Death in the Garden

[Guest shiloh357]

if animals were carnivores during the flood, what did they eat on the ark? It is my personal conviction that most if not all of the animals were more or less in a state of hybernation during their time on the ark. ...

That's OK as a personal conviction, but not as a conclusion from bible study .

Well, that is as good as I can do since the Bible doesn't really tell us. All the Bible study in the world will not produce a concrete answer.

Isaiah passage just keeps popping up all over the place, perhaps it deserves it's own thread. I don't take it literally. (Or perhaps there is already a thread, I will go searching...)

Well, then you would be forced to take everything else around as nonliteral as well. Maybe Jesus is not "literally" offspring of Jesse and maybe, he will not "literally" establish his Kingdom, and maybe He will not really return to earth and judge with righteouness as indicated in this passage, and maybe He will not really restore the outcasts of Israel. You cannot just pick out parts of texts arbitrarily to be "literal" or "nonliteral."

The point is, YOU do not have the right to decide what is or is not literal. The text itself makes that determination for you. There is no "nonliteral" devices in the text. It is up to you to follow where the natural sense and flow of text leads.

[~candice~]

if animals were carnivores during the flood, what did they eat on the ark? It is my personal conviction that most if not all of the animals were more or less in a state of hybernation during their time on the ark. ...

That's OK as a personal conviction, but not as a conclusion from bible study .

Well, that is as good as I can do since the Bible doesn't really tell us. All the Bible study in the world will not produce a concrete answer.

That's fine, the bible doesn't say. But I do not share your conviction. Does that make me wrong?

Isaiah passage just keeps popping up all over the place, perhaps it deserves it's own thread. I don't take it literally. (Or perhaps there is already a thread, I will go searching...)

Well, then you would be forced to take everything else around as nonliteral as well. Maybe Jesus is not "literally" offspring of Jesse and maybe, he will not "literally" establish his Kingdom, and maybe He will not really return to earth and judge with righteouness as indicated in this passage, and maybe He will not really restore the outcasts of Israel. You cannot just pick out parts of texts arbitrarily to be "literal" or "nonliteral."

The point is, YOU do not have the right to decide what is or is not literal. The text itself makes that determination for you. There is no "nonliteral" devices in the text. It is up to you to follow where the natural sense and flow of text leads.

It's frustrating when I suggest that one passage of text is non literal, and then this argument that I might also take literal passages non literal comes up. Each passage is assessed on it's own merit and just because I think this one passage is non literal, doesn't mean I am on a slippery slope of accepting other literal passages as non literal. Fair go please, Shiloh. Many commentators have accepted the verses in Isaiah as non literal and can assert their position well.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Aug 20 2009, 08:31 PM)

QUOTE (~andy~ @ Aug 20 2009, 05:51 PM)

if animals were carnivores during the flood, what did they eat on the ark? It is my personal conviction that most if not all of the animals were more or less in a state of hybernation during their time on the ark. ...

That's OK as a personal conviction, but not as a conclusion from bible study .Well, that is as good as I can do since the Bible doesn't really tell us. All the Bible study in the world will not produce a concrete answer.

That's fine, the bible doesn't say. But I do not share your conviction. Does that make me wrong?

It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but the only other option is to believe that 8 people managed to feed thousands of animals (and any offspring born to them during the year, they were on the ark), clean up and dispose of all of the fecal material and urine, as well as making sure the predatorial animals did not seek to feed on the cattle and "prey" animals. In addition, you will need to account for enough space on the ark for enough food for a year for each species as well accounting for any offspring born to them during that time.

Considering the amount of work it would place on 8 people who also have to take care of themselves and maintain safe, clean and sanitary living conditions, the idea that God more than likely kept the animals in a state of hybernation makes more sense. You are free to reject the more sensible and logical approach if you want to, though.

It's frustrating when I suggest that one passage of text is non literal, and then this argument that I might also take literal passages non literal comes up. Each passage is assessed on it's own merit and just because I think this one passage is non literal, doesn't mean I am on a slippery slope of accepting other literal passages as non literal.

I am simply showing that you cannot use your approach on the passage consistently. The references in Isaiah about the lion and the bear are not written in a figurative sense. They are communicated in the exact same sense as the remarks about Jesus being offspring of Jesse. There is no difference in how they appear. There is no reason to force a figurative reading that the text simply does not allow.

Fair go please, Shiloh. Many commentators have accepted the verses in Isaiah as non literal and can assert their position well.

Sure there are. But they are also, in most cases, Amillennialists who don't believe in a 1,000 year millennium and who believe these verses in Isaiah are about the church age despite the fact that the constext cannot support such. Either that, or they are Preterists who believe that all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD and don't even believe in the 2nd coming of Christ, much less a 1,000 year reign of Christ. So, those who think this passage is non literal have a lot of other questionable, problematic theology to go along with it.

If you say it is not literal, then what does it really stand for? What does the lion, bear and ox really refer to? And do you have other scriptures in the Bible that directly reference the Isaiah 11 passage and confirm its nonliteral status? Do you have biblical corroboration for what the lion, bear and ox truly represent? The Bible is a self-interpreting document, so if the passage is to be understood figuratively, you should have no problem providing biblical corroboration with that assessment.

[EricH]

if animals were carnivores during the flood, what did they eat on the ark? It is my personal conviction that most if not all of the animals were more or less in a state of hybernation during their time on the ark. ...

That's OK as a personal conviction, but not as a conclusion from bible study .

Well, that is as good as I can do since the Bible doesn't really tell us. All the Bible study in the world will not produce a concrete answer.

Exactly

[~candice~]

It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but the only other option is to believe that 8 people managed to feed thousands of animals (and any offspring born to them during the year, they were on the ark), clean up and dispose of all of the fecal material and urine, as well as making sure the predatorial animals did not seek to feed on the cattle and "prey" animals. In addition, you will need to account for enough space on the ark for enough food for a year for each species as well accounting for any offspring born to them during that time.

Considering the amount of work it would place on 8 people who also have to take care of themselves and maintain safe, clean and sanitary living conditions, the idea that God more than likely kept the animals in a state of hybernation makes more sense. You are free to reject the more sensible and logical approach if you want to though.

I thought we agreed that the Word was silent on this, and that what you presented was merely a personal conviction? There are other ways that God could have sustained the animals, and the hibernation hypothesis is only one of many hypothesis. I didn't present a hypothesis so I don't think that I am rejecting something that is "more sensible or logical", I simply don't share your conviction.

It's frustrating when I suggest that one passage of text is non literal, and then this argument that I might also take literal passages non literal comes up. Each passage is assessed on it's own merit and just because I think this one passage is non literal, doesn't mean I am on a slippery slope of accepting other literal passages as non literal.

I am simply showing that you cannot use your approach on the passage consistently. The references in Isaiah about the lion and the bear are not written in a figurative sense. They are communicated in the exact same sense as the remarks about Jesus being offspring of Jesse. There is no difference in how they appear. There is no reason to force a figurative reading that the text simply does not allow.

Isaiah 11:1-11 (NASB)

1Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,

And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

2The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,

The spirit of wisdom and understanding,

The spirit of counsel and strength,

The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

3And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,

And He will not judge by what His eyes see,

Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;

4But with righteousness He will judge the poor,

And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;

And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,

And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.

5Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,

And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

6And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,

And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,

And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;

And a little boy will lead them.

7Also the cow and the bear will graze,

Their young will lie down together,

And the lion will eat straw like the ox.

8The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,

And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den.

9They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,

For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD

As the waters cover the sea.

10Then in that day

The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,

Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;

And His resting place will be glorious.

11Then it will happen on that day that the Lord

Will again recover the second time with His hand

The remnant of His people, who will remain,

From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath,

And from the islands of the sea.

Shiloh, is Jesus literally a shoot? Does He literally spring from the stem of Jesse? Does Jesus have branches and have literal fruit? Does a rod literally come out of His mouth? Is there is a literal belt of righteousness around His girth?

Fair go please, Shiloh. Many commentators have accepted the verses in Isaiah as non literal and can assert their position well.

Sure there are. But they are also, in most cases, Amillennialists who don't believe in a 1,000 year millennium and who believe these verses in Isaiah are about the church age despite the fact that the constext cannot support such. Either that, or they are Preterists who believe that all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD and don't even believe in the 2nd coming of Christ, much less a 1,000 year reign of Christ. So, those who think this passage is non literal have a lot of other questionable, problematic theology to go along with it.

I am not reading Amil or Preterist commentaries.

If you say it is not literal, then what does it really stand for? What does the lion, bear and ox really refer to? And do you have other scriptures in the Bible that directly reference the Isaiah 11 passage and confirm its nonliteral status? Do you have biblical corroboration for what the lion, bear and ox truly represent? The Bible is a self-interpreting document, so if the passage is to be understood figuratively, you should have no problem providing biblical corroboration with that assessment.

To support a non-face value interpretation, I simply point to the other italicised parts of Isaiah 11, and argue that they also are not taken at face-value. Why do we all of a sudden switch to a face-value interpretation for a passage that is sandwiched between other passages that are not interpretted at face-value. My take on the verses (and I'm still working through it) is a complete lack of spiritual predation, and unity between the jews and the gentiles.

[Guest shiloh357]

I thought we agreed that the Word was silent on this, and that what you presented was merely a personal conviction?

Hence, the absence of any biblical references in my previous response. It is my personal conviction and is also far more rational than anything I have read from other sources who propose "suspended animation" or other such notions.

There are other ways that God could have sustained the animals, and the hibernation hypothesis is only one of many hypothesis.

I realize that, but it is also the one the that makes the most sense.

I didn't present a hypothesis so I don't think that I am rejecting something that is "more sensible or logical", I simply don't share your conviction.

Then present your hypothesis for review, and let's see what you have to offer.

Shiloh, is Jesus literally a shoot? Does He literally spring from the stem of Jesse? Does Jesus have branches and have literal fruit? Does a rod literally come out of His mouth? Is there is a literal belt of righteousness around His girth?

The metaphorical device is obvious in this part of the text, but does not extend throughout the entire text.

I am not reading Amil or Preterist commentaries.

You might be surprised as you are parroting the Amillennial position with regard to this text. No premillennial or even postmillennial theologians I am aware of see the references to animals as symbolic or figurative.

To support a non-face value interpretation, I simply point to the other italicised parts of Isaiah 11, and argue that they also are not taken at face-value.

That is for the author, not you to decide. Everything is taken literally, whether it is at face-value or not.

Why do we all of a sudden switch to a face-value interpretation for a passage that is sandwiched between other passages that are not interpretted at face-value.

So if the author uses a metaphorical device, he is bound to remain "metaphorical" for the rest of the passage? He uses figurative imagery to paint a picture of the Messiah. That is where the metphor ends.

My take on the verses (and I'm still working through it) is a complete lack of spiritual predation, and unity between the jews and the gentiles.

No, what it is talking about is the absolute peace that will exist under the rule Messiah. It speaks harmony between the animals and between the animal kingdom and man.

Your "take" on the passage stems from an ulterior motive. Your problem with a literal interpretation stems from your OEC views, particularly since this indicates a change in animal behavior, which would contradict OEC views that the natural world is unaffected by sin. Yet, when satan is bound up and unable to operate in the world, we see a change in the entire world, not just in mankind, which proves that God did not hardwire death into His creation, and with the absence of satan's operations, animals cease being predators.

[Guest shiloh357]

Have any of you considered that death could be the result of the original fall--Satan's?

No, because the Bible lays death squarely at Adam's feet. That is why Jesus was sent to redeem man from Adam's fall, not Lucifer's fall.

[~candice~]

Have any of you considered that death could be the result of the original fall--Satan's?

No, because the Bible lays death squarely at Adam's feet. That is why Jesus was sent to redeem man from Adam's fall, not Lucifer's fall.

Well Shiloh, at least we agree on this bit .