What About the Sea Creatures?

[Skeptical]

I know that JWs believe in a Paradise on Earth. And I know that some of the Bible verses that they base their beliefs on are Genesis 1:28-30 in conjunction with Isaiah 11:6-9 and Revelation 21:1-4. However, I would like to ask JWs and other Christians who have the belief in paradise earth: What about the sea creatures?

Because even in the Bible, the dangerous and ferocious creature Leviathan was created by God according to Psalm 104:24-26. Plus, according to science, there are other dangerous and ferocious creatures that God created such as sharks. But in all fairness, I would like to post this 2 minute and 8 seconds video, which puts sharks in the best light possible.



However, if that was too long for you, I have this 51 second video, which features characteristics that only a Creator God could create. (Hebrews 3:4 and Revelation 4:11)



Therefore, are the scriptures that mention total peace in the human kingdom and the animal kingdom only referring to land creatures? And do those verses exclude the sea creatures? Because I don't quite get it.

But here is another example of the electric eel in this 2 minute and 25 second video, even though there are many, many more dangerous and predatory sea creatures such as this.

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay... I'm through with that

Perhaps the wisest decision on your part. I think we have both expressed our position clearly enough:

• You believe (without millions of years) animals digestive systems can only adapt to their environment through surgery.

• I don't know exactly what the starting point was regarding the first animals on earth and dont believe you or anyone does, so I don't believe anyone can or should be dogmatic as to limiting the potential adapatbility of creatures.

The principle argument have been discussed
there is no point in going through the entire animal kingdom.

JW


SHARKS & SEA CREATURES

Will sharks be dangerous in be paradise ?
viewtopic.php?p=1124094#p1124094

Are the scriptures that mention total peace in the human kingdom and the animal kingdom only referring to land creatures?
viewtopic.php?p=1124284#p1124284

ORIGINAL PURPOSE

Did God originally purpose for animals to be dangerous?
viewtopic.php?p=1029607#p1029607

Why did God create dangerouse carnivores ?
viewtopic.php?p=1124377#p1124377

Did God originally create animals to kill and each each other?
viewtopic.php?p=1124287#p1124287

Do numerous scriptures not attribute violent carnivorous behaviours as being God's will?
viewtopic.php?p=1124285#p1124285

Are eagles evidence God origonally wanted animals to kill each other?
viewtopic.php?p=1124379#p1124379

ADAPTABILITY

Why did some animals become "wild"?
viewtopic.php?p=1029636#p102963

How did carnivorous digestive systems first develop ?
viewtopic.php?p=1124518#p1124518

PARADISE PROMISES

Do the scriptures that mention peace with animals INCLUDE sea creatures?
viewtopic.php?p=1124284#p1124284

Would it not be impossible for God to anatomically adapt carnivores to herbivores?
viewtopic.php?p=1124286#p1124286

When will land and sea creatures cease to be a threat to humans or each other?
viewtopic.php?p=1124146#p1124146

How do we know whether or not Isaish 11:6-7 is to be taken literally?
viewtopic.php?p=1124267#p1124267

[JehovahsWitness]

...why did God change his own laws and his own standards as found in Genesis 9:3?

There was no law to prohibit eating animals prior to the flood in Noahs day. God had stated that fruit and plants were given to man for food and that continues to be the case to this day . Since there was no mention if animals being given as food, its a fair to presume that it was not God's original purpose animals be eaten, but there was no prohibitive law to change since no law had been given.

That said , divine laws come and go according to circumstances, divine PRINCIPLES remain constant.

If by standards you mean what God considers right and wrong , then they too remain constant. It is (and always will be) wrong to take a life without divine permission to do so. What God allows humans to eat may vary according to population and circumstances but the principle is that all life belongs to him and all life (including animal life) is sacred so killing (humans or animals) are subject to his permission.



JW



RELATED POSTS


Do any of God's laws expire?
viewtopic.php?p=1124239#p1124239

How do we know if the "plant-food" verses aren't symbolic?
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6111

[JehovahsWitness]

... allowing ... fornication ... for the Israelites looks like God had to come down to human standard

Fornication [as in sexual intercourse outside of the marital union] has always been sanctioned by divine law.

[JehovahsWitness]

... Jesus said so about ancient Israel's multiple wife situation where God had to lower his standards because of the hardness of men's hearts.

Jesus did not say God "lower[ed] his standards", those words are not in the bible. Jesus said God allowed / permitted and certificates of divorce due to the Israelites stubbornness. So God made legal concessions with regard to marital requirements. The very fact that Jesus refered to a return to the original directive indicates that God's standards remained the same regardless legal modifications.

[Skeptical]

Okay... I'm through with that

Perhaps the wisest decision on your part. I think we have both expressed our position clearly enough:

• You believe (without millions of years) animals digestive systems can only adapt to their environment through surgery.

• I don't know exactly what the starting point was regarding the first animals on earth and dont believe you or anyone does, so I don't believe anyone can or should be dogmatic as to limiting the potential adapatbility of creatures.

The principle argument have been discussed
there is no point in going through the entire animal kingdom.

JW

I agree. And that's why I'm bringing this thread back to the original topic of: Sea Creatures. Because you kept dodging and sidestepping the point that I made in my post #5 with my questions of: "are the scriptures that mention total peace in the human kingdom and the animal kingdom only referring to land creatures? And do those verses exclude the sea creatures?" But that's fine because there's an old saying that goes, "sometimes silence speaks louder than words." (But don't let something go wrong in the middle of your post with this old software, because it will erase half of what you said. So, now I'm going to have to remember the next half of my post that got obliterated by some sort of snafu. But I'll wait and try to remember it in my next post because I don't want what I have written now to go poof. )

[Skeptical]

However, in your post #16, you did say, "We will just have to wait and see," however, that is a non-answer, which actually sidesteps the question. Because it sounds like you either don't know or don't understand why sharks and other predatory sea creatures are designed the way that they are or if that's the way that they were designed from the beginning:

Jaws unhinge

As if the jaws of a shark wasn’t scary enough, they can also unhinge similar to a snake so that they can take an extra large bite to gobble in their prey. They can also create a partial vacuum to suck prey toward right into their chompers.

Special sensing organs

Most sharks, like rays, possess special sensing organs called electroreceptors, which form a network of jelly-filled pores. This helps sharks detect prey but it also makes them extremely sensitive to electrical current. This has been exploited to create shark prevention devices.

Teeth matches prey

When bow hunters go out in the field, they select the proper broadhead for whatever they will be hunting. The same holds true for sharks and the shape of their teeth. Different sharks are different teeth. tiger sharks are curved, pointy and sharp enough to puncture turtle shells. Great whites have knife-like serrated teeth for cutting meat. Some sharks like nurse sharks, practically forego their teeth altogether, choosing instead to suck in small fish and plankton.

https://www.liveoutdoors.com/recreation ... arks-hunt/

Because I would find it rather amiss or unrealistic (or even dishonest) if you were to say that predatory sea creatures were designed the way that the are designed in order to eat seaweed.

[Skeptical]

...why did God change his own laws and his own standards as found in Genesis 9:3?

There was no law to prohibit eating animals prior to the flood in Noahs day. God had stated that fruit and plants were given to man for food and that continues to be the case to this day . Since there was no mention if animals being given as food, its a fair to presume that it was not God's original purpose animals be eaten, but there was no prohibitive law to change since no law had been given.

Okay, we'll let's not get pedantic because what I obviously meant by laws were God's principles and his will. However, you must not be familiar with 1 John 5:2.

That said , divine laws come and go according to circumstances, divine PRINCIPLES remain constant.

If by standards you mean what God considers right and wrong , then they too remain constant. It is (and always will be) wrong to take a life without divine permission to do so. What God allows humans to eat may vary according to population and circumstances but the principle is that all life belongs to him and all life (including animal life) is sacred so killing (humans or animals) are subject to his permission.



JW

Well, with that reasoning, then anything and everything can be acceptable, if God gives his permission for it.

Also, no insult intended but:

If by standards you mean what God considers right and wrong , then they too remain constant.. . . What God allows... are subject to his permission.

that sounds like a contradiction in terms.

[Skeptical]

... allowing ... fornication ... for the Israelites looks like God had to come down to human standard

Fornication [as in sexual intercourse outside of the marital union] has always been sanctioned by divine law.

Well, not really...

CONCUBINE

Among the Hebrews a concubine occupied a position in the nature of a secondary wife and was sometimes spoken of as a wife. It appears that concubines were slave girls, one of three kinds: (1) a Hebrew girl sold by her father (Ex 21:7-9), (2) a foreign slave girl purchased, or (3) a foreign girl captured in warfare (De 21:10-14). Some were the slave girls or handmaids of the free wife, as in the cases of Sarah, Leah, and Rachel.​

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001020

Also, I appreciate wol.jw.org 's attempt at doublespeak, but "wife" is not the same definition as concubine:

a woman with whom a man cohabits without being married

Also, here is a more forthcoming Bible definition of concubine:

5672 CONCUBINES

A woman, often a servant or slave, with whom a man had regular sexual relations, but to whom he was not married. A concubine did not have the rights of a wife and her children were not rightful heirs, though a wife might offer a servant to her husband as a concubine to have children on her behalf.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... concubines

[Skeptical]

... Jesus said so about ancient Israel's multiple wife situation where God had to lower his standards because of the hardness of men's hearts.

Jesus did not say God "lower[ed] his standards", those words are not in the bible. Jesus said God allowed / permitted and certificates of divorce due to the Israelites stubbornness. So God made legal concessions with regard to marital requirements. The very fact that Jesus refered to a return to the original directive indicates that God's standards remained the same regardless legal modifications.

Well, I don't know if it's different in the JWs Bible (I didn't check), but that's not what I read at Matthew 19:7-9:

7 They asked him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and divorce her?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. 9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery.”

Therefore, Jesus is saying that all along, what was really being done was committing adultery. And adultery is adultery, whether or not it was allowed by God at one time.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

In the Bible, adultery generally refers to voluntary sexual relations by a married person—either a man or a woman—with someone other than his or her mate. (Job 24:15; Proverbs 30:20) Adultery is a detestable thing in God’s eyes. In ancient Israel the penalty for it was death. (Leviticus 18:20, 22, 29) Jesus taught that his followers must refrain from adultery.—Matthew 5:27, 28; Luke 18:18-20.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines ... /adultery/

FORNICATION

Sex relations by mutual agreement between two persons not married to each other. The Biblical term is not limited to such promiscuous sex conduct between single persons only. The Bible speaks of fornication in a general way, whether committed by single or by married persons; but it also uses the term adultery.

When God performed the first human marriage he said. “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24) Here the standard set for man and woman was monogamy, and promiscuous sex relationship was ruled out. Also, no divorce and remarriage to another was anticipated.

In patriarchal society God’s faithful servants hated fornication, whether between single, engaged or married persons, and it was considered a sin against God.—Gen. 34:1, 2, 6, 7, 31; 38:24-26; 39:7-9.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011513

So, I'm sorry, JehovahsWitness, but what you are saying about this is wrong.

[JehovahsWitness]

... I'm bringing this thread back to the original topic of: Sea Creatures. ..."are the scriptures that mention total peace in the human kingdom and the animal kingdom only referring to land creatures? And do those verses exclude the sea creatures?"

I answered that question: Post #16

Are the scriptures that mention total peace in with animal in paradise only referring to land creatures or do they include SEA CREATURES?
viewtopic.php?p=1124284#p1124284

However, in your post #16, you did say, "We will just have to wait and see," however, that is a non-answer, which actually sidesteps the question.

I actually wrote ...

No, I don't believe so. We will just have to wait and see

• So I directly answered the question with the word "No"

• I explained that I was presenting a belief.

• As the question was asking about the future (and nobody but God know the future for sure ) I added "we will just have to wait and see..." which is a fact (the only way for any human to know for sure what the future holds is to get there and live it)

• And then I went on to present the biblical basis for the belief I hold in this regard.

For future reference a non-answer would be not answering a question. Saying you are not sure, is answering a question. And with regard the future or something that cannot be proven, stating one's beliefs when one has been directly asked about them, is also answering a question.

Saying one is sure about something one are not sure about ...is a lie.



JW