Where Adam and Eve Vegan/Vegetarian?

by KerryKing 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  KerryKing

  Jws seem to firmly believe that before the flood mankind eas vegan or at least vegetarian.

  However, in Gen 1:24,25 it says that God created livestock (domestic animals) and beasts of the eart (wild beasts).

  Why would Adam and Eve need livestock if they were vegan and naked? Wouldn't need wool or hide for clothing, nor meat for food. Possibly for dairy products only? That also poses a problem as every farmer knows, roughly 50% of births will be males, they're useless to dairy herds so they need to be culled, can't release them because they won't survive in the wild, they still have to be shorn, hoofs maintained etc to keep healthy. Domestic animals need mankind, and mankind needs domestic animals, by design.

  Abel was a shepherd, Gen 2:2-4, and sacrificed animals to God, so mankind was familiar with killing beasts. He also knew to sacrifice the fatty pieces because that was considered the best cut of meat, how did he know that was the best? Did God say give me the fat it's my favourite? Or was Abel familiar with the meat and it's various cuts and flavours? Imo logic will go with the latter option.

  Noah and family were granted to eat all the animals of the earth and creatures of the sea and birds Gen 9:2,3, but the animals would now be afraid of mankind. To me this means that Noah was now given permission to hunt, they could eat wild animals as well as livestock.

  But wid animals would run away, whereas livestock are not afraid of their shepherds and carers.

  I believe the reason for this was because post flood the land was saturated and it would take at least a year for crops to be seeded and grow, probably longer because of the condition of the land. Wild animals often reproduce faster than livestock, so would be a quicker and steadier source of food.

  I think JWs wave away these logical reasonings in favour of fairy tales, but i really don't think the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale at all.
• 

  moomanchu

  Animals also could be companions as comfort and support., apparently not enough so Eve was created.

  Everything else you mentioned happened after the sin.

  The male dominated birth rate could be a result of sin.

  Learning to kill animals - God showed the way because of clothes.

  No longer Vegan probably did happen after being thrown out of the garden,

  no longer having access to easy food production.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Remember there are two creation stories. The first in Genesis 1-2:2 (traditionally ascribed to P, Priestly) has a particular focus on the exclusivity of temple rite and Sabbath (7-day template). In this version, animals and people only eat vegetation, because in his idealized past blood is never shed not even by animals. Blood is reserved for sacrifices (that only comes later with the Moses Tabernacle story and performed by priests). In his mind therefore, the imagined golden beginning has no blood shed. P picks up again with his version of a Flood story, after which it has God grant humans a carnivorous diet (but does not have Noah do a sacrifice).

  In contrast, J (the Yahwist Gen 2:3-) has animals used (skinned for clothes, and sacrificed (Abel and Noah) right from the beginning. J having Abel and Noah doing sacrifices explains why he has 7 pairs of "clean" animals whereas P only has 1 pair of all animals.

  The two stories were each idealizations, filled with allegory. They were never supposed to exist side by side, and didn't until a compiler in the Persian period made it so.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Of course they were! Just as were the "lions, tigers, and bears, OH MY!" *

  * That's a line from a kids story book. But then so is the story about Adam and Eve. . . .
• 

  joey jojo

  If you believe the garden of eden was a real place - was it a peaceful place where all creation lived in harmony?

  Did lions have big teeth so that when they smiled at the antelopes they would appear friendlier?
• 

  blondie

  I did deep research on this some time ago, and concluded that the WTS did not say that jws had to be vegan or vegetarians at this time, and that other jws could make their own choice but not insist others had to. As to the so-called new system...nothing is clear per the WTS. As to Adam and Eve, Abel sacrificed some of his sheep to god in Genesis, so they obviously killed animals. Did they eat them, it does not say. As to why god let humans eat animals properly bled after the flood, the WTS has some guesses, but again the bible does not say. I'll try to find that research. The WTS has a pattern. June 8, 1976 Awake p. 14-15 "To the question, ‘Should worshipers of God be vegetarians?’ the answer must be that it is an individual, personal matter. If a person is convinced of the value of it from the standpoint of cost, economics or health, and finds it practical, he may adopt a vegetarian regimen. But he cannot find ethical support for his restricted diet in God’s Word. If he becomes involved in that aspect of vegetarianism, he is losing sight of God’s way of viewing things." AND August 8, 1997, p.18; "Because of health, economics, ecology, or compassion for animals, a person may choose to follow a vegetarian regimen. But he must recognize it as only one way of eating. He should not criticize those who choose to eat meat, just as one who eats meat should not condemn a vegetarian. Eating meat or refraining from it does not make one a better person. (Romans 14:1-17) Neither should one’s diet become the prime concern in his life. “Man must live,” Jesus said, “not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.”—Matthew 4:4."

  And Watchtower January 15, 2002, p. 23 "In order to thrive, sheep need human care. Abel’s occupation testifies that man raised these domestic animals from the outset of mankind’s history. The Scriptures do not say whether the earliest humans used animal milk as a source of food, but even those with a vegetarian diet can use sheep’s wool. And when sheep die, their hides serve useful purposes. To clothe Adam and Eve, for instance, Jehovah provided “long garments of skin.”—Genesis 3:21.

  In any case, it seems reasonable to assume that Cain and Abel originally cooperated with each other. They produced something that others in the family needed in order to keep clothed and well fed."

  As to the animals were vegetarians, the study of animals and their characteristics does not support the idea that lions and tigers eat vegetarian, their teeth etc. proves they are designed or evolved to eat meat. That's my opinion. BTW the about above, I am reporting not supporting.
• 

  KerryKing

  Peacefulpete

  I had not heard of the second version of Genesis, thanks for that, I'll have some fun digging that up!

  Blondie

  Yes the WT doesn't support one way or another, although their paradise pictures do, but a lot of JWs believe the vegetarian theme, I remember some saying enjoy your meat now you won't get it in the new system lol.
• 

  jwundubbed

  Were Adam and Eve vegan/vegetarian?

  No one can know what they chose to eat. But I would add to your documentation, the fact that humans have the teeth of omnivores. I think they ate meat. But who can possibly understand the nonsensical logic of the JWs?
  

  Why would Adam and Eve need livestock if they were vegan and naked?

  
  

  Obviously it was for sacrifice. You yourself cited that documentation. Duh. A coroner also knows all the best meat on any body... it doesn't mean he eats people. Any decent God would tell their believer what they want in their tributary sacrifices. A good writer can impart information without describing every single action. It's obvious that while the bible is literal it also leaves steps out. Telling us that they knew the best pieces of meat for sacrifice could be the writer's way of explaining that they had been told what they needed to know.
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Kerry...the two versions of creation stories are both in Genesis. Roughly chapter 1-2:3 and chapt 2:4-3. Note the end of the first version at 2:2,3 is a conclusion, then the redactor/compiler introduces a new creation story immediately after with a new introduction (2:4).

  They are completely different in just about every way.
• 

  peacefulpete

  As a recent poster, and fluent Jew, has argued, our literalist/Fundamentalist training is very difficult to see around. Tales and stories need not be read as documentaries (and generally shouldn't) to have profound importance for teachers and students. Suspending our critical mind to enter the stories to try to feel what the author intended is not the same thing as dismissing the stories as worthless 'lies'. Nor is it the same as mistaking stories as history and dismissing scientific and historical reality.

  It's a big pill to swallow, I know.