Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

...God's intention for the garden was to have humans and animals live a harmonious life. For that to occur, no evil intent would have been allowed to enter the garden and corrupt the desires of humans and animals, leading to wicked actions such as consuming flesh.

No need for "evil intent" or "wicked actions" because animals have always died and the consumption of resulting dead flesh would be according to the design harmony of nature's ecosystem created by God. Creation declares that by creative act animal flesh has been a sort of food from the very beginning.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Does this passage discuss the inside or the outside of the garden? What is the reason for considering them as distinct subjects?

Genesis 6:21 speaks to whatever was available and used as food at any given time. In the case of this discussion's context, animal flesh. At the pre-flood period of Genesis 6:21 the sole forbidden food item was the tree of knowledge. Since creation animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten, both inside and outside the garden.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

As you indicated, it is about having dominion over them as caretakers who have no intention of using them for consumption.

I indicated no such thing. God gave humans dominion over animals. We know humans were consumers of animal flesh. God himself set the example by providing animal flesh as clothing for humans, which made humans consumers of animal flesh. That is to say, humans made use of animal flesh for their own need.

[Pudgy]

Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse, was first shown on November 18, 1928. It's considered a significant moment in animation history as it was one of the first synchronized sound cartoons.

A bleeding liberal snowflake lawyer for the Society saw it and the idea of happy animals, all living in peace, eating grass (or smokin’ it), already “up the flag pole”,  was set in stone.

  The Watchtower magazine began teaching about a paradise earth with vegetarian animals in the late 1920s, specifically in the 1927 edition of "The Way to Paradise" book by J.F. Rutherford, the second president of the Watch Tower Society

The cartoon validated it.

Compared to today, EVERYBODY was ignorant, and it caught on…. seemingly with Scriptural support. . This teaching later became a central doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Meanwhile, in the REAL WORLD,  all chlorophyl based vegetable life on Earth ate sunlight, and half the animal life on Earth ate the vegetable life, and the second half of all animal life ate the first half.

This is how, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, for at least THREE Billion years, it worked EVERY DAY. 

EVERY DAY !

Even when at least four times, 95% of all life was extinguished through Mass Extinctions … it came back each time working EXACTLY the same way.

There have been five major mass extinctions in Earth's history: the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, the Late Devonian extinction, the Permian-Triassic extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction.

EVERY TIME life found a way back.  The exact same way back.

That’ how the REAL WORLD WORKS!

I am mortified that I once believed in the “Disneyland Fantasy” …. but that’s the way agenda driven thinking works.

…… sigh …..

 

[BTK59]

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I indicated no such thing. God gave humans dominion over animals. We know humans were consumers of animal flesh. God himself set the example by providing animal flesh as clothing for humans, which made humans consumers of animal flesh. That is to say, humans made use of animal flesh for their own need.

I think you might not fully comprehend your own post. After Noah and Moses, they were consumers of meat, but not rotten meat - they consumed clean meat. Unless there is concrete evidence confirming that Adam and Eve consumed meat within the garden, which is the focal point of my current discussion, this argument remains unproven. The same can be said about the clothing within the garden, where Adam and Eve only became aware of their nudity after tasting the forbidden fruit. God did not give them skins, unless you and your deceitful friend "pudgy" can prove otherwise while in the garden.

[BTK59]

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

No need for "evil intent" or "wicked actions" because animals have always died and the consumption of resulting dead flesh would be according to the design harmony of nature's ecosystem created by God. Creation declares that by creative act animal flesh has been a sort of food from the very beginning.

Could you provide evidence to support this within the context of the garden? The ecosystem of nature was certainly different beyond the garden, but I am specifically speaking about the ecosystem within the garden. However, your argument fails to demonstrate how the creative act of consuming animal flesh took place within the garden.

Even before the flood, the principle set forth in Genesis 1:29 remained applicable to both humans and animals. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, those provisions within the ark were undoubtedly present. I am not referring to the language that was received "following" the flood.

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Genesis 6:21 speaks to whatever was available and used as food at any given time. In the case of this discussion's context, animal flesh. At the pre-flood period of Genesis 6:21 the sole forbidden food item was the tree of knowledge. Since creation animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten, both inside and outside the garden.

How does Genesis 6:21 apply to the provisions inside the ark, considering that Genesis 1:29 would still be relevant for inside the ark due to the pre-flood conditions and the lack of additional accommodations for food after Genesis 9 for Noah?

[Pudgy]

It is sad to see people bending their minds into pretzels of rationalization to try and get around what is demonstrably REAL.

[BTK59]

I completely agree. Many people here distort scripture to suit their own desires and interpretations. It's comforting to know that God will judge those who feign and uphold incorrect theology, especially when they can't prove otherwise. 

[Pudgy]

…. just as you distorted my comment to fit your many fantasies.

Words are not reality.

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I think you might not fully comprehend your own post. After Noah and Moses, they were consumers of meat, but not rotten meat - they consumed clean meat.

Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat.

9 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Unless there is concrete evidence confirming that Adam and Eve consumed meat within the garden, which is the focal point of my current discussion, this argument remains unproven.

I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water? The means of concluding they did eat water is because, though not vegetation, humans were given dominion of "all the earth" which gave them permission to eat water unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.

I have no concrete evidence confirming Eve was created with the capability to feed her offspring breast milk. Does this mean offspring of Eve did not eat milk? The means of concluding they did eat milk is because, though not vegetation, creation demonstrates that eating a mother's milk is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.

Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. Moreover, creation through its natural ecosystem teaches us that, though not vegetation, eating edible meat is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.

9 hours ago, BTK59 said:

God did not give them skins,...

"And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) 

9 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Could you provide evidence to support this within the context of the garden? The ecosystem of nature was certainly different beyond the garden, but I am specifically speaking about the ecosystem within the garden. However, your argument fails to demonstrate how the creative act of consuming animal flesh took place within the garden.

"...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter)

Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden.

9 hours ago, BTK59 said:

How does Genesis 6:21 apply to the provisions inside the ark, considering that Genesis 1:29 would still be relevant for inside the ark due to the pre-flood conditions and the lack of additional accommodations for food after Genesis 9 for Noah?

Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water.

Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.

[Pudgy]

It’s impossible for you to agree with me, BTK59.

You are promoting a Disney fantasy of a duck leading a truckload of mice in happy harmony.

You can ignore reality with clever word manipulation, painfully transparent and inane … but clever …. but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality.

it usually starts with you being wrong about EVERYTHING, as Many Miles pointed out with two Scriptural references to refute your faceted fantasies.

 

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat.

Clean meat is equally suitable, unless you can provide evidence of the consumption of spoiled meat before the flood. I'm still waiting.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water?

Before we engage in the customary mind games of JWI and "Pudgy," let's talk about meat, or have we now shifted the conversion like Srecko?

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't.

Are you suggesting that what you said about Dominion is not what you actually stated? Which is it? However, it would be inaccurate to believe that God permitted killing within the Garden. In the unlikely event that an animal did pass away, it would undoubtedly have been respectfully buried, as was customary in later times.

Let's refrain from attributing negative intentions to God's words within the Garden. Satan was the sole negative presence within the Garden.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

"And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) 

After they sinned. They were also expelled from the Garden because of it. What skins did God provide when they were still perfect?

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

"...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter)

This evidence does not demonstrate anything about how to handle perfect beings inside the garden. Try again.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden.

Please provide more clarity in your explanation by distinguishing between the optics inside and outside the garden.

To be rational inside the garden, you must provide evidence to support your thoughts.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water.

You are simply complicating the matter. I hope that those reading your comments aren't persuaded by what you are promoting. You are distorting the meaning of both excerpts to fit your own agenda, and nothing more.

We are currently tending to the garden that is exempt from the restrictions found in Genesis 6:21 and are continuing to follow the guidelines set in Genesis 1:29, which also applied to Noah and the Ark.

I'm not implying that evil disappeared after the garden, as we have proof of that with Caine. I believe there was likely even cannibalism among the inhabitants, especially when the Nephilim were around. How many people do you think made it inside the Ark? That is the important point to consider. By God's command, Noah would have accepted whatever nourishment that was still applicable with Genesis 1:29 for his family and the animals. If you fail to provide evidence to support your unfounded assertions, they will remain as mere baseless claims.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.

I do not engage in irrational thinking that contradicts all the good that comes from creation, unless you also believe that Satan is good.

My response is clear and supported by reasoning to avoid misinterpretation and confusion.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

After they sinned. They were also expelled from the Garden because of it. What skins did God provide when they were still perfect?

Let's keep in mind that the whole episode of sinning and talking and getting leather clothing takes place within the confines of the Garden of Eden. Only when God had finished talking with them and provided them with adequate clothing did He drive them out of the Garden.

So the fact that they sinned within the confines of the Garden and were given leather clothing within the confines/boundaries of the Garden speaks for itself and disproves your remark to Many Miles.

The assumption you made that getting clothes is related to the act of sin is only partially acceptable. Because nowhere is it explicitly said that people will remain naked forever or that they will dig in the garden with fingers instead of hoes. Because how will you spread the garden, and that was God's intention, without tools? Plants should be planted, sown, but also uprooted and cut. Unless they were to use beavers, giraffes, goats and elephants for such jobs? lol

Climate change is also certain. So they would need clothes and a roof over their heads, and that again changes the way of life and has nothing to do with the status of perfection. Because both snow and ice is perfection that comes from God, too.