Will Animals Be Resurrected?

[Jonah]

I'm waiting for Jehovah to introduce meat trees in the new system.

 

[Nomex]

It was not the purpose of my post to disrespect your father's memory. It was never my purpose to say that animals are more important than humans.

Of course not, and I completely understand why people feel the way they do. I am not trying to push my own feelings on anyone. I just had to say how I felt, that is all. It was not my intent in any way to diminish how anyone else feels. I said my peace about it, and I feel better about it now. Someone else had posted about this a while back and I didn't say anything then.

 

[SusanB]

so even though jehovah may allow us to eat meat after the flood, wouldn't it be fair to say that was not his original intention or will?

I don’t know. I guess we’ll find out in the 1,000 years. There were no seasons like winter, fall and summer when Adam and Eve were in Eden and the seasons came about after the flood but the way I understand the scriptures we will always have the seasons. So was that the original purpose? I don’t know? It seems like other things may follow a similar pattern

 

[StopTheInsanity]

I'm waiting for Jehovah to introduce meat trees in the new system.

That would have an interesting odor especially in a hot climate. Just sayin'. 😄

 

[StopTheInsanity]

Sister, practically every thread on here ruffles someone's feathers so don't worry about it😉. There are many on this forum that feel as you do and would love to see their pets again, only Jehovah knows what the future holds for us in his new system, no one on this thread does, so keep this in your prayers and Stay faithful to Jehovah and I'm sure you won't be disappointed and don't ever let anyone discourage you. 🥰 p.s
I enjoyed your thoughts on this topic.
Here's a picture of my winnie last year, she's lying right on top of me 3 inches from my face while I was sick with covid, stayed by my side the entire time.🥰🥰

Cute!!

 

[StopTheInsanity]

I don’t know. I guess we’ll find out in the 1,000 years. There were no seasons like winter, fall and summer when Adam and Eve were in Eden and the seasons came about after the flood but the way I understand the scriptures we will always have the seasons. So was that the original purpose? I don’t know? It seems like other things may follow a similar pattern

Interesting point you bring up. The seasons as we know them came about from the collapse of the water canopy during the Flood. Before then, it was a universally tropical climate earth wide even at the poles. I wonder if we'll have the seasons, just not as extreme. I wonder where the polar bears and penguins lived before the Flood? Was there snow anywhere on earth before the Flood? Who knows. So many questions...whatever the answers, we know it will be AWESOME!!

 

[The God Pill]

Given the earth's elliptical orbit there would still be seasons the climate and terrain would simply vary less from time of year and from latitude the deserts and probably tundra would dissappear replaced with more vegetation rich environments.

 

[Niobium]

I'm waiting for Jehovah to introduce meat trees in the new system.

I guess we already have meat plants Soybeans have historically been called the meat of the field or meat without bones. So meat trees must be possible.

 

[StopTheInsanity]

I guess we already have meat plants Soybeans have historically been called the meat of the field or meat without bones. So meat trees must be possible.

I bet Bill Gates is working on an Impossible Burger tree as we speak. Coming soon to a park near you.

 

[Jordan Seager]

I bet Bill Gates is working on an Impossible Burger tree as we speak. Coming soon to a park near you.

McTree

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

Okay, after meditating on it, I go back to Genesis 3:14:

New International Version
So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

New Living Translation
Then the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, groveling in the dust as long as you live.

English Standard Version
The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

Berean Standard Bible
So the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and every beast of the field! On your belly will you go, and dust you will eat, all the days of your life.

King James Bible
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

New King James Version
So the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.

New American Standard Bible
Then the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all the livestock, And more than any animal of the field; On your belly you shall go, And dust you shall eat All the days of your life;

When I read those verses, it doesn't appear to be talking to Satan and the rest of the spirit realm, since the rest of the angels hadn't sinned yet, only Satan had, so Jehovah pronouncing judgement on "the rest of all the livestock or animal of the fields" as referred to as "more than" wouldn't make sense

As to

To me, the above scriptures seem to indicate that the wording "more than all the livestock" would mean that a curse was put on all animals by God but would especially have been severe on the serpent.

As to

Perhaps the meaning of the words: "Because you have done this" apply to their not "being in subjection" to Adam and Eve which was their scriptural position that they were assigned in Genesis 1:28.

Instead of "being in subjection" they actually betrayed Adam and Eve. It would be like having a watch dog, not only not bark if a robber tried to get into your house, but actually went over and let the robber into the house so that they could steal.


As for why Jehovah would pronounce sentence on all the animals, perhaps it's the same concept as the community responsibility that we've seen else where in the scriptures such as the account of Achan in Joshua 7 where the Israelites were defeated because of the spoil that Achan had taken and hidden?

I don't know. I've mentioned that this is, indeed, as Susan mentioned speculative, but Robert's book has taken a different interpretation different than what most of us have been taught and has shared the scriptural foundation for his reasonings. I am just looking at different accounts and seeing if these are in fact the right understanding as well.

As for what anyone here does with the information, that's an individual decision. It will remain to be seen what the future actually holds.

If it does indeed hold a new diet and an inclusion of animals to be resurrected, then Jehovah's people will need an adjustment in their understanding.

I do know that the scriptures do show that Jehovah fed the Israelites manna in the wilderness which was a vegetable-based food and the Israelites stumbled at it and it became a snare and a test so that would be something to meditate on.

As for animals being: "


I don't agree with that statement. Animals have been shown to make and use tools, they grieve and feel emotion and bond with each other and humans. I think the full extant of the possible relationship between humans and animals remains to be seen in the future. We do have examples of Bart the Bear and Christian the lion showing us that even now, wild "beast" are capable of having loving and safe interactions with humans.

And, as I mentioned earlier, animals clearly have free will because they can either obey or disobey. This is a fact.

I had no idea that this topic would ruffle so many feathers and that was certainly not my intention. I am trying really hard not to be dogmatic or tell people what they have to do, I am just thinking out loud here which I was under the impression was safe to do. Perhaps not?

I can’t say my feathers are ruffled. If I had feathers, they are long since faded. It’s best not to look for problems with others because you will find them. That is always a problem with text, and it’s pointless to play the emotive card in pretence of it or to justify a point. I cannot pretend to understand the issue Jehovah has with the snake. The snake had no more choice in the matter than did the donkey you quoted earlier with Balaam did it? Who was Jehovah really addressing? The snake already crawled on its belly. Likewise, I thought I covered the emotive insight animals have in referring to their senses. Of course animals grieve pro-rata with their insight but if one observes them, there is an acceptance in many, rather than grief. Anthropomorphism is certainly an issue for people though and often overly so and though it has its place, it cannot account for fact either. Many animals use tools as well and can solve problems but in these brief pages it is necessary to assume some leeway of understanding the greater picture with others if we are to express a simple point of discussion. Otherwise we split hairs endlessly.

Clearly, there has to be a point in what was said of or to the snake, unless we are to assume that a snake had reason aforethought to engage willingly with Satan in the downfall of man? I find that difficult to contend with because you do not clarify the reasoning you have behind it. It’s a supposition and has no indication of how such would tie in with the usage mankind has had of animals or the reasoning behind their subjection to mankind.

All of us should reason on the scriptures as you say and yes, Robert’s book is a reflection in a far deeper extrapolation of truth from the maelstrom of lies that have taken root from the bible. It is true that you may wish to look for “the right understanding” of scripture - we all do, but it is equally true that truth is recognisable. Many of us are satisfied when we find it. Jesus made note of this “…They will recognise my voice…” indicating that the search is over when truth is recognised. Thus the issues over snakes, curses, resurrection of animals etc etc, though enjoyable if reasoned upon from sound knowledge, are, if SusanB did say, merely “speculative” I.e., pretty much a waste of time if I gauge her rhetoric correctly, then she is absolutely right.

The truth and speculation are two different issues. Speculation is an exercise of the power of reasoning, but that reasoning can only be of value if the truth is understood first. If you are not certain of the latter, then the former is certainly no more that a pointless wandering with no foundation upon which to reason. As the scripture says. “Build your house upon rock, not sand.” And “do not be as the waves of the sea, washed back and forth in your faith”….or words to that effect. To be sure, like so many others here, I have wandered the halls and corridors of religion and faith, from church to church, and opinion to opinion, and spent far too many wasted years in the deceit and persuasion of watchtower. However, It taught me so many lies and persuasions that the truth was instantly recognisable. Though we are by degrees different in our understanding, the truth is easily recognisable to the exclusion of man and his influence. That is why one “knows” the “voice”. From Jesus down to the lowest scribe copying the scriptures, all were men. Their job was just as much a test for them, as it is ours to believe what they said and wrote. Those that understand truth do not fear the motives of men - they know them. It is a peculiar freedom that allows the “voice” to be heard….at last. My dear wife had engraved on my wedding ring that she gave me many years ago, (in Latin of course), “Here I am - here I stay.“ That is my policy with truth. If you are not certain yet or feel it “not safe to do so”, to ask questions, then maybe you are not asking the right questions, or the right questions of your self.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

I am a follower of Jesus. Jesus NEVER violated any of Jehovah’s principles. Jesus ate meat and fish and in fact used fish to feed others. I eat meat and wear leather and I don’t apologize for that. While it is always interesting to speculate, this thread is pure speculation with no foundation in the scriptures.

I always enjoy your straightforward approach. Certainty is a rare commodity in this time.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

I used to have a miniature dachshund that I named Chewy because I lost more than one pair of expensive shoes to him using them as his bone to chew on. But in the Spanish language “chuy” is pronounced the same way as chewy and means “lord” meaning Jesus. So when I would say his name in the presence of spanish speaking people, they would give me a look of shock because they thought that I named my dog Jesus.

Now that must have raised a few eyebrows on many occasions!

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

While I am skeptical of animal ressurections or of them living forever I do believe they are more intelligent than most people think as jubilees claims they could speak much like how Balaam's donkey did essentially that they were muted after Adam and Eve sinned so that they couldn't be used by the adversary like what he pulled with the snake.

It begs the question: If animals could speak at one time, but had that facility withdrawn from them, did this stop them from understanding speech? If not, why can I not train my dog not to pee on my shrubs or do the other in inconvenient places? And why can animals not read?

 

[Niobium]

Hmm...if dogs could speak, what would they say....

 

[The God Pill]

It begs the question: If animals could speak at one time, but had that facility withdrawn from them, did this stop them from understanding speech? If not, why can I not train my dog not to pee on my shrubs or do the other in inconvenient places? And why can animals not read?

Did you ask them in hebrew?

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

Did you ask them in hebrew?

Of course not! Being English, we expect all other cultures to speak English, and that, of course, all we need do to make them understand us if they have failed in their duty to learn English, is to shout at them. We have the same policy for our animals, politicians and foreign health care personnel and taxi drivers. I am sure the original language was English anyway, rather than Hebrew - Jehovah would not choose to improve on perfection.

 

[Jahrule]

It seems this thread is somewhat dated, and I acknowledge my tardiness in joining the conversation. Admittedly, I haven't thoroughly read through all the posts. Some discussions centered around topics like meat consumption, animals falling ill, and the idea of resurrecting our beloved pets. I'd like to highlight a perspective here. As Robert previously noted, resurrection involves a unique agreement with humanity. However, I believe our approach might be misguided. There might not be a necessity for God to "resurrect" a dog, for instance, when we already have dogs in existence.

What if, instead of waiting for a resurrection, we consider the possibility of a puppy being born and gradually inheriting the memories of our departed furry friends? In essence, no explicit resurrection is required. One might argue that it's not the same dog due to the differing physical bodies. However, I posit that it could be within God's capabilities. This isn't because of a promise to animals but rather a consideration for our desires. Perhaps a future moment will come when, having restored our relationship with Jah, we are asked to make a wish. If someone wished to be reunited with a cherished furry companion, it might not be beyond the realm of possibility. Picture this: God saying, "Okay, a puppy will be born at this location. As it grows, it will embody the spirit of your old friend, and I'll even restore its memory." No resurrection needed.

Even in such a scenario, these animals wouldn't likely live indefinitely. However, a subsequent question arises:

This poses another related question for me. Will animals get sick? Now we have to take our pets to the vet for all sorts of problems that affect them. ...

I interpret this question as a hint toward an enduring need for true "healthcare." Allow me to elaborate. Humans, by nature, are and will always be mortal beings. Even in a new world, where our necessities such as diet and lifestyle will undergo transformations designed to maximize human flourishing, we will still require fundamental elements like eating and sleeping.

Jah will share profound knowledge with us regarding our bodies, minds, and environment. This amalgamation will give rise to a society unlike anything previously seen on Earth, surpassing even the paradisiacal Eden. Humans will possess an extensive understanding of biology, potentially enabling them to allocate resources to extend the lives of their animals significantly. While animals may not naturally live forever, as promised to humans, individuals of that time might have the ability to keep their beloved animal companions in robust health for an extended and joyous existence. This period could also bring about a profound appreciation for the cycles of life, death, and rebirth that eludes our present comprehension.

 

[Seadog]

It seems this thread is somewhat dated, and I acknowledge my tardiness in joining the conversation. Admittedly, I haven't thoroughly read through all the posts. Some discussions centered around topics like meat consumption, animals falling ill, and the idea of resurrecting our beloved pets. I'd like to highlight a perspective here. As Robert previously noted, resurrection involves a unique agreement with humanity. However, I believe our approach might be misguided. There might not be a necessity for God to "resurrect" a dog, for instance, when we already have dogs in existence.

What if, instead of waiting for a resurrection, we consider the possibility of a puppy being born and gradually inheriting the memories of our departed furry friends? In essence, no explicit resurrection is required. One might argue that it's not the same dog due to the differing physical bodies. However, I posit that it could be within God's capabilities. This isn't because of a promise to animals but rather a consideration for our desires. Perhaps a future moment will come when, having restored our relationship with Jah, we are asked to make a wish. If someone wished to be reunited with a cherished furry companion, it might not be beyond the realm of possibility. Picture this: God saying, "Okay, a puppy will be born at this location. As it grows, it will embody the spirit of your old friend, and I'll even restore its memory." No resurrection needed.

Even in such a scenario, these animals wouldn't likely live indefinitely. However, a subsequent question arises:



I interpret this question as a hint toward an enduring need for true "healthcare." Allow me to elaborate. Humans, by nature, are and will always be mortal beings. Even in a new world, where our necessities such as diet and lifestyle will undergo transformations designed to maximize human flourishing, we will still require fundamental elements like eating and sleeping.

Jah will share profound knowledge with us regarding our bodies, minds, and environment. This amalgamation will give rise to a society unlike anything previously seen on Earth, surpassing even the paradisiacal Eden. Humans will possess an extensive understanding of biology, potentially enabling them to allocate resources to extend the lives of their animals significantly. While animals may not naturally live forever, as promised to humans, individuals of that time might have the ability to keep their beloved animal companions in robust health for an extended and joyous existence. This period could also bring about a profound appreciation for the cycles of life, death, and rebirth that eludes our present comprehension.

Interesting topic with so many animal lovers commenting.
I’ve always held the view animals would continue to die in order to remind us of our privilege of extended/everlasting life.

 

[Jahrule]

Interesting topic with so many animal lovers commenting.
I’ve always held the view animals would continue to die in order to remind us of our privilege of extended/everlasting life.

Indeed, eternity is a profound concept. As I hinted earlier, our comprehension of death may undergo a profound transformation. Death, as we currently perceive it, carries a substantial emotional burden. The loss of loved ones is a facet of existence that was not intended. There likely exist profound truths about the processes of life and death on Earth, concealed by the veil of our own mortality. Consider the angels in heaven as an illustrative example. From their perspective, the death of a human might be deemed tragic, yet they wouldn't perceive death in the same manner as humans do.

Conversely, once humans are emancipated from the shackles of mortality, our perspective may shift, akin to how angels might regard physical death. We might not perceive it as an abrupt cessation of existence, but rather as a glimpse of Jah's spirit— not an end, but a divergence extending into infinity. The transition might lead us to view death not as an extinguishing of life but as a transformation, a splintering that extends endlessly.