Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have not formulated a proper opinion on this yet, but from what I have seen so far, I think they did start out peaceful. Evil corrupted them.Andreas said:Just a thought. But do you think Llons started out as vegetarian creature that started eating meat, turning into a carnivore?
And we all believe the news, right? Especially when it comes from such an undeniable source as man ...Chi_Cygni said:**** News just in ****
There were never vegetarian lions. What a ridiculous concept with absolutely no evidence for and plenty against.
**** End of news flash ****
In a sense, exactly that! And not only the Lion, but all creatures were vegetarian.Andreas said:Just a thought. But do you think Llons started out as vegetarian creature that started eating meat, turning into a carnivore?
Andreas said:Just a thought. But do you think Llons started out as vegetarian creature that started eating meat, turning into a carnivore?
Vegetarian creatures do not have the dentition of lions. When someone digs up a lion skeleton with a mouth full of horse teeth I'll give it some credence until then it's just a joke.Asar'el said:In a sense, exactly that! And not only the Lion, but all creatures were vegetarian.
That being said, I must point out that being a creationist does not mean I disagree with everything that is normally associated with evolution; the concept of the survival of the fittest is well proven - but it does not change one species into another, merely separates specialized versions of one creaure ...
So, I do not know what kind of creature God created on the sixth day that might later have specialized into the lion, and the other cats; or when that specialization occured...
But I believe that from the first one, until after the flood, all were vegetarian. After that, at some point, some began eating meat.
Your confidence in your opinion is admirable; but try not to diminish the opinions of other by calling them pathetic and ignorant ...Chi_Cygni said:Vegetarian creatures do not have the dentition of lions. When someone digs up a lion skeleton with a mouth full of horse teeth I'll give it some credence until then it's a pathetic joke for the ignorant to swallow.
Which scripture are you referring to that says that there was physical death before the fall? Thank you.Andreas said:I see your point. But is there any way to not be in conflict with the Bible when one says there is death before the fall? That's what I'm looking for.Chi_Cygni said:I guess all those dinosaurs died after the fall - LOL
This passage shows that God is responsible for carnivorous activity (v.21); that God made all things, including these lions, in his wisdom (v.24); that animals, whether carnivorous or otherwise, ultimately get their food and sustenance from God (v.27); and that this system, including lions who roar for their prey, is a "good thing" from God (v.28).14 He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate --
bringing forth food from the earth:
15 wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart.
16 The trees of the LORD are well watered,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
17 There the birds make their nests;
the stork has its home in the pine trees.
18 The high mountains belong to the wild goats;
the crags are a refuge for the coneys.
19 The moon marks off the seasons,
and the sun knows when to go down.
20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then man goes out to his work,
to his labor until evening.
24 How many are your works, O LORD!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number-
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.
27 These all look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
Andreas said:If evolution is correct than there was death before the fall, right? So how would somebody who believes in theistic evolution make sense of that?
Training an animal to change it's diet is meaningless. I believe PETA advocates this for house cats but ask any biologist or vet and they will tell you it's foolishness that harms the animal. It's not just their dentition but their biochemistry that makes this stupid.Asar'el said:Your confidence in your opinion is admirable; but try not to diminish the opinions of other by calling them pathetic and ignorant ...
Did you check the link about the (apparently famous!) vegetarion lion? A little search will show the issue is not as clear-cut as you would have it be.
If you BELIEVE the Bible then it is clear that there was no death before the fall. That is ridiculous.Andreas said:If evolution is correct than there was death before the fall, right? So how would somebody who believes in theistic evolution make sense of that?
MercuryMJ said:I'm resurrecting this topic because it's currently being discussed in a few other threads where it's off-topic.
I don't think animal death is inherently evil.
MercuryMJ said:Many people interpret Genesis 1:29-30 as indicating that animals were created vegetarian. This interpretation is based on an assumption that can easily be shown to be unwarranted by looking at a pair of verses one chapter later:
Genesis 2:16-17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' "
The question is, does "You may surely eat" mean "You may only eat"? Chances are, in this case most everyone would agree it doesn't mean that. The reason is twofold: (1) there are other passages that indicate humans could eat more than just fruit from trees, such as Genesis 1:29-30, and (2) it is obvious why only trees are mentioned in this second passage: because this statement is in the context of prohibiting eating from a certain tree. Other non-tree food sources are not the point.
Now, going back to the previous chapter:
Genesis 1:29-30: "And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 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."
Does "I have given every green plant for food" mean "I have only given every green plant for food"? I would suggest that it doesn't.
MercuryMJ said:First, there are other passages that indicate humans and animals could eat other things besides vegetation. Some passages show that animals were also created as food, as I will detail below.
MercuryMJ said:It is quite a stretch to claim all those passages are merely accommodation to a sinful, post-Fall environment. (And to do so implies that what God now calls "good" he would have considered evil before sin entered the world.)
Second, there is a good reason why only vegetation is mentioned in these verses. Everything mentioned in the Genesis 1 creation account is given a function.
MercuryMJ said:Light and the luminaries are to divide and rule over day and night, among other things; the firmament divides the waters and provides an environment for birds and, indirectly, fish; dry ground divides the seas and provides a habitat for land animals and humans; all the animals are created to fill their respective environments and be governed by humans; humans reflect God by sharing his image and ruling over the rest of creation. Everything is created for a reason that is clearly mentioned except for the vegetation... until we get to verses 29-30. These verses mention that the purpose of the vegetation is to provide food to every human, beast, bird and creeping thing.
MercuryMJ said:This also explains why a food source for fish is conspicuously absent. The purpose of these verses isn't to say what every type of created creature can eat (if so, fish would also be given something to eat), but to give a function to the vegetation created on day three. Rather than saying "you may only eat plants", it is saying, "the plants were made to be eaten".
MercuryMJ said:The text is as silent on whether or not animals were also created to be eaten as it is on whether vegetation was also created under the sea.
MercuryMJ said:It does not intend to tell us such things. As shown below, Psalm 104, Isaiah 25 and 1 Timothy 4 shed more light on whether animals were also created as a food source.
Some other Genesis texts that relate:
- Before the flood, Abel sacrificed "the fat portions" of an animal to God (Genesis 4:4). What did he do with the rest of the animal, if not eat it? If eating meat was prohibited at this time, why didn't he sacrifice all of the meat to the Lord?
- Also before the flood, it appears that Noah already knew which animals were clean and which were unclean (Genesis 7:2). If Noah knew this, it is quite possible that God had already revealed to him (or to Adam) which animals he could eat.
- Based on the above, Genesis 9:3 can be read in a different light: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." Just as before God gave all the vegetation for food, now God gave all animals for food, rather than just the clean animals. Note that this text does not indicate a change in what animals were permitted to eat.
MercuryMJ said:Job and Psalms texts
In Job 38:41, God asks Job a question: "Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?" The rhetorical answer is that God provides this. Does God provide things that are evil? If animal death and predation only came into the world as a result of sin, that would be the case.
I've already posted some details about Psalm 104 in post #28 in this thread. Psalm 104:20-30 shows that God is responsible for carnivorous activity (v.21); made all things, including carnivorous lions, in his wisdom (v.24); gives food and sustenance to his creatures, whether they're carnivorous or not (v.27); and calls the food and prey he provides them with "good things" from his hand (v.28). Carnivorous lions are not described by the psalmist as a distortion of some docile beast that was corrupted by sin.
All these passages are post fall. I fail to see how this make your case.
shernren said:The point is, I mostly see two good defenses for "vegetarian all-animalism". The first is some sentimental appeal to death being bad, sometimes guised with Biblical verses taken to refer to death for all animals (when of course, they refer to death strictly for humans). But God is not sentimental.
shernren said:Animals would either die of predation, or they would die of overpopulation, or God would have to repeal the laws of nature which He had created and called "very good" too.
shernren said:The second defense is using the post-Flood promise of all living things being food, to assume that therefore animals were not food before the Flood. So that is why the quotes are relevant: they are talking about this defense and showing instances pre-Flood concerning animal death. I admit those references have nothing with refuting the idea that there was no animal death pre-Fall. Right, Mercury?
I know it's not evil because God calls prey for hungry lions a "good thing" from his hand. There are places in the Bible where God makes accommodations, such as for divorce. But, God never calls divorce a "good thing". If someone really believes that animals and humans eating animals is an accommodation to a sinful world, they should be about as eager to eat meat as they are to get a divorce or fight in a war!Calminian said:You don't just have to merely believe animal death is not "evil" (an interesting choice of words). You don't even have to believe it's "good." You actually have to believe it is "very good." And not only this, but you have to believe "predation" in which animals often suffered terribly was also very good.
You're right that many don't take those passages literally for obvious reasons. Two of the obvious reasons are that the imagery is literally contradictory (in one place the lions are said to be tame and in another they are said to be absent) and Isaiah also uses other nature imagery that even ardent YECs take figuratively (trees clapping their hands, mountains singing, etc.).I brought the thousand year reign of Christ on earth in the discussion to show that God will take away predation and disease during this time. This seems kind of silly if predation and disease are very good things. Of course many don't take those passages literally either for obvious reasons.
I'm wondering if you even read what I wrote. You say the implication in Genesis 1:29-30 is that only plants were for food because they are the only thing mentioned there. Does this mean that the implication in Genesis 2:16-17 is that fruit from trees was the only food because that is all that is mentioned in that passage? Did "something change" between chapter 1 and 2 to further limit the human diet from all vegetation to just fruit from trees? If you can understand how 2:16-17 isn't a prohibition against non-fruit food sources, then you should also be able to understand how 1:16-17 isn't a prohibition against non-vegetation food sources.The implication of course is that is does, because it is the only thing mentioned. But don't you realize that it says it is for "every" animal. Today we don't see every animal eating these things. Something has changed. What?
Why isn't the moon's function in controlling tides mentioned? It's easy to ask questions about things not in the text. I didn't say that every function for every created thing was mentioned, but rather that every created thing mentioned is given a function.Then why isn't the function of animals as food mentioned? It would seem logical if that's the author's intent.
Fish are conspicuously absent. Compare Genesis 1:28 with 1:30:No, plants are to be food for "every" animal. There's the subtle difference.
You're assuming that the point is to list all the food sources. If that were the case, then a food source for fish would also be mentioned. Maybe seaweed would have been created on the second day and then it could be given as food for the fish here. But, the text doesn't do that because it isn't focusing on itemizing all food sources.Here's an important point. Notice when these statements text occur. After the last creature, man, is created. You would think by this time (according to OEers) when predation was supposedly wide spread God would have mentioned other food sources. For at that time there were many animals (again under the OE model) that were solely carnivores.
Because the animals and humans hadn't been mentioned yet at that point! The text follows a natural progression. God commands the dry ground to produce vegetation. God commands the waters and the earth to bring forth fish, birds, land animals and humans. God gives the plants for food to the humans, land animals and birds.And this whole theory about the purpose of plants being revealed makes no sense considering when it is mentioned. Why aren't these things mentioned during the plant section of the text????????
If God can now call predation "good" there's no reason to believe he couldn't call it "good" from the beginning. The Fall did not change God or alter his morality.Yes God provides things necessary in a fallen world. This doesn't mean this was His original intent for the world. God even provides animals to men for sacrifices, yet take no pleasure in offerings. God often delivers wicked men to righteous men. Yet He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
What you're doing is taking every verse that speaks positively about animal predation or eating animals and claiming that it hasn't always been that way. You don't have any evidence that it hasn't always been that way (aside from clean/unclean restrictions about what to eat). You don't have any Scripture that says that some animals changed to become predators after the Fall. But, you still dismiss the entire testimony of Scripture on this issue because it doesn't line up with your own ideas.The fallacy youre committing here is obvious. Youre saying that if God ordains something now, it must have been ordained from the beginning.
Right.shernren said:The second defense is using the post-Flood promise of all living things being food, to assume that therefore animals were not food before the Flood. So that is why the quotes are relevant: they are talking about this defense and showing instances pre-Flood concerning animal death. I admit those references have nothing with refuting the idea that there was no animal death pre-Fall. Right, Mercury?
Are you now claiming that humans were only permitted to eat meat starting with the flood? If so, you need to deal with how Abel only sacrificed the fat portions of the animal (what did he do with the rest, if not eat it?) and how Noah already knew the difference between clean and unclean animals.Calminian said:And, if men were eating meat for thousands of years (or millions), why the need to tell him he could eat meat after the flood?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?