The flood, and meat eating.

Of course not, that is what the responder suggested.I appreciate fully the question but as to this second part I can not say.I have to read Kant on THE LIMITS of religion and consider seriously his suggestion about Bible IMPLICATIONS under the difference of man and women which happened after the fall. I intend to pick up that book sometime this summer as the dream becomes more than not reality.I really have no idea about creationism that involves this distinction but if I can cognize some limits I expect to be able to read this in Genesis as well.This is the step I am trying to make. I dont know if it requires a transcendental deduction before or after I decide on the answer to that question. The reason I did not respond to both parts is that I was able to recognize the religousness in the posting sequence which is NOT what I usually respond to in the more "science" threads.I responded to the response to me because it WAS CHRISTIANITY indeed that was being discussed as I found out.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-08-2005 10:33 PM

read carefully. this is not something the authors of genesis had not thought through. the animals in eden are "beasts of the field." ie: domesticated. they're created for company, according to the genesis. they of course fail in this regard.so carnivores in eden may be a moot point: are there any animals domesticated by the hebrews that ate meat? the egyptians had cats. but the hebrews did not. dogs seem to wild. mostly they had goats and sheep.goats and sheep for company for a man? could genesis be throwing an age-old bestiality joke here? lonely shepherds in the fields and such?anyways. other carnivorous animals might have existed outside the garden. and death certainly existed outside. at the very most eden was special in some respect. but i don't think it was immune to death -- adam and eve seem to be created mortal. that's basically what i've been saying all along. (stay tuned to mr ex's great debate with me)

---

אָרַח

Santa, I would suggest turning those critical thinking skills at the presuppositions involved in your current belief system.Take this thread. Much of it is predicated on the concept of a static time-line in the sense of a static past.But let's consider for a moment the what-if the Bible is true, and that when man fell, there was a fall in the physical world at the same time, (the earth was cursed too).What do you think is the most likely way that would occur?Imo, the most likely way is for that to change the past, present, and future.We create limits for God by assuming God works only within linear time, as we do. Personally, I don't believe that's the only way God works.

let's look at some presuppositions in your belief system: genesis does not indicate a fall of man. it indicates an expulsion from eden. it seems to imply that man is created mortal, and that there may be other people outside of eden in the rest of the world. (where does cain's wife come from?)there is no physical change indicated in man or the world or anything at all. all it says is that adam and eve are kicked out of the garden, and that they are condemned to eventual death because they are denied access to the tree of life.

---

אָרַח

Oh, sort of like in 1984. We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia. We have never been at war with Eurasia.Corrected a stupid error.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-Jul-2005 01:56 PM

That's just wrong. Read Genesis 3:17-19, especially: There is a reference in the New Testament to the whole creation "groaning and being in travail."The Bible clearly indicates a change as a result of the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden.This message has been edited by randman, 07-11-2005 01:30 PM

"Cursed is the ground" refers to the ground in the garden.Adam and Eve were cursed by being removed from their idyllic state in the garden, by being sent outside the garden. There is no reason to think that there was a change in the world outside the garden. "The Curse" was a geographical change, not a physical change.In any case, where does the Bible say anything about The Fall^TM being the start of meat-eating?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Ringo, it does not state the Fall began meat-eating to my knowledge, but the scriptures overall state the creation "was made subject to vanity" or some such, and imo, states there was a change in the physical universe to a degree.The Fall account does record that animal skins were provided Adam and Eve, suggesting that the animals were killed perhaps.

Ya think? Perhaps? Chapter and verse?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

adam lives in a garden, where everything is provided for him. when he's kicked out, he has to work for his food. hebrews live in a desert. wonder what this is about.notice it doesn't say anything about a change in the rules of nature, or eating meat -- just the creation of the desert.

---

אָרַח

Adam? Eve? really!? so we came from the inbreeding of adam and eve's children!? no wonder this is big in the south! we're all cousins! gimme evolution over incest any day!

no, not really. we're talking about a story, traditional mythology. so you saw the mind of mencia comercial on comedy central too? he's funny. you're not.also, i think you'll find the i'm the biggest "reading comprehension" advocate on this board. if you'd care to point out where incest comes into the story, be my guest. because it never once said cain married his sister, does it?but the first place i see it is in genesis 19, where lot is date-raped by his two daughters. they name their sons "mowab" for "from his mother's father" and "ben-ammi" for "son of my family." these are derogatory words in hebrews, the equivalent of "bastard" in english, and they sound like the names of two enemies of the hebrew peoples, the ammonites and the moabites.in other words, accusations of incest and condemnation for it is an insult to sling at your enemies even in 600 bc.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-13-2005 01:24 AM

---

אָרַח

That is just ridiculous. First, the bible dosn't say this, you are putting this into the book. Wouldn't this count as a SECOND creation?The bible says god created it once, and only once. It is stupid to infer that somehow he reverse engeneered everything. If he did, such a major event would have been noted. It wasn't. Me thinks you are apealing to Magic.Personaly, I'm a last thursdayist. I belive god created everything the way it is today, last thursday afternoon.

uh, not exactly.in genesis 1, god gives man all of the plants to eat:

quote:

---

Gen 1:29 And 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.

---

animals are already here, but included in the acceptable things for man to eat. however:

quote:

---

Gen 1:30 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.

---

plants are also given to the animals to eat. no mention of them eating each other. skip forward to post-flood:

quote:

---

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

​

Gen 9:2 And 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.

​

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

---

so man is not allowed to eat meat before, but is after the flood. in other words, they're not totally making this stuff up. it is literally what the text says, at least about man. animals also being vegetarian is also the direct implication of the text.there are other ways to read it, i suppose. we could say that it never forbids animals to eat each other in gen 1. but doesn't strictly prohibit man from eating them either -- it just says eat plants, and by the implication of genesis 9, they were to eat ONLY plants. since it uses the same wording for animals and man, we could presume that it means animals only ate plants as well.another dodge might be to say that it never records a command from god that allows animals to eat meat. since it never records a change, per se, and there exist carnivorous animals today (and in the time of the ancient hebrew), animals must have always been carnivorous. i doubt this is valid either, since the word of genesis 1 (as discussed in the paragraph above) strongly implies that animals were thought to be vegetarians at that point. the change is then another implication.however, i'd like to present another option: maybe the text really does mean that animals were vegetarians, and changed at some point, presumably at the same time as man, in genesis 9. it seems to be the most consistent with the meaning of the text. i'd also like to present the idea that it's just simply wrong.one has to remember that genesis is a collection of stories, the traditional mythology of ancient hebrews. there's nothing to even indicate that the 600bc judeans who compiled even believed the stuff. there's several schools of biblical history that think that they did not. for a better, more modern example, look at edith hamilton's "mythology," which records mostly greek myths. do you think she believes they literally happened? undoubtably not. yet she still recorded them from other sources as faithfully intact as she could.either way, the important part of the story is this bit:

quote:

---

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

​

Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

​

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

​

Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

---

the first part of genesis 9 actually records the mythological origins of two very important hebrew customs. it explains why they drain the blood from their meat, and why they don't eat things that are still alive. (sounds like a no brainer, i know. but go order baby octopus in japan -- some cultures DO eat things that are still alive). it also contains another fundamental philosophy, that the person who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.so the story is not really about when man started eating meat, or when animals became vegetarians, but about why the hebrews of the time did certain things according to their traditions.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-13-2005 06:08 PM

---

אָרַח

That was a very informative post Arachnophilia.I was mostly amazed at randmans assertion that somehow God threw stuff into reverse, changed it, then set the present going again. I can conseed the idea that perhapse the myths lead in the direction of stuff changing after the fall.In any case, the level of changes required is astounding. It seems to me a waste of gods resources