archeological discovery of 10,000 BC temple

[Faith.Man]

Your post regarding the killing of animals by God's hands at the time of Adam's fall is in relation to it being necessary to implement a sacrificial blood covenant at that time as a "type" of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus later. But I don't understand how you relate the deaths of those animals at that time to the actual eating of meat by men before the flood. Am I wrong in understanding that men were not permitted to eat meat before the flood? Perhaps ungodly men practiced meat-eating before the flood...?

Can you show me in Holy Scripture where it says man did not eat the meat of animals until after Noah?

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this. We know from the OT that a blood sacrifice is necessary to cover sin, the reason for God killing two animals as a covering for Adam and Eve's sin. God needed to show death is the result of sin, in this case, animal death. We know from Holy Scripture that Abel was sacrificing first-fruits of his flock of lambs to God, and God found it pleasing. Why would Abel be raising sheep? Was it strictly for clothing?

Gen 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

If you're thinking of Genesis 9:4, John Gill interprets it as follows:

"Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is the only exception to the eating of flesh; it was not to be eaten with the blood in it, which is said to be its life; not that the blood is of itself the life, but because it is a means of life, and that being exhausted, the creature must die, and because the animal and vital spirits appear to us most vigorous in it; yea, it is the ailment and support of them, and which furnishes out the greatest quantity of them: or rather it may be rendered, "the flesh with its life in its blood" (m); while there is life in the blood, or while the creature is living; the meaning is, that a creature designed for food should be properly killed, and its blood let out; that it should not be devoured alive, as by a beast of prey; that raw flesh should not be eaten, as since by cannibals, and might be by riotous flesh eaters, before the flood; for notwithstanding this law, as flesh without the blood might be eaten, so blood properly let out, and dressed, or mixed with other things, might be eaten, for aught this says to the contrary; but was not to be eaten with the flesh, though it might separately, which was afterwards forbid by another law. The design of this was to restrain cruelty in men, and particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood, which men might be led into, were they suffered to tear living creatures in pieces, and feed upon their raw flesh, and the blood in it. The Targum of Jonathan is,"but the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat.''And the Jewish writers generally interpret this of the flesh of a creature taken from it alive, which, they say, is the seventh precept given to the sons of Noah, over and above the six which the sons of Adam were bound to observe, and they are these;1. Idolatry is forbidden. 2. Blasphemy is forbidden. 3. The shedding of blood, or murder is forbidden. 4. Uncleanness, or unjust carnal copulations is forbidden. 5. Rapine or robbery is forbidden. 6. The administration of justice to malefactors is required. 7. The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive (n) is forbidden.Such of the Heathens who conformed to those precepts were admitted to dwell among the Israelites, and were called proselytes of the gate."

Some other commentators give a similar interpretation.

 

[Cloudwatcher]

Hello Faith.man~
I came to the possibly erroneous conclusion that men were not permitted to eat meat before the flood, strictly by inference in Genesis 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (NIV)
However, your Bible background seems more profound than mine, so I defer to your fact that men were in fact, killing sheep for sacrifice before the flood...hence, it is probably natural to assume the sheep were also being eaten.
I only brought this up not as a doctrinal point, but rather to point out that the temple found in this dig has many thousands of animal bones bearing butcher marks buried along with the T-shaped rocks. So, I thought maybe the temple would be pagan-origin instead of God-inspired or Noah-built, if the people were eating meat at that location before the flood.
What do you think is the reason for finding so many animal bones there? Were they sacrifices? Or possibly just the refuse of every day meals for many people? I wonder what types of animal bones have been found there?
Thanks for your interest in my post, Faith.man...

 

[Wirraway]

My understand is that the date was determined by carbon-dating methods. Most of us Fundamentalists feel uncomfortable with this date determination method, but it stands until something better comes along.

the place dates to about 1,000BC, not 10,000. someone added a zero and the error was repeated.

 

[Cloudwatcher]

Wirraway~
For real? There is a date error that's been repeated? And this whole conversation has been for naught? LOL!!!
Oh, that IS rich!
Can you give a source citation for that find? Thanks...

 

[Wirraway]

Wirraway~
For real? There is a date error that's been repeated? And this whole conversation has been for naught? LOL!!!
Oh, that IS rich!
Can you give a source citation for that find? Thanks...

sure. I could.

 

[Faith.Man]

Hello Faith.man~
I came to the possibly erroneous conclusion that men were not permitted to eat meat before the flood, strictly by inference in Genesis 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (NIV)

I wouldn't want you to change your opinion on this based on my word. From what I can tell, there was a difference of opinion among commentators. One such commentator is John Gill who writes the following:

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you,.... That is, every beast, fowl, and fish, without exception; for though there was a difference at this time of clean and unclean creatures with respect to sacrifice, yet not with respect to food; every creature of God was good then, as it is now, and it was left to man's reason and judgment what to make use of, as would be most conducive to his health, and agreeable to his taste: and though there was a distinction afterwards made under the Levitical dispensation among the Jews, who were forbid the use of some creatures; yet they themselves say (k), that all unclean beasts will be clean in the world to come, in the times of the Messiah, as they were to the sons of Noah, and refer to this text in proof of it; the only exception in the text is, that they must be living creatures which are taken, and used for food; not such as die of themselves, or are torn to pieces by wild beasts, but such as are taken alive, and killed in a proper manner:

even as the green herb have I given you all things; as every green herb was given for meat to Adam originally, without any exception, Gen_1:29 so every living creature, without exception, was given to Noah and his sons for food. Some think, and it is a general opinion, that this was a new grant, that man had no right before to eat flesh, nor did he; and it is certain it is not before expressed, but it may be included in the general grant of power and dominion over the creatures made to Adam; and since what is before observed is only a renewal of former grants, this may be considered in the same light; or otherwise the dominion over the creatures first granted to Adam will be reduced to a small matter, if he had no right nor power to kill and eat them; besides, in so large a space of time as 1600 years and upwards, the world must have been overstocked with creatures, if they were not used for such a purpose; nor will Abel's offering the firstling and fattest of his flock appear so praiseworthy, when it made no difference with him, if he ate not of them, whether they were fat or lean; and who will deny that there were peace offerings before the flood, which the offerer always ate of? to which may be added the luxury of men before the flood, who thereby were given to impure and carnal lusts; and our Lord expressly says of the men of that age, that they were "eating and drinking", living in a voluptuous manner, which can hardly be accounted for, if they lived only on herbs, see Luke 17:22 though it must be owned, that it was a common notion of poets and philosophers (l), that men in the golden age, as they call it, did not eat flesh, but lived on herbs and fruit.

This particular aspect of early Genesis life is something I haven't spent much time on. I really need to spend more time on it to be more certain of my beliefs. So even though I might disagree with you now, doesn't mean your analysis is wrong.[/quote]

However, your Bible background seems more profound than mine, so I defer to your fact that men were in fact, killing sheep for sacrifice before the flood...hence, it is probably natural to assume the sheep were also being eaten.

I'm older, not necessarily wiser. I do wonder though what Abel was doing with the sheep he was raising.

I only brought this up not as a doctrinal point, but rather to point out that the temple found in this dig has many thousands of animal bones bearing butcher marks buried along with the T-shaped rocks. So, I thought maybe the temple would be pagan-origin instead of God-inspired or Noah-built, if the people were eating meat at that location before the flood.

Yes, a non-Noah origin for this site makes sense to me. Why would Noah, who just saved countless species of animals in the Ark, set up a butcher shop at this site? A pagan origin makes more sense, I agree.

What do you think is the reason for finding so many animal bones there? Were they sacrifices? Or possibly just the refuse of every day meals for many people? I wonder what types of animal bones have been found there?

We might not know the answers to these questions until more of this archaeological dig is unearthed.

Thanks for your interest in my post, Faith.man...

You're welcome. Thank you for taking interest in mine.