Theistic evolution and the nature of God

[Derf]

Having dominion over wild fish, birds and over the earth doesn't mean that you eat dirt haha.

But it does mean that mankind has full authority to use the earth for mankinds purposes, along with wild fish and birds. Namely in the sense of catching and eating fish. Because obviously ancient isrealites weren't going around making aquariums.

Also, I didn't quote Genesis 1:26, I quoted Genesis 1:28:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 KJV

Based on the harshness of the terms, I would say that the text clearly does involve God giving mankind permission to eat meat. It additionally involves mankind receiving permission to use animals for clothing, sacrifices, agriculture etc.

Further support for this understanding comes from Genesis chapter 9, which heavily parallels Genesis chapter 2 and 3.

The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Genesis 9:2‭-‬3 ESV

The text parallels Genesis 1:28, confirming that 1:28 initially involved the consumption of meat.

This is the definition of parallel that you are trying to use:
"a person or thing that is similar or analogous to another."
You are correct that those passage parallel each other, but that means they are similar or analogous, not that they are saying the same exact thing.

Gen 9:3 explains the difference:
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

"As I gave you" is referring to a past action. "I give you" is referring to a present action. So at the time God was speaking to Noah, He compared the previous action, giving the green plants for food in Gen 2, with the present action, giving the animals for food in Gen 9. This is a distinction, not an equality, between the two passages. So it actually says exactly the opposite of what you inferred from it.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is the definition of parallel that you are trying to use:
"a person or thing that is similar or analogous to another."
You are correct that those passage parallel each other, but that means they are similar or analogous, not that they are saying the same exact thing.

Gen 9:3 explains the difference:
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

"As I gave you" is referring to a past action. "I give you" is referring to a present action. So at the time God was speaking to Noah, He compared the previous action, giving the green plants for food in Gen 2, with the present action, giving the animals for food in Gen 9. This is a distinction, not an equality, between the two passages. So it actually says exactly the opposite of what you inferred from it.

You don't seem to be paying very close attention.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 9:3‭-‬4 ESV

Did you ignore my video references? The sentence structure actually indicates that animals were already permitted for consumption.

 

[Job 33:6]

You don't seem to be paying very close attention.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 9:3‭-‬4 ESV

Did you ignore my video references? The sentence structure actually indicates that animals were already permitted for consumption.

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 shall 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 may 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.

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:

 

[Derf]

You don't seem to be paying very close attention.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 9:3‭-‬4 ESV

Did you ignore my video references? The sentence structure actually indicates that animals were already permitted for consumption.

Your video references conveniently redefine parts of the verses. So they make themselves to be not credible.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your video references conveniently redefine parts of the verses. So they make themselves to be not credible.

Seems to be a shallow response to all I've noted above. Did you notice the syntax of dietary prohibitions that begin by identifying foods that are already permitted for consumption?

Example:
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 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

I would imagine you're aware that isrealites were eating clean birds and fish before the above ruling was given.

Right?

The dietary prohibitions begin with that which is already permitted.

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

It's plain as day. Every moving thing that lives was already permitted. The prohibition follows with relation to consumption of animals with lifeblood.

Which is accurately in line with Genesis 1:28 in which God gave mankind permission to use animals for human purposes, including consumption, when we were commanded to subdue and rule wild fish and birds. Ie, including to eat them.

 

[Derf]

Seems to be a shallow response to all I've noted above. Did you notice the syntax of dietary prohibitions that begin by identifying foods that are already permitted for consumption?

Example:
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 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

I would imagine you're aware that isrealites were eating clean birds and fish before the above ruling was given.

Right?

The dietary prohibitions begin with that which is already permitted.

But what was permitted before? Gen 9:2 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you...
Then it changed to A. only eating the clean foods, which is clarified by B. Which foods are not clean, so not allowed. Your own post contradicts your point.

Gen 2 is restrictive, Gen 9 is less restrictive, Levitical law is more restrictive.

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

It's plain as day. Every moving thing that lives was already permitted.

This is not plain at all. Only plants were mentioned in Gen 2, and Gen 9 adds meat to the plants explicitly. You can try to make it say something else, but you're wrong when compared to what Gen 9:2-3 says.

The prohibition follows with relation to consumption of animals with lifeblood.

Which is accurately in line with Genesis 1:28 in which God gave mankind permission to use animals for human purposes, including consumption, when we were commanded to subdue and rule wild fish and birds. Ie, including to eat them.

I already showed that the language of subduing is applied to the earth--therefore Gen 1:28 (as well as 1:26) mustn't mean that they were allowed to eat those things, but were allowed to use those things. Perhaps whales could be killed for whale oil, or elephants for ivory, but the wording says that vegetarianism was introduced in Gen 2, while carnivory was added in Gen 9.

 

[Job 33:6]

But what was permitted before?

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

Every moving thing was permitted before, as noted in 9:3.

Or do you mean before 9:3? Genesis 1:28

God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Genesis 1:28

Birds, fish, and creeping things were permitted.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you...
Then it changed to A. only eating the clean foods, which is clarified by B. Which foods are not clean, so not allowed. Your own post contradicts your point.

It's a prohibition identifying unclean foods in part B, thereby making a distinction among that which is clean and unclean. I'm not sure where you feel there is a contradiction.

Gen 2 is restrictive, Gen 9 is less restrictive, Levitical law is more restrictive.

I never quoted Genesis 2. Do you mean 9:2?

Levitical law is introducing prohibitions and is therefore subsequently more restrictive than earlier prohibitions.

This is not plain at all. Only plants were mentioned in Gen 2, and Gen 9 adds meat to the plants explicitly. You can try to make it say something else, but you're wrong when compared to what Gen 9:2-3 says.

Do you mean Genesis 1:28? We've already covered this:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 KJV

Animals are mentioned in 1:28. I never said anything about Genesis 2.

I already showed that the language of subduing is applied to the earth--therefore Gen 1:28 (as well as 1:26) mustn't mean that they were allowed to eat those things, but were allowed to use those things. Perhaps whales could be killed for whale oil, or elephants for ivory, but the wording says that vegetarianism was introduced in Gen 2, while carnivory was added in Gen 9.

1:28 is referring to subduing earth and thereby ruling animals.

1:26 is rendered in different ways depending on your translation:

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
Genesis 1:26 NRSV

Wild animals of the earth as opposed to having dominion of the earth. But even still, having dominion over the earth would not contradict having dominion over animals.

1:26-28 is wording that allows for consumption of meat. It is inclusive language. And ancient isrealites wouldn't have been thinking of using whales for lamp oil. That's 1900s cultural context that is anachronistic. The text is simply referring to eating wild fish.

Could you imagine God telling ancient isrealites that they may use whales for whale oil, thousands of years before such a thing was ever discovered? Lol. People back then didn't even know what whales were. Let alone could they have understood that as a text for use of whale oil.

 

[Job 33:6]

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



It's a prohibition identifying unclean foods. I'm not sure where you feel there is a contradiction.

I never quoted Genesis 2. Do you mean 9:2?

Do you mean Genesis 1:28? We already covered this:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 KJV

Animals are mentioned in 1:28. I never said anything about Genesis 2.

1:28 is wording that allows for consumption of meat. It is inclusive language. And ancient isrealites wouldn't have been thinking of using whales for lamp oil haha. That's 1900s cultural context that is anachronistic. The text is simply referring to eating wild fish.

Could you imagine God telling ancient isrealites that they may use whales for whale oil, thousands of years before such a thing was ever discovered? Lol. People back then didn't even know what whales were. Let alone could they have understood that as a text for use of whale oil.

So let's re-cap the order here.

Genesis 1:28, mankind is given authority to subdue and rule over wild fish and birds. Language inclusive of consumption for food.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 KJV

Genesis 9:4, in a classic formula introduces prohibitive language (But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.) to that which was already permitted Genesis 9:3 (Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.).

And 9:3 really is just paralleling 1:28. They are descriptions of God clarifying on similar concepts. Just as Genesis 9:1 parallels Adam and Eves right to reproduce. Genesis 9 is a repeat of Genesis 1.

And with that, you seem to acknowledge consumption of meat in Genesis 9. I'm informing you that this is further evidence that consumption of meat was likewise permitted in Genesis 1:28.

The distinction between the two chapters is that subdue and rule, which is aggressive language used in war conquest activities, is replaced by "fear and dread".

 

[Job 33:6]

So let's re-cap the order here.

Genesis 1:28, mankind is given authority to subdue and rule over wild fish and birds. Language inclusive of consumption for food.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 KJV

Genesis 9:4, in a classic formula introduces prohibitive language (But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.) to that which was already permitted Genesis 9:3 (Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.).

And 9:3 really is just paralleling 1:28. They are descriptions of God clarifying on similar concepts. Just as Genesis 9:1 parallels Adam and Eves right to reproduce. Genesis 9 is a repeat of Genesis 1.

And with that, you seem to acknowledge consumption of meat in Genesis 9. I'm informing you that this is further evidence that consumption of meat was likewise permitted in Genesis 1:28.

The distinction between the two chapters is that subdue and rule, which is aggressive language used in war conquest activities, is replaced by "fear and dread".

And one additional note here:

Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;
Genesis 7:2

Genesis 7 on Noah's ark refers to animals that are clean and not clean before Genesis 9:3-4. The text doesn't identify when the first prohibitions related to unclean animals are, as far as I am aware.

 

[Derf]

So let's re-cap the order here.

Genesis 1:28, mankind is given authority to subdue and rule over wild fish and birds. Language inclusive of consumption for food.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 KJV

Genesis 9:4, in a classic formula introduces prohibitive language (But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.) to that which was already permitted Genesis 9:3 (Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.).

And 9:3 really is just paralleling 1:28. They are descriptions of God clarifying on similar concepts. Just as Genesis 9:1 parallels Adam and Eves right to reproduce. Genesis 9 is a repeat of Genesis 1.

And with that, you seem to acknowledge consumption of meat in Genesis 9. I'm informing you that this is further evidence that consumption of meat was likewise permitted in Genesis 1:28.

The distinction between the two chapters is that subdue and rule, which is aggressive language used in war conquest activities, is replaced by "fear and dread".

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.

Could you imagine God telling ancient isrealites that they may use whales for whale oil, thousands of years before such a thing was ever discovered? Lol. People back then didn't even know what whales were

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

And one additional note here:

Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;
Genesis 7:2

Genesis 7 on Noah's ark refers to animals that are clean and not clean before Genesis 9:3-4. The text doesn't identify when the first prohibitions related to unclean animals are, as far as I am aware.

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.

 

[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.

Genesis 2, does not give an addition to the diet, no more to any other dietary prohibitions in Deuteronomy or Leviticus.

A. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep. Any animal that divides the hoof and has the hoof cleft in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, you may 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 14:4‭-‬7

It is not as though ancient isrealites were not previously permitted to eat goat or sheep.

A. Of all that live in water you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. And

B. whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.
Deuteronomy 14:9‭-‬10

It is not as though ancient isrealites had not formerly been permitted to eat fish with fins and scales.

A. You may 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

It It's not as though ancient Israelites had not formally been permitted to eat clean birds.

Dietary rulings initially present animals that were already being consumed and that which were permitted to eat, and the prohibition simply adds an additional limitations to that which was already permitted.

 

[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.

Regarding whale oil, the text must be read in its original context. It's not about what we think 3,000 years in the future. It's about what they thought. The original authors and audience.

This is a major hermeneutical issue that the church struggles a great deal with today. The text does not mean today what it never meant back then.

Whale oil wasn't discovered for thousands of years in the future. The original author would not have had whale oil in mind as a potential option related to dominion over them. The original author likely didn't even know that whales existed, let alone whale oil for things like lamps or motorized vehicles.

Also, it wouldn't make sense for God to give permission to ancient isrealites to do something that they had no ability to even do. Like God giving mankind permission to fly a spacecraft to the moon. Such permissions are anachronistic and would have been nonsensical to the original authors and audience.

 

[BeyondET]

Yes, that's true, but was there rain after the creation of man before the flood? Maybe, yet there is evidence in scripture that it didn't start until the flood. The rainbow is the most clear.
Genesis 9:12-17 KJV — And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

The statement says God's rainbow not just any ol rainbow.

Rev 4:3
The one seated there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian stone. A rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald surrounded the throne.

 

[Derf]

The statement says God's rainbow not just any ol rainbow.

Rev 4:3
The one seated there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian stone. A rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald surrounded the throne.

But the rainbow God set in the clouds was not like an emerald, but like the ones we are today. It was a reminder to God of His covenant with man and beast not to ever destroy the while world with a flood again. If it was unlike our rainbows, then we don't really get that assurance, since we're no longer seeing what God showed Noah.

 

[Diamond7]

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you

Everything is food, but there is clean and unclean food. Even on the ark there were clean and unclean animals.

 

[BeyondET]

But the rainbow God set in the clouds was not like an emerald, but like the ones we are today. It was a reminder to God of His covenant with man and beast not to ever destroy the while world with a flood again. If it was unlike our rainbows, then we don't really get that assurance, since we're no longer seeing what God showed Noah.

Well it doesn't really say what the rainbow looked liked. But is the rainbow around the throne like our rainbows. Isn't the name in itself mean it's caused by rain.

If there is a rainbow around the throne it must be raining also.

 

[Diamond7]

If there is a rainbow around the throne it must be raining also.

You can make a rainbow with a prison. The color is in the light. The earth is dull and drab comparted to Heaven where we are told that the colors are so much brighter there. People like crystal and reinstone because it puts a little but of color in their life. They capture and reflect some of the color that is in the light. In Heaven sand will be made out of what precious stones here on Earth.

 

[Derf]

Well it doesn't really say what the rainbow looked liked. But is the rainbow around the throne like our rainbows. Isn't the name in itself mean it's caused by rain.

If there is a rainbow around the throne it must be raining also.

The Greek word for rainbow is "iris". Sometimes it's translated "halo". The word used in the Noah story is translated "bow", like an archer's bow. Neither require it to be raining if God has other ways to produce it, but the gist of the Noah story is that it is what we call the rainbow, and is expected to be seen along with rain, so we know that He'll keep His promise relating to rain (not using it to destroy the whole earth again).
Iris was also used to mean the silvery halo seen around the moon when there are clouds. It is only used 2 times, both in Revelation, and neither with rain in the vision, as far as we can tell, though one time with clouds (Rev 10:1).

 

[Aaron112]

If there is a rainbow around the throne it must be raining also.

"Reigning" Yahweh Reigns !

 

[Aaron112]

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

Not the way the evil whalers 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.