Many philosophers argue that the bible, especially when it comes to creation, has to do with a concept linked to what most historians say is the evolution of man.
For example, most historians say the man was a hunter and gatherer. That is, they ate game animals and fruits that were in the way, and that later became a farmer, in the learning of agriculture. And such a thing is in the verse:
Therefore the Lord God sent him away from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.
At this point, philosophers create the idea that Eden understands the period in which man lived from hunting, in the period after Eden was tied to the earth and thus where he grew up, would eventually die. It may even look beautiful if it were not contrary to what the bible defines.
In fact philosophers use the bible in the system to nullify several verses that go against them, and accept some that are favorable. In fact this is hypocrisy as it would be like a well-known saying.
"Apart from the dead and wounded, all were saved."
What does that mean? That there is a mistake in logic, because if you take the dead and wounded, all were not saved, some and not all saved! Likewise the use of the bible has to be logical and not taking verses and nullifying others. Any book, or study, or even a trial, if you pull off sentences and stick with just what you want, can condemn anyone. A book or text must be analyzed in its complete form. Philosophers who seek to nullify verses to be with others are merely misrepresenting the content of the text. No writer would want such a thing to be done with his writings by distorting them.
For example, in the biblical text that speaks of cultivating the soil, after the expulsion from Eden we have the verse:
God said, Behold, I give unto you all plants that are born in all the earth, and bring forth seeds, and all trees that bear fruit with seeds. They will serve as food for you.
According to historians men were once hunters, basically eating meat, and hunting was a symbol of power, and approval of the gods. But in the biblical text it defines that before leaving Eden the food of man was completely vegetarian. Were it an anthropological analysis of the biblical text, it would be contrary to what many historians consider, for in the first verses man would be vegetarian, and no longer a great hunter. In fact, the concept of most historians cannot be linked to the biblical account of Genesis. This is because hunting animals in creation is not important, which goes completely against the philosophical imaginations that some try to make with the bible.
Were they judiciously logical, they would know that there is no parallel to the prehistoric concepts developed by most historians. Clearly seen that the main point of the anthropological system created is that there is a fundamental importance about hunting. Indeed, in the concept of these historians of prehistory, hunting was seen even by divine connection. But in the early texts of Genesis hunting is not even defined as important.
The big problem is that in most cases philosophers are just philosophers, historians, just historians, the logical foundation is nullified by the validation of an abstract concept. Now, for the abstract, nothing is what it is, and what is can be what I wish it to be. Fully anti-logical foundation.
Biologically, a man is not a carnivore, his saliva is not acidic, his gut is long, and meat eating favors the onset of cervical cancer. Thus, in fact, the verse in which man was made to eat fruits and vegetables is much more biological than eating meat. In fact, the use of plant food is also much more economical in terms of the terrestrial energy cycle than meat consumption. Indeed, if energy expenditure on livestock production and energy expenditure on plant food were to be calculated, it could be analyzed that world hunger could be over.
The human footprint on earth has been increasing the devastation for grazing, which we see in the bible that the foundation of man's creation is not in the act of eating meat. This is indeed shown by many thinkers.
Leonardo da Vinci said, "My body will not be a tomb for other creatures!"
"What a horror it is to put bowels into bowels, to fatten one body with another body, to live from the death of living things." Pythagoras said,
"Nothing will benefit human health so much and increase the chances of survival of life on earth as evolution to a vegetarian diet. The vegetarian order of life, by its physical effects, will influence men's temperament in such a way that it will improve in many ways." much the destiny of humanity. " said Albert Einstein
In fact, logicians analyze that the best health is to take care of health, while philosophers define that health is to be happy. The characteristic generated is that philosophers usually construct that the will is not controlled, and so being happy is bound to destroy the body a little and that this slight destruction is happiness. Logicians, on the other hand, define that the will can be altered and that the physical and biological laws must be observed, and the will must be linked to these laws.
Thus, physical exercise, ecologically correct nutrition, coupled with a holistic education, generates a real concept of joy, which philosophers doubt what is real? In fact philosophers like to turn on the doubt of what is real when the consequence is not instantaneous.
In fact you will not find philosophers saying that a person lives better if he commits suicide. Unless such a philosopher builds a situation in which man is tortured when in life. Now, to observe the rules is the reality and such rules must be linked to what is educated as happiness.
Philosophers usually cannot escape that physical laws are unchanging, and that human will is variable. If something is fixed, then trying to change something fixed is impossible.
For example, man does not fly like a superman, but the philosopher seeks the idea that he does, because he creates machines like an airplane. But again this is a fallacy, as such a machine needs several tools that obey various laws of aerodynamics, and has energy expenditures that follow physical laws.
In fact philosophers are terrified of physical knowledge, so when reading Genesis we should observe on the physical side, no matter how much people think it is not so, but we can see in the verse:
For from the creation of the world the invisible attributes of God, his eternal power and its divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through created things, so that such men are inexcusable;
Thus by physical knowledge we can see God inexcusably.