excreting solid waste before the Fall

[Paul]

I was just wondering if any here think that human suffering and/or corruption of any kind existed before the Fall.

I just found out that Theonomy believes that we engaged in excreting solid waste prior to the fall in the manner that we do today (please correct me Theonomy if I misunderstood you). I presume he believes the same with respect to liquid waste.

Is there anyone here who believes likewise?

If we did excrete solid waste prior to the fall then it must not have smelled bad since we know human suffering did not exist before the Fall. And the solid waste itself must not have been in a corrupt forum -- it must have been beautiful or harmonious with Rest.

I hope that everyone would affirm that there is no excreting of solid waste in the world of the resurrection at least.

[trueseeker]

In the new kingdom I think we will be in a different type of bodies, spiritual ones.

However, I do suppect that our physical bodies and animals physical bodies had to do their duties before the fall.

[$cirisme]

:eww:

[Bill the Cat]

Judges???


:1of10: :1of10: :1of10:

[elysian]

Hmmm, I wonder if there was flatulence (farts) and if so, they must not have stunk. I keep telling my husband that I wish there were a way that farts could smell like potpourri. Maybe that's what farts smelled like before the Fall.

[dizzle]

This seems to be getting pretty disrespectful to the brethren.

[elysian]

Paul- "it must have been beautiful or harmonious with Rest."

Paul, I can't help but comment, "Restful Poo" sounds like Japanese soap or an instruction in a Japanese hotel room "using toilet here for Beautiful, Harmonious, Restful Poo." (see www.engrish.com)

I simply can't imagine that there were Hormel Chili-farts in the Garden, that's all. (Granted, there was no Hormel Chili:shifty: in the Garden, so there would have been no chili farts per se, but there would have been some of the ingredients of chili- like onions and beans that would have the same effect.)

On a more serious note, if there was no death or decay before the Fall, then there would not have been waste products at all, let alone smelly ones. What we consider to be wastes are actually by-products of decomposition. Our bodies break down foods to get the nutrients out. What we distinguish as "stink" is the decomposition process, whether it be of our bodies breaking down foods to their base components or the process of bacteria, flies, etc. breaking down dead bodies and other organic matter.

So if there is no death, there is no reason for decay or "restful poo"- or stinky flatulence.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Paul,

I think if one believed that pre fall earth was the exact same as Heaven then one would believe as you do about no excrement before the Fall.

However, there are several points that indicate that pre fall earth was not the same as Heaven. The "harmony" you speak of was different than your personal taste seems to allow. But God's ways are higher than ours....

First, plants would have to die in pre fall earth in order for man to fulfill his dietary orders. Aside from the objections that plants don't really "die", the point is that, in Heaven, nothing shall die or decay at all.

Second, man was made from the dust of the ground and was therefore mortal (albeit supernaturally protected from physical death before the Fall by God) from the beginning. In Heaven our bodies will be made of immortal material--and we will be like the angels, never to die again (Luke 20:36).

Third, pre fall earth needed to be "subdued", Heaven will not need to be subdued. (Gen. 1:28)

Fourth, there was deception in pre fall earth through Satan, in Heaven there will be no deception.

Fifth, temptation could be experienced by humans in pre fall earth, in Heaven it will not be experienced.

Sixth, in pre fall earth man and woman married, in Heaven there will be no marriage but we will be like the angels in that regard.

Even with all of these differences between pre fall earth and heaven, I believe that the Garden was still a supernaturally "in tune" place, but the whole earth was not the Garden, for the Garden had boundaries. (Genesis 2:8) Man's job was to "subdue" the earth. I believe it was man's job to extend the miraculous properties of Garden outward through gardening, and it is in this way that man was to "subdue the earth." I do not believe that there was carnivory in the Garden, I believe that in the Garden, the lion lay down with the lamb. Even so, even the Garden, as wonderful as it was--was still not as Heaven. One of the main points to me is that man was always under threat of loss in the Garden, in Heaven there will be no such threat.

These are just a few points, I am sure one could think of more.

~Charleen

[Paul]

Today @ 05:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=332913#post332913)
Charleen Lohman:

First, plants would have to die in pre fall earth in order for man to fulfill his dietary orders. Aside from the objections that plants don't really "die", the point is that, in Heaven, nothing shall die or decay at all.

Hi Charleen,

I deny that there was any decay in the pre fall world of Adam and Eve. There may be a certain kind of death or depletion of plants and animals in harmony with the rhythms of the seasons. But no violence was done to the material creation. So for example the death or depletion of leaves during Autumn may have occured pre fall.

Second, man was made from the dust of the ground and was therefore mortal (albeit supernaturally protected from physical death before the Fall by God) from the beginning. In Heaven our bodies will be made of immortal material--and we will be like the angels, never to die again (Luke 20:36).

Well man did have the gift of immortality but it was a super-natural gift -- that is a gift not proper to his human nature, but given freely by God in addition to it. It's not the same kind of immortality we would have in the world of the resurrection. If Adam had his head under a guillotine and it fell and God did not prevent it from hitting his head, then Adam would have died. In the world of the resurrection such a guillotine would just simply either pass through our bodies or we would be able to just teleport out or something! -- just like Jesus was able to walk through walls after his own resurrection.

This doesn't mean this gift was beyond any created nature -- only that it was beyond human nature. So sometimes it's called relatively supernatural or preternatural by theologians. The Church Fathers considered this gift of immortality to be transmitted through the tree of life.

Also Adam would not have died from old age or sickness or disease. Had there been no fall, he would have lived forever in the Garden -- that Garden would have eventually transformed into the world of the resurrection some time after the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus (no Death of Jesus since there is no Fall to redeem man from).

Third, pre fall earth needed to be "subdued", Heaven will not need to be subdued. (Gen. 1:28)

I would be open to the idea that the Garden did not cover what we today might call the whole "earth" but I would affirm that the world in which Adam lived just as the world in which the angels lived (and still live), namely Heaven, was free from any need of being subdued. So I think if there was a need for Adam to subdue things outside the Garden, he would have done it without leaving the world of the Garden.

Fourth, there was deception in pre fall earth through Satan, in Heaven there will be no deception.

Well I think that as soon as deception began in man's heart, the fall began in at least an incipient way. The Church Fathers saw Christ as the Second Adam (or New Adam) and Mary as the Second Eve (or New Eve). So the obedience of faith of Mary was seen as beginning to untie the knot of disobedience that started with Eve. But Adam is the head of the human family, being its father or grandfather -- so it was the sin of Adam that made complete or resulted in the Fall and God's punishment. If only Eve had strayed and Adam had remained faithful, then I don't think God would have punished Adam in his descendants.* So Christ as the Last or New Adam is the new head of a new kind of family centered around him. So we who are Adam's descendants are now also Christ's spiritual descendants.

But I think your talking not about the deception in man's mind or heart but rather Satan's trying to deceive Eve and through Eve, Adam, right? I don't think the Paradise of the Garden excluded Satan's testing Adam and Eve. Even with God himself we see Satan "testing" God in the scriptures -- like wrt to Job for example. God was in Heaven, in a heavenly Paradise, but He was neverthless contended with by Satan.

Fifth, temptation could be experienced by humans in pre fall earth, in Heaven it will not be experienced.

Well I think the testing was external in nature -- just like how Jesus was tested by Satan in the desert. So it was experienced but it wasn't the product of the "flesh." The scriptures teach that all temptation comes from either the flesh, the world, or the Devil. So in the Garden there was no original sin that would disorder the flesh and the world was a paradise -- so it must have come from the Devil.

And I'm not sure that Heaven excludes testing or contending by the Devil since as I mentioned above the Devil contended with God over Job. We also see in scripture mention of the Devil contending with St Michael the Archangel IIRC over the body of Moses. And in the Apocalypse we see mention of "war" breaking out in Heaven.

But it is true that in Heaven there is no possibility or conceivability of our sinning or of our giving in any way when the Devil contends with us (and after the Last Judgment he won't contend with us anymore).

In pre fall earth man and woman married, in Heaven there will be no marriage but we will be like the angels in that regard.

In a parallel passage it actual says we will be like the angels for we will no longer die. So it seems that Jesus is highlighting how we will be like the angels in that regard. But because we will no longer die in the world of the resurrection, there will be no need for procreation and thus no need for marriage. Procreation and marriage was instituted by God as a means to propagate the human family. There is no need to do that in Heaven since we don't die. This doesn't mean sexuality will be stamped out in Heaven. Grace builds upon nature and as scripture says God gives his gifts without regret (that's a hyper-literal translation of what St Paul says wrt to the Old Covenant). God created man, male and female He created them -- this doesn't change in the world of the resurrection. We'll still be male and female, physically and psychologically; but, we will express our sexuality in a new or different way.

I believe that the Garden was a supernaturally "in tune" place, but the whole earth was not the Garden, for the Garden had boundaries. (Genesis 2:8)

I think that if Adam walked past these "boundaries" the boundaries would have just extended themselves. I don't think Adam ever lived outside of Paradise.

Man's job was to "subdue" the earth. I believe it was man's job to extend the miraculous properties of Garden outward through gardening, and it is in this way that man was to "subdue the earth."

I would be open to that possibility as long as Adam always lives in the Garden or in Paradise.

Man was always under threat of loss in the Garden, in Heaven there will be no such threat.

Loss through sin, yes. We agree on that.

(footnote)
*(just as if only Mary had been obedient and Christ had not, God would have not released the graces won by our Redemption prescinding from the issues of the impeccability of Christ (which I affirm) and the need for an infinite divine person to make an infinite reparation for an infinite injustice (which I also affirm) and a host of other theological issues that come to mind!)

[Socrates]

12-10-2003 @ 11:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=332913#post332913)
Charleen Lohman:

I think if one believed that pre fall earth was the exact same as Heaven then one would believe as you do about no excrement before the Fall.

I can't think of anyone who believes that. For example, in Eden, it was possible to sin, while in Heaven it will not be possible to sin. On earth now, it is impossible not to sin.

But Eden was certainly a foretaste of heaven, and in the Restoration spoken of in Acts 3:12, animals will once again be vegetarian and thus there will be no more "hurting and destroying" (Isaiah 11, 65).

However, there are several points that indicate that pre fall earth was not the same as Heaven. The "harmony" you speak of was different than your personal taste seems to allow. But God's ways are higher than ours....

Yes, so why not trust what He says rather than uniformitarian "science" like your mentor Hugh Ross?

First, plants would have to die in pre fall earth in order for man to fulfill his dietary orders. Aside from the objections that plants don't really "die", the point is that, in Heaven, nothing shall die or decay at all.

Plants are not nephesh chayyah, therefore what is now called biological death of plants is not what YECs refer to when they talk about no death before the Fall. This has never stopped the likes of Ross and Morton misrepresenting what YECs teach. I wonder whether Charleen agrees with Ross that plants also suffer.

Second, man was made from the dust of the ground and was therefore mortal (albeit supernaturally protected from physical death before the Fall by God) from the beginning.

Totally wrong. This is a non sequiture. Physical death, returning to the dust he was made from, is clearly a curse resulting from sin (Genesis 3:19). Great exegetes such as Calvin and Wesley, uncorrupted by outside ideas of uniformitarian long ages, affirmed that before sin, there would be no physical death.

Even with all of these differences between pre fall earth and heaven, I believe that the Garden was still a supernaturally "in tune" place, but the whole earth was not the Garden, for the Garden had boundaries. (Genesis 2:8) Man's job was to "subdue" the earth. I believe it was man's job to extend the miraculous properties of Garden outward through gardening, and it is in this way that man was to "subdue the earth." I do not believe that there was carnivory in the Garden, I believe that in the Garden, the lion lay down with the lamb.

However, the vegetarian diet of Genesis 1:29-30 applied to the whole earth, not to Eden. And when Adam was expelled, he was still vegetarian (Genesis 3:17); man wasn't permitted to eat meat till after the Flood (Genesis 9:3).

[Socrates]

12-09-2003 @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=331933#post331933)
Paul:

I just found out that Theonomy believes that we engaged in excreting solid waste prior to the fall in the manner that we do today (please correct me Theonomy if I misunderstood you). I presume he believes the same with respect to liquid waste.

Is there anyone here who believes likewise?

Apparently Thomas Aquinas did, according to the Orthodox scholar Fr. Seraphim Rose. He said that many of the Orthodox Fathers believed the same as Paul. His book Genesis, Creation and Early Man is the definitive study of Patristic teachings about creation, and totally blows away those who try to read long-age or evolutionary beliefs into their writings. See the AiG review Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v16n3_mortenson.asp).

[Paul]

Today @ 03:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344471#post344471)
Socrates:



Apparently Thomas Aquinas did, according to the Orthodox scholar Fr. Seraphim Rose. He said that many of the Orthodox Fathers believed the same as Paul. His book Genesis, Creation and Early Man is the definitive study of Patristic teachings about creation, and totally blows away those who try to read long-age or evolutionary beliefs into their writings. See the AiG review Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v16n3_mortenson.asp).

Well it would be misleading at best to say that Aquinas believed that.

Fr Seraphim Rose's writing can be read directly here:

http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/sc_e_conclusion.html

Fr Rose distorts Aquinas' position (not just on this particular issue but also on related issues). In generally you don't want to evaluate Latin theologians based on what Eastern Orthodox theologians say. They in general have an extreme bias due I think to certain misunderstandings.

St Thomas in his own words can be read here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109703.htm

Whether in the state of innocence man had need of food?

Objection 1. It would seem that in the state of innocence man did not require food. For food is necessary for man to restore what he has lost. But Adam's body suffered no loss, as being incorruptible. Therefore he had no need of food.

Objection 2. Further, food is needed for nourishment. But nourishment involves passibility. Since, then, man's body was impassible; it does not appear how food could be needful to him.

Objection 3. Further, we need food for the preservation of life. But Adam could preserve his life otherwise; for had he not sinned, he would not have died. Therefore he did not require food.

Objection 4. Further, the consumption of food involves voiding of the surplus, which seems unsuitable to the state of innocence. Therefore it seems that man did not take food in the primitive state.

On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 2:16): "Of every tree in paradise ye shall [Vulg. 'thou shalt'] eat."

I answer that, In the state of innocence man had an animal life requiring food; but after the resurrection he will have a spiritual life needing no food. In order to make this clear, we must observe that the rational soul is both soul and spirit. It is called a soul by reason of what it possesses in common with other souls--that is, as giving life to the body; whence it is written (Gn. 2:7): "Man was made into a living soul"; that is, a soul giving life to the body. But the soul is called a spirit according to what properly belongs to itself, and not to other souls, as possessing an intellectual immaterial power.

Thus in the primitive state, the rational soul communicated to the body what belonged to itself as a soul; and so the body was called "animal" [From 'anima', a soul; Cf. 1 Cor. 15:44 seqq.], through having its life from the soul. Now the first principle of life in these inferior creatures as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 4) is the vegetative soul: the operations of which are the use of food, generation, and growth. Wherefore such operations befitted man in the state of innocence. But in the final state, after the resurrection, the soul will, to a certain extent, communicate to the body what properly belongs to itself as a spirit; immortality to everyone; impassibility, glory, and power to the good, whose bodies will be called "spiritual." So, after the resurrection, man will not require food; whereas he required it in the state of innocence.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 19 [Works of an anonymous author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine): "How could man have an immortal body, which was sustained by food? Since an immortal being needs neither food nor drink." For we have explained (1) that the immortality of the primitive state was based on a supernatural force in the soul, and not on any intrinsic disposition of the body: so that by the action of heat, the body might lose part of its humid qualities; and to prevent the entire consumption of the humor, man was obliged to take food.

Reply to Objection 2. A certain passion and alteration attends nutriment, on the part of the food changed into the substance of the thing nourished. So we cannot thence conclude that man's body was passible, but that the food taken was passible; although this kind of passion conduced to the perfection of the nature.

Reply to Objection 3. If man had not taken food he would have sinned; as he also sinned by taking the forbidden fruit. For he was told at the same time, to abstain from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and to eat of every other tree of Paradise.

Reply to Objection 4. Some say that in the state of innocence man would not have taken more than necessary food, so that there would have been nothing superfluous; which, however, is unreasonable to suppose, as implying that there would have been no faecal matter. Wherefore there was need for voiding the surplus, yet so disposed by God as to be decorous and suitable to the state.

Now as you can see Thomas mentions the issue of "voiding the surplus" only in passing as a Reply to Objection 4. It's in the context of arguing that Adam and Eve ate food. And further you can see that Thomas clearly says that the voiding of surplus food is different than the way it happens post-Fall. Thomas says that pre-Fall surplus food is voided in a way disposed by God as to be decorous and suitable to the state of pre-fallenness. So that is consistent with what I contended when I said that if there were voiding of surplus food that it wouldn't have smelled bad and would have been consistent and in harmony with the perfect beauty of Paradise. It would have been decor-ative if you will.

WRT to the Fathers. The Church Fathers recognized by the Eastern Orthodox are also recognized by the Catholic tradition. There are of course Eastern Fathers and Western Fathers -- but the Catholic tradition considers all the Fathers to be part of her heritage. The Orthodox tradition does not always do that. Some Orthodox for example reject Augustine -- some even call him a heretic. But a few Orthodox have come to the defense of Augustine, even proposing that he be worthy of veneration as a saint. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott both Eastern and Western Church Fathers are referenced or cited and held in general esteem. We celebrate the feasts of many Eastern Church Fathers (all except Origen actually!). Anyway I'm not sure I would accept Fr Rose's opinion that Aquinas disagreed with the Church Fathers in general or with the Eastern Fathers in general. For Protestants, reading Eastern Orthodox writers may be a window to the Church Fathers, but I wouldn't trust the polemical aspects of Eastern Orthodox writers in their polemics against certain Latin theologians (such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas) or against certain misconceptions about Latin theology (such as on the filioque, original sin, satisfication theory of redemption)

PS There is an active movement of creationists (i.e. denying evolution) within the Catholic Church. This includes theologians and I presume also some scientists. The offical teaching of the Church wrt to evolution may not be what many think it to be.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 11:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344455#post344455)
Socrates:



Plants are not nephesh chayyah, therefore what is now called biological death of plants is not what YECs refer to when they talk about no death before the Fall.

I understand that you do not believe that plants are considered high enough to be included in what you call "death." I imagine you use the same kind of interpretation when it comes to the scriptures that refer to the earth as "ancient."




Totally wrong. This is a non sequiture. Physical death, returning to the dust he was made from, is clearly a curse resulting from sin (Genesis 3:19). Great exegetes such as Calvin and Wesley, uncorrupted by outside ideas of uniformitarian long ages, affirmed that before sin, there would be no physical death.

Yes, man's physical death was a result of man's sin. This speaks nothing of animals, however, this is the point.

However, the vegetarian diet of Genesis 1:29-30 applied to the whole earth, not to Eden.

Nay, as it did not apply to aquatic life. It applied to the Garden where man was at the time God gave the dietary orders.

We can proceed into an argument about "all" and "every", but you must realize that there are many examples of scriptures that do not refer to "all" and "every" in a global sense, but in the frame of reference of the writer. Understanding "all" and "every" to not mean globally is accepted in other verses and nobody thinks the Bible to be in error because we interpret it with the frame of reference in mind, ie the famine in Joseph's time spreading to the whole earth, the faith of the Romans spread to the whole world, the "world has gone after Him" as the Pharisees referred to Jesus. We don't think the Bible to be in error, we understand the writer meant his world, it was not a literal global statement.

BTW--why do you think animals needed to eat? Would they have died without food?

~Charleen

[Socrates]

12-18-2003 @ 10:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344599#post344599)
Paul:

Fr Seraphim Rose's writing can be read directly here:

http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/sc_e_conclusion.html

Thanx -- it might save me lots of typing.

St Thomas in his own words can be read here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109703.htm

Thanx -- he was evidently a profound and logical apologist, and a philosopher of the highest order.

PS There is an active movement of creationists (i.e. denying evolution) within the Catholic Church. This includes theologians and I presume also some scientists. The offical teaching of the Church wrt to evolution may not be what many think it to be.

That is very good to know. I have been disappointed with even the pope, to say nothing of most Catholic schools, which all go against the historic tradition of the Church.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 01:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345852#post345852)
Charleen Lohman:

I understand that you do not believe that plants are considered high enough to be included in what you call "death."

I've already told you. They are not nephesh chayyah, and they were part of the original diet.

I imagine you use the same kind of interpretation when it comes to the scriptures that refer to the earth as "ancient."

Yes, I take the words in their historical context. I've already told you that I believe what they say -- the earth IS ancient -- as ancient as 6,000 years old, a HUGE age.

Yes, man's physical death was a result of man's sin.

Which is, as I've documented, a big enough problem for Rossites, because there are plenty of anatomically modern human skeletons that are "dated" (by dating methods OECs gullibly accept) as older than the biblical date for Adam. At least you're not trying to restrict the death by sin to "spiritual death".

This speaks nothing of animals, however, this is the point.

I've already documented that both Calvin and Wesley also believed that animal death was the result of the Fall too.

Nay, as it did not apply to aquatic life. It applied to the Garden where man was at the time God gave the dietary orders.

Not at all -- Genesis 1 is written in a global context -- the Garden is not mentioned till next chapter, after the toledoth in 2:4 marking a section break. And I've explained that Adam's vegetarian diet persisted even after he was expelled from Eden (3:17).

We can proceed into an argument about "all" and "every", but you must realize that there are many examples of scriptures that do not refer to "all" and "every" in a global sense, but in the frame of reference of the writer. Understanding "all" and "every" to not mean globally is accepted in other verses and nobody thinks the Bible to be in error because we interpret it with the frame of reference in mind, ie the famine in Joseph's time spreading to the whole earth, the faith of the Romans spread to the whole world, the "world has gone after Him" as the Pharisees referred to Jesus. We don't think the Bible to be in error, we understand the writer meant his world, it was not a literal global statement.

Why don't you tell me something I don't know? But I've pointed out that the Flood account had the double kol to make it universal. And in this case, the command in context applied to the whole earth because this is the context of the living things God created in Genesis 1.

BTW--why do you think animals needed to eat? Would they have died without food?

It's a case of God ordaining both the means as well as the end.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349533#post349533)
Socrates:



Yes, I take the words in their historical context. I've already told you that I believe what they say -- the earth IS ancient -- as ancient as 6,000 years old, a HUGE age.

Of course today's Joe Smith would not understand "ancient" as 6,000 years old so therefore those Bible verses would seem like nonsense if understood as *really* meaning "young" earth. Maybe the Bible was only written for pre modern man to understand?


...there are plenty of anatomically modern human skeletons that are "dated" (by dating methods OECs gullibly accept) as older than the biblical date for Adam.

I spoke of man's death and nothing of extra biblical resources. Man's death both spiritual and physical were a result of the Fall, again, this says nothing of animals.


Not at all -- Genesis 1 is written in a global context -- the Garden is not mentioned till next chapter, after the toledoth in 2:4 marking a section break.

Chapter two tells us where man was when God gave the dietary orders in chapter one. Man was made outside of the Garden and placed in the Garden and woman was made afterward in the Garden. Since both male and female were given instruction at the end of Genesis one, we know that their orders were given while in the Garden.


Why don't you tell me something I don't know? But I've pointed out that the Flood account had the double kol to make it universal. And in this case, the command in context applied to the whole earth because this is the context of the living things God created in Genesis 1.

Again, aquatic life was not given dietary orders. Sharks were not given land vegetation to eat. The "whole earth" was therefore not included in this statement. Most of the earth is ocean, the dietary commands leaves out most of the earth.


It's a case of God ordaining both the means as well as the end.

I admit I am not the brightest, what does your answer mean? I had asked you why animals were originally given food to eat, would they have died without it?