Marshall… again, as St Roymond regularly highlights on these forums, any claim that is not either directly stated in the text or reasonably inferred through other passages, that is adding to the text!
Whether you like it or not, we cannot theologically claim God didnt give the fish any food so they must eat meat, especially when we know that the first direct statement about the eating of meat “for food” is not until AFTER the flood!
The only biblical evidence that we can go on is what we have…that God gave every green plant for the animals to eat…thats it!
Now, im going to play devils advocate to my own claim there (because i am honest and willing to challenge myself):
According to the Old Testament Sanctuary Service, the Israelites were to eat the meat of the animal (sheep or goat) that they sacrificed as a sin offering.
One could make the theological case i believe, that Cain and Abel (because of the reason they fought and Abel was killed), offered sacrifices to the Lord.
Because they clearly made offerings, one could use that as evidence that the punishment for mankind for sin was illustrated in the killing of these animals. Given the Israelites were commanded to eat the meat (without its lifeblood), Cain and Abel might have been made to do this as well (and yes i mean essentially it was demanded of them).
Why as punishment? To remind them (and all humanity going forward) of the serious and devastating consequences to the animals killed by God to clothe Adam and Eve when they realised that they were naked and that one day, man would be held to account for this…that is what the death of Christ has saved believers from.
Caveat…the above is not fact, its merely a possible and quite reasonable/logicl defense for “your” position that i am suggesting. One must remember though, that being forced to eat (if you will) as a punishment is different from giving as food!
You’re correct. I forgot Dinah, who was the 7th child after six boys and followed by six boys. The odds don’t get much better when a girl is the seventh and bracketed by six boys on either side. It’s obviously intentional arrangement like the other genealogies in Genesis.
firstly, todays birth rates are irrelevant…we know for a fact that they are on the decline mostly because of social choices…not birth defects and mortality rates! Ironically, 3rd world country family sizes are typical considerably larger than western society…so theres that fact!
Second, How many of Jacobs sons does the bible tell us survived? Well we only know of the ones that DID SURVIVE…these are:
and theres more…what did God say to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? He promised he would make them a “grat nation”
Abraham complained he was old and had no children, his grandson, a very large family…so in just that short period, Abraham went from 1 israelite son to quite a hoard given we dont know exactly how many sons and daughters Jacobs childrend also had…needless to say Jacob would have been the grandfather of many hundreds if not over a thousand children
my own grandmother resulted over 80 children, grandchildren, great grandchildren etc in her 90 years of life and her family birth stats stated out with just 6 children and our subsequent families had less children than she did…my parents only 2, my mums brother only 2 as well.
Finally, there is another theological problem i think for the claim just a couple of thousand left Egypt (if at all)…
Note what the pharoah says in Exodus 1
8 Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. 9 “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us.
If Egypts population in around 1900 B.C was at least 5 million (that is the conservative estimate because we actually dont know or even have an accurate clue what it was), how many of these foreigners would there need to be to make a king (who did not know Joseph or care about him) worry?
I would suggest it was clearly a large enough number that the Egyptians were concerned that their own army wouldnt be able to deal with the uprising should that ever occur. Given this was the number at the beginning of the oppression, note what comes next in exodus…
12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites 13 and worked them ruthlessly.
Then it gets even worse for the Egyptians so they decide to go further in trying to control the birthrates and Israelite population growth…
15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”
But God steps in and note what God does…
20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous.
So pharoah, realising his plan wasnt working then took drastic action giving the following command to all Egyptians:
22…“Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.”
Now before you jump on a bandwagon there (as i know what some are already thinking), Moses arrival is about this time (80 years before the Exodus)…so the breeding went on unabated for about 3 centuries before the throwing of male babies into the nile!
another piece of trivia about the command to throw males into the Nile…given men dont live forever, and the Egyptians had made us of these slaves for their building projects (the bible says the Israelites built cities for them), i very much doubt the Egyptian continued to throw all male babies to their deaths…they would have still needed slaves and as such we can probably make a reasonable assumption that after a while, some of the male babies were not killed in order to keep the number of slaves at a useful population level! (this doesnt really affect the overall defense though). it may be that perhaps the Egyptians were happy just keeping the females alive and that enough babies could be born as slaves via that mechanism…which is the more likely option i think.
Dear Roy,
if what you claim is true, then where are all the billions of human remains, where are the artefacts from the eons of time that modern man allegedly evolved in.
They don’t exist, because the Global Flood erased all evidence of buildings, and all human remains from the face of the Earth.
Sure, I’m happy to focus on what is directly stated. What is directly stated as a limitation on what humans could eat?
“And the Lord God commanded the [human], ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die’ ” (Genesis 2:16).
That’s it. One tree. Eating potatoes (which don’t come from a tree) would not disobey God. Eating mushrooms would not disobey God. Eating fish would not disobey God. Eating steak would not disobey God. The only prohibited food came from one tree. This is what the text directly states.
Yes, the statement about eating meat doesn’t come until after the flood. But as you’ve noticed, people eat meat before then. You think it was under duress or under compulsion, but the text doesn’t say that. It just shows Abel raising animals and then Noah being familiar with which animals were clean and unclean – meaning which could be eaten and sacrificed and which could not. All this is before God says anything specific about eating meat.
In your reading, people weren’t allowed to eat meat until God said so after the flood, and yet God was forcing people to eat meat by the sacrificial system. So God was forcing people into more sin? Do you see how that doesn’t make sense? It makes a lot more sense that eating meat was never an issue, but after the flood God did away with the clean/unclean restrictions, giving them the meat like God initially gave them the plants – without exception.
None of this is to say that being a vegetarian is bad or an inferior diet. There’s much to commend such a diet. It just isn’t what the Bible mandates, neither before nor after the fall.
Ill add to that Jon, note that St Roymond CLAIMS the maths is out by an order of magnitude of 2 …and yet the maths actually is that the percentage birthrate to acheive the biblical numbers is only a little over 2.5% (average of 6-8 per family). Given i have already presented information from Roman times that illustrate that even at the time of Christ, the family size average was at the higher end of the above 2.5% rate…St Roymond is talking out of his rear end ignorant of the real life facts.
Marshal, you need to actually read the text properly and use some cross referencing habits there as you havent got the entire picture clearly…
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Again, the rest of your post is throwing out “morality and ethics arguments”…these are pointless against an omnipotent almighty God…he can choose to do and demand what he flaming likes…he is not bound by YOURmorality!
Yes, I’ve read it. There’s no prohibition in that text. Just as when God provided manna in the wilderness, it didn’t prohibit eating any other food, such as the cattle they had with them.
Can i ask you this…according to the bible narrative, when was “Fall of mankind” where sin enterred the world, before or after Sinai?
if after Sinai, what on earth has that got to do with the command to eat food before Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (which is also before the Flood Narrative)?
It has to do with understanding that God giving something for food is not the same thing as prohibiting eating any other foods. Remember, you wanted to focus on what the text directly says. And there is only one prohibited food prior to the fall.
Strange then that human fossils have been found and dated to 300,000 years ago.
And if the Global Flood scraped the surface of the Earth clean, then how did plant and animal life manage to repopulate the surface? How did the many diverse Eco-systems manage to reestablish themselves?
The countries that I based that value on were Niger and Chad.
That’s not very useful for extrapolating, given that they weren’t exclusively marrying their cousins the whole time.
Given that no estimate I can find cited is over 3 million, 5 isn’t conservative.
If there were 2 million Israelites in Egypt when they left, it would leave a very clear mark on the demographics of Egypt and of the Levant at that date. Additionally, reading 603,000 adult males is a translation choice and not a necessity of the text. It is just as accurate to the text to read 5,000. Additionally, there is direct archeological evidence of an increase in population of about 20-30,000 people in the Judean highlands at about the right date. Newcomers with suspiciously different material culture–much less pork in the diet and fewer (not none, just fewer) idols.
Given that so far, all of the population growth calculations that you’ve shown (including the one here) have been based on either anecdotal data or small groups (less than 100 starting out), I’m going with the calculations based on actual growth rate data for ancient and modern countries or tribal groups (e.g., mine).
Especially while maintaining biogeographic consistency with their predecessors–Fasciolariidae and Busyconidae have been new-world only for their whole known existences, as have hummingbirds, tyrant-flycatchers, wood-warblers, and a bunch of other taxa in groups that I haven’t studied as much.
Next question, why do groups that first appear lower in the stratigraphic column generally have wider geographic distributions?
Well of course your worldview aligns with the secular worldview here and within that worldview, I don’t doubt that you honestly believe that to be factual. However, I have a completely different worldview, one that aligns with the traditional and straightforward reading of the Holy Scriptures, that clearly informs us that the judgement of the LORD God was upon ALL Biblically alive terrestrial flesh on the face of the Earth, i.e., man, beasts, fowl and creeping things, such as snakes etc.
The Holy Bible doesn’t tell us that the judgement upon the whole Earth under Heaven was merely a local flood in a discrete part of the planet does it? It takes a fair amount of special pleading to refute firstly that Genesis isn’t the REAL HISTORY, that it so very obviously is, and a lot of indoctrination into secular atheist beliefs that ‘deep time’ is an established fact, when nothing could be further from the truth, and an enormous quantity of ‘faith’ to believe the utter nonsense of evolution that uses equivocation with natural Selection that is real, but can only ever select from EXISTING genetic information within a population as the explanation as to how evolution happens, which is clearly nonsensical. It is like saying that you own a shop and in every transaction you lose money, and then claim you are making a profit. In other words it simply does not add up.
Human remains can only ever be at most, around about 6,000 years old, and the vast majority if not all will be post the Global Flood and hence no older than around about 4,500 years old.
Add to that the reality that history is replete with examples of fraud masquerading as forensic science for the sole purpose of proving evolution and no doubt fraudulently gaining wealth and fame.
For example, the deceitful drawings from the so called scientific research of Ernst Haeckel in the second half of the nineteenth century in Germany that were used to establish evolution in the minds of the academics and general population.
Or the greatly hailed discovery of the so called earliest Englishman, known as Piltdown Man found in Sussex in the first half of the twentieth century, that almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient.
And, the remains of a swimming reptile, an Ichthyosaurus, in the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff in the United Kingdom. This fossil has been on display for over a century and has been viewed by millions, yet, when it was decided to clean the specimen, the technicians found that some of the bones were made of plaster of Paris that had been covered by 5 layers of paint in order to make them look like fossil bones! Dr Caroline Buttler, the museum conservator, said: ‘It was an amalgam of two different types of Ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts.’ The museum plans to put the Ichthyosaurus back on display as an example of Victorian forgery.
And while you’re at it, I strongly suggest that you look at the informative article titled, " The deep and undeniable Darwinian roots of Nazi eugenics" that explains in no uncertain terms, what unfettered acceptance of secular worldviews can lead to. It is found at:
So I hope that you will excuse me, if I express doubt about your claim that human remains have been found that are ‘dated’ as being 300 million years old.
The principle that I operate from is really simple. It is in a nutshell, that I will always Trust the Holy Bible over mere human attempts to understand the creation. Science is wonderful, I have worked in scientific fields for much of my life, but at the end of the day, science is nothing more than a methodology; i.e., a way to try and understand how God’s creation operates. And for practical empirical analysis and comprehension of matters in the present, we do a very good job at it, but when the focus of the research is on events and remains of things that happened in the very distant past, well its impossible to know all the variables that were present at that event in the distant past, thus many assumptions have to be made by sheer necessity, and that is precisely where the worldview of the researcher will directly influence the assumptions they make and the conclusions they come to.
You ask:
“if the Global Flood scraped the surface of the Earth clean, then how did plant and animal life manage to repopulate the surface? How did the many diverse Eco-systems manage to reestablish themselves?”
I think the Global Flood did a lot more than just scrape the Earth clean.
It was a massive catastrophic event unparalleled by anything before or since it occurred. The entire planet was reshaped from a single landmass surrounded by water to the continental configuration we have now. It was a supernatural event controlled by God. He brought the Global Flood about because of the rampant evil on Earth at that time.
The copious volumes of very deep sedimentary rock strata all over the planet, that predominantly have sharp clean well defined boundaries between each strata layer of sediment, are stark testament to rapid deposition in a single event. There aren’t many examples of bioturbation, or erosion, or animal disturbance between the thousands of layers that in places go down continuously for over seven miles!
The order of the fossils is simply the order of burial.
The aquatic and marine life would have survived in sufficient numbers to repopulate the Earth. The insects would have had sufficient numbers hitching a ride on the massive log and vegetation rafts that would almost certainly have been a feature of such a catastrophic event, and would have repopulated the Earth rapidly after the flood waters retreated into the sinking ocean basins.
Thus I see no problem with taking the Holy Bibles straightforward account of the events of creation and the Global Flood as REAL HISTORY.
Which killed the animal. SO if animal death is evil, the sacrificial system was evil.
Again, if animal death is evil, then God did evil.
Right – that’s why we have ruins that are 7k years old and more.
Why do you keep pushing something that is not required by the text and is contrary to all evidence?
And no, I’m not going to read anything from a website known to be deceptive.
That’s a great point.
I never realized before that not just being contrary to the text, but YEC is also blasphemous, requiring God be not just deceptive but evil!
Your point only stands because you changed the subject, which was something like 600k offspring in three generations from one man.
Was originally derived from the scriptures.
Sorry, but new genetic information occurs all the time. Since there is no scripture to back your claim, we should believe what God’s Creation is telling us.
That’s neither from the Bible nor from science.
But you rely on a human tradition to interpret the Bible, though you refuse to recognize it.
And there we have the real answer. If everything is a miracle then there can’t be any problems with what you see in creation. Of course that makes God into a trickster who planted fake evidence to cover up the miracles.
Except, if the flood was salty the fresh water life would have all died or if it was fresh water all of the marine life would die. You can’t have you cake and eat it too.
So had did earthworms or any of the other myriads of subterranean life make it onto a raft. Or given soil only supports plant life when it is alive with insects, molds, and bacteria, all of which would have died out during a year long flood, where did this life come from?
On leaving the ark what did the rather limited number of herbivore eat? Remember some herbivores only eat one particular plant. What did the carnivores eat? They would have rather quickly depleted the supply of herbivores.
The deep and undeniable Darwinian roots of Nazi eugenics
A review of: Darwinian Eugenics and the Holocaust by Jerry Bergman
Institute for Science and Catholicism, Involgo Press, UK, 2020
by John Woodmorappe
Here’s a tight, side-by-side of what Bergman/Creation.com assert vs. what mainstream historians generally conclude. Highlighted: points of agreement, dispute, and nuance, with sources.
Yes: racism existed before, but acceptance of evolution multiplied “biological” arguments for racism “by orders of magnitude”; eugenics is “applied Darwinism.”
Partly. Late-19th/early-20th-century eugenicists often did invoke evolutionary language; some racial theorists claimed scientific backing. But racist hierarchies pre-dated Darwin and also drew on non-Darwinian “race science,” nationalism, and antisemitic traditions. After 1945, many evolutionary biologists helped discredit race typologies (e.g., UNESCO 1950 statements). (Wikipedia)
American eugenics as a model for Nazis
Strong link; Nazi sterilization and “race laws” admired and borrowed from U.S. precedents.
Well supported by scholarship (e.g., Stefan Kühl’s The Nazi Connection): German eugenicists studied U.S. sterilization laws and immigration restrictions and cited them approvingly. This shows cross-pollination of eugenic policy, not a single-cause chain from Darwin to Hitler. (Internet Archive)
Hitler as a “Darwinian”
Implicit through lines from Darwin → Haeckel → Hitler (and quotations about “survival of the fittest”).
Widely disputed. Robert J. Richards and many reviewers argue there’s no evidence Hitler read Darwin deeply or grounded policy in Darwin’s biology; Nazi ideology drew more from völkisch racism, antisemitic conspiracism, and Social Darwinist rhetoric filtered through non-scientific sources (Chamberlain, occult-nationalist writers). (University of Chicago Home)
Weikart’s thesis (Darwin → Hitler)
Often cited approvingly by creationist outlets; claims Darwinism played a “key role.”
Heavily criticized by historians for selective use of sources and downplaying political/economic/cultural drivers. Reviews in major journals and syntheses say it’s an overreach that collapses multiple causal strands into “Darwinism.” (Wikipedia)
Ernst Haeckel’s role
Central exemplar: racist claims and embryo drawings used to push Darwinism + racism.
Nuanced. Haeckel’s drawings were widely reproduced and criticized; a 1997 Science piece called them “fraud,” but later scholars (e.g., Nick Hopwood) reconstruct a more complex history; Richards argues “fraud not proven.” Either way, Haeckel’s influence on popular evolutionism and some racial ideas is acknowledged, but treating him as a straight line to Nazism is contested. (Science)
“Social Darwinism” = “pure Darwinism”
Yes—portrayed as a faithful application of Darwin’s ideas.
Disputed conceptually. Many historians see “Social Darwinism” as a selective ideological reading—often at odds with Darwin’s ethics (e.g., his anti-slavery stance) and with how many biologists interpreted evolution. It’s better seen as one 19th-c. ideology among several, not simply “what Darwin taught.” (See critical reviews of “Darwin → Hitler” narratives.) (Wikipedia)
Political placement of Nazism (“left-wing”)
Claimed as left/socialist.
Overwhelmingly rejected in the field: Nazism is classed as far-right fascism, despite some “socialist” rhetoric. Leading historians (Kershaw, Evans, Mosse) locate its roots in radical nationalism, racial hierarchy, and anti-liberal, anti-Marxist politics. (EL PAÍS English)
What changed post-WWII?
Suggests eugenics morphed into modern abortion/genetics.
Historically: post-1945 scientific bodies (e.g., UNESCO) repudiated race typologies; population genetics undercut “biological race” claims. Contemporary bioethics debates exist, but they’re not continuations of Nazi eugenics in any straightforward sense. (Wikipedia)
Bottom line
Solid ground: Evolutionary language and some biologists were indeed used to rationalize eugenics and racist hierarchies; U.S. eugenics tangibly influenced Nazi policy. (Internet Archive)
Overreach: Making Darwinism the root cause of Nazi genocide doesn’t match the broader historiography, which stresses a braided causality (völkisch nationalism, antisemitism, “race science,” war, bureaucracy, Hitler’s leadership). (University of Chicago Home)
Conceptual care: “Social Darwinism” isn’t identical to Darwin’s science; treating it as “pure Darwinism” obscures how ideologues cherry-picked biology to bless pre-existing prejudices. (Wikipedia)
