If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps you should read your own posts before accusing others of misquoting them. You know how, when you hit "Reply", it automatically quotes the post? That's how I know I didn't misquote you.

no further questions.

SkyWriting said: ↑
If animals or man never died, then there would be no need for food.
No food provided....animals and man still living before the Fall.

If food is needed, then it's because animals and man were physically going to die.
If water is provided, it's because man and animals needed water to live.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Something like this. Something was not clear for you. I figured that out instantly. If you had any further questions, I would have answered them. But you asked no further questions.

Meh. It's all there in black and white. Making excuses and blaming others for your own failings is graceless.

No food provided....animals and man still living before the Fall.

Perhaps you don't understand that Genesis 2:16 is before the Fall?

 

[Ophiolite]

If you misquote me then you will bop your head with a hammer all day long.
Yet the dialogue will not improve. You don't quote, you don't link...you just bop.
Maybe go to the original post just before hammer time.

Your post was ambiguous. If @Bungle_Bear misinterpreted it, that is down to your incompetence as a writer, not his incompetence as a reader.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your post was ambiguous. If @Bungle_Bear misinterpreted it, that is down to your incompetence as a writer, not his incompetence as a reader.

misquoted

 

[SkyWriting]

Meh. It's all there in black and white. Making excuses and blaming others for your own failings is graceless.

.

 

[Estrid]

Yet you misquoted me. So I had no defense against that.

BOYS! STOP IT!!

 

[Ophiolite]

misquoted

That hardly alters the ambiguity. If you don't want to be called on problematic posts, don't write problematic posts. Just a thought for the New Year.

 

[SkyWriting]

That hardly alters the ambiguity. If you don't want to be called on problematic posts, don't write problematic posts. Just a thought for the New Year.

There would be no need for food if animals and man never die.

And animals do die by accident......unless God stopped all
accidental deaths with a big hand or something.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yet you misquoted me. So I had no defense against that.

I did not misquote you. I think you are probably referring to the paraphrase I used to represent the interaction we had had up to that point? Perhaps you should have pointed out how you thought it was a misrepresentation of our interaction rather than throwing out baseless accusations.

I also quoted word for word, again, one of the problematic phrases you used, but you have ignored that part of my post.

 

[FredVB]

If food is needed, then it's because animals and man were physically going to die.
If water is provided, it's because man and animals needed water to live.
So there was physical death before the Fall of man.
If there was not, food and water would be unnecessary.

There were different conversations in this, not involved with one another. One is in regard to what was going on in the Ediacaran world according to the perspective with evolution. The other, uninvolved with that, was the Biblical account.

That there were photosynthesizing organisms that creatures would eat which I had said was necessarily the case, creatures could not all be carnivorous and eating each other, there would be no animals that way. Animals all being herbivorous could all exist.

In the Bible account, God made food for animals and it included what there was for people, and it was all from photosynthesizing organisms, plants in this case. And by the way any green algae, that could be for food, are plants. It was this way without sin being in the world, and there was no death, then. If any refused that design, that would be sin, and then death would come. There would be no death with everything according to the perfect design.

 

[Estrid]

There were different conversations in this, not involved with one another. One is in regard to what was going on in the Ediacaran world according to the perspective with evolution. The other, uninvolved with that, was the Biblical account.

That there were photosynthesizing organisms that creatures would eat which I had said was necessarily the case, creatures could not all be carnivorous and eating each other, there would be no animals that way. Animals all being herbivorous could all exist.

Herbivorous deep sea fish. Right.

 

[ottawak]

Herbivorous deep sea fish. Right.

They don't count. Not having the "Breath of Life" they were free to eat each other.

 

[Estrid]

They don't count. Not having the "Breath of Life" they were free to eat each other.

Whales eating carrots

 

[ottawak]

Whales eating carrots

Whales, as I understand it, mostly eat Krill. But Krill don't have the Breath of Life like whales do, so they're not really animals like whales are so it's OK to eat them.

 

[ruthiesea]

Whales, as I understand it, mostly eat Krill. But Krill don't have the Breath of Life like whales do, so they're not really animals like whales are so it's OK to eat them.

Are they plants?
Kingdom Animalia.

 

[ottawak]

Are they plants?
Kingdom Animalia.

No. According to the Bible, only those creatures with the "Breath of Life" (i.e. air breathers with lungs) are animals.

 

[Mr Laurier]

No. According to the Bible, only those creatures with the "Breath of Life" (i.e. air breathers with lungs) are animals.

Then the bible is wrong... again

 

[ottawak]

Then the bible is wrong... again

Well, not exactly--it's just a question of definition which keeps the "no death or carnivores before The Fall" hole from getting too deep. Very clever, I'd say.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Well, not exactly--it's just a question of definition which keeps the "no death or carnivores before The Fall" hole from getting too deep. Very clever, I'd say.

ah.

 

[Estrid]

No. According to the Bible, only those creatures with the "Breath of Life" (i.e. air breathers with lungs) are animals.

Sooo
Some fishes are animals, and some are not.