Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new earth they won't be again.
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new earth ... - 9/10/2008 10:04:15 PM
|
|
|
sparkleingsnow
Posts: 3767
Joined: 1/9/2007
Status: offline
|
The other day some were decussing if animals had always ate meat or not. I don't reminber what thread it was on. Anyway I ran across this verse.
Genesis 1:
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
It tells us that in the beginning, both animals and man were not carnivores.
Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. ...
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
And after the Lord comes, it will be that way again.
_____________________________
Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is
within me, bless his holy name.
Psalm 103:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/10/2008 10:43:59 PM
|
|
|
TorchHeart
Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/4/2008
From: One of the coldest places on Earth
Status: offline
|
quote:
It tells us that in the beginning, both animals and man were not carnivores.
Uh, no it doesn't. That doesn't mean that this was all those animal ate. Without a doubt, some of them ate meat, unless God had some great population control method in the Garden of Eden (I can garuntee you that with rabbits, rats, and a number of other critters, he'd have needed it). The very garden would've been over-run.
Also, we know for fact that over several million years there have been carnivores and herbavores alike. The Tyranosaurus Rex, which lived well over 65-68 million years ago, was without a doubt a carnivore and was always a carnivore. The same can be said for many, many other animals from that time period and ones before and after it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/10/2008 11:08:53 PM
|
|
|
whisperingwaters
Posts: 153
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TorchHeart
Uh, no it doesn't. That doesn't mean that this was all those animal ate. Without a doubt, some of them ate meat, unless God had some great population control method in the Garden of Eden (I can garuntee you that with rabbits, rats, and a number of other critters, he'd have needed it). The very garden would've been over-run.
Also, we know for fact that over several million years there have been carnivores and herbavores alike. The Tyranosaurus Rex, which lived well over 65-68 million years ago, was without a doubt a carnivore and was always a carnivore. The same can be said for many, many other animals from that time period and ones before and after it.
There would be no need for the garden to be over run if they did not produce like they do now and maybe they did not you just don't know.
I personally do not follow the lign of thinking that the earth is millions of years old in the first place but even if it was God could of changed those dinosaurs too so that they became meat eaters and were not origanially.
_____________________________
The words of a man's mouth are as deep waters, and the well-spring of wisdom as a flowing brook. Proverbs 18:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 12:45:46 AM
|
|
|
tcasboy
Posts: 38
Joined: 9/4/2008
Status: offline
|
Meet eaters are designed, either through evolution or by God, to hunt, kill, and eat meat. Everything about their anatomy, physiology, bone structure, teeth, claws, brain, eyes, everything about them is built to hunt, kill, and eat meat.
A tiger modified to eat plants would not even be recognizable as a tiger, would not be a tiger. It would be a completely different animal.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 1:10:33 AM
|
|
|
tcasboy
Posts: 38
Joined: 9/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PopsiLufsJesus
the earth has not been around for millions of years
Not millions, billions. Roughly 4 billion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 1:45:18 AM
|
|
|
tcasboy
Posts: 38
Joined: 9/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PopsiLufsJesus
that isn't biblical and or scientific, if anyone dares look at the truth
the earth has roughly been around a lil over 6000 years...
What is your definition of "scientific"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 5:28:20 AM
|
|
|
mvic
Posts: 1544
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline
|
I am genuinely trying to understand where this is leading to. No disrespect to anyone here.
The age of the earth is a debate in itself, although I suspect it is a little older than 6000 years.
As to whether animals ate meat or not, well ... does it really matter? I believe some dinosaurs have been found with the remains of other animals in their stomach.
So please enlighten me. What is the Biblical point here because I've missed it. (Maybe I'm stupid).
_____________________________
Christian words of comfort at http://www.holyvisions.co.uk
Welcome to my Blog
MEI VITA INDICO CHRISTUS
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 5:57:05 AM
|
|
|
Tagurit
Posts: 22
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
|
I tend to believe that all were vegetarians before the flood when God ordains that man can eat meat. Also something to think about--death was a result of sin both for man and creation. This would mean that before the sin in the garden there could not have been death--therefore no eating of meat. Who knows how long this time period was--between man's creation and sin....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 7:13:08 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
Gen 1.29-30 does not say specifically that ALL animals were herbivores.
While the Isiaiah passage speaks of the messianic/millenial kingdom period of peace and talks of carnivores eating grass, I am not so sure that it can be taken literally. It might be a metaphor for the peace and security during that time.
These passages are much too weak to make a firm statement about what was or what will be.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 8:02:19 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3424
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
quote:
What is the Biblical point here because I've missed it. (
More than likely the worship of vegetarianism.
Lets think this through..if a tiger was exactly as he is now when he supposedly ate plants, then God was foreshadowing the future because a tiger is not designed to eat plants.
Eating meat is not less holy.
Eating is the biological way of giving organic beings energy. Its very possible no organic being alive after Jesus comes back will need any kind of carbon based energy transfer as they need it now. In other words, we won't need to eat and neither will any animals..if there are any.
Without biological needs ( food and reproduction ) the main driving forces which corrupt this world will end. There will be absolutley no carnality.
That is a guess...maybe our new bodies will need food or want it...I don't know I just suspect not.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 8:10:27 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1937
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mvic
As to whether animals ate meat or not, well ... does it really matter?
Unfortunately, it does. If you've got animals living for millions/billions of years in what we'd call a relatively "normal" state, they'd be dying and eating each other all over the place. One of the central tenets of YEC is the claim that no living creature died before the fall and that there were no carnivores either. It's my opinion that if you remove the issue of no-death-before-the-fall (which is itself tenuously supported at best), then you remove the only real theological reason to not accept a more figurative interpretation of genesis.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 8:34:23 AM
|
|
|
AboundinginHisGrace
Posts: 403
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
First off what bothers me about what some have said is that they are limiting God. I mean come on the God that breathed creation could have modified animals after the flood HE IS GOD YOU KNOW! I mean with most animals all that would have had to change were their teeth and a lot of them still could have eaten herbs/berries/grass. I mean look at a bear its teeth are almost the same a tiger/lion/etc and most of what it eats is grass and berries. I mean look at people, look at the change sin has made in a lot of us. Where do you think all the deformities and things come from, sin. Here are few verses that deal with the subject.
Gen 1:29 And God said, "see I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of the all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of flesh and you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them. (Remember they dont eat meat)
Gen7:2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female. (remember these were sacrificed)
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
I think all of creation were vegetarians. Some people so far have stated with absolute authority that they were not, how do you know? Become some scientist told you so.... Also with the age of the earth I think I will believe what the bible says and not someone who is not a christian and thinks he has all the answers....
_____________________________
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 8:49:30 AM
|
|
|
TorchHeart
Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/4/2008
From: One of the coldest places on Earth
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AboundinginHisGrace
I think all of creation were vegetarians. Some people so far have stated with absolute authority that they were not, how do you know? Become some scientist told you so.... Also with the age of the earth I think I will believe what the bible says and not someone who is not a christian and thinks he has all the answers....
Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean he's not a Christian. And they do have the answers. I'll believe them over a story that wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place and was only included in a sacred book (the Bible) by the Jews, and later the Christians, as a moral lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 10:04:11 AM
|
|
|
AboundinginHisGrace
Posts: 403
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TorchHeart
quote:
ORIGINAL: AboundinginHisGrace
I think all of creation were vegetarians. Some people so far have stated with absolute authority that they were not, how do you know? Become some scientist told you so.... Also with the age of the earth I think I will believe what the bible says and not someone who is not a christian and thinks he has all the answers....
I'll believe them over a story that wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place and was only included in a sacred book (the Bible) by the Jews, and later the Christians, as a moral lesson.
Wow those are strong words... A story not taken literally. If the bible isn't meant to be taken literally then why are we basing our life on it? So you do not think the story of adam and eve are real? You do not think the flood really happend?
_____________________________
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 10:50:30 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1279
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean he's not a Christian. And they do have the answers. I'll believe them over a story that wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place and was only included in a sacred book (the Bible) by the Jews, and later the Christians, as a moral lesson. I'm with you Torch!
quote:
A story not taken literally. If the bible isn't meant to be taken literally then why are we basing our life on it? So you do not think the story of adam and eve are real? You do not think the flood really happend I don't think every single story in the Bible is literally & factually true. I do think everything in the Bible contains truth and is worth believing. It's just not all LITERAL FACT.
As far as the flood goes - yeah, I believe the flood happened because there is geological evidence for it. However, I do believe it was regional (which would have been "worldwide" for Noah) rather than actually global.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 12:00:13 PM
|
|
|
TorchHeart
Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/4/2008
From: One of the coldest places on Earth
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wow those are strong words... A story not taken literally. If the bible isn't meant to be taken literally then why are we basing our life on it? So you do not think the story of adam and eve are real? You do not think the flood really happend?
See post directly above mine.
I didn't say that the entire Bible wasn't to be taken literally. But the initial creation account in Genesis is a story from a time when people were not around. It was writen down (at earliest) around the time of Moses. It is a story that serves to answer a question about where we came from to an ancient people who wouldn't have understood dinosaurs, distant galaxies, lightspeed, etc. Most Christian denominations accept that the New Testement is completely accurate, but that there are "holes" in the Old Testement or that parts of it are not historically accurate and/or meant to be taken literally.
And even if the creation account IS accurate, that doesn't mean that it only happened 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. Nobody knows for certain how long Adam was in the Garden of Eden. He could've been there for billions of years if you believe in creationism. Because of the facts we know about our planet from scientific analysis, there has to be some kind of a happy medium here if you want the creation account to work. And just because the Earth didn't form exactly as it says in that one account of Genesis doesn't mean God didn't have exactly as much to do with its formation.
As for the flood, like the above post states, it could very well have just been a regional flood, and that is far more likely. It still wouldn 't have been any less of a miracle for God to save Noah and his family from it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 12:04:55 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Moving to San Antonio!
Status: offline
|
Compare Genesis 1 and Genesis 9. Chapter 1 gives a long description of the kinds of plants humans can eat, while mentioning that animals "every green herb" -- a much simpler description. In chapter 9, God specifically tells humans they can now eat meat. No such change is made for animals. I believe the reference in chapter 1 is not meant to be an exclusive list of what animals ate. Also, "green herbs" are at the root of the food chain, so even if an animal ate another animal, it would still be getting "green herbs" that way.
This "no animal death before sin" argument seems to be most argued from Romans 5, where it says "death entered through sin" (paraphrase). However, looking at the context of Romans, this is exclusively about human spiritual death. Romans (and virtually all of Paul's letters) are about our spiritual relationship with God. Animals are not in view here.
Those are the only verses that appear at first glance to mean no animal death before sin, and I just don't see them saying that at all. Combine that with the scientific evidence, which some of you seem to readily ignore. There has never been a time on earth since animals were created when there wasn't carnivorous activity.
Some might say that such activity would not be "very good." For one, that confuses the meaning of the words God spoke. He said Creation was "very good", not "perfect." Perfection is reserved for the next creation. Also, carnivorous activity is actually very good in a way -- it helps the gene pool of the target animals. The weaker ones are eliminated.
_____________________________
My current ministry dream:
http://victorymuseum.org
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 12:58:31 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
One of the central tenets of YEC is the claim that no living creature died before the fall and that there were no carnivores either. It's my opinion that if you remove the issue of no-death-before-the-fall (which is itself tenuously supported at best), then you remove the only real theological reason to not accept a more figurative interpretation of genesis. I consider myself YEC. I consider that to be the most scripturally defensable position. I am not dogmatic about it however.
I see no scriptural evidence for all animals being herbivores before the fall or the flood. That is not scripturally defensable. While I agree God COULD have changed the animals after the flood I see no direct scriptural mention of Him doing that.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 2:01:45 PM
|
|
|
mvic
Posts: 1544
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline
|
At the risk of going off-topic: The Bible is a book of Faith and not necessarily all Fact. It is inspired by God to help us believe in Him and in His love for us.
Some may wish to believe every word as being fact. And I respect them for their views.
Personally, I believe some stories are illustrative in nature to cater for the audience of the time they were written. For example: Did God create the universe in seven days? Who knows? It could have been 8, 9 10, or even less. It could have been a split second. He didn't have a Gregorian calendar at the time - did He?
_____________________________
Christian words of comfort at http://www.holyvisions.co.uk
Welcome to my Blog
MEI VITA INDICO CHRISTUS
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 2:23:11 PM
|
|
|
mvic
Posts: 1544
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline
|
I really don't wish to go off-topic. I can see nervous moderators on the edge of my monitor.
No one really knows how long God took to create the universe. Genesis was written by an author trying to tell us about God and the origin of mankind. Inspired by God - yes. But not necessarily all literal fact.
My opinion - I may well be wrong. God did not tell me this personally one way or another. Neither did He tell anyone else whose opinion may differ to mine.
_____________________________
Christian words of comfort at http://www.holyvisions.co.uk
Welcome to my Blog
MEI VITA INDICO CHRISTUS
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/11/2008 2:38:10 PM
|
|
|
deermousie
Posts: 1859
Joined: 9/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TorchHeart
quote:
It tells us that in the beginning, both animals and man were not carnivores.
Uh, no it doesn't. That doesn't mean that this was all those animal ate. Without a doubt, some of them ate meat, unless God had some great population control method in the Garden of Eden (I can garuntee you that with rabbits, rats, and a number of other critters, he'd have needed it). The very garden would've been over-run.
OK, lets look at this. The two sides of this argument are:
- the Bible says God said "I have given every green herb for food."
- a person says that it isn't rational because of population problems.
I will trust the Bible over any human intelligence, however high it might be. A Higher Intelligence created our intelligence.
God was conclusive about what was going to eat: "every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life" - do you suppose He forgot to tell us that they'd be eating more than herbs, when He was going in to detail about the rest?
quote:
Also, we know for fact that over several million years there have been carnivores and herbavores alike. The Tyranosaurus Rex, which lived well over 65-68 million years ago, was without a doubt a carnivore and was always a carnivore. The same can be said for many, many other animals from that time period and ones before and after it.
The fossil ages are based on the rock layers which are dated by the fossils in them. It's circular reasoning, and geologists have been complaining for at least 70 years that something more definitive is warrented.
There are ways to know something is true: either God said it, or there's the scientific method, which uses repeatable experiments where everyone gets the same results using the same circumstances... and you can't repeat the past. It's history, not science. You can't scientifically prove what you had for breakfast, because this morning can't be repeated. You can prove something exists that you call is evidence but you never have the whole picture.
Carbon dating is accepted as credible by everyone as far as I know, but Dr. Libby who invented it, said it wasn't accurate past 6000 years. Yet people routinely use it to date things millions of years old. And there is dating using other elements, and argon gives a earth age of ten years. Which are you going to believe, and importantly, why? You've been around longer than ten years, but how do you know the carbon dating isn't just as inaccurate in the opposite direction? Especially with the 6000 year limit.
quote:
Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean he's not a Christian. And they do have the answers.
Scientists *do* have answers; the question is, are the credible answers? What is a person's epistomology (the "how do you know?") - is it based on the scientific method? How many people "tweak" their science/philosophy to excuse their personal sin? If a person acknowledges that God created the universe then it leads them to a responsibility to obey that God and quit their sin. Maybe they'd rather have their sin. So they can construct a world that is based on chance, and then they can do whatever they want guilt-free. Or pretend they don't feel it, if they still can. Aldous Huxley admitted in his later years that his philosophy was a lie he made up to excuse the kind of life he wanted to live.
God doesn't tell us everything in the Bible, but told us the things He wanted us to know. The things written in the Bible are for us, and the mysteries are His business, not ours. So in a sense God has told us to know our place; we don't know everything. For us to debate whether He is trustworthy or if He made an error because we think He missed out on some complication is laughable. He is God.
_____________________________
Want to know where a certain word or phrase in the Bible is found? www.biblegateway.com Yay!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
