why did the animals have to die?

[jsimms615]

So, I am reading through the Bible again this year, not chronologically, but I started Genesis the other day and reading the story of Noah. I was reading about how Noah gathered up the animals. I know there has been a lot of threads about the ark on here and my question is not about that. But, rather if God was judging mankind why did all of the animals on earth except for the ones on the ark also have to die? What did they do that they had to die?
Couldn't God have figured out a way to do in mankind without killing all the animals?
If all the animals had to die then why exempt the fish and sea creatures?

 

[Nanopants]

It sounds to me like you're assuming God's wrath is about intentionally smiting each individual that He does, as if on some sort of a list. That may not be the way it works at all, and maybe, in order to achieve what He wants or what needs to happen, destruction must occur, and maybe that simply includes everyone and everything that doesn't escape.

 

[jsimms615]

It sounds to me like you're assuming God's wrath is about intentionally smiting each individual that He does, as if on some sort of a list. That may not be the way it works at all, and maybe, in order to achieve what He wants or what needs to happen, destruction must occur, and maybe that simply includes everyone and everything that doesn't escape.

No, I am assuming God doesn't punish the innocent

 

[Nanopants]

I guess that brings up an interesting question: if God kills or destroys, is it necessarily punishment?

 

[SuperLuey]

This is a tough question.
I must ask though,what shall we establish by answering it? :smart:

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So, I am reading through the Bible again this year, not chronologically, but I started Genesis the other day and reading the story of Noah. I was reading about how Noah gathered up the animals. I know there has been a lot of threads about the ark on here and my question is not about that.
But, rather if God was judging mankind why did all of the animals on earth except for the ones on the ark also have to die? What did they do that they had to die?
Couldn't God have figured out a way to do in mankind without killing all the animals?
If all the animals had to die then why exempt the fish and sea creatures?

To save all the animals, God could have had Noah build a bigger ark.....

.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

How do you know God didn't say to Noah: "Bring two of each land dwelling animal. Don't worry about the fish, they live in water anyway."? Hmmm. And before you answer "it's not in the bible", remember, there are things that happened that aren't in the bible.

 

[brinny]

So, I am reading through the Bible again this year, not chronologically, but I started Genesis the other day and reading the story of Noah. I was reading about how Noah gathered up the animals. I know there has been a lot of threads about the ark on here and my question is not about that. But, rather if God was judging mankind why did all of the animals on earth except for the ones on the ark also have to die? What did they do that they had to die?
Couldn't God have figured out a way to do in mankind without killing all the animals?
If all the animals had to die then why exempt the fish and sea creatures?

good question...i dunno, but i'd like to meditate on this more...

*subscribing*

 

[AmericanChristian91]

There is more then just one interpretation of the story of Noah's Flood.

Your interpretation is that the entire story, including it being a global, flood, is intended to be entirely literal/historically speaking, true.

However there are more then just that interpretation of the story.

Some believe that Noah's Flood was more local, if that was the case not all the animals outside of the ark died, only the ones affected by the flood. Other people accept the notion that God did not actually cause some large flood to wipe out humanity (or a portion of it) along time ago (perhaps the story being more allegorical), if that was the case, then no animals were harmed in reality by some supernatural flood.

By the way, im sure a lot of fish creatures would have died if a Global flood happened. They would not be safe either as your post seems to imply. Fish (and other sea life) live in different kind of environments in the water, from different temperatures/depths, to different kinds of water (salt or not, etc). I would think that a Global Flood would leave a lot of areas of water merged/coming together which could destroy areas of sea life that are not used to the water that they are being affected by. You also have to remember that if a Global Flood did happen, there would be A LOT of materials from land that would be throughout the water, some materials im sure would kill fish.

 

[brinny]

...as i was meditating on this...i thought of the very first animal(s) to die...wasn't that in Genesis, in the Garden of Eden when God killed the first animals to cover Adam and Eve?

Hmmmmm......this is interesting...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There is more then just one interpretation of the story of Noah's Flood.

Your interpretation is that the entire story, including it being a global, flood, is intended to be entirely literal/historically speaking, true.

However there are more then just that interpretation of the story.

Some believe that Noah's Flood was more local, if that was the case not all the animals outside of the ark died, only the ones affected by the flood. Other people accept the notion that God did not actually cause some large flood to wipe out humanity along time ago (perhaps the story being more allegorical), if that was the case, the no animals were harmed in reality by some supernatural flood.

Interesting.
The author of this site appears to agree.


The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalms 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalms 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?).

In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalms 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood...................

http://www.christianforums.com/t7428437-12/
Was The Flood local?



.

 

[jsimms615]

I guess that brings up an interesting question: if God kills or destroys, is it necessarily punishment?

I don't mean to speak disrespectful of God. I believe God can do anything. I believe God could have said "I want all evil men to die at 2 pm by heart attack today". And it could have happened. Noah and his family and the animals would have been left. No ark, no story. Who knows. Maybe we never would have heard about it.
I guess that is my point. Why God would choose to use a method of judgment that could condemn the animals which would appear to be innocent along with the guilty. I know they are not human, but still they are creatures that God made.
It reminds me of the passage where Abraham is talking to God in Genesis 18:25 and he says "Far be it from Thee to do such as thing to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I guess that is my point. Why God would choose to use a method of judgment that could condemn the animals which would appear to be innocent along with the guilty.

Perhaps he did not use a method of judgment to wipe out almost all animal life on earth.

 

[jsimms615]

There is more then just one interpretation of the story of Noah's Flood.

Your interpretation is that the entire story, including it being a global, flood, is intended to be entirely literal/historically speaking, true.

However there are more then just that interpretation of the story.

Some believe that Noah's Flood was more local, if that was the case not all the animals outside of the ark died, only the ones affected by the flood. Other people accept the notion that God did not actually cause some large flood to wipe out humanity (or a portion of it) along time ago (perhaps the story being more allegorical), if that was the case, then no animals were harmed in reality by some supernatural flood.

By the way, im sure a lot of fish creatures would have died if a Global flood happened. They would not be safe either as your post seems to imply. Fish (and other sea life) live in different kind of environments in the water, from different temperatures/depths, to different kinds of water (salt or not, etc). I would think that a Global Flood would leave a lot of areas of water merged/coming together which could destroy areas of sea life that are not used to the water that they are being affected by. You also have to remember that if a Global Flood did happen, there would be A LOT of materials from land that would be throughout the water, some materials im sure would kill fish.

So, for those people who say that God did not destroy all flesh then how do they interpret verses such as Genesis 9:15 where it says
"and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh and never all shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh." The word all is used there twice and again in verse 16 and 17.

 

[jsimms615]

Perhaps he did not use a method of judgment to wipe out almost all animal life on earth.

please clarify your point

 

[AmericanChristian91]

please clarify your point

My point is that, you don't as a Christian have to accept that there had to be a Global Flood along time ago that wiped out almost all life (including animals) on the planet.

The question you are asking hinges on the belief that a Global Flood happened, however if a Global Flood did not happen, then you don't have to worry and wonder why God allowed all of those animals to die.

 

[ForceofTime]

I don't know, but I think Brinny pointed out an important point about the garden. The serpent was cursed above other animals for its part in the fall and the land itself was cursed for Adam's sake. The extent of sin was over all of creation.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that,throughout the Bible, man's propensity to worship created things instead of God plays itself out in many ways: animals sacrificed, worshiped, employed for service unto idols, etc. This, of course, is a complete reversal of what God had intended when He declared that man have dominion over the earth to the glory of God.

 

[MrMoe]

there's a good theory out there that makes a lot of sense.

The scripture say in genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The sons of God in the OT is always in reference to angles. They come down and take wives and produce these giants that are half man half angel hybrids.
the book of Enoch which is not a book in the bible but is mentioned in the NT
(Enoch is referred to as a historical person and prophet, and quoted, in Jude 1:14-15) writes about this. In it, it also says that these creatures sinned against animals.

The Book Of Enoch Chapter 7: And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed 4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

The theory is that God had to wipe out all humanity and animals cause their DNA had been corrupted. Noah and his family were the only one who hadn't been defiled in any way.
The theory says this is where we get the legends of half animal half man creatures like the minotaur and the centaur. The giants are where we get the legends of Zeus and the gods. Makes sense since the giants would have been worshipped as gods.

It's a good theory but it could be wrong. Like I said The Book Of Enoch isn't a biblical book so I'd be careful.

 

[MrMoe]

Interesting.
The author of this site appears to agree.


The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalms 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalms 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?).

In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalms 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood...................

http://www.christianforums.com/t7428437-12/
Was The Flood local?



.

idk the local flood idea never made sense to me. One creationist once said 'If it was a local flood why not just ask them to move?' Makes sense, it would be much more practical than spending years building a boat. psalms 104:9 could mean that God hold the waters back by his will. If we look at it in context psalm 104:1-9 is about God creating by his own will.
That way it doesn't discount the idea of a global flood

 

[jsimms615]

My point is that, you don't as a Christian have to accept that there had to be a Global Flood along time ago that wiped out almost all life (including animals) on the planet.

The question you are asking hinges on the belief that a Global Flood happened, however if a Global Flood did not happen, then you don't have to worry and wonder why God allowed all of those animals to die.

I come to the same problem is that God goes to great lengths several times to make a covenant with "all flesh" when he places the rainbow in the sky. He says three times that he caused all flesh to die. The word "all" is used repeatedly. So, according to you, I should just ignore that.