Did Humans start out as Plant-Eaters?

-

Have you ever thought that humans were originally intended to be plant-eaters? Now, this is just an observation.

When you read Genesis carefully, we see three phases of the initial world: the world post-creation, the


world post the fall of man, and then the world post-flood. And what humans are allowed to eat changes across these phases.

Right after the finished work of creation, in Genesis 1:29, we read:

And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Not just humans. In the next verse, He goes on to give plants as food for animals and birds as well.

Now right before the fall, as God is forbidding the tree of knowledge in Genesis 2:16,17, we read:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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 surely die."

Then the fall happens.

Post-fall, when God is declaring the consequences of sin in Genesis 3:18,19, He says:

Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."

So at least in three places we see what is given to man as food - and it is all plant-based. Now, meat is not restricted anywhere, but it is not mentioned either. Then post-flood, in Genesis 9:1-4, we see the whole dynamic between humans and animals changing.

God says to Noah and his sons that the fear of humans will be upon every beast of the earth, birds of the air, fish of the sea, and all that move on the earth.

So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Just as He gave the green herbs initially, now He is giving all the animals to humans for food. So the pattern is interesting: plants are given initially, and meat is permitted only after the flood.

But did humans hunt down and eat animals before God permitted it? We do not know. It is not written. But is it likely? Maybe. Because man has already fallen, sin has entered. He could have been tempted when animals were sacrificed. But there are many arguments in this area. Like why did Abel raise flocks if all he can eat is plants? - Probably because they used the skin and wool for clothes. Why are clean and unclean animals mentioned when God asked Noah to take them to the ark? - Probably because only the clean animals will be sacrificed later by Noah.

Still, if we take these verses just as they are given, one thing is certain - it appears that humans were originally intended and designed by God to be plant-eaters, but something along the line changed, and then God declares meat also as food for man.

What do you think?

References and Further Reading:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Translation Spectrum - Bible Versions Explained

-
Image
KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESC, ASB, CSB - There are hundreds of English Bible translations. This is a great blessing, because people from different background and with different levels of understanding will always have a version that resonates with them, that talks to them. But it also is a problem, in the sense that it poses the question "Which one is the best?". Every translation is unique - be it the time it was written or the reason it was made. But all of them will generally lie in a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum we have the Word-for-word philosophy, where words or text are converted from one language to another. So it ends up being a literal equivalent of the original. On the other end is the Thought-for-thought philosophy, where the meaning of a text or passage is expressed using other words. Cultural references and idioms might be smoothed over, and it is worded such that a modern reader can easily understand. This side of the spectrum might be suitable for someone who ...
Read more

Ep 9: Why does The Bible have a 400-Year Gap?

-
Image
The Holy Bible is a book that was written over a span of 1500 years, lasting from around 1400 to 1500 BC, to approximately 90 AD. The last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, was written around 400 BC. Then nothing. For 400 years, God was silent. No new prophetic voices. No new scripture recognized as God-breathed. But the world around the Bible didn't stay silent. When Malachi closes, the Israelites are in their Persian rule . The Persians had actually been relatively kind to the Jews - allowing them to return from exile, rebuild the temple, and practice their religion. But Persia wouldn't rule forever. A young military genius named Alexander the Great was about to change everything. Alexander the Great conquers everything. With Alexander comes Greek culture, and that starts spreading among the Jews. Hellenization happens which is a major change for them. When Alexander died in 323 BC, his empire was divided among his generals. Judea ended up under the control of the Seleuci...
Read more

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Four Theories That Try to Explain It Away

-
Image
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the heartbeat of Christianity. It is the central claim upon which the entire faith stands or falls. And because of that, it has attracted no shortage of skeptical theories over the centuries — each one ambitiously trying to offer an alternative explanation for what happened on that Sunday morning outside Jerusalem. Here we examine four of the most popular theories, and why each one ultimately fails. Theory #1: The Swoon Theory — Did Jesus Just Faint? The word swoon means to faint. This theory proposes that Jesus never actually died on the cross. Instead, he merely lost consciousness and somehow survived the beatings and the crucifixion. He then recovered, and later appeared to his disciples, who mistakenly believed they were witnessing a risen Lord. On the surface, it might sound like a plausible alternative. But when you press on the details, the theory collapses under its own weight. The Roman soldiers had every reason to make sure Jesus was...
Read more