Six days you may do work, but on the Seventh day, a Sabbath (Shabbat) of Sabbath Observance (Shabbaton), holy to the Lord; everyone that does work on the Sabbath (Shabbat) must die.
In this place min (from, out of , more than) should be understood "out of" or "from among." Nowhere does the Bible refer to animals being cursed at the fall. The Serpent/Satan was cursed because of what he did. What did the animals do?“Cursed are you [Satan/serpent] above [or more than] all the livestock and all the wild animals” (Gen 3:14a)
For the same type of symbolism see (animals and then shown to be people or nations):But I do not think God would include information about animals that was simply symbolic of something else, like peace between man. That's already said in an obvious way, so there would be no need to state it in another, more ambiguous way.
In Genesis 1:29-30 God is talking to Adam. He tells Adam what he was to eat and then says animals will also eat plants. God does not give animals instructions on what they should eat. He does not limit them like He did Adam. In fact in Gen. 9:3-4 God changed man's diet, but never changed the animal's.
Meaning is determined by context. There is no context to suggest that animals (who had done nothing) were cursed.I very much disagree with you on the wording of Genesis 3:14, however, since the bible translations and commentaries use what I have presented here, not what you claim.
I have always held Genesis to be literal history. My point was that God was speaking to Adam, not giving a command to the animals. I did not say that you claimed that for Gen. 9. But, this is the logical place for a change. Since the Bible specifies man's diet and then specifies a change, why would God "specify" the animal's diet, but not mention it changing.If you want to view it symbolically, or the whole creation account allegorically or metaphorically, then that is up to you. But I think this statement is very plain. And, I never said that God changed the animals' diets in Gen 9.
I showed you from the text and other examples why not to take it literally. This has nothing to do with it being plausable or not.I would like to add that Mal Couch, in An Introduction ot Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation (Kregel 2000), uses Isaiah 65:25 as a specific example of when NOT to take something symbolically when it seems "naturally" implausable (pp 74-75).
"I have given " in verse 30 is not part of the text. It is taken from God saying it in verse 29, showing that this is one continuous statement.And God blessed them (man); 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 (to them), "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the surface of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, every green herb for food:"
And it was so.
God never called Creation perfect, He called it Very Good. This was in contrast to Gen. 1:2. Each day that was called "GOOD" was one in which God changed one of those initial conditions. Notice day two is not called Good.
The first thing I will say is that Gen. 1:29 is not where people got the idea that man was to be a herbivore. That came from God saying that He was going to add to man's diet (Gen. 9:3-4). Without this text people reading Gen. 1:29 or hearing it would just assume that God was telling man that plants were a food source. The text does not say "you shall only eat vegetation." The people in Moses' day already ate plants, as well as meat.
This whole section is spoken to man, not the animals.
"I have given " in verse 30 is not part of the text. It is taken from God saying it in verse 29, showing that this is one continuous statement.
There are two parts to what God tells man. The first is about his ruling. The second is about food sources. Like I said, the only tip that man's diet is restricted is found in Gen. 9:3-4.
God never gave instructions to the animals as to what to eat and He never changed their diets. So, to assume that their diets were restricted to herbs is unwarranted.
Also, there is the problem with the water creatures. Their diet is not mentioned at all.
Ps. 104:21, 28 show that God is responsible for the carnivores and it is seen as GOOD. If it was not good be for the Fall why would it be good after the Fall? God provides the food for both the carnivorous birds and mammals (Job 38:39-41; Ps. 147:9; Luke 12:24)
Usually the main objection to animals eating animals before the Fall has to do with God calling all that He created "GOOD." I've said about this before:God never called Creation perfect, He called it Very Good. This was in contrast to Gen. 1:2. Each day that was called "GOOD" was one in which God changed one of those initial conditions. Notice day two is not called Good.
Yes, I went outside the text.
I will agree that it is an instruction to man, but it only informs him that animals too eat vegetation. Most land animals to this day eat vegetation to one degree or another and this would have been the case during Moses' day. This would have been the most likely understanding of the hearers.I take this as instructive/informative. (God instructing/informing man)
This was dealing with my showing that it was directed at man. I quoted, starting in verse 28 where God instructed man to rule the animals. That was the first part I refered to:I don't see two parts?
And God blessed them (man); 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 (to them), "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the surface of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, every green herb for food:"
And it was so.
Would people have understood who the Serpent was or his seed, without the New Testament? I do not think so. It is in the book of Revelation 12:9, 15; 20:2 that we find out who he was.Certainly you don't believe that people had to have Psalm 104 before they were capable of understanding Genesis 1? Because if that is the case, then the Exodus generation was incapable of understanding what was written for them. Since we both agree the text was intelligible to its original audience, then Ps. 104 cannot determine its meaning.
There are just some things a text will not answer and you have to go to the rest of God's revelation to determine the answer.If I have to go to other texts to prove my point, what I am effectively doing is building a theology through which to read my passage. But that is the very definition of eisogesis.
Jac wrote:Well we have reached the fundamental area of our disagreement, so I am content to let it stand. We have a different hermeneutic. I believe in taking the text in and of itself at face value, whereas you believe we should look to future revelation to reexplain past revelation. Put differently, I believe in a literal-historical-grammatical method of interpretation, whereas you are reading the passage through a theology you build on a different passage (namely, Ps 104).
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 1 guest