Death Before the Fall

[ChetSinger]

There was predation from the beginning; insectivorous bats for example are designed to hunt insects etc. The YECs have got it wrong; the first chapter of Genesis is based on the Enuma Elish or something similar. The creation wasn’t very good. The second creation account is probably based on another creation myth.

I think of insects as little robots, tiny replicating mobile machines whose purpose is to keep the creation cleaned up and operating properly. I don't think their death matters. Adam himself couldn't have kept from stepping on them, right?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I think of insects as little robots, tiny replicating mobile machines whose purpose is to keep the creation cleaned up and operating properly. I don't think their death matters. Adam himself couldn't have kept from stepping on them, right?

Yeah, but the YEC camp claims that there was no death at all, in the beginning.

 

[ChetSinger]

Yeah, but the YEC camp claims that there was no death at all, in the beginning.

Generally true, but not all YECs believe that the Hebrews considered insect death to matter. After all, if you're living your life outdoors, farming and raising animals, you can't keep from stepping on them.

Here's an article that includes a YEC opinion of insects: Venus flytraps.

The Bible uses a specific Hebrew phrase nephesh chayyāh (נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה = living souls/creatures) for vertebrates, but never for insects (or plants).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I've been pondering this for a few months now, and I have spoken with some of my more well-read YEC friends and haven't found any answers that satisfy me yet. My thought process goes something like this:
1. If God created every animal and plant as a product of special creation, then they were created in their current form ~6,000 years ago with no change in structures.
2. This means that God created predators with dentition and a digestive system specialized for consuming meat. These specializations would not have been needed in the garden.

This means one of three things:
1. After the fall, God stepped in and did more acts of special creation to alter certain animals to be predators in the new fallen world.
2. Those structures were put there from the beginning because God knew man would disobey.
3. There is some biological mechanism that can produce changes in the structure of animals (i.e. mutations + selection).

I don't buy number two, because I feel like it's a cop out. Do you all have any thoughts on predators existing before the fall?

If interested, there are other threads which have been dedicated to the issue - and for more, one can go to the following:

• Prosperity through Dying: Death/Aging BEFORE the Fall...& Seeing if it was a Blessing

Some creatures I wonder if they were really products of the Fall...for perhaps they were made that way by design. In example, others may disagree...but truthfully, I think snakes are truly amongst the most BEAUTIFUL of the Lord's creations on the entire planet:

The Whole Story - Snakes (with greek subtitles) ​

Even snakes/serpents---which God often spoke negatively of in the scriptures ( Genesis 49:16-18 , Numbers 21:5-7, Deuteronomy 32:32-34 , Job 20:13-15, Psalm 140:2-4 , 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 , Matthew 23:32-34, Luke 10:18-20 )---were considered admirable/things God noted as valuable/to be appreciated it often ( Matthew 10:15-17, Proverbs 18-19).​

And apart from that, there are some things that you're glad the Lord made (as it concerns inspiring Awe) and yet thankful they went extinct, as it concerns safety....for I don't know how I'd be able to handle dealing with snakes that were the size of a plane or bus:

​

Titanoboa -Monster Snake (Full Episode)​

Alot of people, regarding snakes/serpents, seem to be of the mindset that they must all be villified/cursed due to what occurred in the Garden when the scriptures note that Eve was tempted by a serpent.

Due to how the Lord told the Serpent in Genesis 3 that he would craw on his belly the rest of his days, many have assumed that all snakes in our time/since were descendants of the Serpent who decieved Eve........and many try to make the conclusion based on how others in the world of science have been of the mindset that snakes used to have legs (more shared here, here , here, and here), even though others have noted that even some lizards do not have legs/seem similar to snakes.....a fact I was surprised to learn when I went on the Mountain retreat I did and saw some of the pictures (more shared here/here ) in the discovery that the main difference between lizards and snakes is external ears and eyelids.

​

I have always struggled with that since some say that the translation of the word Nachash (used for serpent) does not mean snake like we see them today...and for more, one can consider the work of Michael S. Heiser--- a Hebrew scholar who points out that "the Hebrew word "serpent" is Nachash..which is actually an adjective (meaning 'bright,' 'brazen'....as in shiny brass). For in his view, he points out the Hebrew in detail..for essentially, the Nachash, or "serpent," was actually a being of light translated as "the shining one." And as Michael describes, this is clearly in line with other descriptions of the enemy in in the Old Testament..and the NT when it comes to describing him as an angel of light (more discussed here ).

Personally, I think it's more than reasonable..especially when considering the reality of how the Serpent/Devil was not necessarily within Adam's Jurisdiction as all the other animals...as after his fall, he was essentially "renegade"/"off the grid" so to speak. It makes more than enough sense to say "Serpent" was literally the Angel of Light rather than an actual animal or in the sense of the Enemy possessing the body of an animal the Lord had already made known as snakes..as it'd be pretty foolish that all of the snakes were now made to pay for the mistakes of one who was out of control ( lol).

For a good read on the issue, one can go to Evolution - GeoCreationist Perspective on Evolution -Genesis 3:14-15 - When the Serpent Lost His Legs

As a supporter of Old Earth Creationism (Progressive Creationism) and the thought that not all things within creation were originally peaceful as in the Garden of Eden, my own stance is that it seems reasonable to say that even those things deemed to be destructive in nature were made by the Lord as a reflection of how all of creation should always be in awe/fear of Him--and knowing what exactly they must face should they go outside of Him. Be it with sea monsters, deadly sea creatures or monsters of the land (i.e. giant snakes, giant lizards, giant birds, poisonious animals, etc), the Lord made ALL in creation. More was discussed here and here--and an article entitled Why Were Dangerous Animals Created?.

Whenever I think of dangerous animals, I'm reminded of how the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan and the lion that catches its prey are all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ). And with snakes, I do think they often get a real bad rap more than they deserve.


Hope I made sense in what I was trying to convey..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

not all YECs believe that the Hebrews considered insect death to matter. After all, if you're living your life outdoors, farming and raising animals, you can't keep from stepping on them.

Here's an article that includes a YEC opinion of insects: Venus flytraps.

I have always wondered on what one is to do with the fact that the statement given by the Lord to beasts eating plants, if saying it was a commandment forbidding animals from killing, applies to all creation...

Genesis 1:29-30 does not explicitly say that meat was forbidden...for it only says the positive: God gave man and beast "every green plant for food." One individual suggested that this passage has a special literary purpose....not given to define man's diet comprehensively, but to set the stage for the prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the following chapter (Gen. 2:16-17).


And creatures of the SEAS/great deep are not included in the command.

Genesis 1:26
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
​

The Levitithan/great monstets of the waters and other creatures did not get notice for eating plants...and that is something on my mind greatly when it comes to seeing how the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan ....all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ). Perhaps some creatures were made to eat vegetarian, including others that were considered predatory in our times..while others were not and always remained as such due to the way the Lord wanted certain creature to represent what it meant to fear the Lord.

As scripture notes:

Genesis 1:29
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.

Genesis 2:7
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
​

The verse says that God created plants with seed and fruit and gave it to the animals for food. However, the verse does not say that all animals ate only plants. It merely says that the plants were given as food. Ultimately, all animals rely upon plants for food - even the carnivores. God specified to three distinct groups what they could or couldn't eat--and the groups were in the class of air and ground/earth. If going from a strictly literal interpretation at all points, then one would logically have to conclude that he was not speaking to other animals in other areas.If saying something could be assumed, one must wonder how far to take it.

IMHO, A partial list is given, including the beasts of the field, the birds, and the creatures that creep around. Notably missing from the list are the large creatures of the sea, created on the fifth day. With few exceptions, these animals are all carnivores. Did God make them starve until after the Fall?

...."There is the sea, great and broad, In which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great... They all wait for Thee, To give them their food in due season." (Psalm 104:25, 27)

 

[Aman777]

Gen 1:30 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.

Dear Readers, The above verse is prophecy and will NOT be fulfilled until Jesus returns to this Planet. At NO time in history has every creature been a vegetarian. ie. The Saber toothed Tiger

The prophecy of "and it was so" is fulfilled in Isaiah ll:7 AFTER Jesus returns to this earth at the end of time. The traditional view that there was no death until Adam sinned is in error. There was no death of humanity until Adam sinned. There is NO scripture which says that there was no death in other creatures.

There are verses which indicate that darkness of death was present BEFORE the first day. This is because anything created APART from God is temporal and will surely die. ONLY God is eternal. The ONLY way to be eternal is to be in God, in Christ.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

Generally true, but not all YECs believe that the Hebrews considered insect death to matter. After all, if you're living your life outdoors, farming and raising animals, you can't keep from stepping on them.

Here's an article that includes a YEC opinion of insects: Venus flytraps.

The Bible uses a specific Hebrew phrase (נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה = living souls/creatures) for vertebrates, but never for insects (or plants).
​

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures (nephesh chayyāh) according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. Wouldn't remes creeping things include insects?

 

[Calminian]

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures (nephesh chayyāh) according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. Wouldn't remes creeping things include insects?

I would just inject, I don't think they do either. I'm with Chet on this one. Nephesh chayyah is related to breathing and blood, which is where the life resides. Insects wouldn't be in that category, as they don't utilize breathing and blood as other animals do. You could actually eat an insect raw and not be violating kosher guidelines. There is a distinction between living animals, and biological creatures such as insects, bugs, worms bacteria, viruses, and plants and trees.

The nomenclature was a little different in it's distinctions and we have to take that into account. Our life is in our blood. Those creatures without blood, cannot be considered alive in the same way. Blood is directly related to the soul in scripture.

In the modern scientific sense, biological organisms were destroyed in the Garden every time some fruit was eaten. But that was not what scripture meant by death.

Now did Adam walk around snatching bugs from the air eating them? I doubt it, as those were not named as his appropriate foods. But if one had been stepped on a crushed, that wouldn't have been considered death in the biblical sense.

 

[ChetSinger]

I have always struggled with that since some say that the translation of the word Nachash (used for serpent) does not mean snake like we see them today...and for more, one can consider the work of Michael S. Heiser--- a Hebrew scholar who points out that "the Hebrew word "serpent" is Nachash..which is actually an adjective (meaning 'bright,' 'brazen'....as in shiny brass). For in his view, he points out the Hebrew in detail..for essentially, the Nachash, or "serpent," was actually a being of light translated as "the shining one." And as Michael describes, this is clearly in line with other descriptions of the enemy in in the Old Testament..and the NT when it comes to describing him as an angel of light (more discussed here ).

Personally, I think it's more than reasonable..especially when considering the reality of how the Serpent/Devil was not necessarily within Adam's Jurisdiction as all the other animals...as after his fall, he was essentially "renegade"/"off the grid" so to speak. It makes more than enough sense to say "Serpent" was literally the Angel of Light rather than an actual animal or in the sense of the Enemy possessing the body of an animal the Lord had already made known as snakes..as it'd be pretty foolish that all of the snakes were now made to pay for the mistakes of one who was out of control ( lol).

Hey, that's neat! I enjoy Dr. Heiser's work, and think he might be right on the money about the Nachash.

I downloaded the first draft of his new book and got almost 1/2 through it before getting distracted. Eye-opening stuff, and well-researched.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hey, that's neat! I enjoy Dr. Heiser's work, and think he might be right on the money about the Nachash.

I downloaded the first draft of his new book and got almost 1/2 through it before getting distracted. Eye-opening stuff, and well-researched.

Glad you like Dr.Heisner's work - as his material, especially what he has done for LOGOS Bible Software, is so wonderful. And I think he is pretty radical on some ideas yet with plenty of basis.

It makes sense to see the seperent as he noted it rather than something from which all predatory creatures like snakes came from..

 

[ChetSinger]

I have always wondered on what one is to do with the fact that the statement given by the Lord to beasts eating plants, if saying it was a commandment forbidding animals from killing, applies to all creation...

Genesis 1:29-30 does not explicitly say that meat was forbidden...for it only says the positive: God gave man and beast "every green plant for food." One individual suggested that this passage has a special literary purpose....not given to define man's diet comprehensively, but to set the stage for the prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the following chapter (Gen. 2:16-17).

I come upon my opinion of vegetarianism partly from the prophecies in Isaiah 11 and 65 when, in a future time, lions are described as eating straw. And snakes are described as safe to play around. And it says "they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain". My understanding of that passage is that it represents the restored creation, implying that in the first creation also, lambs could hang around lions without fear.

But it does raise the question about what might be going on outside God's holy mountain.

And creatures of the SEAS/great deep are not included in the command.

Genesis 1:26
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
​

The Levitithan/great monstets of the waters and other creatures did not get notice for eating plants...and that is something on my mind greatly when it comes to seeing how the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan ....all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ). Perhaps some creatures were made to eat vegetarian, including others that were considered predatory in our times..while others were not and always remained as such due to the way the Lord wanted certain creature to represent what it meant to fear the Lord.

Yes, sea life is left out. Aside from mammals such as whales and dolphins, do they even have the "breath of life"? I don't have enough data, whether scriptural or scientific, to form an opinion about sea life.

As scripture notes:

Genesis 1:29
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.

Genesis 2:7
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
​

The verse says that God created plants with seed and fruit and gave it to the animals for food. However, the verse does not say that all animals ate only plants. It merely says that the plants were given as food. Ultimately, all animals rely upon plants for food - even the carnivores. God specified to three distinct groups what they could or couldn't eat--and the groups were in the class of air and ground/earth. If going from a strictly literal interpretation at all points, then one would logically have to conclude that he was not speaking to other animals in other areas.If saying something could be assumed, one must wonder how far to take it.

IMHO, A partial list is given, including the beasts of the field, the birds, and the creatures that creep around. Notably missing from the list are the large creatures of the sea, created on the fifth day. With few exceptions, these animals are all carnivores. Did God make them starve until after the Fall?

...."There is the sea, great and broad, In which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great... They all wait for Thee, To give them their food in due season." (Psalm 104:25, 27)

I've already postulated that insects don't count because they don't have the "breath of life". So maybe sea life doesn't count, either. But sharks tearing up other fish still seems like painful predation to me.

John says that on the new earth is there is no sea, so maybe God removes all predation in the next creation.

Heh, now I'm starting to wander, which can happen when I don't have an answer.

 

[ChetSinger]

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures (nephesh chayyāh) according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. Wouldn't remes creeping things include insects?

I don't know. Would a Hebrew consider insects like gnats to have the breath of life, or not? How would we know? Maybe creeping things were lizards, snakes, and turtles.

 

[Assyrian]

I would just inject, I don't think they do either. I'm with Chet on this one. Nephesh chayyah is related to breathing and blood, which is where the life resides. Insects wouldn't be in that category, as they don't utilize breathing and blood as other animals do. You could actually eat an insect raw and not be violating kosher guidelines. There is a distinction between living animals, and biological creatures such as insects, bugs, worms bacteria, viruses, and plants and trees.

The nomenclature was a little different in it's distinctions and we have to take that into account. Our life is in our blood. Those creatures without blood, cannot be considered alive in the same way. Blood is directly related to the soul in scripture.

In the modern scientific sense, biological organisms were destroyed in the Garden every time some fruit was eaten. But that was not what scripture meant by death.

Now did Adam walk around snatching bugs from the air eating them? I doubt it, as those were not named as his appropriate foods. But if one had been stepped on a crushed, that wouldn't have been considered death in the biblical sense.

The kosher laws specify which insects can be eaten, meaning other insects aren't clean. I agree Hebrew nomenclature and categories are different, but I find it bizarre when people think the ancient Hebrew wouldn't have considered insects alive. The bible does say of men and beasts their life is in the blood, but is that descriptive or an exclusive definition? Just because larger creatures with circulatory systems are said to have their nephesh, their breath or life in the blood, does it mean creatures without blood don't have any life, or can they have their breath elsewhere? Why not say of insects who breath through spiracles that their life (breath or nephesh) is in their spiracles? Alternatively if Hebrew nomenclature is different, does insect and spider circulatory fluid hemolymph comes under the heading of blood? What about trees, they don't have blood, but we know they do respire. Usually, the bible uses the more descriptive 'wither' to describe plants dying, but that doesn't mean they don't die. After all Jesus thought it appropriate to use death to talk about plants when he talked of a seed falling into the ground and dying.

Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.
7 Without having any chief, officer, or ruler,
8 she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest.
Would Solomon have considered the ant such an example of wisdom and how to live your life if he didn't even think they were alive?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The kosher laws specify which insects can be eaten, meaning other insects aren't clean. I agree Hebrew nomenclature and categories are different, but I find it bizarre when people think the ancient Hebrew wouldn't have considered insects alive. The bible does say of men and beasts their life is in the blood, but is that descriptive or an exclusive definition? Just because larger creatures with circulatory systems are said to have their nephesh, their breath or life in the blood, does it mean creatures without blood don't have any life, or can they have their breath elsewhere? Why not say of insects who breath through spiracles that their life (breath or nephesh) is in their spiracles? Alternatively if Hebrew nomenclature is different, does insect and spider circulatory fluid hemolymph comes under the heading of blood? What about trees, they don't have blood, but we know they do respire. Usually, the bible uses the more descriptive 'wither' to describe plants dying, but that doesn't mean they don't die. After all Jesus thought it appropriate to use death to talk about plants when he talked of a seed falling into the ground and dying.

Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.
7 Without having any chief, officer, or ruler,
8 she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest.
Would Solomon have considered the ant such an example of wisdom and how to live your life if he didn't even think they were alive?

I think the view that insects do not have the breath of life in them is problematic on several accounts - for the scriptures never say that they do not have it simply because of the fact that man and living creatures on the ground were noted to have it.. Aquatic animals were not said to have the breath of life aspect to them specifically - but the Biblical writers were not seeking to repeat certain things to indicate what creatures did or did not have life in them.

As it is, if insects were not included in the "Breath of Life" category, why would the Lord have said he'd wipe them out and placed them in the category of living things?

Genesis 6:14
The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

9 This is the account of Noah.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it and finish[e] the ark to within 18 inches[f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven[g] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
​

Genesis 7:20
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.[b][c] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

​

The Tanak declares that all creation looks to the Lord (Psalm 104:4 ) and he also makes clear that "all the trees of the forest sing for joy” (1 Chronicles 16:32-34, Psalm 96:11-13, Isaiah 44:22-24, etc)..for the trees’ song is the Divine song, singing through the trees just as it does through our own poetry, lovemaking and pursuit of justice.

And as it concerns the subject of animals and their souls, whereas some are of the mindset that animals are unimportant/lifeless, others are of the mindset that their having a spirit indicates a value beyond the physical. For what makes man different from the animals is not that he has a soul, but that he is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). The words "let us make" uses the same Hebrew word for "make" found in Ex. 20:4 in which God commands us to "not make" any graven image. In Psalm 78:50 we find an example of the usage of “soul” as “life” when the writer said in speaking of the people of Egypt (who tried in vain to prevent the Israelites from leaving their country’s slavery) that God “spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence.”

In this instance, the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) is used to denote the physical life of humans. But in Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as “living creatures” (Hebrew nephesh hayyah). In this sense, then, yes, it is correct to say that animals have “souls”—since the word soul means only physical life. In responding to the question, “Do animals have souls?,” McCord wrote in his correspondence work "“Do Animals Have Souls?,” that "the word soul, nephesh, only means ‘breath,’ as in Genesis 1:20 (ASV), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’ nephesh hayyah, literally, ‘living soul’” (1999).

It is true that at times the Bible uses the same terms to refer to the life principle/force in both humans and animals (e.g. Genesis 7:22), and that those terms may be used to refer to the immortal soul of humans (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 10:28). Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals when it states that "The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died." The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts. The scriptures discuss how animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans (Genesis 7:15, 22)...and Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike.

Even Psalm 104:27-30 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:

"O Lord, how innumerable are Thy works; in wisdom Thou hast made them all! The earth is full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things. When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth."
​

Moreover, Job 12:10 teaches that in God’s hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."...and Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals since "They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

Of course, it must always be remembered that Man alone was created “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27)—something that may not be said of animals. God breathed His Spirit into Adam in Gen. 2:7. ...and because we are made in the image of God, murder is forbidden (Gen. 9:6)---for it neglects our own value/worth in light of our unique status in life when it comes to communion/creativity and reason with the Creator we're different. Being made in the image and likeness of God means that human beings are like God, capable of spirituality, with mind, emotion, and will, and they have a part of their being that continues after death. If pets/animals do have a “soul” or immaterial aspect, it must therefore be of a different and lesser “quality.” ...unless there's a different level of things that are to be considered when it comes to how man having an immortal soul doesn't mean that other creatures don't have eternal souls since even the angels---not made in the image of God (as well as other creatures in Revelation 4)---are immortal beings. Immortality isn't based necessarily on being made in God's Image...

Again, scripture says a great deal about animals, portraying them as Earth’s second most important inhabitants. God entrusted animals to us, and our relationships with animals are a significant part of our lives.

For a good resource on the issue, one can go online/consider looking up an article Frank Hoffman entitled “All Creatures Here Below
- Chapter 3- Of Life and Soul: A Book about Souls and Spirits of Animals” ( )--and the other one could consider looking up is under the name of "Do Animals Have Souls? -PleaseConvinceMe.com" ( ).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures (nephesh chayyāh) according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. Wouldn't remes creeping things include insects?

I agree.

Although I doubt Adam/Eve ate bugs in the Garden and I hold to the view that they were primarily vegetarians, I do think it is interesting to consider that them eating bugs would not have been difficult. For just because something is a "creeping thing" doesn't imply it must be small. It was the case, according to one scientific perspective (Young Earth Creationism), that animals got a lot bigger back then due to the atmosphere - and the same with humans - and there've been fossils as well showing how certain bugs were withing giantic proportions back in early history (more here and here, here and here).

And even with the size issues not making a difference in diet, there is already history where living creatures such as bugs were given categories for which ones could be eaten and which could not - consistent with what Noah was told in Genesis 8-9. And tha'd also go for the creatures in the seas like lobster or crab - "sea insects"/"sea bugs" which are also living things. More was shared in another discussion on the issue when it came to other cultures eating bugs and seeing what the Torah actually says, as seen here:

There was a conversation I was having not too long ago on my side of the street where people were discussing the subject of Entomophagy (the consumption of insects as food) and how it is something worldwide which has aided many.....and how it's often the case that certain animals people eat in the U.S are ones we're used to.....and do not get grossed out by. Yet with other cultures eating bugs, many get grossed out and even offended at people doing so....but never considered how they'd have no issue eating such if they grew up around it.

Eating Locusts
Eating Locust/Grasshoppers in Uganda​

....For others, if being told that eating insects falls within the category of "unclean" foods, it's perplexing since there were many insects listed within the ceremonial food laws that were available to eat....John the Baptist himself eating locusts as well as honey ( Matthew 3:3-5, Mark 1:5-7 ). ...and many others have noted the protein value that comes from certain insects.

Leviticus 11:21-22
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some winged insects you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. You may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

​

...............

Leviticus 11: 33-35
Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.

29 “‘Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, 30 the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. 31 Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. 32 When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean.

33 If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. 34 Any food you are allowed to eat that has come into contact with water from any such pot is unclean, and any liquid that is drunk from such a pot is unclean. 35 Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean.
​

It'd be awesome if they had a Kosher Insect store just as they have Kosher markets with meats

..although it'd be hard to narrow things down for many. Indeed, with four exceptions,all insects and other invertebrates (including those usually consumed as seafood), all reptiles, and all amphibians are considered 'loathsome', 'crawling' creatures, and are forbidden by the Torah...and the exceptions are a type of locust, the kosher locust native to the Arabian peninsula, encompassing four distinct species...but the identities of the four varieties are not completely clear. It has been said that the tradition for identifying which species of locust were and were not kosher has been lost among all Jews except the Jews of Yemen.

Eating locusts is common for Jews in Yemen.

According to Yemenite tradition, those locusts are to be the following:

• The red locust (Hebrew: ארבה, Arbeh, Aramaic: גובאי, Govei Arabic: الجراد, Al-Jaraad.)

• The yellow locust (Hebrew: סלעם, Sal'am, Aramaic: רשון, Rashun, Arabic: الدبا, Al-Daba).

• The spotted gray locust (Hebrew: חרגול, Chargol Aramaic: ניפול, Nippul, Arabic: الحرجوان, Al-Harjawaan).

• The white locust (Hebrew: חגב, Chagav, Aramaic: גדיאן, Gadayin, Arabic: الجندب, Al-Jundub).

According to Yemenite tradition as recorded in the work Arichat HaShulchan, the locust called "Al Jarad" is Kosher, and has three Kosher sub-species all known by that name. However, if studying Leviticus 11:22/ trying to identify what the Locusts are 100% due to common names, that may cause some issues as well. For common names used in the Bible refer only to color and broad morphological generalities shared by a huge number of Middle Eastern species. Moreover, although it is often useful for identification, the geographic location of these locusts in the text is unclear. Using primarily color to identify insect species is a notoriously unreliable approach since insects that come to adulthood will have slightly different colors based on season, diet, and prevailing climate. I can definately feel why others think that whatever species of locust are actually being referred to in the text is therefore nearly impossible to ascertain.


It is interesting to consider how other Jewish communties forbid the eating of locusts at all for various reasons. As British Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz says in his commentary on Leviticus 11:22:

"None of the four kinds of locust mentioned is certainly known (RV Margin). For this reason also, later Jewish authorities, realizing that it is impossible to avoid errors being made declare every species of locust to be forbidden." ( 'Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary. p. 451, note on v. 22. )
​

This is the opinion that is generally held by Ashkenazi Jews...and yet for Jews in differing groups/cultures, it's not agreed upon.

For those who do outreach amongst differing Jewish groups, it is interesting seeing how some may not feel included on certain levels with what they hold sacred.....an example being how a Jew from Yemen would not feel the same as one who is Ashkenazi when it came to what's available/preferred in congregations for food. If doing outreach amongst Ashkenazi/European Jewish groups (who were often considered as the main groups Messianic fellowships reached out to), the issue of Kosher would be limited...but when expanding outreach to others, there are some natural factors that have to be addressed if all Jewish groups are to be honored.

One of the female elders in my fellowship (who is Jewish) has had to experience this often when it comes to her background - as her parents are from Sephardic and Askenazi communities - one side feeling strongly about names for children being from dead relatives as a bad thing while the other side feels opposite (as well as many other examples ) - and yet for those not aware of the differences, you end up generalizing them all together as if being Jewish is something that is monolothic at all points of experience.

Things aren't that simple - and for the Jews of Yemen, the bug issue is again a big example of that.

​

For other places to go on the issue

• More than matzo balls: Kosher cooking revisited
• Halachic Adventures - Pictures of Kosher Locusts - Practical Halachah, Mesorah and History by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky and Dr. Ari Greenspan

Part of me actually thought "If I could handle Lobster or Crab Legs (basically sea insects) back in the day, eating locusts should be fine

"...and seeing how often it was said that locusts were Kosher insects according to Torah, it was all good.

The Yemen Jews who eat locusts all the time have no issue with that diet..and I yet still wonder how it is that insects such as Locusts would be deemed as Kosher.

For to my knowledge, feces/animal waste is something that's unclean....and yet, it's on the grass that locusts eat. And Locusts are not at all fussy about their food and will eat almost any leafy vegetation and a whole lot more besides. As often as I've heard others say that eating shrimp (or crab) is "unclean" due to how they're seen as bottom feeders that eat waste and garbage, I don't see how it'd be different for locusts whenever they swarm in great numbers and eat all of the grass available...including that which has dung on it.

I don't really see how it can be said by many that shrimp (which are sea-bugs) and other creatures were not really considered "Kosher" due to hygiene purposes and instead were considered non-Kosher for other reasons....and yet with animals listed to be clean, they are deemed to be good even though they eat waste.

Same thing goes with Bovines, Fowl, and Ungulates which graze on plants contaminated with waste, or eat waste directly off the ground.

Some have sought to explain this by saying that Under the LOM (Law of Moses) that which could NOT Be LAWFULLY eaten by Am Yisroel was a matter of Divine Declaration NOT Intrinsic "Ickiness" -- and they also note that the same was true of that which could NOT Be LAWFULLY made a sacrificial offering to G-d by the People of Israel having ZERO to do with "Unhygienic Eating"..

But that is still something in question when it comes to the diets that animals had. This is also said in regards to eating things from animals that were contaminated, such as honey (which is essentially throw-up from bees and often touching dead bee larve).

Perhaps it does have much to do with the difference in digestive systems, which can be complex and intricate, which He designed for the clean and unclean, which affects us positively or negatively upon consumption.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.
7 Without having any chief, officer, or ruler,
8 she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest.
Would Solomon have considered the ant such an example of wisdom and how to live your life if he didn't even think they were alive?

Something to think on is the question asking "Is it animal abuse only to torture a dog - while stepping on a bug is insignificant?"...for that is something directly tied to whether or not you see insects as living/valuable parts of God's creation - and in light of the many times the Lord referenced them (be it ants or locusts or other bugs) as being wonderful, it's odd to see where they're treated as second class compared to other beasts of the field.

Everything that God created was meant to remind us of how glorious He is..and Sovereign as well

Psalm 50:11
I know every bird in the mountains, and the insects in the fields are mine.
Psalm 50:10-12

Proverbs 6:6
Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!
Proverbs 6:5-7

Amazing considering how even the bugs the Lord made (and all of the fungi included) are made to glorify him:

And even with animals like spiders, amazing to consider what the Lord does through them

As the Word says, "The spider skillfully grasps with its hands, and it is in kings’ palaces" (30:28)." Granted, the NKJV says 'spider' with a footnote saying 'or lizard'...and on other versions:

• The NIV says 'lizard'.
• The NASB says 'lizard'.
• The ESV says 'lizard'.
• The CEV says 'lizard'.

In the verses immediately before this, the writer also discussed ants, badgers, and locusts.

Proverbs 30:26

​

24 There are four things which are little on the earth,

But they are exceedingly wise:

25 The ants are a people not strong,

Yet they prepare their food in the summer;


26 The rock badgers[a] are a feeble folk,

Yet they make their homes in the crags;

27 The locusts have no king,

Yet they all advance in ranks;

28 The spider[b] skillfully grasps with its hands,

And it is in kings’ palaces​

​

His point was that these creatures are not very large or powerful, but they still are very successful at what they do because they act wisely and use their talents well. The spider weaves a beautiful and highly complex web using chemicals from its own body. Then it uses its tiny "hands" to grasp the unsuspecting prey that gets caught in the web. While the spider itself may not be very big, seem very smart, or look very powerful, its appearance is deceiving. In fact, it even lives in kings’ palaces, where, apparently, it has the run of the place. It prevails and succeeds, in spite of its tiny size and unimpressive looks.

Again, it is noteworthy to see how Agur (Proverbs XXX, 28) includes the spider that “taketh hold with her hands and is in kings’ palaces” among the four things which are little but exceeding wise. Wise Agur, by the inspiration of our Creator, wants us to know two things about spiders. They take hold with their hands (all eight of them), and they are in kings' palaces. Even though great pains are taken to keep them out of palaces, they are still found there. And from these two observations we may learn a lesson to teach us God's wisdom for success. Faithful and diligent perseverance in a task, even against much opposition and difficulty, will bring significant reward! Men do not assist spiders at all, and they do most everything to hinder their work and lives. Spiders are discriminated against constantly, and they have every reason to be discouraged. But they do not complain, sue, or quit. They simply keep taking hold with their hands, and they do not give up because of trouble....​

Truly a work of art in Creation worth remembering...​

 

[Assyrian]

I have always struggled with that since some say that the translation of the word Nachash (used for serpent) does not mean snake like we see them today...and for more, one can consider the work of Michael S. Heiser--- a Hebrew scholar who points out that "the Hebrew word "serpent" is Nachash..which is actually an adjective (meaning 'bright,' 'brazen'....as in shiny brass). For in his view, he points out the Hebrew in detail..for essentially, the Nachash, or "serpent," was actually a being of light translated as "the shining one." And as Michael describes, this is clearly in line with other descriptions of the enemy in in the Old Testament..and the NT when it comes to describing him as an angel of light (more discussed here ).

Personally, I think it's more than reasonable..especially when considering the reality of how the Serpent/Devil was not necessarily within Adam's Jurisdiction as all the other animals...as after his fall, he was essentially "renegade"/"off the grid" so to speak. It makes more than enough sense to say "Serpent" was literally the Angel of Light rather than an actual animal or in the sense of the Enemy possessing the body of an animal the Lord had already made known as snakes..as it'd be pretty foolish that all of the snakes were now made to pay for the mistakes of one who was out of control ( lol).

I agree with Heiser in recognising that the curse of the serpent is metaphorical and is talking about the judgement of a supernatural being rather than a snake. His mistake is in trying to translate nachash, serpent, as one of these supernatural beings. If you look at how serpent is used in other texts it can really mean a snake, it is used in parallel with adders Jer 8:17, deaf adders Psalm 58:4, asps Psalm 140:3. In Prov 30:19 the writer wonders how eagles fly and serpents move on rocks. It talks about snake who bites its charmer Eccl 10:11 and people breaking through a wall getting bitten Eccl 10:8. Now these snakes were also used as metaphorical pictures of supernatural beings, just as the bible describe Satan as a prowling lion. It isn't that the word 'lion' also means a supernatural being, but that these large cats are used as a picture to describe him.

If nachash is nothing to do with snakes but really means shining one, why does his curse leave him looking for all the world like a snake slithering on his belly and licking at the dust? It is a metaphor as Heiser says, but it is using the imagery of a snake slithering on the ground to describe the condemnation of this angelic being. But in the story of the serpent and Eve, the serpent is an animal, a snake, a beast of the field, right from the beginning. Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. It is a metaphor about an angelic being tempting the human race, but in the metaphor this being is a snake from the beginning.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I agree with Heiser in recognising that the curse of the serpent is metaphorical and is talking about the judgement of a supernatural being rather than a snake. His mistake is in trying to translate nachash, serpent, as one of these supernatural beings. If you look at how serpent is used in other texts it can really mean a snake, it is used in parallel with adders Jer 8:17, deaf adders Psalm 58:4, asps Psalm 140:3. In Prov 30:19 the writer wonders how eagles fly and serpents move on rocks. It talks about snake who bites its charmer Eccl 10:11and people breaking through a wall getting bitten Eccl 10:8. Now these snakes were also used as metaphorical pictures of supernatural beings, just as the bible describe Satan as a prowling lion. It isn't that the word 'lion' also means a supernatural being, but that these large cats are used as a picture to describe him.

If nachash is nothing to do with snakes but really means shining one, why does his curse leave him looking for all the world like a snake slithering on his belly and licking at the dust? It is a metaphor as Heiser says, but it is using the imagery of a snake slithering on the ground to describe the condemnation of this angelic being. But in the story of the serpent and Eve, the serpent is an animal, a snake, a beast of the field, right from the beginning. Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. It is a metaphor about an angelic being tempting the human race, but in the metaphor this being is a snake from the beginning.

Definately can see where it is you're coming from - and on the "beast of the field" dynamic, one theory I've been mulling over is whether or not the Enemy - metaphorically deemed to be a snake - was a beast of the field that was supernatural....for it makes more sense to say (if the Enemy was already a fallen angel and angels fell previously before Adam/Eve) that he was like a beast of the field. For it'd seem odd to say that the Enemy was literally an intelligent animal God made and that Adam/Eve had to be careful of - lest it is the case that the theory of the Enemy being a Fallen angel was never accurate and it really was a beast of the field that managaed to get control over the entire world.

Of course, the other theory is that the enemy - as a supernatural being with immense powers - decided to take the form of a serpent, with serpants being more crafty than other animals in the field and Adam/Eve being familar with that (as there was more than one snake in the garden if the "fruitful and multiply" command was true - and thus, to be a singular serpent wouldn't make sense). Rather than possessing another existing snake/using it for his will, essentially the Enemy took on the form of a Serpent and used that for familarity when talking to Eve since snakes/serpents were already considered intelligent. He has the ability to transform..

Of course... if the verse said "Adam was more cunning than any of the animals that God has made" you would not all read into the text that it says Adam is another beast of the field, but rather that it is contrasting Adam as being more intelligent or cunning than the rest of Gods animal creations.

Also, in the Pslams David uses the same poetic language about his enemies licking dust as God applies to the serpent. Yet Davids enemies did not literally eat dust but rather spiritually speaking

The idea of eating dust is associated with abject humiliation elsewhere - cf. Ps. 72:9 ("They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust."), Is. 49:23 ("And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet") and especially Mic. 7:17 ("They shall lick the dust like a serpent".)

Genesis 3 is as symbolic as Revelation 13 or 17. For in example, is the great harlot literally a great harlot? Did a literal seven headed sea monster once rise from the earth in ancient times (Rev 13)? These are all SYMBOLS for what they spiritually represent and so is the serpent in Gen 3.

And when reading the Bible, it says that the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field...but it does not does not say that it was a beast of the field. Thus, the Biblical authors could easily have been aware of how there were other snakes in existence and yet likening the Enemy to a Serpent (in its craftinesses/wisdom) did not mean to them that he was the figurehead for all snakes/serpents in existence. That goes back to what you noted about the enemy being likened to a Lion in I Peter 5...and that animal references to supernatural beings don't equate to those beings being animals.

Furthermore, the serpent is equated with the devil and satan in Revelation - which means that the serpent and the devil and satan are all one and the same personification of man's carnal mind. Eve was tempted by "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" - exactly the same as Jesus was tempted in the wilderness immediately after his baptism.

 

[ChetSinger]

...But in the story of the serpent and Eve, the serpent is an animal, a snake, a beast of the field, right from the beginning. Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. It is a metaphor about an angelic being tempting the human race, but in the metaphor this being is a snake from the beginning.

The word 'other' is not in the Hebrew text. It's not included in translations such as Young's Literal or NET Bible. The nachash is being compared to the beasts of the field, but not as one of them.

I think Heiser's hit the nail on the head. He's not looking at it from a scientific/unscientific point of view, but from a cultural look at the Bible and related ANE literature.

He discusses the curses meted out on the nachash here, part of the rough draft of his upcoming book.

I think perhaps you and Dr. Heiser may reach different conclusions because you're approaching the story with different assumptions. While he's not a YEC, he believes Adam and Eve were real people, the garden a real place, and the nachash a real being of some type.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I come upon my opinion of vegetarianism partly from the prophecies in Isaiah 11 and 65 when, in a future time, lions are described as eating straw. And snakes are described as safe to play around. And it says "they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain". My understanding of that passage is that it represents the restored creation, implying that in the first creation also, lambs could hang around lions without fear.

But it does raise the question about what might be going on outside God's holy mountain.
.

More than agree with you on that point. And on what happens outside of God's Holy Mountain, who knows..

Yes, sea life is left out. Aside from mammals such as whales and dolphins, do they even have the "breath of life"? I don't have enough data, whether scriptural or scientific, to form an opinion about sea life.

I've shared earlier in the thread where it seems plain that all creatures have the breath of life in it (as it's not something requiring lungs and that's not how early Jewish thought saw the matter ) - and with mammals such as whales or dolphins (or seals, sea turtles and even penguins...creatures who've lived in the depths with the Breath of Life - a fact even science has been amazed by), all of those creatures are animals that fill the seas. Sea Snakes included.

Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom: Katuali: The Niue Sea Krait : Video : Animal Planet

Hydrophiinae/Sea Snakes have always been pretty amazing to me, although scarey, when considering how poisonous they are. But they are beautiful..

Sea Snake vs. Eel, Fiji Islands - YouTube​

For a good review on them:

• Seasnakes (Hydrophiidae) - Encyclopedia of Life
  
  
  
• Fauna of Australia 2A - Reptilia - Squamata - Hydrophiidae

I don't see where something being a mammal or a reptile meant that it must be a "beast of the field" only - for what seems to be of focus is the location of a creature/its realm of existence. And animals have souls/spirits

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
​

As one commentator said best:

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The Fifth Day. - "God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms, with living beings, and let birds fly above the earth in the face (the front, i.e., the side turned towards the earth) of the firmament." ישׁרצוּ and יעופף are imperative. Earlier translators, on the contrary, have rendered the latter as a relative clause, after the πετεινὰ πετόμενα of the lxx, "and with birds that fly;" thus making the birds to spring out of the water, in opposition to Genesis 2:19. Even with regard to the element out of which the water animals were created the text is silent; for the assertion that שׁרץ is to be understood "with a causative colouring" is erroneous, and is not sustained by Exodus 8:3 or Psalm 105:30. The construction with the accusative is common to all verbs of multitude. שׁרץ and שׁרץ, to creep and swarm, is applied, "without regard to size, to those animals which congregate together in great numbers, and move about among one another." חיּה גפשׁ, anima viva, living soul, animated beings (vid., Genesis 2:7), is in apposition to שׁרץ, "swarms consisting of living beings." The expression applies not only to fishes, but to all water animals from the greatest to the least, including reptiles, etc. In carrying out His word, God created (Genesis 1:21) the great "tanninim," - lit., the long-stretched, from תּנן, to stretch-whales, crocodiles, and other sea-monsters; and "all moving living beings with which the waters swarm after their kind, and all (every) winged fowl after its kind." That the water animals and birds of every kind were created on the same day, and before the land animals, cannot be explained on the ground assigned by early writers, that there is a similarity between the air and the water, and a consequent correspondence between the two classes of animals. For in the light of natural history the birds are at all events quite as near to the mammalia as to the fishes; and the supposed resemblance between the fins of fishes and the wings of birds, is counterbalanced by the no less striking resemblance between birds and land animals, viz., that both have feet. The real reason is rather this, that the creation proceeds throughout from the lower to the higher; and in this ascending scale the fishes occupy to a great extent a lower place in the animal economy than birds, and both water animals and birds a lower place than land animals, more especially the mammalia. Again, it is not stated that only a single pair was created of each kind; on the contrary, the words, "let the waters swarm with living beings," seem rather to indicate that the animals were created, not only in a rich variety of genera and species, but in large numbers of individuals.

​

As it concerns the aquatic animals

And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food."

​

Basic questions...

1. What did God give as food to the sea creatures? Since he gives Adam and Eve every plant yielding seed and every fruit with seed in it, and every green plant to the beasts and birds(eat plants?) and creeping things.

2. Do sea creatures have the "breath of life"? Why were they not mentioned, since it says "everything that has the breath of life"...Even if specifically addressing the creatures on land...
​

I think it makes sense to note that what God gave them to eat is what they eat now. Moreover, did the ancients know what sea creatures ate? Because if they didn't, then is it possible that that is why they didn't mention the sea creatures specifically (which is odd, because every other "classification" of animals are mentioned). It does not seem necessary to assume that the mention of eating herbs/fruits in connection with creatures of the earth/birds of the air/moving creeping things and all with the breath of life in it must somehow mean that sea creatures did not have the breath of life. They were not trying to be exhaustive on the matter...

I've already postulated that insects don't count because they don't have the "breath of life". So maybe sea life doesn't count, either. But sharks tearing up other fish still seems like painful predation to me.

Would disagree as it concerns saying insects don't have the breath of life in it - in addition to sea life. All things living have the breath of life and I've postulated on this earlier when disussing Genesis 7 and the Flood account in what it notes (as shared in #34 ).

John says that on the new earth is there is no sea, so maybe God removes all predation in the next creation. Heh, now I'm starting to wander, which can happen when I don't have an answer

Would be interesting to see where the Lord remove all predation - and to me, it can be the case that predation was a means of sustaining creation in the early stages...but in the life to come, it'll be non-existent.