The eventuality of man is the same as animals
solomon was indeed correct. The eventuality of man IS the same as the beasts. Just like how you can have "obedient" humans and disobedient humans, you can have "obedient" animals and "disobedient" animals. Balaam's ass. when she saw the angel she easily could have ignored it and kept proceeding. But instead she OBEYED the angel and stayed.
Animals are in fact, GREATER than you. For there are serveral of them that act more like the Lord than you do. All the animals that Jah declared "clean" were ones who WILLINGLY gave up their lives to sustain us. Others, who weren't willing, "fled." Jah destroys "man and beast," Jah also SAVES (as in a "salvation") "Man and beast."
The Last verse in Psalms say, "Let every BREATHING thing hallelujah!!" ('let every breathing thing praise Jah!') Animals breathe, plants breathe, fire breathe, all things that breathe PRAISE Jah. Ever wonder why the Master "cursed" the fig tree?
Well, the leaves were early on that tree, and so the fruit SHOULD have been early also. But since it was both decieving and REFUSED to bear fruit, the Master said, "Let NOBODY eat from you, at all." Such a fig tree my Father would not have planted. As a result, "every plant that my Father did not plant will be uprooted and tossed into the fire."
Indeed, when we all die, we are all "one spirit." Standing before the Judgement seat, there is no "superiority" over the 'spirit of man' and the 'spirit of beast.' We will all be esteemed "equal." We all will be judged of the things we did, whether good or bad.
The Bible can't be understood correctly without knowing the beliefs of the Sumerian people. They had writings and religion BEFORE the Bible was penned.
The Sumerians had beliefs about a serpent, a woman, a rib, a flood, and even a king who was put into a basket in the river and rescued (King Sargon).
It is reasonable to deduce that the writer of Genesis borrowed these myths from the Sumerians.
Abraham was from UR Genesis tells us. Ur was one of the chief city-states of Sumer. Ergo, Abraham was Sumerian. This gives further weight to the premise that the Hebrews appropriated the beliefs of the Sumerians.
It therefore seems pointless to dissect the Genesis account and would be more to the point to study the Sumerians. But they aren't 'inspired'; so that leaves the Genesis account as non-factual--mythology also.
Another flaw with Genesis is at Gen 1:30--all the animals ate green vegetation. The writer did not know about the existence of dinasours eons before humans. Many of them were 'meat-eaters' or carnivorous, not eaters of green vegetation. SO, the so-called sin of Adam changed nothing about the violence in nature--that had existed from the time of dinasours.
"I'd rather live with questions I can't answer than with questions I can't ask (or answers I can't question)."