Carnivores and the Fall

[Imaginosis]

If there were no carnivores before the Fall, then what did our current carnivores resemble before the Fall, their anatomy and physiology? What about Saber Toothed Tigers, for example?

 

[chaoschristian]

If there were no carnivores before the Fall, then what did our current carnivores resemble before the Fall, their anatomy and physiology? What about Saber Toothed Tigers, for example?

The large canine teeth of the saber cats were, pre-fall, hollow and used to drink the juices from large fruit, such as mellons.

As a result of the fall, these teeth solidified and were used as puncturing blades with which to seize prey.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The large canine teeth of the saber cats were, pre-fall, hollow and used to drink the juices from large fruit, such as mellons.

As a result of the fall, these teeth solidified and were used as puncturing blades with which to seize prey.

you know that someone is going to google into this thread, find this idea of yours, fall in madly love with it, and before long it will appear on their YECist site explaining how God created every animal a vegetarian. Then in a few months it will appear in AiG's newsletter and then we all will be able to shout....
we saw it first on CF.

 

[Proselyte]

Just curious, if some of you don't believe that there was no eating of meat before the fall, as the Bible says, why would it be in the Bible?
Genesis 1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all of the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food."

 

[random_guy]

The large canine teeth of the saber cats were, pre-fall, hollow and used to drink the juices from large fruit, such as mellons.

As a result of the fall, these teeth solidified and were used as puncturing blades with which to seize prey.

Actually, there's good evidence that this happened. Fruit bats have very sharp teeth, but it's only used to puncture fruits to get at the juices. I believe that the same mechanism were employeed by the saber tooth tiger Pre-Fall.

 

[shernren]

Did God ever tell anything that they couldn't eat meat?

Why do animals eat meat now? I don't recall God ever having permitted animals to eat meat, by your argument.

 

[jereth]

While we're on this topic, has it ever struck anyone as absurd that AiG (and other YECists) conveniently divide the animal world into "nephesh" and "non-nephesh"? It's okay if one of the latter dies in a perfect world, but absolutely abhorrent to even contemplate the death of one of the former.

Nephesh animals: cats, dogs, horses, elephants, dolphins....

Non-nephesh: insects, prawns, worms, spiders...

 

[Proselyte]

Did God ever tell anything that they couldn't eat meat?

Why do animals eat meat now? I don't recall God ever having permitted animals to eat meat, by your argument.

This is a good point you have made.
In the lack of further Biblical information on this matter, it falls back on interpretation, which is subjective in nature. For me, I don't see the point in mentioning animals CAN eat vegetation, as stated in Gen 1:30, without that being significant. The same with Gen 3:21 where God clothes Adam and Eve in clothes made from skin, the first mention of animals in death it would seem, especially since Adam had previously made clothes of sewed fig leaves in Gen 3:7.
The mentions of these passages to me seem significant for a reason, as I believe everything in the Bible is important for a reason.
Thus, we are at an impasse of interpretation corellating with our world views.
As I said though, great point you made!

 

[GenemZ]

If there were no carnivores before the Fall, then what did our current carnivores resemble before the Fall, their anatomy and physiology? What about Saber Toothed Tigers, for example?

God changed the appearance and function of the world after the fall of Adam...

Perfect example would be the serpent.

Genesis 3:14 niv
" So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life. "

And, God changed the way certain plants were to be.

Genesis 3:17-18niv


"To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field."

So?

God was able (and did) change the original function of things created in a rather instantaneous way, to become representative of fallen Adam's newly aquired state. Some of those who prior to the fall had eaten plants, now ate meat. The world changed from a safe perfect place into one with dangers. That is why Adam had to live by the sweat of his brow. He had to now live by his wits. No more perfectly secure world to live in.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Proselyte]

God changed the appearance and function of the world after the fall of Adam...

Perfect example would be the serpent.

Genesis 3:14 niv
" So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life. "

And, God changed the way certain plants were to be.

Genesis 3:17-18niv


"To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field."

So?

God was able (and did) change the original function of things created in a rather instantaneous way, to become representative of fallen Adam's newly aquired state. Some of those who prior to the fall had eaten plants, now ate meat. The world changed from a safe perfect place into one with dangers. That is why Adam had to live by the sweat of his brow. He had to now live by his wits. No more perfectly secure world to live in.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Great reply!

 

[Imaginosis]

While we're on this topic, has it ever struck anyone as absurd that AiG (and other YECists) conveniently divide the animal world into "nephesh" and "non-nephesh"? It's okay if one of the latter dies in a perfect world, but absolutely abhorrent to even contemplate the death of one of the former.

Nephesh animals: cats, dogs, horses, elephants, dolphins....

Non-nephesh: insects, prawns, worms, spiders...

Let me cogitate.

 

[jereth]

For me, I don't see the point in mentioning animals CAN eat vegetation, as stated in Gen 1:30, without that being significant.

I wish YECists would stop twisting the plain meaning of the text.

Genesis 1:29-30 say (paraphrase) "God gave the plants to animals and humans for food".

This is a statement about the purpose of plants, not about the diet of animals.

Here's a parallel:
"Ford makes cars for people to drive as vehicles."

This does not mean: "Cars are the only kind of vehicle that Ford wants people to drive. People shouldn't be driving vans, trucks, 4WDs, buses, etc."


It really does seem that YECists have traded in sensible interpretation (not to mention common sense) in favour of their extra-biblical ideological obsession -- namely, "God didn't intend the death of animals".

 

[shernren]

While we're on this topic, has it ever struck anyone as absurd that AiG (and other YECists) conveniently divide the animal world into "nephesh" and "non-nephesh"? It's okay if one of the latter dies in a perfect world, but absolutely abhorrent to even contemplate the death of one of the former.

Nephesh animals: cats, dogs, horses, elephants, dolphins....

Non-nephesh: insects, prawns, worms, spiders...

Actually, the dividing line is blindingly obvious. All vertebrates are nephesh. All non-vertebrates are non-nephesh.

Now to go find out where God ever says anything about the backbone. (If the Bible doesn't mention the spinal neural system does it still exist, or is it another atheistic scientific illusion designed to give man prideful autonomy from God?)

And I'd better make sure I never get a slipped disc: a damaged spine might damage my nephesh status.

 

[Proselyte]

I wish YECists would stop twisting the plain meaning of the text.

Genesis 1:29-30 say (paraphrase) "God gave the plants to animals and humans for food".

This is a statement about the purpose of plants, not about the diet of animals.

Here's a parallel:
"Ford makes cars for people to drive as vehicles."

This does not mean: "Cars are the only kind of vehicle that Ford wants people to drive. People shouldn't be driving vans, trucks, 4WDs, buses, etc."


It really does seem that YECists have traded in sensible interpretation (not to mention common sense) in favour of their extra-biblical ideological obsession -- namely, "God didn't intend the death of animals".

That is your interpretation of it. It doesn't mean it's correct or wrong. We will find out one day. In the meantime, perhaps you can hold discussions without generalizing YECs in such a condescending manner, and remember we are all Christians who should interact accordingly.

 

[jereth]

That is your interpretation of it. It doesn't mean it's correct or wrong. We will find out one day. In the meantime, perhaps you can hold discussions without generalizing YECs in such a condescending manner, and remember we are all Christians who should interact accordingly.

I don't dispute the fact that we are all Christians. But can I please say 2 things:

A. When it comes to animal death, it is almost always the YECists who generalise non-YECists in a condescending -- or worse, a vicious -- manner. Just look at the way AiG (and others) talk about how we believe in a loveless "god" who delights in the death, pain, suffering, agony, etc. etc. of his creatures. Utterly shameful behaviour, if you ask me.

B. I personally believe that "interacting accordingly" with a Christian brother can include a stern word of rebuke when I sincerely believe that they are distorting the Scriptures to uphold a totally unbiblical doctrine (the doctrine of original animal immortality) -- a doctrine which they unashamedly raise to the level of a "gospel issue" by saying things like:
"Allowing death in the pre-fall world undermines/destroys the meaning of Christ's work of redemption".

To me, this comes very close to being "a different gospel than the one that was preached unto you". (Galatians paraphrase)

 

[Proselyte]

I don't dispute the fact that we are all Christians. But can I please say 2 things:

A. When it comes to animal death, it is almost always the YECists who generalise non-YECists in a condescending -- or worse, a vicious -- manner. Just look at the way AiG (and others) talk about how we believe in a loveless "god" who delights in the death, pain, suffering, agony, etc. etc. of his creatures. Utterly shameful behaviour, if you ask me.

B. I personally believe that "interacting accordingly" with a Christian brother can include a stern word of rebuke when I sincerely believe that they are distorting the Scriptures to uphold a totally unbiblical doctrine (the doctrine of original animal immortality) -- a doctrine which they unashamedly raise to the level of a "gospel issue" by saying things like:
"Allowing death in the pre-fall world undermines/destroys the meaning of Christ's work of redemption".

To me, this comes very close to being "a different gospel than the one that was preached unto you". (Galatians paraphrase)

I agree that when YECs mistreat Evolutionists in an unloving manner, it's the same undesired exchange. I would like us not to be divided but together as Christians, who are bound to have some differences. The stern way in which we argue here could cause some Christians to stumble in their walk, as well as turn off the non-believer lurker who may be curious how we treat one another.
We're only human, and it's going to happen. I certainly have not been above it myself, but it's good for us to recognize it and try and overcome it.

 

[GenemZ]

I wish YECists would stop twisting the plain meaning of the text.

Genesis 1:29-30 say (paraphrase) "God gave the plants to animals and humans for food".

This is a statement about the purpose of plants, not about the diet of animals.

Here's a parallel:
"Ford makes cars for people to drive as vehicles."

This does not mean: "Cars are the only kind of vehicle that Ford wants people to drive. People shouldn't be driving vans, trucks, 4WDs, buses, etc."


It really does seem that YECists have traded in sensible interpretation (not to mention common sense) in favour of their extra-biblical ideological obsession -- namely, "God didn't intend the death of animals".

Nope...... God will restore the original order when he returns to earth.

Isaiah 11:6-8 (New International Version)
"The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra."

That's how it looked before the fall. It does seem odd to us now. But, we live in a world that is functioning according to the effects of Adam's fall.

Should the unfallen world before the fall? Be not as good as the next world, where men with sin natures will yet live? Animals ate plants. Animals will once again eat only plants.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[jereth]

I agree that when YECs mistreat Evolutionists in an unloving manner, it's the same undesired exchange. I would like us not to be divided but together as Christians, who are bound to have some differences. The stern way in which we argue here could cause some Christians to stumble in their walk, as well as turn off the non-believer lurker who may be curious how we treat one another.

I agree with you that things can get a little too fiery in here. But as someone who has observed the creationism debate for over 8 years now, I can confidently say that most of the heavy fire comes from YECs and is directed towards their fellow Christian OECs/TEs. It is the YECs who have multi-national organisations, flashy websites, periodical magazines, multimedia etc. that are devoted to bringing down OECs and TEs. When OECs/TEs get lively, it is usually just "defensive fire".

Bear in mind please that YECs tend to group OECs and TEs together with atheists and attack them all together, using labels such as "compromisers". On the other hand, OECs/TEs are generally happy to acknowledge that YECs are legitimate Christian believers.

What is worse -- to call into question someone's spiritual integrity, or their scientific integrity?

Nope...... God will restore the original order when he returns to earth.

Isaiah 11:6-8 (New International Version)
"The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,

YECs are very fond of quoting Isaiah to us. But can they please do some basic study of Isaiah's prophecy first?
Here are some excerpts from Isaiah 65, which closely parallels Isaiah 11.

No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

So, you are saying that in heaven people will still die? And there will be sinners there as well?

The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.

Aha, so the serpent will still be around and eating dust (cf. Genesis 3). I take this to mean that Satan, or evil, will be in heaven.


Before you use Isaiah as a prooftext for "original animal immortality", please examine its context and teaching properly. These prophecies are highly poetic, and are made in the setting of the return from Exile. It is an error to extrapolate them straight to "heaven", and an even greater error to extrapolate them to "pre-fall".

 

[jereth]

Actually, the dividing line is blindingly obvious. All vertebrates are nephesh. All non-vertebrates are non-nephesh.
...
And I'd better make sure I never get a slipped disc: a damaged spine might damage my nephesh status.

LOL!

Seriously now, do any of the YECists who post in this forum accept this (IMO totally subjective and arbritrary) "nephesh/non-nephesh" distinction?

 

[Assyrian]

That is your interpretation of it. It doesn't mean it's correct or wrong. We will find out one day. In the meantime, perhaps you can hold discussions without generalizing YECs in such a condescending manner, and remember we are all Christians who should interact accordingly.

I think there are common doctrines that most YECs hold and they can be treated as common YEC doctrines. Most YECs believe carnivores are the result of the fall. Obsession may be a bit strong (though many YECs seem to behave that way). What I can say is that most YECs have bought into a raft of doctrines that have no basis in scripture: no animal death before the fall, no carnivores, all of creation cursed during the fall.

My favourite passage on the subject is Psalm 104 which shows us God providing prey for lions, right in the middle of a creation account.

Psalm 104:21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens.
23 Man (Hebrew 'adam') goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening.

I think Gen 1:30 tells us how God feeds his creation, ultimately every wild animal does get its food from green plants, lions and tigers included, it just come via grass eating antelopes. There is no other food source for them (some critters feed off sulphides in deep sea vents, but they are not chai nephesh are they )

We need to realise Gen 1:30 does not say there were no carnivores. If you want to insist on an interpretation that says there were no carnivores, you need to come up with scriptural backing to support that point. But it is something scripture never tells us, certainly not Isaiah 11, which is talking about the future not the past. Without a passage that actually says there were no carnivores, interpreting Gen 1:30 as meaning no carnivores, is pure speculation.

Actually, the dividing line is blindingly obvious. All vertebrates are nephesh. All non-vertebrates are non-nephesh.

Not exactly. Fish are vertebrates but they don't breath air, so by YEC definition they don't qualify as nephesh. I would say the dividing line is lungs.

However, this raises an interesting point about our fish eating hominid forefathers. I presume that wouldn't be a problem to YECs