Paul Copan's Errors On Diet & Vegetarianism
Chapter 16: The Genesis Creation Account Contradicts Science (Part 1)
When I read Chapter 11 on hell, I thought Copan had hit bottom--that he couldn't get much worse. But I was wrong. This chapter is astoundingly poor. I found myself annoyed with Copan for writing such nonsense.
Okay, so what got my ire up in this chapter? This chapter has two main points. One is to claim that whether the Earth is young or old is immaterial to God's glory. I guess this much I can accept as okay. But let’s continue. He does concede that at least most young-Earth arguments "appear to lack solid scientific support." But, Copan stops short of saying that young-Earth arguments are flat-out wrong. Given that the first part of the book was dedicated to railing against relativism, and insisting upon objective reality, I found his wishy-washy refusal to take a definite stand hypocritical. How can he insist on taking a stand for objective reality, and then say, "Well, um, this doesn't seem to be terribly convincing, but, um, let’s move along now and not worry about it too much"?
Now, is Genesis a historical account of what actually happened during creation, or is it a mythological story? Well, Copan says that we know that it is historical because the New Testament authors "assumed" Genesis to be historical. Well, there you have it, now don't you? Um, Mr. Copan, what exactly made the NT authors experts on what in the OT is "historical," and what is "mythological"? They "assumed" (Copan's word) that Genesis is historical, and that's that?
Copan goes on to discuss the style of writing in Genesis, and concludes, "It seems sensible to consider this passage something other than straightforward historical narrative, though it is historical." What kind of double-talk is this? If it seems "sensible" to consider it other than "straightforward historical narrative," it seems very sensible to consider it not historical at all!
Believe it or not, this chapter actually gets worse! The topic of animal death comes up. Many Christians believe that the Bible indicates that man and the animal kingdom were created herbivorous, and that the fall of man caused the change of creation. Copan disagrees with this theology. He says, "After the flood, Genesis 9:3 affirms that ‘every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you.’ (New American Standard Bible) … Animal death and the food chain are presupposed as part of God's creation--without apology or qualification... ‘Genesis… is not primarily interested in whether people were originally vegetarian but in the fact that God provided them with food.’"
I have a lot of problems with Copan's line of argument here. For one, he selectively quotes Genesis 9:3 NASB, only including part of it. Here is the complete verse:
Okay, so what got my ire up in this chapter? This chapter has two main points. One is to claim that whether the Earth is young or old is immaterial to God's glory. I guess this much I can accept as okay. But let’s continue. He does concede that at least most young-Earth arguments "appear to lack solid scientific support." But, Copan stops short of saying that young-Earth arguments are flat-out wrong. Given that the first part of the book was dedicated to railing against relativism, and insisting upon objective reality, I found his wishy-washy refusal to take a definite stand hypocritical. How can he insist on taking a stand for objective reality, and then say, "Well, um, this doesn't seem to be terribly convincing, but, um, let’s move along now and not worry about it too much"?
Now, is Genesis a historical account of what actually happened during creation, or is it a mythological story? Well, Copan says that we know that it is historical because the New Testament authors "assumed" Genesis to be historical. Well, there you have it, now don't you? Um, Mr. Copan, what exactly made the NT authors experts on what in the OT is "historical," and what is "mythological"? They "assumed" (Copan's word) that Genesis is historical, and that's that?
Copan goes on to discuss the style of writing in Genesis, and concludes, "It seems sensible to consider this passage something other than straightforward historical narrative, though it is historical." What kind of double-talk is this? If it seems "sensible" to consider it other than "straightforward historical narrative," it seems very sensible to consider it not historical at all!
Believe it or not, this chapter actually gets worse! The topic of animal death comes up. Many Christians believe that the Bible indicates that man and the animal kingdom were created herbivorous, and that the fall of man caused the change of creation. Copan disagrees with this theology. He says, "After the flood, Genesis 9:3 affirms that ‘every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you.’ (New American Standard Bible) … Animal death and the food chain are presupposed as part of God's creation--without apology or qualification... ‘Genesis… is not primarily interested in whether people were originally vegetarian but in the fact that God provided them with food.’"
I have a lot of problems with Copan's line of argument here. For one, he selectively quotes Genesis 9:3 NASB, only including part of it. Here is the complete verse:
"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." (Genesis 9:3 NASB)
Now why, exactly, did Copan only quote part of the verse? Could it be because, had he quoted the entire verse, it would have shown that he is completely wrong? Nah, that couldn't be it, now could it? I happen to like the NIV version even better, so I'll quote it. Genesis 1:
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole Earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the Earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. (Genesis 1:29-30 NIV)
|
Genesis 1 is very specific about “fruit with seed” and “green plant.” I can see no justification for Copan’s claims that it might not really mean just plants. And now Genesis 9:
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." (Genesis 9:3-4 NIV)
|
This reveals several things. First, this seems to be final confirmation that Genesis 1 does, indeed, mean only plants, not that there really was any room for doubt before. Second, it confirms that meat consumption is, indeed, new. Again, I find no justification for Copan’s claims of ambiguity. I believe we can safely throw out Copan’s theology here as complete garbage. But there is something else here--immediately after giving man the right to eat meat, God says to not eat meat with blood in it. Why, if God doesn’t care one whit about whether you eat animals or not, would He make this rule? Now, if in fact it is not really what God wanted, then perhaps this restriction makes sense. I’m going to quote from The Jewish Dietary Laws, Their Meaning for Our Time, Revised and Expanded Edition[1].
Adam is forbidden meat; Noah is permitted it. Why? What took place between the time of Adam and Noah to bring about this change? The answer is simple: sin. The law for Adam and the law for Noah both represent man: Adam and the garden of Eden in his ideal state; Noah outside the garden of Eden in his real state. Adam was not satisfied to live in the paradisal society. He rebelled against God and turned away from him. He wanted the flesh of living creatures for his food and was prepared to kill to obtain it. And so it was with his descendants. Man ideally should not eat meat, for to eat meat a life must be taken, an animal must be put to death. But man will eat meat.
The permission to eat meat is thus seen to be a compromise, a divine concession to human weakness and human need. The Torah, as it were says: 'I would prefer that you abstain from eating meat altogether, that you subsist on that which springs forth from the Earth, for to eat meat the life of an animal must be taken, and that is a fearful act. But since you are not perfect.... since your desires cannot be stopped nor your nutritional requirements altered, they must at least be controlled; since you will eat meat and since, perhaps you need to eat meat, you may eat it, but with one restriction that you have reverence for the life you take. |
I admit to having an ulterior motive to this bringing up this line of thought, and that is I’m a vegetarian, and it really pisses me off that many theists justify the torture of animals in factory farms because their God said it is okay. I don’t really mind if someone wants to be a theist, but when they use their theism to justify such insane cruelty, I’ve got a problem with that. But to move on, the material quoted is further evidence for my contention that the Bible does, indeed, say that man and all the animal creatures were created herbivorous. A simple reading of Genesis shows that this is true, and Copan is just trying to weasel out of it. He even had to resort to quoting part of a verse in order to twist it to say exactly the opposite of what it actually says! Intellectual integrity, my eye...
But wait, there's even more nonsense to come! (Copan really pulled out the stops in this chapter!) Though he denies that animal death was caused by the fall, he says that the fall did bring in human death:
But wait, there's even more nonsense to come! (Copan really pulled out the stops in this chapter!) Though he denies that animal death was caused by the fall, he says that the fall did bring in human death:
However, the fall of Adam did usher in human death, which Romans 5:12 affirms. And while the paleographical/geological evidence bears out that carnivorous animals--not to mention thorns and thistles or Earthquakes and hurricanes--existed before the fall, it was only after the fall that human beings became vulnerable to and endangered by them.
|
So, an Earthquake comes along (prior to the fall) and Adam bounces around inside the fissure, whilst the cow next to him gets sliced into a bloody pulp? Everything except humans can die? But, when man falls, God chooses as punishment to make man exactly like the rest of the animal kingdom, as far as vulnerability to physical pain and injury? I’ve seen some rather jackass attempts at trying to reconcile reality with scripture, but this is one really takes the cake!
So, there you have it. This was one of the worst chapters of any book I've ever read.
So, there you have it. This was one of the worst chapters of any book I've ever read.