Vegan and vegetarian brothers and sisters

[Naturale]

32 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

It’s unlikely that we will return to his diet, anyway. That idea comes from the old notion that Isa 65:10 were to have a predominantly literal fulfilment. These days we understand that the fulfilment is predominantly spiritual, and that it doesn’t say much about the circle of life in paradise, other than that some of the fear and terror shown by many animals in front of humans might be calmed down. The cross reference to the expression “They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain” leads us to Isa 2:3, 4, which talks about people who willingly adjust their lives to God’s standards.

We do know though that prophecies in the bible  tend to have  more than one meaning and fulfillment so we have every reason to believe and not doubt that  in the paradise new earth Isaiah’s prophecy will have a further  literal fulfillment as well.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Naturale

[jayrtom]

43 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

 

 

What matters is if we were created to eat meat or not. And we obviously were created to handle it just fine.

 

Since a man is able to kill other by choking him with just is hands, do you conclude that we're designed to kill? In the same way the fact that we can eat meat doesn't have any bearing on we being designed to eat it

 

Quote

Whether or not Adam had it in his diet is not important, in a way. There were probably many things he didn’t have in his diet.

What is important is if we have the simptom of not paying attention to the slave and keep ignoring what is written for our benefict and instruction

 

Quote

 

It’s unlikely that we will return to his diet, anyway.

 

According to the FDS it's not unlikely but a certanty 

 

Quote

That idea comes from the old notion that Isa 65:10 were to have a predominantly literal fulfilment. These days we understand that the fulfilment is predominantly spiritual, 

from where are you taking this conclusions? Do you have any quote to support it?

Since this is a JWForum I expect that any deep bible research be based on the bible or on our  publications. Till now I just see from you your own conclusions based on your own ideas. We're encouraged to not use our own understanding!

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016849#h=18

  Quote

9 Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’

Edited Tuesday at 09:09 PM by jayrtom

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by jayrtom

[Thesauron]

We do know though that prophecies in the bible  tend to have  more than one meaning and fulfillment so we have every reason to believe and not doubt that  in the paradise new earth Isaiah’s prophecy will have a further  literal fulfillment as well.

In some ways, but perhaps not in such a major way as we used to imagine. Instead, it seems more reasonable that the major fulfilment is to be found in the people that will inhabit the earth. So, it seems the scripture is not talking about the diets of animals or men, but rather primarily of how beast-like people will behave towards others. But no doubt we will be at peace with the animal kingdom, and they will not fear us nearly as much as they do today.

[Thesauron]

3 minutes ago, jayrtom said:

from where are you taking this conclusions? Do you have any quote to support it?

Since this is a JWForum I expect that any deep bible research be based on the bible or on our  publications. Till now I just see from you your own conclusions based on your own ideas. We're encouraged to not use our own understanding!

It’s not my personal idea. A measure of terror might be removed from animals. This is from the Watchtower, 9/15 2012, pp. 9-10, which reads:

 

Recall that when Noah and his family emerged from the ark after the Flood, Jehovah told them: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth.” That was for the animals’ self-preservation. (Gen. 9:2, 3) Could not Jehovah remove a measure of that fear and terror, so that his original mandate would be fulfilled? (Hos. 2:18) What an enjoyable time awaits all who will survive to live on earth then!

 

A comment in the Workbook (12/16 p. 7) states:

The whole earth will be transformed into a secure, peaceful paradise, according to God’s original purpose. No creature, whether human or animal, will pose any threat.

 

“God’s Kingdom Rules” states on p. 236:

At long last, the heartwarming word picture painted at Isaiah 11:6-9 [which is a similar prophecy] will see a complete fulfillment even in a literal sense. Men, women, and children will be safe and secure wherever they go on earth. No creature, whether human or animal, will pose any threat.

 

This is what it’s about - safety and peace, not diet.

 

The Watchtower, 9/10 pp. 7-9 highlights another fact:

 

Is this prophecy merely foretelling a time when animals will live in harmony with humans? No, there is more to it than that. Note that the last part of the passage indicates what causes the transformation: “The earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah.” Does knowledge of God change animal behavior? Hardly. But it can and does change people! This prophecy foretells that those who may have had animalistic tendencies would put them aside and develop a Christlike personality because of learning and applying what the Bible teaches.

 

So, I’ve made a little note in my study Bible to the word “they” in Isa 11:9, saying that it refers to Kingdom subjects who have learned the “knowledge of Jehovah”. (w07 5/15 p. 6)

[jayrtom]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

“God’s Kingdom Rules” states on p. 236:

 

Quote

At long last, the heartwarming word picture painted at Isaiah 11:6-9 [which is a similar prophecy] will see a complete fulfillment even in a literal sense. Men, women, and children will be safe and secure wherever they go on earth. No creature, whether human or animal, will pose any threat.

 

 

This is what it’s about - safety and peace, not diet.

So, the bolded sentence has nothing to do with diet, when a "literal sense" implies that correlation?

 

In the same book you're mentioning, that chapter mentions 3 moments of application of that prophecie

 

1. The restoration prophecie for the israelits: It mentions a figurative application of Is 11:6-9 in regards to the animals



Security. Those exiles would return, not to a literal paradise, but to a distant land that had lain desolate for 70 years, a land that few of them had ever seen. Lions were common in Bible lands back then, as were wolves, leopards, and other predators. A family man might wonder, ‘How will I keep my wife and children safe? What about the sheep and cattle—how will I protect them?’ Such concerns would be only natural. Think, then, of God’s promise recorded at Isaiah 11:6-9 and of how comforting it must have been. (Read.) With those lovely poetic words, Jehovah assured the exiles that they and their livestock would be safe. The lion would eat straw in the sense that it would not devour the Jews’ cattle. Faithful ones would have nothing to fear from such predators. Jehovah promised that his people would be safe in the restored land of Judah, even in the wilderness and in the forests.—Ezek. 34:25.

 

 

2. An application for our time: Here we have the application you mentioning for the future but rather it is for the present

Security. In the prophecy recorded at Isaiah 11:6-9, we find a delightful picture of harmony and peace—between wild animals on the one hand and humans with their domestic animals on the other. Does that picture find a spiritual fulfillment today? Yes! In verse 9, we learn why it is that such creatures will cause neither harm nor ruin: “Because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea.” Does “knowledge of Jehovah” change the behavior of animals? No, it is people who are transformed by coming to know the Most High God and learning to imitate his peaceful ways. That is why in our spiritual paradise today, we can observe a heartwarming fulfillment of that prophecy. Under Kingdom rule, Christ’s followers are learning to put off their fierce, animalistic qualities and live in peace and harmony with their spiritual brothers and sisters.

3. For the future - here you have the full literal fulfilment

Security. At long last, the heartwarming word picture painted at Isaiah 11:6-9 will see a complete fulfillment even in a literal sense. Men, women, and children will be safe and secure wherever they go on earth. No creature, whether human or animal, will pose any threat. Imagine a time when you will see this entire planet as your home, where you can swim in the rivers, lakes, and seas; traverse the mountain ranges; and roam the grasslands in complete safety. And when night falls, you will not worry. The words of Ezekiel 34:25 will come true, so that it will even be possible for God’s people to “dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the forests.”

 

•  

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by jayrtom

[Thesauron]

21 minutes ago, jayrtom said:

So, the bolded sentence has nothing to do with diet, when a "literal sense" implies that correlation?

Exactly. The literal sense is that the animals might lose some fear and terror that they once had, not necessarily a change in diet. The lion wouldn’t stop eat meat, just not pose a danger to man or their cattle. In the future, the fear that God put in the hearts of animals in Genesis 9:2 might be lifted. It is worth nothing, though, that Insight says that animals “were so created that they would have a fear and dread of man as their superior.” “During the year that Noah and his family were inside the ark, the animals and birds penned up therein had a fear of these humans that helped to restrain them. Accordingly, when they emerged from the ark after the Flood, Jehovah gave Noah assurance that this fear would continue.”

[Hope]

Also... regarding the animals humans mostly eat- domestic animals- we ARE at peace with them. Cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens- they hang around humans all the time, peacefully. 

 

There is no real reason for domestic animals if not to eat them. Makes me wonder why Abel was raising them in the first place... 🤔

[Old]

4 minutes ago, Hope said:

 

There is no real reason for domestic animals if not to eat them. Makes me wonder why Abel was raising them in the first place... 🤔

Maybe for their skins? 

[McKay]

6 hours ago, jayrtom said:

from where are you taking this conclusions? Do you have any quote to support it?

Since this is a JWForum I expect that any deep bible research be based on the bible or on our  publications. Till now I just see from you your own conclusions based on your own ideas. We're encouraged to not use our own understanding!

 

 

Brother, I don't think anyone is doing that. Some of these answers are not as clear as you might think. Yes we quote from older magazines all the time but we don't refer to old understanding. I've already shown you an example from our recent videos that seem to contradict those older Awake references. No one here is being disloyal to Jehovah or the FDS. As a matter of fact, the scriptures do say that there will be peace between man and beast. Yes, there will likely be other changes made to animal behavior the same as there will be to ours. But that doesn't mean we know all the details. Even the FDS has in recent years veered away from speculating like they used to in older magazines. They've grown more discreet in sharing their opinions and more faithful in sticking close to scripture. And when the scripture does not speak, they stay largely silent (the change in typical/anti-typtical being a recent example). We should likewise be able to admit that some of our preconceived views about life in paradise may not be exactly the way life will be, even if those views are based on our publications. We all know the FDS is not infallible and they've admitted this. We'll just have to wait and see on the animal stuff. In the meantime there's no harm in sharing our views as long as we're not being dogmatic.

Edited July 29, 2019 by ZDR

[Qapla]

1 hour ago, Hope said:

Makes me wonder why Abel was raising them in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Old said:

Maybe for their skins? 

 

Are they anything like fried pig skins?

[Cushi]

3 hours ago, Hope said:

There is no real reason for domestic animals if not to eat them. Makes me wonder why Abel was raising them in the first place... 🤔

Of course there’s reasons for domestic animals besides eating them. Domesticated animals actually enjoy and respond to human affection/interaction and that in turn makes them enjoyable. Not so much with wild animals. They simply tolerate humans and will display affection once in a blue moon. That’s no fun to me. Which would you rather spend time with? A domesticated puppy that loves your attention and responds to your affection... or a wild dog puppy that is crying and squirming in your hand tryin to get down because it wants to be left alone? Also domesticated animals can serve as pets whereas wild animals make horrible pets until they are “broken in” and some aren’t able to be domesticated. In my opinion domesticated animals are way more enjoyable to interact with. Wild animals are more fascinating to watch 

[Hope]

4 hours ago, Brother Jack said:

Of course there’s reasons for domestic animals besides eating them. Domesticated animals actually enjoy and respond to human affection/interaction and that in turn makes them enjoyable. Not so much with wild animals. They simply tolerate humans and will display affection once in a blue moon. That’s no fun to me. Which would you rather spend time with? A domesticated puppy that loves your attention and responds to your affection... or a wild dog puppy that is crying and squirming in your hand tryin to get down because it wants to be left alone? Also domesticated animals can serve as pets whereas wild animals make horrible pets until they are “broken in” and some aren’t able to be domesticated. In my opinion domesticated animals are way more enjoyable to interact with. Wild animals are more fascinating to watch 

Well yes, pets- but when referring to domestic animals, most are thinking of livestock.. herds, flocks, pigs, etc.. farm animals. 

[Naturale]

In the Teach Your Children brochure it says:-

 

In Paradise, people will not fight or go to war anymore. Everyone will love one another. Nobody will get sick or die. The blind will see, the deaf will hear, and those who cannot walk will be able to run and jump. Everyone will have plenty to eat. And animals will be friends with one another and with us. 

 

This is what little children learning the bible are taught, pure and simple.  They are not taught to dispute  these things but are taught to believe it, that it will be a reality.  No-one says to them that animals will only be friends with one another while they are in our vision and then just around the corner the Lion that was eating straw will go and rip the heart out of the little sheep it was with in the field.  Yet this is what some have been saying on here.  

 

 

 

[Naturale]

9 hours ago, Hope said:

Also... regarding the animals humans mostly eat- domestic animals- we ARE at peace with them. Cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens- they hang around humans all the time, peacefully. 

 

There is no real reason for domestic animals if not to eat them. Makes me wonder why Abel was raising them in the first place... 🤔

Genesis 4:2 says that Abel became a shepherd of the flock.  He was looking after sheep.   Sheeps wool is gathered and spun to make clothing and other necessary and useful things with.   The milk can be used to make cheese etc.   Being at peace with an animal doesn't mean eating it!  This wasn't happening as the bible makes clear that humans were not authorised to eat animals  until after the flood.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Naturale

[ijsvogel]

9 minutes ago, Naturale said:

Being at peace with an animal doesn't mean eating it!

But Abel was offering some animals of his flock (genesis 4:4). Wasn't he in peace with the animals?

 

And what about Gen 3:21: "And Jehovah God made long garments from skins for Adam and for his wife, to clothe them." 

 

For a skin you need to kill the animal. So humans were allowed to kill for offering and clothing before the Flood. 

[jayrtom]

9 hours ago, Hope said:

Also... regarding the animals humans mostly eat- domestic animals- we ARE at peace with them. Cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens- they hang around humans all the time, peacefully. 

 

There is no real reason for domestic animals if not to eat them. Makes me wonder why Abel was raising them in the first place... 🤔

Don't take me wrong Uani but if you search you find answers

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002045#h=24

THE FARMER AND THE SHEPHERD

Cultivating the earth and caring for the animals were some of Adam’s original God-given responsibilities. (Genesis 1:28; 2:15; 3:23) His son Cain took up farming, and Abel became a shepherd. (Genesis 4:2) Since mankind’s food consisted exclusively of fruits and vegetables until after the Flood, however, why raise sheep?—Genesis 1:29; 9:3, 4.

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, ZDR said:

Brother, I don't think anyone is doing that. Some of these answers are not as clear as you might think. Yes we quote from older magazines all the time but we don't refer to old understanding. I've already shown you an example from our recent videos that seem to contradict those older Awake references. No one here is being disloyal to Jehovah or the FDS. As a matter of fact, the scriptures do say that there will be peace between man and beast. Yes, there will likely be other changes made to animal behavior the same as there will be to ours. But that doesn't mean we know all the details. Even the FDS has in recent years veered away from speculating like they used to in older magazines. They've grown more discreet in sharing their opinions and more faithful in sticking close to scripture. And when the scripture does not speak, they stay largely silent (the change in typical/anti-typtical being a recent example). We should likewise be able to admit that some of our preconceived views about life in paradise may not be exactly the way life will be, even if those views are based on our publications. We all know the FDS is not infallible and they've admitted this. We'll just have to wait and see on the animal stuff. In the meantime there's no harm in sharing our views as long as we're not being dogmatic.

Br. Zac, I don't understand why you and others keep referring to old understand?! Who decides what is old or current? Have you noticed that most of the quotes I posted are post 2000 with some of them from 2016?

The slave did speculate a bit on older publications but not about what is clearly stated in the blible. The speculation was about what was not in the bible. The Types and anti-types thing is about extracting more information from one account and applying it to the today or the future. This topic is not emerged from something like that. We don't need to extrapolate or speculate when the things are already written

Yes the slave doesn't speak about this as many times as he speaks about other things but when he does, the same understanding is presented or at least no opposite understanding is presented where the opportunity arose to do that. Not even the wording has changed to include "maybe"

So, if there is no publication saying the opposite, or even suggesting that we are no longer sure of that, then it is current understand to me, and, dare I say, should be to all of us

The video you posted indeed has some strange arguments taken into account what is written, but like I said, I don't believe that marks a change in understanding based on other current topics that say otherwise, for example the Teach your children brochure that Susanna quoted and which is from 2014. The traits the animals exhibit today that serve one purpose are the same than the traits they were designed for in the beginning and served another purpose. They simply adapted. that's the explanation on a awake brochure that was already quoted several times but is being treated as old understand for no reason whatsoever

 

It's not a sin to imagine that "maybe" a new understanding will come if we can't cope with the current one, but notice the attitude one should have in those cases

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000727#h=5

Those to whom Jesus Christ has entrusted “all his belongings” are described in God’s Word as “faithful and discreet.” (Matthew 24:45-47) They do not immodestly run ahead of Jehovah on an impulsive whim; nor do they lag behind when God’s direction in a matter is clear. They know when it is time to speak and when it is time to

wait silently for further clarification. All Christians do well not only to imitate their faith but also to prove themselves discreet, as the slave class does.—Hebrews 13:7.

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1991885#h=12

Although Peter did not fully understand what Jesus meant by ‘eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood,’ he recognized that Jesus had the sayings of life. That is the way I felt about the organization. It had the truth even though I did not always fully understand everything I read in the publications. Yet, whenever something was said that I did not understand, I never argued against it. Later, the matter was clarified, or viewpoints were at times adjusted.

I was always happy that I had patiently waited for the clarification.—Proverbs 4:18.

 

 

[jayrtom]

1 hour ago, ijsvogel said:

But Abel was offering some animals of his flock (genesis 4:4). Wasn't he in peace with the animals?

Offering sacrifices has nothing to do to with being in peace or not. Notice that Abraham was also going to offer is son in sacrifice and he off course loved him!

This is what the publications have to say in the case of Abel:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013006#h=26

But why did he favor Abel?

Was it the offering itself? Abel did offer a living, breathing creature, shedding its precious lifeblood. Did Abel realize how valuable such a sacrifice would be? Many centuries after Abel’s time, God used the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb to picture the sacrifice of His own perfect Son, “the Lamb of God,” whose innocent blood would be shed. (John 1:29; Exodus 12:5-7) However, much of that surely lay well beyond Abel’s knowledge or understanding.

He realized that the shedding of blood was going to be needed!

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015366#h=11

Did Abel, the first faithful human, “see” anything that Jehovah had promised? It cannot be said that Abel had foreknowledge of the eventual outworking of the promise contained in God’s words to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will strike him in the heel.” (Gen. 3:14, 15)

However, Abel likely gave much thought to that promise and realized that someone would be ‘struck in the heel’ so that mankind could be lifted to perfection such as that enjoyed by Adam and Eve before they sinned. Whatever Abel may have visualized regarding the future, he had faith based on God’s promise, and Jehovah therefore accepted his sacrifice.—Read Genesis 4:3-5; Hebrews 11:4.

 

Also, note that sacrifices started after the sin and ended after the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus so they don't represent life in paradise

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/tl/r1/lp-e?q=sacrifice

 Sacrifice

• • An offering presented to God as a token to express thanksgiving, to acknowledge guilt, and to restore good relations with him. Starting with Abel, humans offered various voluntary sacrifices, including animals, until the Mosaic Law covenant made them a requirement. Animal sacrifices were no longer needed after Jesus gave his own life as a perfect sacrifice, though Christians continue to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.—Ge 4:4;Heb 13:15, 16; 1Jo 4:10.

Incidentally, look at this quote from the the newest book we have launched at the latest AM - I wonder if someone will keep saying that we don't know, that it's old understanding, etc. etc.

 

4, 5. What led Cain to conclude that the recipient of his gift would be Jehovah?

4 ... He and his brother Abel may have been close to 100 years old at the time that they offered their gifts.* Both boys had grown up knowing of the garden in Eden, maybe even seeing that fertile park from a distance. Certainly they would have seen the cherubs blocking entrance to it. (Gen. 3:24) The boys’ parents no doubt told them that Jehovah created all life and that his original purpose for mankind was different from what they were now experiencing—a slow decline into death. (Gen. 1:24-28) Knowing these things may have led Cain to conclude that he should offer his gift to God.

...

6 Why, then, did Jehovah not look with any favor on Cain’s offering? Was there something wrong with the quality of the gift? The Bible does not say. It simply says that Cain brought “fruits of the land.” Jehovah later indicated in the Law that he gave to Moses that this type of sacrifice was acceptable. (Num. 15:8, 9) Also, consider the circumstances. At this point in history, humans ate only vegetation. (Gen. 1:29) And because the ground outside of Eden was cursed by God, Cain had toiled to produce his offering. (Gen. 3:17-19) He offered hard-won, life-sustaining food! Even so, Jehovah did not approve of Cain’s offering.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ijsvogel said:

And what about Gen 3:21: "And Jehovah God made long garments from skins for Adam and for his wife, to clothe them." 

 

For a skin you need to kill the animal. So humans were allowed to kill for offering and clothing before the Flood. 

It's not necessary to kill the animal. As the quote I posted on a different post says:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002045#h=24

[/quote]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. [/quote]

[Witness1970]

On 7/20/2019 at 7:09 PM, Hope said:

Personally, I don't have a problem with carnivores doing their thing- animals or human.  As long as humans aren't under attack, it's all good.

I would add domestic animals. If we have domestic animals in the new system (there have been domestic animals since creation (Genesis 1:25) 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds .  .  .)then I would not expect that wild animal predators would attack those domestic animals. Lions can eat zebras and other wild animals, but not our domestic animals. 

 

[jayrtom]

1 hour ago, Witness1970 said:

I would add domestic animals. If we have domestic animals in the new system (there have been domestic animals since creation (Genesis 1:25) 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds .  .  .)then I would not expect that wild animal predators would attack those domestic animals. Lions can eat zebras and other wild animals, but not our domestic animals. 

 

Not directly at you, Randall

 

 

 

I just can't believe how is it possible that some friends keep saying this things while the FDS says the opposite!!!

 

the IT (1988) puts it crystal clear. the WT (2010) puts it crystal clear, the Teach your children brochure (2014)  puts it crystal clear

Incidentally, when the same subject is touched, instead of going in another direction the same thing, although not as crystal clear as on the references above, but in conjuction of those allowing only the same conclusion, we have publications of 2014, 2016 and 2018!

What do you want more???

Please stop saying that this is an old understanding, that it is based on speculations from the slave at the time, that the slave as abandoned this idea...etc. etc. - By saying this, it's my sincere opinion, you're disrespecting the FDS!

 

IT

It was thus foretold that persons of harmful, beastlike disposition would cease their vicious ways and live in peace with their more docile neighbors. However, the prophetic use of the animals figuratively to portray

the peaceful conditions to prevail among God’s people implies that there will also be peace among literal animals under the rule of Christ Jesus, even as there evidently was in Eden.

 

WT 2010

What do you think it will be like on earth when the Prince of Peace and his chosen 144,000 are rulers?— It will be wonderful! There will be no war. 

Animals will live at peace with one another and with us. Nobody will get sick or die. The eyes of the blind will see, the ears of the deaf will hear, the lame will run and jump like deer. The earth will grow good food for everyone. And all people will love one another as Jesus taught his disciples to do. (John 13:34, 35) Let’s turn to the verses listed here in the book of Isaiah and read about the wonderful things that will take place.—Isaiah 2:4; 11:6-11; 25:8; 33:24; 35:5, 6;65:21-24.

 

Teach your Children Brochure 2014

 

Also, on 2004, 2008...

We will be very happy! In Paradise, people will not fight or go to war anymore. Everyone will love one another. Nobody will get sick or die. The blind will see, the deaf will hear, and those who cannot walk will be able to run and jump. Everyone will have plenty to eat.

And animals will be friends with one another and with us. People who have died will come back to life. Many of the men and women you have learned about in this brochure like Rebekah, Rahab, David, and Elijah will come back to life too! Would you like to meet them when they come back?—

[Hope]

To be truthful, I don't care one way or the other how Jehovah sets things up in the New World. It will be for the best, regardless who or if none of us humans are correct in our speculations. 

 

My reasonings are purely based upon how:

.  all animals are clearly created as prey/ predator,

.  how Jehovah's *newer* permission to eat meat revises His statements in Eden,

.  how Isaiah's prophecy has not only been emphasized as largely symbolic but also specifically about wild vs domestic animals (not mice, rabbits, zebras, wildebeests) and humans,

.  how it's only been in the past 75- 100 years that *some* cultures of humans have been so upset that animals are eaten by other animals or humans. Lots of anthropomorphism here, I think,

.  how I really enjoy eating meat and hope to continue doing so throughout eternity. Maybe it will be a valid choice, like it is and has been for thousands of years

 

Of course- we don't/ can't know what will be. But I feel safe to say none of us are doubting or questioning the FDS. Just having a chat here.

 

[Cushi]

Has anybody had any good vegetarian or vegan food lately? 

[Hope]

1 minute ago, Brother Jack said:

Has anybody had any good vegetarian or vegan food lately? 

I had some delicious coconut rice yesterday! 

[Pjdriver]

 

Here’s what the scriptures say directly on the matter of the purpose of animal behavior and what we have all observed.

....”unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed.”  

2 Peter 2:12

 

The science is overwhelming that animals were designed to be predators or to protect themselves from predators.

In other cases where science and the Bible are seemingly at odds, we have seen that there 

has been an adjustment. Many of us have seen that sometimes if a scripture is interpreted one way and if then strong scientific evidence contradicts it....we look at the scriptures again and if there’s the possibility of a another more reasonable explanation....we have no problem adjusting it.

One example is the length of creative days. Also, Some used to think that when Jehovah said the “sun stood still”....then it must be literal,  and they’ve tried to prove it thru a missing day in history. 

The scriptures themselves do allow for a more harmonious interpretation in this case. 

We do know that the scriptures portray wild predatory animals causing no harm to our domestic animals and us. Most of us don’t have flocks or herds to worry about now, but we will then. Isaiah tells us as it did back then that we won’t have that problem in the NW. So we do believe this will be a literal fulfillment.

What we’re saying is not unreasonable.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Pjdriver

[Naturale]

7 hours ago, ijsvogel said:

But Abel was offering some animals of his flock (genesis 4:4). Wasn't he in peace with the animals?

 

And what about Gen 3:21: "And Jehovah God made long garments from skins for Adam and for his wife, to clothe them." 

 

For a skin you need to kill the animal. So humans were allowed to kill for offering and clothing before the Flood. 

True peace and harmony was only in Eden.  No animals were killing or being killed.   After sin things changed.  

[Naturale]

1 hour ago, Brother Jack said:

Has anybody had any good vegetarian or vegan food lately? 

The thing is Jack that this page was meant to be for exactly that to talk about vegetarian and vegan food   That's why I came in here too.  But look what has happened!  It's just impossible.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Naturale