Did people not eat meat before the Flood?

[grain of sand]

Hubby saw something in Genesis the other day that he had never really noticed before and I hadn't either, so now he's got me wondering about it, too.  It's not something we're agonizing over or anything like that--just curious:

In Gen 1:28-30: God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

From these lines it appears that Adam and Eve and even the animals were given permission to eat only plants, not meat.

Then in Gen 9:1-3: And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. "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. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

In these lines, God gives permission for us to eat meat as part of the covenant He makes with with Noah after the Flood.  Am I understanding these verses correctly?  If so, why did He change what foods we're allowed to eat?

Before the Flood, people lived for hundreds of years.  Were these only a few people or did everyone generally live that long?  Why did lifespans shorten considerably after the Flood?  Did the different foods people were eating before and after the Flood have anything to do with it or were there other reasons for that part of God's plan?

Any thoughts?  Or can anyone direct me to some interesting reading to help illuminate me on these points?  

 

[adam332]

God's original diet for man and I'm sure the diet man he will have again in the New earth, is a vegatarian one.

This is also seen when he provided the manna to them in the wilderness. God provided His people a meat free diet, and when they wanted quail what happened to those folks? Interestingly, this was prior to their deliverance into the promised land....

Also, He sustained Elijah in the wilderness on food from angels. Which was prior to his ascension into heaven.....

Don't forget Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were kept on a vegetarian diet. Which was prior to them standing in the fiery furnace unharmed.....

All three of which are foreshadows of the second coming. And one might even then say they are shadows of God's people before they stand in the fiery presence of His coming, their deliverance and ascension. Is this the kinda' purity it is gonna' require to be left standing when He comes? Is this the remnant that is spoken of in Revelation? Many think so. I know many who believe that those who are alive and remain will be pure of body and mind. Vegetarians undefiled by flesh , holy temples for God's Spirit. Those faithful who aren't, they believe, will be in the resurrection.

I find this subject quite curious and don't rule it out because I see a connection and in other places as well. But, I'm not a vegatarian. Is it because I'm not convicted on the subject? Or is it because I like a juicy sirloin steak so much that I'm not allowing myself to see it? Hmmmm......

 

[Knight]

Originally posted by adam332
God's original diet for man and I'm sure the diet man he will have again in the New earth, is a vegatarian one.

Interesting idea but I don't know where this is said in scripture. I'm not trying to attack this position but I'm cautious about claiming anything to be absolute that the Bible does not explicitly say.

This is also seen when he provided the manna to them in the wilderness. God provided His people a meat free diet, and when they wanted quail what happened to those folks? Interestingly, this was prior to their deliverance into the promised land....

The manna was to sustain them in the wilderness. What was the consequences of them wanting quail? This request was based on their not being satisfied with what God had already given them. In this portion of scripture the Israelites were always wining and complaining about something.

Also, God did command them to eath the passover lamb.

Also, He sustained Elijah in the wilderness on food from angels. Which was prior to his ascension into heaven.....

I don't see how this proves your point. God sustained him just as he sustained the Israelites in the wilderness.

Don't forget Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were kept on a vegetarian diet. Which was prior to them standing in the fiery furnace unharmed.....

Their decision not to eat meat was not based on being vegetarians. They refused the meat they were offered which had been sacrificed to pagan gods. Eating that meat would have been in violation of God's law. They knew this and thus refused to eat it.

All three of which are foreshadows of the second coming. And one might even then say they are shadows of God's people before they stand in the fiery presence of His coming, their deliverance and ascension. Is this the kinda' purity it is gonna' require to be left standing when He comes? Is this the remnant that is spoken of in Revelation? Many think so. I know many who believe that those who are alive and remain will be pure of body and mind. Vegetarians undefiled by flesh , holy temples for God's Spirit. Those faithful who aren't, they believe, will be in the resurrection.

On the chance that I'm misunderstanding your post I'm going to ask a question.

Are you suggesting that only those who meet certain standards will be accepted into the kingdom at the second coming? This implies that we must do something to earn our salvation and this is wrong. As I said, I don't assume that this is your position but I am asking.

I find this subject quite curious and don't rule it out because I see a connection and in other places as well. But, I'm not a vegatarian. Is it because I'm not convicted on the subject? Or is it because I like a juicy sirloin steak so much that I'm not allowing myself to see it? Hmmmm......

God told Peter in a vision to kill and eat and not declare anything unclean that God has made clean. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you.

 

[JesusServant]

Just as a footnote to knight's post...

When he gave Peter that vision, it was to let him know that Gentiles were now worthy, and not to deny the gentile that God had send for Peter...

I've wondered that too about the plants in Genesis.  I believe God had everything worked out in the Garden of Eden so that no living thing would have to be killed.  However, if you look at plants as living things, that debunks my theory altogether

 

[Knight]

Originally posted by JesusServant
Just as a footnote to knight's post...

When he gave Peter that vision, it was to let him know that Gentiles were now worthy, and not to deny the gentile that God had send for Peter...

I've wondered that too about the plants in Genesis.  I believe God had everything worked out in the Garden of Eden so that no living thing would have to be killed.  However, if you look at plants as living things, that debunks my theory altogether

You're absolutely right. That was the intent of Peter's vision. My point was that the fact that God did not discourage Peter from eating meat.

 

[adam332]

Knight,
I'm not sure what part you were not getting.

I never once stated any connection here as Biblical fact or doctrine, it may be shear coincidence. All I did was point some items out that millions do believe. I was pretty clear that it IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE OR FOLLOW!
But, was curious and MAY HAVE merit.

You said:
"Are you suggesting that only those who meet certain standards will be accepted into the kingdom at the second coming? This implies that we must do something to earn our salvation and this is wrong. As I said, I don't assume that this is your position but I am asking"

Maybe you should just start over and read my post from the begining again, because if you had paid attention I said "Those faithful who aren't(vegetarians), they believe, will be in the resurrection.".

I said quite plainly that this subject WAS NOT MY POSITION, and I said quite plainly THEY BELIEVE THE NON-VEGETAIANS WILL BE IN THE RESURRECTION.

And BTW the passage you metioned about the sheet coming down has nothing to do with things we sould or should not eat, please read the rest of the chapter and he tells you exactly what the sheet meant.

 

[Knight]

I did read your post and, as I said, I was not trying to attack you. I was just trying to make sure that this was not something you were teaching. Your post could have been taken either way. I was just looking for confirmation. That's all.

BTW, I have read the entire chapter you are referring to. As I said in a previous post I agree that the intent of this passage has nothing to do with eating meat or not. The point is that God did not comdem the eating of meat in that context.

Also, I like sirloin too but I think that prime rib is may favorite.

 

[grain of sand]

Fascinating--I appreciate the input.  Now, what about the other part of my question?  Any takers?:

Before the Flood, people lived for hundreds of years.  Were these only a few people or did everyone generally live that long?  Why did lifespans shorten considerably after the Flood?  Did the different foods people were eating before and after the Flood have anything to do with it or were there other reasons for that part of God's plan? 

 

[JesusServant]

Good questions.  I've always wondered why God shortened the years of man.  I wondered if this was because the people of Noah's time had become evil and that resisting evil for that long was very difficult.  The 'trials of life' were beating people down over that long of a timetable.  That's the only theory I have, but it bases nothing on scripture, so it's unfounded...

 

[Knight]

I don't think the food had anything to do with the shortened lifespans. There are people in the world today who eat all vegetables and they don't live any longer than the rest of us.

The popular theory on the lifespans is the degenerating aspect of sin in the world. Adam and Eve were perfect in their physical creation. However, when they sinned that allowed death to enter the world. "The wages of sin is death." Since then it's been a process of our physical bodies becoming more and more suceptable to disease and genetic problems. In recent history we've been able to counteract some of this with medical technology. We've also learned that certain things can contribute to a shorter life. (Smoking, excessive drinking, smashing your car into a brick wall, smacking a Teamster across the rear with a wet towel, etc....)
This is why we've seen a rise in lifespans in recent years.

Just my $0.20.

 

[grain of sand]

I tend to agree, Knight.  After a little more cogitating, I don't really think diet had much to do with it either.   

Still interested in why God decided to allow the eating of meat as part of His covenant with Noah, though.  Please continue, if anyone has any thoughts on this.

BTW, make mine medium rare.

 

[JesusServant]

I must've missed something, I didn't realize anyone put food and lifespans together.  I think the threadstarter was just asking two seperate questions...

 

[adam332]

While I agree that food is not the reason for the dramatic decrease in post flood life expectancy. It has to be a factor, however minor. But, the "popular reasons" put forth here don't sit well with me either.

Sin had been afoot for quite some time and yet we see the oldest recorded individual died the year of the flood(Methuselah). If the increase of sin was directly related to this dramatic decrease of life expectancy, then why is it not proportionate? Why was the life expectancy the same throughout the pre-flood era? And,why would it decrease AFTER He wiped the sinners off the earth? If sin on earth was the gauge, then we should have seen an increase in post flood longevity, not a decrease.

The most logical conclusion is that it was enviroment. It had never rained during the pre-flood era but, we know that the water was up there, because it rained and flooded hard and long enough to destroy all life on earth.

So what was the rain doing up there and how, if it was in the form of clouds, did it manage not to fall for the first 1,656 yrs???? Was it in the form of clouds? Interestingly there is no mention of any pre-flood clouds.
But, there is something described as water over the earth....

Gen. 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The book of Job which is thought by many scholars to pre-date Moses and his writings, says this about God's creative work.....

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a MOLTEN LOOKING GLASS?

Many theorize that the pre-flood world was under a canopy of frozen hydrogen, thus leaving the atmospere with a much higher oxgen content and a increased atmospheric pressure. If this were the case, the world would have been a huge hyper-baric chamber, thus causing all life to be prolonged dramatically. It would account for the Biblical pre-flood longetivity, as well as explain why, and how it didn't rain, and give us a better idea of what the "waters above the waters" meant.

This also combined with a filtration of the suns rays through the hydrogen canopy, would have a side effect of lifeforms being giant. This would account for the fossil record where we see 6ft. dragonflies, and sharks big enough to swallow a bus, ferns the sizes of trees, etc....

Some also believe, that this could be better described as sheet of metalized hydrogen. Hydrogen has been examined as a possible metal under high enough pressure, by the scientific community. If so, it would produce the same effects as the before mentioned ice canopy. The metal would be translucent allowing for light to pass, while yet still filtering the suns harmful rays at certain pressures and/or thicknesses.

Please see: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/6

Also, I would recommend a two sets of video tapes, which show some really interesting theories on these issues, "Creation in Symphony: The Model" and "Creation in Symphony: The Evidence".

Please see: http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html

It's been quite awhile since I have studied on the supernatural and physical aspects of creation, so I'm a little rusty and I hope you can understand what I was trying to tell you....

 

[adam332]

PS No Moooooo for me. Medium well.

 

[Knight]

The contention that lifespans became shorter due to sin in the world is a valid one. I'm not suggesting that the reasons you cited are not valid also but allow me to clarify what I meant.

Sin contributed to the shorter lifespans in that they began to get shorter on average after the fall. This is not to suggest that the more a person sins the quicker they die. That is not the intent at all. The degenerative power of sin refers to the fact that sin is in the world and has has this effect on humanity as a race.

I would say that it was a combination of many things including the things you mentioned. Lifespans did significantly begin to decrease after the flood though they were still longer than we would think compared to the current average. Abraham was 70 when God called him and 90 (or was it 100?)when Issac was born. He lived to be 175. Moses lived to be 125.

 

[grain of sand]

Many theorize that the pre-flood world was under a canopy of frozen hydrogen, thus leaving the atmospere with a much higher oxgen content and a increased atmospheric pressure. If this were the case, the world would have been a huge hyper-baric chamber, thus causing all life to be prolonged dramatically. It would account for the Biblical pre-flood longetivity, as well as explain why, and how it didn't rain, and give us a better idea of what the "waters above the waters" meant.

This also combined with a filtration of the suns rays through the hydrogen canopy, would have a side effect of lifeforms being giant. This would account for the fossil record where we see 6ft. dragonflies, and sharks big enough to swallow a bus, ferns the sizes of trees, etc....

Thank you, adam332.  Hubby's been kicking around a similar theory lately, but I'd never thought or read about any of this before so I was wondering about him a little bit, even though he's usually pretty sensible.  He's been telling me about the Glen Rose footprints almost since the day we met, though.  Thanks for the links! 

I don't know what I think yet.  I'll have to study on it some more.

Who's cookin'?  You got that grill fired up yet?

 

[DeputyDan]

I agree to the thought that meat was not a food prior to the flood.

First, there would have to be death in the Garden for meat to be a food source.

Second, God made the blood sacrifice for Adam/Eve by killing the animals and providing skins to cover them (for sin and protection)

Third, God tells Noah that after the flood meat is an acceptable food source.

 

[footballfanatic]

I have researched the vegetarian thing. Tried to be one. Still try. I believe it is a healthier diet. I have read several books on the subject. The best diet, I believe, is one in which you eat your fruits and veggies raw. Think about it, isn't that what was done in the garden of eden?

I take a supplement that is raw fruit and veggie extract. It's called Juice Plus. It is to ensure that you get the amount you should each day. My uncle began taking it when he got cancer, and when he returned three months later to become Kemo, they turned him away. He was cancer free and had a lower cancer count than even normal people. I believe that the fruit and veggie extracts (which are in concentrated amounts) helped him greatly.

Vegetables and fruit are what monkeys eat, and they are primates just like us. Our teeth, with the exception of the k-9's, are flat and our colon is curved--just like vegetarians in the animal world.

Perhaps God meant for us to be on a vegetarian diet.

Lee

 

[adam332]

Yes Leesw, good points but don't fail to mention the length of our intestines. Meat eaters our size do not have 22 ft of intestines. This would cause the meat to sit and rot in your system for 8+ hrs. Fruits and veggies travel swiftly through us and that is why vegetarians are balanced with long intestines and meat eaters are balanced with short intestines.

The proof is in the design....

Also since we are talking original design I would have to rule out veggies as well. Man wasn't made to toil the ground for his food until after sin. Before sin he ate of the fruit which he picked.