El Oso said:

---

Two thoughts here:

1. You're putting the cart before the horse. Rabbinic law does say these foods were not permitted, but rabbinic law did not exist yet.

2. The text doesn't specifically mention how the food was eaten. A careful reading of the Hebrew text in Genesis 18:8 shows the sequence: "He then brought some curds and milk and [then] the calf..."

---

"So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them" NKJV

"And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." KJV

"He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree." NIV

"Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate." ECV

"And he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed; and he set them before them, and they did eat, and he stood by them under the tree." Brenton's English Septuagint

"And he took curds, and cholov (milk), and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under haetz, and they did eat." Orthodox Jewish Bible

No other source seems to agree with your careful reading of the Hebrew text. So I'm going to disregard it as in error.

And Jewish dietary law did not exist. That's the point. No Jew is going to do that.

Every single one of your verses confirm what I said. Things were served in the same order in each one. As long as mouths were rinsed and hands washed in between the dairy and the meat, no law was broken. Again, it's not in the text that these things happened, but that doesn't mean it didn't. And again, the law forbidding these foods did not exist until 200-500 CE. This verse does not prove what you think it does. You cherry picked a verse without examining the context of the verse and the history of the law you said the verse breaks.

El Oso said:

---

Every single one of your verses confirm what I said. Things were served in the same order in each one. As long as mouths were rinsed and hands washed in between the dairy and the meat, no law was broken. Again, it's not in the text that these things happened, but that doesn't mean it didn't. And again, the law forbidding these foods did not exist until 200-500 CE. This verse does not prove what you think it does. You cherry picked a verse without examining the context of the verse and the history of the law you said the verse breaks.

---

Incorrect...Nothing in those verses indicates sequential separate serving. That's your insertion into the scripture.

As far as the law forbidding the combination of those foods didn't exist for hundreds of years only proves my point.

Realitybites said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Every single one of your verses confirm what I said. Things were served in the same order in each one. As long as mouths were rinsed and hands washed in between the dairy and the meat, no law was broken. Again, it's not in the text that these things happened, but that doesn't mean it didn't. And again, the law forbidding these foods did not exist until 200-500 CE. This verse does not prove what you think it does. You cherry picked a verse without examining the context of the verse and the history of the law you said the verse breaks.

---

Incorrect...Nothing in those verses indicates sequential separate serving. That's your insertion into the scripture.

As far as the law forbidding the combination of those foods didn't exist for hundreds of years only proves my point.

---

I don't think you understand how Hebrew works. You are applying English to the word and, not Hebrew.

On its own, the Hebrew prefix vav simply links elements in a list or sequence, meaning it is grammatically possible the food was not served as one meal but at three separate times. And since that is possible, the verse does not mean what you say it does.

I fail to see how the non existence of a law proves your point. It seems to indicate you also do not know/understand the Talmud which asserts that the Patriarchs spiritually foresaw and kept the entire Torah before it was formally given at Sinai.

Genesis 26:5 "Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws [Torotai is the actual word here]."

Note laws is plural. This means the implication is written law (which did not exist yet) and oral law (which does not forbid the meal you says proves he wasn't a Jew).

Now slide over to the Talmud, specifically Tractate Yoma 28b. "Abraham our patriarch fulfilled the entire Torah" before it was ever formally given to Moses at Mount Sinai. The passage goes so far as to say that Abraham even observed Eruvei Tavshilina highly specific, detailed rabbinic legal loophole regarding food preparation on holidays that wasn't formally instituted until thousands of years later.

That means that mouth rinsing and hand washing I say possibly happened in between courses, that you say didn't--did.

The Mishnah confirms this as well (Kiddushin 4:14). So does Genesis Rabbah 95:3.

El Oso said:

---

I don't think you understand how Hebrew works. You are applying English to the word and, not Hebrew.

On its own, the Hebrew prefix vav simply links elements in a list or sequence, meaning it is grammatically possible the food was not served as one meal but at three separate times. And since that is possible, the verse does not mean what you say it does.

---

I'm not willing to take the word of some guy on the internet over professional translators of multiple Bible versions, including the Orthodox Jewish Bible. Pretty simple. If the verse said what you say it means, it would have been translated that way.

There are differences in how some translators handle different Bible verses as they are translated to English. This isn't one of those verses.

The Talmud is a heretical text, the product of the same Pharisees that Christ condemned, and of no spiritual benefit to the Christian.