If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[nolidad]

You have completely failed to reply to any of my Scriptural quotations about how God deems that animal death and carnivorism have their proper place within a perfect creation. You have not responded to it with anything but personal projection of sentimentalism upon God.

Because you haven't posted a scripture verse that you used in its proper context yet. God did not have carnivorism in His perfect creation, but it became part and parcel of His cursed creation. That is fact-He subjected His perfect creation to phthora (decay, destruction and perishing) and the only biblical evidence we have is after man fell! Your misuse of Psalm 104 is nto scripture at all and y9our saying that vegetarian diet was not the only thing has no support in the bible befoe the fall.

As Assyrian has pointed out, plant food does indeed form the base of any food chain and is therefore given for food to all animals. Even carnivores who consume other animals are indirectly eating plant matter - for the energy and substance of prey ultimately derive from plants. Therefore there is a viable alternative interpretation that does not preclude animal death. What would be more impressive would be God forbidding animals to eat meat. God telling animals that "Thou shalt not kill each other"? Don't plan things for God.

You guys should go into injury law with the way you simply reject the clear words of Scripture, with your "enlightened" allegorical interpretations!! One thing I do agree wioth you on-- it is an alternative interpretation because it is not what the Scriptures say!


mallon opines:

Like what? Note the bite marks are healed (i.e. the animal was not scavenged), and that the only contemporary animal big enough that could have made such marks was T. rex himself.
We have other evidences of predation in T. rex, though, including healed bite marks on Triceratops horns. I suppose you've got a second unrevealable idea as to how those got there, too, though.

Yeah could simply be self defense, or a fight over territory, or t-top got too close to a T rex nest, and there are others. Bite marks withoutmore objective evidence simply mean bite marks! They could mean T rex went looking for food, but htey could also mean several other things. You would be a prosecutors dream witness-- coming up with facts with no evidence to support them.

You only have to be faster than your prey when hunting. The ceratopsian and hadrosaurid dinosaurs that T. rex fed upon were even worse suited for running.
Besides, T. rex was better suited for running than every other large theropod anywhere near its size. Would you suggest they were all scavengers?

Okay now prove he ran faster and preyed on these dinos. Show how his short rooted teeth could withstand gnashing inot live prey.

Snakes are predators and they don't have arms at all! And sharks don't use forelimbs to capture prey either. And what about the 'terror birds'? Their wings were nothing but stubs, and yet no one questions their predatory capabilities.
Having long arms does not a predator make.

Well birds use talons and beaks and snakes use constriction or venom--what did T- Rex use? Bad breath- ugly face?

Ever see shark teeth? They shed their teeth all the time, and yet no one doubts the predatory capabilities of the shark.
Your case for T. rex as a scavenger is about as weak as your case for creationism, and has been refuted time and again the scientific literature.

But predator sharks have several rows of teeth--T rex only one and his are less rooted than a sharks are.

As for Creationism-- I will take the bible over all the masses of PHD scientists who have "proved" evolution anyday. As 1 Cor. says the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God!!

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I cherish and rejoice that atheistic and theistic evolutionists think me foolish-- it is a sweet savor to God!!

Say it. Say "personal preference" or "subjective decision" or something similar. Because that's what you mean. The definition of "kind" is entirely subjective, and has no scientific meaning or relevance whatsoever. So STOP USING IT.

God used it so I shall also!! Too bad that it offends you so-- I choose to follow what the author of the best BOOK said about the different animals. Besides who died and leftr you emperor of this thread. I defined as to what is considered the likely definitions of kind. Twas many pages ago.

Indeed. Consistently wrong.

See the 1 Cor. passages I posted above!!

Irrelevent. The question is: is human death a result of the fall? All men breathe, too. Is that evidence that breathing is a result of the fall?

No! Your comparison is irrelevant. The Bible shows when man began breathing and it also shows when men began dying and trhey aren't at the same time!

And if you did a little linguistic study of the verse in Genesis 2 you would see that when God forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge He said - On the day you eat of it-- in dying you will surely die. See when adam ate-- He died spiritually that day but physically the process of death started. That is the Hebrew and is supported by Keill and Delitsczh and Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Alfred Eddersheim-- the 20th century three mosat prominent Hebrew linguists. Thsat is why death started after Adam for all life.

The Lafy Kate protests:

Grapsing at straws indeed... The lion, as anyone would tell you, is "king of the jungle" precisely becauseit is fierce and when it attacks it rips to shreds...

You are right-- it si the fierceness of the lions attack that God is anthropormorphing and not the fact teh lion is carnivorous. C'mon you are all educated folk and should be able to see the simile here and not some left field defense of carnivorism before the fall. I have you in more repsect than this lame attempt to show a defense of carnivorism

Well you rside has succeeded in keeping a scientific teaching of creation out of the public schools- now are you seeking to censor my free speech rights as well???

Mallon writes:

Microraptor looks like a bird to you; therefore it's a bird. How are we supposed to have a meaningful discussion about science if you are not going to use science to support your position?
Besides having feathers, what else of the animal's skeleton screams "bird" to you?

Well take it up with your evolutionary buddies-- they all made artists conception of it flying and perching in trees. So let me see, if it is feathered, flies, and perches in trees What could it possibly be????? HMMMMMMM?????? Wait I got it!!!!! Its a BIRD!!!!

"Feather-like" indeed. In fact, they look exactly like what we might expect proto-feathers to resemble.

Well once again take it up with your evolutionary buddies-- they all equivocate! That is why I didn't gop on creationist web sites. Proto feathers aren't feathers BTW--they are suppossed to be ontheir way to becoming feathers according to your evo buddies.

That they know of. You only know its a forgery when you prove it, but until you do you don't know! But it does make all the "finds" in the Luiauang region very suspect. They are too convenient.

As of the 80's, the Chinese are nowhere near as secretive about their fossils as they used to be. In fact, many of the fossils are currently on tour across the globe for all to see.

Is it the fossils themselves or cast imprints??? Many touring fossils are actually not the real deal but casts made form the original fossil.


Also still awaiting a reply for what is mewant byt he one who said that the physical resurrection is fact and myth as well!!!

 

[The Lady Kate]

You are right-- it si the fierceness of the lions attack that God is anthropormorphing and not the fact teh lion is carnivorous. C'mon you are all educated folk and should be able to see the simile here and not some left field defense of carnivorism before the fall. I have you in more repsect than this lame attempt to show a defense of carnivorism

Educated enough to know that God didn't write the passage in question... and educate enough to see you change the subject: What makes the lion so fierce? Fierce enough to merit such a comparison to God?

Well you rside has succeeded in keeping a scientific teaching of creation out of the public schools- now are you seeking to censor my free speech rights as well???

Is it censorship to point out a weak argument when we see one? Must every POV, no matter how asinine, be treated as gospel truth?

Perhaps a debate forum is not the place for you.

 

[shernren]

Because you haven't posted a scripture verse that you used in its proper context yet. God did not have carnivorism in His perfect creation, but it became part and parcel of His cursed creation. That is fact-He subjected His perfect creation to phthora (decay, destruction and perishing) and the only biblical evidence we have is after man fell! Your misuse of Psalm 104 is nto scripture at all and y9our saying that vegetarian diet was not the only thing has no support in the bible befoe the fall.

More dodging.

The context of Psalm 104 is the Creation story.
The context of Romans 5 is a discussion on the effects of sin upon humanity.
The context of Romans 8 is a discussion on humanity's hope to be released from sin's moral decay by God's triumph.

Are you going to show that I'm wrong, or are you just going to keep saying it?

You guys should go into injury law with the way you simply reject the clear words of Scripture, with your "enlightened" allegorical interpretations!! One thing I do agree wioth you on-- it is an alternative interpretation because it is not what the Scriptures say!

So show me what the Scriptures say that proves me wrong. Show me where God forbade carnivorism before the Fall. I am honestly interested in what the Scriptures have to say about it. And if you look carefully at the discussion thus far, I have always been trying to point my arguments back to the actual content of Scripture and the words and context used, while you have been content to shout down my interpretation without showing me other passages which cannot be interpreted concordantly with my views.

I wonder who's the Scripturally motivated one here.

 

[Mallon]

Yeah could simply be self defense, or a fight over territory, or t-top got too close to a T rex nest, and there are others. Bite marks withoutmore objective evidence simply mean bite marks! They could mean T rex went looking for food, but htey could also mean several other things. You would be a prosecutors dream witness-- coming up with facts with no evidence to support them.

And you would be a nightmare of a juror. Presented with overwhelming evidence for a case, and still refusing to accept it. I can't believe you would admit to something like T. rex being able to bite through bone (in self-defense from an herbivore, nonetheless), but incapable of bringing down live prey.

Okay now prove he ran faster and preyed on these dinos.

Compare the relative lengths of the hindlimb bones. Animals with smaller femur:tibia ratios are invariably faster than those with larger ratios. T. rex had proportionally longer lower legs than its herbivorous contemporaries.

Show how his short rooted teeth could withstand gnashing inot live prey.

I don't know if you've ever seen a T. rex tooth (I've got a cast here before me), but the tooth is mostly root -- about 2/3 to 3/4 root in fact. Hardly "short". T. rex's teeth were well rooted.

Now tell me T. rex had short tooth roots. The crown ends just about the woman's middle finger.

Well birds use talons and beaks and snakes use constriction or venom--what did T- Rex use? Bad breath- ugly face?

I don't know if you noticed or not, but T. rex had 5-foot long jaws lined with long serrated teeth. That's what it used to dispatch prey.
(Incidentally, it also has talons on its hind feet, like birds, and likely had a septic bite, as the tooth serrations probably housed festering meat, as in monitor lizards).

But predator sharks have several rows of teeth--T rex only one and his are less rooted than a sharks are.

Care to back that up? Here's a shark tooth:

Which has bigger roots? Also, as a reptile, the teeth of T. rex were continuously being replaced. So you're wrong on that one, too.

As for Creationism-- I will take the bible over all the masses of PHD scientists who have "proved" evolution anyday. As 1 Cor. says the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God!!

Are you saying God made us all idiots, incapable of figuring things out for ourselves?

I cherish and rejoice that atheistic and theistic evolutionists think me foolish-- it is a sweet savor to God!!

Here's a passage for you:
Proverbs 10:14 -- "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin."

God used it so I shall also!! Too bad that it offends you so

Your inability to objectively define "kind" doesn't offend me. It simply makes your case unsupportable and unworthy of attention.

And if you did a little linguistic study of the verse in Genesis 2 you would see that when God forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge He said - On the day you eat of it-- in dying you will surely die.

That reminds me: why would God place a Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden if there was no death to begin with?

 

[Assyrian]

I am not changing meanings, I am using keep in its primary meaning which is to manage. Look at the curse again-- Adam di dnot contend with thorns and thistles (weeds) until after the fall!! Before the fall the ground was not cursed-- after the fall it was.

I'm not sure where you get this idea of primary meaning being 'manage'. the primary meaning is to hedge about (with thorns) or guard. In other words, protect. Were the cherubim with the flaming sword meant to manage the garden after Adam left? It is the same word shamar.

It really is that simple-- but then again Paul had to say in 1 Cor. why the simple things of God are hard to understand to some.

Which makes it very strange that YECs and atheists share the same literal interpretation of what Genesis means.

Well see actually I do-- even your brothers on talkorigins know that eh scriptures speak of a young earth and special creation and no evolution!!

Don't tell me talkorigins has been quote mined! What have you got?

Any kid reading the bible (remember we are to come to God with that child like innocence?) will tell you God created everything in six days and that they reproduce aftrer their own kind and God destroyed the whole world with a global flood!!

To paraphrase another verse: "out of the mouths of infants and babes thou hast perfecte praise!!!!!
[/quote]

(sorry folks the program insists on inserting extra 'quote' scripts)



For everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child Heb 5:13.

The bible doesn't say animals 'reproduce after their own kind'. they do, most of the time. Sometimes the kids are a bit different, but it's not something the bible talks about. Moses didn't take God's days literally, and there is no mention in the bible of a global flood. God said he wouldn't allow the waters to cover the planet again back when he first formed the dry land out of the sea. We read about it in Psalm 104 as well as in Prov 8:29 and Job 38:10&11. Noah did not know whether the whole globe was flooded, what he described was the whole land he lived in, his erets, being inundated and the highest hills covered with water. We read the account with our modern knowledge of geography an completely miss what an ancient neolithic farmer was trying to tell us.

Yes it does actually saythat. All the rest is what you actually say not God! It says God gave the herbs (vegetation for the animals for food--and it was so. It dsoesn't say as one source of food or an alternative on Wedsnedays to substitute for meat-- It says that a vegetarian diet wasa their diet. Period! Everything else is to try to assuage you rconscience to adjust for the nonexistent 650,000,000 years that evolution says animals have been preying on each other.

Sorry where exactly does the bible say animals were vegetarian? You interpret a verse that says God provided vegetation as food to say that all the animals were herbivores when it doesn't say that. It doesn't tell us how the ecosystem operated. You take one simplistic interpretation of the verse and ignore what other creation passages say about God providing prey for lions. Antelopes ate grass, lions ate grass fed antelopes. God still provided the grass that fed them both. It is easy to build up a doctrine on isolated passages if you ignore what the rest of the bible say. the bible never says animals were all herbivores before the fall.

nolidad to shernren:
[quote]Nice try again this is close--creatrion was subjected to phthora (decay destruction and perishing) as a result of mans spiritual failure and its groaning grows louder every day as mans morals ands spirituality continues to decline.

Again this is without scriptural basis. Romans 8 does not say phthora was the result of the fall and in 1Cor 15 it is associated with the creation not the fall. The groaning is not because 'mans morals ands spirituality continues to decline', but because in God's plan creation is going to go though a a birth and 'and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.'

You guys should go into injury law with the way you simply reject the clear words of Scripture, with your "enlightened" allegorical interpretations!! One thing I do agree wioth you on-- it is an alternative interpretation because it is not what the Scriptures say!

And where does scripture say God created vegetarian lions? Not some passage you think might imply it but doesn't actually say what you claim, but a verse that actually tells us lions were vegetarian, or that carnivores were the result of the fall. (Have you or a friend had a fall at work and you have been unable to eat vegetables as a result? Contact Carnivorous Lawyers 4U and we will ensure you receive the predatory genes your fall has are entitled you to.)

Come on nolidad, the bible tells us God created lions. It tells us lions eat other animals, as we well know. If you want to make the radical claim that God originally created vegetarian lions and that predation is the result of the fall, please show us a verse that actually says this.

nolidad to mallon:

No! Your comparison is irrelevant. The Bible shows when man began breathing and it also shows when men began dying and trhey aren't at the same time!

And if you did a little linguistic study of the verse in Genesis 2 you would see that when God forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge He said - On the day you eat of it-- in dying you will surely die. See when adam ate-- He died spiritually that day but physically the process of death started. That is the Hebrew and is supported by Keill and Delitsczh and Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Alfred Eddersheim-- the 20th century three mosat prominent Hebrew linguists. Thsat is why death started after Adam for all life.

Actually the literal translation is 'dying you will die'. This grammatical structure was the common Hebrew idiom meaning 'surely die'. But it is really a bad idea to try to squeeze some meaning out of a direct translation of an idiom rather than what the idiom actually meant. God told Adam that the day he ate from the tree he would surely die. Adam didn't did physically the day he ate the fruit as God had prophesied. He did die spiritually. So which death was God talking about when he told Adam he would surely die the day he ate it?

Mallon wrote:

That reminds me: why would God place a Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden if there was no death to begin with?

Another interesting little detail, if you look at the verse creationists claim excludes carnivores before the fall, the same interpretation forbids animals from eating fruit. Only the humans were allowed eat from fruit trees and seed bearing herbs. The animals had to stick with green herbs. So the only mention of eternal life in the whole of the Genesis creation accounts, the tree of life, and YEC interpretation forbid animals to go near it.

Blessings Assyrian

 

[nolidad]

The Lady Kate writes:

Educated enough to know that God didn't write the passage in question... and educate enough to see you change the subject: What makes the lion so fierce? Fierce enough to merit such a comparison to God?

God did write the passage in question unless you forget that God also said ALL scripture is "pneumatikos (God breathed). Men may have penned the words-but the thought and truth is Gods.

What makes a lion fierce? Not because He is a carnivore-- But when He attacks what He is stalking- He is ruthless and merciless and kills utterly!! But you kjnow that and it appears you are straining the point to try to make God a stalking carnivivorous animal.

Is it censorship to point out a weak argument when we see one? Must every POV, no matter how asinine, be treated as gospel truth?

Which weak argument-- that you haven't shown biodiversity from single celled life over 650,000,000 years?? I agree your point is weak.

Perhaps a debate forum is not the place for you.

Well I know that I tax your patience for I am not as "sophisticated " as you but no, I like debate forums fine.

shernren keeps complaining:

More dodging.

The context of Psalm 104 is the Creation story.
The context of Romans 5 is a discussion on the effects of sin upon humanity.
The context of Romans 8 is a discussion on humanity's hope to be released from sin's moral decay by God's triumph.

Are you going to show that I'm wrong, or are you just going to keep saying it?

I have shown you wrong-- you just dont like the answers. I could cut and paste several Hebrew scholars-- you would jsut fluff off their writings as meaningless.

Psalm 104 starts with creation, goes to the flood and moves to everyday living.

If you were a careful student of the bible you would see that verse 13 speaks of rain which did not happen until after Noahsd flood which is mentioned in vses 6-9 (but then again you also reject the bibles clear wording of a global flood as well so it should be no surprise you reject teh bibles teaching here also)

Romans 8 is far more than just man-- all creation awaits to be releaed from the bondage of phthora (decay, destruction, and perishing) which GOD and not man subjected creation to as a result of mans fall. How do we know it is a result of mans fall?? Because they await the resemption of the sons of God which ties in with a fall. You cannot be reddemed if you did not fall!! But hten again when you rejectr the bibles clear teaching that God created, God destroyed the world in a flood, set bounds for the flood, cursed creation, why would I expect you to accept the bibles teaching here without altering its meaning. I mean your explanation for the command that all sentient creatures were created to be vegetarian has more twists and turns than a road map!!! But then again-- One has to approach the word with the beleif God knew how to communicate truth to man and not wait millenia until man was "sophisticated" enough to know God really did not mean what He said in non parabolic and non visionary teachings.

So show me what the Scriptures say that proves me wrong. Show me where God forbade carnivorism before the Fall.

show me a verse that He did?? I at least gave you teh only verse pre flood that speaks of diet for all living creatures. You on the other hand then twist and turn it and maninpulate ti to mean something else. Occams razor still is the best here!!

I am honestly interested in what the Scriptures have to say about it. And if you look carefully at the discussion thus far, I have always been trying to point my arguments back to the actual content of Scripture

Shernren I wish I could beleive this of you but your answers here seem to say no way!!

This is the simple passage of Gods Word:

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Then yo uconvolute it with photosynthesis and that plants are part of a carnivores diet and all the other caveats you throw at this to get it to try to say animals ate meat at this point as well!

So then man was a carnivore as well!! Why?

One verse prior:

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

So if the animals were carnivores that are carnivorous today-- so wasn't man for the same convoluted reasonings you gave for the animals (unless of course you have the secrets God did not reveal to everyone else why 30 means carnivorous and 29 doesn"t)

Also your logic would make this verse assinine:

Genesis 9:

2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.


So if Adam was a carnivore which He had to be if we are to stay consistent witihyour line of reasoning, Adam sinned before He even fell by eating from the tree of knowledge! Cause He was a meat eater as well-- unless you can show from Scripture why carnivorism applied to animals and not to man though both were given the same command.

You complain I haven't proved you wrong! I have over and over! You haven't been able by exegesis or comemtnary other than you saying so that your ideas are right.

Once again I have to ask: Why do you beleive inthe physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave in the same body He was crucified in , when Science declares it to be a physical impossibility to have happened???

 

[nolidad]

Lady Kate asks:

Educated enough to know that God didn't write the passage in question... and educate enough to see you change the subject: What makes the lion so fierce? Fierce enough to merit such a comparison to God?

Well just for you:


British Library, Royal MS 12 C. xix, Folio 6r

Lion
Latin name: Leo
Other names: Leun
The lion is the king of the beasts

General Attributes
The lion is the king of the beasts, and as such is usually the first beast described in the bestiaries. The lion chapter is generally one of the longest and most complex.
The lion has three natures: when a lion walking in the mountains sees that it is being hunted, it erases its tracks with its tail; it always sleeps with its eyes open; and its cubs are born dead and are brought to life on the third day when the mother breathes in their faces or the father roars over them. Some sources add more natures: a lion only kills out of great hunger; it will not attack a prostrate man; it allows captive men to depart; it is not easily angered; the lioness first has five cubs, then one less each year.
There are two kinds of lion: one is timid, has a short body and curly hair; the other has straight hair and a long body and is fierce. A lion's strength is seen in its chest, its firmness in its head, and its courage in its forehead and tail.
Lions are frightened of the sight of hunters with spears, so they look at the ground when surrounded. They also fear the sound of creaking cart wheels, fire, and the sight of the white [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. A sick lion cures itself by eating a monkey, eating on one day and drinking the next; if the meat does not digest properly the lion pulls it out of its stomach with its claws. Lions are harmed by scorpions and killed by snakes.
When a lion is hungry it treats other animals with anger, leaping on them as it does on the ass. A hunting lion makes a circle with its tail around other animals, which do not dare to cross the line and so become its prey. The roar of a lion is alone enough to make other animals weak with fear.
Lions do not like to eat the previous day's prey, abandoning the remains of their last meal.
Unlike most animals, lions mate face to face. The lioness give birth to five cubs the first time, then four the next, and three the next, until after the birth of a single cub in the fifth year, they become sterile.


Allegory/Moral
In Christian allegory, the three main natures of the lion each have a meaning. The lion erasing its tracks with its tail represents the way Jesus concealed his divinity, only revealing himself to his followers. The lion sleeping with its eyes open represents Jesus, physically dead after crucifiction, but still spiritually alive in his divine nature. The lion roaring over his dead cubs to bring them to life represents how God the father woke Jesus after three days in his tomb.
The other natures of the lion are taken as examples of how people are to live. Just as the lion will not attack a prostrate man, will allow captive men to depart, and is not easily angered, people should be slow to anger and quick to forgive.


Sources (chronological order)
Aesop's Fables [6th century BCE] ( Temple 210): The lion was complaining to Prometheus that while the god had made him big and strong, he was still afraid of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. The lion felt foolish because of this lack of courage. He went to talk to the elephant and found him being tormented by a gnat. When the lion asked him about his trouble, the elephant said that he was afraid of the gnat, because if it got into his ear he would surely die. The lion, hearing that, felt much better about his own courage, since a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is much more frightening than a gnat. (Temple 269): An ass and a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] were together one day, when a lion attacked the ass. The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] began to crow, and the lion ran away, since lions are afraid of the crowing of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. The ass, believing the lion was fleeing through fear of him, gave chase, but as soon as the lion was far enough from the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] so that its crowing could not be heard, he stopped running and killed the ass.
Pliny the Elder [1st century CE] (Natural History, Book 8, 17-21): Pliny notes the popular belief that the lioness only gives birth once, because her womb is injured by the claws of the cub, but (quoting Aristotle) refutes this. The lioness bears five cubs the first year, four the next, and one less each following year, until she becomes barren after the fifth year. The cubs are born as mere lumps of flesh the size of weasels, do not move at all in their first two months of life, and cannot walk until six months old. Lions are found in Europe only between the rivers Achelous and Mestus; these lions are stronger than those of Syria and Africa. There are two kinds of lions: a timid kind, with curly manes; and a long-haired kind that is bold. They drink infrequently, and eat only every other day, sometimes fasting for three days after a large meal. If a lion eats too much, it will reach down its throat with its claws and pull out the meat from its stomach. The lion is the only animal that spares people who prostrate themselves before it. When angry it attacks men, not women, and only attacks children when extremely hungry. A lion's greatest strength is in its chest, and its blood is black. When a mother lion is defending her cub from hunters, she looks at the ground so as not to be intimidated by the sight of the hunter's spears. Lions are frightened by turning wheels, empty chariots, crowing [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and fire. A lion which has lost its appetite for food can cure itself by tasting the blood of a monkey. (Book 10, 83): Lions produce young that are unfinished at birth, and shape them by licking them. In this they are like bears and foxes. (Book 11,115): The lion's breath contains a severe poison.
Isidore of Seville [7th century CE] (Etymologies, Book 12, 2:3-6): The lion is the king of all beasts, thus its name in Greek (leo) means "king" in Latin. The kind of lion with a curly mane is weak, but the ones with straight hair are larger and more violent. Their courage is seen in their front and tail; their endurance is in the head; and their strength is in the chest. If they are surrounded by hunters with spears, they look at the ground so as not to become frightened. They are afraid of the sound of wheels but even more so of fire. They sleep with their eyes open. When lions walk, they erase their tracks with their tail so hunters cannot follow them. When they give birth to a cub, it is thought to sleep for three days and nights, until the place where it sleeps is shaken by the roar of the father, which wakes it. Lions can fight with their claws and their teeth even while they are cubs. Lions will only attack a man when they are extremely hungry; otherwise they are so gentle that they cannot be provoked unless they are struck. They spare anyone who prostrates himself and allow captives to return home.


Illustration
The three natures of the lion are commonly illustrated, with the revival of the cub perhaps the most frequent. Often several illustrations are provided for the lion. The lion fearing the creaking cart and the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is illustrated in Merton College Library, MS. 249 (f. 2v) and Kongelige Bibliotek, Gl. kgl. S. 3466 8º (f. 10r).


HeraldryThe lion was one of the most popular animals in heraldry, though many of the heraldic animals taken as lions are actualy intended as leopards. The attributes the lion was meant to represent in heraldry are similar to those given in the bestiary; the lion is noble, brave and fierce, but will only attack if attacked or in great need of food.
The lion was most often depicted rampant (standing upright on its hind legs, with its fore legs, claws extended, held in front of its chest), but sometimes passant (standing on all four feet or lying down). There were several varieties of lion pictured: ones with a forked tail (queue fourchée), the tail indicating the fierceness of the beast ('for when the Lion is wroth, first he beateth the earth with his taile, and afterwards as the wroth increaseth, he smiteth and beateth his own back'); with one body and two heads; with one head and two bodies (bicorporate), three bodies (tricorporate), four bodies (quadricorporate), or more; lions with wings, symbolic of the Christian concept of Resurrection; the Sea-Lion, not the natural sea lion but a beast with the head and mane of a lion, fore legs with webbed feet in place of claws, and a fish tail from the waist down, ending in whale-like flukes; and combinations such as a winged Sea-Lion.

 

[nolidad]

mallon hypothesizes:

Now tell me T. rex had short tooth roots. The crown ends just about the woman's middle finger.

Thanks for the picture. I dod some measuring on my own hand and are you positing that T REx had teeth that were rooted past its jaw bone and into the littel flesh below the jaw?? You are saying T rex tooth was imbedded almost 1 foot into a mouth that was not one foot from the gum line to the lower flesh line.

Moses didn't take God's days literally,

And your proof of this is??????????

and there is no mention in the bible of a global flood.

Maybe in yours but in Gods bible it says this about "your little local flood":


6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.


13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.


11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (notice it says all-not someof the subteranean fountains)


19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. I like this one--not just some of the high heavens- but under THE WHOLE HEAVEN!! NOT JUST SOME HIGH HILLS__BUT ALL THE HIGH HILLS> and incase you forget_ as soon a swater reaches the highest mountain, it spills over and starts filling up the next land area.


2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

From th eend of chapter 7 to here in 8 the underfountains kep tpumping out water for 150 days!

THIS IS MY FAVORITE:


11And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 17And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

God made a covenant to make sure He would no longer destroy the earth with a flood!! Just like psalm 104!!! Wow! Now if Noahs flood was just a local event--God has broken covenant many many times and He isd no god at all.

Which has bigger roots? Also, as a reptile, the teeth of T. rex were continuously being replaced. So you're wrong on that one, too.

You should reread my posts so you don't misqoute me. I never said T rex did not replace teeth-- for he does-- that is one of the reasons why his teeth would not be so embedded as other animals- the next tooth was growing under th eexistring tooth.

Incidentally, it also has talons on its hind feet, like birds, and likely had a septic bite, as the tooth serrations probably housed festering meat, as in monitor lizards).

Maybe or maybe not. but I did zoom up on the tooth picture you gave and I really do not see much ionthe way of serration as you declared.

Your inability to objectively define "kind" doesn't offend me. It simply makes your case unsupportable and unworthy of attention.

As does your proffessed beleif in the resurrection. It is unscientific to you and therefore unsupportable if I may simply connect the dots you use in denegrating so much of the other portions of scripture. Why do you beleive in such an unscientific concept as the physical resurrefction of Jesus when science says it is jsut something impossible???????

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for the picture. I dod some measuring on my own hand and are you positing that T REx had teeth that were rooted past its jaw bone and into the littel flesh below the jaw?? You are saying T rex tooth was imbedded almost 1 foot into a mouth that was not one foot from the gum line to the lower flesh line.

What in the world are you going on about? The teeth fit nicely into their respective sockets (which are nearly a foot deep, yes). No need for the teeth to be rooted "into the littel [sic] flesh below the jaw".

And then there's a bunch of stuff attributed to me that I didn't write... And then...

You should reread my posts so you don't misqoute me. I never said T rex did not replace teeth-- for he does-- that is one of the reasons why his teeth would not be so embedded as other animals- the next tooth was growing under th eexistring tooth.

You also said:

But predator sharks have several rows of teeth--T rex only one and his are less rooted than a sharks are.

You seemed to be arguing that because T. rex only had one row of teeth that it couldn't have eaten live prey. This is wrong on several accounts because:
1) Many animals (including all mammals) that eat live prey only have one row of teeth.
2) T. rex was constantly shedding its teeth every few months and replacing them. Note the tooth loss is staggered (as it is in all reptiles), so that there are no large gaps of missing teeth in the jaw line.

Maybe or maybe not. but I did zoom up on the tooth picture you gave and I really do not see much ionthe way of serration as you declared.

Tyrannosaurids are well-known for their large serrated teeth. See:

Why do you beleive in such an unscientific concept as the physical resurrefction of Jesus when science says it is jsut something impossible???????

Because, unlike you, I don't pretend that science supports the stories of the Bible. My belief in the resurrection is solely based on faith, as Jesus tells us it ought to be (John 20:29). I pray that one day you might realize this, too, so that you will no longer have to deny reality. As my signature says, God's creation speaks plainly about itself; there's no reason in trying to fit the square peg into the round hole.

 

[shernren]

(is there a way for me to avoid having to load Mallon's graphics? My connection can't stand the stress sometimes. Occupational hazard of using the Internet from a Third World country )

Bottoms up, then:

Once again I have to ask: Why do you beleive inthe physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave in the same body He was crucified in , when Science declares it to be a physical impossibility to have happened???

The resurrection of Jesus Christ wouldn't have generated enough heat to melt the whole earth.
The compression of 4.5 billion years' worth of radioactive decay into 6,000 years, or the falling of enough water from over the entire globe to cover the whole earth to a depth of 20 feet or more, would.
It is simply a matter of common sense. Why is it that it's ok for you to use common sense to interpret Scripture, but not for me?

Shernren I wish I could beleive this of you but your answers here seem to say no way!!

This is the simple passage of Gods Word:

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Then yo uconvolute it with photosynthesis and that plants are part of a carnivores diet and all the other caveats you throw at this to get it to try to say animals ate meat at this point as well!

So then man was a carnivore as well!! Why?

One verse prior:

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

So if the animals were carnivores that are carnivorous today-- so wasn't man for the same convoluted reasonings you gave for the animals (unless of course you have the secrets God did not reveal to everyone else why 30 means carnivorous and 29 doesn"t)

Also your logic would make this verse assinine:

Genesis 9:

2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.


So if Adam was a carnivore which He had to be if we are to stay consistent witihyour line of reasoning, Adam sinned before He even fell by eating from the tree of knowledge! Cause He was a meat eater as well-- unless you can show from Scripture why carnivorism applied to animals and not to man though both were given the same command.

Good grief, nolidad, it's you who've made things complicated.

God gave the plants for animals' food.
Herbivores eat plants.
Carnivores eat animals which eat plants, or animals which eat animals which eat plants. Therefore plants provide for all of carnivores' food needs as well.
Omnivores eat both plants and animals, which indirectly eat plants. Therefore plants provide for all of omnivores' food needs as well.
Adam could have been an omnivore, in which case plants would have provided for all of his food needs. Or he could have been a herbivore, in which case plants could have provided for all of his food needs.

Genesis 1:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Or in other words, God said: "I have provided for the food needs of every creature on earth through the plants." Which is exactly what I have described above.

The burden of proof is now on you to show that permission to eat plants is equivalent to a command not to eat animals. Let me reiterate my example: if my mom tells my little brother, "Eat your veggies", does that forbid him from touching the fried chicken?

Romans 8 is far more than just man-- all creation awaits to be releaed from the bondage of phthora (decay, destruction, and perishing) which GOD and not man subjected creation to as a result of mans fall. How do we know it is a result of mans fall?? Because they await the resemption of the sons of God which ties in with a fall. You cannot be reddemed if you did not fall!! But hten again when you rejectr the bibles clear teaching that God created, God destroyed the world in a flood, set bounds for the flood, cursed creation, why would I expect you to accept the bibles teaching here without altering its meaning. I mean your explanation for the command that all sentient creatures were created to be vegetarian has more twists and turns than a road map!!! But then again-- One has to approach the word with the beleif God knew how to communicate truth to man and not wait millenia until man was "sophisticated" enough to know God really did not mean what He said in non parabolic and non visionary teachings.

And yet in Genesis 3 where God has center stage telling man all about the horrible consequences of the Fall, God somehow manages to forget to mention animals dying and eating each other all around Adam. A real masterpiece of "literal interpretation".

Psalm 104 starts with creation, goes to the flood and moves to everyday living.

If you were a careful student of the bible you would see that verse 13 speaks of rain which did not happen until after Noahsd flood which is mentioned in vses 6-9 (but then again you also reject the bibles clear wording of a global flood as well so it should be no surprise you reject teh bibles teaching here also)

The Bible never says it didn't rain before the Flood, that's human conjecture too. I know which verse you want to point me to, oh wise and deep Bible scholar:

Genesis 2
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground ...

Two bolded words:

1. "for" ... shows that God not sending rain on the earth is stated to explain why no shrub or plant had sprung up yet. It is arguable, therefore, that when God had caused the shrubs and the plants to spring up, He would have had no more cause to withhold rain from the earth.
2. "had not" ... shows that God not sending rain on earth is a state of limited temporal duration, and within the context, this temporal duration is most likely the time between the forming of the earth and the planting of the Garden of Eden.

Show me a verse that explicitly states that there was no rain at all for all time before the Flood, and explain to me how a stable hydrospheric circulation is supposed to work without rain for 2,000 years (in a creation which you say is dying and decaying all through that time).

You want to interpret Scripture by Scripture? If the passage in contention is:

Psalm 104:

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains. 7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

which resembles it more: the Flood account?

Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth.
13 By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

or the Creation account?
Genesis 1:
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

and which has more continuity with:

10 He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
it flows between the mountains. 11 They give water to all the beasts of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 The birds of the air nest by the waters;
they sing among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from his upper chambers;
the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work.
a description of the horrible aftermath of the Flood ... or a description of the beauty of God's created hydrosphere?

 

[Assyrian]

Moses didn't take God's days literally,

And your proof of this is??????????,

Psalm 90:1 A Prayer of Moses, the Man of God. O Lord, You have been our dwelling-place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting You are God.
3 You turn man to dust, and say, Return, O sons of men.
4 For a thousand years in Your eyes are as a day, yesterday, when it passes, and as a watch in the night.

Maybe in yours but in Gods bible it says this about "your little local flood":

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth[land], and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth[land]; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.


13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth [the land] is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth [the land], to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth [the land] shall die.
18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.


11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (notice it says all-not someof the subteranean fountains)


19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth [the land]; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven [sky], were covered. I like this one--not just some of the high heavens- but under THE WHOLE HEAVEN!! NOT JUST SOME HIGH HILLS__BUT ALL THE HIGH HILLS> and incase you forget_ as soon a swater reaches the highest mountain, it spills over and starts filling up the next land area.

Noah is giving an account of what he saw, the whole land was covered and all the hills under what he called the sky were under water. [The brackets are mine.]

2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

From th eend of chapter 7 to here in 8 the underfountains kep tpumping out water for 150 days!

THIS IS MY FAVORITE:


11And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth [the land].
12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth [the land].
14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth [the land], that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth [the land]. 17And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth [the land].

God made a covenant to make sure He would no longer destroy the earth with a flood!! Just like psalm 104!!! Wow! Now if Noahs flood was just a local event--God has broken covenant many many times and He isd no god at all.

The Hebrew erets can mean the planet but more commonly it means the land people live in, their country.

Gen 4:12 When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth [erets]."
13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth [erets], and whoever finds me will kill me."
16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land [erets]of Nod, east of Eden.

If Cain was meant to be a fugitive on the planet how could he settle on another erets called Nod? Was it a different planet or a different land?

I'll probably be off the computer for a while, see you folks later.

Assyrian

 

[nolidad]

mallon writes:

Like what? Note the bite marks are healed (i.e. the animal was not scavenged), and that the only contemporary animal big enough that could have made such marks was T. rex himself.
We have other evidences of predation in T. rex, though, including healed bite marks on Triceratops horns. I suppose you've got a second unrevealable idea as to how those got there, too, though.

obvious the animal was a victim o9f a predator either cause it lived to tell about it!!

Healed bite marks on a tritops horn???? Well not a victim of a carnivorous predator either-- He also lived to tell about it. Boy T- Rex is now getting to be a pretty lousy hunter-- hes batting 0-2 in your examples!!

Shernren writes:

Genesis 1 & 2 never state that there was no death before the Fall. Circumstantial evidence cited:

Well I may have just circumstantial evidence- but at least I have evidence. You have NO verse that says God subjected the animalsd world tyo death prior to the fall. I have the falll, the curses, and Romans 8 saying God HImself subjected His crfeation to phthora (decay, destruction, perishing) UNTIL the revelation of the sons of God!! I win!!
\

2. God said that He gave plants to animals for food. However, note firstly that as Assyrian pointed out all animals indirectly eat plant matter, as plants always form the base of the food chain. Besides, the command is not explicitly exclusive, i.e. the command does not say "I have given only vegetables for food ... "

so you beleive that Man was a carnoviore as well before the fall and the command of God in genesis 9 was jsut God having a bad day!

Note that Psalm 104 can only be construed as referring to after the fall by making vv. 6-9 talk of the Flood, and rejecting the perfectly reasonable interpretation that the entire Psalm speaks of Creation and vv. 6-9 talk of Gen 1:9-10. Both the global flood and the large local flood (though global in terms of human scope of knowledge)

Blah Blah Blah!!! You may think that it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation but it is not what God said. I know of no commentatrors who say Psalm 104 speaks of just creation before the fall.

As for human scope of knowledge that is horse droppings!!! Its Gods book and He would not allow mans perspective to become His Holy word concerning something He did. besides-- the waters covered the mountains so as soon as water reaches the highest level in an enclosed area it pors over the top to fill the adjacent areas. Noah said the mountains were coverd by 22.5 feet-- pretty strange--did the water just stay up without containing barriers for 22.5 feet abvove the mountains?? God made sure Noah used specific terms to make sure that we would not mistake this for a local flood. Which means Gods has broken HIs word over and over again as He has allowqed regional and local floods that have destroyued many lives .

Therefore the local flood is more valid simply based on concordance with Scripture, and Psalm 104 raises problems both for the global flood and for the idea that there was no carnivorism before the Fall.

Only because you have allowed yourself to beleive billions of years. Adam lived only about 6k years ago. Man was sinning and murdering and killing and eating meat iin your evolutionary world long before that--Why pick on Adam.

Note that the theoretical validity of the argument cannot be refuted: if carnivorism is not "very good", and God compares His eternal aspects to the not "very good" aspects of carnivorism, then God cannot be "very good". By extension if it can be proved that God compares His eternal aspects to carnivoristic aspects, then those carnivoristic aspects must also be "very good".

Well you can theorize all you want--but God said let them eat veggies and then He said--IT WAS SO!! All your tap dancing with your indirect and sub topical little theories mean nothing. God said they ate bushes and veggies until it changed and that change was when sin and death entered the world! You cannot get scripture to say otherwise- so you ignore the plkain meanign of texts and convolute Gods word to match your agenda!! I am sad for you that ou have to do such spiritual gymnastics!

Isaiah 38:13
I waited patiently till dawn,
but like a lion he broke all my bones;
day and night you made an end of me.

That sounds really docile, huh.

Quit changing the subject-- we are not talking about temperment-- we are talking DIET!!

What does a vegetarian lion triumph over? Tofu and coconuts?

I am begfinnign to ponder it is a shame that Lion did not triumph over you !!

Kosmon acceptably refers to all humanity, there has been no refutation of the obvious parallels between the kosmon of Romans 5:12 and the kosmon of John 3:16, Romans 3:6, and 1 John 2:22.

Well then lets just say that kosmos always means mankind-- you win!!

Everywhere else in the NT the words for "corruption" and "futility" are moral and spiritual concepts. The idea that man, enslaved by spiritual corruption and futility, causes great damage to his environment by his greedy and sinful actions, is sufficient to exegete the passage without forcing a reading of animal death into it.

Now go do a word study of phthora-But man did not subject the world to phthora by his greedy and sinful actions--God subjected the creation to it !! Please read Romans 8:

19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

If you can see man subjecting creation to decay destruction and persihing then you really are out to lunch big time!!!

and for the record phthora is used as corruption 7 times,
to perish 7 times, and to destry or be destroyed 9 times-- you see it is a word that indicates more than just simple death, but a total falling away from a once higher state!! It is an intense word.

And, silence is evidence too.

Why Am I not surpised!!! When the bible clealry says animals are given vegetation for their food, because there is nothing that says they cannot eat meat-- you say it means they did even though we have a clear easy to understand statement form God to the contrary. yOU REALLY SHOULD PUBLISH YOUR OWN te REINTERPRETED VERSION OF THE BIBLE!! Leave the real alone !!

1. Animal death before the Fall is a non-issue and shouldn't affect our thinking on the origins, or
2. There was animal death before the Fall and God knew we'd find out that there's been animal death all along through other means.

Or we can just take Gods word for it and realize that phthora was something God did to creation and not man as it says in Romans 8 and it is tied in to mans redemption which would make it a natural tie in to the fall, but then again that makes plain biblical sense but total irrational TE sense!

Both positions count greatly against YECist ideas of no animal death before the Fall

Onlyy to those who think they have to correct Gods word for the world cause some atheists say we have been her for millions of years!!

Assyrian opines:

Actually the literal translation is 'dying you will die'. This grammatical structure was the common Hebrew idiom meaning 'surely die'. But it is really a bad idea to try to squeeze some meaning out of a direct translation of an idiom rather than what the idiom actually meant. God told Adam that the day he ate from the tree he would surely die. Adam didn't did physically the day he ate the fruit as God had prophesied. He did die spiritually. So which death was God talking about when he told Adam he would surely die the day he ate it?

Well I think I will stick with my Hebrewe language teachers-- they both have read and written Hebrew probably longer than you have been a live-- one was actuallyt he son fo a chief rebbi! So sorry

I'm not sure where you get this idea of primary meaning being 'manage'. the primary meaning is to hedge about (with thorns) or guard. In other words, protect. Were the cherubim with the flaming sword meant to manage the garden after Adam left? It is the same word shamar.

Its called a hebrew dictionary

Which makes it very strange that YECs and atheists share the same literal interpretation of what Genesis means.

Well then you and shernren and mrwillians and mallon must be another category for you dont beleive in genesis as I do nor as most bible beleiving Christinas. You hold to a reintrerpreted account of Genesis- not the one written.

Don't tell me talkorigins has been quote mined! What have you got?

Its been qoute mined alot by your side. This is the third forum I have debated E/C material and all you guys say the identical stuff (sometimes almost verbatim) and its all on talkorigins.org. Seems to be the clearing house for anrtibiblical thought on origins.

Again this is without scriptural basis. Romans 8 does not say phthora was the result of the fall and in 1Cor 15 it is associated with the creation not the fall. The groaning is not because 'mans morals ands spirituality continues to decline', but because in God's plan creation is going to go though a a birth and 'and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.'

Wow!! This is so bad I don't even know how to repsond to this stuff!! the groaning is because GOD (read GOD not man) subjected the whole creation to decay, destruction and persihing (phthora) against its "will"
ands will keep it such until all the sons of God are revealed. Now you have the burden of proof to show that it is before the fall as you reject it is connected with the fall.

And where does scripture say God created vegetarian lions? Not some passage you think might imply it but doesn't actually say what you claim, but a verse that actually tells us lions were vegetarian,

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

3 impotrtant words here
Every: it means ALL
herb--vegetation, green plant

meat--means food to be devoured

I have a verse-- now you show me one that supersedes this command. He didn't say "every" (with the exception of the carnivores) he said to every beast of the earth!

Despite all the fancy twists and turns-- youy have not yet been able to refute this simple verse which is a command of God to teh animals!!

I think God put in th ewords "and it was so" just to help those who have become confused by Darwin and the gang!!!

Come on nolidad, the bible tells us God created lions. It tells us lions eat other animals, as we well know. If you want to make the radical claim that God originally created vegetarian lions and that predation is the result of the fall, please show us a verse that actually says this.

Comeon Assyrian(see I can do that to for dramatic effect!) The bible clearely says that every beast of the earth was given the the vegetation for meat and then God say it was so!! So somewhere between the time they were spoken into existence by God and the first bite on undercooked patties-- there was a change in the original order! You need to quit thinking bercause it doesn't say the didn't east meat it means it does when you have a so very clear command of God saying what he ordered the land animals to eat in the beginning. You also have to make the first men carnivorouos as well, God also didn't tell him he could not eat meat-- ber consistnet in you rillogical logic!! Then God scommand that it is okay to eat merat in Genesis 9 is just God having an senior moment!!

I don't care at all what men who were not there and did not observe what happened when God spoke it all into existencve theorize about what had to haver happened when I have the Words of the GOD who was there and gave it in simple straight forward words.

 

[Mallon]

Healed bite marks on a tritops [sic] horn???? Well not a victim of a carnivorous predator either-- He also lived to tell about it. Boy T- Rex is now getting to be a pretty lousy hunter-- hes batting 0-2 in your examples!!

Keep laughing. Even extant predator's typically only catch 1 out of 10 prey. And the evidence still flies in the face of your assertion that T. rex was a scavenger, which is neither biblical nor scientific.
Keep laughing...

 

[shernren]

so you beleive that Man was a carnoviore as well before the fall and the command of God in genesis 9 was jsut God having a bad day!

I've already answered that, actually.

Blah Blah Blah!!! You may think that it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation but it is not what God said. I know of no commentatrors who say Psalm 104 speaks of just creation before the fall.

I'm assuming Matthew Henry isn't a commentator then.

"Psalms 104 - God's majesty in the heavens, The creation of the sea, and the dry land. (1-9)"

Or Adam Clarke.

"The majesty and power of God manifested in the creation of the heavens and the atmosphere, 1-3; of the earth and sea, 4- 9"

Or John Wesley.

"Psa 104:6 - The deep - In the first creation, Gen 1:2, Gen 1:9."

As for human scope of knowledge that is horse droppings!!! Its Gods book and He would not allow mans perspective to become His Holy word concerning something He did. besides-- the waters covered the mountains so as soon as water reaches the highest level in an enclosed area it pors over the top to fill the adjacent areas. Noah said the mountains were coverd by 22.5 feet-- pretty strange--did the water just stay up without containing barriers for 22.5 feet abvove the mountains??

Funny. YECs like to criticise TEs for using science to read the Bible. Guess what's just happened here?

A YEC thinks a local flood couldn't have happened because there's no way you can hold 22.5 feet of water above mountains.
But there is a way. It's called supernatural power. What if I believed that God caused a local flood, and God miraculously held the waters 22.5 feet above the mountains? (Assuming that you have even read the passage correctly.)

How entirely ironic that a YEC can criticise TEs for discounting his view because of science, and then turn right around and discount another view because science tells him water can't do the things it has to do. Utter irony exposing how self-contradictory the YEC viewpoint is.

Well you can theorize all you want--but God said let them eat veggies and then He said--IT WAS SO!! All your tap dancing with your indirect and sub topical little theories mean nothing. God said they ate bushes and veggies until it changed and that change was when sin and death entered the world! You cannot get scripture to say otherwise- so you ignore the plkain meanign of texts and convolute Gods word to match your agenda!! I am sad for you that ou have to do such spiritual gymnastics!

Don't diss gymnasts, dude. at least I have evidence with which to do gymnastics. And you ...

Now go do a word study of phthora-But man did not subject the world to phthora by his greedy and sinful actions--God subjected the creation to it !! Please read Romans 8:

God subjected creation to man's phthora.

and for the record phthora is used as corruption 7 times,
to perish 7 times, and to destry or be destroyed 9 times-- you see it is a word that indicates more than just simple death, but a total falling away from a once higher state!! It is an intense word.

And it is always used to describe humans in a moral or spiritual sense.

we have a clear easy to understand statement form God to the contrary.

And I suppose God has shown you that He told all the animals on days 4 and 5 "Thou shalt not eat meat."

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Keep laughing. Even extant predator's typically only catch 1 out of 10 prey.

Depends on the predator and how you count, but the point is generally true.

And the evidence still flies in the face of your assertion that T. rex was a scavenger, which is neither biblical nor scientific.

As of 3 or so years ago that was a heavily debated subject within the scientific community.

From what I recall the positions ran from pure predator to opportunistic scavenging to occasional predation to full time scavenging.

The model I recall being used by some was the eagle.

Dunno where it stands these days.

 

[Willtor]

. . .

As of 3 or so years ago that was a heavily debated subject within the scientific community.

From what I recall the positions ran from pure predator to opportunistic scavenging to occasional predation to full time scavenging.

. . .

I saw a special on this a couple of years ago (Nova, maybe). There was discussion about T-Rex's arms and how vestigial they had become. One of the views was that he was largely a scavenger that had simply evolved from a predator. Hence, serrated teeth and body proportions, but few offensive capabilities (mouth notwithstanding). Certainly, nothing like Jurassic Park.

At any rate, he was certainly eating meat. As Mallon has aptly pointed out, plants really could not have been a staple for an animal with teeth like that.

 

[Mallon]

Dunno where it stands these days.

Scientists have pretty much reached the unsurprising conclusion that T. rex acted like just about every other carnivore alive today: that it was a capable predator who would not pass up a free (dead) meal. Again, though, the several, recent healed bite-mark specimens speak to T. rex's predatory capabilities (saying nothing of its skeletal morphology). This animal didn't shy away from taking a bite out of something -- living or dead.
(BTW, I have yet to see a single line of evidence put forward pertaining to the Rex-as-scavenger hypothesis that cannot be refuted with little more than a dismissive wave of the hand.)

 

[nolidad]

mallon writes:

Here's a passage for you:
Proverbs 10:14 -- "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin."

Thanks for the compliment I do try to reverence of God which is the beginning of wisdom.

That reminds me: why would God place a Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden if there was no death to begin with?

Okay mankind died before Adam sinned! OOPS Adam was the first man, sorry! So I guess yoiu will have to take it up with God!

Because, unlike you, I don't pretend that science supports the stories of the Bible. My belief in the resurrection is solely based on faith, as Jesus tells us it ought to be (John 20:29). I pray that one day you might realize this, too, so that you will no longer have to deny reality. As my signature says, God's creation speaks plainly about itself; there's no reason in trying to fit the square peg into the round hole.

Well Mallon it seems your faith is a kiind of hope so faith- and not a know so faith. TYhe biblical faith is not a persuasion or blind leap-- it is a confidence based upon the knowledge of truth. I am not trying to sound contentious here but let me ask you : Is your faith based on an ascent of the moral teachings and grace the bible offers or is it based on the fact that you have had a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus Chrisat HImself?? Do you know HIm Mallon?? Or is your faith just a religious philosophy that you prefer??

God gave the plants for animals' food.
Herbivores eat plants.
Carnivores eat animals which eat plants, or animals which eat animals which eat plants. Therefore plants provide for all of carnivores' food needs as well.
Omnivores eat both plants and animals, which indirectly eat plants. Therefore plants provide for all of omnivores' food needs as well.
Adam could have been an omnivore, in which case plants would have provided for all of his food needs. Or he could have been a herbivore, in which case plants could have provided for all of his food needs.

Or simply put-- befopre the fall God made all animals greens eaters and it was so!! How much more simpler can you make it.

Or in other words, God said: "I have provided for the food needs of every creature on earth through the plants." Which is exactly what I have described above.

That is what you say--God said something different Sorry!

The burden of proof is now on you to show that permission to eat plants is equivalent to a command not to eat animals. Let me reiterate my example: if my mom tells my little brother, "Eat your veggies", does that forbid him from touching the fried chicken?

irrelavent--God gave man permission to eat animals after the global flood! You need to prove that man was an omnivore prior to genesis 9 Also from genesis 6:

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

What corruption befell the animal kingdomfrom the fall of man to the flood? For the corrupt here is inthe hiphil which means to corrupt or pervert? What got perverted in the animals. Do not say this refers to man because of the his asa the pronooun-- Hebrew had no personal pronouns.

verse7:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

If the animals were still just doing as you said-- why would God repent for having made animals??? No all the language says that both man and animals degenerated "morally" after the fall.

And yet in Genesis 3 where God has center stage telling man all about the horrible consequences of the Fall, God somehow manages to forget to mention animals dying and eating each other all around Adam. A real masterpiece of "literal interpretation".

Well you can take that up with God when you see Him. JUst like why a menstrating woman was unclean in the OT but OK in the NT and why pigs were unclean inthe OT but OK in the NT and why eye for eye was ok in th eOT but turn the other cheek was OK in the NT. I wopnt apologize for why God did what He did and revealed things in the way He did.

1. "for" ... shows that God not sending rain on the earth is stated to explain why no shrub or plant had sprung up yet. It is arguable, therefore, that when God had caused the shrubs and the plants to spring up, He would have had no more cause to withhold rain from the earth.
2. "had not" ... shows that God not sending rain on earth is a state of limited temporal duration, and within the context, this temporal duration is most likely the time between the forming of the earth and the planting of the Garden of Eden

But ther mist that come up from the earth was sufficeint to water the ground . Had not does speak of limited duration-- it eneded at teh flood when God broke open the deeps that had been misting the gorunds and opened the windows of heaven for forty days and nights. It is hydrologically impossible with current meteorlogical conditions to have a forty day rain deluge. The computer modleeling showing the antedeluvian world supports all the facts the bible says:

1. Long life
2. Lush tropic gorwth throughout the planet
3. No meterology (winds rain snow hail tornadoes etc)
4. Dense growth to produce the coal, oil and gas beds we have today!

Show me a verse that explicitly states that there was no rain at all for all time before the Flood, and explain to me how a stable hydrospheric circulation is supposed to work without rain for 2,000 years (in a creation which you say is dying and decaying all through that time).

You should know one cannot prove a negative! You mnmade a positive claim so show there was rain before the flood.

9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

This alone shows you this cannot be the flood for the flood was designed to:

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Now God either destroyed ALL flesh as He said or you are indicting God as a liar. For in a local flood some animals and people will escapre by fleeing to a different "erets" (region) so sorry it is all or you call God a liar-- see that is true science-- a local flood has NEVER been known to destroy ALL life in a region, BUT God said he was going to destroy ALL life for it is wicked. You will also have to show that only that region had become evil and somehow all the other regions wee not corrupt. No a global flood is the only thing the bible can refere to!!

The flood account!! Why? The littel word rebuke-- which is a disciplinary correction! Or a negative command! In Genesis 1 It simply says that God says. Two differing words with 2 differetn meanings for two different events!

Assyrian writes:

Psalm 90:1 A Prayer of Moses, the Man of God. O Lord, You have been our dwelling-place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting You are God.
3 You turn man to dust, and say, Return, O sons of men.
4 For a thousand years in Your eyes are as a day, yesterday, when it passes, and as a watch in the night.

Do you really want to use this? Didn't you ever learn that the word "as" is used as a comaprative to describe something and n ot to be literal?? Aren't you in college?? So if God uses the word day and it means a thousand years- then you must mean that Jesus is taking three thousand years to rise from the dead!!! It still doesn't help you rcase cause that puts God taking 6,000 years to create everything which is at a minimum 11,999,999,994,000 years short of the youngest age of the universe!! But it does fall into the scinetific view of TE's of 6-10K years for creation!! But it is not written to be construed as an absolute, but a comparative passage. And it is not even speaking concerning creation either

The Hebrew erets can mean the planet but more commonly it means the land people live in, their country.

No one is arguing that!! Context determines meaning!! And the flood account with terms like all, every, whole heavens-- it can only mean the planet, unless you can prove that other men in other areas were living holy lives and were spared destruction by God.

If Cain was meant to be a fugitive on the planet how could he settle on another erets called Nod? Was it a different planet or a different land?

He was a fugitive onthe whole planet (erets), that is why he was given an identifying mark so no one would kill him in his weanderings. And he was booted out of his area (erets) and settled into another erets. C,mon look atr all the verses and know the whole context.

Shernren writes:

Don't diss gymnasts, dude. at least I have evidence with which to do gymnastics. And you ...

But I don't have to come up woith all sorts of twists and turns--God simply said vegetation was given to allthe animals for food and it was so! You have to come yup with secondarty sources and sub sources etc. I just qoute God on how things were on a nonfallen earth.

God subjected creation to man's phthora.

As much as I like this for it would prove my point 100% absolute (before man fell creation was not subjected to decay, destruction and persihing) it doesn't say that.
That is you reading betweenthe lines and inserting personal opinion.

And it is always used to describe humans in a moral or spiritual sense.

That would be incoorect!!

And I suppose God has shown you that He told all the animals on days 4 and 5 "Thou shalt not eat meat."

He didn't have to tell them what they could not eat--He simply told them what trhey could it and like it says--AND IT WAS SO!!!

 

[nolidad]

shernren writes:

I'm assuming Matthew Henry isn't a commentator then.

"Psalms 104 - God's majesty in the heavens, The creation of the sea, and the dry land. (1-9)"

Or Adam Clarke.

"The majesty and power of God manifested in the creation of the heavens and the atmosphere, 1-3; of the earth and sea, 4- 9"

Or John Wesley.

"Psa 104:6 - The deep - In the first creation, Gen 1:2, Gen 1:9."

Well I should have looked a little deeper on line before saying I didn't know of any commetnaries calling Psalm 104 a creation account- cause it appears commentators
calling it a creation account outnumber those calling it the flood! While I hold most of the commentators I saw who hold to it being in creation ingreat respect- I think they were just wrong (BTW they all were global flood folk that I read likekBarnes, Henry, Spurgeon, Wesley et al.) Just because the loine that they should no more cover the earth again!

 

[Mallon]

Well Mallon it seems your faith is a kiind of hope so faith- and not a know so faith. TYhe biblical faith is not a persuasion or blind leap-- it is a confidence based upon the knowledge of truth. I am not trying to sound contentious here but let me ask you : Is your faith based on an ascent of the moral teachings and grace the bible offers or is it based on the fact that you have had a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus Chrisat HImself?? Do you know HIm Mallon?? Or is your faith just a religious philosophy that you prefer??

Once again, our discussion of the Bible and science boils down to your questioning my faith from up on your stool.
I don't know what I said that made you think my faith is a "hope so" faith, but if that is the case, then I take it happily. For the very same book to which we both subscribe says:

For in this hope we were saved.

Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.

Hope is a wonderful thing. Though I am sure of Christ's resurrection on this very day. Now I sincerely hope you will stop questioning the strength of my faith, as I assure you, it is strong and growing stronger.