Nowhere does God prohibit any animal from carnivorous activity. Allowing the eating of vegetation is not the same thing as disallowing the eating of other animals.
Because after the flood, God gave this new commandment
I see, so something that was evil suddenly becomes good.
Are you a nominalist?
Then you have to choose whether you believe God or man's account.
What about your own observations? What you see in God's creation? Surely to ignore that would be just as wrong as to ignore the Bible!
Now, if you don't believe that scripture is true
I do believe scripture is true! I just don't believe your interpretation is right.
then why are you bothering defending your view of evolution from a scriptural standpoint?
I believe God never lies, neither in scripture or in his Creation. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, it is necessary for a believer to resolve it.
In what way? There is nothing I've seen people offer as contradictions which are truly so.
The contradiction is only there if you accept a strictly literalist interpretation, which I don't.
The literalist contradiction is that plants come before man in Genesis 1, but man comes first in Genesis 2. This is a clear indication that the author was not concerned about the details of ordering.
By what twisted logic do you come up with the idea that evolutionary speciation are more compatible with Biblical kinds than Biblical kinds?
No, I was talking about mediation. The earth and the seas brought forth life. God did not create them directly. Evolution is one way in which this could have happened.
And what exactly rules out speciation? Where does it say a "kind" cannot change over time?
BTW, speciation is one of those things we can observe directly with our own eyes.
You think that the 10 commandments are figurative?
Uh, I was talking about the 7 days of creation, not the 10 commandments.
If I live in the city, I will command my child not to play in the frontyard without an adult. If I move to the country I would probably remove that rule. God, being the rule-maker, can also change the rules. What makes something sin is that you are going against the Lord's rules. What was evil is still evil -- disobedience.
Are you a nominalist?
On some issues. I think choosing only one side is more problematic than being one or the other. What about your own observations? What you see in God's creation?
You're own observations are very useful. However, as God pointed out to Job, you weren't there but He was. We do not have a complete understanding of the world. Therefore, when reconstructing history, we do not know all of the possibilities or even what to make of them, so we must make a choice whether or not we trust the sources. If we do trust the sources, then it is not unreasonable to think that something contradictory to our current understanding of the world could take place, since we do not know everything. Using our own observations would have made you a geocentrist for many, many years after it became the main theory. As for biblical theories, creationists were long derided for believing in a single supercontinent based on then-current geology, but now it turns out the creationists were right all along.
We don't know everything, but God does. Assuming that our limitted knowledge is better than God's unlimited knowledge and first-hand experience with the event is highly presumptuous.
Surely to ignore that would be just as wrong as to ignore the Bible!
It would be wrong to _ignore_ your own observations. However, historical science is not the same as observational science -- it is one of interpretation. Likewise, we should not ignore our own thoughts and observations, but they should always be subservient to the authority of scripture. A Christian should always bow their physical and mental knee to the Lord. Being right in ones own eyes is the downfall of numerous people in the Bible. To say that our own observations should be placed on equal weight of the Bible is self-idolatry.
I do believe scripture is true! I just don't believe your interpretation is right.
Can you name anyone before 1700 that believed the way you do? If not, are you saying that God led everyone before the 1700's in a lie? There were evolutionary theologies and creation stories during the time of Moses (Enuma Elish for one), and the Egyptians had expressions for long-age concepts. These types of concepts were fully available for use in Genesis, if that is what God was trying to convey. It was not beyond the mental grasp of the Israelites. But the Biblical creation story is specifically against that.
On what basis, except that you are aware of the theory of evolution, would you interpret Genesis as being evolution?
I believe God never lies, neither in scripture or in his Creation. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, it is necessary for a believer to resolve it.
It is foolish to believe that all apparent contradictions are resolvable, simply because we do not have all information available. To attempt this too rashly is to certainly come to incorrect conclusions and to teach them as fact based on our limitted understanding of the universe. However, in this case, it is fairly obvious that putting in evolution has created a huge number more contradictions than it supposedly solves (and I would say that it solves 0).
The contradiction is only there if you accept a strictly literalist interpretation, which I don't.
You still haven't pointed out the contradictions for the literalist. There are none.
No, I was talking about mediation. The earth and the seas brought forth life. God did not create them directly. Evolution is one way in which this could have happened.
The first part is true, the second is false. The second implies that from death came Adam, while scripture says that from Adam came death. Likewise, evolution is completely out-of-sequence with scripture, and there would be no concept of "after one's kind" with evolution, as everything would ultimately be of the same kind. Also, when you propose evolution as being the cause of the geologic column, you remove any room for the deluge to occur.
And what exactly rules out speciation? Where does it say a "kind" cannot change over time?
Kinds do change over time. No creationist disagrees. Speciation happens. No creationist disagrees. However, God specifically said that he produced multiple distinct kinds. These are fairly easy to spot using biology. In vertebrates, the created kinds generally occur at the family level (in which case these species are usually still breedable). Likewise, ANOPA and BDIST statistical methods can show the continuities and discontinuities between organsisms. Anyway, for a good introduction to this, you should read the book Understanding the Pattern of Life.
The literalist contradiction is that plants come before man in Genesis 1, but man comes first in Genesis 2.
I think you are thinking of animals, not plants. Anyway, this is because the language in chapter 2 does not necessarily indicate sequence, and in fact many translations leave out the sequence implications because they are not necessarily indicated by the Hebrew. vav-consecutives do not necessarily imply consecutiveness, and "had formed" is an accurate rendering.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513
Uh, I was talking about the 7 days of creation, not the 10 commandments.
From the 10 commandments:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.(Exodus 20:11)