FIRE AND FOOD

 

By the model of evolution, why did humans become meat eaters since all apes are herbivores, even though they have distinct prominent canines. If, after or during the evolutionary millions of years for the ape species, if any of them became meat eaters, it is very likely that they ate the meat raw as is the case of all carnivorous animals. So then even if by whatever chance early humans discovered how to make fire, what would compel them to cook their food, if they were accustomed to eat their food raw like the other animals?

Even if by some accident they burnt the meat, most meats without seasoning like salt, still tastes just as bad as raw meat, unless they knew specifically to cook the fatty meat of certain particular animals that has plenty of fat. Also, why would they hunt to kill any animal when they have no natural ability to do so in the same manner as carnivorous animals do with their teeth and claws ? Obviously they would have to utilize and develop tools to hunt and kill an animal. Very likely they initially would eat animals that had already died by other causes, as scavengers rather than as hunters. In that case they would supply the majority of their diet to forage and gather vegetation primarily.

If a species of apes developed the ability to domesticate and control the cultivation of specific vegetation and process them with fire for food clothing and hardware, could they have applied these same techniques to certain animals simultaneously? If so, this seems more to conform to the model of Creation where humans were created to be herbivores.

In addition, why would humans evolve to be physically weaker than their ape ancestors? Harsher changes in the environment would only induce stronger, more robust physical development by so-called natural selection. However, very pristine and gentle environmental conditions would produce weaker physical changes in any species of animals. Therefore, it is more suitable to a Creation model of a paradise garden for the human physiology contrary to that of apes. If cognitive development was a trade-off from physical development, then the physical environment cannot be accredited for inducing development. Likewise, there is no other earthly creature that can inspire cognitive development in so-called primitive humans, because their cognitive abilities are limited to their physical nature and environment. Therefore, as in what would inspire primitive humans to create fire even if they had seen it in the natural environment, especially when tools are needed to create fire. It is the necessity and use of tools that the evolutionary model accounts for humans’ cognitive development. It is only possible that the cognitive ability and necessity to use tools preceded the physical ability to use tools, as in regards the configuration of our thumb, forehead etcetera. By the evolutionary model it is assumed the first tools invented were used to kill other animals. Therefore, cognitive development was inspired by death and destruction. Otherwise, cognitive development may have been inspired by cultivation of plants for food and building shelters and by the domestication of animals for whatever reason, would seem more likely to belong to a Creation model. Although foraging and gathering would not necessarily need tools as in a pristine paradise environment, the loss of that environment by expulsion and climate change would be a very good incentive to need tools. The big difference is that coming from a weaker and pristine condition they are not prepared to live like the animals. Whereas from evolution they are prepared to live like animals because they are. Why would environmental change induce any cognitive change? The ability to conceptualize plus inspiration from a higher intelligence are the only factors to necessary induce cognitive development. Therefore, the Creation model prevails, as humans were taught by angels and later by fallen angels.

The implication with the creation model is even more significant. In this model all conditions were ideally suited for humans to be foragers and gatherers for their food. The climate also was very stable globally and warm, or temperate. So, under what circumstances were humans inspired if not compelled to create fire? There would not have been any lightning storms in the Garden or in Eden in general that would strike a tree, cause a bush fire, or forest fire, and no lava flows that burn everything in its path. Or maybe I’m wrong, that only the Garden was protected to be ideal, the rest of Eden and the world was still a hostile untamed wilderness. So, after they were expelled from the Garden, they would have plenty of chances to witness such events. However, there is one problem to that, Adam and Eve witnessed the awesome nature of fire for the first time when the angels with spinning blades of fire prevented them reentering the Garden. That was obviously a divine inspiration to them.

After this event, if by whatever means humans discovered how to make fire, it most likely had to be a divine sacred event for them, and devoted to it as a sacred ritual. This idea gives credence to the origin of offering burnt sacrifices to gods, as practiced by most of the ancient cultures of the world if not all of them. However, as herbivores, by what precedence would humans be compelled to kill animals, and burn them, especially those with fatty meat, as suggested by the book of Genesis chapter 4 verse 4? Humans must have had learnt the process of life and death from the short mortal lifespans of animals and as they witness in the natural wilderness of predators eating prey.

However, all animals were likewise supposed to be herbivores according to the Creation account of Genesis chapter one. According to chapter nine though, that may exclude creatures not considered as souls with no red blood like insects and crustaceans. This is credible from the fact animal predators do eat insects and plant-based foods made by humans, especially sweet cakes for example. They may have developed a taste for red-blooded meat after the great flood since there were likely a great lace of suitable vegetation for these animals to eat.

Although the life of an animal cannot compensate for the life of a human, whether they understand that or not is not relevant, except that it is a fair offer to a god rather than just vegetation, since God made humans to be lord of all animals,

However, this was a long time before the Bible says God had allowed humans to eat meat as food in Genesis 9:3, which is just after the Great Flood event. Likewise, this corresponds to the Chinese legend of Suiren (Fire Maker), Shennong (Divine Husband) and Paoxi (Animal Domesticator). As their names suggest they taught people to domesticate plants and animals and to cook their food long before the time of the Chinese version of the Great Flood event of emperor Yao which corresponds approximately the same time as the Biblical event. In this regard Paoxi seems to correspond to Abel and Shennong as Cain. They provide details of the whole event of social development to the Cain and Abel story in regards to Chinese legends. This legend suggest that people had learnt not only to eat meat but to cook it unlike the animals.

The problem with the Chinese legends in regards to food is that in either case of the evolutionary model or the creation model, I see no justification to believe that people were sick from eating vegetables fresh especially as a reason to add meat to their diet. First of all, we were created to be herbivores. The only necessity for meat would be a lack of vegetation as in a drought. This is possible living in the hostile wilderness for outside of Eden. They may have felt justified to kill animals by observing predatory animals eating prey.

Now with the usual bounteous over-production by nature, God has given us with wild vegetation, if it is not consumed all at one time, much of it seems to go to waste as they rot, decay into the ground. But what is most notable about this process of decay is the fermentation. With cultivation and experimentation this decaying process of fermentation will give us vinegar and beer. Grains are too small to have been a source of food until as they likewise decay and ferment into something aromatic, unlike most weeds. So, fermentation is likely one of the earliest method of processing vegetation to obtain a greater variety of food with vinegar and beer as the earliest inventions of civilization. I am sure nobody got sick of consuming beer, unless they drink too much of it, possibly being a popular method of curing and preservation of food. This likewise may have been a popular form of food sacrifice from vegetation in the manner of Libations which is a practice that is still performed even in the present time. Would God reject Libations of beer or wine (if Cain offered it)?

Otherwise, the use of salt with food would only be popular in areas with natural salt deposits. And the use of sugar would only occur long after the use of honey and maple sap or molasses with the use of fire.

Sun drying of food for curing and preservation would most likely be the most popular method especially in areas with long dry hot seasons. This climatic condition would likewise lead humans to grind their dried foods into flour to make bread or meal. This would initially coincide with the process of sun-baked mud bricks for building homes even before the use of fire.

So then if animals were hunted and or domesticated primarily for sacrifice, the extra benefit would be their hide for clothing, maybe then God really did kill (sacrifice) an animal to provide Adam and Eve animal skins for clothing. Although, I still believe God gave us pubic, and body hair as if they were animals skins. If so, it is not likely the animal was already dead, being naturally mortal, as God took the hides to cloth them. This is certain because God later prohibits touching a dead animal from natural causes or accidents as unclean and unholy. For this reason, some religions consider this as the first sacrifice in behalf of humans for their sins, thus Adam and Eve were taught to sacrifice animals for their sins.

Thus, the process of using animal skins for clothing continued but it may have been limited as a sacred event only for the privileged patriarchs. The carcass of the animal being processed for a burnt sacrifice would have the skin removed and burn the flesh, gizzards and bones into ashes as each part obtained more religious significance. Bones would be used in charms and gizzards in divination, medicines or potions.

The less privileged would only benefit from the textile of sheared wool of domesticated or docile wild animals thus preserving the life of the animal. It would seem then that wearing leather was as sacred as the use of fire itself.

If hunting animals by early man were a normal event simply to provide food, it does not seem worthy a theme to devote to a rock-painting whereas if the hunt itself were part of a sacred ritual for an animal sacrifice is a worthy theme.

In this case humans could only have been compelled to eat meat if by impiety the patriarchs as priests were inspired to imitate the fallen angels as gods on earth to refrain from fully burning the meat and eat it with the fatty parts.

This is suggested by legendary information of the gods, demigods, heroes and giants of the fallen angels, eating the flocks and herds of farmers and of cannibalism from human sacrifices. It seems like a bad choice of words to say that the burning of animal fatty meat was a pleasant aroma to God. Was this pleasing aroma actually a human sentiment, compelling humans to likewise to eat the meat instead of burning it completely to ashes? Unless it was assumed by Moses that since the burning of fat was a pleasant aroma to man then likewise it was a pleasant aroma to God. However, as something sacred it is only after the impiety of the fallen angels as gods on earth did humans follow suit.

Eating meat, the flesh of animals, is detrimental to our longevity. It shortens our lifespan. The Biblical patriarchs from Adam to Noah and the entire human race at that time had a much greater lifespan of nearly a thousand years. Most people assume that changed, reduced to an extremely shorter lifespan because of the climate change after the great flood of Noah's day. However, that did not affect Noah and his sons as they also lived a very long lifespan.

Also, it was not a command by God to limit our lifespan to 120 years, as it says in Genesis 6:3. God was indicating the amount of time remaining before the world is destroyed by flood. Besides, 120 is still longer than the lifespan most people live now.

The change to our lifespan happened as stated in Genesis 9:3-6. God allowed man to eat all animal flesh as food. He did not even make a restriction of eating pork or any other unclean animal.

In that allowance a balance is decreed in verse five, to paraphrase, that our lifeblood or lifespan will be reduced for the lifespan of the lifeblood of the animal we eat.

In other words, we eat ourselves into a shorter lifespan and we are judged for a human's lifeblood.

In regards to the law at that time, before the era of Christ Ransom sacrifice, it was “a life for a life.” So, if we were to kill another human then we forfeit our own life. However, with animals if we kill and eat an animal only part of our own lifespan is reduced. Therefore, God can say our sins are forgiven partially as we die partially by a reduction of our lifespan. In a technical point of view, when we eat animal flesh our body has to decompose the animal flesh and then rebuild it into human flesh. Otherwise, when we eat vegetation, our body decomposes plant tissue easily to build human flesh. There is a lot more energy lost in us in the process of decomposing flesh to build flesh than to decompose plant tissue to build flesh. We save a lot more energy from eating plants to be used in more vital areas of our body. Also, animals are created to be mortal, to die, but plants normally do not die, nor do their seeds unless something in the environment kills them. Plants are not immortal but they strive towards immortality. They are programmed, created to always grow and spread. It is better to eat food that lives than to eat food that dies.

Otherwise again, it is obvious to suspect that before the Flood there where a lot more vegetation that could satisfy our nutritional needs and our appetites in a similar manner as animal meat. So, after the Flood, God would let us meat to meet that satisfaction. Then again, in my opinion, since God knows we are going to die anyway, it does not matter to him if we live 700 as years herbivores or 100 years as omnivores, we are going to die anyway. So, go ahead, enjoy eating meat.

However, that being said, in the current era of Christ Ransom Sacrifice, people normally curse themselves to a short lifespan because they believe that it is natural to die. But Christ by his sacrifice gives us the opportunity to live forever physically as humans.

John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

John 6: 50,51 “This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever.”

John 11:26 “and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. Do you believe this?”

John 21: 22,23 “Jesus said to him: ‘If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.’ So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die.”

Matthew 16:28 “Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”

Matthew 24:34 “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.”

The implication of the is that some of the Apostles may still be able, walking this earth in the wilderness, as the *woman* in Rev.12.

This is profoundly significant. This means we have immortals among us who are eye witnesses of the Messiah.

I would add, there is no actual proof that those Disciples and Apostles had died. It very likely they had died there would be some kind of monument marking where they died, since they are the very pillars and foundation of the Christian Faith.

Also, as a disclaimer, by being a strict vegetarian or vegan is not going to increase our lifespan in itself. That ‘ship has already sailed.’ Personally, as I have previously been eating meat, and my parents, grandparents and ancestors all have been eating meat, our lifespan cannot get any shorter. By the time our bodies reach maturity we start to die already. We cannot undo thousands of years of biological damage, and currently practically everything in our environment is killing us. We can only take comfort of feeling healthier as vegetarians and respecting our bodies as God’s temple (1 Corinthians 16:19).

The eating of meat has hindered one natural development in my opinion. There is an extensive diversity of a no-flesh/meat food science that can itself make eating meats unnecessary and unwanted.

For example, fruits are not simply something sweet to eat raw or cooked as cakes and candy. Fruits have the potential of being the very substitute of meats or rather a superior replacement. Fruits can be cooked with salt and spices in various ways to greatly increase the variety of flavors of a meal. It is precisely by cooking it ripe, not just unripe, with salt and spices that it offers a flavor competitive to that if any meat.

It is a bit too exhaustive to list all the fruits we have available to us, so I will just use an example from what I discovered. Durian is an exotic and locally popular tropical fruit, but it really smells bad. The taste is sweet, but I think the bad smell make it seem to taste bad as well. People have consumed this fruit for a long time, maybe 1000 years, and even made candies from it, but it still smells bad. Now one time I was desperate to have something to fry with my rice. I had previously decided not to eat meats anymore including fish. It so happened that Durian was in season and there was plenty available, even over ripe. Certain members of the household had some durian that was over ripe and offered some to me. I initially refused but then I changed my mind because I had a notion to cook the Durian with the rice. I figured cooking the durian might kill the bad smell. Basically, I knew cooking is way to transform foods to become more edible. It seemed a bit messy while cooking it but it worked. It still had a unique smell but more pleasant, aromatic. It also had very addictive taste to it like eggs and bacon. Then I had the idea to cook the Durian with pancit (a Philippine noodle), to make soup with the usual spices of salt and pepper. It also tasted fantastic. It is too bad durian is a seasonal fruit unlike coconut, because I became addicted to both recipes I created. So now I am thinking what other fruits can I cook this way. The funny thing about this is that for a thousand years, more or less, people have been eating Durian fresh and stinky but never had anyone thought to cook it, to get the bad smell out. I had even cooked it Calamansi juice and sugar and it did not smell or even taste anything like Durian, but rather it tasted overwhelmingly like a Calamansi sauce.

Strange enough, many people already know to cook some fruits with salt, though usually as raw fruits like Jackfruit (Nunca) and Papaya. I guess it normally must seem undesirable to cook sweet ripe fruits with salt and spices, but that is practical as well.

Food science has some basic ways to process food:

1.      Biological – fermentation, mold, fungi

2.      Chemical – vinegar, salt, sugar, oil

3.      Drying and Milling – Sun, radiation

4.      Fire – cooking: (frying, baking, roasting, smoking, etcetera, etc.)

This means that any one food item of fruits can be processed in any way of these various methods and in combination of methods. So why should fruits should only be eaten as fresh and cooked only in the traditional ways as cakes and candies?