TCC
Well-known
This is a good observation. Although it would seem easier to have a bunch of animals for long together if they were not eager to eat eachother. Practicality on that kind of timing perhaps might fit into the equation of timing perhaps?
Christian Community Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!
Meat Eaters
- Thread starter Kaatje
- Start date
TCC
Well-known
Kaajte great question. After reading through this thread it caused me to ponder on some theological implications to perhaps pepper some consideration on animal meat eating timing. Or at least hopefullly spark some thought in that direction. By the way Kaatje, you are quite an impassioned deep thinker upon Him. Love it 
Because God's unfolding plan has meaning (like skins to cover Adam and Eve, Abel vs. Cain offering etc), it Is to me also interesting to consider like what is the revelatorily interesting about Him that we could now eat animals after leaving the arc? Like how might that be metaphoric or implicational of something theological about Him, His character, or His plan? The skin in the garden and accepting Abel's sacrifice fit theologically. But eating meat? Like maybe as opposed to drinking milk (meat/meat of the word--like as mankind progresses through time with God's revelation, he/she is able to eat weighter food with more intimately powerful nutrients)?
Or maybe from manna to meat? "Eat my body." And even more controversial (because of its sacredness, "Drink my blood." Just like we see escalation from temple show bread and slaughterhouse sacrifices, we move on to them being metaphor for God Himself in human intimate flesh and blood. We could not eat the blood of animals. But when Christ came, heartily drink His blood. That sounds strange to us. No doubt how it might have seem of such offense to even perhaps the pagan world in the 1st century...and of course the religious Jews.
So maybe something like that where we see graduating pictures of God's unfolding revelation of Himself, so perhaps this is maybe why no meat at first. Then after the arc eat meat. The first Adam / second Adam (Noah as a type). Human nature / resurrected bodies. This kind of pattern of going from this to that. And although eating meat next to plants seems more savage perhaps, what it does to me suggest in His word in Gen 9 is: "I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." So in that sense, even in the garden Adam and Eve did not have this fullest access to God's creation in this way (even though in paradise without sin). But now after Noah, we get "the full range of His creation available to us INTIMATELY so.
So that makes me wonder though, if the lion and lamb or wolf and lamb will lie down next to each other in the 1,000 year reign, will animals no longer eat meat? Living longer because the protective canopy is back? If animals don't eat meat, will people stop eating meat because the very presence of Christ (the fullness of metaphor actualized) is present then?
Because God's unfolding plan has meaning (like skins to cover Adam and Eve, Abel vs. Cain offering etc), it Is to me also interesting to consider like what is the revelatorily interesting about Him that we could now eat animals after leaving the arc? Like how might that be metaphoric or implicational of something theological about Him, His character, or His plan? The skin in the garden and accepting Abel's sacrifice fit theologically. But eating meat? Like maybe as opposed to drinking milk (meat/meat of the word--like as mankind progresses through time with God's revelation, he/she is able to eat weighter food with more intimately powerful nutrients)?
Or maybe from manna to meat? "Eat my body." And even more controversial (because of its sacredness, "Drink my blood." Just like we see escalation from temple show bread and slaughterhouse sacrifices, we move on to them being metaphor for God Himself in human intimate flesh and blood. We could not eat the blood of animals. But when Christ came, heartily drink His blood. That sounds strange to us. No doubt how it might have seem of such offense to even perhaps the pagan world in the 1st century...and of course the religious Jews.
So maybe something like that where we see graduating pictures of God's unfolding revelation of Himself, so perhaps this is maybe why no meat at first. Then after the arc eat meat. The first Adam / second Adam (Noah as a type). Human nature / resurrected bodies. This kind of pattern of going from this to that. And although eating meat next to plants seems more savage perhaps, what it does to me suggest in His word in Gen 9 is: "I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." So in that sense, even in the garden Adam and Eve did not have this fullest access to God's creation in this way (even though in paradise without sin). But now after Noah, we get "the full range of His creation available to us INTIMATELY so.
So that makes me wonder though, if the lion and lamb or wolf and lamb will lie down next to each other in the 1,000 year reign, will animals no longer eat meat? Living longer because the protective canopy is back? If animals don't eat meat, will people stop eating meat because the very presence of Christ (the fullness of metaphor actualized) is present then?
My take on scripture and the MK and then eternity afterward is that animals will absolutely not eat meat and we will see a post MK eternal world where the riches of food will be unimaginable, but meat will not be included. During the flood I've always believed that dried meats/veggies/fruits/nuts, etc. were in plenty for the time on board the ark, including dog/cat/pet food like items for the animals. I've also always believed the animals were very young and docile/kind/gentle.......and small too. The time in Heaven and back on earth to learn these things will be exhilarating.
TCC
Well-known
Wow interesting angle Batman. Will we be eating meat in our new bodies? lol. Like i never thought about that. Ok but just like what did Jesus eat in His? Salad? During the millenisla kingdom though i believe there will be animal sacriifices again per Ez 40-48 new temple. If so....some of us might be eating meat maybe? These thoughts are challenging. Blessings
Hol
Well-known
Sounds biblical to me
We'll have fish (inc. anchovies??)
I love this thinking! Isn't all we do eventually for the glory of God? I Cor. 10:13 "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."
I don't know about anyone else, but I honestly am not truly doing what Paul commands because I am not that mature, and I don't understand it well enough. Maybe that maturity will grow to the point that I will adjust my eating and drinking to exactly how God originally intended
Kaatje, this is brilliant. Thank you for sharing
Matthew6:33
Set your face like flint - Isaiah 50:7
I think people ate meat after the fall. Animals ate other animals too. Can't see a carnivorous beast with pointy canines eating grass (fossil evidence?) don't know. Considering Gen 9, when God gave the command, I think it was to clarify things, I don't think it was to legalize anything. I imagine the time before the flood, there was a lot of paganism going on and people were drinking blood of animals and maybe even people in satanic rituals (Nephilim running around?). This is why God adds the bit about drinking blood which was forbidden in the Jewish laws as well. I think verse 5 introduces what is later clarified in the law for an eye for and eye. I think there is a lot of demonic influence involved with taking the life of a human (made in God's image) whether the perpetrator is a man or a beast. Thus the heavy consequence and the strive to keep things as pure as possible.
[Gen 9:2-5 NASB95]
2 "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.
3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as [I gave] the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, [that is,] its blood.
5 "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from [every] man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
Of course when Nimrod and the Tower of Babel come on the scene, all the paganism, murder, sacrifice, blood drinking is probably going on all over again. But such is our sinful world, showing evidence for the need for a Redeemer.
[Gen 9:2-5 NASB95]
2 "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.
3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as [I gave] the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, [that is,] its blood.
5 "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from [every] man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
Of course when Nimrod and the Tower of Babel come on the scene, all the paganism, murder, sacrifice, blood drinking is probably going on all over again. But such is our sinful world, showing evidence for the need for a Redeemer.
The Bible states, “Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth” (Genesis 7:2–3). The Hebrew phrase translated “seven pairs” literally means “seven sevens,” so there is some question as to whether Noah took seven specimens of each “clean” species (three pairs and an extra) or seven pairs. Either way, he was told to take more clean animals than unclean on the ark. Only the unclean animals came in pairs (Genesis 6:19).
Leviticus 11 defines the difference between clean and unclean animals, but Noah lived before the giving of the Law. We are not told how Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean, but he obviously knew the difference. Sacrifices to God were made before the Mosaic Law (Genesis 4:4), which means God had somehow communicated to man what animals were suitable for sacrifice (and, later, for eating).
From What made some animals clean and others unclean (Genesis 7)? | GotQuestions.org
Leviticus 11 defines the difference between clean and unclean animals, but Noah lived before the giving of the Law. We are not told how Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean, but he obviously knew the difference. Sacrifices to God were made before the Mosaic Law (Genesis 4:4), which means God had somehow communicated to man what animals were suitable for sacrifice (and, later, for eating).
From What made some animals clean and others unclean (Genesis 7)? | GotQuestions.org
That is a very interesting question indeed. I'd genuinely be interested in your thoughts.
What I wonder some times is how did all those animals fit on the ark?
AnyMinute
Well-known
I remember years ago at the Ark Encounter they answered that question with looking at the size of the ark including provisions and that taking kinds of vertebrate land animals would require less space than one would think.
Here's a link describing their thinking.
How Could All the Animals Fit on the Ark?
The estimated numbers, sizes, and types of ark animals impact nearly every aspect of the vessel’s interior operations.
answersingenesis.org
"Skeptics often assert that there are millions of species in the world—far more than the number that could fit on the ark. However, according to estimates published in 2014, there are fewer than 1.8 million documented species of organisms in the world. Consider also that over 98 percent of those species are fish, invertebrates, and non-animals (like plants and bacteria). This means that there are fewer than 34,000 species of known, land-dependent vertebrates in the world today.2
Species or Kinds?
Though wild animals today are often considered according to their species, the Bible deals with animals according to their min, a Hebrew word usually translated as “kind.” We can infer from Scripture that God created plants and animals to reproduce after their kinds (Genesis 1:11–25), and it is clear from various texts that a kind is often a broader category than the current concept of a species. This means that a kind may contain many different species. Since Noah was only sent select representatives from relevant kinds, all land-dwelling vertebrate species not present on the ark were wiped out. Therefore, if we see an ark kind represented today by different species (e.g., horses, zebras, and donkeys of the equid kind), those species have developed since the time of the flood. Therefore, species are simply varying expressions of a particular kind."
AnyMinute
Well-known
I haven't taken a hard position on whether animal consumption took place after the fall pre-flood or after the flood. There are interesting arguments made for both.
It would seem to me that there would have to be significant amount of time after the flood for animal kinds to reproduce and eventually result in all the differing species we see.
I imagine that if animals immediately went carnivore shortly after getting off the ark that the top predators would quickly eliminate the weaker prey animals.
It would seem to me that there would have to be significant amount of time after the flood for animal kinds to reproduce and eventually result in all the differing species we see.
I imagine that if animals immediately went carnivore shortly after getting off the ark that the top predators would quickly eliminate the weaker prey animals.
One of each kind, brother; not one of each type.
Would that mean one cow couple as opposed to a set of Angus, a set of longhorns, etc.?
Ghoti Ichthus
Genesis 18:32, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Acts 5:29
When death entered into the world with Adam and Eve's sin, there had to be some way to keep the world clean and sanitary, so bacteria, flies, worms, mice, rats, buzzards, hyenas, etc. would eat dead things, so I would say right away when death entered the world that animals, birds, insects, and microbes started eating meat.
When God killed the animal to clothe Adam and Eve, He would have also shown them how to kill the animal humanely, prepare it's skin/hide, and prepare and eat it, because otherwise it would have been wasted, and animals would have suffered while Adam and Eve fumbled around figuring out how to kill them for whatever reason(s) needed. Unless the carnivores, like tigers, lions, small cats, bears, etc. were scavengers and not hunters starting at the moment death entered the world, and the meat from animals slaughtered for clothing and sacrifices was given/left for them, then I think humans also started eating meat starting when God sacrificed the animal for them. God is good, so even when dealing with sin and its consequences, He would have done what was right by His creation.
It doesn't make sense that people would be keepers of sheep and keepers of cattle and use them for skins, fur, clothing, and offerings alone. Abel brought of the firstlings of his flocks and fat, so what happened to the other meat? God also punished Cain by saying the ground wouldn't yield its strength to him when he tilled it, so if he had no crops, he would have had to eat something, which I think implies meat. It could also mean he had to trade or steal, which might be at least part of the meaning of God telling him if he didn't do well, sin was at the door.
Animals, which God intended to eat meat, have sharp, pointy teeth and/or beaks and/or claws/talons. Something to tear, rip, etc.
Human beings have some sharp, pointy teeth, but also flat and grinding types, so that implies God's design to eat a variety of foods.
The Bible doesn't tell us how long it was before Adam and Eve sinned, but I bet the devil worked fast, and maybe took advantage of God resting on that first Sabbath and did his dirty work then. Adam and Eve might have been less than one day old when they sinned. Given that some animals, such as felines, are obligate carnivores, and some insects and birds can't go very long without eating meat, I don't believe it was very long, because God wouldn't have wanted animals, etc. to suffer, and He knew what was going to happen and when.
When God killed the animal to clothe Adam and Eve, He would have also shown them how to kill the animal humanely, prepare it's skin/hide, and prepare and eat it, because otherwise it would have been wasted, and animals would have suffered while Adam and Eve fumbled around figuring out how to kill them for whatever reason(s) needed. Unless the carnivores, like tigers, lions, small cats, bears, etc. were scavengers and not hunters starting at the moment death entered the world, and the meat from animals slaughtered for clothing and sacrifices was given/left for them, then I think humans also started eating meat starting when God sacrificed the animal for them. God is good, so even when dealing with sin and its consequences, He would have done what was right by His creation.
It doesn't make sense that people would be keepers of sheep and keepers of cattle and use them for skins, fur, clothing, and offerings alone. Abel brought of the firstlings of his flocks and fat, so what happened to the other meat? God also punished Cain by saying the ground wouldn't yield its strength to him when he tilled it, so if he had no crops, he would have had to eat something, which I think implies meat. It could also mean he had to trade or steal, which might be at least part of the meaning of God telling him if he didn't do well, sin was at the door.
Animals, which God intended to eat meat, have sharp, pointy teeth and/or beaks and/or claws/talons. Something to tear, rip, etc.
Human beings have some sharp, pointy teeth, but also flat and grinding types, so that implies God's design to eat a variety of foods.
The Bible doesn't tell us how long it was before Adam and Eve sinned, but I bet the devil worked fast, and maybe took advantage of God resting on that first Sabbath and did his dirty work then. Adam and Eve might have been less than one day old when they sinned. Given that some animals, such as felines, are obligate carnivores, and some insects and birds can't go very long without eating meat, I don't believe it was very long, because God wouldn't have wanted animals, etc. to suffer, and He knew what was going to happen and when.
Frankly, I don't know what to think. Just rambling here. Genesis 6:19 says " And 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. But later, Genesis 7:2 says "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female- distinction being made. It's kinda like Matthew 12:40 where a sign is given to the Pharisees but in Mark 8:12 the Messiah says that no sign will be given. So, what has any of that have to do with me irresponsibly sticking my nose into this topic? Beats me. It may be time for someone to begin looking for an old folk's institution for me. Carry on.
Perhaps not quite. The original word in Mark 8:12 is semeion (σημεῖον). It is a translation of the Hebrew mopheth (מוֹפֵת). In biblical times these two words were used to indicate a sign of divine power or authority. Miracle and wonder are often used to translate these words into English. Further, Jesus was vexed that the Pharisees would not believe him unless he gave them a miraculous sign (as if feeding four thousand with seven loaves and a few fish wasn't miracle enough!) So when Jesus said that no sign would be given to them, He was simply stating a truth: that if you won't believe without being given a sign, you will be given no sign. And they weren't.
As to the two passages in Genesis (actually there are three because Genesis 7:15-16 again refers simply to twos) I think it is because the Bible narrative is quite terse. When God first told Noah to bring in two animals of each kind, it is clear the purpose was for breeding--literally replenishing the earth following the flood in which ALL other life would be destroyed. And this is exactly what Noah did, as described in Genesis 7:15-16.
So why the "seven" of each clean animal mentioned in Genesis 7:2-3? Remember, prior to the Mosaic Law clean did not refer to sacrificial animals but to food animals. During the year in the ark, the eight people in the ark would need to eat good food. Plus God would require clean animals for sacrifice after the flood waters had dried up. I believe the extra five clean animals of each kind were for food. And possibly, even though there were no laws of which we know that governed sacrificial animals, maybe Noah understood in his heart that only certain animals were to be sacrificed and that he would be offering them as a sacrifice. From Scripture we know for a fact that the moment that Noah and his family set foot on dry land, again, he built an altar and offered sacrifices from every kind of clean animal and bird (Genesis 8:20). If he only had two clean animals and birds of each kind with him in the ark, offering those sacrifices would have eliminated all of those animals from the future. That's why the extras.
I hope that helps.
I don't understand. Just how does that make sense?
But Matthew 12:40 says that they were. What am I missing?
What they wanted was something "flashy". Something that they would deem a sign.
What they got was "the sign of Jonah". But they wouldn't see that as a sign.
They didn't even recognise it after Christ's resurrection. Because they didn't recognise the resurrection itself.
(Although they were afraid of it, otherwise they wouldn't want for a guard at the tomb)
In Matt. 13 the disciples ask Jesus why he spake in parables.
He answered them, it was "because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
And that is just the same as what happened with asking for yet another miracle.
Mind you, Jesus had just fed an enormous group of people with just a few staples.
He healed so many sick and infirm, even resurrected people from the dead, and it was not enough.
For unbelievers it will never be enough. Seeing miracles won't sway anyone if they close their heart.
Hope that helps?
Similar threads
