Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: May 14, 2025
Update	: May 14, 2025
Parts	: 03

Synopsis:




As I was scrolling down through my Facebook news feed, I came across a certain timeline post with the lengthy title of "Eden Is Vegan -- A Return to the Divine, Blueprint, Why Adam and Eve Were Vegan, Why Eden Was Cruelty-Free, Why Peace and Paradise Require a Vegan World". To be honest, even before reading the commentary, and just from glancing at its title, I already knew exactly where it was headed, so I was not the least bit surprised by its conclusion.

Let me begin by saying that I do agree with some of the more truthful things which this person stated in his commentary. For example, he pointed out that the Garden of Eden was a very balanced, harmonious, peaceful, non-violent place full of abundance where death and the killing of animals did not exist. I agree. He likewise mentioned how Adam and Eve were vegetarians, as were all of the animals. So everything was indeed good. Again, he is correct, and I agree with him up until this point. Consider the following Bible verses which confirms these points:

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."


"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."


The author of this piece likewise mentioned that death and the killing of animals entered the world when Adam and Eve listened to the Devil, and partook of the forbidden fruit, thus not only disobeying the Lord and bringing sin into the world, but also resulting in the Lord having to kill the first animals in order that they could cover their nakedness with coats made from animal skins. Again, we Christians know that this is indeed true, as we can determine by this group of Bible verse:

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed . . . And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons . . . And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? . . . Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."


Let me mention here that while discussing Genesis 3:21 where the Lord made coats of skins for Adam and Eve, this person made a strange statement which I personally have never heard before. He says "This verse is often misunderstood as divine endorsement of killing animals." Well, that is interesting. Often misunderstood? Really? By whom? I have never heard a single Christian interpret that verse in such a manner, and I most certainly have never viewed it that way. I've simply understood it for exactly what it says.

So as I mentioned earlier, aside from what I just stated, up until this point, I agreed with much of what this person had posted. However, as I dug deeper into his opinion piece, my jaw dropped as I realized how he intentionally, purposely -- and very conveniently -- ignored certain Bible verses which outright contradict his personal vegan perspective; how he cherry-picked verses which agreed with his personal point of view; how he even told a number of half-truths; and how he twisted and completely took out of context some verses which he did use, so that they appeared to support his position, even though they really don't. Of course, he is by no means the first person to do this. I am reminded of the following verses:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."


As I've mentioned a number of times before, in the previous verses, the word "wrest" is translated from the Koine Greek word "strebloo" which means to twist, turn awry or torture. In this verse, it is used in a metaphorical sense to mean to pervert or to torture language in a false sense. Stated another way, it simply means to twist the meaning of words. So Peter is saying that because they are young in faith, and do not understand some of the things which the Apostle Paul has written, they have twisted the meaning of some of his words to fit their own understanding.

In the case of the person I have been discussing, the first half-truth he tells is when he says that "Death entered the world through sin, not through design." Yes, it is indeed true that death entered the world as a result of sin. Even the Apostle Paul explains this in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Exactly what is sin? As the Apostle John informs us, it is the violation or transgression of God's Laws. What is the penalty for sin? Again, the Apostle Paul writes that the penalty -- or wages -- of sin is death. Consider the following three verses which verify these key points:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"


"‭‭Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.‭"


"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."


However, when this person stated that this did not happen by design -- obviously meaning by God's design -- I was forced to disagree. In my view, his statement is a half-truth. Why do I say this? Well, because indirectly, it is denying God's foreknowledge. It is suggesting that God was so naive, and so limited in His knowledge, that He did not know that Adam and Eve were going to rebel against Him, thus bringing sin and death into the world. In fact, I would dare say that this misguided attitude almost makes it seem as if God had to alter His plan and patch things up -- through Christ's Sacrifice -- because He had miserably failed to see where the situation in Eden was headed.

Personally, I do not accept that misguided idea one single bit. I am convinced that God not only knew exactly what was going to happen, but He allowed it to happen, in order that the plan of Salvation might be put into motion. As some of my readers will know, there are in fact a number of verses in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that God did in fact know the end from the beginning, and that all things which were to happen -- including our very own Salvation -- were foreordained by Him. Consider the following group of Bible verses which validate these points:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"


"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past."


"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered BY THE DETERMINATE COUNSEL AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."


"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. FOR WHOM HE DID FOREKNOW, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."


"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."


"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ELECT ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE FATHER, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."


What more proof do we need than that to show that our Father is ahead in the game? He knew what was going on in Eden, and still knows what is going on today. So in my view, contrary to this person's claim, death entering into this world was likewise by design, and not some kind of slip-up or divine oversight which God then had to correct. My friends, quite frankly, in my opinion, to believe otherwise is to paint a picture of an unknowing, weak God who does not have full control of His creation. However, as we saw earlier, in the Book of Isaiah the Lord plainly declares "I will do all my pleasure."

Having told that half-truth, this individual then stated "God did not create carnivores -- fallen humans did." While I understand what this person is implying, nevertheless, it is still not completely true. In other words, this person seems to be suggesting that carnivores came into existence because of man's sin. You see, throughout his commentary, there is a very sneaky, subtle undertone, the purpose of which is obviously to make people feel guilty for daring to eat meat. His tactic is an indirect form of condemnation. He wants to guilt trip his readers so that they will stop eating meat.

But you see, in my view, this is a rather dangerous attitude to have, because in a subtle way, it is almost suggesting that man is more powerful than God, and that man can force God to do certain things. For example, Adam and Eve forced God to kill the first animals once they had discovered their nakedness. Human beings forced God to create the wild beasts after man sinned and fell. Well, in that case, if we follow that line of thought, we could say that man forced God to send the Flood due to great violence on the Earth. Man even forced God to send His Son to die on the Cross for our sins. So where does this kind of misguided thinking end? Can we mere humans really force the great Creator of the Universe to do anything? Can we force His hand? I think not.

Well, obviously, man most certainly didn't physically create the carnivorous animals, because he is not God, and thus he cannot create any living thing. Even today, with our modern science and technology -- such as genome sequencing, gene splicing, CRISPR, etc. -- the only thing that man can do is MANIPULATE the genomes of organisms which God has ALREADY created. But humans cannot create new organisms or new life from non-life from scratch as the Lord did in the Book of Genesis. He can mix and alter genes to create cross species we have never seen before, but these are still based on the genetic material which God himself created. So the question then is where the carnivores originated from. I have a few personal theories which I can offer you for your consideration.

First of all, based on the following verse which is found in the Book of Genesis, it would seem that God knew that wild beasts would eventually develop on the Earth. That is to say, following the Genesis Flood. After all, why else would the Lord issue the following firm warning to the released animals regarding the killing of man, unless He knew that they would eventually start attacking and killing human beings?:

"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man."


So exactly how did carnivorous animals come about? Well, one possibility is that after the animals left the Ark, the Lord removed the docile spirit He had given them while they were in the Garden of Eden, and while they were on the Ark, and He replaced it with a spirit of fear. This possibility seems to be substantiated by the following verse which is also found in the Book of Genesis:

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."


Or perhaps this change in the animal kingdom was not just a sudden switchover from being docile animals, to becoming wild, meat-eating beasts. Perhaps it was really a very slow process which occurred over a period of many years as the animals dispersed more and more over the face of the Earth, and moved further away from man. We weren't there, so who is to say?

Something else worth considering is the fact that following the Flood, the Earth was a total, destructive mess. We don't know exactly how long it took for vegetation to fully cover the Earth again. After all, trees do not grow overnight. As a result, food could have been in short supply for a while. Lastly, Noah only took a very limited number of each species of animal onto the Ark. So once he released them back into the wilderness, perhaps due to their original small numbers as they slowly multiplied, out of necessity, they became wild and began to devour each other. Again, who knows. It's just my personal speculation, and you are not obligated to accept it if you don't want to.

Now, while all of the previous explanations may appear quite logical, I believe that there is another -- and in fact more Biblically-sound -- reason to explain why all the once-docile animals became such wild, meat-eating beasts. We saw a minute ago that in Genesis 9, God said that the fear of man, and the dread of man would fall on the animals. Why did the Lord say this? Quite simply, because of what we read in the following verse:

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."


So following the Flood, as Noah's descendants began hunting animals as a food source, just as the verse states, over the years the animals became afraid of man, and turned into wild beasts which no longer trusted man, avoided man, and no doubt defended themselves from man. Eventually, they probably even began to attack and devour man, despite the fact that God had said that He would hold the animals accountable for spilling the blood of man.

Upon re-reading what this individual had written, I suddenly realized that when he wrote "God did not create carnivores -- fallen humans did," he was not talking about meat-eating beasts. He was actually referring to people who consume meat when he used the word "carnivores". The reason why I came to realize my error is because right before that statement he also wrote "The idea of animal sacrifice, let alone animal consumption, is alien to the Edenic ideal." I simply missed the connection to the word "carnivores" the first time I read it.

But to emphasize my primary point, as we have already seen, what this person is saying regarding fallen humans creating carnivores is an absolute lie, because as we learned in the previous verse in Genesis chapter nine, God himself gave man explicit permission to eat meat following the Flood. It is right there in black and white if he would just read it. So God did indeed create carnivores, or meat eaters. As I told you earlier, that is one of the most mind-boggling aspects of this person's commentary. As you'll learn momentarily, he selects a few choice verses from the Book of Genesis which support his view, and then he jumps to a few choice verses which are found in the Books of the Prophets, while at the same time, completely skipping everything that is found in between the two. In short, he is cherry-picking the Bible.

Why does he do this? Because there is information there which he does not want to bring to your attention, such as Genesis 9:3-4 where God gives man divine permission to eat meat. After all, doing so would totally blow holes in his manipulated pro-vegan narrative. By the way, to be clear, what this person is proposing is NOT just vegetarianism. It is an EXTREME form of vegetarianism known as veganism. That is why the title of his opinion piece begins with the words "Eden Is Vegan", and the title alone contains "Vegan" four times!

So exactly what is meant by veganism. Well, just to make sure that I got the definition right, I looked it up online, and here is what it said:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Vegans avoid all animal products, not just meat. This includes eggs, dairy, honey, and often extends beyond diet to exclude leather, wool, silk, and any products tested on animals. Veganism is often a lifestyle choice as well as a dietary one."

----- End Quote -----

Imagine if you suddenly stopped eating every single thing we see in the aforementioned definition. No meat of any kind. No eggs. No milk. No cheese. No cottage cheese. No butter. No honey. No material or clothing made from any part of an animal. What a drastic change that would be! Do you see why I said that it is an EXTREME form of vegetarianism?

Now, concerning exactly why God made this change to the human diet in Genesis 9, again, I have a working theory regarding this issue. However, it is NOT just some wild theory such as we often find on the social networks. It is actually based on real science, as you will see momentarily. First of all, I've long been convinced that everything that God does, or which He allows to happen, is always for a very specific reason. He is an organized, purposeful, structured God who has a clear plan for the human family. In other words, I hold to the view that nothing happens by mere accident or coincidence. So if God gave the command to eat meat in Genesis 9, it must have been for a very good reason.

I suspect -- but cannot prove -- that it may possibly have had something to do with the canopy of water which enveloped the Earth prior to the Flood. As some of you may recall, in the Book of Genesis, we read the following in chapter one:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."


I believe that canopy of water served as a filter to protect man from the ultraviolet rays of the Sun. It is a known fact that UV rays do cause human cells to age in a process known as photoaging. UV rays from the Sun -- especially UVA and UVB rays -- penetrate the skin and cause damage to collagen and elastin fibers, which are essential for skin elasticity and strength. So over time, the exposure to ultraviolet rays leads to the following conditions:

-- Wrinkles and fine lines
-- Sagging skin
-- Age spots (hyperpigmentation)
-- Rough or leathery texture
-- Broken capillaries and uneven skin tone

If you have ever seen an older person who has spent a lot of time in the Sun during their earlier years -- such as the foolish people who tan themselves for hours each month on the beach, or under a tanning lamp -- then you will know exactly how true this is. Some of them may be as dark as a pinto bean, but they will also be as wrinkled as a prune! It may interest you to know that I just conducted a quick online search. Upon doing so, I came across the following shocking piece of information on the FDA -- Food and Drug Administration -- website under the title "The Risk of Tanning":

----- Begin Quote -----

"There is no such thing as a safe tan. The increase in skin pigment, called melanin, which causes the tan color change in your skin is a sign of damage. Why it happens: Once skin is exposed to UV radiation, it increases the production of melanin in an attempt to protect the skin from further damage."

----- End Quote -----

My, my, but isn't that comforting to know! So sorry Florida if your beaches are more sparsely populated this summer! [Smirk!] Anyway, UV rays are divided into three main types based on their wavelength, which is measured in nanometers, or nm. They are the following:

1. UVA rays [320400 nm]

-- Longest wavelength, so they penetrate deepest into the skin.

-- Responsible for aging (photoaging): wrinkles, sagging, and dark spots.

-- Can also contribute to skin cancer.

-- Present all year and can penetrate glass and clouds.

2. UVB rays [290320 nm]

-- Medium wavelength, mostly affects the outer skin layer.

-- Causes sunburns and plays a key role in skin cancer development.

-- Does not penetrate glass well.

-- Stronger in summer and at higher altitudes.

3. UVC rays [100290 nm]

-- Shortest and most dangerous, but luckily they're completely absorbed by the Earth's ozone layer, so we're not normally exposed to them.

As you can see from the previous information, UVA rays in particular penetrate deeper into one's skin and are thus primarily responsible for long-term skin aging effects. I want to point out something else regarding UVA rays. Please notice that it says that they can even penetrate glass and clouds. In other words, if you think that you are protected because it happens to be a cloudy day, you kid yourself! It just isn't so! You are STILL being exposed to skin-aging UV rays!

To continue, it is my personal theory that with that watery canopy having been removed from above the Earth as a result of the Flood, man suddenly became much more exposed to the ultraviolet rays of the Sun. Because UV rays contribute to the aging process, little by little, as the decades and centuries passed, man began to live for shorter and shorter amounts of time. While prediluvian man lived to be almost a thousand years, by the time of the Patriarch Abraham, we are down to 175 years. By the time of Moses, we drop further to 110-120 years. And by the time of King David, we are down to 70-80 years, and the situation has not changed much since that time.

When I first started contemplating these issues many years ago, I considered the possibility that the declining human lifespan was a result of sin, and the affects that sin was having on our human bodies in a physiological and genetic sense. However, as I continued to ponder this issue, I came to realize that this could not possibly be it, because sin entered the world since the Garden of Eden, and yet people were still living to be almost a millennium old up until the time of the Flood. Therefore, it had to be something else.

So this caused me to look more closely at the Flood, being as that is when the obvious lifespan change began to occur. In my mind, it is no coincidence that the human lifespan began to drop at that time, and God also gave permission to man to kill animals and eat meat. There had to be some kind of a connection. While it was just a personal theory when I first contemplated it, online research confirmed my ideas.

As I said earlier, I do not believe that there are any kind of coincidences or accidents with God, because He is clearly organized, purposeful and structured in all His ways. Thus, He gave permission for humans to eat meat at that particular time for a very specific reason. I am convinced that because He designed and formed the human body -- as per Psalm 139 -- He knows and understands its every need as well. As such, He knew beforehand -- there's that foreknowledge again -- that human beings would require more protein in their diets in order to offset the negative effects of the ultraviolet rays on our bodies.

Now, while some of the vegan extremists may possibly scoff at this idea because it is contrary to everything that they want to believe, I went online to verify my long-held suspicions. What I learned is that a high-protein diet can indeed support healthy aging, especially in terms of muscle maintenance and skin health. However, please be aware of the fact that it is NOT some kind of "magic bullet" that will directly slow down the aging process in a broad sense. Exactly how does protein affect aging and skin? Consider the following:

-- 1. Collagen Production: Protein provides amino acids necessary for collagen synthesis. Collagen is a key structural protein in the skin that helps maintain firmness and elasticity. As we age, collagen production naturally declines.

-- 2. Tissue Repair and Maintenance: Adequate protein helps repair skin damage and maintain the skin barrier, keeping it hydrated and resilient.

-- 3. Muscle Mass: Protein is critical for preserving muscle mass, which often declines with age (sarcopenia). This contributes to better posture, metabolism, and overall vitality.

Please go to part two for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.