I’m not an expert, but I don’t think monkeys would have been considered clean in this context though. I’m pretty sure they’re not kosher.
Comment on if i had a job
DScratch@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
Also, the bible didn’t say only 2 monke
“Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:2–3)
Poster is both dumb and inaccurate.
TheRtRevKaiser@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Definitely not kosher
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 9 hours ago
Let’s not eat monkeys, shall we?
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Well of course not, they aren’t kosher
hperrin@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
Who knows. The person who wrote that probably didn’t know what a monkey was. I don’t think there are monkeys native to the region.
Lumidaub@feddit.org 3 hours ago
Excuse me, GOD wrote that and he obviously knew what monkeys are. And they didn’t have to live in that region, the monkey kind couple migrated there before the flood, just like kangaroos did.
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Yeah there had to be a time afterwards where monkeys were first discovered and named.
mech@feddit.org 8 hours ago
Land animals (Leviticus 11:1–8; 26–30; Deuteronomy 14:6–8) that had completely split or “cleft” hooves and chewed the cud were considered clean and suitable for eating. Any land animals that did not meet this rule were unclean.
Sounds to me like monke would be unclean, so it checks out.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
Depends on which book you’re reading. One says 2, one says 7, it’s all BS regardless.
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Was about to say something along the lines of this.
Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
“Poster is both dumb and inaccurate”
Just like the bible.