OK, I think I have something here. For one, you didn't quote the entire verse, which is essential to understanding the context in which it was written. I'm assuming you copied this verse from a website. Am I correct in assuming that? And another thing, often in the bible the word meat is used to describe food in general. In some bibles, the word meat is used in genesis 1:29 when it isn't referring to meat (as in the flesh of animals) at all. This article has more on this subject: http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss/svtmeat.html
quote: Acts 10:9-13 "Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat."
Didn't God tell Saint Peter in a vision that he should eat the meat of all kinds of animals?
No, as reading the entire story, which is told in Acts 10, makes clear. A Roman army officer named Cornelius received a vision from God telling him to get in touch with Simon Peter. At the same time, Peter, who was unaware of Cornelius, also received a vision in which he saw animals, both kosher and unkosher, being lowered down together from heaven in a sheet, while a heavenly voice told him to kill them and eat them. Peter refused, saying that he had never eaten anything that was impure. The heavenly voice then told him not to consider impure what God had purified. When Peter came out of his trance, "he was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen." While he was trying to unravel it, messengers from Cornelius arrived with the story of their master's vision. Now Peter understood. "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a gentile," he later told Cornelius. "But God has told me that I should not call anyone impure." The Greek phrase that the RSV translates "not . . . anyone" is even more specific. It is medena . . . anthropon, "no human being." Peter's vision had nothing to do with animals or eating meat. It was a symbolic message that gentiles (represented by the unkosher animals) as well as Jews (represented by the kosher animals) should be accepted into the Christian community. That is how Peter himself understood it, and that is how the author of Acts understood it as well.
quote: Rom.14:2 "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs."
But Saint Paul said that Christian vegetarians are "weak" Christians.
In Romans 14:2, in the course of discussing Christians who are "weak in faith," Paul says, "One person eats everything, while another, being weak, eats only vegetables." This is a curious sentence. Why would Saint Paul say that eating only vegetables is a sign of weakness? Obviously his intended audience (the Christian community in the city of Rome) would know -- since he sees no need to explain himself -- but we are left in the dark. Fortunately, Paul gives us the key in I Corinthians 8, where he talks about eating meat that has been dedicated to idols, and says that this may be a "pitfall" for people whose consciences are "weak." He means that if someone believes that by eating the meat he is worshiping the Greco-Roman god to whom it has been dedicated, then that person has committed the sin of idolatry. However, people whose faith in God is "strong" enough that they are absolutely certain that the pagan gods do not exist are not guilty of idolatry because you cannot worship something that you know is fictitious.
In AD 51, the Roman Emperor Claudius issued an edict banning Jews from the city of Rome. Jews continued to live in Rome, but they had much the same status as undocumented aliens in the United States. They had to stay "underground" and avoid coming to the attention of the authorities. In Rome, as in most cities in the Roman Empire, the production and sale of meat was a monopoly of various pagan temples. The only available meat that had not been dedicated to idols would be from kosher butcher shops. But being in the city illegally, Jews could not operate butcher shops in Rome for fear of coming to the attention of the authorities. (The pagan butchers would be only too happy to turn them in.) Therefore, Roman Christians who could not eat the meat without believing that they were worshiping the deity to whom it had been dedicated "ate only vegetables" to avoid the sin of idolatry. In short, Paul was not talking about what we today would call "ethical vegetarianism," but a situation peculiar to his time and place.
quote: 1 Tim.4:1-3 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils ... commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
Well, I don't have anything to paste on this but I did read somewhere that he may have been referring to cults that didn't eat animals because they thought they were evil or something like that. I'll look into it some more.
Acts 10:9-13 "Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat."
Rom.14:2 "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs."
1 Tim.4:1-3 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils ... commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
I am Christian and I am vegetarian. But I do not put the two together. I am vegetarian for ethical reasons. Animals feel pain and suffering just as much as humans. They do nothing to harm us. They were placed here on earth with feelings and they should be respected just as much as you respect other humans. I have many pets of my own, and each one of them has their own personality. You can tell when their feelings have been hurt, when they are happy, tired, excited, and in pain. I have no human siblings, instead my siblings are animals. They eat with my family, they sleep in the same beds and go everywhere they can with us. All animals have the right to be treated with respect. I am not saying that everyone is supposed to be vegetarian, but instead just putting the point out there and asking you to think about it and consider it.
"The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man." -Charles Darwin
quote:there is nothing wrong about killing animals. people have souls, animals don't.
I beg to differ. What makes you so sure humans have souls? Is it ok to torture animals? Beat them, starve them, cut them, set them on fire just because they "dont have souls?"
So you wouldnt mind if someone came to your house and killed your dog because it doesnt "have a soul?"
Take dogs for instance. They feel pain, guilt, shame, happiness and a load of other emotions that are expressed through their movements, expression, posture and actions. Can you say they dont have a soul when they feel all these things that humans do? What about animals that rescue people from the snow or burning buildings?
What is a soul? My philosphy teacher said one day that our bodies wouldnt be our bodies if it was not for our brain and our brain is made up of the electronic signals sent to it from its surroundings, we are our surroundings because without us there would be nothing. So in essence our surroundings are ourselves ,making the soul obsolete and a fictional thing that man made up because they did not know how the human mind worked nor did they know the philosophy of life undictated by a church that wishes to gain power. Or to read the buddhist philosophy of how once we die and our perception is true of our world and not stuck in the shell of our bodies we will rejoin with the earth's soul in nirvana. Soul being energy.
Making any death an acceptable death but since we are in the same shoes as that of animals we have no natural right if we wish to keep from tainting ourselves with what the karma of that which we eat. It has been proven that the DNA in a corpse holds some memory and when passed through your system you gain the a fragment of what was of this corpse. Which would show that if the creature or human killed to eat or did something that was for personal gain then your karma would have an attachment of the others.
do you follow everything the bible tells you? do or would you sell your daughter because it tells you to ? Being vegetarian is good for many reasons, one from a political stand point would be enviroment if you havent read it yet read :A fast food nation.
I am a Christian, and I am a vegetarian, but not because I can't eat meat according to the Bible, but because it kind of grosses me out to think about it and its the healthier way to go. But God told Paul I belive (in the vision w/ the animals on the blanket) that we are not tied to the law and can eat what we want.
quote:there is nothing wrong about killing animals. people have souls, animals don't.
I beg to differ. What makes you so sure humans have souls? Is it ok to torture animals? Beat them, starve them, cut them, set them on fire just because they "dont have souls?"
So you wouldnt mind if someone came to your house and killed your dog because it doesnt "have a soul?"
Take dogs for instance. They feel pain, guilt, shame, happiness and a load of other emotions that are expressed through their movements, expression, posture and actions. Can you say they dont have a soul when they feel all these things that humans do? What about animals that rescue people from the snow or burning buildings?
"Thou call'dst me dog before thou hadst a cause; But, since I am a dog, beware my fangs." -Shakespeare [The Merchant of Venice, Act 3 Scene 3]
quote: Alright, when Jesus was on earth...did he tell them not to fish? he sure did hang out with the fishermen an awful lot.
Weren't Jesus' disciples fishermen?
At least four of the twelve apostles -- two sets of brothers: Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John, the sons of Zebedee -- were commercial fishers before they became followers of Jesus. There is no suggestion in the New Testament that they ever fished afterward, except on one occasion immediately following the crucifixion when, totally disheartened, they briefly reverted to their old way of life (John 21:1-14).
With the famous words, "I will make you fishers of people," Jesus called Simon and Andrew to be his disciples while the brothers were fishing in the Sea of Galilee. Immediately, they dropped their nets and went with him (Mark 1:16-20).30 Students of the Bible have often puzzled over the phrase "fishers of people" because fish are caught for their death while the people would be "fished" for their salvation. The phrase makes perfect sense, however, if Jesus was calling Simon and Andrew to make a dramatic about face in their own lives by abandoning the sinful occupation of killing God's creatures and embarking on a vocation of introducing men and women to salvation. "Give up killing," Jesus may be saying, "And take up rescuing."
quote: or during the old testament, when everyone made sacrefices of animals (sheep mostly) unto him. well, if we werent meant to eat animals..why didnt he stop that?
*sigh* Fine, I'll post this on here anyway. (I just posted the link before because it was a long article)
If God wanted us to have vegetarian diets and not harm animals, why were the Biblical sacrificial services established?
During the time of Moses, it was the general practice among all nations to worship by means of sacrifice. There were many associated idolatrous practices. The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides stated that God did not command the Israelites to give up and discontinue all these manners of service because "to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used," For this reason, God allowed Jews to make sacrifices, but "He transferred to His service that which had served as a worship of created beings and of things imaginary and unreal." All elements of idolatry were removed. Maimonides concluded:
By this divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our Faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. The Jewish philosopher Abarbanel reinforced Maimonides'argument. He cited a Midrash that indicated that the Jews had become accustomed to sacrifices in Egypt. To wean them from these idolatrous practices, God tolerated the sacrifices but commanded that they be offered in one central sanctuary: Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said "Let them at all times offer their sacrifices before Me in the Tabernacle, and they will be weaned from idolatry, and thus be saved." (Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 562) Rabbi J. H. Hertz, the late chief rabbi of England, stated that if Moses had not instituted sacrifices, which were admitted by all to have been the universal expression of religious homage, his mission would have failed and Judaism would have disappeared. With the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis state that prayer and good deeds took the place of sacrifice. Rashi indicated that God did not want the Israelites to bring sacrifices; it was their choice. He bases this on the haphtorah (portion from the Prophets) read on the Sabbath when the book of Leviticus which discusses sacrifices is read:
I have not burdened thee with a meal-offering, Nor wearied thee with frankincense. (Isaiah 43:23) Biblical commentator David Kimhi (1160-1235) also stated that the sacrifices were voluntary. He ascertained this from the words of Jeremiah: For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:22-23) David Kimchi, notes that nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there any reference to sacrifice, and even when sacrifices are first mentioned (Lev. 1:2) the expression used is "when any man of you bringeth an offering," the first Hebrew we ki being literally "if", implying that it was a voluntary act. Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal sacrifices will not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the reestablishment of the Temple. They believe that at that time human conduct will have advanced to such high standards that there will no longer be need for animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Only nonanimal sacrifices (grains, for example) to express gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic teaching based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the Messianic era, all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving offering, which will continue forever. This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and others, based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy mountain."
Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:
What I want is mercy, not sacrifice. (Hos. 6:6) To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?" sayeth the Lord. "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs or of he-goats...bring no more vain oblations.... Your new moon and your appointed feasts my soul hateth;...and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. (Isa. 1:11-16) I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though you offer me burnt-offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy song; and let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries. But let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-4) Deeds of compassion and kindness toward all creation are of greater significance to God than sacrifices: "To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Prov. 21: 3). Perhaps a different type of sacrifice is required of us today. When Rabbi Shesheth kept a fast for Yom Kippur, he used to conclude with these words:
Sovereign of the Universe, Thou knowest full well that in the time of the Temple when a man sinned he used to bring a sacrifice, and though all that was offered of it was fat and blood, atonement was made for him. Now I have kept a fast and my fat and blood have diminished. May it be Thy will to account my fat and blood which have been diminished as if I have offered they before thee on the altar, and do Thou favor me. (Berachot 17a)
There are many places in the Bible where God commanded the Jewish people to sacrifice animals. Doesn't this demonstrate that God approves of us killing and using animals?
In The Slaughter of Terrified Beasts, Reverend J. R. Hyland, an ordained, evangelical minister, points out that the later prophets were the first voices in recorded history to proclaim that "the suffering and death of animals was repugnant to God," coming as they did roughly a century before the Indian sage Mahavira, who founded Jainism, and the Buddha. In the following passages, these prophets flatly asserted, in the face of extensive Biblical testimony to the contrary, that God had never authorized animal sacrifice.
What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hands? [Emphasis added] Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moons and sabbaths and calling of convocations [ceremonies at which animals were sacrificed] - I cannot endure - they are iniquity, even your solemn convocations. Your new moons and appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am tired of putting up with them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:11-15).
But to sacrifice an ox or to kill a man, slaughter a sheep or break a dog's neck, offer grain or offer pig's blood, burn incense as a token and worship an idol -- all these are the chosen practices of men who revel in their own loathsome rites (Isaiah 66:3).
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. (Jeremiah 7:22).
I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not savor the smoke from your solemn assemblies. Though you offer me burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of your songs; for I will not hear the melody of your viols. But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness as an everlasting stream. Did you offer me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? (Amos 5:21-25).
For I have desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6).
They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings, and eat it, but the LORD does not accept them; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins; they shall return to Egypt [i.e. to slavery] (Hosea 8:13).
Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with tens of thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).
Writers who believe that the divine inspiration of the Bible does not allow for the existence of disagreements within it argue that the prophets are not really condemning sacrifices, but what they call "empty sacrifices," that is, sacrifices that are not accompanied by true repentance and a change of heart. But there are two problems with this interpretation. First, it is not supported by the plain meaning of the texts. Each of these passages flatly condemns all animal sacrifice, not just sacrifice that is unaccompanied by a change of heart. In straightforward language, they call for repentance instead of sacrifices, not repentance in addition to sacrifices. In fact, several call for repentance for having offered sacrifices -- "Your hands are full of blood."
Second, the italicized portions from Isaiah and Amos ask rhetorical questions about the origin of animal sacrifice which make it plain that these prophets did not believe that sacrifice had been commanded by God, while the passage from Jeremiah flatly states that it had not. All seven texts contradict the extensive passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and elsewhere which claim that animal sacrifices were divinely ordained.
On the question of animal sacrifice, the Bible presents us with two views of God. In one, after the fashion of the gods in other ancient Near Eastern religions, God demands cruelty by insisting that worshipers must torment, terrify, and slaughter innocent creatures. In the second, God calls for compassion and mercy by insisting that worshipers not inflict suffering and death upon the harmless. The question then becomes, which view represents the God of infinite justice, love, and mercy described in Jewish and Christian teaching? And which represents a misreading of God's will by people who were, perhaps unconsciously, influenced by the superstitious practices they saw all around them?
Animal sacrifice continued to be part of mainstream Jewish practice until the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, following a rebellion against Roman occupation. Since sacrifice could be practiced only in the Temple, there has been no animal sacrifice in Judaism for nearly two thousand years, with the sole exception of the lambs who are slaughtered each year to be eaten at the Passover seder. Dr. Roberta Kalechofsky has written Haggadah for the Liberated Lamb, Haggadah for the Vegetarian Family, and The Journey of the Liberated Lamb to help observant Jews make the transition to a cruelty-free seder while remaining faithful to their traditions.
quote: Why are animals here? they dont really serve any other good use to us otehr than pets then. I just think animals are one of our natural resources. to keep warm (i.e. leather, fur) and to just eat.
Animals kill each other every day. Doesn't this mean that killing animals for food, clothing, and other reasons is part of God's plan?
According to the Bible, God's plan, as revealed in the Garden of Eden and described by the prophets, is for a world in which there will be no violence of any kind. Until this comes into being, the Bible lays out the ethical ideal which we should all strive to approach as closely as we can: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Unlike predatory animals, who have to kill to survive, we have been given the choice -- we can live as close to the Biblical ideal as we are able, or we can surrender to custom, convenience, and appetite, and allow ourselves to sink into violence against creation. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that other species -- whose physical needs, intellectual abilities, and moral sense may differ profoundly from our own -- were put here to serve as our ethical models. Actually, the idea that nature should serve as an ethical or social model for humanity is a recent one, dating from the nineteenth century, when some social thinkers took Darwin's concept of survival of the fittest as a "scientific" model for human behavior.34 The notion of the stronger devouring the weaker is the antithesis of the Judeo-Christian teaching that ethics should be based on love and compassion.35 Love protects and nurtures; it does not imprison, torment, or kill.
Some critics claim that animal rights is based on the idea that we are related to animals through evolution, and that in order to believe in animal rights one must also believe in Darwin's theory of human origins. While it is true that the theory of evolution states that we are related to animals through descent from common ancestors, it is equally true that the Bible states that we are related to animals through common creation by God. Humans and animals share much of the same DNA; the vertebrates have the same five senses that we do, central nervous systems that are very similar to ours, and brains that are well developed in the areas that process physical and emotional sensations. These are observable facts that are not dependent upon any biological theory or religious doctrine.
Animals are our neighbors; they are also our relatives, and this is true whether it came about through evolution or because God, the creator of us all, arranged it that way.
Alright, when Jesus was on earth...did he tell them not to fish? he sure did hang out with the fishermen an awful lot. or during the old testament, when everyone made sacrefices of animals (sheep mostly) unto him. well, if we werent meant to eat animals..why didnt he stop that? Why are animals here? they dont really serve any other good use to us otehr than pets then. I just think animals are one of our natural resources. to keep warm (i.e. leather, fur) and to just eat.
'i love you' is eight letters long, but so is 'bullshit'.
quote: try to chase down a cow and kill the cow with your teeth only (no guns or knifes) and then tell me that we are meant to be carnivores.
Our brains are big enough to help us figure out that using a sharp object, such as a spear, is the best way to kill. That is our hunting technique. Every carnivore has a different hunting technique. Lions, Bears, Wolves, Sharks, Orcas, Chimpanzees all use different strategies. If we didn't use that technique you and I wouldn't be here. The Neanderthals would dominate us, the **** Sapien Sapien.
Mice don't have carnivore teeth but they eat their babies, worms, bugs, and sometimes small lizards even though they don't have to. Hmmmm.
quote: Our canine teeth? Some primates' canines are sharper than ours, ours are mostly blunt and best for biting into things such as fruit.
If we were meant to eat only veggies and fruits we wouldn't have canines at all. We'd have huge flat molars, huge jaw muscles and a sagittal crest to support those muscles for all the chewing involved in eating fruits, veggies, and grains. We have none of these. According to your misguided biology, we should look more like Gorillas. We have only 3 small molars ideal for chewing and cutting meat and a variety of other foods. Our canines may be small but they are the perfect size for tearing off small peices of meat. Our stomach acid (Hydrochloric acid) is strong enough to digest raw meat and break down the proteins in it. We usually prefer not to eat raw meat because of the possibly of disease and because it doesn't taste as good as cooked meat. It's as simple as that.
We were meant to be Omnivores who need to eat a balanced diet of fruits, veggies AND meat. The reason why meat makes people obese and unhealthy is because we eat too much.
-I like that this topic provoked some discussion. -People have teeth for eating a carnivorous or vegetarian diet-so we have a choice. - Im not saying that Christians HAVE to be vegetarian; Just that it seems like the best most caring choice for any human being. (I was attempting to point out that the Christian religion isnt against vegetarianism and that it is the best choice for anyone considering the health benefits and humane aspects.) -Vegan/vegetarian diets have less health risks than carnivorous/ omnivorous diets.(this means that not eating the flesh of animals will NOT cause a protien, B12,etc. deficiancy.
quote: there is nothing wrong about killing animals. people have souls, animals don't.
A common misconception. Don't feel bad. A lot of people say this.
But human beings have immortal souls. Doesn't that mean that we have rights that animals don't?
In humans and animals alike, it is the mundane creature that suffers and dies, not the immortal soul. Therefore, it is wrong to inflict suffering on any being who is capable of experiencing it, whether that being has an immortal soul or not.
Furthermore, if animals do not have immortal souls, and this life is all they have to look forward to, isn't that all the more reason why we should not turn their only fleeting chance for joy into hell on earth?
Having said that, it is important for us to realize that nowhere does the Bible teach that animals do not have souls. One passage in the King James Version (KJV) that is widely cited in support of the view that animals lack souls is actually a misleading translation. In Genesis 2:7, the KJV tells us that God breathed life into the man God had created "and man became a living soul." A few verses later God creates the nonhuman animals, whom the KJV describes as "every living creature," apparently drawing a distinction between human beings and other animals (Genesis 2:19; emphasis added in both cases). In the original Hebrew, however, the same term, nephesh hayah, is used in both instances, making no distinction between the nature of the living spirit with which God endowed humanity and that with which God endowed nonhuman animals.
Recognizing this, the New English Bible, which was published in 1970 under the supervision of the Church of England, corrects the King James' editorializing by rendering nephesh hayah both times as "living creature." But unfortunately, many of the most popular modern translations perpetuate the King James' bias, usually by saying "living being" in verse 7 and "living creature" in verse 19. These include the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the New International Version (NIV), which are all Protestant sponsored, and Tanakh: the Holy Scriptures, which is the translation of the Jewish Publication Society. The New American Bible for Catholics is more circumspect; it renders nephesh hayah in verse 19 simply as "them," and so avoids an overtly misleading translation while still concealing the identical nature of the life force in humans and animals.
The prophet Isaiah tells us that in the coming kingdom of heaven, "the wolf shall live with the sheep, and the leopard lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall grow up together, and a little child shall lead them; the cow and the bear shall be friends, and their young shall lie down together" (Isaiah 11:6-7). This popular passage is usually quoted for its depiction of the "peaceable kingdom." What often goes unnoted is that animals will participate in the coming kingdom of heaven as fully as human beings.
Although some claim that the animals in this passage are merely symbolic and that no actual animals will be present in heaven, there is nothing in the text to support this view; it is an unsubstantiated claim put forward by people who wish to ascribe a uniqueness to humanity that is not taught in the Bible.
The literal participation of animals in the kingdom of heaven -- and by extension, their possession of souls -- is described even more clearly in this passage from the prophet Hosea: "Then I will make a covenant on behalf of Israel with the wild beasts, the birds of the air, and the things that creep on the earth, and I will break bow and sword and weapon of war and sweep them off the earth, so that all living creatures may lie down without fear" (Hosea 2:18).
Based on these and other Biblical passages, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, taught in a sermon titled "On the General Deliverance" that nonhuman animals have souls and will be present in heaven.
Topics 
