|
Post by rwley on Jun 27, 2008 11:10:45 GMT -5
Were there carnivores in Eden? Or did the taste for meat come only after the fall?
Did the lions eat lettuce or lamb?
How about tigers; T-bone or truffles?
If there were meat-eaters, were there animals provided simply for the purpose of feeding those appetites?
I don't necessarily want "proof" of anything, this was a random question that crossed my brain, and it may go somwhere else, but I'm not sure yet.
In the same vein, will there be animals in Heaven? Pets? Wildlife? Fish? Birds? Dinosaurs?
Will only the human creation be redeemed or the "nature" creation as well? What about roses without thorns? Poison Ivy without the poison?
Just looking for other's thoughts on these matters.
Robi
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Jun 27, 2008 16:20:21 GMT -5
Paul wrote that all of creation groans for redemption. That tells me that the natural creation, including animals, was "subjected to futility" because of the fall, and will be redeemed somehow in the new heaven and earth.
Good question about carnivores. That, I don't have a theory about.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jun 27, 2008 17:07:42 GMT -5
Considering blood hadn't been shed until God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden and set them up with new duds (1), and animals weren't afraid of humans, and humans didn't eat meat until after the flood(2), I was taught that not only was there no meat eating (by anyone/thing) in the garden, there was no meat eating until after the flood.
1. "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." Gen. 3:21 2. "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it..."Gen. 9:2-4
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jun 27, 2008 21:43:09 GMT -5
I'm reading through the Bible in 90 days (or so) starting one week ago Wednesday night. Just got done reading about the Exodus, and getting into the law.
I read nothing about 1. no blood being spilled prior to the two people getting their new duds 2. animals not being afraid of people or 3.no one eating meat prior to the flood.
Where'd you get that? I realize I might have missed some verse or other while reading 12 pages a day, but since so much doctrine is based on these premises, I think I ought to know where it all comes from. Now the verses sighted in number 2 in Torainfor's post take place just post flood, yes? God talking to Noah. They do not, however, indicate that people didn't eat animals prior to that, or that animals were not afraid of people prior to that. Only that they weren't particularly afraid of Noah and company. God often repeats his promises throughout time, so the fact that he makes a promise at one point does not indicate that it's the first point at which he makes that promise.
So a little more foundation might help. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Teskas on Jun 28, 2008 15:26:29 GMT -5
This is my personal take on the question of whether Adam and Eve ate meat in the Garden of Eden.
Genesis tells us that God made the beasts of the field, and then makes a specific statement that He made cattle. Genesis 1:25.
There is in English Common Law a distinction between two kinds of animals: those which are "natural users of the land" , animals like buffalo, pheasants, boar, lions. and animals which are reduced to domestication and brought into a landscape by men, like cows, chickens, and pigs. I think it is a helpful distinction when thinking about this subject.
Genesis tells us God made a garden, a pleasure park. In the Middle Eastern mind, this was understood immediately as a fenced (in a variety of ways, bushes, nets, wooden, iron, stone) or walled-off area enjoyed by a great king. Dangerous animals were excluded from it, and it was usually carefully planted. Sometimes it was dedicated to wildlife--like a deer park. Kings could go hunting in these parks, or they could stroll in them. Safe in the knowledge that no harm would come to them.
We also know from Genesis, that Adam was commanded to "keep" the garden. Gen. 2:15. The word keep, as you probably know, means not only take possession of, but also guard, or defend.
Beasts and cattle are brought to him to name, and so forth. I think there was an inside and and outside to Eden. Beyond Eden's boundaries was a dangerous world. I think this because chronologically Satan has already rebelled against his Creator. So, I think the "food chain" was alive, well, and in full swing when Adam and Eve were made. Lions were taking down springbok on the velts, and killer whales were eating sea lion pups.
God is a respecter of the authority He gives His creatures, whether the sun to rule the day, or Lucifer who had rule over the whole of the earth. Eden was a place of safety for Adam and Eve. So safe, the two didn't even need to worry about sunburn or bug bites. Eden was a place of boundaries, even psychological ones. There was an inbuilt deference and modesty in the human mind. One human being could look upon another, even naked, and see only the reflected glory of God. Hence no need for garments.
I think human bodies in Eden were not mortal. Death entered with Adam's sin. So, although the human body was physical, its nutritional needs may have been different. Adam may not have needed flesh to eat to get the necessary protein to flourish.
But with the naming of cattle, we are dealing with an animal suited for domestic use, not a natural user of the land like a tiger. So, in theory I think cattle could have been available for cheese and milk for daily consumption, just as they are today in Middle Eastern countries, and for celebration, like the fatted calf.
I don't think the Genesis account precludes the eating of flesh, but by the same token, I believe our first parents physical needs in the Garden of Eden may have had no requirement of flesh.
Be aware that the interpretation which is often taught in Bible classes that Adam and Eve did not eat meat is very old. It comes from some of the earliest Christian commentaries on the Bible. Remember at the time these influential commentaries are being written, there is operating among Christian intellectuals the profound influence of neo-platonic ideas.
Meat was seen as something which bound men to the things of this world--meat built muscle which was necessary for an active life, and fed passion which was necessary for reproduction. These were highly valued in the ancient world. Whereas it was believed that a vegetable diet made men weaker, less prone to savagery, and thus more open to the spiritual.
Indeed, many of the sects of the ancient world--heavily influenced by platonism and neo-platonism--taught that one could achieve heaven by following a strict way of life which included not only special rituals, but also abstinence from marital relations, and a strict diet of leafy greens.
So be aware there is a history to our sources of scriptural interpretation on this matter. Hope this helps, Robi.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jun 28, 2008 19:03:01 GMT -5
Briefly: I make a point of trusting that most people have good reasons for believing the things they believe, whether or not those things are the truth. Thanks for outlining yours. I now know things I did not before, which is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jun 29, 2008 10:23:10 GMT -5
I'm not a Bible scholar. I just play one on TV.
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. Gen. 9:3
I think this is pretty powerful. God had already given Adam and Eve authority to eat any plants (except the two trees). And Genesis 1 seems to say before that time, animals were only to eat vegetation as well:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
You must be right about the shedding of blood, though. Although before the Fall there was no death or blood shed (can't have death without sin), after the Fall, there must have been. Abel brought fat sacrifices to God of the best of his lambs, and then Cain killed Abel. Although it doesn't say that Abel didn't eat the rest of the lamb, I think the Gen. 1 and Gen. 9 passages, taken together, infer it was very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jun 29, 2008 17:00:15 GMT -5
Can we explore this idea: There was death prior to the fall. Here's my thinking, which is deductive, as I understand it (rather than inductive).
Post Christ's resurrection, we still die physically. Christ's resurrection redeemed us from the penalty imposed upon us because of sin If we were absolved from the penalty for sin, due to Christ's sacrifice, death, and resurrection, and we still die physically, then the penalty for sin must not have been physical death.
If that is true, then physical death is not what entered the world as a result of sin, and it might have been around long before the fall (otherwise things would have piled up and it would have been ugly, anyway, from an ecological perspective.) Rather, what entered the world as a result of sin was spiritual death, i.e. separation from God. After all, Adam and Eve died spiritually the day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but they did not die physically. Also, God said to himself that he'd have to remove them from the garden, lest they also eat of the tree of life, and live forever. This indicates that they would not have lived for ever, otherwise, even prior to the fall. They would have died physically, but not spiritually.
|
|
|
Post by themantheycallcris on Jun 30, 2008 2:31:43 GMT -5
mongoose, i like how you try to break down the elements of this to see what might lie behind. however, i think there is an element you may have overlooked.
you mentioned you believe that since Christ's death didn't end physical death that physical death wasn't part of the curse. but that is not necessarily the case. the bible seems to indicate that there are different levels of results from sin.
some believe that there is a discrepancy when the bible says "the soul that sins, it shall die" and "for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me"
are either of these statements wrong? i doubt anyone on this board will say they are. and we can see the truth in both of them without any conflict. in the one case, we see the penalty of sin on the soul. the soul that sins, it shall die. nobody is going to hell for the sins of another.
as for the second quote, we see it's truth all the time. when a parent dives into substance abuse, there are many cases of children born with defects. when a parent gets himself involved with the "wrong group of people", God sometimes allows the children to be in harms way with those same people. there are natural concequences from our sins that affect us only in this temporary world. and it's common for the damage to continue on generation after generation
we can see even in our own justice system today two forms of prosecution... criminal and civil. these only partly coralate to tempral and eternal concequence, but the picture shows the duplicit nature of punishment.
i personally think that they would not have died had they never eaten the forbidden fruit. in fact, i don't think anything died before sin. but i have to admit, i have a hard time reconciling that view to another point mongoose mentioned... they needed to eat of the tree of life to live forever. it's possible that the tree of life's benefit was only meant for fallen man, and irrevelant to sinless man. it may be that they only needed it after they sinned. but that can only be assumed (not known from the passage), so i don't yet feel comfortable saying i'm decided on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Jun 30, 2008 8:37:26 GMT -5
Wow! I didn't really mean to open a can of worms, but it seems I did. I really wasn't looking for theological debate, just personal opinion, but this is cool, too.
I guess I'm not sure where I stand on what little we'be given in Scripture, because frankly, God doesn't tell us a whole lot about Eden before the fall. It's there yes, but no real details. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in Eden before the serpent came along and messed things up; and that could probably open another debate about time, so I wont' go there.
I think probably there were all the animals there because they were brought to Adam to be named. And I think he named the wild as well as the domestic. But I think they were likely all vegetarian at the time. IMO, God was the first to shed blood when he made coverings of skin for His children. Physical death was not a concern; neither was illness, disease, decay, depression, discontent, jealousy, and of the physical, emotional, or spiritual weaknesses that affect humanity today. Those all came about as a result of sin. Were Adam and Eve immortal? I don't know, maybe they were just incredibly long-lived, or would have been had they not sinned. Look at the life spans that are recorded up until the flood.
God protected both life span and gene pool until there were enough people to insure a continued population expansion. Even though post-flood there were only three couples to re-populate the earth, God had arranged enough genetic disparity to allow it to happen. How? I don't know. He programmed the DNA sequences, surely He could manage his own genetic manipulation programs.
But that's another argument altogether. Back to the animals.
IMO, nothing but vegans in Eden. There will be animals in Heaven, redeemed with all of God's creation. There, by some working of God which I will never understand, food will be unneccessary. Yes, we will have banquets, but more for fellowship than need. We will feast on the Bread of Life and drink only of Living Water and the animals will be supernaturally provided for by their Creator.
Can I have a Siberian Tiger? Here, kitty, kitty!
Robi
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jul 1, 2008 10:48:23 GMT -5
I gotta disagree with the theory there was death in the Garden of Eden, if only because of Romans 5:12:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
Death entered the world through sin.
In other news, I got to thinking about Cain and Abel and how Abel sacrificed the fat of his lambs, therefore there was bloodshed before the flood. I still don't think people ate meat before the flood, but it got me wondering: if people didn't eat meat, how come Abel raised sheep? Maybe just for the wool.
I gotta believe there will be animals in heaven, too. We were created to glorify God, then given the task of caring for the Earth and everything in it. I think heaven will be a fulfillment of our original purpose. (I once asked my mom if I could have a unicorn in heaven. She said she didn't think so. She thought heaven would just be us, praising God. I told that to a preacher several years later. He said, "Becky," (because he could never remembered my name), "if you need a unicorn to make it heaven, you will have a unicorn.")
Robi, did you mean you wondered why only three couples had enough genetic purity to not create a bunch of mutants? Or you wondered how only three couples had enough genetic disparity to create all the physical differences? The first is because pre-flood people were protected from DNA-ravaging radiation by the world-wide cloud cover in place before the rains. The second...I'd ask Divides.
I wish Divides would get plugged in again and spill his expertise.
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Jul 1, 2008 11:04:13 GMT -5
I'm still not clear why there was no eating of flesh before the flood. I can perhaps see the argument that eating of flesh was not permitted by God until his proclamation to Noah, but the world had been full of men and giants who weren't exactly paying mind to God's outline...for centuries.
Or maybe I just can't fathom a giant who wouldn't eat sheep whole.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 1, 2008 22:15:35 GMT -5
So there was eating of flesh pre-flood. The evidence against it, as presented in this forum, is shaky at best. Why do we need to believe it to begin with? Why NOT have people eating meat? Are we trying to justify vegetarianism? There's plenty of other passages we could look to for that. Are we trying to cling to traditional interpretations of Scripture stories, and traditional doctrines and beliefs about what occurred when, at the expense of a reasoned and premise free examination of the whole counsel of the whole Word of God?
Once the arguments for and against any given position have been presented, I'm left with the questions that I think are more relevant, and more worthy of attention. Not just what you believe or why you believe it, but why is it important to you to believe it? Why do you care? Why should others believe it. The fact that it's true is insufficient cause for others to need to believe it. Belief in non-essential truths is not essential, and this is a non-essential truth we're talking about.
Yet we obviously care enough to do some minor research and thought, and to post our results. Why?
Here's my reason: The belief that people didn't eat meat prior to the flood is one more example of taking a few scriptures that are not conclusive in their statements about what people did or should do, and developing a doctrine from it that is preached as truth to be accepted. I am opposed to this practice, and I believe that many individuals, as well as the church as a whole would benefit greatly from simply going back and reading the Scriptures for themselves, making the point of ignoring everything they've been told before and just seeing what it really says. Take the Scriptures for what they are, and at face value, unless it's clear they're being metaphorical or whatever at some particular point. But look at them in their own right and as the final authority, rather than in the light of what we already believe in an attempt to confirm the truth of our doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Jul 2, 2008 9:05:07 GMT -5
"Robi, did you mean you wondered why only three couples had enough genetic purity to not create a bunch of mutants? Or you wondered how only three couples had enough genetic disparity to create all the physical differences? The first is because pre-flood people were protected from DNA-ravaging radiation by the world-wide cloud cover in place before the rains. The second...I'd ask Divides." Since what I know about genetics would fit in Barbie's thimble, I didn't mean either other than that God made sure the gene pool was protected. As to the rest; I'm not trying to justify anything. I am certainly not making a case for vegetarianism 'cause I love a good steak myself. This was just an exercise in random thoughts. I just wondered if there were carnivorous animals in Eden? After the fall, we know what we have. My thoughts were simply jumping around one night and that was one of the stray ideas that wandered by and made itself known to me so I thought I'd share the wealth . I love the discussions, but there was never any intent to start a debate or argument or case for or against any diet standards. Beside, I thought the main food groups were steak, potatoes, gravy and chocolate? Am I wrong? Robi
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jul 2, 2008 9:17:24 GMT -5
I'm not sayin' I believe one way or another. I'm just sayin' what I was taught. Real deal is, we don't know. Which, strangely enough, is a minor point in the book I'm currently working on.
|
|