Meat Eaters

[Kaatje]

I have a question:
When did the animals start to devour meat?

I was having this discussion with somebody from my church.
After a lot of research, I discovered that my view is an abberation to the common view.
But I've never minded to be different. So here is my reasoning:

In Gen. 8 we read that when Noah sent out a raven, the bird didn't return, but the dove did.
My sparring partner said, it was because the raven was a scavenger, and the dove was not.
My reply was, that this couldn't be so, because there were no scavengers up to that time.
The text also does not say that the raven found anything to eat.
It only says the raven went to and fro, and that the dove found no resting place.

Rest
I would suspect that both birds did not fly out hungry, as they had food in the ark.
So it wasn't about food, it was about a resting place.
A raven doesn't need much to rest, a piece of driftwood or something similar, would already suffice.
But a dove has to build a nest first, and he couldn't accomplice that task yet.
And that also explains the piece of leaf it had in it's beak.
On his second flight, the dove was able to start his nest, but it was not yet finished.
So, when he got tired he flew back to the ark, with another piece of "work" in it's beak.
The following week he finished his nest and was able to rest on it without having to return to the ark.

Vegetarians
At the creation, God said that humans could eat herbs and fruit, and to ALL animals God gave the green crop.
So mankind, and all animals, were herbivores and nowhere do we read that God changes this.
Not until Noah came out of the ark and God gave Him a new commandment.
(Btw, the only animal that was changed after the fall was the serpent, He lost his legs, and he would eat dust.)

And I don't think that the fact that there were clean and unclean animals before the flood, alters this.
That only means that God had already made it known which animals could be sacrificed to Him.
See, for example, Abel's offering of the firstfruits of his flock.
(the separation between clean and unclean is also different from herbivores and carnivores).

Meateaters
In Gen. 9:2-6 we read:
And the fear of you‭ and the dread of you‭ shall be upon every ‭beast‭‭ of the earth‭, and upon every fowl‭ of the air‭, upon all that moveth‭‭ ‭upon‭ the earth‭, and upon all the fishes‭ of the sea‭; into your hand‭ are they delivered‭‭.‭ ‭Every moving thing‭ that liveth‭ shall be meat‭ for you; even as the green‭ herb‭ have I given‭‭ you all things.‭ But‭ flesh‭ with the life‭ thereof, ‭which is‭ the blood‭ thereof, shall ye not eat‭‭.‭
‭And surely‭ your blood‭ of your lives‭ will I require‭‭; at the hand‭ of every ‭beast‭‭ will I require it‭‭, and at the hand‭ of man‭; at the hand‭ of every man’s‭ brother‭ will I require‭‭ the life‭ of man‭.‭ Whoso sheddeth‭‭ man’s‭ blood‭, by man‭ shall his blood‭ be shed‭‭: for in the image‭ of God‭ made‭‭ he man‭.‭

After Noah came out of the ark, the animals became afraid of humans.
So, before the flood, the animals had no fear of humans (and vice versa).
Also, from now on, humans can eat meat, but subject to rules.
And God also gives rules about how to deal with an animal that kills a human.
Apparently that is only an issue from that moment on.

And now I'm going to speculate a bit:
Before the Fall, meat was both forbidden and unnessecary.
Humans could, and did, live to be very old on a vegetarian diet, because the earth provided plenty nutricious herbs and fruit.
And the animals likewise, lived on plentiful greens.

But the earth was thrown off its axis by the flood and became tilted. This created rain and drought, jungle and polar regions.
The seasons started, and it stands to reason that the "plentiful vegetation" would deminish to a certain extent.
In this new environment, God gave a new "circle of life". And was it good for people and (some) animals to also eat meat.
Love to hear your reactions, be they supportive or contrary.

Kaatje

 

[Andy C]

I have a question:
When did the animals start to devour meat?

I was having this discussion with somebody from my church.
After a lot of research, I discovered that my view is an abberation to the common view.
But I've never minded to be different. So here is my reasoning:

In Gen. 8 we read that when Noah sent out a raven, the bird didn't return, but the dove did.
My sparring partner said, it was because the raven was a scavenger, and the dove was not.
My reply was, that this couldn't be so, because there were no scavengers up to that time.
The text also does not say that the raven found anything to eat.
It only says the raven went to and fro, and that the dove found no resting place.

Rest
I would suspect that both birds did not fly out hungry, as they had food in the ark.
So it wasn't about food, it was about a resting place.
A raven doesn't need much to rest, a piece of driftwood or something similar, would already suffice.
But a dove has to build a nest first, and he couldn't accomplice that task yet.
And that also explains the piece of leaf it had in it's beak.
On his second flight, the dove was able to start his nest, but it was not yet finished.
So, when he got tired he flew back to the ark, with another piece of "work" in it's beak.
The following week he finished his nest and was able to rest on it without having to return to the ark.

Vegetarians
At the creation, God said that humans could eat herbs and fruit, and to ALL animals God gave the green crop.
So mankind, and all animals, were herbivores and nowhere do we read that God changes this.
Not until Noah came out of the ark and God gave Him a new commandment.
(Btw, the only animal that was changed after the fall was the serpent, He lost his legs, and he would eat dust.)

And I don't think that the fact that there were clean and unclean animals before the flood, alters this.
That only means that God had already made it known which animals could be sacrificed to Him.
See, for example, Abel's offering of the firstfruits of his flock.
(the separation between clean and unclean is also different from herbivores and carnivores).

Meateaters
In Gen. 9:2-6 we read:
And the fear of you‭ and the dread of you‭ shall be upon every ‭beast‭‭ of the earth‭, and upon every fowl‭ of the air‭, upon all that moveth‭‭ ‭upon‭ the earth‭, and upon all the fishes‭ of the sea‭; into your hand‭ are they delivered‭‭.‭ ‭Every moving thing‭ that liveth‭ shall be meat‭ for you; even as the green‭ herb‭ have I given‭‭ you all things.‭ But‭ flesh‭ with the life‭ thereof, ‭which is‭ the blood‭ thereof, shall ye not eat‭‭.‭
‭And surely‭ your blood‭ of your lives‭ will I require‭‭; at the hand‭ of every ‭beast‭‭ will I require it‭‭, and at the hand‭ of man‭; at the hand‭ of every man’s‭ brother‭ will I require‭‭ the life‭ of man‭.‭ Whoso sheddeth‭‭ man’s‭ blood‭, by man‭ shall his blood‭ be shed‭‭: for in the image‭ of God‭ made‭‭ he man‭.‭

After Noah came out of the ark, the animals became afraid of humans.
So, before the flood, the animals had no fear of humans (and vice versa).
Also, from now on, humans can eat meat, but subject to rules.
And God also gives rules about how to deal with an animal that kills a human.
Apparently that is only an issue from that moment on.

And now I'm going to speculate a bit:
Before the Fall, meat was both forbidden and unnessecary.
Humans could, and did, live to be very old on a vegetarian diet, because the earth provided plenty nutricious herbs and fruit.
And the animals likewise, lived on plentiful greens.

But the earth was thrown off its axis by the flood and became tilted. This created rain and drought, jungle and polar regions.
The seasons started, and it stands to reason that the "plentiful vegetation" would deminish to a certain extent.
In this new environment, God gave a new "circle of life". And was it good for people and (some) animals to also eat meat.
Love to hear your reactions, be they supportive or contrary.

Kaatje

Until you mentioned this a few days ago in another thread, I never once thought about when animals first started eating meat. Interesting. I did a quick research, and did not find much out there or from my own reading in His Word. I found one who speculated when God issued the curses in Genesis 3, this could have been when animals started eating meat. However, your views seem to be more plausible.

 

[mattfivefour]

Interesting. Something to ruminate on.

 

[Andy C]

Topics like this thread is what I like about forums. Its a topic I would have never thought of, but when presented, it makes me search through scripture.

 

[Tall Timbers]

I started reading at the front of the Bible a week or two ago after spending a lot of time in the New Testament. Thought this meat eater would look at it for himself.

Gen 1:29-30 says Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Admittedly it seems pretty clear that all animals and man included started out eating food that grew out of the ground and did not eat meat.

Gen 4:2b says And Abel was a keeper of the flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

My mind would like to think that if you keep a flock of sheep that you don't just use them for wool and give them a nice burial when they die of old age. That just seems screwy to me.

Gen 4:3-5a So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.

That verse reinforced my thoughts that surely the family of Adam must be chowing down on lamb chops.

Then I got to Gen 9:1-5. And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.

Now that verse kind of clinches it. Toss out the fact that my brain thinks that if you raise sheep you eat sheep and see that here in Ch 9 God for the first time says he gives of the animals for man to eat as he gave the green plant... It appears that like it or not, mankind and all animals started out as non-meat eaters until after the flood.

 

[Andy C]

I started reading at the front of the Bible a week or two ago after spending a lot of time in the New Testament. Thought this meat eater would look at it for himself.

Gen 1:29-30 says Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Admittedly it seems pretty clear that all animals and man included started out eating food that grew out of the ground and did not eat meat.

Gen 4:2b says And Abel was a keeper of the flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

My mind would like to think that if you keep a flock of sheep that you don't just use them for wool and give them a nice burial when they die of old age. That just seems screwy to me.

Gen 4:3-5a So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.

That verse reinforced my thoughts that surely the family of Adam must be chowing down on lamb chops.

Then I got to Gen 9:1-5. And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.

Now that verse kind of clinches it. Toss out the fact that my brain thinks that if you raise sheep you eat sheep and see that here in Ch 9 God for the first time says he gives of the animals for man to eat as he gave the green plant... It appears that like it or not, mankind and all animals started out as non-meat eaters until after the flood.

Good post, but does it directly answer the OP question as to when did animals first eat meat?

 

[Work4Peanuts]

I started reading at the front of the Bible a week or two ago after spending a lot of time in the New Testament. Thought this meat eater would look at it for himself.

Gen 1:29-30 says Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Admittedly it seems pretty clear that all animals and man included started out eating food that grew out of the ground and did not eat meat.

Gen 4:2b says And Abel was a keeper of the flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

My mind would like to think that if you keep a flock of sheep that you don't just use them for wool and give them a nice burial when they die of old age. That just seems screwy to me.

Gen 4:3-5a So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.

That verse reinforced my thoughts that surely the family of Adam must be chowing down on lamb chops.

Then I got to Gen 9:1-5. And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.

Now that verse kind of clinches it. Toss out the fact that my brain thinks that if you raise sheep you eat sheep and see that here in Ch 9 God for the first time says he gives of the animals for man to eat as he gave the green plant... It appears that like it or not, mankind and all animals started out as non-meat eaters until after the flood.

Death came into the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed in the garden of Eden. They tried to cover their nakedness with leaves, but God gave them skins for clothes. That implies the sacrificial system that was to be set up as a symbol of Jesus to come, and definitely implies that God killed the animals that were needed for those clothes. (Although admittedly, God could conjure up skins without killing any animals, I tend to think that he showed our first parents how to do it.) Sheep can be kept for milk as well as fiber, and with the use for sacrifice, that would make them multi-purpose without suggesting that the meat was eaten. It's possible that people after the fall continued to be vegetarian, reserving the meat for sacrifices to God. It's also possible that as violence spread on the earth, people started seeing the sacrifices reserved to God as something that they could take for themselves and started eating meat. The Bible doesn't clarify that point. It was definitely after the flood that God told the people that they could eat meat.

 

[mattfivefour]

In Genesis God instituted animal sacrifice for sin and in Exodus and Leviticus He instructed that some of the sacrificial meat be given to the priests and Levites to eat. Sounds like God was approving of eating meat.

 

[Tall Timbers]

In Genesis God instituted animal sacrifice for sin and in Exodus and Leviticus He instructed that some of the sacrificial meat be given to the priests and Levites to eat. Sounds like God was approving of eating meat.

A big question in my mind is why did he start people off on a meatless diet in the beginning... that's the part that scrambles my brain. Additionally our human bodies and those of many animals are both designed to eat meat and greatly benefit from the unique nutritive components of meat eating.

 

[Andy C]

A big question in my mind is why did he start people off on a meatless diet in the beginning... that's the part that scrambles my brain. Additionally our human bodies and those of many animals are both designed to eat meat and greatly benefit from the unique nutritive components of meat eating.

Maybe He was trying to save all the meat for future hamburger lovers.

 

[Kaatje]

A big question in my mind is why did he start people off on a meatless diet in the beginning...

My best answer is, that in the beginning, before the Great Flood,
the conditions on earth were different than we know, today.
And people could live to a grand old age on greens alone.

After the Flood, in the new conditions, we would need those proteïns,
hence the permit to eat meat.

(I don't mind to be wrong, of course, but this makes the most sense to me)

 

[Kaatje]

In Genesis God instituted animal sacrifice for sin and in Exodus and Leviticus He instructed that some of the sacrificial meat be given to the priests and Levites to eat. Sounds like God was approving of eating meat.

Agreed. But that is after the Flood.
Also, some of the sacrifices mentioned in Exodus and Leviticus were partially for the Levites, while others were for the Lord alone.
Could be that the flock that Abel tended were for the purpose of sacrifice alone (or maybe their wool too), but it isn't mentioned that they ate it.

 

[Tall Timbers]

After the Flood, in the new conditions, we would need those proteïns,
hence the permit to eat meat.

That's plausible, for both humans and meat eating animals.

 

[Work4Peanuts]

In Genesis God instituted animal sacrifice for sin and in Exodus and Leviticus He instructed that some of the sacrificial meat be given to the priests and Levites to eat. Sounds like God was approving of eating meat.

I believe that He certainly planned for its eventual institution, once the fall of man occured, knowing that the world also would be dying. DNA would degrade over time, making decent nutrition harder and harder to achieve with a diet of vegetables and fruit alone. We can even see that in our own time. Vegetables have fewer vitamins and minerals than in recent times past. Part of it is farming practices, but I think that the death of creation is also playing a part. He knows the end from the beginning after all.

As for why humans were vegetarians to begin with- there was no death in the Garden of Eden. Meat requires the death of the one being eaten, while fruit doesn't. Once death entered the world, the option of actually eating other living creatures became viable.

 

[Andy C]

Agreed. But that is after the Flood.
Also, some of the sacrifices mentioned in Exodus and Leviticus were partially for the Levites, while others were for the Lord alone.
Could be that the flock that Abel tended were for the purpose of sacrifice alone (or maybe their wool too), but it isn't mentioned that they ate it.

I posted this before, but thanks again for broaching this topic. Its always good when we can learn something new, even if it seems unimportant, but in reality, it deals with His Word, all of which is important!

 

[Margery]

It was definitely after the flood that God told the people that they could eat meat.

I agree and I'd like to expand on that idea.

When God tells people that they could eat meat after the Flood, He is instituting a new condition for people. That doesn't apply to animals. Just to people.

While we could say that before the Flood everything was vegetarian, because it started that way and people were told they could eat meat after the Flood that doesn't actually address the question about animals.

Which means that either animals ate meat after the Fall and before the Flood or they remained vegetarians till the Flood.

What is the Biblical evidence?

It doesn't say either way.

Just that death enters after the Fall. Creation begins to fall apart right after the fall.

So if the Bible is silent the arguments are weaker because we are arguing from silence.

I'm going to toss a monkey wrench in the mix with an answer outside the Bible but observational science.

The fossils laid down all over the world from The Flood-- quite a few are fossilized in the act of eating another animal. Fish in the moment of swallowing another fish for example. Laid down in an instant in hot wet mineralized mud that solidifies and fossilizes so fast there isn't time for decay which fish are prone to. The fossils occur in multiple places across the world including high mountain peaks. Exactly as expected from a sudden catastrophic event.

Because the fossil evidence speaks to animals eating other animals lets consider the obvious argument against the fossil record--

What if the fossils came after?

Well in that case huge fossil beds of marine life shouldn't be found on mountain tops where water hasn't flowed since the Great Flood of Noah.

Fish eating other fish, dinosaurs eating mouse like creatures and other fossils from the same period are found in layers all over the earth not just on mountains.

Therefore I'm going to go out on a non Biblical argument using Creation Science and say some animals became carnivores, some remained herbivores and others like pigs and bears are a combination- omnivores.

Squid Was Fossilized Catching Its Dinner

A fossilized belemnoid and fish are interpreted one way by old earth scientists and another way through biblical creation. Which way is correct?

answersingenesis.org

 

[Work4Peanuts]

I agree and I'd like to expand on that idea.

When God tells people that they could eat meat after the Flood, He is instituting a new condition for people. That doesn't apply to animals. Just to people.

While we could say that before the Flood everything was vegetarian, because it started that way and people were told they could eat meat after the Flood that doesn't actually address the question about animals.

Which means that either animals ate meat after the Fall and before the Flood or they remained vegetarians till the Flood.

What is the Biblical evidence?

It doesn't say either way.

Just that death enters after the Fall. Creation begins to fall apart right after the fall.

So if the Bible is silent the arguments are weaker because we are arguing from silence.

I'm going to toss a monkey wrench in the mix with an answer outside the Bible but observational science.

The fossils laid down all over the world from The Flood-- quite a few are fossilized in the act of eating another animal. Fish in the moment of swallowing another fish for example. Laid down in an instant in hot wet mineralized mud that solidifies and fossilizes so fast there isn't time for decay which fish are prone to. The fossils occur in multiple places across the world including high mountain peaks. Exactly as expected from a sudden catastrophic event.

Because the fossil evidence speaks to animals eating other animals lets consider the obvious argument against the fossil record--

What if the fossils came after?

Well in that case huge fossil beds of marine life shouldn't be found on mountain tops where water hasn't flowed since the Great Flood of Noah.

Fish eating other fish, dinosaurs eating mouse like creatures and other fossils from the same period are found in layers all over the earth not just on mountains.

Therefore I'm going to go out on a non Biblical argument using Creation Science and say some animals became carnivores, some remained herbivores and others like pigs and bears are a combination- omnivores.

Squid Was Fossilized Catching Its Dinner

A fossilized belemnoid and fish are interpreted one way by old earth scientists and another way through biblical creation. Which way is correct?

answersingenesis.org

It really is speculation. I've often thought how much more convenient it would be if every creature on the ark just ate grass, but I do think that obligate carnivores became carnivores after the fall.

 

[Tall Timbers]

Since Cain seems to have been the pointy head of the spear when it came to their flock... I wonder if, after he had to leave for another part of the world, if he and his clan were meat eaters before the flood.

 

[Margery]

pointy head of the spear

 

[TCC]

I agree and I'd like to expand on that idea.

When God tells people that they could eat meat after the Flood, He is instituting a new condition for people. That doesn't apply to animals. Just to people.

While we could say that before the Flood everything was vegetarian, because it started that way and people were told they could eat meat after the Flood that doesn't actually address the question about animals.

Which means that either animals ate meat after the Fall and before the Flood or they remained vegetarians till the Flood.

What is the Biblical evidence?

It doesn't say either way.

Just that death enters after the Fall. Creation begins to fall apart right after the fall.

So if the Bible is silent the arguments are weaker because we are arguing from silence.

I'm going to toss a monkey wrench in the mix with an answer outside the Bible but observational science.

The fossils laid down all over the world from The Flood-- quite a few are fossilized in the act of eating another animal. Fish in the moment of swallowing another fish for example. Laid down in an instant in hot wet mineralized mud that solidifies and fossilizes so fast there isn't time for decay which fish are prone to. The fossils occur in multiple places across the world including high mountain peaks. Exactly as expected from a sudden catastrophic event.

Because the fossil evidence speaks to animals eating other animals lets consider the obvious argument against the fossil record--

What if the fossils came after?

Well in that case huge fossil beds of marine life shouldn't be found on mountain tops where water hasn't flowed since the Great Flood of Noah.

Fish eating other fish, dinosaurs eating mouse like creatures and other fossils from the same period are found in layers all over the earth not just on mountains.

Therefore I'm going to go out on a non Biblical argument using Creation Science and say some animals became carnivores, some remained herbivores and others like pigs and bears are a combination- omnivores.

Squid Was Fossilized Catching Its Dinner

A fossilized belemnoid and fish are interpreted one way by old earth scientists and another way through biblical creation. Which way is correct?

answersingenesis.org

The only thing with that that comes to mind is that would high mountain fish be what occured after God's edict to Noah in Gen 9? Would there not still be high rise levels of water still receding and getting lower and lower slowly over time? In that sense it could be that fish starting eating fish after the Gen 9 edict while water levels were still reducing over time perhaps?