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?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 wasnt 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?
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.Yeah, but the YEC camp claims that there was no death at all, in the beginning.
The Bible uses a specific Hebrew phrase nephesh chayyāh (נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה = living souls/creatures) for vertebrates, but never for insects (or plants).
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?
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.
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?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?
Hey, that's neat! I enjoy Dr. Heiser's work, and think he might be right on the money about the Nachash.Gxg (G²);62342193 said: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).
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.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.
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.Gxg (G²);62342219 said: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).
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.Gxg (G²);62342219 said: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 morningthe 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.
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.Gxg (G²);62342219 said:As scripture notes:
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.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 groundeverything that has the breath of life in itI 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 groundtrees 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.
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 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.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?
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.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?
I agree.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?
Gxg (G²);61573086 said: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.
....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.
Gxg (G²);61573103 said: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).
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.
- The white locust (Hebrew: חגב, Chagav, Aramaic: גדיאן, Gadayin, Arabic: الجندب, Al-Jundub).
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:
This is the opinion that is generally held by Ashkenazi Jews...and yet for Jews in differing groups/cultures, it's not agreed upon."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. )
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
Gxg (G²);61574549 said: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.
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.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?
Psalm 50:11
I know every bird in the mountains, and the insects in the fields are mine.
Psalm 50:10-12
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
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.Gxg (G²);62342193 said: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 10:11and 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.
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....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.
More than agree with you on that point. And on what happens outside of God's Holy Mountain, who knows..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.
.
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.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.
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 ).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
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?