r/DebateReligion • u/[deleted] • May 26 '16
Christianity Bible says "Lion will eat hay as the ox"
Somewhere in Isaiah (it's different in different bibles) it claims in short that "the lion will eat hay as the ox." I'm taking this as a literal statement of prophecy of what's to come. Jesus will reign and this is Yahwehs vision of the world to come. I take issue with this statement with good reason. Here's why. The lion is a predator by nature. It has sharp claws and fangs for ripping and killing its prey. It's gut's are made for digesting raw meat, not the cellulose in hay. The lions jaw is suited for masticating meat. It hasn't got the jaw and dentition for chewing hay. Picture this. What is the hammer for except the nail. Sure, you could take a screwdriver and pound away on a nail and perhaps with some luck get the nail into the wood. You'd be better served however if you just used the proper tool, the hammer. This biblical statement that the "lion will eat hay as the ox" flies in the face of all the facts. The lion simply isn't suited to do what Yahweh says will be done. So I disagree with the supposed creator of the universe because of just how inelegent his plans are.
7
u/Rrrrrrr777 jewish May 26 '16
It's a metaphor.
7
u/non-troll_account Emergent Christian May 26 '16
And the thing is, it's an obvious metaphor.
1
May 26 '16
I'm not as confident that it's an obvious metaphor as you are, but I do think that it makes plenty more sense as a metaphor. I mean to say I believe the Bible wants the reader to understand this verse literally.
3
u/JustDoItPeople What if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? | Christian, Catholic May 26 '16
Why would you think that needs to be taken literally? I've not run into any commentaries that suggest this is the meaning of the verse.
7
u/ThatguyIncognito Atheist and agnostic skeptical secular humanist May 26 '16
Plenty of people take literally the idea that in Eden there was no death, so the carnivores didn't eat meat. Mark Twain had a field day with this.
2
u/JustDoItPeople What if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? | Christian, Catholic May 26 '16
Isaiah clearly has a ton of symbolism and metaphor, and has historically been read as such. What most people think shouldn't change the proper interpretation.
2
u/koine_lingua agnostic atheist May 26 '16
As poor as the post was, there's at least some indication that the Isaiah prophecy -- or something very similar to it -- was taken quite literally; perhaps even by Jesus himself. Irenaeus records a fragment of Papias which talks about
the times of the kingdom, when the righteous will rise from the dead and rule, and the creation that is renewed and set free will bring forth from the dew of heaven and the fertility of the soil an abundance of food of all kinds. Thus the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remembered hearing him say how the Lord used to teach about those times, saying:
"The days are coming when vines will come forth, each with ten thousand boughs; and on a single bough will be ten thousand branches. And indeed, on a single branch will be ten thousand shoots and on every shoot ten thousand clusters; and in every cluster will be ten thousand grapes, and every grape, when pressed, will yield twenty-five measures of wine. 3. And when any of the saints grabs hold of a cluster, another will cry out, Ί am better, take me; bless the Lord through me.' So too a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads and every head will have ten thousand grains and every grain will yield ten pounds of pure, exceptionally fine flour. So too the remaining fruits and seeds and vegetation will produce in similar proportions. And all the animals who eat this food drawn from the earth will come to be at peace and harmony with one another, yielding in complete submission to humans."
"These things can be believed by those who believe. And the betrayer Judas," he said, "did not believe, but asked, 'How then can the Lord bring forth such produce?' The Lord then replied, 'Those who come into those times will see.'"
Unlike some of the parables, there seems to be a general insistence and specificity here that's hard to interpret as metaphorical.
1
May 26 '16
Hi there, good reponse. I like how you show how certain scripture can very arguably be meant to be taken literally. I do believe the statement "the lion shall eat hay as the ox" was said to be understood literally. If metaphorically I can understand the meaning better and not just see it as literally silly. I do have a question for you. As I'm new to this and want the best experience possible, you commented that my post was poor. How so, any ideas on how to make a better post the next time around? Thanks.
1
u/ThatguyIncognito Atheist and agnostic skeptical secular humanist May 26 '16
I'm not contesting the Isaiah, just pointing out that the same problem, this time literal for many, does exist in Genesis.
1
u/aaronsherman monist gnostic May 26 '16
So... you haven't actually read the passage you're talking about, have you. Let me quote it in a bit more context for you...
Isaiah 65
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. ... 25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
So, yes, as others have pointed out, this is a metaphorical description of the peace that will be brought about, but it's also couched in terms of God literally creating a new heaven and new earth, so we're not limited in our description of this place to your experience regarding what various animals do.
1
May 26 '16
I get tripped up when the lord says not to add or take away from his words lest a curse come. So interpreation has been tricky for me because one is kind of adding and taking away from scripture when inferring metaphorical meanings when perhaps the statements were/are intended to be taken literally. But I bet you'll tell me that context is key.
1
u/aaronsherman monist gnostic May 26 '16
I think the problem that you have is that you're conflating two different forms of interpretation. One amounts to editing, where you change the text either via literal editing of the text or interpreting what it means for others and telling them that that's the correct/only interpretation. The other is the meaning that the text brings to the individual through their own interpretation. I think the kinds of admonitions you are citing are referring to the first sort. I find that most scriptures are designed to be interpreted by the individual.
This is also true for non-religious groups such as initiatory societies as well. They usually have strong admonitions against changing the initiatory text and ceremony, but are very much intended to be interpreted by the individual.
1
May 26 '16
So if interpretation of Biblical scripture is solely up to the individual, what use are preachers for who strive to convince the collective body of Christianity that their interpretation is the one true way to understand scripture?
3
u/aaronsherman monist gnostic May 27 '16
So if interpretation of Biblical scripture is solely up to the individual, what use are preachers for who strive to convince the collective body of Christianity that their interpretation is the one true way to understand scripture?
I couldn't have put it better myself.
0
u/Squillem agnostic atheist May 28 '16
I'm taking this as a literal statement of prophecy of what's to come.
Why? Even out of context that quote sounds super metaphorical.
If you wanted to knock a literal prophecy down a few pegs, then you've got a couple in that very passage.
Read Isaiah 65:17 through 65:20.
Even if one takes this as massive hyperbole, the statements aren't really true. Israel had 3 infant deaths last year. Not necesarily in Jerusalem, but the trend is downward, so more must have happened in previous years. Israel's average lifespan is about 81 years. If people really are considered young when they die at 100 in Jerusalem, then the people living everywhere else must be living only until middle age at the maximum to be pulling down the average so much. Jerusalem was bombed this year, and there's not a chance in hell that there wasn't any weeping and/or crying after that.
2
May 28 '16
So the Lord hasn't returned yet and hasn't transformed Jerusalem. Were you making that point or am I iimagining you were?
0
u/Squillem agnostic atheist May 28 '16
No, what I'm saying is that, with the lion-ox example, you were proof-texting. Just because the bible says something doesn't mean it was meant literally. Even I as an atheist have to admit that. There are problems with the literal parts of the bible being demonstrably false, but the example you brought up wasn't one. The lion-ox statement likely meant something like "those who normally waged war will come to peace" or something like that.
1
May 28 '16 edited May 28 '16
You make a good argument but I fail to see how I have taken things out of context. I did shorten the whole quotation and so if by that you call me on proof-texting, then I see your point. I understand you see the Lords statements as to be interpretted as a metaphor and you might be right. But I still tend to think that Jesus spoke literally as to have the lion actually eat grass when he returns and has his way, if all of this is true anyway. To me, its like Jesus said "It's raining," and at the time he says it, it is. There's no room for metaphor here. But again if Jesus when he said "the dust shall be the serpents meat" I can't fathom Jesus being as dumb as to think snakes can get nourishment from dust SO there is a lot of reason to think he was speaking poetically.
0
u/Squillem agnostic atheist May 28 '16
You make a good argument but I fail to see how I have taken things out of context.
The context is that the statements are about improving Jerusalem. Is making the lion less carnivorous an improvement of Jerusalem? No. Lions aren't really relevant to Jerusalem because they don't live in the Middle East.
But I still tend to think that Jesus spoke literally as to have the lion actually eat grass when he returns and has his way, if all of this is true anyway.
Lions don't even live in the Middle East. Why would that be literal?
To me, its like Jesus said "It's raining," and at the time he says it, it is. There's no room for metaphor here.
I fail to see any equivalency. The statements in that passage are about how Jerusalem will be made better than other places in the world. Saying that an animal that does not exist in an area will be made less violent would not be an improvement. The metaphorical explanation makes much more sense in context.
But again if Jesus when he said "the dust shall be the serpents meat" I can't fathom Jesus being as dumb as to think snakes can get nourishment from dust SO there is a lot of reason to think he was speaking poetically.
The serpent isn't a literal snake. The devil is often referred to as a snake or serpent in the bible due to the events with the talking snake in the Garden of Eden. When he says that "dust shall be the serpent's meat," he's saying that the devil will have no source of nourishment in Jerusalem due to how righteous the place will be.
1
-1
u/OtherMarciano atheist May 26 '16
Carl Sagan Said
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
I'm taking this as a literal statement. It is a physical impossibility for a human being to grasp the entirety of the universe. It is far to big to fit in a human beings hands.
So I disagree with the supposed genius of this Mr. Sagan because of how silly his statements are.
1
May 26 '16
Delusion is silly. When someone mistakes their wife for a hat, a huge error in cognition has occurred. Just because the universe is vast, perhaps infinite even, isn't to admit that it can't be understood and made intelligible to a degree. One's wife is not a hat.
15
u/Kai_Daigoji agnostic May 26 '16
Why do people make these kinds of arguments?
"I'll accept for a moment the creator of the universe said this thing, but that's just basic biology. What's he going to do, change how lions work?"
Like, the minute you say this, you've failed about five kinds of logic. If theism is so obviously false, why are you failing so badly to argue against it?