Evidence for God from Science

I'm normally a strong advocate of the Day-age theory, however, a professor recently brought this verse(Genesis 1:30) to my attention:

"'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."

I currently see no way around this implication that all creatures were herbivores before the Fall of Man. Can I get some help understanding this?

Larry the Viking wrote:I'm normally a strong advocate of the Day-age theory, however, a professor recently brought this verse(<A class=lbsBibleRef href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Genesis%201.30" target=_blank lbsReference="Genesis 1.30|ESV">Genesis 1:30</A>) to my attention:

"'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."

I currently see no way around this implication that all creatures were herbivores before the Fall of Man. Can I get some help understanding this?

Interesting question...I have never considered (or noticed the implications of) that verse before. Thanks for bringing it up!

This is one that I find troubling as well, in a way (I'm not decided on my creation "position" - except that God created and is always involved), and that I do not think can be simply explained away. It's a very clear statement. I only have so much time to delve into various topics, however, and this one I haven't done a ton with. I guess some of the explanations I've read, trying to re-explain it, were unsatisfactory to me.

Larry, , Romans 5:12, and Genesis 1:30 are the 2 most quoted verses used by Young earth advocates to "prove" their translation. Romans 5:12 fits easily in an Old Earth model, because it is referring to human death only. I still have not heard an explanation of Genesis 1:30 that can used to defend an Old Earth model. There are probably other Bible verses that don't fit into OEC as well as they fit into YEC. Job 40:15 is one that comes to mind. Many OECs claim this is an elephant, while many YECs claim it's a dinosaur. All I can suggest to you is to continue studying, while praying for the Lord to lead you. Be open to His leading. It may not be what you're expecting.

Here is a story about a lion raised on spaghetti, not meat although she later learned to eat meat.

http://creation.com/lea-the-spaghetti-lioness

Larry the Viking wrote:
I currently see no way around this implication that all creatures were herbivores before the Fall of Man. Can I get some help understanding this?

You could just say that it is, GOD FORBID: wrong, seriously when a science textbook gets it wrong, it is corrected in future editions, this doesn't happen for the bible though does it? So just take a pen and cross it out. It works for me.

Kristoffer wrote:

Larry the Viking wrote:
I currently see no way around this implication that all creatures were herbivores before the Fall of Man. Can I get some help understanding this?

You could just say that it is, GOD FORBID: wrong, seriously when a science textbook gets it wrong, it is corrected in future editions, this doesn't happen for the bible though does it? So just take a pen and cross it out. It works for me.

Even if it were metaphorical or symbolic, it wouldn't be wrong. Maybe whoever doesn't like what Jesus did would just cross that out of God's word too. The word of God is the word of God, and we need to accept some things we don't understand or try to figure them out the best we can, or whatever along those lines. To simply accept things in the bible that make sense to you at the moment will never help you to grow. If someone decided that stealing was OK because they were used to doing it, then by your process here, they could just delete God's words about it. Does God have authority over His own word, or does each one of us? Is God the one who knows best, or are we? If we think we do, then we are still accepting the place of Adam.

Larry the Viking wrote:I'm normally a strong advocate of the Day-age theory, however, a professor recently brought this verse(Genesis 1:30) to my attention:

"'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."

I currently see no way around this implication that all creatures were herbivores before the Fall of Man. Can I get some help understanding this?

Huh? The dayage theory doesn't advocate for herbivores before the fall. What Genesis 1:30 is implying here is that plants are the top of the food chain for all animals as it is today.. In other words, if you take away plants all the herbivores and carnivores would die.

Gman wrote:

Larry the Viking wrote:I'm normally a strong advocate of the Day-age theory, however, a professor recently brought this verse(Genesis 1:30) to my attention:

"'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."

I currently see no way around this implication that all creatures were herbivores before the Fall of Man. Can I get some help understanding this?

Huh? The dayage theory doesn't advocate for herbivores before the fall. What Genesis 1:30 is implying here is that plants are the top of the food chain for all animals as it is today.. In other words, if you take away plants all the herbivores and carnivores would die.

So you're saying they didn't actually eat the plants even though the verse specifically says that they were given plants "for food"?

Gman wrote:

Larry the Viking wrote:I'm normally a strong advocate of the Day-age theory, however, a professor recently brought this verse(Genesis 1:30) to my attention:

"'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."

I currently see no way around this implication that all creatures were herbivores before the Fall of Man. Can I get some help understanding this?

Huh? The dayage theory doesn't advocate for herbivores before the fall. What Genesis 1:30 is implying here is that plants are the top of the food chain for all animals as it is today.. In other words, if you take away plants all the herbivores and carnivores would die.

Gman, I think Larry is saying that he is a day-age advocate, but Genesis 1:30 seems to go against the old earth theory of carnivores before the fall. And, he wants to know how the verse would be explained by OEC. I believe that this verse is probably the strongest to support the young-earthers belief in no carnivores before Adam's sin. I would also like to hear a viable explanation about this verse as well. I have posted questions I have had about how a particular passage in the Bible fits into OEC. I haven't had satisfactory answers to some of my questions. I hope that a knowledgeable OECr will explain this verse for Larry. If I believe a Bible passage helps make the OEC case, I will speak out about it. I believe this verse helps make the YECs case.

I'm far from an expert and this passage has been discussed to death in other threads, although more focused there on Romans 5:12.

Genesis 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.

To take this one verse and draw from it the conclusion that this means that all animals were vegetarian before the fall you have to assume the following:

1. You have to assume more than the verse itself states, and add the idea that "only" vegetables were food. The verse above states that every green herb has been given for "meat" to every beast of the earth. It doesn't necessarily state that every beast of the earth "only" eats vegetables (or grass, or leaves or whatever ...). It begs the question too as to how "meat" would be meaningful if there were no carnivorous activity from which to get some context and meaning.

2. Usually the idea of only vegetarian animals is tied to the idea that there was no physical death before the fall for humans and animals. It begs the question as to the definition and scope of death because obviously plants died. It makes one wonder what might have happened if a bug or a worm were on an apple for instance. The corresponding idea that carnivorous activity began after the fall and even further out is then taken from

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

The only issue there is that the scope of this passage refers to Noah and mankind and not all animals or beasts and so it would be again stretching the verse considerably to imply that goes back. Not to mention too, that prior to this you have the account of Cain and Abel and it begs the question as to why Abel was a shepherd and sacrifice was taking place and how likely it was that sheep were being kept only for that purpose.

For me too, the idea that there was a paradise on earth with no death, no difficulties etc. begs a lot of questions when you look at the command to mankind to "subdue" the earth which was given before the fall. The Hebrew Word used is kabash and it carries with it the idea of violently conquering and overcoming something that is challenging. Why would God issue that command as it were if there were no challenge? I see the fall as magnifying many things and introducing new challenges, but it wasn't a cake walk with not challenges or things working against man's efforts before then.

So that's a short answer, and no doubt incomplete but the best I can do off the top of my head in a hurry. Others please chime in.

bart

Hmmmm. I still don't buy this. To me, it would get to the point that I wouldn't be able to trust my judgment on any verse in the bible - if one seems clear, yet it "leaves stuff out," and another is clear and simply means what it says (then who can decide?). It seems odd to me that God would say something like that, but mean that there was more to it (that really should be obvious) - in how many other places would that also be true, then? (There are other versus that support the vegetarian verse, and if it's all symbolic, then what do they all really mean?) CS Lewis talked about Genesis being a type of myth, yet he believed things in it and knew it had significant repercussions to the rest of scripture and the understanding of our faith. I need to look into what he wrote about that, and into others who thought similarly to him. From all the argument that happens, it's pretty obvious that it's not easily resolved; in fact, it has not been resolved. I really hate the arguments that divide Christians, and as I believe Jesus did all and I'll understand it one day (as we all will), I try to avoid arguing. Whatever it is, does it edify, does it encourage, does it spread God's kingdom? I know for some, they say they'd believe if they had an answer, so we keep trying. But it seems to me that at least part of Genesis will always remain mysterious, until Christ returns, and that faith isn't based on knowing all the secrets of God. I'm not trying to stifle discussion or anything, I'm just saying how frustrating it is and how I wish we could focus on love more, instead of unfathomable mysteries and the anger that often results. Maybe we should have a Love & Charity thread. Anyway, it's hard for me to express, but this type of argument and reading of the text did not do well for me before I was a Christian - as an archaeologist and historian - and it doesn't do well now either. I'm sure, then, that quite a few others would think the same, and so, how to deal with it? Well, for me, I'm going to look up Lewis on it more. One problem with Lewis, however, is that we know more about genetics, "evolution," and the universe than he did.

Oh, and I do have a personal thought on this. Maybe animals and humans did not follow God's desire that they eat only vegetation, and that is the "violence" He was referring to, resulting in Him causing the flood. Just a thought.

cslewislover wrote: I really hate the arguments that divide Christians, and as I believe Jesus did all and I'll understand it one day (as we all will), I try to avoid arguing. Whatever it is, does it edify, does it encourage, does it spread God's kingdom?

I'm really glad someone else that feels the way I do. I hate it when Christians go out of their way to persecute and convert other Christians to another school of thought. It's this attitude that led to the downfall of the Byzantine Empire, and it's why the middle east is Muslim today. Instead of uniting to push back the Turk and Arab frontier, the eastern and western Churches fought against eachother.

Gman wrote:What <a target="_blank" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Gene ... 0">Genesis 1:30</a> is implying here is that plants are the top of the food chain for all animals as it is today.. In other words, if you take away plants all the herbivores and carnivores would die.

Thanks for the help, Gman. This sounds pretty logical.

cslewislover wrote: Maybe whoever doesn't like what Jesus did would just cross that out of God's word too. The word of God is the word of God, and we need to accept some things we don't understand or try to figure them out the best we can.

Actually...i think i used the wrong word, what I meant was crossing as in Marking and then putting my own comments in the margins. I didn't mean anything destructive.

Larry the Viking wrote: I hate it when Christians go out of their way to persecute and convert other Christians to another school of thought.

Yes but what about people who are not christians? Is it okay to persecute them and try to forcibly convert them? Also what about children? I think that they should be kept safe(from any religion) until they are old enough to make up their own mind.

cslewislover wrote:Hmmmm. I still don't buy this. To me, it would get to the point that I wouldn't be able to trust my judgment on any verse in the bible - if one seems clear, yet it "leaves stuff out," and another is clear and simply means what it says (then who can decide?). It seems odd to me that God would say something like that, but mean that there was more to it (that really should be obvious) - in how many other places would that also be true, then? (There are other versus that support the vegetarian verse, and if it's all symbolic, then what do they all really mean?) CS Lewis talked about Genesis being a type of myth, yet he believed things in it and knew it had significant repercussions to the rest of scripture and the understanding of our faith. I need to look into what he wrote about that, and into others who thought similarly to him. From all the argument that happens, it's pretty obvious that it's not easily resolved; in fact, it has not been resolved. I really hate the arguments that divide Christians, and as I believe Jesus did all and I'll understand it one day (as we all will), I try to avoid arguing. Whatever it is, does it edify, does it encourage, does it spread God's kingdom? I know for some, they say they'd believe if they had an answer, so we keep trying. But it seems to me that at least part of Genesis will always remain mysterious, until Christ returns, and that faith isn't based on knowing all the secrets of God. I'm not trying to stifle discussion or anything, I'm just saying how frustrating it is and how I wish we could focus on love more, instead of unfathomable mysteries and the anger that often results. Maybe we should have a Love & Charity thread. Anyway, it's hard for me to express, but this type of argument and reading of the text did not do well for me before I was a Christian - as an archaeologist and historian - and it doesn't do well now either. I'm sure, then, that quite a few others would think the same, and so, how to deal with it? Well, for me, I'm going to look up Lewis on it more. One problem with Lewis, however, is that we know more about genetics, "evolution," and the universe than he did.

Oh, and I do have a personal thought on this. Maybe animals and humans did not follow God's desire that they eat only vegetation, and that is the "violence" He was referring to, resulting in Him causing the flood. Just a thought.

You raise a good point regarding hermeneutics. If we pick and choose which verses we want to take literally, we have no foundation to stand on. Everything becomes subjective. What is so hard about taking the Scriptures for what they say? I believe the omniscient God knew what He was saying and what He meant when He inspired the writers, and that He was able to put it in just the right words for us weak, finite beings to be able to understand what He meant without having to have a PhD in a multitude of disciplines.

I also appreciate what you say about love and charity. I confess that I don't understand everything and never will in this life, but even if I did, and didn't have charity, it would profit me nothing and I would be nothing.