› ›

What did the carnivors in paradise eat?

HailemikaelHailemikael
edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
Before the fall of man, he used to live with animals (lions, tigers, bears etc,) right?

So, what did the lions and tigers eat? Did they hunt like they do now?

Thanks.

Comments

  • neighbor
    everything and everyone ate of the plants, there were no carnivores, they all lived in harmony with eachother :)
  • HailemikaelHailemikael
    [quote author=pie link=topic=7652.msg100380#msg100380 date=1235165328]
    everything and everyone ate of the plants, there were no carnivores, they all lived in harmony with eachother :)


    Oh, ok. Thanks a lot.
  • Unknown
    I've heard this before, so I'm sure you're right, but How do we know?

    George
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Genesis says...

    Genesis 1:30  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.

    In Christ

    Deacon Peter
  • neighbor
    and to add to what peterfarrington said,

    What the Lord said after they came out of Noah's ark, and began to eat animals:

    "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.
    Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs"
    -Genesis 9:2-3
  • Unknown
    Thanks,

    You're definitely right!  Thanks for the clarification. 

    This implies some very interesting things.

    Humans didn't eat meat for the first fifteen and a half centuries, but they did wear skins for clothing.  This further implies that flocks were raised for the primary purpose of using their skins for clothing and not eating the meat of the animal.  An act I find horrible if done today, but they didn't have alternative means of making clothing yet, so I guess I can give them a break.

    Another interesting topic to reopen is God's preference of Abel's sacrifice to Cain's.  Cain's offering was from his food, while Abel's was from his clothing.  This seems to put a great deal of importance on the fact that Abel sacrificed the first born of his flock

    Yet another interesting fact is that present day carivores can't live on plants.  I wonder if this is a supporting argument for microevolution (not macroevolution). . .

    George
  • neighbor
    [quote author=GArgiriadis link=topic=7652.msg100439#msg100439 date=1235358955]
    Humans didn't eat meat for the first fifteen and a half centuries, but they did wear skins for clothing.  This further implies that flocks were raised for the primary purpose of using their skins for clothing and not eating the meat of the animal.  An act I find horrible if done today, but they didn't have alternative means of making clothing yet, so I guess I can give them a break.


    Really? I didnt know that they just killed them so they can use their skin for clothing!, i thought that they used sheep to make wool for clothing, like just shave them and use their fur and keep them alive? So God let them to kill an animal just to use its skin and throw away the rest?
  • Unknown
    Gen 3:21, . . .  God gives them the skins.

    It's really inconclusive and improbable that they figured out how to make wool clothing and it doesn't say that God taught it to them.  But, given how much easier it is to cure skins, I'd say its a safe bet they followed God's prototype for clothing.

    George
  • neighbor
    :) ooo i get it thanks!
  • Pharaoh714Pharaoh714
    They didnt throw away the body they would take the skin , and with the blood they would use it as a form of repentance and burn the rest of the body.


    Also what about dinosours? what does the church believe about their existance?
  • Unknown
    wait GArgiriadis you said carnivors can't live with our meat? aren't we carnivors and there are people who are vegetarians or Vegans for their whole life or most of it.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Humans are omnivores, which means that we can and do eat a variety of foodstuffs, and can therefore be vegetarian. If a human attempted to eat only meat it would not be very healthy, and a vegan has to be careful. Humans tend to be healthy eating less meat than many of us do in the West, but some meat with plenty of vegetables and fruit.

    In Christ

    Father Peter
  • Christ4LifeChrist4Life
    [quote author=GArgiriadis link=topic=7652.msg100439#msg100439 date=1235358955]
    Thanks,

    You're definitely right!  Thanks for the clarification. 

    This implies some very interesting things.

    Humans didn't eat meat for the first fifteen and a half centuries, but they did wear skins for clothing.  This further implies that flocks were raised for the primary purpose of using their skins for clothing and not eating the meat of the animal.  An act I find horrible if done today, but they didn't have alternative means of making clothing yet, so I guess I can give them a break.

    Another interesting topic to reopen is God's preference of Abel's sacrifice to Cain's.  Cain's offering was from his food, while Abel's was from his clothing.  This seems to put a great deal of importance on the fact that Abel sacrificed the first born of his flock

    Yet another interesting fact is that present day carivores can't live on plants.  I wonder if this is a supporting argument for microevolution (not macroevolution). . .

    George


    God's acceptance of Abel's sacrifice and His refusal of Cain's has nothing to do with Abel's being his firstborn or anything of the like. God accepted Abel's sacrifice because Abel offered God a lamb; an animal, a bloody sacrifice. On the other hand, Cain offered fruits and vegetables, which he knows do not fulfill God's requirements.
  • Unknown
    I think the importance of the blood sacrifice was so that it can serve as a setup of God's ultimate plan of the Word taking flesh and dying for our salvation.

    That's fine in hindsight, but did they know that then?
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    I had always read the passage about the rejection of Cain's sacrifice and thought that it was to do with his attitude, not the content of his offering.

    Genesis 4:6-7  And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

    God doesn't mention anything about Cain having offered the wrong things. Rather that he has not done well. Now this could be taken as meaning that he had not sacrificed properly, but that would not really fit in with the idea that if he did not sacrifice meat then sin would be at the door. Whereas if it has the sense of sacrificing with a bad attitude then it makes sense that sin is waiting to gain control over his heart.

    I think that there is some interesting linkage (which I haven't thought of before) in Cain's gifts of the fruits of the earth and our own offering of wheat and grapes in the Eucharist. We offer these and they are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord. I am not sure that I would want to read the passage as saying that Cain's offering could never have been acceptable because it was not meat, rather it seems to me to say that with the right attitude all that we offer is taken up by God and transformed, while with the wrong attitude even the fruit of our toil and effort (and outside of Eden the effort of farming was a real one) is unacceptable.

    Of course, in terms of meditating on the Scripture, there is also that clear connection between the offering of a lamb as the first sacrifice to God and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God Himself.

    In Christ

    Father Peter
  • MozesMozes
    [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=7652.msg100631#msg100631 date=1235986325]

    I think that there is some interesting linkage (which I haven't thought of before) in Cain's gifts of the fruits of the earth and our own offering of wheat and grapes in the Eucharist. We offer these and they are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord. Father Peter


    Dear Abouna Peter,

    Someone asked this similiar question the other day and there was no adequate reply to it. Why did our Lord choose wine and bread as his blood and body? For instance, he could have chosen water and meat or something else? I am certain there is significance to it but I do not know why. I believe, I ought to know it as coptic orthodox and as someone who takes the Holy communion regulary.

    Pray for me,

    Moses
Sign In or Register to comment.