The argument JW`s use for animal predators on land , what argument do they have for marine predators ?

by smiddy 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • TD
    TD
    Jw`s beleive that in the beginning the so called wild animals did not hunt and kill live prey , they either ate the vegetation that was in abundance or maybe ,they even ate the carcassase of already dead animals , but they certainly didnt kill live animals for food.

    Smiddy,

    The JW parent organization (Mostly) has had the sense to keep its collective mouth shut on this subject. The last time anything of substance was said was 30+ years ago, in the Design In Nature themed Awake! in October of 1982.

    These articles were (apparently) an attempt to respond to an argument presented by Bertand Russell in the 1927 lecture and essay, Why I Am Not A Christian. Russell objected to the cruelty inherent in the predator/prey cycle. In raising this objection, he was largely repeating what men like Romanes, Spencer and Huxley had observed:

    "We find teeth and talons whetted for slaughter, hooks and suckers moulded for torment --everywhere a reign of terror, hunger, sickness, with oozing blood and quivering limbs, with gasping breath and eyes of innocence that dimly close in deaths of cruel torture. (Romanes, George, Thoughts On Religion p.78 Emphasis mine)

    You can see that the argument that JW writers were responding to made no differentiation between land and sea creatures and the excerpt from Romanes was presented as I have quoted it above early on in this series of articles (g82 10/8 p. 5)

    Also, the counter-argument precluded any possibility that animals ate carcasses of those already dead:

    "What was the food for the animals? The inspired record states: "To every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food." Or, as Today's English Version of the Bible puts it: "For all the wild animals and for all the birds, I have provided grass and leafy plants for food." (g82 10/8 p. 9)

    "This does not mean that vegetation was merely the ultimate basis for food supply through a chain of animal life.....And the fact that Isaiah 11:6-9 and Isaiah 65:25 specifically state that former predators will be at peace with other animals and the lion will eat straw like the bull, would seem to confirm that animals and humans were meant to be vegetation eaters. (g83 1/8 p. 28 - Response in From Our Readers)

    The supposed change in diet was tied in some vague way to the fall of Man:

    "Also, as man turned toward lawlessness, the earthy creation, too became chaotic. Man lost his loving dominion over the animals. Since humans could not control themselves peacefully, it is no surprise that the animals are in the same condition. The animals - who had a vegetarian diet in Eden, as did humans - began to live off one another, some even eating humans when possible." (g82 10/8 p. 11)

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    I am pretty darn sure that the WT has never addressed that question. If you were to ask a Witnessing dub , then no doubt he would come up with something from his own imagination.

    NB At one time I was in an elders school being addressed by a senior bod from London Bethel . He said his previous job had been to answer the letters that people sent in with questions. He admitted that what they did not know, they would make up and guess at in a form of words that was non committal. "Well, You have to say something"

    A quickthinking dub might say that Isaiah only promises that "The earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah" and "They will do no harm in all my Holy mountain". So perhaps the sea is excluded ?

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    The official WT company line is that because Genesis is literal, all land animals must have therefore been vegetarian prior to the Flood, because that's what Genesis says.

    However...

    ...they're smart enough not to mention it because the evidence for predation amongst land animals is so prevelent in the fossil record (including rock strata that clearly predates humans) that they'd look like idiots if they said so.

    I know, because I've heard plenty of the less intelligent WT loyalists come right out and say it (they're usually the same ones who believe dinosaurs went extinct at the Flood).

    I'd always have fun with them and ask questions like "then how come they've found Allosaur teeth imbedded in Apatosaur bone?" Never got in trouble for it, either.

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    One can only understand the statement: "For all the wild animals and for all the birds, I have provided grass and leafy plants for food." - In the sense that herbivores and invertebrates are usually found at the bottom of the food chain, thus making vegetation the basis for the vast majority of the observable wildlife.

    Eden

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    Double Post

  • PelicanBeach
    PelicanBeach

    It is obvious that marine life and land animals were created with the ability to kill for food and that among them are also those who do not kill but feed on vegetation. A nice mirror of mankind itself which not only feeds on meat but also his/her own kind, the human grazers.

    The Genesis 1 account is a picture of a more perfect world where men and women are equal and where violence is absent. Not there yet.

    Pelican

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    I'm with George. Has anyone ever found the source of this quote on how many "kinds" of animals were needed in the ark?

  • dmouse
    dmouse

    Watchtower 1969 9/1 P.543-544

    Questions from Readers

    Some animals have characteristics that seem especially suited to killing, such as lions and poisonous snakes. How can this be, if they were all vegetarians at one time?—L. K., Netherlands.

    It is understandable that this question might arise, for as things stand now many animals do kill one another for food. But please note that this is as things stand now. Is there anyone on the earth who can say from personal observation how these animals acted six thousand years ago?

    Throughout the earth humans kill animals and eat their flesh. But does man’s ability to chew and digest meat prove that all men eat meat or that men have always eaten meat? No, for God’s Word, the oldest and most reliable history of mankind, shows that originally Jehovah gave man “all vegetation bearing seed” and “every tree on which there is the a fruit of a tree bearing seed” as food. It was not until over sixteen hundred years later that God permitted a change of diet for man, allowing him to hunt animals for food.—Gen. 1:29; 9:2, 3.

    True, those who believe that man and animals evolved over a period of millions of years might not accept this, but it is what the Word of God says, and Jesus Christ said, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) If the present diet and mode of life of humans does not represent what it originally was, is it not possible that the same is true of animals?

    We must keep in mind that scientists are limited in their knowledge. Even if a man is an authority in some field of animal life, he does not know all there is to know about an animal as it now lives, to say nothing about how it lived thousands of years in the past. Those who are humble and sincere admit this. The very fact that scientists have different opinions proves the point.

    For instance, the question came up as to whether cobras can hear sounds. On November 27, 1968, an Associate Curator of Reptiles at one of the large zoological gardens in the United States wrote: “All snakes are unable to hear sounds; this also includes the Cobra.” That seems quite final. However, on the very same day the Curator and Chairman of the Department of Herpetology at the AmericanMuseum of Natural History explained: “It has been generally assumed . . . that snakes are deaf to air-borne sounds. Recent evidence has it, though, that some snakes can hear low-pitched sounds. How this relates to the cobra problem is uncertain. The weight of evidence is still in favor of the theory that it is movement rather than sound that influences the cobras, but the matter certainly is not closed.”

    The Bible long ago indicated that the cobra hears the “voice of charmers,” but could refuse to listen just as a human can refuse to hear. (Ps. 58:4, 5) Would it be wise to reject what the Bible says just because some scientists think the facts to be otherwise? The above quotations show that the answer is, No. Similarly, that certain current evidence does not seem to support what the Bible says about animal life in the past should not cause one to reject God’s inspired Word.

    Another thing, is one justified in concluding that the way an animal uses its body today is the only possible way? As an example, a tiger uses its fangs and claws to catch, kill and tear apart other animals. Yet, could not these same fangs and claws be used in tearing apart heavy vegetation and ripping off husks and shells?

    ‘But what about poisonous snakes?’ someone may ask. Animal poisons might appear to be just for killing or protection, but are they? In “Animal Poisoners” H. Munro Fox wrote: “In some cases we know that poisons play a role in the functioning of the body of the animal which manufactures them. In many instances this may be the real raison d’être [reason for existence] of the venoms, quite apart from any protective value. The poisonous spittle of snakes, for example, has work to do in the digestion of the snake’s food.” Another illustration is a certain green marine worm that is partly covered with a poisonous slime. Is this poison to protect it from being eaten? It might seem so. Yet if the young of this worm settle on this slime, the poison changes them into microscopic males instead of the large females they would have developed into if they settled on the sea floor.

    It is true that hundreds or even thousands of problem cases might be brought up, ones that apparently indicate that animals always killed one another, that this is necessary for the “balance of nature.” But should our lack of complete knowledge of God’s creation cause us to lose faith in him and his Word? Should we let questions about preying animals prey on us?

    The Bible explains that in the paradise in Eden God gave to “every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens . . . all green vegetation for food.” (Gen. 1:30) Later all of the basic kinds of land animals lived in Noah’s ark for a whole year without devouring one another. And evidently drawing on the conditions that existed in Eden and that will be restored in the future, God’s Word says: “The cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra . . . They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain.”—Isa. 11:7-9.

    Surely the grand Creator who made the heavens and all that is in them, who arranged the perfect balance and order of the stars and who knows how harmony and peace existed in Eden, can restore paradise conditions. Bringing about a “balance of nature” wherein animals do not kill one another is not beyond His ability, is it? So, let us look forward to that time with confidence and trust.

  • blondie
    blondie

    *** it-1 pp. 164-165 Ark ***

    The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberalin estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

    These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

    *** it-2 p. 153 Kind ***

    From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: “Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different “kinds,” since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.—See ARK No. 1.

  • adamah
    adamah

    WT in 1969 said-

    Is there anyone on the earth who can say from personal observation how these animals acted six thousand years ago?

    Durrr, hold on a minnit and lemme conduct a worldwide survey to see if there's any surviving 6,000 yr old animal naturalists who can say from personal observation, LOL!

    That's the most idiotic argument I think I've EVER seen the WT make!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit