RE: 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  | |
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 3:59:22 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4229
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TorchHeart
quote:
What METHOD of adding up the age of the earth do YOU use? What some MAN told you??? If you are a Christian then what better source to age the earth with, than from the words of the ONE WHO MADE IT, not from someone that probably doesn't even know the maker???? Have you personally carbon dated the earth? Do you have the equipment to perform carbon dating? Are 100% certain that the scientist have the method that is 100% accurate in ageing the earth? I can answer that for you. NO YOU DO NOT!
You're adding up the age of the Earth based on the way some man told you to do it. A method that was developed in around the 18th century, if I recall right. And as I stated before, that method doesn't work because we don't know anything about how long the Garden of Eden was in existance, or how long God allowed Adam and Eve to be in there prior to "The Fall," or what happened outside of the Garden of Eden (if Adam and Eve could be cast out of it, it obviously didn't encompass the entire world. Thus its logical to assume that there were animals and plants living outside of the Garden of Eden).
There's a lot to this, if you follow the logics of the whole thing.
And I'm trying to figure out what difference it makes.
_____________________________
Who should be allowed to attend church?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 4:05:48 PM
|
|
|
TorchHeart
Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/4/2008
From: One of the coldest places on Earth
Status: offline
|
quote:
And I'm trying to figure out what difference it makes.
In the grand scheme of things? None, as I believe we pointed out before. Either way you believe, this has no bearing on salvation, Christ's sacrifice for us, God's love, or other vastly more important parts of the Bible. In the end, a bunch of us are going to die and have a chance to ask God which way he actually went about doing this, and find out.
Personally, I'll laugh my self into a tizz if He tells us that everyone is wrong and he did something completely different. Like accidently drop a meatball from his raviolli dinner, or something like that.
But over all, this is just something to debate for the purpose of arguing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 4:49:32 PM
|
|
|
deermousie
Posts: 1859
Joined: 9/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mvic
You may be interested in this link from the UK. Someone calling for Creationism to be taught in science lessons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7612152.stm
P.S. Tried to PM you and failed. Your INBOX is full.
Thanks, Mvic, I'll check it out.
And my inbox is full? I'll have to start deleting I guess. Thanks for letting me know.
_____________________________
Want to know where a certain word or phrase in the Bible is found? www.biblegateway.com Yay!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 5:15:17 PM
|
|
|
delete123
Posts: 937
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
This is my take on animals and people being vegetarians in the O.T.
I believe according to God's word that He did make provisions for them. However when God asked Noah to build the ark in order to destroy all mankind and everything that was in it. He also instructed Noah with the animals, the beasts, and the flock of the air, and the creepy things of the earth. He was restarting the world, but when the ark landed after the storms (which has been said the water was 10 fold the Niagra falls when He opened up Heaven). Noah and his family and everything he has gathered finally landed and they could depart the boat, for the benefit of survival had to eat meat.
You can not grow vegetation on wetlands
CRH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 5:16:00 PM
|
|
|
deermousie
Posts: 1859
Joined: 9/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TorchHeart
quote:
P.S. Tried to PM you and failed. Your INBOX is full.
Well, at least I don't feel so bad, now. I thought it was just a way to avoid talking to me. 
Nah, I don't do that. 
quote:
Again, there is more to go on than just the rocks-fossils-rocks-fossils ring-around-the-rosie parade.
Of course there is. I'm not a geologist and even if I were I wouldn't want to swamp people with information that they might not be able to digest.
quote:
As for God's Word, I don't believe adding up the ages of the patriarchs and then saying that the Earth is only XXXX years old makes this "God's Word."
I've done it. Fascinating - Noah was born before Adam died, so they may have known each other. Anyway, the biblical account tells you before the Flood how old a man was when his son was born, so you can add up the years from Creation to the Noahic Flood. After that you pick a number for how long a generation is (the Bible doesn't tell us their ages beyond those people, it just says they were shorter) and make it reasonable. No way does it come out to millions of years, no matter how generous you are.
Make a time line of before the Flood and plot everyone's birth, son born and death date and see who lived with who. It's fun.
Anything we do with God's Word is subject to intense scrutiny, because we are fallen. God's Word is "God breathed" hence the belief that the Bible was inerrant in the original manuscript. We have no original papers now, just copies, but the NT ones are 98.3% identical, which means they are very close to the original. The problems are a misspelling or punctuation, and none of these are in passages regarding main theological poinits. We have more copies of the Bible manuscripts than we have of Julius Caesar's writings (who was a king and was preserved) or even Shakespeare, whose writings are only 400 years old instead of 2000 years old.
So you'd be better off disputing Shakespeare's authenticity than the New Testament's.
quote:
But over all, this is just something to debate for the purpose of arguing.
I'm afraid I must disagree here. People who hate God (by definition, anyone not born again since we all are sinners) can't punch God in the nose, so they have to hurt God by hurting His people and His contact with people. That's where all the stories about "Jesus didn't raise from the dead, He only fainted" and "Jesus walked on the water because He knew where the rocks were" came from. God's story MUST be made false so He looks untrustworthy so people won't believe in Him. The main attack points are the resurrection (because if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we're all toast) and the authenticity of the truth of the Bible (because people who know the truth are hard to take advantage of by selfish tyrants. The key point is God's Word is absolute truth; nothing changes it. This has been attacked for centuries and no one has ever been able to make a claim of inerrancy stick. Church history is fascinating in part because of this).
Either God's Word is 100% accurate or you can throw it in the trash and go rob banks because there's nothing after you die. You're just an animal that happened by chance and your life is meaningless.
The stakes are high.
quote:
I'm a pretty big hit at parties... until the cops show up.
This resulted in rootbeer being sprayed all over my monitor.
_____________________________
Want to know where a certain word or phrase in the Bible is found? www.biblegateway.com Yay!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 5:22:06 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4229
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: deermousie
Either God's Word is 100% accurate or you can throw it in the trash and go rob banks because there's nothing after you die. You're just an animal that happened by chance and your life is meaningless.
You can have an accurate Word of God without having a specific word of God.
_____________________________
Who should be allowed to attend church?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 5:37:29 PM
|
|
|
TorchHeart
Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/4/2008
From: One of the coldest places on Earth
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm afraid I must disagree here. People who hate God (by definition, anyone not born again since we all are sinners) can't punch God in the nose, so they have to hurt God by hurting His people and His contact with people. That's where all the stories about "Jesus didn't raise from the dead, He only fainted" and "Jesus walked on the water because He knew where the rocks were" came from. God's story MUST be made false so He looks untrustworthy so people won't believe in Him. The main attack points are the resurrection (because if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we're all toast) and the authenticity of the truth of the Bible (because people who know the truth are hard to take advantage of by selfish tyrants. The key point is God's Word is absolute truth; nothing changes it. This has been attacked for centuries and no one has ever been able to make a claim of inerrancy stick. Church history is fascinating in part because of this).
Either God's Word is 100% accurate or you can throw it in the trash and go rob banks because there's nothing after you die. You're just an animal that happened by chance and your life is meaningless.
Yeah, we're definitely going to have to disagree on this. I fail to see how the Earth being greater than 6,000 years old is going to disprove anything about God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 5:45:57 PM
|
|
|
TorchHeart
Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/4/2008
From: One of the coldest places on Earth
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've done it. Fascinating - Noah was born before Adam died, so they may have known each other.
So you're saying Adam needed a lifejacket?
quote:
Anyway, the biblical account tells you before the Flood how old a man was when his son was born, so you can add up the years from Creation to the Noahic Flood. After that you pick a number for how long a generation is (the Bible doesn't tell us their ages beyond those people, it just says they were shorter) and make it reasonable. No way does it come out to millions of years, no matter how generous you are.
I still don't buy it. I'm sorry. Adam could've been in the Garden of Eden for millions of years. Or, God could've taken millions of years in forming the Garden of Eden (I'm perfectly willing to consider the idea that "one day" in God's time can equal X number of years or centuries or whatever in our time).
quote:
Make a time line of before the Flood and plot everyone's birth, son born and death date and see who lived with who. It's fun.
I did that one time. It actually added up to being just shorter than the amount of time it took me to get my steak at the Outback, last Saturday. The potatoes were cold, too. Luckily I got my meal comped for me as a result.
quote:
Anything we do with God's Word is subject to intense scrutiny, because we are fallen. God's Word is "God breathed" hence the belief that the Bible was inerrant in the original manuscript. We have no original papers now, just copies, but the NT ones are 98.3% identical, which means they are very close to the original. The problems are a misspelling or punctuation, and none of these are in passages regarding main theological poinits. We have more copies of the Bible manuscripts than we have of Julius Caesar's writings (who was a king and was preserved) or even Shakespeare, whose writings are only 400 years old instead of 2000 years old.
So you'd be better off disputing Shakespeare's authenticity than the New Testament's.
Well, you and I will agree that the NEW Testement is completely accurate, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 6:58:59 PM
|
|
|
OneJohn410
Posts: 1177
Joined: 6/1/2008
Status: offline
|
God kept the animals in the ark a long time while the flood waters receded. The dove came back with a olive leaf. I think God thought about how much food would be needed on that ark to keep everyone nutritionally satisfied until the time when Noah said get out? No, God was the skipper of the ark, and let everyone know when it was time to exit.
It probably looked like an olympic time trial as the animals were let out, so that none devoured the others right there on the spot- and who knows how many species were made extinct even then?
The main point being God was already growing new veggies for the herbivores to eat- that wasn't something Noah and the crew had to get busy doing. So plant eaters could stay plant eaters.
Hey Sparkelingsnow,
Would you let me know what translation you quoted that first passage from? The NIV reads in verse 29 that 'They will be yours for food.' Not for meat. That's the same for verse 30- all land- and air-based animals are given plants for food. I don't see any kind of suggestion that this is to be substituted for meat.
Would you also consider for the Isaiah quote you shared, that God's making a new thing, and whoever sees it is not going to remember the old thing, nor even be able to recollect it? Therefore, what is one really unthinkable picture in today's world. A wolf and a lamb, eating together in peace is a good one. How about an even larger one. A lion- big meat eater, and an ox, big hay eater, eating together. No harm happening, no destruction, says the Lord. Someone's taken that verse, ripped it out of the Bible, and said see- these animals we know now are going to be best pals in the future, both eating veggies! Really, what it infers to me is that the observers are going to be seeing things they can't possibly imagine. That it's a new thing, and what was known and recalled won't amount to anything anymore.
Those two things are what is needed from you for me to see any more weight in the argument of your subject line.
Thanks,
OneJohn410
quote:
ORIGINAL: delete123
This is my take on animals and people being vegetarians in the O.T.
I believe according to God's word that He did make provisions for them. However when God asked Noah to build the ark in order to destroy all mankind and everything that was in it. He also instructed Noah with the animals, the beasts, and the flock of the air, and the creepy things of the earth. He was restarting the world, but when the ark landed after the storms (which has been said the water was 10 fold the Niagra falls when He opened up Heaven). Noah and his family and everything he has gathered finally landed and they could depart the boat, for the benefit of survival had to eat meat.
You can not grow vegetation on wetlands
CRH
quote:
SPARKELINGSNOW:
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.
_____________________________
The Lord is my strength and shield. I trust Him with all my heart. He helps me, and my heart is filled with joy. I burst out in songs of thanksgiving. Psalm 28:7
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 8:06:27 PM
|
|
|
sparkleingsnow
Posts: 3767
Joined: 1/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Sure OneJohn, it was KJV. The word "meat" means food. Not "meat" (flesh)as we think it it today.
Perhaps my opening statment was to strong. I think that if God had said they could also eat each other too, He would have said so. But I understand that the Bible also doesn't say that they couldn't, so while I believe it, I will also respect the fact that others don't think that was all they were to eat.
As far as Isaiah, it says that He will make a new earth and the former won't be reminbered. I take that as fact. When it says that the wolf and the lamb will feed together and lion will eat straw, I take that as fact, too. After all, He's God! And He can do anything. And He says He will make all things new.
But as I stated before, it could be symbolic, and others believe it is. I don't. I think it means just what it said. But as I also said, I could be wrong. (I've been know to be once or twice. lol)
And God is still God. It will be just what He wants it to be.
God Bless
_____________________________
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... - 9/12/2008 9:14:17 PM
|
|
|
AboundinginHisGrace
Posts: 403
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
To say that the old testament isn't inerrant is to make the disciples, apostles, and Jesus liars. When they referred to the scriptures they were referring to the old testament. If its not inerrant then what good is it? And if its not why do they quote and refer to so often?
By the way Jesus here is referring the old testament, and jot or tittle is the smallest mark in the language so Jesus thought all of the old testament down the smallest mark to be inspired and important.
Matthew 5:17-19
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
_____________________________
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... - 9/12/2008 10:48:45 PM
|
|
|
sparkleingsnow
Posts: 3767
Joined: 1/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Great post AboundinginHisGrace.
Our not understanding something is one thing. But to doubt it or think it is wrong, no way. I think thats a very good point, that Jesus and the apostles referred to the old testament.
_____________________________
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... - 9/12/2008 10:57:25 PM
|
|
|
deermousie
Posts: 1859
Joined: 9/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TorchHeart
So you're saying Adam needed a lifejacket?
No, Adam died before the flood, as did all those in this line except Noah and his sons.
quote:
quote:
No way does it come out to millions of years, no matter how generous you are.
I still don't buy it. I'm sorry. Adam could've been in the Garden of Eden for millions of years. Or, God could've taken millions of years in forming the Garden of Eden (I'm perfectly willing to consider the idea that "one day" in God's time can equal X number of years or centuries or whatever in our time).
The Day-Eon Theory has been pretty much debunked; one of the reasons is that trees and plants were made before the sun. The plants couldn't have survived in the dark for years or millions of years. And we know how many years Adam lived - the Bible tells us.
quote:
I did that one time. It actually added up to being just shorter than the amount of time it took me to get my steak at the Outback, last Saturday. The potatoes were cold, too. Luckily I got my meal comped for me as a result.
I hope the next time is much better. Outback has great food.
quote:
Well, you and I will agree that the NEW Testement is completely accurate, at least.
OK. The God haters will hate you for it, though. But I'd rather have their emnity than God's.
_____________________________
Want to know where a certain word or phrase in the Bible is found? www.biblegateway.com Yay!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 11:21:08 PM
|
|
|
Bevik
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
|
I am with deermousie here. You take the scripture in its entirety or you might as well throw it in the garbage. Old Earth concepts were created to support the evolution theory. Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on if you have a young Earth. Evolution isn't really a new concept anyways. It began life as the Greek Chain of Being put forth by Plato. It is Darwin that changed it into the idea of one kind of an animal changing into another. I don't accept this idea. I rather take G-d at His word and build my theories starting with G-d's truth. That is what Creation Science does.
_____________________________
I'll wear Christmas lights before I pull a sled!
And no, I'm not Rudolph.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 11:42:12 PM
|
|
|
OneJohn410
Posts: 1177
Joined: 6/1/2008
Status: offline
|
I agree. I don't think any of the New Testament had been written yet for anyone to be able to refer to. That would be why they refer to the OT so often.
We were asked to consider the statements of the OP, and not the soundness of the Old Testament, yet I like all your quotes. In Isaiah 65:17, the Lord states that the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. So we know how the animals did feed themselves, and what we will see is going to be brand new to us. We might think that the animals side by side look odd, because it looks like one could make a meal of its neighbor. The Lord will know that's a wolf next to a sheep, and a lion next to an ox. All we are going to see is a bunch of animals peacefully eating next to each other. As part of the new heaven and new earth, their names are not going to be remembered, nor that they were once enemies. We are not gonig to remember which ate meat, and which ate plants.
To say that the Old Testament tells us we are going to recognize anything we see of this, and say look! There's a sheep and a wolf eating together- isn't that against what is said right there. There's no valid argument using that Isaiah verse to conclude the argument of this subject. Who is to even say we are going to be able to remember what we once read in a book named Isaiah at that point?
I've watched this thread leave the subject and not return, and now I see that while Sparkleingsnow said she's seen this conversation elsewhere, someone has ripped a verse out of context and saying see, we'll recognize these animals and they will all be eating plants. That how God has it planned. He also says we'll know nothing about those animals at that point. So the conclusion of this argument is based on something that we would not have the opportunity to confirm on our own. Science will not even be able to confirm it. God says that's how things are going to appear, and the human response is either I believe it, or I don't believe it.
That's just the last half of this statement about animals. The first half looked pretty contreversial too, but the answer to the last half is that is how God's set it up, and when anyone sees it, he or she is not going to know what any of those creatures are, or how they once ate.
OneJohn410
quote:
ORIGINAL: AboundinginHisGrace
To say that the old testament isn't inerrant is to make the disciples, apostles, and Jesus liars. When they referred to the scriptures they were referring to the old testament. If its not inerrant then what good is it? And if its not why do they quote and refer to so often?
By the way Jesus here is referring the old testament, and jot or tittle is the smallest mark in the language so Jesus thought all of the old testament down the smallest mark to be inspired and important.
Matthew 5:17-19
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
_____________________________
The Lord is my strength and shield. I trust Him with all my heart. He helps me, and my heart is filled with joy. I burst out in songs of thanksgiving. Psalm 28:7
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/12/2008 11:43:40 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AboundinginHisGrace
How do we measure the distance of light? And have you ever measured light or are you just believing something you have never seen before?
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
Have I personally measured the speed of light? No.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Animals weren't always carnivores and on the new ea... - 9/13/2008 9:00:26 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1937
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
For anybody interested in some details about how radiometric dating works, including certain pitfalls and how they're accounted for, I highly recommend this site:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
-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.
|
|
|
|
 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
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
