Arken

Why would this all-powerful, all-knowing deity write a combination of his biography and his instructions on what to do if you don't want him to put the supreme pimpslap down on you and not make it 100% true? How are you supposed to follow the rules if you don't know which of them are real?

Remember, the rabbit/cud thing is part of the dietary laws. If he isn't being accurate about what you shouldn't eat and why, what's the point? I would hope that any omniscient being would be that stupid.

Haran

Since you keep bringing this up... There are any number of reasons that this verse is worded in such a way. It could be an error because people of that time didn't have the same knowledge we do today - big deal. Or it could have something to do with the generalized categories that they were lumping things into (a kind of categorization which doesn't appeal to us today). Or, finally (and most probable to me), is that this could simply be a translational problem. One should be more sceptical of what one reads in the Sceptics Annotated Bible (or other biased atheistic sources)...

Rabbit chewing its cud?

Arken

All of those reasons have problems. Let me address them individually-

It could be an error because people of that time didn't have the same knowledge we do today - big deal.

But God supposedly did. After all, he's supposed to be omniscient. So, even if they didn't know, he did and it's his book, not theirs.

Or it could have something to do with the generalized categories that they were lumping things into (a kind of categorization which doesn't appeal to us today).

But since God is supposed to be omniscient, he would know that one day people would not have that categorization and so he would have worded it differently so it would apply to today as well as thousands of years ago. For example, he could have written something like:

7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat.
8 Also, don't eat rabbits.

Or, finally (and most probable to me), is that this could simply be a translational problem.

Why would an omniscient being write a book of instructions that you're supposed to follow... or else... with the full knowledge that there would be translation problems in the future? Why would an omnipotent being be incapable of writing a book which was easily understandable and impossible to misinterpret by any human being?

lpetrich

And note that the Book of Leviticus describes detailed instructions to be followed to the letter. There's no way that Haran can argue that way; consider how Leviticus describes the fate of Nadab and Abihu, who had burned incorrect incense.

Haran

The objections to the alternative explanations assume that God would have revealed everything to the early Hebrews... While God was at it, I suppose he should have revealed the stuff that we might learn in our future as well. It seems to me that you guys are assuming what you think God should have done and not what he might have actually done.

As to dietary laws:

Matthew 15:11: What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.

Mark 7:14-15: Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Gospel of Thomas 14c: For that which enters your mouth will not defile yyou but that which comes out of your mouth is what will defile you.

From these, others, Paul, Peter, etc., I would conclude that these dietary laws do not necessarily apply to Christians.

Calzaer

Haran: Isn't that a blatant contridiction with the verse in Matthew that quotes Jesus as saying not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law?

YHWHtruth

Jesus stated: “Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.”—Matt. 5:18.

As shown in an Interlinear Translation, Jesus here used the word “Amen,” meaning “truly,” “so be it.” As the anointed Son of God, the promised Messiah, he could certainly assure the truthfulness of his utterances.—Compare 2_Corinthians 1:20; Revelation 3:14.

The fulfillment of God’s law would reach down to the “smallest letter or one particle of a letter.” In the Hebrew alphabet then current, the smallest letter was yod (a slash). Certain Hebrew letters featured a tiny stroke, apex or “tittle.” The scribes and Pharisees viewed as highly significant, not only the words and letters of God’s law, but also those strokes or ‘smallest particles.’ A rabbinical legend represents God as saying: “Solomon and a thousand like him shall pass away, but not a tittle of thee (the Torah [Pentateuch]) will I allow to be expunged.”

So remote was the possibility of any failure of fulfillment for even the tiniest detail of God’s law that “sooner would heaven and earth pass away.” This was equivalent to saying “never,” for the Scriptures indicate that the literal heavens and earth will remain for eternity.—Ps. 78:69; 119:90.

Arken

I wouldn't say that telling them rabbits didn't chew their cud was 'revealing everything.'

If he's omnipotent, he can make the book only reveal to the reader what he or she needs to know. Since it's not clear enough to do even that, I don't get it. Why would this omnipotent, omniscient being who supposedly loves us create a book with specific laws that are intended to be followed exactly and then not make them clear enough for everyone in the world to understand?

Since we don't believe he exists, that makes sense.

Asha'man

This is a standard method of logically disproving something, called Reductio ad Absurdum. Taken your original assumptions, we follow them to logical consequences, and see if those consequences lead to something that is absurd, impossible, or in conflict with reality.

God is supposed to be omnipotent and benevolent, and his message is supposed to be important for us to understand. Therefore, he should logically have produced a clear and intelligible message. The message isn't clear and intelligible, therefore one of your initial assumptions must be invalid.

Calzaer

Max:

Aren't you arguing the exact opposite position in THIS thread?

Obviously the law DID pass away, or you wouldn't be eating pig.