Are we assuming that they all have the same shoe size?
Creation vs Evolution
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
- Status
Are we assuming that they all have the same shoe size?
What is your fixation on false teaching?
There is nothing in Genesis 1 about drinking water. Did they?
Christ wanted his children to eat their fruits and vegetables just as parents today.
You're on the heretic list - for good reason
Threads can get stuck with bull headed posters that won't move on from a single point of contention. 6days and I have both answered you jamie, please move on. :carryon:
Not lost, right here. Know exactly where I am.
And I am not a "soul" but a person. Nor do I or anyone have such a thing as a "soul", at least in terms of continuing on when I am dead.
"You have an unteachable spirit - "
Rosenritter
New member
People are souls silly. That's how the word is used.
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/awful-shipping-disaster-loss-titanic-with-over-1200-souls.html
Aaron the Tall
Member
Although this quote seems to support the idea that animals were eating meat from the beginning.
God is essentially saying "this fruit is your version of meat."
If Adam had no concept of animals eating meat, how would he understand the comparison God was making?
Rosenritter
New member
Noah didn't go and round up animals for the boat. Regardless, I'm not sure which definition of "clean" Noah would have had access to then, it may have even been a distinction between predator and prey animal. "Clean" depends on context.
Aaron the Tall
Member
My only point was that this passage doesn't seem to point to a perfect future time.
Even if there will be a perfect future time where heavenly wolves lie with heavenly lambs, this doesn't mean the beginning of creation was the same way.
Rosenritter
New member
I think you're confusing the word "meat" with "flesh." The word "meat" as used in the earlier English simply means "food." Now days we usually mean a specific type of food, that is, prepared flesh of animals. In the classic sense it means whatever is suitable for eating.
Rosenritter
New member
I don't think that passage points to a perfect time either, but I think that the imperfect part would be the people. It might seem rather perfect in many ways for those of us that remember what we've seen now, in a world that worships the "god of this world."
Rosenritter
New member
Jamie, why are you dodging the questions?
In one passage God defines food for man. He says it is every green herb and every fruit.
In the next passage after a great world changing event, he says that something has changed, and that the animals will fear man, and that the animals are now meat for consumption just as the herbs were before.
I figure that it takes more than a few ounces of denial to shake that off and insist that animals were food for people before the flood. If they were, then how come they didn't have fear of man until after the flood? And why would God go to the trouble to tell Noah that now animals would be food just like the herbs were that he commanded before?
Is there some other issue at stake here that I'm not aware of? I suspect... that is, suspect, that it's something to do with a belief that the Levitical dietary laws were ordered to Adam from Creation and thus there are something meant to apply to both Jew and Gentile throughout eternity. But if that is why you protest, perhaps you should consider that Genesis is also inspired scripture.
Rosenritter
New member
Babies drink mother's milk. Dogs will nurse kittens and mother cats will nurse baby bunnies. I think that it is self-evident that milk is a natural food, and milk is a far cry from taking something's life.
Honey would seem similar. Nothing has to perish or give up its life to eat honey. Bees eat honey too, proving that it's a type of natural food. But if pressed, I would say that it would be ten times, no one hundred times more likely that Adam and Eve did not eat milk from animals or honey from bees than that they murdered other animals and consumed their flesh.
6days
New member
Aaron..... I think you misunderstood the verse. The word 'meat' has various definitions, understood by context. We could dig into scripture saying 'Lets get to the meat'. (You would hopefully understand I was not looking for a Big Mac in Matthew) An archaic meaning of the word means food of any kind.
Also..... notice that God gave new instructions in Genesis 9:3 where He now gave the green light to eat animal flesh / meat.
Yes, he says it is every green herb and every fruit, but you and others have added to that the word only.
But we know in Genesis 4 at least one person tended livestock. This suggests they had milk, butter, cheese and when a cow got old they probably had a BBQ.
But here's the bottom line, do you really believe God didn't anticipate the Passover? Or do you believe God would command no flesh and then reverse himself later. Is God not believable? What else do you believe God changed his mind on? Salvation?
I believe God is consistent and not wishy-washy or double-minded.
I'm done on this subject.
:deadhorse:
Aaron the Tall
Member
Point taken. God could have been using the generic word for food.
And I'm not arguing against Adam being a vegetarian. I think he was.
Rosenritter
New member
WOOL.
Sheep are known that they provide wool.
You don't kill the sheep to harvest the wool.
Keeping sheep does not suggest that they ate them. If you were in the world after the Flood where God modified his original command and then specifically named the animals as food, then that might be a reasonable assumption. When the naming of animals as food before the flood was conspicuously absent in comparison with the new commandment that named them as food 1600 years later then it especially suggests that they did not eat them.
Did God anticipate the Passover? Yes, that does not, however, mean that the Passover would be observed at every age, or at every time, or in every country, or in every tongue, or even in exactly the same way with exactly the same form of symbol. Moses told Israel to take a lamb into their home, and live with it among them (the same length of time that Jesus entered into Jerusalem and was received of them) before they killed it. They smeared its blood on their doorposts.
Do you bring a lamb into your home, literally kill it, and literally smear its blood on its doorposts? Are you going to call Christ wishy-washy for instituting new symbols from what his disciples had grown accustomed? Or are you going to claim that God had ALWAYS had the symbols of bread and wine as a "meatless Passover" before? Your logic seems very inconsistent here.
Even if God had required the sacrifice of a lamb, it does not mean that it was ever to be eaten by humans at that time. First believe what the Book says, and let your conclusions follow (but never contradict) what is written.
Tyrathca
New member
You'd think that the work of an omnipotent omniscient infallible god whose text we are (according to creationists) meant to trust to the level of it being a scientific textbook of creation would be better written.
You guys are arguing here so fervently apparently because the writer was imprecise with his writing. No matter who is "right". Doesn't instil much "faith" in the rest of us that this is the work of a god let alone an omniscient infallible one.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
You guys are arguing here so fervently apparently because the writer was imprecise with his writing. No matter who is "right". Doesn't instil much "faith" in the rest of us that this is the work of a god let alone an omniscient infallible one.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
- Status