How Do Dinosaurs Fit Into Genesis?

[Mythicalbio]

Don’t know if you’re a fellow vegan, but if so, interesting resource: https://thenephesh.wordpress.com
God bless you in your care for creation. When the Kingdom comes we will all be at peace again. Maranatha Lord!

 

[Shakuhachi]

Fellow vegan, not quite. I do fish once in a while. But no dairy.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

We can agree the bible uses mythological language to convey certain truths. What about St John Paul’s theology of the body? He focuses a lot on nakedness without shame? Would the same sort of focus been make about vegan creatures if we did not discover meat eating fossils?

 

[goout]

How Do Dinosaurs Fit Into Genesis?

they irritated the crap out of Adam and Even with their endless good humor and jump up and down glee.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Inquiry]

I don’t see why it would. Barring our own immediate ancestors we haven’t discovered fossils that wore clothing. His focus on nakedness without shame is not really about clothing anyways but about the capacity to denigrate and use one another. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they realized that they could objectify and cheapen each other through lust. That shame they felt was the realization that they needed to hide their bodies so that they would not be reduced nor tempt each other to do so.

There is no vegan equivalent. There is no indication that Adam and Eve suddenly realized they could cannibalize each other and had to hide the fact that they were made of meat. To the extent that food is involved the major change seems to be that they had to work the land rather than feast on God’s abundance.

Also, if our meat eating were in some way due to Original Sin then I don’t think God would help us perpetuate that. He wouldn’t use the eating of lamb for the Passover Meal. He would give Himself to us in a form other than His flesh and His blood. That those are the methods He chose says something important about us and about our relationship with Him.

 

[Shakuhachi]

I agree. And food is a matter of choice and common sense unless one wants to abstain for self discipline and penance as is customary.

 

[Mythicalbio]

If meat eating is not due to sin then creation has always been fallen and full of death and suffering. It’s not even a vegan thing, it is just a fact. It may be held that some fallen creation is due to the fall of angels, and they rule over creation, so because they fell they caused suffering in it did to their own sin, but still. There is no way New earth will have any sort death in it, or body cells, plants, animals, etc. Lots of things Jesus participated in were due to original sin, not least of which the type of human nature he voluntarily assumed, the limited knowledge of things, cultural values, etc. It proves nothing.

Church fathers themselves often present meat eating as due to Adam and Eve s failure to keep even one food rule, or as a divine permission due to the sinful nature of man. It is entirely orthodox to hold this. It isn’t new or some vegan agenda.

 

[Gorgias]

When the Kingdom comes we will all be at peace again.

Wait – please tell me you’re not asserting that “the lamb shall lie down with the lion” is literal and it means we’re all gonna become vegans in the eschaton!

 

[Mythicalbio]

I’m not referring to the millenium, but the end of time, past the last judgment. Do you really think we will be spilling blood still with glorified bodies in eternity? Do you think a single thing will die or rot then? To me, if death exist in any form on new earth then it is worthless. I obviously don’t think it will be that way, but still.

Now as for that passage, in that era I do not think people will be vegans exactly, but I think that did to the temporary removal of temptation and diabolical influence, there will be greater harmony in all of creation. Many people might be vegans, I don’t know.

 

[otjm]

I understand from this verse all creatures were originally created to be plant eaters and it wasn’t until after the fall they ate meat.

That sounds like a personal spin on Genesis.

The Church is not a literalist, but rather a contextualist in reading Scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you really think we will be spilling blood still with glorified bodies in eternity? Do you think a single thing will die or rot then?

I think it’s an open question, which we haven’t received any divine revelation on. On one hand, we’re assured that humans will have glorified (uncorruptible) bodies. Can we say the same thing about other parts of creation?

Now as for that passage, in that era I do not think people will be vegans exactly, but I think that did to the temporary removal of temptation and diabolical influence, there will be greater harmony in all of creation.

Does “enjoying a hamburger” run afoul of “greater harmony”?

 

[Mythicalbio]

It does not necessarily run afoul,things will still die in that era, and the Genesis 9:3 permission is not lifted at that point.

I think we can say the same about the other parts of creation, due to passages like Romans 8:19-22. Of course, there are other interpretations of that passage, but on one level of meaning I think it shows that creation itself will be liberated from this bondage and decay.

St. Thomas, who writes my favorite commentaries on Paul, says this about “creation” in that passage: it can be understood as 1) the justified man 2) human nature 3) sensible creation itself, the natural world. Of this third sense he says this:

In another way sensible creation is ordained by God to an end which transcends its natural form. For just as the human body will be clothed with the form of supernatural glory, so all sensible creation in that glory of the children of God will itself obtain a new glory: I saw a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1). In this way sensible creation waits for the revelation of the glory of the sons of God . … But if by creature is understood sensible creation, then such creation was subjected to vanity , i.e., to changeability, but not willingly . For the defects which follow on changeableness, such as aging and ceasing to be and the like, are contrary to the particular nature of this or that thing which seeks self-preservation, although they are in keeping with the general nature of things. Nevertheless, the visible creature is subjected to such vanity by reason of him , i.e., by the ordinance of God who subjected it in hope , i.e., in expectation of a glorious renewal as was stated above. … But if it is taken for sensible creation, then that creation will be delivered from the servitude of corruption , i.e., changeableness: because in every change there is an element of decay, as Augustine says and the Philosopher too in Physics VIII. This will contribute to the liberty of the glory of the sons of God , because just as they will be renewed, so will their dwelling place be renewed: I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things will not be remembered , i.e., the former changeableness of the creature (Isa 65:17).

This is not meant to prooftext using the man of God (it’s not something really for proof, but for experiencing anyway. I hope we can all see it when the time comes), I am only trying to show that it is possible, maybe even reasonable, to expect creation as a whole to be delivered from corruption and death in the end. It works well with Mariological elements, things about the incarnation, etc. St. Thomas and others may all be wrong, and this be a vain hope, but still. Here is the full commentary: Aquinas

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

“And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. And it was so” - Genesis 1:30

If this verse is not to be taken literally, what lesson can we learn from it?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Certainly not poison ivy.

 

[Hume]

PrisonerOfChrist:

“And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. And it was so” - Genesis 1:30

If this verse is not to be taken literally, what lesson can we learn from it?

Had a guy once try to tell me that animal flesh consumed before the fall didn’t promote the cardiovascular illnesses that is seems to post-fall. So there’s that.

 

[Gorgias]

If this verse is not to be taken literally, what lesson can we learn from it?

One thought comes to mind: “I have given every green plant for food [to] everything that has the breath of life” doesn’t mean “and no meat-eating, please”. It only addresses the availability of plants as food.

(And, if you want to go farther down that rabbit hole, please note that this means that there was the killing of plant life to feed animals. Why is it moral to kill plants and not to kill animals?)

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

One thought comes to mind: “I have given every green plant for food [to] everything that has the breath of life” doesn’t mean “and no meat-eating, please”. It only addresses the availability of plants as food.

(And, if you want to go farther down that rabbit hole, please note that this means that there was the killing of plant life to feed animals. Why is it moral to kill plants and not to kill animals?)

I read a commentary regarding Genesis 1:30 that the point of this verse is to show all good things come from God. God is the source of sustenance without work (or at least little work).

Compare this with Generis 9:3 where God includes meat. Why does he specify meat in the aftermath of the flood?

 

[Pattylt]

There are many interpretations of Genesis. Jews have several themselves. One that I always liked is that in the Genesis story, God is revealing not just His power of creation but that He alone is the only God. Each of the acts of creation relate to other religions…God creates the light to counter sun worshippers, He creates the animals to show He is the reason for animal worship, the moon regarding moon worshippers all the way to man to show that He is the creator of man and man alone is not worthy of worship…against the Hero worshipping of many.

The snake in the garden is representative of Egypt as Egypt was represented with the asp…this is the tl:dr version…it’s actually much more detailed but in general, it’s showing that other religions are false as God alone is the power behind all other mistaken worship. It’s a mythical story from mythical time and was never meant to be a history lesson or science explanation. It’s a theological treaty about God.

 

[Richca]

PrisonerOfChrist:

I understand from this verse all creatures were originally created to be plant eaters and it wasn’t until after the fall they ate meat.

It doesn’t necessarily follow from this verse. The word “only” doesn’t appear.

This is a good observation that the word “only” doesn’t appear. The Genesis 1 creation story mentions the creation of cattle in verse 24. What do we do with cattle besides getting milk from them and eat them? Genesis 4:2 says that Abel was a keeper of sheep. Was this just for their wool or to eat them too? Genesis 4:20 also mentions Jabal, one of Cain’s descendants, as the father of those who dwell in tents and who have cattle.

Some of the early fathers of the Church had the opinion that the fall of Adam and Eve brought about carnivorous animals. Scripture doesn’t explicitly mention humans eating meat, I don’t believe, until after the Flood and the covenant with Noah. I believe St Thomas Aquinas’ opinion was that carnivorous animals were a part of nature that God created and not a result of the Fall. And we have the imagery of Isaiah about the lion eating hay like the ox in the messianic kingdom I believe it is so some of those early Church fathers probably took this into consideration too when considering creation before the fall of Adam and Eve. The idea of their not being carnivorous animals before the Fall partly taken from Scripture, if that rightly be the case, maybe is meant to be symbolic or have some spiritual or metaphorical meaning and not strictly a literal meaning.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Some of the early fathers of the Church had the opinion that the fall of Adam and Eve brought about carnivorous animals.

And that is certainly possible. Also, consider parasites that invade and kill their hosts only to propagate themselves. I cannot imagine that being their original purpose but a result of the fall.