Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

[Job 33:6]

Interesting speculation.

But as we see in Gen 9 refutes the speculation you offer.

Actually, it doesn't.

Notice the statement for what happens after the world wide flood of Gen 7 in Gen 9.

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood

That's how all dietary prohibitions are written in the old testament. For example:

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 KJVAAE
A. [9] These ye shall eat, of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
B. [10] and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:11-12 KJVAAE
A. [11] Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
B. [12] But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

Or:

Deuteronomy 14:4, 7 KJVAAE
A. [4] These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
B. [7] Nevertheless these ye shall not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

When God says:
A. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

B. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood

You have to additionally notice the associated prohibition. The people of Deuteronomy were already eating fish, ox, sheep, goats, birds etc. and when God says " you may eat" or "you shall eat", it's not as though they never ate these things before. It's just identifying the category of foods that they were already eating, as an introduction to the prohibition that follows (part B of the statement).

And with this understanding we see that the dietary prohibition in Genesis 9 is actually evidence for the fact that everyone was already eating meat at the time of the flood. Just as every other dietary prohibition in the old testament begins with identifying foods that people were already eating, so too does the prohibition in Genesis 9.

Additionally, "every moving thing" is not actually "every moving thing". For example:

Genesis 1:30 NASB1995
[30] and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

Or consider the ESV translation for clarity:

Genesis 1:30 ESV
[30] 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.” And it was so.

There is a difference between beast of the earth, behema, and "every thing that moves/creeps", remes. Not all animals "creep". Which sounds strange to English readers. But in fact, these are independent categories of animals. Some animals creep, others dont. Every thing that creeps does not include every bird of the heavens for example, nor every beast of the earth.

So in Genesis 9, when it talks about everything that creeps, it's actually talking about a specific category of animal. Not actually every moving animal. Some scholars speculate that this may have been referring specifically to wild animals of the wilderness.

So

A. The prohibition suggests that these animals were already being eaten. But that people were not to consume them with their life blood (perhaps to avoid eating them alive or uncooked in some sense, or maybe it was related to attempts at preserving animals by keeping them alive while eating parts of them etc.).

And

B. This classification of animals isn't encompassing of all animals anyway.

Sometimes creeping animals are interpreted as things like snakes or burrowing animals. Rodents or wild animals.

While beasts of the earth are thought of more as things like livestock. And Genesis 9 is specifically about the former, not the latter.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Not a problem.

next.

Not a problem. Many "accounts" do that very thing.

Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created

John 17 "sanctify them in Thy Truth , Thy WORD is Truth" John 17:17.

Not "Thy Word is Myth" as some have imagined it.

Proverbs 30:5: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him"

============

Humanists will argue that "the word of the Lord is myth, not truth , not factually accurate. For accurate reliable facts turn to man, not god"

Nothing new under the sun, as they say

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (NRSV)

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (RSV)

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (KJV)

Genesis 2:4 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (Septuagint)

Genesis 2:4 “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth” (English transition of the (Septuagint)

John 17:17. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (NRSV)

Jesus spoke these words to His Father. He does not explain what he meant by the words, “your word is truth.” We do know, however, that the concept of Genesis 6-8 being an accurate account of actual historical events dates back to 1961 when it was postulated by two men who had very little knowledge of the Bible and even less knowledge of the life and earth sciences.

The biodiversity that we have today in land animals would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have it today. This biodiversity is so immense that the ark as described in Genesis would have been only a tiny fraction of the required size. Then there are all the marine and fresh water animals that would have perished in such a flood—not to mention the 369,054 species of vascular plants (tracheophytes) and the 17,000 species of bryophytes—most of which that would have perished in such a flood. Did I mention the dinosaurs, mammoths, ground sloths, and saber toothed cats that died after they were saved by the ark. The early Fathers of the Church knew and wrote of the absurdity of interpreting Genesis 1-11 as though it was written as an historical narrative, but some very much more recent men have audaciously thought that they knew better and plunged many fundamentalist churches into a circus.

“Humanists will argue that 'the word of the Lord is myth, not truth , not factually accurate. For accurate reliable facts turn to man, not god.’”

Humanists will argue in their foolish imaginations any number of silly things, but the incontrovertible fact is that Genesis1-11 is written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible. This genre of literature is found, however, in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. God is no fool! He gave us Genesis 1-11 in genre of literature that the original recipients of the book understood. Thousands of years later, and many ridiculously false notions and superstitions later, many persons without a Biblical and literary background have fallen prey to those false notions and superstitions.

 

[BobRyan]

NASB Gen 2:4 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

a. account of men and their descendants Genesis 5:1;
b. metaph. תּוֺלְדוֺת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ Genesis 2:4 literally begettings of heaven and earth

origin. (Account of the origin of Earth and all life on it)

Strong's H8435 - tôlḏôṯ​

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (NRSV)

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (RSV)

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (KJV)

Genesis 2:4 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (Septuagint)

Genesis 2:4 “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth” (English transition of the (Septuagint)

John 17:17. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (NRSV)

Jesus spoke these words to His Father.

The Word of God is Truth not myth.

Notice what happens when the Jews of Christ's day attempt to play fast and loose with the Word of God in Mark 7.

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Notice that we have the same verse referenced as "The Commandment of God", "the Word of God", and 'Moses said"

He does not explain what he meant by the words, “your word is truth.”

Well Mark 7 provides help in that regard

Heb 3 helps us understand that it is the Holy Spirit when David is quoted in the Psalms.

Heb 3:
7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,

“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,
As in the day of trial in the wilderness,

We do know, however, that the concept of Genesis 6-8 being an accurate account of actual historical events dates back to 1961

dates back to the NT.

1 Tim 2: the very details of "the account" in the text of Gen 2 are being appealed to by the NT
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Dates back to Christ Himself as we see in Mark 7 and in..
Matt 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Jesus appeals to the very details of Gen 2 and argues it as if Jews believe Genesis is true

7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart

The Jews do not respond with "Genesis is not actually true" . Rather they take a rule found in the OT (Leviticus) to oppose the Bible fact Christ affirms.

The biodiversity that we have today in land animals would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have it today.

false

According to the Bible, Noah didn’t need to bring every species onto the Ark, but rather representative kinds—base-level family groupings (like the cat kind, dog kind, elephant kind). According to Answers In Genesis, there were only 6,744 individual animals (1,398 kinds) on the Ark to represent all air-breathing land animals. From these, variation and adaptation—not evolution—could easily account for the biodiversity we see today. So while evolutionists claim countless extinct species over eons, the reality is that today’s known living animals can be traced back to a smaller number of original kinds, preserved through the Flood, supporting the biblical account over evolutionary assumptions.

speciation happens over short period of time.

“Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that evolution occurs in spurts instead of following the slow, but steady path that Darwin suggested"

"Changing environmental conditions can cause strong selective pressure, often affecting a variety of critical ecological and life history traits (including species interactions and community structure). This can induce species to evolve rapidly, leading to genetic and phenotypic shifts in a matter of generations."

BTW - plants can survive a flood. Just FYI

 

[BobRyan]

But as we see in Gen 9 refutes the speculation you offer.
Notice the statement for what happens after the world wide flood of Gen 7 in Gen 9.

"And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood

God compares conditions after the flood in Gen 9 with the Gen 1 condition where green plants were given. HE ADDs animals into the diet of mankind after the flood.

your speculation makes an "argument out of the void of what is not in the Text" in Gen 1 and then gets slam hammered by the statement in Gen 9 that refutes your suggestion.

Interesting speculation.

But as we see in Gen 9 refutes the speculation you offer.

Notice the statement for what happens after the world wide flood of Gen 7 in Gen 9.

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood

God compares conditions after the flood in Gen 9 with the Gen 1 condition where green plants were given. HE ADDs animals into the diet of mankind after the flood.

your speculation makes an "argument out of the void of what is not in the Text" in Gen 1 and then gets slam hammered by the statement in Gen 9 that refutes your suggestion.

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

IT is an obvious comparison of the two different contexts.

Actually, it doesn't.


That's how all dietary prohibitions are written in the old testament.

Not true.

For example:

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 KJVAAE
A. [9] These ye shall eat, of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
B. [10] and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

That is not a comparison of anything.

Gen 9 is a comparison of two different contexts two different epocs. One in Gen 1 and another at the Gen 9 post flood event
This is irrefutable

Deuteronomy 14:11-12 KJVAAE
A. [11] Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
B. [12] But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

Again, not a comparison of two different events/times/epochs.

The text of Deut 14 does not say Of all clean ye shall eat unlike some other time. There is no comparison in the text to some prior time..

The problem with your suggestion is that Gen 9 clearly states the restricted case in Gen 1 that you are trying to edit "out of the void" of what is not in Gen 1. It then explicitly introduces the change.

When God says:
A. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

B. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood

You have to additionally notice the associated prohibition.

Gen 9 does not say "I gave you all animals to eat but now I restrict you from eating blood with the animals that I said you could eat".
Nor does it say "I gave you all animals to eat for food Gen 1 but now I am giving you all animals to eat for food"

We cannot imagine the text saying something it does not say.

You are engaging in creative writing at that point merely because believing in evolutionism requires death, predation, desease etc for its mythical mechanism it euphemistically calls "creation"

The people of Deuteronomy were already eating fish, ox, sheep, goats, birds etc. and when God says " you may eat" or "you shall eat"

Lev 11 has the restriction on which animals are clean vs unclean.
Lev 17 has the restriction against eating blood.

Leviticus is written 40 years before Deuteronomy and Deuteronomy contains no new restriction or new approval for diet over Leviticus written 40 years prior.

And with this understanding we see that the dietary prohibition in Genesis 9 is actually evidence for the fact that everyone was already eating meat at the time of the flood.

The text of Gen 9 does not say "continue eating animals" and does not say 'as you have been eating animals"

Rather it compares the "only plants" situation explicitly in Gen 1 to the new case of eating animals in Gen 9

 

[Job 33:6]

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

IT is an obvious comparison of the two different contexts.

And? Again, giving plants is not equivalent to not giving animals.

Not true.

It is true, as demonstrated in the passages provided. Dietary prohibitions begin with that which was already permitted and follow with the prohibition.

That is not a comparison of anything.

Gen 9 is a comparison of two different contexts two different epocs. One in Gen 1 and another at the Gen 9 post flood event
This is irrefutable

Again, not a comparison of two different events/times/epochs.

The text of Deut 14 does not say Of all clean ye shall eat unlike some other time. There is no comparison in the text to some prior time..

The problem with your suggestion is that Gen 9 clearly states the restricted case in Gen 1 that you are trying to edit "out of the void" of what is not in Gen 1. It then explicitly introduces the change.

You're ignoring the syntax of prohibitive dietary laws. And it's not about one prohibition being in Genesis and another being in Deuteronomy. Both books were written by the same author (traditionally understood to be Moses) and to the same audience (Hebrew speaking Israelites).

Gen 9 does not say "I gave you all animals to eat but now I restrict you from eating blood with the animals that I said you could eat".
Nor does it say "I gave you all animals to eat for food Gen 1 but now I am giving you all animals to eat for food"

We cannot imagine the text saying something it does not say.

You are engaging in creative writing at that point merely because believing in evolutionism requires death, predation, desease etc for its mythical mechanism it euphemistically calls "creation"

You're ignoring the syntax of prohibitive dietary laws. The point is that, just like every other dietary prohibition in the pentateuch, it begins with that which was already consumed, and follows with the prohibition

Lev 11 has the restriction on which animals are clean vs unclean.
Lev 17 has the restriction against eating blood.

Leviticus is written 40 years before Deuteronomy and Deuteronomy contains no new restriction or new approval for diet over Leviticus written 40 years prior.

And? Dietary prohibitions of Leviticus follow the same syntax:

That which people were already eating:

Leviticus 11:3-4 ESV
[3] Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.

That which is prohibited:

B. [4] Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

And Genesis 9:3-4 follows the same syntax. That's why the statement regarding animals with lifeblood immediately follows animals given for consumption.

The point being that these prohibitions begin with that which was already permitted and already being consumed, and follow with that which is prohibited.

The text of Gen 9 does not say "continue eating animals" and does not say 'as you have been eating animals"

Neither do the various dietary laws of Deuteronomy.

Example:
Deuteronomy 14:4, 7, 9 ESV
[4] These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat,
[7] Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you.
[9] “Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat.

But the fact of the matter is, people were already eating ox, sheep, and goat.

Again, dietary prohibitions begin with that which is already permitted for consumption, and follow with the prohibition.

And I'm sorry if you've spent your entire life thinking that lions (after the fall) were eating vegetables in the ark. But sometimes you just have to accept what the Bible says.

Rather it compares the "only plants" situation explicitly in Gen 1 to the new case of eating animals in Gen 9

And I see a lack of response to behemah vs remes as well.

Your response does nothing to address these details.

 

[Job 33:6]

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

IT is an obvious comparison of the two different contexts.

Not true.

That is not a comparison of anything.

Gen 9 is a comparison of two different contexts two different epocs. One in Gen 1 and another at the Gen 9 post flood event
This is irrefutable

Again, not a comparison of two different events/times/epochs.

The text of Deut 14 does not say Of all clean ye shall eat unlike some other time. There is no comparison in the text to some prior time..

The problem with your suggestion is that Gen 9 clearly states the restricted case in Gen 1 that you are trying to edit "out of the void" of what is not in Gen 1. It then explicitly introduces the change.

Gen 9 does not say "I gave you all animals to eat but now I restrict you from eating blood with the animals that I said you could eat".
Nor does it say "I gave you all animals to eat for food Gen 1 but now I am giving you all animals to eat for food"

We cannot imagine the text saying something it does not say.

You are engaging in creative writing at that point merely because believing in evolutionism requires death, predation, desease etc for its mythical mechanism it euphemistically calls "creation"

Lev 11 has the restriction on which animals are clean vs unclean.
Lev 17 has the restriction against eating blood.

Leviticus is written 40 years before Deuteronomy and Deuteronomy contains no new restriction or new approval for diet over Leviticus written 40 years prior.

The text of Gen 9 does not say "continue eating animals" and does not say 'as you have been eating animals"

Rather it compares the "only plants" situation explicitly in Gen 1 to the new case of eating animals in Gen 9

I'm going to point out another issue with your position.

Genesis 9:3 NASB2020
[3] Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant.

Many translations don't actually include a temporal split between plants and animals here. For example, NASB2020 states, "I have given everything to you", past tense. It already happened. As I give the green plants. It's just a simile or comparison between animals and plants, not a sequence, animals then later plants.

In Hebrew, the text isn't actually written as a sequential timeline. Some translations make that interpretive call, others don't. But at the end of the day, you can't really base an argument off of something the Bible doesn't actually say in its original Hebrew.

It's like saying, "I have given you the baseball, just as I gave you the catchers mitt".

It's not saying "I am now giving you the baseball, just as I gave you the catchers mitt"

And this argument stands independently of my other ones based on Hebrew syntax of dietary prohibitions, and my other argument that 9:3 is specific to remes, or crawling things, and isn't a word that is all encompassing of all animals anyway.

So there are multiple issues with the "vegetarian lions on the ark" argument. Aside from the basic issue that the ark was post-fall anyway, and thus would be post-predation.

And then further, Psalm 104 talks about God providing lions their prey, and that's described as beautiful.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm going to point out another issue with your position.

Genesis 9:3 NASB2020
[3] Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant.

Many translations don't actually include a temporal split between plants and animals here. For example, NASB2020 states, "I have given everything to you", past tense. It already happened. As I give the green plants.

"as I gave you" is the language that compares the two distinct giving of what is not food as found in Gen 1 compared to Gen 9.

Your idea of 'nothing changed here" needs a serious rework of the text.

your suggestion turns Gen 9 into "I forgot to mention that you could eat animals so now I am just reminding you I already said that "

It's just a simile or comparison between animals and plants

The comparison being "eat all animals the same was you used to be eating all plants"?

, not a sequence, animals then later plants.

In Hebrew, the text isn't actually written as a sequential timeline. Some translations make that interpretive call, others don't. But at the end of the day, you can't really base an argument off of something the Bible doesn't actually say in its original Hebrew.

It's like saying, "I have given you the baseball, just as I gave you the catchers mitt".

It the baseball is given 1600 years after the giving of the catchers mitt it most certainly looks like "a change"

Gen 9 is 1600 years after Gen 1

It's not saying "I am now giving you the baseball, just as I gave you the catchers mitt"

Is 53 says "He WAS bruised for our transgression"

You are confused about Hebrew tenses.

When God says to Abraham "a father of many nations I HAVE made you" it is not a claim that at that time many nations were calling Abraham their father.

So there are multiple issues with the "vegetarian lions on the ark" argument.

feel free to find one.

Aside from the basic issue that the ark was post-fall anyway, and thus would be post-predation.

Gen 9 is not a command to animals , it is a command to humans.

The change for humans is that in Gen 1 humans are given plants to eat.

But in Gen 9 they are for the first time given animals to eat with no prior command telling them to eat animals.

Its the violence that comes about after the fall that leads to God's decision to end life for all animals and humans on land that breathe air.

Gen 6:
11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

 

[Job 33:6]

"as I gave you" is the language that compares the two distinct giving of what is not food as found in Gen 1 compared to Gen 9.

Your idea of 'nothing changed here" needs a serious rework of the text.

your suggestion turns Gen 9 into "I forgot to mention that you could eat animals so now I am just reminding you I already said that "

But he didn't forget to mention animals. You just forgot to read it. God mentioned animals right there with plants the first time.

Genesis 1:28-29 NASB2020
[28] God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

And I never said that nothing changed. What changed is the prohibition about life blood. That's what's new. It's a prohibition.

And surely you could imagine, that if God tells people to subdue creation and to rule over wild fish and birds, that this includes a little bit more than simply making an aquarium and doing bird watching.

99% of the time that you interact with wild fish, what happens? You eat them. God's not talking about riding dolphins like boats. He's not talking about mounting seagulls like an airplane.

Gen 9 is not a command to animals , it is a command to humans.

So your argument is that animals were eating meat on the ark, but people were not?

The change for humans is that in Gen 1 humans are given plants to eat.

It's a prohibition, it's not about new things being permitted.

But in Gen 9 they are for the first time given animals to eat with no prior command telling them to eat animals.

Nope. Read it again:

Genesis 9:3-4 NASB2020
[3] Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant. [4] But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

I have given everything to you. That's past tense. It already happened in the past (Genesis 1:26-28). What's new is the prohibition, verse 4 about flesh with its life blood.

And this is how every dietary prohibition is written. It always begins with animals already consumed.

Example:
Deuteronomy 14:9-10
[9] “This is what you shall eat from all that is in the water: everything that has fins and scales you may eat. [10] But anything that does not have fins and scales, you may not eat, for it is unclean for you.

God is not giving people fish to eat for the first time in history. People were already eating fish. What's new is the prohibition, verse 10. And in Genesis 9, God is not giving remes to people to eat for the first time. They were already eating that class of animals. What's new is the prohibition in 9:3.

Just face it. You're ignoring all of these issues in your argument. And you're doing nothing to address any of my own. And still no mention of the focus on remes vs behema.

 

[BobRyan]

But he didn't forget to mention animals. You just forgot to read it.

Gen 1:
28 " God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so"

God did not forget the animals and we did not forget to read the text.

rather there are some who imagine that God forgot to say "animals shall eat animals" in Gen 1. The much needed text for belief in evolutionism.

And I never said that nothing changed. What changed is the prohibition about life blood.

Hint -- there is nothing about eating animals in Gen 1 and also nothing about eating blood in Gen 1.

Eating blood could only be "a thing" once eating animals "Became a thing" in Gen 9.

99% of the time that you interact with wild fish, what happens? You eat them.

Not according to Genesis 1.

You only see that sort of thing beginning in Gen 9.

So your argument is that animals were eating meat on the ark, but people were not?

I never said that.

Read it again:

Genesis 9:3-4 NASB2020
[3] Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant. [4] But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

hence the problem for your suggestions so far.

 

[BobRyan]

And this is how every dietary prohibition is written. It always begins with animals already consumed.

Example:
Deuteronomy 14:9-10
[9] “This is what you shall eat from all that is in the water: everything that has fins and scales you may eat. [10] But anything that does not have fins and scales, you may not eat, for it is unclean for you.

Spoken forty years after Lev 11
9 ‘These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. 10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,

 

[Job 33:6]

Gen 1:
28 " God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so"

God did not forget the animals and we did not forget to read the text.

That's what I said. Genesis 1:28 involves mankind being given dominion over the animal kingdom. Including, for food.

rather there are some who imagine that God forgot to say "animals shall eat animals" in Gen 1. The much needed text for belief in evolutionism.

Genesis 1:30 isn't part of a prohibition. It's part of a blessing. As noted before, providing plants is not equivalent to not providing meat.

I said this at the very beginning of our conversation, if I gave you a bag of potato chips, and said "I'm blessing you with this bag of chips", that doesn't inherently mean that I expect you to live off of potato chips for the rest of your life.

The text isn't about animals, it's about us. Mankind is given dominion over all the animals, and plants are given to us, and other animals, as food. Who cares if God doesn't explain details of what some animals can eat. "To the lion, you may eat meat, to the zebra, you may eat grass, to the ant, you may eat fungi etc."

It's not about that. It's just saying:
"mankind, you have dominon over all animals, and as for the plants, I am giving them to all life for food."

It's incorrect to take that and to then assume that nothing eats meat because the text doesn't explicitly call out the diet of jaguars.

It's just establishing order. Mankind>Animals>Plants.
It's not about specifics of dietary habits

Which is a true statement. But that doesn't mean that man or animals cannot eat anything else.

Hint -- there is nothing about eating animals in Gen 1

Eating blood could only be "a thing" once eating animals "Became a thing" in Gen 9.

The text does approve mankind to have complete dominon over animals in Genesis 1. Which includes eating them. And no, eating animals with blood did not become a thing in Genesis 9, it was already happening. It's prohibited because it's a problem. If it wasn't already happening then there would be nothing to prohibit.

And again, Genesis 9 is written in the past tense:

Genesis 9:3 NASB2020
[3] Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant.

That's past tense, given. It already happened in Genesis 1.

Animals were already given (Genesis 1:26-28). Mankind has dominion over the animals.

hence the problem for your suggestions so far.

All prohibitions are written this way, and they begin with that which is already approved.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 KJVAAE
[9] These ye shall eat, of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: [10] and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

The people of Deuteronomy were already eating fish before this ruling. It's not the first time the isrealites had ever eaten fish, after God said this in Deuteronomy.

Genesis 1:26-30 isnt a prohibition. Nobody is arguing that people were eating meat before Genesis 1.

You're repeating the same broken arguments. "You shall eat" in the Bible, doesn't mean that people were not already eating it. This is how all dietary prohibitions are introduced, and we know that people of these dietary rulings were already eating those things. So youre simply wrong on the matter. And either you can accept this fact about the Bible, or you can't.

And if you can't accept what the Bible says, then there's nothing more to discuss here. Because we are no longer discussing the Bible, we are discussing your ideology.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ultimately, the young Earth creationist position relies on a really poor assumption. When God gives mankind Dominion over the animal kingdom In Genesis 1:26-28, The yec position assumes that this cannot include consumption for meat.

And that's a very bad assumption.

And then they double down with an assumption about Genesis 9, And they ignore the fact that dietary prohibitions, Genesis 9:4, always begin with that which was already being consumed, Genesis 9:3. And that's a basic fact of the Old Testament, as seen elsewhere such as in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11.

Despite how simple these errors are, their ideology does not allow them to accept these basic issues.

And that's really at the core of the debate.

Yes, I'll admit, early church fathers oftentimes (though not universally) believed that there was no consumption of meat before the fall.

But tradition is not always accurate. And in this case, the Bible very clearly allows for interpretive options which includes eating meat. Namely, that dominion over animals includes for consumption. People were eating animals all along since Genesis 1.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

God did not forget the animals and we did not forget to read the text.

rather there are some who imagine that God forgot to say "animals shall eat animals" in Gen 1. The much needed text for belief in evolutionism.

The theory of evolution is NOT dependent upon the Bible or any other religious text. Moreover, as was shown above, Genesis 1-11 is NOT written in the historical narrative genre of literature, but in a genre of literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends.

 

[BobRyan]

The theory of evolution is NOT dependent upon the Bible or any other religious text.

True enough. Atheists have argued that for a long time. Belief in evolutionism as the "creator" needs no god at all

Moreover, as was shown above, Genesis 1-11 is NOT written in the historical narrative

As noted in Gen 2 it is "The account" of the creation of Earth. It is an accurate historic account according to the text.

literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends.

We do get that a lot from our atheist friends but we typically don't buy that repackage of scripture
for us scripture is "The Word of God" as Christ reminds us in Mark 7.
By contrast Santa Clause is legend, myth non-factual

Gen 1 does not say "God's making of the Earth may be compared to..."

Ex 20:11 places the 7 day creation week in plain fact, legal code of the ten commandments.

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day... the Sabbath of the Lord thy God... FOR IN SIX days the Lord made ...(then appeals directly to Gen 2 text)."

IT is utter nonsense to say "have no other god's before me for the easter bunny says this is right". Legal code, a moral code of law - does not rely on Easter Bunny fiction to make its case for God , for morals, for creation etc.

Judges 9 tells a story about the trees electing the bramble as their king. NO CODE of Law, no moral law in the entire Bible says anything like "Do not murder for the Bramble has been elected as king of the trees". Moral code does not work like that .

This is incredibly obvious to serious readers of the text.
This particular point is irrefutable

 

[Job 33:6]

True enough. Atheists have argued that for a long time. Belief in evolutionism as the "creator" needs no god at all

As noted in Gen 2 it is "The account" of the creation of Earth. It is an accurate historic account according to the text.

We do get that a lot from our atheist friends but we typically don't buy that repackage of scripture
for us scripture is "The Word of God" as Christ reminds us in Mark 7.
By contrast Santa Clause is legend, myth non-factual

Gen 1 does not say "God's making of the Earth may be compared to..."

Ex 20:11 places the 7 day creation week in plain fact, legal code of the ten commandments.

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day... the Sabbath of the Lord thy God... FOR IN SIX days the Lord made ...(then appeals directly to Gen 2 text)."

IT is utter nonsense to say "have no other god's before me for the easter bunny says this is right". Legal code, a moral code of law - does not rely on Easter Bunny fiction to make its case for God , for morals, for creation etc.

Judges 9 tells a story about the trees electing the bramble as their king. NO CODE of Law, no moral law in the entire Bible says anything like "Do not murder for the Bramble has been elected as king of the trees". Moral code does not work like that .

This is incredibly obvious to serious readers of the text.
This particular point is irrefutable

Regardless of the genre, the text still need not be viewed as a literal historical narrative. No one reads Noah's flood with windows opening and closing in the sky, Genesis 7:11 and 8:2, and concludes that there are literal windows up there somewhere.

When reading Genesis, it shouldn't be confused with empirical history or scientific events. Otherwise the church would end up being flat earthers, geocentrists, or dare I say it, YECs.

 

[BobRyan]

Regardless of the genre, the text still need not be viewed as a literal historical narrative.

Looking at literal legal code in Ex 20:8-11 appealing to the very Bible details belief in evolutionism needs to ignore.

the decision is pretty easy.

No one reads Noah's flood with windows opening and closing in the sky,

true. So that is not even in the column of debated things.

neither do people think the real Jesus in Matt 23 had wings, but still Jesus was real. And real events were described in the gospels

Matt 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

The legal code of Ex 20:8-11 appeals to the literal nature of the 7 day creation week.... no matter that in Gen 7 flood the water came down from the sky in pouring torrents.

 

[Job 33:6]

Looking at literal legal code in Ex 20:8-11 appealing to the very Bible details belief in evolutionism needs to ignore.

Exodus 20:8-11 has nothing to do with science.

the decision is pretty easy.

true. So that is not even in the column of debated things.

neither do people think the real Jesus in Matt 23 had wings, but still Jesus was real. And real events were described in the gospels

Matt 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

The legal code of Ex 20:8-11 appeals to the literal nature of the 7 day creation week.... no matter that in Gen 7 flood the water came down from the sky in pouring torrents.

The ultimate point being that the Bible routinely expresses concepts in figurative ways, and so we shouldn't be reading the text "literally".

Just as we don't think of Jesus as a chicken, we also don't take Genesis 1 to be describing earth history.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Genesis doesn't say how long the earth was formless before God began to create it. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The theory of evolution is NOT dependent upon the Bible or any other religious text. Moreover, as was shown above, Genesis 1-11 is NOT written in the historical narrative genre of literature, but in a genre of literature used in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends.

Either God's word is true or He is a liar. The fable of evolution is the construct of men who had no knowledge of how a cell was constructed. And I mean, constructed. DNA is programmed like a computer. Bill Gates said that DNA is a vastly more complex program than anything people have devised. Programing requires intelligence, not random, undirected processes. Evolutionists can't agree on the mechanism because nothing they propose actually works. They remind me of alchemists, desperately trying to turn lead into gold. At least they realised that it was a dead end and gave up. Evolutionists? No such sense.

Sure, Genesis is epic. Some epic stories are entirely factual. Genesis and the rest of the Bible is an example.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The ultimate point being that the Bible routinely expresses concepts in figurative ways, and so we shouldn't be reading the text "literally".

I disagree. Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature that does not use figurative language. Every word in this portion of Scripture is intended to be understood literally. For example, “the windows of the heavens” in Genesis 7:11 are to be understood as real, physical windows or flood gates that God actually opened and closed. However, literalness and historical accuracy are not at all the same thing. The story of Noah and the ark is a classical epic tale expressing spiritual truths clothed in a fictitious story very much like the parables in the gospels.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Either God's word is true or He is a liar. The fable of evolution is the construct of men who had no knowledge of how a cell was constructed. And I mean, constructed. DNA is programmed like a computer. Bill Gates said that DNA is a vastly more complex program than anything people have devised. Programing requires intelligence, not random, undirected processes. Evolutionists can't agree on the mechanism because nothing they propose actually works. They remind me of alchemists, desperately trying to turn lead into gold. At least they realised that it was a dead end and gave up. Evolutionists? No such sense.

Sure, Genesis is epic. Some epic stories are entirely factual. Genesis and the rest of the Bible is an example.

Did Jesus lie when he told parables? Of course not? But someone is telling a huge whopper of a lie in your post. Moreover, boldfaced lies such as these coming from the pens and mouths of professing Christians are doing much more harms to the gospel message and the Christian witness than all of the atheists put together.