Are humans animals?

[happyjoy]

If someone doesn't take the Word of God to be True, or they say it is wrought with errors, then I can understand that this person will not take scripture as evidence that we, while we might be in the same man made scientific category, are chosen, lift above all other creation, made in His image, to rule over all the creatures of the world. Just because the science community classed us in the same grouping, doesn't speak to God's design for us.

I didn't chime in on this for a while, because I thought it would die early on it's on volition. It screams new ageism; we are one with the trees, the earth, the animals - all interconnected. I've never heard a credible Christian declare that we are made on the same level, same purpose, as the rest of animals.

I made a pointed, too pointed, post directed at one person, which thankfully, was deleted, because I went to far at pointing the finger at one person. I've seen reference to a few lines from it, from people who read it prior to being taken off. Please forget you ever read it. I'm making this more broad in saying if some people don't believe the sacredness of the Bible and its reliability, this thread will end up going no where. We have the Truth in the Bible, and Christians adhere to it. If others don't accept it, then we're talking two different languages. Man and Woman, who were created to adore Him have always been the reason for His creation. No other animal does that, because they weren't created for that purpose.

Nothing ground breaking here. Just had to chime in, hopefully in a respectful way.

In Christian Love,
mjjcb

I think it is possible to see the truth of the bible while not believing it to be literal history book or science book. I think this all or nothing mentality of biblical literalism is really superstition masquerading as faith. We don't need to discard common sense and an education to be saved. If one truly believes that the findings of science go against God one wouldn't be partaking in the fruits of the blasphemy of science. One would live as the Amish do, and reject the modern world.

Man and Woman, who were created to adore Him have always been the reason for His creation.

That goes directly to my original analogy. The Catholic church persecuted Copernicus and Galileo because of this belief. The idea that all of creation is centered around man and woman. They could not understand that the earth is not the center of the universe, as that challenges the belief that we are the center of creation.

Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe?

 

[handy]

I am hoping for a reunion with all my pets in the resurrection life to come in New Jerusalem- not to mention the Lord and the Saints and my family known and unknown
great hope what
1000 years of living and reigning with the Lord on the planet and in space
shalom
sj

I have the same hope, saintjim. While I fully understand that the Scriptures do not address the issue of the resurrection of specific animals (ie Kitty-Kitty as opposed to cats in general), I think that to fully and completely be victorious all death and all sin, then the individual animals must be resurrected as well. After all, their death was only because of the sin of Adam, they were innocent victims of death.

But, that really is conjecture, not something to divide over to be sure. But, yes, I have that hope as well. I've lost a lot of pets over the years and hope to see them in the New Earth. :yes

I do believe the bible is fully inspired and wholly without error. (I don't view things such as the age of Josiah as an error as much as a "typo".) I also embrace science, and find few if any conflicts between my faith and science. This is mainly because I view science as only explaining the "mechanics" of things, not the meaning of things. In those few areas in which scientific theory directly conflicts with clear Scriptural teaching, I side with Scriptures, recognizing that a lot of what passes for Scientific Theory are really held to for social and political reasons, rather than purely scientific reasons.

In the case of animals, there is a lot we simply don't know regarding God's truth about them. This is mainly because we only know God's truth via the Bible, and the purpose of the Bible is to reveal God's truth in regards to His redemptive plan for sinful man. The animals really don't come into the redemptive plan all that much, because they don't sin. We do know that they were saved in the same symbolic "baptismal" waters of the Flood via the Ark, so we do know that God's plan is to redeem the animals as well as man. But, the Bible concerns itself mainly with man.

 

[Caroline H]

That goes directly to my original analogy. The Catholic church persecuted Copernicus and Galileo because of this belief. The idea that all of creation is centered around man and woman. They could not understand that the earth is not the center of the universe, as that challenges the belief that we are the center of creation.

Believing that we are the pinnacle of God's creation, and that we are created for the purpose of worshiping Him, does not mean that one believes that the earth is at the center of the universe. Just because eons ago some Christian leaders believed that, doesn't meant that if a person views humanity as the pinnacle of God's creation they have to believe everything that the early Christian leaders did.

 

[stovebolts]

Actually trees do breath and plants as well. They can get their oxygen from water , as does fish. But as animals which have breath life, which is similar to mankind. One thing that animals lack is a soul. More on this in a moment.

Bringing plants into this is just silly Hervey... But I digress, animals are also 'living souls'. More to come in a moment.

Animals were not created in the image of God. Man was .

Not sure why you wrote that... I hope that you are not rushing through my posts and not reading them. Regardless, I have not anywhere inferred that animals were created in the "image" of God. Let me make myself clear. Animals are not created in the image of God.

But God created the first man, both male and female in the one man Adam, which is the image of God.

I believe there is a difference between bara (created) and 'formed' or 'made'... Why do you now apply two different principals upon its usage?

1:26; Let us make man in our image.
When God says these words, he is speaking to the earth, for God formed man from the dust of the ground, and woman was formed from the rib of Adam. Yes, God created both of them.

1:27; And God created man in his own image.

Let me restate what I've already posted.

God did make us in His image. You see, God gave us authority to rule over and have dominion of His creation (Genesis 1:26b and let them have...)

Simply put, being created in the image of God is not a physical trait. No other animal has been given dominion. It was precisely this trait that led to the first form of idolatry. That is, when Eve took of the forbidden fruit.

God caused man , by breathing into his nostriles, man a living soul.

While I understand how you came to this conclusion, which btw is a common conclusion, it is not an entirely accurate conclusion. Look at it this way, as I stated earlier;

But we are also 'living souls' formed from the dust of the earth. Living souls in the original Hebrew is chay nephesh. The same chay nepesh is translated, 'Living Creatures' and all living creatures come from the dust of earth and have the breath of life until they die.

When you look at a 'living creature', what your looking at is a creature that breaths. In other words, it has a breath and without this breath, it dies.. Again, this in the Hebrew is called chay nephesh. It's really that simple. So we see that a living soul, is simply a living creature.

When God breathed into the nostrils of humanity when he formed humanity (with all due respect, not merely spoken into existence) God's spirit entered into humanity. This imparting of God's spirit into humanity does not make one a living soul, but rather it shows the intimate connection between God and humanity.

Simply put, not only is it is the breath of God himself that gives us our spirit, but it is how that breath was given... and this is one of many reasons that make us unique among the other 'chay nephesh's.

This came from God. Animals do not receive this ! This is why the spirit of man goes back to the giver - God.

Animals do have a spirit...
Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

I believe I've already stated something very similar in my last post...

When they die, their bodies return to the dust of the earth where it came from. However, when man dies, his spirit goes back to God who gave it while his body returns to the earth from which is was formed as well.

BTW, for anyone who isn't' familiar with this verse, it's found in Ecc 12.

Hervey, what other chay nephesh's don't have, is the intimate interaction when God's breath was given. With humanity, the breath was given directy through the nostrils not to mention God personally formed us, where as with other chay nephesh's, God's breath was in his speech when he spoke them into existence through command to the earth. Please see Ecc 3 on this and you will find the truth within these words. While your at it, please view Gen 6:17.

 

[Mysteryman]

If someone doesn't take the Word of God to be True, or they say it is wrought with errors, then I can understand that this person will not take scripture as evidence that we, while we might be in the same man made scientific category, are chosen, lift above all other creation, made in His image, to rule over all the creatures of the world. Just because the science community classed us in the same grouping, doesn't speak to God's design for us.

This was the point I was getting at with the reference to the "Dawn Treader", that there is a difference between what we are made of and what we are. We are made of the same stuff as the animals, and scientifically we are classed as animal (as opposed to vegetable and mineral), even classed as mammal (as those whose mothers feed their young with milk) but it is God who determines what we are and God determined that man is higher than the animals and are in His image.

MM, this is an interesting discussion. You said, "Genesis 1:23 God actually separates carnivorous from plant eaters. God uses the word "cattle" and then states "beasts". A "beast" is one in which - "devours" -- Psalm 80:13. And this is why God relates the adversary of God as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour."

While it's true that there is a different word for cattle and beast used in Genesis 1:23, by no means does this infer that the "cattle" were herbivores and the "beasts" were carnivores. We see this clearly in Genesis 1:30 which states, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so." In the verse, it clearly states beast, not just cattle, and also includes birds and "creeping" things.

I use "Blue Letter Bible" to check out original words and I tried to check our your distinction regarding "all" and "every" and I could not see that "every" and "all" meant with distinction. What reference material are you using? I enjoy studying the various nuances of the words of the original Hebrew and Greek (I know, I'm such a nerd), but none of my reference material shows that particular nuance.

It was through Adam, according to Romans 5:12 that both sin and death entered into the world. If death did not enter into the world prior to the Fall, then animals certainly could not have been eating each other. I'm sorry, it just seems to me that it's assuming too much that Scripture does not actually say, to say that certain animals were carnivores prior to the Fall.

After the Fall, we do see animals being sacrificed. First to provide clothing for Adam and Eve and also sacrifices to God. This we do see. But, there is not one reference to carnivorous behavior from either man or animals prior to Genesis 9.

It's not that I'm disagreeing with most of what you say, just pointing out that what you are referring to is in the post-flood world, not prior to the Fall.

And, one final thought, it's the wolf that will lay with the lamb, the leopard with the young goat. The lion will lay with the calf and yearling and a little child shall lead them. This prophesy is in Isaiah 11 the full context of which is:
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.

In this prophesy it clearly states that the lions (and obviously other carnivores) will become herbivores. I believe that this is because that was how they were created in the first place, and that they will be restored to the natural (prior to the fall) state, when death is completely defeated at Christ's coming. The reason why I believe this isn't just a jump to a conclusion though, it's a belief I've come to by studying what Genesis precisely says and does not say in regards to the animals.

If you can find a reference to a beast eating another animal prior to the Flood, please share it.

Hi Dora

I am glad to see, that one (you) leave no stone unturned. That is the way we are to study the scriptures,and believe me when I say , it is rare to find someone who is willing to turn over every leaf and stone to find the truth.

Maybe a little biblical history is in order here. But before we go there, I would like to also point out, that many things within the Word are hidden. Okay, that said, lets move on.

God is a God of all life, so when he created the heaven and the earth, both the heaven and the earth had life. In Gen. 1:2 the earth became without form and void of life, because the earth became flooded with water.

Prior to Gen. 1:2 this earth as well as heaven had life in them. The earth had plant life and animal life as well as human life. This human life , as well as this animal life, as well as this plant life is not the exact same type of plant life and animal life and human life we have after Gen. 2: 1. There are similarities, but not exactness. God told man in Gen. 1:28 to "replenish" the earth, and have dominion over the fish and fowl and every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Those animals which lived prior to Gen. 1:2 were both meat eaters and plant eaters. Now this is where it gets tricky. After Gen. 1:2, God was re-establishing this earth with life. Different types of plants, and different types of animals and different types of humans. Similar but different.

The prophecy of Isaiah 11:1 - 10 pertains to the third earth, which is also called the New Earth. God tells us that he will make all things "new". Not renewed, but new ! There will be animals in the New Earth, but they will be similar, but different than the animals of this earth. They will not have a desire to kill nor compete for food. These will be New animals, which God will still call them a bear or cattle or a lion or a cobra, or viper etc. That is because this new earth will be full of the knowledge of God, including all the animals.

This earth has never been full of the knowledge of God. For we only know in part. And animals only know their own part. God made these animals (beasts) similar to the anaimals ( beasts ) of the first earth, which was before the earth we now live in, and which is after Gen. 2:1

As far as the word "all" is concerned. This is something you will not find in a book. You will need to study this word in essence to its usage throughout the Word of God. For instance, God has said - "I would that all come to a knowledge of the truth" < This can not be all without exception. It must be all with distinction, because not everyone who ever lived has been given the ability to know the truth as Christians have. There have been prophesies from the prophets, but even they only knew only those things God had revealed unto them. We have a much greater ability to understand the knowledge of God, because we have Christ in us. And even then, we still only know in part. Greater knowledge but still only part. Also, only a few whom God has called and chosen, have the Spirit of truth in them. So "all" can not mean here without exception. So it must be with distinction.

Bless -- any questions ?

 

[handy]

Hi Dora

I am glad to see, that one (you) leave no stone unturned. That is the way we are to study the scriptures,and believe me when I say , it is rare to find someone who is willing to turn over every leaf and stone to find the truth.

Maybe a little biblical history is in order here. But before we go there, I would like to also point out, that many things within the Word are hidden. Okay, that said, lets move on.

God is a God of all life, so when he created the heaven and the earth, both the heaven and the earth had life. In Gen. 1:2 the earth became without form and void of life, because the earth became flooded with water.

Prior to Gen. 1:2 this earth as well as heaven had life in them. The earth had plant life and animal life as well as human life. This human life , as well as this animal life, as well as this plant life is not the exact same type of plant life and animal life and human life we have after Gen. 2: 1. There are similarities, but not exactness. God told man in Gen. 1:28 to "replenish" the earth, and have dominion over the fish and fowl and every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Those animals which lived prior to Gen. 1:2 were both meat eaters and plant eaters. Now this is where it gets tricky. After Gen. 1:2, God was re-establishing this earth with life. Different types of plants, and different types of animals and different types of humans. Similar but different.

The prophecy of Isaiah 11:1 - 10 pertains to the third earth, which is also called the New Earth. God tells us that he will make all things "new". Not renewed, but new ! There will be animals in the New Earth, but they will be similar, but different than the animals of this earth. They will not have a desire to kill nor compete for food. These will be New animals, which God will still call them a bear or cattle or a lion or a cobra, or viper etc. That is because this new earth will be full of the knowledge of God, including all the animals.

This earth has never been full of the knowledge of God. For we only know in part. And animals only know their own part. God made these animals (beasts) similar to the anaimals ( beasts ) of the first earth, which was before the earth we now live in, and which is after Gen. 2:1

As far as the word "all" is concerned. This is something you will not find in a book. You will need to study this word in essence to its usage throughout the Word of God. For instance, God has said - "I would that all come to a knowledge of the truth" < This can not be all without exception. It must be all with distinction, because not everyone who ever lived has been given the ability to know the truth as Christians have. There have been prophesies from the prophets, but even they only knew only those things God had revealed unto them. We have a much greater ability to understand the knowledge of God, because we have Christ in us. And even then, we still only know in part. Greater knowledge but still only part. Also, only a few whom God has called and chosen, have the Spirit of truth in them. So "all" can not mean here without exception. So it must be with distinction.

Bless -- any questions ?

I've heard of the theory that there was an earth prior to this earth before. I find that scriptural evidence to support this theory is lacking. Yes, the earth was in place prior to the creation days, that is true. However, there seems to be little to no biblical evidence that there was a fully populated earth that was flooded, prior to creation day one. However, that is a subject of a different thread. To go further into that particular theory, we really have to leave the whole "Are humans animals" question. If you want to start a new and yet another thread on this theory, I'll read it. But, lets not derail this thread.

As for this thread, and the nature of humans in relationship to the animals, lets say, for the sake of discussion, that the theory of a pre-Genesis, fully populated earth is correct. OK. Doesn't have a thing to do with this current earth then. Because, even if there was a fully populated earth prior to Genesis 1:1, by Genesis 1:1, the earth was completely void. So, any animals, including humans, are created anew. Which means that we must look to the Scriptures we currently have to make whatever conclusions about the nature of the animals and of humans that were created for this current earth.

And, the Scriptures we currently have, which tell the story of this earth, state pretty clearly that the beasts, including cattle, and the birds, and the "creeping things" (I always think of snakes and reptiles) as well as Adam and Eve, were given plants to eat. Until you can give me some clear Biblical evidence, including chapter and verse, to the contrary, then I'm sticking with the clear meaning of Genesis 1:30 that all living creatures, all "chay nephish", were vegetarian.

I find that humans are animals in nature. We were formed of the earth, just as the animals were. We were given souls, better said, we are living souls "chay nephish", just as the animals are. We were given the same food to eat that the animals were given. We procreate the same way they do, at least the mammalian animals. We were created to be ever living, just as the animals were. I find no evidence whatsoever in the Creation story that some animals were created to be food for other animals or for humans. Humans were not given animals to eat until after the Flood and there is no record at all of animals eating other animals between Genesis 1 and Genesis 9. All this is what the Scriptures clearly say, unless I am missing something.

However, again, just because we are animals in nature, (by nature, I mean by DNA, flesh and blood), this is what we are made of, not necessarily what we are. We are made of the same stuff as the animals. We are carbon-based life forms, we know this because God called the animals from the earth, and when He formed Adam, He formed Adam from the earth as well. However, it is God who ultimately determines who we are, and He determined that man was to be made in His image, and be above the animals. In the truest sense of the word, man is sanctified, set-apart, for service and worship of God, to fulfill His purposes.

 

[handy]

Here's another thought about the nature of what things are made of and what things are and how different that can be:

My bible sitting here on my desk is made of cardboard, paper, ink and glue, with some thread. It's a noun, a thing, an object that can be picked up, dropped, placed, set, thrown, etc. However, I'm sure all will agree that this is not what a bible is.

Even though we are made as the animals are, we are flesh and blood, we breathe as they do, we eat as they do, etc. etc. etc., this hardly is what we are.

 

[Mysteryman]

I am hoping for a reunion with all my pets in the resurrection life to come in New Jerusalem- not to mention the Lord and the Saints and my family known and unknown
great hope what
1000 years of living and reigning with the Lord on the planet and in space
shalom
sj

I have the same hope, saintjim. While I fully understand that the Scriptures do not address the issue of the resurrection of specific animals (ie Kitty-Kitty as opposed to cats in general), I think that to fully and completely be victorious all death and all sin, then the individual animals must be resurrected as well. After all, their death was only because of the sin of Adam, they were innocent victims of death.

But, that really is conjecture, not something to divide over to be sure. But, yes, I have that hope as well. I've lost a lot of pets over the years and hope to see them in the New Earth. :yes

I do believe the bible is fully inspired and wholly without error. (I don't view things such as the age of Josiah as an error as much as a "typo".) I also embrace science, and find few if any conflicts between my faith and science. This is mainly because I view science as only explaining the "mechanics" of things, not the meaning of things. In those few areas in which scientific theory directly conflicts with clear Scriptural teaching, I side with Scriptures, recognizing that a lot of what passes for Scientific Theory are really held to for social and political reasons, rather than purely scientific reasons.

In the case of animals, there is a lot we simply don't know regarding God's truth about them. This is mainly because we only know God's truth via the Bible, and the purpose of the Bible is to reveal God's truth in regards to His redemptive plan for sinful man. The animals really don't come into the redemptive plan all that much, because they don't sin. We do know that they were saved in the same symbolic "baptismal" waters of the Flood via the Ark, so we do know that God's plan is to redeem the animals as well as man. But, the Bible concerns itself mainly with man.

Hi

That is true, God is not going to resurrect animals. I have made many a pets out of my cows, and then ate them also when it was time and a need. Thats right , I ate my pets. But they were my cows and God made animals to be eaten by mankind.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Dora

I am glad to see, that one (you) leave no stone unturned. That is the way we are to study the scriptures,and believe me when I say , it is rare to find someone who is willing to turn over every leaf and stone to find the truth.

Maybe a little biblical history is in order here. But before we go there, I would like to also point out, that many things within the Word are hidden. Okay, that said, lets move on.

God is a God of all life, so when he created the heaven and the earth, both the heaven and the earth had life. In Gen. 1:2 the earth became without form and void of life, because the earth became flooded with water.

Prior to Gen. 1:2 this earth as well as heaven had life in them. The earth had plant life and animal life as well as human life. This human life , as well as this animal life, as well as this plant life is not the exact same type of plant life and animal life and human life we have after Gen. 2: 1. There are similarities, but not exactness. God told man in Gen. 1:28 to "replenish" the earth, and have dominion over the fish and fowl and every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Those animals which lived prior to Gen. 1:2 were both meat eaters and plant eaters. Now this is where it gets tricky. After Gen. 1:2, God was re-establishing this earth with life. Different types of plants, and different types of animals and different types of humans. Similar but different.

The prophecy of Isaiah 11:1 - 10 pertains to the third earth, which is also called the New Earth. God tells us that he will make all things "new". Not renewed, but new ! There will be animals in the New Earth, but they will be similar, but different than the animals of this earth. They will not have a desire to kill nor compete for food. These will be New animals, which God will still call them a bear or cattle or a lion or a cobra, or viper etc. That is because this new earth will be full of the knowledge of God, including all the animals.

This earth has never been full of the knowledge of God. For we only know in part. And animals only know their own part. God made these animals (beasts) similar to the anaimals ( beasts ) of the first earth, which was before the earth we now live in, and which is after Gen. 2:1

As far as the word "all" is concerned. This is something you will not find in a book. You will need to study this word in essence to its usage throughout the Word of God. For instance, God has said - "I would that all come to a knowledge of the truth" < This can not be all without exception. It must be all with distinction, because not everyone who ever lived has been given the ability to know the truth as Christians have. There have been prophesies from the prophets, but even they only knew only those things God had revealed unto them. We have a much greater ability to understand the knowledge of God, because we have Christ in us. And even then, we still only know in part. Greater knowledge but still only part. Also, only a few whom God has called and chosen, have the Spirit of truth in them. So "all" can not mean here without exception. So it must be with distinction.

Bless -- any questions ?

I've heard of the theory that there was an earth prior to this earth before. I find that scriptural evidence to support this theory is lacking. Yes, the earth was in place prior to the creation days, that is true. However, there seems to be little to no biblical evidence that there was a fully populated earth that was flooded, prior to creation day one. However, that is a subject of a different thread. To go further into that particular theory, we really have to leave the whole "Are humans animals" question. If you want to start a new and yet another thread on this theory, I'll read it. But, lets not derail this thread.

As for this thread, and the nature of humans in relationship to the animals, lets say, for the sake of discussion, that the theory of a pre-Genesis, fully populated earth is correct. OK. Doesn't have a thing to do with this current earth then. Because, even if there was a fully populated earth prior to Genesis 1:1, by Genesis 1:1, the earth was completely void. So, any animals, including humans, are created anew. Which means that we must look to the Scriptures we currently have to make whatever conclusions about the nature of the animals and of humans that were created for this current earth.

And, the Scriptures we currently have, which tell the story of this earth, state pretty clearly that the beasts, including cattle, and the birds, and the "creeping things" (I always think of snakes and reptiles) as well as Adam and Eve, were given plants to eat. Until you can give me some clear Biblical evidence, including chapter and verse, to the contrary, then I'm sticking with the clear meaning of Genesis 1:30 that all living creatures, all "chay nephish", were vegetarian.

I find that humans are animals in nature. We were formed of the earth, just as the animals were. We were given souls, better said, we are living souls "chay nephish", just as the animals are. We were given the same food to eat that the animals were given. We procreate the same way they do, at least the mammalian animals. We were created to be ever living, just as the animals were. I find no evidence whatsoever in the Creation story that some animals were created to be food for other animals or for humans. Humans were not given animals to eat until after the Flood and there is no record at all of animals eating other animals between Genesis 1 and Genesis 9. All this is what the Scriptures clearly say, unless I am missing something.

However, again, just because we are animals in nature, (by nature, I mean by DNA, flesh and blood), this is what we are made of, not necessarily what we are. We are made of the same stuff as the animals. We are carbon-based life forms, we know this because God called the animals from the earth, and when He formed Adam, He formed Adam from the earth as well. However, it is God who ultimately determines who we are, and He determined that man was to be made in His image, and be above the animals. In the truest sense of the word, man is sanctified, set-apart, for service and worship of God, to fulfill His purposes.

Hi Dora

Even after this conversation is long over with. One will at one time or another, have to step up to the plate within another topic, that will in some way touch this topic. And your conclusion can be altered by your conclusion of this topic. In otherwords, one belief will influence another belief.

As I told you, God told man to "replenish" this earth. Not plenish it, but replenish it ! This alone tells you something, does it not ?

God place the first man Adam in the garden, and gave him the herbs and fruit of the trees to eat. Which does not mean that God didn't make man to eat meat. This kind of thinking would be redundant because God tells man that the beasts and cattle and every moving thing that lives shall be meat for mankind. And God never mentions as to why. It is not that he never intended man to eat meat. It was that the timing for his master plan had not brought God to make this statement until such time. And since killing animals has nothing to do with the fall of man, just because someone thinks differently than I do, is of no signifigance. God covered man from his nakedness with the skin of animals. So God himself had to kill an animal first. God could have clothed man in many ways other than with a coat of skins. But I believe his purpose , was to show man that he was the walking dead, by putting these skins on them. God could have spun cotton, but he didn't.

God didn't tell the man "if" you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil , thou shalt surely die. He told the man -- "In the day that thou eatest thereof" < This is a pre-conceived understanding by God.

God said that he took the man and put him in the garden to dress it and keep it. Never do we ever read of there being any beasts or cattle in the garden. We do know that they were of the field. The only thing we read about is the serpent, and even the serpent was not a creature of God like the cattle and beasts. This was the devil , and the serpent was not a snake as some think.

God kicked both the man and the woman out of the garden, but he didn't kick any beasts or cattle out of the garden, because they were not in the garden. They were in the field, not in the garden. Notice where Cain and Abel were in Gen. 4:8 - "in the field"

What was the offering Abel gave ? The fat of the firstlings of his flock of sheep. Is this a coincidence that he was tending sheep, instead of lions or tigers, or bears ? Or could it be that the beasts of the field were carnivorous ? And not because of the fall of man, because if that were true, then why are not sheep carnivorous ? Why are not cattle carnivorous ? We can not just explain this away and come to some assumption type of conclusion. Cattle and sheep are designed by God to eat grass, and Lions are not !

And I will say this once again, just for those who did'nt catch it the first time. Animals do not have souls.

Bless

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Dora

Let me point out one more thing. As I mentioned in my previous post, that the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field - Gen. 3:1

The word "subtle" here means crafty or sly. If the beasts of the field were crafy and sly, this means that they were carnivorous, in that they needed to be this way in order to catch their prey. Any beast of the field that ate just grass or herbs has no need to be subtle = crafty or sly.

Something for you to think about.

Bless

 

[stovebolts]

And I will say this once again, just for those who did'nt catch it the first time. Animals do not have souls.

You are correct. According to scripture, they are "a soul", aka naphesh

 

[handy]

MM,

Sorry, but you just aren't giving enough scriptural evidence to balance what Genesis 1:30 clearly states. God told us, quite clearly, that He gave plants for all to eat, Adam, the beasts (didn't mention cattle and you first told us that beasts meant carnivorous, as well as the birds and the creepy crawlies.

So, which is it? Is Genesis 1:23 really saying that the beasts are carnivorous and only cattle eat plants? If so, why did God say "beast" in Genesis 1:30 as opposed to cattle? It's these questions that aren't being answered by your posts.

Also, you keep reiterating that animals do not have souls, and yet the Hebrew word for soul is used of the animals in Genesis 1. "chay nephesh" means "living soul" and is used in Genesis 1:24 in reference to the animals and in Genesis 2:7 specifically of Adam.

Keep in mind that I'm an omnivore as well, and we raise our cattle to eat too. 'Smatter of fact, my daughter made sloppy joes out of cute little Max, just last night, and she did a great job, they were delicious. This is OK, because as of Genesis 9, God Himself said it was OK for us to eat the animals, and we raise our cattle for beef. But, Genesis 9 came a long time after Genesis 1, and there is nothing whatsoever in the Creation Story, nor anything else prior to Genesis 9 that speaks of eating meat.

The covering that God made of animal pelts for Adam and Eve has deep spiritual implications. There is a reason why we see animal sacrifice starting right off the bat and it does have to do with sin and death entering the world. But, this is AFTER the Fall.

Prior to the fall, and even up to Genesis 9, there is no evidence that any living creature that is a consumer was anything other than vegetarian. Sorry, MM, but your opinions, which you are more than free to hold, are not the same as the clear teaching of scriptures. Unless you can provide some scriptural proof that Genesis 1:30 does not mean what it clearly says, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on this non-essential topic.

In regards to the original question though, I do think that the bible is more than clear that both animals and man are "chay nephesh", living souls, and therefore even the bible supports what is clearly evidenced before our eyes, that man and animals are the same kind of creature: flesh, bone and blood, giving birth, feeding young from milk produced (each after it's own kind). However, it's also more than clear from the Scriptures that man was created to be much more than just an animal. God made us, separately and in His own image, rather than just calling us forth from the dust of the ground as the other animals were.

To say that we are not animals, is to deny how God made us. To say that we are mere animals and nothing more is to deny what God made us.

PS to MM, if you think that all herbivores aren't crafty or sly, you didn't know my dearly departed goat by the name of Nanette! Sheesh, there wasn't a pen ever built, even with electrified wire, that she couldn't and didn't figure out a way out of.

 

[Mysteryman]

Actually trees do breath and plants as well. They can get their oxygen from water , as does fish. But as animals which have breath life, which is similar to mankind. One thing that animals lack is a soul. More on this in a moment.

Bringing plants into this is just silly Hervey... But I digress, animals are also 'living souls'. More to come in a moment.

Animals were not created in the image of God. Man was .

Not sure why you wrote that... I hope that you are not rushing through my posts and not reading them. Regardless, I have not anywhere inferred that animals were created in the "image" of God. Let me make myself clear. Animals are not created in the image of God.

But God created the first man, both male and female in the one man Adam, which is the image of God.

I believe there is a difference between bara (created) and 'formed' or 'made'... Why do you now apply two different principals upon its usage?

1:26; Let us make man in our image.
When God says these words, he is speaking to the earth, for God formed man from the dust of the ground, and woman was formed from the rib of Adam. Yes, God created both of them.

1:27; And God created man in his own image.

Let me restate what I've already posted.

God did make us in His image. You see, God gave us authority to rule over and have dominion of His creation (Genesis 1:26b and let them have...)

Simply put, being created in the image of God is not a physical trait. No other animal has been given dominion. It was precisely this trait that led to the first form of idolatry. That is, when Eve took of the forbidden fruit.

God caused man , by breathing into his nostriles, man a living soul.

While I understand how you came to this conclusion, which btw is a common conclusion, it is not an entirely accurate conclusion. Look at it this way, as I stated earlier;

But we are also 'living souls' formed from the dust of the earth. Living souls in the original Hebrew is chay nephesh. The same chay nepesh is translated, 'Living Creatures' and all living creatures come from the dust of earth and have the breath of life until they die.

When you look at a 'living creature', what your looking at is a creature that breaths. In other words, it has a breath and without this breath, it dies.. Again, this in the Hebrew is called chay nephesh. It's really that simple. So we see that a living soul, is simply a living creature.

When God breathed into the nostrils of humanity when he formed humanity (with all due respect, not merely spoken into existence) God's spirit entered into humanity. This imparting of God's spirit into humanity does not make one a living soul, but rather it shows the intimate connection between God and humanity.

Simply put, not only is it is the breath of God himself that gives us our spirit, but it is how that breath was given... and this is one of many reasons that make us unique among the other 'chay nephesh's.

This came from God. Animals do not receive this ! This is why the spirit of man goes back to the giver - God.

Animals do have a spirit...
Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

I believe I've already stated something very similar in my last post...

When they die, their bodies return to the dust of the earth where it came from. However, when man dies, his spirit goes back to God who gave it while his body returns to the earth from which is was formed as well.

BTW, for anyone who isn't' familiar with this verse, it's found in Ecc 12.

Hervey, what other chay nephesh's don't have, is the intimate interaction when God's breath was given. With humanity, the breath was given directy through the nostrils not to mention God personally formed us, where as with other chay nephesh's, God's breath was in his speech when he spoke them into existence through command to the earth. Please see Ecc 3 on this and you will find the truth within these words. While your at it, please view Gen 6:17.

Hi Jeff

Do me a favor, and look up Gen.7:22 - the word "breath" is the Hebrew word "ruach" < this word is translated also - spirit. But it means - breath - or wind

Now look up Job 37:10 and the word "breath" is the Hebrew word - "neshamah"

Now look up Psalm 150:6 - "Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord, Praise ye the Lord" < Here the word "breath" is the same Hebrew word "neshamah"

The word for "soul" is - nephesh

Animals do not have souls ! They have "breath" - "ruach"

 

[handy]

Not Jeff here, MM, but since you're looking up things, you might want to look up both Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 2:7. You find it as I mentioned before, both the animals and man are "chay nephesh": living souls.

Now, I really, REALLY must get off this computer and correct my daughter's math. She's working on a paper on the Declaration of Independence, so I've had some fun discussion and debate, but I've gotta sign off now.

 

[happyjoy]

But mankind has similarities with plants and animals alike. All live, and all die.

Just a note. The Bible to my knowledge never mentions plants "dieing" nor does it refer to them as alive.

Just because the bible doesn't say they are alive doesn't mean they aren't. As plants are obviously living things.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote handy: "So, which is it? Is Genesis 1:23 really saying that the beasts are carnivorous and only cattle eat plants? If so, why did God say "beast" in Genesis 1:30 as opposed to cattle? It's these questions that aren't being answered by your posts."


Hi Dora

The word beasts is and has been interchangable throughout our translations . To say a beast, could mean cattle, or sheep or a lion. However, when the word "beast" is more properly translated, it should just refer to those which are carnivorous, which are subtle and sly in catching their prey. Sometimes the word "beast" is used to support any animal that eats grass or herbs, without naming them specifically. Just as God uses the word "gentile" to mean any other nation other than Israel (Jew).

Oh, by the way, that goat of yours that will not obey your fences. Eat it ! :biglaugh

 

[happyjoy]

Believing that we are the pinnacle of God's creation, and that we are created for the purpose of worshiping Him, does not mean that one believes that the earth is at the center of the universe. Just because eons ago some Christian leaders believed that, doesn't meant that if a person views humanity as the pinnacle of God's creation they have to believe everything that the early Christian leaders did.

Just as we can be the pinnacle of Gods creation and not be at the physical center of the universe. We can also be the pinnacle of Gods creation, created separately, and still be an animal like all the other animals.

Say you are stuck in a building and your appendix is about to burst. You need medical attention. There are two people who willing to perform the needed surgery. A surgical veterinarian who specialized in chimps and apes, or a chiropractor. Who would you pick? Both are Dr's

 

[Mysteryman]

Not Jeff here, MM, but since you're looking up things, you might want to look up both Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 2:7. You find it as I mentioned before, both the animals and man are "chay nephesh": living souls.

Now, I really, REALLY must get off this computer and correct my daughter's math. She's working on a paper on the Declaration of Independence, so I've had some fun discussion and debate, but I've gotta sign off now.

Hi

Genesis 1:24 is the only verse that needs to be addressed here. The "only" time that "nephesh" is used pertianing to a living creature, is when it is translated the word "creature". And then it is used only nine times. Its translated "appetite" twice. Its tranlsated "any" four times. Its translated "desire" five times. Its translated "pleasure" four times. Its translated "fish" once. Its translated "mind" 15 times. And it is translated "soul" 428 times, and not once where it was translated "soul" does it refer to any beast or creature, not once.

The reason it is "chaiyah nephesh", is because it is just refering to that which has "life"

 

[Caroline H]

Believing that we are the pinnacle of God's creation, and that we are created for the purpose of worshiping Him, does not mean that one believes that the earth is at the center of the universe. Just because eons ago some Christian leaders believed that, doesn't meant that if a person views humanity as the pinnacle of God's creation they have to believe everything that the early Christian leaders did.

Just as we can be the pinnacle of Gods creation and not be at the physical center of the universe. We can also be the pinnacle of Gods creation, created separately, and still be an animal like all the other animals.

Say you are stuck in a building and your appendix is about to burst. You need medical attention. There are two people who willing to perform the needed surgery. A surgical veterinarian who specialized in chimps and apes, or a chiropractor. Who would you pick? Both are Dr's

Of course I'd pick the vet, but that doesn't prove your point. Nor does your post explain why you think that if someone believes that we are the pinnacle of God's creation, then they must somehow also believe that the earth is at the center of the universe. I'm only asking that because you keep bringing it up and I don't understand the correlation...simply because it was a popular belief in the past.

 

[jasoncran]

Happyjoy, on that note, so that we are clear. what is the point of this thread?
i have noticed some clashing, and that was cleared up.
on biological note we have things in common with an animal but we are made to be more.
does a dog have morals like we do/
does a lion care about the prey in that it keeps the herd it uses for food in check and allows the culled herd to regpopulate?
does any of the wolves care or take notice that the eviroment needs the caribou and so on?

who has that charge?

if so why? and who gave us that responsibility. did men or the creator from above?