I think that they may have read the Bible actually JST:
Well I have made somewhat of an overstatment. More specifically, they totally disregarded what they read or did not understand it.
What do you think?
I think I need to quit being lazy and make a thread discussing what laws must Christians follow. According to what I have been taught, and I believe to be in line with the scriptures, I will lightly touch on the matter to hopefully at least offer you some answer.
The Bible itself is divided into the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament". The word testament in this instance is defined as, "a covenant, especially between God and humans." http://dictionary.reference.com
The very fact that there is a "new" covenant would suggest the "old" covenant has been replaced and this is indeed the case. However, the law, which was a "part" of the old covenant has not been replaced. Broadly, this is the reconciliation of the confusion between "it applies, it doesn't apply". How it applies is somewhat different. And there are additional covenants in the Bible, affecting different individuals. But these are the primary two.
Allow me to go a little further. The Hebrew Scriptures prophesies that God would bring a new covenant.
“Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke
, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.”
“For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days,” is the utterance of Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31-33
This "new covenant" was later "signed" with the sacrific of Jesus. "Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant
by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.
Notice with whom Jesus made this new covenant? He made it with his disciples that went on to become the christian congregation and not soley with the jews.
How does this new and old covenant differ? This I will leave for later. I think there will already be questions about what I have posted. Graybeard
Could there ever be a reason for someone to keep sheep for other than meat?
What about cattle?
Assuming they ate them, and them actually eating them, are two different things.
Ge:4:4: And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
The first sacrifice made in the Bible was in Eden when God made a covering for their nakedness. The idea of sacrifice for forgivness of sins originated well before Moses. However there is no record anyone ever ate these sacrifices. To say that they did is only an assumption on your part.
But no assumption is needed here:
"And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into YOUR hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat." (Gen 9:2-4)
If some individuals did or did not eat meat is irrelevent. Even if they did then it was not common practice at least not among God's people. This in no way proves the point of the post that lead to this topic. The point trying to be made was that God approved of something similar to a "scorched earth" policy. The fact that he gave "dominion" over the earth in no way suggests this means it is okay to abuse the earth. Is that what it means when I say I have dominion over my dog? That it is okay for me to abuse it?
So far as who is "ruining" the earth. To show that God will also hold humans accountable consider this scripture.
"And the earth came to be ruined in the sight of the [true] God and the earth became filled with violence. So God saw the earth and, look! it was ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. " (Genesis 6:11-12)
But this is not a debate about Revelations. The point I was making is proven even without that scripture, although I did properly apply it.