Does Romans 8:19-22 apply to music without words?
Scripture teaches that the entire creation was subjected to corruption:
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Does the teaching of this passage apply to music without words?
Poll Results
Does Romans 8:19-22 apply to music without words?
Yes, Rom. 8:19-22 applies to music without words. Votes: 1
No, Rom. 8:19-22 does not apply to music without words. Votes: 5
Unsure Votes: 0
Other. Please explain in the comment section what you mean. Votes: 0
- 73 views
[Kevin Miller]You are welcome. If anything Luke 13 is even more directly to the point:Thanks for pointing out Isaiah 5 to me. That’s an interesting passage. God does seem to use quite a bunch of productivity/barrenness illustrations in regards to Israel. Those illustrations do have a basis in some literal facts about the actual ground, but it can be tricky trying to determine if those illustrations are also trying to teach us something about the ground itself.
Luke 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
A fig tree that was planted and cultivated yet persistently did not produce fruit was to be cut down. In this parable, it is plain that the dresser of the vineyard had cultivated the ground for 3 years but the tree was still unproductive. The man agreed with the dresser’s request to give the tree one more year of being cultivated to see if it would be fruitful, as it should have been.
[RajeshG]You say “it is plain that the dresser of the vineyard had cultivated the ground for 3 years,” but I don’t see that wording in the passage. The owner had been looking for fruit for three years, but the passage doesn’t say the vinedresser had been cultivating the ground for those three years. The vinedresser did not decide to dig about the tree and put manure on it until after he got that one year extension.You are welcome. If anything Luke 13 is even more directly to the point:
Luke 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
A fig tree that was planted and cultivated yet persistently did not produce fruit was to be cut down. In this parable, it is plain that the dresser of the vineyard had cultivated the ground for 3 years but the tree was still unproductive. The man agreed with the dresser’s request to give the tree one more year of being cultivated to see if it would be fruitful, as it should have been.
[Kevin Miller]The owner of the vineyard came expecting fruit from the tree every year, but it was not fruitful. The passage doesn’t say that the owner interrogated the dresser to see if the unfruitfulness was due to his negligence to care for the tree. Rather, the owner was ready to have the tree cut down because he was convinced that everything that needed to be done for it had been done and yet it was persistently unfruitful.You say “it is plain that the dresser of the vineyard had cultivated the ground for 3 years,” but I don’t see that wording in the passage. The owner had been looking for fruit for three years, but the passage doesn’t say the vinedresser had been cultivating the ground for those three years. The vinedresser did not decide to dig about the tree and put manure on it until after he got that one year extension.
The passage doesn’t say that the dresser confessed to his unfaithfulness and asked for clemency for one more year in which he would now be faithful, unlike what he had done before.
Read naturally, the passage does not make unfaithfulness on the part of the dresser the cause of the problem. That is exactly what Isaiah 5 also teaches about a vineyard for which everything that needed to be done had been done but yet it produced wild grapes instead of good grapes.
[RajeshG]I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just saying that it legitimately can be read either way, and one way isn’t more “plain” or “natural” than the other. Comparing it with Isaiah 5 does make your explanation more likely, though.The owner of the vineyard came expecting fruit from the tree every year, but it was not fruitful. The passage doesn’t say that the owner interrogated the dresser to see if the unfruitfulness was due to his negligence to care for the tree. Rather, the owner was ready to have the tree cut down because he was convinced that everything that needed to be done for it had been done and yet it was persistently unfruitful.
The passage doesn’t say that the dresser confessed to his unfaithfulness and asked for clemency for one more year in which he would now be faithful, unlike what he had done before.
Read naturally, the passage does not make unfaithfulness on the part of the dresser the cause of the problem. That is exactly what Isaiah 5 also teaches about a vineyard for which everything that needed to be done had been done but yet it produced wild grapes instead of good grapes.
[RajeshG]I just looked back at this response to my first comment about Isaiah 5. I had said “it can be tricky trying to determine if those illustrations are also trying to teach us something about the ground itself.”You are welcome. If anything Luke 13 is even more directly to the point:
Luke 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
A fig tree that was planted and cultivated yet persistently did not produce fruit was to be cut down. In this parable, it is plain that the dresser of the vineyard had cultivated the ground for 3 years but the tree was still unproductive. The man agreed with the dresser’s request to give the tree one more year of being cultivated to see if it would be fruitful, as it should have been.
Then you said “If anything Luke 13 is even more directly to the point.” What point exactly are you referring to when you said that? Was it my point that it is tricky trying to find lessons about the ground itself from illustrations that apply to the nation of Israel?
It seems to me that the nation of Israel made decisions to be unproductive, in spite of God’s loving care for them. In a vineyard, loving care for the plants would produce productive plants, but Israel, because of it’s sinful decisions, wasn’t acting like a plant normally would under loving care. So as I admit that you’re correct in saying that the vinedresser had been taking proper care of the plants for the first three years, I don’t think we can really draw many lessons about the ground itself from this illustration about the sinfulness of the nation of Israel.The ground isn’t able to make sinful decisions like that nation of Israel was.
Mostly, I think, the ground has suffered the consequences of man’s sinful decisions. I asked you earlier what you thought the cause was for lack of productivity of the ground. I then mentioned the Genesis 3 curse, but the cause of the Genesis 3 curse was man’s sinful decision. All of creation has been groaning in it’s suffering ever since. Also, the Old Testament doesn’t just record the Genesis 3 consequences to the ground , but we also see additional ground consequences due to man’s sinfulness. consequences that definitely affected productivity. Look at Solomon’s prayer when he dedicated the temple. In II Chron. 6:26-27 he prayed “When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because your people have sinned against you, and when they pray toward this place and give praise to your name and turn from their sin because you have afflicted them, then hear from heaven and forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel. Teach them the right way to live, and send rain on the land you gave your people for an inheritance.” We see here that drought can be sent by God because of sinfulness. This is in addition to any lack of productivity due to the Genesis 3 curse. Verse 28 then mentions blight, mildew, locusts, and grasshoppers, all things that can affect productivity of the land. God sends these things because of man’s sin.
When God uses an illustration such as a vineyard or a fig tree, and He proclaims His displeasure at the lack of productivity, I don’t think God is actually saying he’s displeased with the plants themselves, but he is displeased with what the plants are representing in the illustration. I don’t think one can take such illustrations and say “Look. There’s a plant God is displeased with.,” as if God is displeased with the plant itself apart from the lesson God was trying to teach.
[Kevin Miller]Although Isaiah 5 and Luke 13 are parables, they only work as parables because they speak of realities that were well-known and common experiences of human beings. Even today, various people who try their hand at gardening, growing crops etc. enjoy little success in those ventures even though they diligently do everything that needs to be done. Interpreting the lack of productivity in their cases as being the result of direct divine intervention because of sinfulness in their lives is untenable.When God uses an illustration such as a vineyard or a fig tree, and He proclaims His displeasure at the lack of productivity, I don’t think God is actually saying he’s displeased with the plants themselves, but he is displeased with what the plants are representing in the illustration. I don’t think one can take such illustrations and say “Look. There’s a plant God is displeased with.,” as if God is displeased with the plant itself apart from the lesson God was trying to teach.
Also, many people and nations who are wicked people yet have lands and crops that are highly productive, which argues against the notion that lack of productivity for others when they follow all the “steps” is due to sinfulness in their lives.
Moreover, whereas Isaiah 5 and Luke 13 are clearly parables, the accounts of Christ’s cursing the fig tree are not. It was not just an illustration; He literally cursed a literal tree. I do not accept the view that He cursed the tree merely as an illustration and that His doing so does not communicate anything about His displeasure with the tree itself.
I also strongly disagree with your handling of Hebrews 6.
As with many of our discussions in the past, we simply are not going to agree on these points.
[RajeshG]I certainly didn’t say direct divine intervention happens in EVERY instance of unproductivity. I simply presented it as one possible Biblical reason for a lack of productivity. Are you saying that sinfulness is NEVER a reason in the Bible for lack of productivity? I would strongly disagree with that, especially considering Solomon’s prayer in II Chron. 6.Although Isaiah 5 and Luke 13 are parables, they only work as parables because they speak of realities that were well-known and common experiences of human beings. Even today, various people who try their hand at gardening, growing crops etc. enjoy little success in those ventures even though they diligently do everything that needs to be done. Interpreting the lack of productivity in their cases as being the result of direct divine intervention because of sinfulness in their lives is untenable.
Also, many people and nations who are wicked people yet have lands and crops that are highly productive, which argues against the notion that lack of productivity for others when they follow all the “steps” is due to sinfulness in their lives.Are you saying that sinfulness is NEVER a reason in the Bible for lack of productivity?
Moreover, whereas Isaiah 5 and Luke 13 are clearly parables, the accounts of Christ’s cursing the fig tree are not. It was not just an illustration; He literally cursed a literal tree. I do not accept the view that He cursed the tree merely as an illustration and that His doing so does not communicate anything about His displeasure with the tree itself.So what DOES it communicate to us about displeasure with the tree itself? Since you are so sure there is a lesson for us about displeasure with a tree, what would that lesson be?
I also strongly disagree with your handling of Hebrews 6.Which, of course, doesn’t make my handling of it wrong.
As with many of our discussions in the past, we simply are not going to agree on these points.True enough, but if we agreed about everything, what would be the fun of discussing the points?
[Kevin Miller]No, I am very much aware of that dimension. Although I did not expound on it, I have mentioned in one previous comment what Genesis 4:11-12 reveals about Cain (which shows that the ground would not yield its strength to him because God cursed him for his sinfulness).I certainly didn’t say direct divine intervention happens in EVERY instance of unproductivity. I simply presented it as one possible Biblical reason for a lack of productivity. Are you saying that sinfulness is NEVER a reason in the Bible for lack of productivity? I would strongly disagree with that, especially considering Solomon’s prayer in II Chron. 6.
[RajeshG]So why did you bring up individuals who just enjoy gardening as if I was even referring to them in any of my comments?No, I am very much aware of that dimension. Although I did not expound on it, I have mentioned in one previous comment what Genesis 4:11-12 reveals about Cain (which shows that the ground would not yield its strength to him because God cursed him for his sinfulness).
[Kevin Miller]I said what I said about gardening because it is a recognized reality that people can do everything right and still not have a productive yield from their efforts. That reality supports understanding that what those parables say is not just hypothetical material that was uttered to teach a lesson but does not correspond to actual reality about unproductive ground.So why did you bring up individuals who just enjoy gardening as if I was even referring to them in any of my comments?
[RajeshG]But you brought it up as if it was to counter my idea that God CAN use direct divine intervention on the ground to deal with sinfulness. Of course there is some actual realities regarding the ground that underlie parables. Otherwise people would not have any idea how to analyze the lesson being taught by the parable. It can be tricky, however, to try drawing some secondary lessons about the ground from parables whose primary lesson is dealing with a topic that is NOT the ground itself. It seems sometimes that you are trying to make the primary lesson of a parable/illustration/object lesson to be the ground when the primary lesson is not actually about the ground.I said what I said about gardening because it is a recognized reality that people can do everything right and still not have a productive yield from their efforts. That reality supports understanding that what those parables say is not just hypothetical material that was uttered to teach a lesson but does not correspond to actual reality about unproductive ground.
Scripture reveals that God did not create any animals that harmed each other or humans when He first created them. After the Flood, however, God ordained the following:
Genesis 9:5 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. 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
This passage establishes divine displeasure and disapproval of animals that slay humans. To say that God makes these animals slay humans and then orders other humans to slay the animals for doing so is untenable. What is the proper understanding of why these animals kill humans given that God did not create them to do so?
[RajeshG]I think the answer would require an understanding of when animals started to be carnivores. Animals weren’t created to eat other animals, but then again, animals weren’t created to die either. Man wasn’t created to eat meat, but here in Genesis 9, man is give permission to eat meat. Gen 9:3 says “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”Scripture reveals that God did not create any animals that harmed each other or humans when He first created them. After the Flood, however, God ordained the following:
Genesis 9:5 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. 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
This passage establishes divine displeasure and disapproval of animals that slay humans. To say that God makes these animals slay humans and then orders other humans to slay the animals for doing so is untenable. What is the proper understanding of why these animals kill humans given that God did not create them to do so?
Man was then given a restriction regarding the blood of the animal that is eaten, but of course, animals are not under that blood restriction. How in the world would an animal kill and eat another animal without eating the blood? I don’t think God is displeased with animals being carnivores, since God is allowing humans to be carnivores without divine displeasure. Once an animal becomes a carnivore, there is a chance it might go after a human, and here it is significant to note the reason why God would be displeased with an animal that kills a human. It is not because there is something inherently displeasing with the animal itself, but rather it is because of the lesson God wants to teach about the sanctity of human life.
Since the displeasure is solely related to the taking of human life, I don’t see any reason to believe that God would be displeased with the vocalizations of animals that are under this displeasure. The vocalizations have nothing to do with the shedding of man’s blood. The roar of a man-eating tiger, for example, is not significantly different from the roar of any other tiger, so there’s no reason to think God would be displeased with tiger roars.
There may possibly be some bird somewhere that has killed a human (cassowaries and ostriches are certainly capable), but how would that action carry over to the bird’s vocalizations? Even if this man-killing bird does exist, I can still stand by the opinion expressed in my first comment in this thread, that “I don’t think God is displeased with present day bird songs.”
[Kevin Miller]You have not provided any Bible to support your thinking about God’s not being displeased with animals being carnivores. What God allowed humans to do does not establish that He approved animals killing one another.I think the answer would require an understanding of when animals started to be carnivores. Animals weren’t created to eat other animals, but then again, animals weren’t created to die either. Man wasn’t created to eat meat, but here in Genesis 9, man is give permission to eat meat. Gen 9:3 says “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”
Man was then given a restriction regarding the blood of the animal that is eaten, but of course, animals are not under that blood restriction. How in the world would an animal kill and eat another animal without eating the blood? I don’t think God is displeased with animals being carnivores, since God is allowing humans to be carnivores without divine displeasure
Furthermore, what Genesis 9:5 teaches about animals that kill humans does not just pertain to animals that are carnivorous. God ordained that any animal that kills a human—whether it eats that human or not—was to be put to death.
[RajeshG]So where is the Biblical support that God is displeased with carnivores? Since the Bible doesn’t give indication either way, I fully and totally admit that my thinking on the matter is just an opinion, but opinions are what I’ve been expressing this whole thread. You seem to jump at the opportunity to disagree with my opinions, so I’m wondering if you actually hold the opposite opinion, or if you just enjoy disagreeing with me.You have not provided any Bible to support your thinking about God’s not being displeased with animals being carnivores. What God allowed humans to do does not establish that He approved animals killing one another.
Furthermore, what Genesis 9:5 teaches about animals that kill humans does not just pertain to animals that are carnivorous. God ordained that any animal that kills a human—whether it eats that human or not—was to be put to death.I never disagreed with that. I didn’t realize that, in the course of the conversation, I was expected to mention every single reason why an animal might kill a human. Are you claiming the actual reason makes a difference in regards to God’s displeasure? I didn’t think it did, so I didn’t mention the other reasons. Is it your position that God is less displeased when the action of killing is an accident rather than a carnivorous killing?
[Kevin Miller]So where is the Biblical support that God is displeased with carnivores? Since the Bible doesn’t give indication either way …
Genesis 9:5 clearly shows that God is displeased with animals that kill humans, including those that eat the humans when they kill them. Moreover, besides the fact that God did not create any animals to harm any other animals or humans, two other passages show that someday there will again not be any carnivorous animals on the earth:
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
In fact, it will not just be true that they will not be carnivorous anymore; there will not be any animals that hurt other animals or humans in any way!
[Kevin Miller]You opined that God is not displeased with animals that kill humans to eat them. That is not what Genesis 9:5 talks about.I never disagreed with that. I didn’t realize that, in the course of the conversation, I was expected to mention every single reason why an animal might kill a human. Are you claiming the actual reason makes a difference in regards to God’s displeasure? I didn’t think it did, so I didn’t mention the other reasons. Is it your position that God is less displeased when the action of killing is an accident rather than a carnivorous killing?
There are many animals that harm or kill humans but do not eat them, including poisonous snakes, spiders, scorpions, etc. Genesis 9:5 applies directly to them every bit as much as it does to carnivorous animals and shows divine displeasure with all animals that kill humans.
Scripture explicitly speaks about the execution of a specific animal if it kills people:
Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
To my knowledge, oxen are not carnivorous animals, and 21:29 is certainly not talking about an ox that accidentally kills a human.
There is no evidence to support that whenever an ox kills a human in this way, God was the One that directed the ox to do so.
This passage clearly establishes divine displeasure with certain animals that God did not create to do what they do when they kill humans.
[RajeshG]Yes, that is going to take place in the future. My opinion related to our current time frame.Genesis 9:5 clearly shows that God is displeased with animals that kill humans, including those that eat the humans when they kill them. Moreover, besides the fact that God did not create any animals to harm any other animals or humans, two other passages show that someday there will again not be any carnivorous animals on the earth:
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
In fact, it will not just be true that they will not be carnivorous anymore; there will not be any animals that hurt other animals or humans in any way!
Do you have any Biblical evidence that God is displeased with carnivores in our current time frame? God is not displeased with humans being carnivores in our current time frame. At least that’s the way I understand it. Do you think God is okay with humans eating meat in our time frame, but He’s not okay with animals doing it, simply because in the Millennium, there won’t be the eating of meat? Wouldn’t that reasoning mean that God is displeased with humans today when they eat meat, since meat will not be eaten in the Millennium?
[RajeshG]No, I didn’t. here you go, misrepresenting something I said again.You opined that God is not displeased with animals that kill humans to eat them.
There is no evidence to support that whenever an ox kills a human in this way, God was the One that directed the ox to do so.Who said God was the one who directs an animal to do it? Are you arguing against some hypothetical person who isn’t even responding in this thread? I never said such a thing myself.
[Kevin Miller]No, we know from Scripture in many ways that God is not displeased with humans that eat meat today. Genesis 9:3 is just one such passage. There are many other passages that show that God is not displeased with humans who eat meat today.Yes, that is going to take place in the future. My opinion related to our current time frame.
Do you have any Biblical evidence that God is displeased with carnivores in our current time frame? God is not displeased with humans being carnivores in our current time frame. At least that’s the way I understand it. Do you think God is okay with humans eating meat in our time frame, but He’s not okay with animals doing it, simply because in the Millennium, there won’t be the eating of meat? Wouldn’t that reasoning mean that God is displeased with humans today when they eat meat, since meat will not be eaten in the Millennium?
To my knowledge, there are no such passages that show that God has ever approved of animals eating each other. Without such a passage, and given all the other passages that I have already cited, I do not find any basis to say that He is not displeased when animals eat other animals today.
[RajeshG]So why would you think God is displeased with animals that eat meat?No, we know from Scripture in many ways that God is not displeased with humans that eat meat today. Genesis 9:3 is just one such passage. There are many other passages that show that God is not displeased with humans who eat meat today.
[Kevin Miller]No, I didn’t. here you go, misrepresenting something I said again.
This is what you said earlier:
I don’t think God is displeased with animals being carnivores, since God is allowing humans to be carnivores without divine displeasure. Once an animal becomes a carnivore, there is a chance it might go after a human, and here it is significant to note the reason why God would be displeased with an animal that kills a human. It is not because there is something inherently displeasing with the animal itself, but rather it is because of the lesson God wants to teach about the sanctity of human life.
Your last sentence does assert that there is not anything “inherently displeasing with the animal itself” when it kills a human and that the displeasure is only because God wants to use its execution to teach a lesson. That is not what the text says. When the animal is killed, the animal is not taught any lesson nor are other animals taught any lesson about not killing humans. When an animal kills a human, whether it eats the human or not, God is displeased with the animal itself.
[Kevin Miller]Because He did not create them to do that and specifies that what pleases Him is when they will no longer do so.So why would you think God is displeased with animals that eat meat?
[RajeshG]My statement wasn’t that the animal would be taught a lesson. The execution is to be done by humans because humans are to be understanding the sanctity of human life. Do you deny that a lesson about the sanctity of human life is behind the command to execute? That seems so obvious from the passage that I can’t understand why you would disagree with it.This is what you said earlier:
I don’t think God is displeased with animals being carnivores, since God is allowing humans to be carnivores without divine displeasure. Once an animal becomes a carnivore, there is a chance it might go after a human, and here it is significant to note the reason why God would be displeased with an animal that kills a human. It is not because there is something inherently displeasing with the animal itself, but rather it is because of the lesson God wants to teach about the sanctity of human life.
Your last sentence does assert that there is not anything “inherently displeasing with the animal itself” when it kills a human and that the displeasure is only because God wants to use its execution to teach a lesson. That is not what the text says. When the animal is killed, the animal is not taught any lesson nor are other animals taught any lesson about not killing humans. When an animal kills a human, whether it eats the human or not, God is displeased with the animal itself.
[Kevin Miller]I did not say that you said that. You did argue about the fig tree that Jesus cursed that God made it to be defective so that He could teach a lesson through it so in my mind there was at least the possibility that you might argue similarly here as well.Who said God was the one who directs an animal to do it? Are you arguing against some hypothetical person who isn’t even responding in this thread? I never said such a thing myself.
[Kevin Miller]I do not disagree with it. I reject that is the only thing that God communicates when He ordained the execution of those animals. He both sets forth the sanctity of human life and His displeasure with animals that kill humans.My statement wasn’t that the animal would be taught a lesson. The execution is to be done by humans because humans are to be understanding the sanctity of human life. Do you deny that a lesson about the sanctity of human life is behind the command to execute? That seems so obvious from the passage that I can’t understand why you would disagree with it.
[RajeshG]But God didn’t create humans to eat meat either. Do you think the Bible would have to create a specific permission for animals to eat meat in order for them to do so pleasingly? Animals can’t read, so why would you think God would need to write them a permission? That’s actually rather silly, if you ask me.Because He did not create them to do that and specifies that what pleases Him is when they will no longer do so.
God actually shows his power over creation by providing food for carnivores. God told Job in Job 38:39-41 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?” Job 39:27-39 goes on “Does the eagle soar at your command and build its nest on high? It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night; a rocky crag is its stronghold. From there it looks for food; its eyes detect it from afar. Its young ones feast on blood, and where the slain are, there it is.” Also Psalm 104: 21 and 24 say “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God… . How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” This doesn’t sound at all like displeasure towards carnivores, does it?
[RajeshG]I gave the opinion that God could have made it to be defective, after you claimed there was no other explanation for the lack of fruit other than “the bondage of corruption. You later then admitted that God could have done that if God had wanted to. My opinions in the current discussion did not go that direction at all.I did not say that you said that. You did argue about the fig tree that Jesus cursed that God made it to be defective so that He could teach a lesson through it so in my mind there was at least the possibility that you might argue similarly here as well.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, I wondered about such passages (not these specific ones, but the general idea, which I did not take the time to research further), but for me, Isaiah 11 and 65 show what pleases God more than these passages do. Scripture never explains when and why animals first became carnivorous. How these passages relate to the bondage of the creation is something that I need to study further.But God didn’t create humans to eat meat either. Do you think the Bible would have to create a specific permission for animals to eat meat in order for them to do so pleasingly? Animals can’t read, so why would you think God would need to write them a permission? That’s actually rather silly, if you ask me.
God actually shows his power over creation by providing food for carnivores. God told Job in Job 38:39-41 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?” Job 39:27-39 goes on “Does the eagle soar at your command and build its nest on high? It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night; a rocky crag is its stronghold. From there it looks for food; its eyes detect it from afar. Its young ones feast on blood, and where the slain are, there it is.” Also Psalm 104: 21 and 24 say “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God… . How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” This doesn’t sound at all like displeasure towards carnivores, does it?
[RajeshG]So are you saying that there is something inherent in the animal that makes it displeasing apart form the fact that it killed a human? What would that inherent thing be?I do not disagree with it. I reject that is the only thing that God communicates when He ordained the execution of those animals. He both sets forth the sanctity of human life and His displeasure with animals that kill humans.
[RajeshG]If we are discussing our current time frame, I think the most significant verses would be ones that pertain to our current time frame. Wouldn’t that be true?Yes, I wondered about such passages (not these specific ones, but the general idea, which I did not take the time to research further), but for me, Isaiah 11 and 65 show what pleases God more than these passages do. Scripture never explains when and why animals first became carnivorous. How these passages relate to the bondage of the creation is something that I need to study further.
[Kevin Miller]I am not positing anything inherent in the animal as an explanation for why the animal does what it does. My point is that God did not create the animals to do so, He does not make them to do so, and He is displeased with them when they do so.So are you saying that there is something inherent in the animal that makes it displeasing apart form the fact that it killed a human? What would that inherent thing be?
The fact that they do things that displease Him shows that just because God in the beginning made something that was pleasing to Him in every way does not mean that His having created that thing that way initially is necessarily still true of it now.
[Kevin Miller]Maybe, maybe not. As I said, my research pertaining to possible ramifications of and manifestations of the bondage of corruption is ongoing and there is more that I need to study.If we are discussing our current time frame, I think the most significant verses would be ones that pertain to our current time frame. Wouldn’t that be true?
[RajeshG]Okay, I agree that God did not create animals to kill humans and that God does not make them do it and that God is displeased with them when they do it. I haven’t yet made any comments to the contrary.I am not positing anything inherent in the animal as an explanation for why the animal does what it does. My point is that God did not create the animals to do so, He does not make them to do so, and He is displeased with them when they do so.
So now we can get to the next question. When an animal performs one displeasing action, does that make other unrelated actions also displeasing to God? If a human-killing animal were to spray it’s scent or build a shelter or whistle a tune, would those other actions become displeasing due to the killing of the human?
[Kevin Miller]I do not presently know the answers to your questions. The only legitimate basis for answering them is the Bible, and I do not yet know how to answer them from the Bible.Okay, I agree that God did not create animals to kill humans and that God does not make them do it and that God is displeased with them when they do it. I haven’t yet made any comments to the contrary.
So now we can get to the next question. When an animal performs one displeasing action, does that make other unrelated actions also displeasing to God? If a human-killing animal were to spray it’s scent or build a shelter or whistle a tune, would those other actions become displeasing due to the killing of the human?
More importantly, how do you explain that there are any animals that God created as perfectly good animals that once pleased Him in every way but now do one or more things that displease Him?
[RajeshG]Based on our previous conversations, I’m not sure that that question is any more important than the one I asked you.I do not presently know the answers to your questions. The only legitimate basis for answering them is the Bible, and I do not yet know how to answer them from the Bible.
More importantly, how do you explain that there are any animals that God created as perfectly good animals that once pleased Him in every way but now do one or more things that displease Him?
We’ve already covered the fact that, due to the fall, creation no longer exhibits the perfection that it was created with. We also know that not everything in creation, imperfect as it is, is displeasing to God. God usually gives some reasons for why He would be displeased with something, such as a lesson about the sanctity of like, or God gives a direct statement expressing His displeasure towards something. At least as far as human-killing animals are concerned, I believe we’ve covered the answer to your question already. I’m not sure what else an animal might do that would be displeasing to God, but if you can think of an example, we can try to cover the reasons why God might be displeased with that action.
[Kevin Miller]I do not think that we have covered any answer to my question about an actual explanation for why animals that God created to be perfectly pleasing to Him in every way now do things that displease Him. What was that answer?Based on our previous conversations, I’m not sure that that question is any more important than the one I asked you.
We’ve already covered the fact that, due to the fall, creation no longer exhibits the perfection that it was created with. We also know that not everything in creation, imperfect as it is, is displeasing to God. God usually gives some reasons for why He would be displeased with something, such as a lesson about the sanctity of like, or God gives a direct statement expressing His displeasure towards something. At least as far as human-killing animals are concerned, I believe we’ve covered the answer to your question already. I’m not sure what else an animal might do that would be displeasing to God, but if you can think of an example, we can try to cover the reasons why God might be displeased with that action.
I just skimmed back through many of the preceding comments to familiarize myself again with what has already been said. I do not think that any explanations of the kind that I am asking about have been given.
[RajeshG]As I just wrote “due to the fall, creation no longer exhibits the perfection that it was created with.”I do not think that we have covered any answer to my question about an actual explanation for why animals that God created to be perfectly pleasing to Him in every way now do things that displease Him. What was that answer?
[Kevin Miller]As I see it, that statement does not really explain why the creation no longer does that. It seems that there are only 3 options concerning animals that do things that displease God:As I just wrote “due to the fall, creation no longer exhibits the perfection that it was created with.”
1. After the Fall, God makes certain animals do things that displease Him and then punishes them for doing so. This is patently false.
2. After the Fall, some animals independently choose to do things that displease God. To hold this view, one would seem to have to hold that animals have free will and some animals choose on their own to do things that displease God and other animals do not choose to do so.
3. After the Fall, some animals do things that displease God because they are influenced by or controlled by evil supernatural beings so that the animals do those things that displease God.
[RajeshG]Those aren’t the only reasons.As I see it, that statement does not really explain why the creation no longer does that. It seems that there are only 3 options concerning animals that do things that displease God:
1. After the Fall, God makes certain animals do things that displease Him and then punishes them for doing so. This is patently false.
2. After the Fall, some animals independently choose to do things that displease God. To hold this view, one would seem to have to hold that animals have free will and some animals choose on their own to do things that displease God and other animals do not choose to do so.
3. After the Fall, some animals do things that displease God because they are influenced by or controlled by evil supernatural beings so that the animals do those things that displease God.
4. The process of decay introduced by the fall creates mutations that turn previous grass-eating animal into meat-eaters, and then those meat-eaters do things like shed man’s blood, which is displeasing to God.
Discussion