Theistic evolution and the nature of God

[Derf]

Not the way the evil natives rs did, no.

Without exterminating whale species throughout the oceans, wisely geing able to continue to get what was/is needed, like the natives in america did with buffalo before white man slaughtered them (the natives and the buffalo).... see, there are rarely right and good and true motives, and often greed and slaughter and deadly motives.

Do you mean when the natives would stampede whole herds of bison over cliffs and just use some of the meat? Let's not idolize the native cultures, nor our own.

 

[Aaron112]

Do you mean when the natives would stampede whole herds of bison over cliffs and just use some of the meat? Let's not idolize the native cultures, nor our own.

Did you read badly re-written history books ? It was not the natives, it was not the original inhabitants of the prairies who did that (no not at all as far as I recall).
It was white man, maybe spaniards or french,
it was those who came to profit by taking the land by force, and when they could by slaughtering the herds , sometimes maybe not even for money! Just because they could... !

 

[Derf]

Did you read badly re-written history books ? It was not the natives, it was not the original inhabitants of the prairies who did that (no not at all as far as I recall).
It was white man, maybe spaniards or french,
it was those who came to profit by taking the land by force, and when they could by slaughtering the herds , sometimes maybe not even for money! Just because they could... !

"The Native Americans who used the buffalo jump technique at Bonfire Shelter sometimes met with success on a far greater scale than they intended or needed. In Bone Bed 3 in particular, there is abundant evidence that far more animals were killed than could be used. In fact, the original analyst argued that Bone Bed 3 could represent a single event in which as many as 800 animals died. Others think it more likely that it represents several events, but even so these were massive kills. Partially or entirely articulated (fitted together) skeletons where found in the lower portions of Bone Bed 3. In other cases archeologists recognized that only the most desirable parts of the animals—especially the hindquarters—showed signs of butchering. In other words, a great deal of the bison meat and hides in the larger jump episodes went to waste."
From: Bonfire Shelter-The Plunge of Death

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree with you that first comes the positive part of the command, and then the negative clarification. But Gen 9:3 gives the clarification of Gen 9:2, not of Gen 1:28. Rather, 9:2 explains the addition to the diet, meat, while 9:3 explains what to avoid, the blood. The terrain was markedly changed from the flood. The agriculture would take a little while to recover, and God was not raising up a garden for them as He had for Adam. But He had still provided for Noah's family by letting them eat meat.

Here's the real parallel you were looking for in Genesis:
Genesis 2:16-17 KJV — And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, A. Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: B. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.



But you would admit that dominion of all creatures would include being able to get whale oil from whales, right?


This is a good point, and I've thought about it some. Abel was a shepherd. Why? I believe it was because they provided wool and sheepskin for clothing. The first God-made clothing came from an animal, so it is natural to continue what God showed them.

It's likely they milked the sheep, too, though that doesn't fit with a vegan model. They would know about milk from nursing their children, so moving to milking animals is not a stretch.

The problem with this whale oil idea is that the original authors would have never understood God's command this way, nor would their audience. Whale oil was discovered and used until thousands of years into the future. Which means that this idea is anachronistic. It's us reading our modern concept of whale oil, backwards into the Bible where the Bible says no such thing. Talking about whale oil is essentially a matter of us re-inventing the Biblical text.

However, as noted in the Ben Stanhope video, to subdue and rule are relatively harsh words, denoting war conquest and complete subjugation. In relation to wild fish and birds, the only sensible conclusion here is that mankind is given permission to eat wild birds and fish in Genesis 1:28, especially given how it immediately preceded 1:29 with relation to plants being permitted for consumption.

Genesis 9:3-4 is simply a dietary prohibition. As noted before, 1:28 and 9:3 parallel one another, supporting this understanding. Dietary prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, such as Deuteronomy 14, that begin by describing that which was already permitted, also support this understanding.

The idea of no death before the fall and immortal T Rex eating lettuce and watermelons is simply anachronistic and isn't actually based on what we find in the Bible.

 

[Aaron112]

Bone Bed 3 could represent a single event in which as many as 800 animals died.

Just reading it briefly, in context, googling bonebed3,
that was a terrible horrible mis-representation made up by certain schools for their own subversive purposes.

Noting also that whiteman slaughtered what, millions of buffalo, a few generations ago.
No native americans in the last few generations did that. They took care to use all that they had of one buffalo at a time.

 

[Derf]

The problem with this whale oil idea is that the original authors would have never understood God's command this way, nor would their audience. Whale oil was discovered and used until thousands of years into the future. Which means that this idea is anachronistic. It's us reading our modern concept of whale oil, backwards into the Bible where the Bible says no such thing. Talking about whale oil is essentially a matter of us re-inventing the Biblical text.

Because whale oil isn't mentioned in the bible? So you're suggesting that God could not have possibly foreseen what future generations would use animals for? That seems like a short-sighted view of God.

However, as noted in the Ben Stanhope video, to subdue and rule are relatively harsh words, denoting war conquest and complete subjugation. In relation to wild fish and birds, the only sensible conclusion

To you, perhaps, but not to me.

here is that mankind is given permission to eat wild birds and fish in Genesis 1:28, especially given how it immediately preceded 1:29 with relation to plants being permitted for consumption.

So you compare an explicit permission with silence and say that means implicit permission. That's a dangerous precedent to set. Kind of a Nadab and Abihu thing from Lev 10.

Genesis 9:3-4 is simply a dietary prohibition.

So you keep trying to say, but without any proof. The text, if taken explicitly, says the opposite.

As noted before, 1:28 and 9:3 parallel one another, supporting this understanding.

No, they support the opposite understanding. You're reading your view into the text.

Dietary prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, such as Deuteronomy 14, that begin by describing that which was already permitted, also support this understanding.

No, they don't. Not for Adam.

The idea of no death before the fall and immortal T Rex eating lettuce and watermelons is simply anachronistic and isn't actually based on what we find in the Bible.

That's because the Bible mentions neither T-Rex not watermelons. But it does mention eating plants, and later, after world conditions had changed, eating meat.

 

[Derf]

Just reading it briefly, in context, googling bonebed3,
that was a terrible horrible mis-representation made up by certain schools for their own subversive purposes.

Noting also that whiteman slaughtered what, millions of buffalo, a few generations ago.
No native americans in the last few generations did that. They took care to use all that they had of one buffalo at a time.

That's called "moving the goalposts". Just because recent generations haven't done evil, doesn't mean the evil wasn't done. If so, then I could use the same language to justify the slaughtering of buffalo by the white man--recent generations have not done that.

My point was that the native Americans were not innocent of evil. Neither were the European Americans. And it's all a rabbit trail.

 

[Teofrastus]

It has a bearing on the "intelligent design hypothesis". A God that is involved in evolution, a deus faber, does not belong in Christian theology. It seems utterly out of character for the Christian God to create such horrible slaughter. It also contradicts the doctrine of the Fall. The horrors of earthly life are a consequence of the Fall, and not God's "intelligent design" of the evolutionary process. Why should God design such cruel life-forms? The conclusion is that we cannot integrate biology with theology. It doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur. The doctrine of the Fall remains true, anyway.

 

[Aaron112]

My point was that the native Americans were not innocent of evil.

Not saying all of them were innocent of evil -
but your source/ reference was not about native Americans at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because whale oil isn't mentioned in the bible? So you're suggesting that God could not have possibly foreseen what future generations would use animals for? That seems like a short-sighted view of God.

To you, perhaps, but not to me.

So you compare an explicit permission with silence and say that means implicit permission. That's a dangerous precedent to set. Kind of a Nadab and Abihu thing from Lev 10.

So you keep trying to say, but without any proof. The text, if taken explicitly, says the opposite.


No, they support the opposite understanding. You're reading your view into the text.


No, they don't. Not for Adam.


That's because the Bible mentions neither T-Rex not watermelons. But it does mention eating plants, and later, after world conditions had changed, eating meat.

God didn't write Genesis. Genesis was written in Hebrew, at the time of Moses. Moses is typically observed as the author of the Pentateuch. So no, it's not talking about whale oil lol. The authors and audience would have had no awareness of such things. And thus, they weren't talking about them.

Have you ever opened up the book of Psalms and read verses about cell phones and space shuttles?

This is why YEC hermeneutics continually fail. They don't understand the blatant issue of scientific concordism.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because whale oil isn't mentioned in the bible? So you're suggesting that God could not have possibly foreseen what future generations would use animals for? That seems like a short-sighted view of God.

To you, perhaps, but not to me.

So you compare an explicit permission with silence and say that means implicit permission. That's a dangerous precedent to set. Kind of a Nadab and Abihu thing from Lev 10.

So you keep trying to say, but without any proof. The text, if taken explicitly, says the opposite.


No, they support the opposite understanding. You're reading your view into the text.


No, they don't. Not for Adam.


That's because the Bible mentions neither T-Rex not watermelons. But it does mention eating plants, and later, after world conditions had changed, eating meat.

Subdue and rule in the Bible are terms used with relation to war conquest. It's not a matter of opinion, it's just a fact.

Here are the 13 uses for subdue:
War conquest:
Numbers 32:21
Numbers 32:29
Joshua 18:1
2 Samuel 8:11
Chronicles 22:18
Zechariah 9:15
Enslavement:
2 chron 28:10
Nehemiah 5:5
Jeremiah 34:11 and 16
Trampling (God trampling sin and destroying it)
Micah 7:19
Physical assault of a woman:
Esther 7:9

Now when we go back to Genesis, this same term is being used with relation to wild birds and fish.

 

[Aaron112]

God didn't write Genesis.

He Says Clearly He Did.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because whale oil isn't mentioned in the bible? So you're suggesting that God could not have possibly foreseen what future generations would use animals for? That seems like a short-sighted view of God.

To you, perhaps, but not to me.

So you compare an explicit permission with silence and say that means implicit permission. That's a dangerous precedent to set. Kind of a Nadab and Abihu thing from Lev 10.

So you keep trying to say, but without any proof. The text, if taken explicitly, says the opposite.


No, they support the opposite understanding. You're reading your view into the text.


No, they don't. Not for Adam.


That's because the Bible mentions neither T-Rex not watermelons. But it does mention eating plants, and later, after world conditions had changed, eating meat.

The text does not explicitly say the opposite with respect to consumption of food.

Genesis 9:3 states:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Genesis 9:3

Some people read this verse in scripture and think that this is the first time God sets a rule in which people can eat meat. However, if we read the verse right before and after it:

A. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
B. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 9:2‭-‬4

And what we see is that God says that the fear of dread is on every animal, into your hand they're delivered, and Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. then afterwards it says "only you shall not eat flesh with it's life, that is, it's blood".

So now that we've read the full passage, now we can examine what it means.

Compare:
A. Any animal that divides the hoof and has the hoof cleft in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, you shall eat.
B. Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cleft you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:6‭-‬7

A Of all that live in water you shall eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat.
B. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:9‭-‬10

A. You shall eat any clean birds.
B. But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey,
Deuteronomy 14:11‭-‬12

A. These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the streams—such you shall eat.
B. But anything in the seas or the streams that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and among all the other living creatures that are in the waters—they are detestable to you
Leviticus 11:9‭-‬10

Notice the order in which the ancient Hebrews wrote out their dietary laws. A. Are things already approved and being consumed, B. Is a sub-specification that clarifies the ruling.

Any animals that divides the hoof, yet of those that chew the cud.

Of all that lives in water, and whatever does not have fins and scales.

All that are in the waters but not those without fins or scales.

You may eat any clean birds, but...these are the ones you shall not eat.

In every instance we see the dietary law starts out by describing what was already allowed and approved for eating, and then it follows with the updated ruling.

It would be a misunderstanding of ancient isrealite culture to believe that people prior to the book of Deuteronomy had never eaten fish or birds before.

So now let's go back to the dietary rulings in Genesis and re-read it.

The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.

A. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
B. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 9:2‭-‬4

We see the ruling in Genesis 9:4 (no animals with lifeblood), following that which was already allowed (The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered).

And so when we read the dietary law in context, we see that people didn't just randomly switch from vegans to eating meat. Rather, people always ate meat, going back to when God called on man to subdue fish and birds. When Abel gave God the fat portions in Gen 4:4, he likely ate the fresh meat. Rather than just leaving it out to rot. Just as people were already eating cows and fish and birds in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. God wasn't saying "you've never eaten fish before but now it's ok to eat them", God states that which was already approved first, which people in the times of Deuteronomy and Leviticus we're already eating, and that people were already approved to eat fish, and then God clarifies on a new subset dietary ruling, that fish without scales is more specifically now what is not approved.

And the above versus are not exhaustive, there are at least a dozen dietary rulings that are all structured with the same Hebrew syntax in the Old testament.

And all this ties into the reality that there was always death, and it was acceptable to God, going back to the earliest days of creation, and it was Good. Death is what allows for balance in ecosystems. Imagine mice multiplying infinitely without dying, it would be a nightmare. And that's why God didn't second guess using animal skin to clothe Adam and Eve.

The Ben Stanhope video can be observed here:

 

[Job 33:6]

He Says Clearly He Did.

The Pentateuch is typically attributed to Moses as the author. The Bible never says that God wrote the Pentateuch or Genesis.

 

[Aaron112]

God doesn't write in Hebrew. That's a manmade language in case you didn't know. The Pentateuch is typically attributed to Moses as the author.

You clearly have man's view in that post,
but totally miss it seems God's Word and Power.

 

[Job 33:6]

You clearly have man's view in that post,
but totally miss it seems God's Word and Power.

Saying that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is not "man's view", it's traditionally held and common. I'm sorry if you've never heard this before.

 

[Aaron112]

it's traditionally held and common.

That is directly man's view and has been for many generations/ thousands of years.

I've heard it many times,
and have
met a few only , only a few, who believe God's View.

God's View on something else, for exampe now:
Matthew 15:8-9 Amplified Bible (AMP)'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, FOR THEY TEACH AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is directly man's view and has been for many generations/ thousands of years.

I've heard it many times,
and have
met a few only , only a few, who believe God's View.

The Bible never says that God wrote it.

When you read Paul's Epistles, do you also think that God wrote it? This is a false understanding of Biblical inspiration.

And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:2‭-‬4 ESV

Do you think God is speaking in the third person about himself? Instead of saying, on the 7th day I rested, the Bible says, on the 7th day God rested. That's because some else is writing about God resting. It's not God Himself writing Genesis.

Is that how you write letters to people?

 

[Aaron112]

biblehub.com › 2_peter › 1-20.htm

2 Peter 1:20 - Bible Hub​

2 Peter 1:20 Audio Crossref Comment Greek Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. New Living Translation

Above all, you must realize that

no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet's own understanding,

 

[Aaron112]

EXB
All Scripture is ·inspired by God [breathed out by God; L God-breathed] and is useful for teaching, for ·showing people what is wrong in their lives [refuting error; rebuking], for correcting faults, and for ·teaching how to live right [training in righteousness].