Yes, moderation has an element of "yielding" and "gentleness" as opposed to rigidity and stubbornness. Ellen White uses this very verse to counter the "extreme" and/or "extremist" views that some people have on this diet question.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You leave my mouth hanging open.

All I can say is what I said before: Enjoy.
But don't lead others down the same path such as in the title of your thread.

No vegetables huh? As has been demonstrated in the past, though I believe with another, I doubt you can support that statement. No one ever has. You would be the first.

I suspect someone, not necessarily you, but whoever started it that everyone repeats, without reasoning, but with plenty of emotion, that someone doesn't like their vegetables.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, or why your mouth would be hanging open. The table shows that vegans and meat eaters have the same mortality rates, whereas lacto-ovo vegetarians fared better. I suppose if you choose to compare vegans against the average meat eater you might be able to construe the title of the thread as being misleading. But I have never attempted to say vegans die sooner than every other group, only that they die sooner than their lacto-ovo vegetarian counterparts. This is what the study shows.


As far as leading people down dietary paths, Mrs. White writes plainly that we should not be teaching people to avoid milk and eggs. Yes, she says we should prepare them for the time when this step of eliminating these foods from our diets will be necessary. She tells us to teach people how to cook without them. But she expressly says that we are not to require them or teach them to give these foods up.

As a conscientious Adventist believer, I feel it is my duty to respect the counsel Mrs. White has given us.


There are many similar quotes to these.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you, kland, for being so willing to check the facts. We should always have a firm basis for our beliefs, and if they are not supportable, we should be happy to accept the firmer truths we find.

Perhaps I will be your first person here, and I hope that everyone will have sufficient evidence upon which to support the truth.

I will start with the Bible. The Bible is the best witness on this question.


In this verse, God has assigned Adam his diet of seed-containing fruits/foods (meat means "food" here). The qualification of "bearing seed" or "yielding seed" applies to the things which are included in Adam's diet. This diet would certainly have included tree fruits and tree nuts. We may be somewhat less certain about grains, though they are seeds, as they do not come from trees, and God seems particularly focused upon the trees. But the vegetable portions of a plant, such as the root, the stem, or the leaf seem to be clearly excluded in this diet.

Now let's look at what God gives the animals in the next verse.

Here we see the "green herb" mentioned, and no seeds mentioned at all. All of the animals were assigned this "green herb" diet. They were not on the same regimen as mankind. Adam and Eve had the privilege of the delectable fruits, while the animals got the leaves, stems, and roots.

But, after the Fall, God cursed the ground for man's sake. As a part of this curse, God added the vegetables to man's diet.

As part of this curse, God has now added the "herb of the field" and even "bread" to Adam's diet. This is the first mention of bread in the Bible, and the Hebrew word implies grain. It can also be used to mean "food" in general, but note that this is not the same word as that translated "meat" in Gen. 1:29.

Ellen White comments on the animals' diet of vegetables and grains which was given to man as well at the time of this curse.


Notice also that according to that quote, God had provided "fruit" for Adam and Eve. Mrs. White sets the vegetables and grains apart, and acknowledges that they were for the animals originally.

Of the curse, Ellen White has written the following, confirming that these vegetable foods were not part of the original diet in Eden.

That last statement makes it abundantly clear that the "herb of the field" was not part of the original diet. It was given "under the curse of sin."

It is my belief that just as the thorns and thistles, and the sweat-of-the-brow labor were given to bless fallen man, so also the vegetables and grains were to be a blessing to us in our fallen state.

And by the way, I happen to like vegetables.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A possible interpretation.

However, that's not exactly what your quoted verse says. Either: I have given you every herb (which bears seed) or I have given you every seed (from herbs).

Same with tree.

I would agree that there does seem to be an emphasis on "green" herb for animals. As opposed to brown herbs?

And that's what I'm asking you to support.

I agree, the "herb of the field" was "added". Context conveys something else than diet, though. What was main purpose of those verses?

But let's say that instead, the main purpose was diet. So, "herb of the field" was added. What about the "herb of the field" makes you think it is vegetables?

I must say that is a first I've seen that quote used. I'll have to look at it further. I do note that it does indeed have the word "vegetables". Not sure why you think it has something to do with distinction of between vegetables and fruit for our diet... I'll have to read it.

Yes, I agree that the "herb of the field" was not part of the original diet. But, we were talking about vegetables being added to our diet. What about that quote makes you think that?

This is talking about eating meat -- it's not talking about vegetables being added after the fall.

She is asking -- why eat meat and thus eat your vegetables secondhand THROUGH the meat. That is -- the animal eats it first, then we eat the animal.
It would be better to eat the plant based foods as they are grown.

That is a classic argument today.
If the world got rid of all their meat animals then the food that would have been used to feed all those meat animals would be more than enough to feed every person living on earth!

It's far more economic and nutritious to get our food from plant based sources rather than letting the animals eat it the plants first and then eating the animals.

Every plant produces seeds.
(Except those now genetically modified so people can no longer grow their own food, which is a tampering with God's creation)

But as God created plants he made each so they would have seeds to reproduce after their kind.

Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So to say "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genesis 1:29)"
Why would that be limited to "tree fruits"?

Or perhaps a third option would be appropriate here, something in between the two you have specified.

Here's what comes to my mind, at least, when you specify your options above.

1) "I have given you every herb (which bears seed)."

This would be all plants of the world which have seeds, including all angiosperms and gymnosperms. It would, however, eliminate all plants which have no seeds, such as mosses and ferns, and, if defining "plants" loosely, all algae (seaweed).

That this definition could not be true is evidenced by the very fact that the "herb of the field" was not included, and this definition would be so broad as to encompass every "herb of the field."

2) "I have given you every seed (from herbs)."

This is a rather interesting concept. It would entail the consumption of only the seed portions of plants. So, Adam and Eve would consume the apple's seeds, the seed of the banana (it must have had seeds back then, right?), and the seeds of the figs (imagine taking the time to pick those out) and of the strawberry.

That this concept cannot have been the case can be demonstrated by the fact that Eve was not tempted to eat a seed by the serpent. The serpent did not pluck out the seed of the fruit to place in her hand, nor is any mention ever made of the fruit's seed, or the diet that she should follow. Such a conversation would have been inevitable if the serpent had attempted to get Eve to eat of the leaves of the tree, for example. But God had forbidden the fruit, and it was the fruit that had attracted Eve's eye.

I would interpret God's words, not being a Hebrew scholar mind you, as commanding that they eat the fruits of trees in which the seed was in the fruit. This would include the fruit of angiosperm trees, but would eliminate the gymnosperms which do not have fruit, only a protected seed.



I think the lack of mention of fruits and seeds is highly significant, along with the word "green." An "herb" which has no seeds or which has no fruit falls into the category of "vegetable" or "grain." The final clarifying feature here I address below.

Thank you, again! I'm learning myself as I study this. I never before realized that grains were not part of the original diet. I'm learning, now, that they were intended to be animal food.


Here is where we may have to define that mundane word "field." According to dictionary.com, the first definition is given as:



"Open" or "cleared" implies a lack of trees. We don't generally think of a "field" of apples. We think of an orchard of apples, and a field of corn. We don't run a tiller through an orchard, but rather through a field. So the "herb of the field" is something that is in a cleared area (free of trees).


The quote specifically mentioned that the food of animals included "vegetables" and "grain." Separately within the same statement Mrs. White speaks of "fruit" having been given by God to Adam and Eve (our first parents). While the passage may have been more directed toward the topic of meat consumption, these peripheral details are nonetheless accurate and helpful in understanding the Bible's meaning.



I think the above comments have hopefully clarified my understanding and answered this question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

True. She addresses the food being added after the fall separately in another statement which I quoted earlier. But this passage also makes a dichotomy between the food of animals (vegetables and grains) and that given to our first parents: fruit.


Agreed. We should not be eating the meat unless we have no other way to sustain ourselves. (Some people are in that unfortunate situation, and I am thankful to not be one of them. I find meat absolutely repulsive and distasteful.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.