Pentacost
Click here to join the effort!
Language Studies
Difficult Sayings
Adam named the Eagle and the Lion
Genesis 2:19
"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name." (Genesis 2:19) from a supposed but unused root thought to mean "to divide, cut or tear in pieces", even "to bite or scratch". The absent Hebrew root is not that significant as we have similar Arabic roots. Thus we have a perfect picture of a modern bird of prey perhaps. It is interesting that these birds of prey are regarded as an abomination by God in Leviticus 11:13-19, perhaps because they had become hunters of others or carrion eaters, against their pre-Fall state:
"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat."Some rare birds of prey with supposedly flesh eating beaks break the evolutionary development rule and can eat fruit or nuts for which a vegetarian parrot's beak might be better designed. One example is the Palm-Nut Vulture (Gypohierax angolensis, also called a Vulturine Fish Eagle) that feeds mainly on the fruit and husks of palms (see the pictures at: http://www.zbr.co.za/gallery/palmnut-vulture/) and more occasionally fish.
In Hebrew the lion has at least 5 names including ערי 'arîy (Strong's #738) from an existing root ערה 'ârâh (Strong's #717) cited as "to pluck or tear" "in the sense of violence". Not all of these names emphasise its violence and thus ערי 'arîy may point to a later use. Furthermore, although ערי 'arîy offers a clear description of a lion's violence when in search of food at other times they are quite lazy and lethargic. The Hebrew root also has the original meaning of "to pluck off" and refers to grapes from a vine in Psalm 80:13 and leaves in Song of Songs 5:1. The equivalent Ethiopic root can mean to pluck or gather fruits or herbs. I can hardly see the lion as delicately plucking a grape or berry but they are prophesied in Isaiah 11:6-9 as becoming more placid:
"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together..."A "young lion" will not have learned to kill from its mother and may lay down or even play with another animal that may become prey when it is older. Lions have been observed eating grass as part of their diet and their favoured killing method is not actually "tearing" but strangulation and suffocation (cf. http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm). Indeed, a lion lived to 9 years old and was raised on a vegetarian diet, despite all attempts to persuade it to eat meat, and it was still regarded as very fit and a fine specimen of its species (http://aig.gospelcom.net/creation/v22/i2/lion.asp).
It maybe that these particular Hebrew names were adopted post-Fall and that others served before then. Alternatively, the confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11:7,9) may have resulted in a loss of these original more pacifistic names. Irrespective of evolution versus creation debates, unless there was more carnivorous micro-adaptation of the species post-Fall, the lion's paws and jaws and eagle's beak and talons were certainly worthy of description in the creature's naming.
If these creatures killed before the Fall how does that fit in with God's description of Creation as "very good" (Genesis 1:31)? If they were allowed to kill after the Fall it is not specifically mentioned in the Curse and judgement on Adam and Eve's sin. The first animal death appears to be God clothing Adam and Eve in animal skins to cover their shame (Genesis 3:21) and then later with Abel's sacrifice from his flocks that God respected and accepted (Genesis 4:4). Man himself is only specifically allowed to eat meat from Genesis 9:3, after the Flood; prior to that it appears that he was only granted to eat "the herb of the field" (Genesis 3:18).
Many Creationists, therefore, regard meat eating as a post-Flood phenomenon for both man and creature, hence why the animals were able to co-exist on the Ark together as none were yet considered to be prey. There are various forms of Creationism theology and they do not have complete answers for all of the dilemmas but at least they aim at biblical consistency and inerrancy. "Nature red in tooth and claw" before the Fall or Flood does lead to some apparent contradictions, pre-Flood or pre-Fall vegetarianism amongst man and beast seems hard to swallow but keeps the Bible in agreement with itself.
