What is your biological evidence that tigers and snakes were designed to be plant stalkers? I know all you scriptural arguments, In the bible we read there is a city of Jerico at such a place, we dig, we find it. We read a Hebrew was a big shot in Egypt, we dig, we find it. The bible states credible findable facts. What evidence do you see that supports your idea that animals were intended and designed to be plant only eaters? Put your self in the place of the modern lost bioligist, what would convince him you are not just presenting a doctrine of your own making? (by the way I want you to be correct, I just don't think the scriptures absolutely support you, though they do to a degree)

—R.J., U.S.

---

What is your biological evidence that tigers and snakes were designed to be plant stalkers?

Biological evidence cannot give specifics about how animals were originally designed. The ultimate authority is the Bible, which was written by men who were inspired of God. The Bible says:

Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so Genesis 1:30).

These biblical statements need to be embraced and not ignored by the biological community.

I know all you scriptural arguments,

If we refuse to accept the biblical statements, then we give up the foundation of our belief system. The non-Christian doesn’t want us to use the Bible but wants us to reject it and accept his belief system. They accept biological “evidence” as their supreme authority.

We need to be discerning and realize when others want us to give up the Bible and instead use biological (or other) “evidence” as the final authority. We need to refuse to do so, and then show the falsity in doing so (Proverbs 26:5) so that the non-Christian will not assume his position is the only correct one. Why would we want to give up our starting point and accept theirs? It should be the other way around—they need to give up their reliance on man-made ideas about the past and instead use the Bible!

In the bible we read there is a city of Jerico at such a place, we dig, we find it. We read a Hebrew was a big shot in Egypt, we dig, we find it. The bible states credible findable facts.

Archaeological findings do not provide an absolute authority. As confirmation of the Word of God, they are important, but they are secondary to God and His Word. On the other hand, lack of archaeological evidence (for example, not finding the cursed fig tree Mark 11:13-21) will not invalidate the scriptures. The Scriptures are the Word of God, which is truth and will therefore have evidence of its veracity.

What evidence do you see that supports your idea that animals were intended and designed to be plant only eaters?

Again, we accept that all animals were originally designed to eat green plants because this is what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1:30. We don’t look to the “evidence” to see if animals were originally vegetarian, and then confirm this with the Bible. That said, there have been examples of meat-eating animals that have survived on non-meat diets (e.g. the lion that refused to eat meat, the vulture that refused to eat meat, and so on). Just because an animal has a carnivorous diet today, doesn’t mean its ancestors only ate meat, or that it can’t survive on a vegetarian diet today.

Put your self in the place of the modern lost bioligist,

All of us were “lost,” before God graciously saved us, so we can sympathize with the biologist (as a matter of fact, some of us are biologists!). However, as Christians, we now have a different foundation (the Bible) from the non-Christian, even though we both study the same “evidence.” When Jesus came in human form to teach mankind, did He give up the Word of God as the authority? By no means! He used it. So, we must not ignore God’s Word, and rely only on the “evidence.”

Instead, we should ask the lost biologist to put the Bible in the position it deserves—the supreme authority in all matters on which it touches, including biology. We can also challenge his position, if it is unbiblical, so that he realizes biology makes little sense without the Bible. For example:

• Why do we observe animals varying within their respective kinds and not changing into other kinds?
• Why do we observe life giving rise to life (Law of Biogenesis), not abiogenesis, which molecules-to-man evolution requires?
• Why are laws of nature uniform in the first place?

What would convince him you are not just presenting a doctrine of your own making?

The doctrine of animals originally being vegetarian is obviously not a doctrine of our own making, as it was given thousands of years ago by the Creator to His creation (Genesis 1:30).

We can present what the Bible says to the non-Christian, but it is not up to us to convince him to change his mind. Conviction comes from the Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13), who opens hearts. When we witness to others, we can:

1. Pray that God would open that person’s heart.
2. Question the false foundation that the person accepts and show that it is faulty (such questions above help). This will take time.
3. Provide the correct biblical foundation as taught in Genesis and the rest of the Bible.
4. Share the gospel and show how it relates. The point isn’t to just convince someone that creation is true but to present them with the good news of salvation in Christ.

(by the way I want you to be correct,

—R.J., U.S.

Thanks, but you’re not really rooting for us–you’re rooting for the Word of God to be correct.

I just don't think the scriptures absolutely support you, though they do to a degree)

Of course, our opinions can’t take precedence over the authority of the Scriptures themselves. Like all sinners, our opinions are not the final authority. Additionally, science models can change, but the scriptures are not in error nor will they change. I want to encourage you to re-read Genesis 1–11.

In kindness in Christ,

Bodie Hodge