, sal wrote:

I don't see how the commandment of how to slaughter has to do with blood.

How you kill an animal will effect the blood left in the meat, as they were instructed not to eat the blood then the animal had to be killed in a way to remove the most blood from the meat. For example the worst way kill an animal in this regard would be to just shoot it in the brain and leave it on the ground to settle. The most effective way is to cut the throat with a very sharp knife without stunning the animal and hang after death to complete the blood drain. If you are at familiar with butchering animals then these things are obvious, or if you just do it once it will be obvious as well and you can immediately see the difference in the meat in both cases.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:46:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:57:45 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/11/2011 9:33:23 PM, sal wrote:
If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after Deuteronomy 12:21

Nowhere in the bible does it say how you are supposed to kill the animals.
So what does it mean as I have commanded. What is that supposed to mean?
Should I guess what the commandment was?

These instructions are for JEWS under the LAW.. they apply to NO-ONE else..

Your point is irrelevant. The question is not what Christians do its what the commandment means. No difference to whom it was written for.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 10:51:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 10:04:32 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/11/2011 11:14:41 PM, sal wrote:

I don't see how the commandment of how to slaughter has to do with blood.

How you kill an animal will effect the blood left in the meat, as they were instructed not to eat the blood then the animal had to be killed in a way to remove the most blood from the meat. For example the worst way kill an animal in this regard would be to just shoot it in the brain and leave it on the ground to settle. The most effective way is to cut the throat with a very sharp knife without stunning the animal and hang after death to complete the blood drain. If you are at familiar with butchering animals then these things are obvious, or if you just do it once it will be obvious as well and you can immediately see the difference in the meat in both cases.

I think you are missing my point. Nowhere does it say that you should slaughter in a certain way to have the least blood. You are connecting two different points. you are just saying that a practical way to get rid of the blood is by slitting its throat. It doesn't say anywhere that you should slit the throat, that is your own idea how to practically get rid of the blood. Who says you have to slit its throat?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:08:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 10:51:18 AM, sal wrote:

Who says you have to slit its throat?

If you can get the blood out without it then you don't, considering the abilities they had at the time that was what was required. Now you could for example argue that kosher would be to render the animal unconscious and just pump the blood out, similar to cadaver preperation. This would fulfill the requirement in scripture to not eat blood. However it is impractical for anyone hunting and thus the solution provided.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:16:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 11:08:22 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/12/2011 10:51:18 AM, sal wrote:

Who says you have to slit its throat?

If you can get the blood out without it then you don't, considering the abilities they had at the time that was what was required. Now you could for example argue that kosher would be to render the animal unconscious and just pump the blood out, similar to cadaver preperation. This would fulfill the requirement in scripture to not eat blood. However it is impractical for anyone hunting and thus the solution provided.

What do you mean by kosher?
If I understand you there is no commandment how to slaughter an animal.
How did the people who used this text what they were supposed to do?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:34:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 11:16:38 AM, sal wrote:

How did the people who used this text what they were supposed to do?

Because they were hunter/gathers, if you do not butcher an animal properly it can kill you if you eat it, or the meat will spoil. If they knew they should not eat the blood directly, or eat meat engorged with blood it would be obvious to them how to kill it. It would be obvious now to anyone who hunts or butchers meat or has even a basic understanding of anatomy and thinks about it. If you watch it done you will see the difference immediately between a stunned animal and an animal who is killed without stunning. Locally it is very common to kill without stunning as they drain the blood into buckets to make pudding so they don't want it in the meat, plus the meat is easier to dry/cure/smoke if it is not full of blood.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:52:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 11:34:37 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/12/2011 11:16:38 AM, sal wrote:

How did the people who used this text what they were supposed to do?

Because they were hunter/gathers, if you do not butcher an animal properly it can kill you if you eat it, or the meat will spoil. If they knew they should not eat the blood directly, or eat meat engorged with blood it would be obvious to them how to kill it. It would be obvious now to anyone who hunts or butchers meat or has even a basic understanding of anatomy and thinks about it. If you watch it done you will see the difference immediately between a stunned animal and an animal who is killed without stunning. Locally it is very common to kill without stunning as they drain the blood into buckets to make pudding so they don't want it in the meat, plus the meat is easier to dry/cure/smoke if it is not full of blood.

Where do you get the connection that you should slaughter as I have commanded you to mean that it shouldn't have blood. These are completely different commandments. the commandment of not eating blood is in the beginning of the chapter and then goes on to a different topic, I see no connection.
If this text is supposed to be laws it should say what it means, not that you should assume.
The same problem appears in exodus 31 which you ignored.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:56:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you want more examplesd
Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,

How are these laws to be understood what is a bill of divorcement can I write what ever I want on it. What it she doesn't have hands does that mean she can never get divorced.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:50:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
this is a classic proof of oral tradition of Judaism. well done
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:55:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
this is a classic proof of oral tradition of Judaism. well done. it is somewhat puzzeling however that this is the only place god writes this
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 6:20:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 11:52:34 AM, sal wrote:

Where do you get the connection that you should slaughter as I have commanded you to mean that it shouldn't have blood. These are completely different commandments. the commandment of not eating blood is in the beginning of the chapter and then goes on to a different topic, I see no connection.

As noted, you have to read the surrounding text. God was clear as to blood should be avoided, this meant that the animal had to be killed in a certain way. This would be obvious to anyone who ate meat for reasons noted.

Also as noted, the "as commanded" refers to the fact that he was telling them if where they were to make offerings was very far away from where they were, then they did not have to fast before they got there.

If you just read the verses in isolation then it will not make any sense, you can not read any book in isolated sections and hope for anything sensible to come from it.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:53:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 6:20:02 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/12/2011 11:52:34 AM, sal wrote:

Where do you get the connection that you should slaughter as I have commanded you to mean that it shouldn't have blood. These are completely different commandments. the commandment of not eating blood is in the beginning of the chapter and then goes on to a different topic, I see no connection.

As noted, you have to read the surrounding text. God was clear as to blood should be avoided, this meant that the animal had to be killed in a certain way. This would be obvious to anyone who ate meat for reasons noted.

Also as noted, the "as commanded" refers to the fact that he was telling them if where they were to make offerings was very far away from where they were, then they did not have to fast before they got there.

If you just read the verses in isolation then it will not make any sense, you can not read any book in isolated sections and hope for anything sensible to come from it.

I don't know why you assume I only read that verse.
It appears to be two separate commandments.
If we already know about blood from the beginning of the chapter what is he trying to say now that we don't already know.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 12:39:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:53:52 AM, sal wrote:

If we already know about blood from the beginning of the chapter what is he trying to say now that we don't already know.

No, as noted, God is affirming that the individuals do not need to fast. You asked how would people know how to kill the animals, and I noted that would be because that is set by having to avoid the blood keep in the meat.