Carnivores and the Fall

[GenemZ]

YECs are very fond of quoting Isaiah to us.

So what? I am not YEC.

But can they please do some basic study of Isaiah's prophecy first?

I think this part of the problem. You assumed wrongly, then set out to correct what you wrongly perceived. Its quite annoying to deal with.

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?

That does not speak of Heaven! It speaks of the time of the Lord's Millennial reign over the survivors of the Tribulation, for 1000 years. There will be sinners on this earth at that time. Satan will be locked up for 1000 years, 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.

Sounds like that you have no idea what the Millennium will be about? Eh? That does not speak of Heaven. Just like Adam and the woman in the garden were not in Heaven.

Before you use Isaiah as a prooftext for "original animal immortality", please examine its context and teaching properly.

What? I should get the context? Its you that are making annoying assumptions, left and right. So far, you are batting zero.

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".

Oye! Just when I thought I've heard everything!

Now... Do you understand what the Millennial reign of Christ will be about? Its not about Heaven. Its about a new creation on this earth, that will last 1000 years.

You have never been taught this?


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Assyrian]

I thought the new creation, the new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:1) came after the millennium (Rev 20:6)?

 

[Mallon]

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.

Sorry to throw a wrench into the works, but some fish have lungs and are capable of breathing air.

 

[Assyrian]

How can they be fish if they have lungs? They are clearly a separate created kind.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now... Do you understand what the Millennial reign of Christ will be about? Its not about Heaven. Its about a new creation on this earth, that will last 1000 years.

You have never been taught this?



this is extremely denomination dependent. there are at least 5 major ideas of the millennium and someone who grew up in an amil church would NEVER have hear such exegesis in their life.

 

[Imaginosis]

Nephesh or non-nephesh, are there spiritual implications? Does one have a life force, spirit, soul, whatever?

By training I'm a wildlife ecologist, so I can dig this topic.

 

[shernren]

How can they be fish if they have lungs? They are clearly a separate created kind.

What about, say, mudskippers? Snakeheads? Are they nephesh (because they have backbones) or not nephesh (because they don't breathe air all the time) or nephesh (because they do breathe air)?
What about frogs? Aren't tadpoles not nephesh (since they don't breathe air)? So when in their developmental history do they become nephesh (since they do breathe air as frogs)?
What about sea squirts? Are their young nephesh (since they display a neural cord structure) and then the adults non-nephesh (since they anchor themselves down and the rudimentary neural cord is re-assimilated)?

While we're at the subject of kinds, how would you determine which kind, say, Acanthostega belonged in? Fish or amphibian?

Imposing ancient biology on modern organisms is anachronistic by definition.

What? I should get the context? Its you that are making annoying assumptions, left and right. So far, you are batting zero.

What is happening, Genez, is that the validity of your analogous reasoning is being challenged by challenging the "fit" of your analogy. We are quite agreed that whatever the Isaiah passage is describing, it definitely is not directly describing the pre-Fall world. So what you take it to be is a literal description of the Millenial reign and saying "look, 'carnivores' won't eat meat during the Millenial reign, so logically they needn't have eaten meat in the pre-Fall world either."

The problem is that
if I say "Cats have sharp teeth, lions are in the same family as cats, lions have sharp teeth" my analogy is valid, but
if I say "Cars have wheels, lions are dangerous like cars, lions have wheels" the analogy is obviously not valid.
Cats are similar to lions and so the analogy is more probably correct.
Cars aren't particularly similar to lions and so the analogy is more probably incorrect.

What jereth has done is to show that you're not really comparing a cat to a lion, you're comparing a car to a lion. Why? Because if the analogy holds, we can run it over the whole passage (or else there is no reason to hold to it at all, if one is to pick and choose), and we get:

Carnivores can coexist with prey in the Millenial reign, they could too in the pre-Fall world.
People can die in the Millenial reign, they could too in the pre-Fall world.
Snakes will slither and eat dust in the Millenial reign, they could too in the pre-Fall world.

The last two (which you obviously do not believe in, right?) show that your comparison of the Millenial reign and the pre-Fall world is effectively like comparing a car to a lion, and thus your argument by analogy is doubtful at best and plain wrong at worst.

 

[Mallon]

How can they be fish if they have lungs? They are clearly a separate created kind.

Most evilutionists would consider them transitional between fish and tetrapods. Most creationists would still call them "just fish".

Darn those class-defying taxa, eh?

 

[jereth]

What is happening, Genez, is that the validity of your analogous reasoning is being challenged by challenging the "fit" of your analogy. We are quite agreed that whatever the Isaiah passage is describing, it definitely is not directly describing the pre-Fall world. So what you take it to be is a literal description of the Millenial reign and saying "look, 'carnivores' won't eat meat during the Millenial reign, so logically they needn't have eaten meat in the pre-Fall world either."

I couldn't have explained it better.

By the way, Genez, rmwilliamsll is right -- you can't assume everyone thinks the same thing about the milennium. (Perhaps take a look at the eschatology or dispensationalism fora if you get a chance. For the record, I am an amilennialist.)

Anyway, it is irrelevant whether you think Isaiah 11/65-66 is about the milennium or the new creation. As Shernren pointed out, the problem with your logic is that you assume:

That which applies in the restoration also applied in the beginning.

This assumption is problematic in its own right, but even the Isaiah text itself disallows it. In Isaiah's restoration we have:
- human death (65:20)
- sinners (65:20)
- serpents eating dust (65:25)
- keeping of Jewish food laws (66:17)
- the Jewish priesthood (66:21)
- keeping of Jewish festivals (66:23)
etc.

So did all these things apply in the pre-fall world as well? Do you see the point we're making?

 

[jereth]

Nephesh or non-nephesh, are there spiritual implications? Does one have a life force, spirit, soul, whatever?

The Hebrew word "nephesh" simply means "life". It seems to be the quality of "animated life" that animals have but not plants.

All too often we see people rushing in and reading other ideas into the word -- "soul", "life force", "life energy", etc. But IMO these sorts of ideas are Greek-derived (or worse still, the product of Eastern/mystical/new age/animistic thought), and are alien to Hebrew culture. Hebrews believed in the essential unity of the person -- they did not think we were composed of separable parts (flesh, soul, spirit, etc.)

Creationism has gone one step further and hijacked the "nephesh" concept as a means of allowing the pre-fall death of some animals. This is because, despite all their righteous indignation about evolutionism requiring animal death in a "perfect" world, even they admit that in the pre-curse world certain kinds of animals had to die. Even they cannot conceive of a world in which worms, prawns and insects lived forever. So they speculate (and that's all it is -- speculation) that God has defined a "nephesh life principle" which separates the immortal animals from the mortal.

All this really does is demonstrate that creationism cannot hold together a consistent theological or scientific paradigm.
Theologically, on the one hand they jump up and down screaming "you OECs and TEs destroy the meaning of redemption by believing in death before the fall!" while on the other hand they themselves believe that vast numbers of small animals did indeed die.

Scientifically, on the one hand they insist that all creatures were herbivores before the fall, and that animal death was not essential to a functioning pre-fall ecosystem; while on the other hand they are happy for birds to eat worms and acknowledge that the maintenance of an viable ecosystem requires an ongoing cycle of life and death.

 

[GenemZ]

I thought the new creation, the new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:1) came after the millennium (Rev 20:6)?

There are two new creations. One will be for the Millennium. That is where the lion will eat straw with the lamb. etc.
During that time Satan will not yet be in the Lake of Fire. He will be locked up for the Millennium period.

Revelation 20:3 niv
"He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."


Satan will be released at the end of the 1000 years, and he will gather the last and final rebellion against the Lord.

Revelation 20:7-9 niv
"When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them."

The unbelievers that remained will all be destroyed. Then the judgement of all unbelievers takes place. The second death....

After that is over, then this entire planet will be destroyed and a new planet will be created to replace it.

2 Peter 3:10-13 (New International Version)
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness."

There will be two new heavens and earths. The next will be a new creation on this planet to replace this current world. After that serves its purpose, it will be totally destroyed. Then, an entirely new planet will be created to take its place!

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

What is happening, Genez, is that the validity of your analogous reasoning is being challenged by challenging the "fit" of your analogy. We are quite agreed that whatever the Isaiah passage is describing, it definitely is not directly describing the pre-Fall world. So what you take it to be is a literal description of the Millenial reign and saying "look, 'carnivores' won't eat meat during the Millenial reign, so logically they needn't have eaten meat in the pre-Fall world either."

And? I asked? Was the pre fall world not as good as the Millenium? Logic would have to say, 'yes.' For animals to eat meat at that time meant there would have been death by killing. That did not take place.

Genesis 1:29-31 (New International Version)
"Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all 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." And it was so.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

Now.... before anyone jumps with that to that conclusion it was meant to say it included plants? Let's see what is in store down the road.

If God wanted us to believe he also gave meat for food? He would have said so..... Just like he did later on!

Genesis 9:2-3 (New International Version)
"The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

Up until then the animals had no fear and dread...... No one wanted them for meat. Just like God gave plants for man to be food, the same wording was granted to the animals when plants were first given as food.

The problem is that
if I say "Cats have sharp teeth, lions are in the same family as cats, lions have sharp teeth" my analogy is valid, but
if I say "Cars have wheels, lions are dangerous like cars, lions have wheels" the analogy is obviously not valid.
Cats are similar to lions and so the analogy is more probably correct.

Good... you took a course in logic.

What jereth has done is to show that you're not really comparing a cat to a lion, you're comparing a car to a lion. Why? Because if the analogy holds, we can run it over the whole passage (or else there is no reason to hold to it at all, if one is to pick and choose), and we get:

Well, be that as it may. Now that I provided you with the additional passages for you to see, you will now know why I knew what I did.

Carnivores can coexist with prey in the Millenial reign, they could too in the pre-Fall world.

They were not carnivores in the pre-fall world. They did not have to be. The fact that they can become and function as herbivores reveals this. That is why I mentioned what I did in my post prior to this one.

People can die in the Millenial reign, they could too in the pre-Fall world.

I was only attempting to show you that animals we associate as carnivores can be transformed instantly into herbivores by God's command. That is how they could eat plants in the beginning. And, that is why they stopped all being herbivores after the fall took place.

The last two (which you obviously do not believe in, right?)

Bad wording on my part. I was only looking to show that God controls what a creature's design is to be. That it would have been very simple to have all future carnivores created as herbivores in the beginning of this creation.

....................De ded ded da! That's all folks!

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

And? I asked? Was the pre fall world not as good as the Millenium? Logic would have to say, 'yes.' For animals to eat meat at that time meant there would have been death by killing. That did not take place.

Actually, not exactly. We are told that the pre-Fall world was "very good". AFAIK, we are not given a similar statement about the Millenial reign which we can directly compare. Therefore we can't say with absolute certainty "the Millenial reign is such-and-such, the pre-Fall world was better, therefore the pre-Fall world must also have been such-and-such" until we can prove the middle statement of comparison.

Besides, why is it that animals killing animals would be wrong? Did God ever forbid animals from eating meat?

Genesis 1:29-31 (New International Version)
"Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all 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." And it was so.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

Now.... before anyone jumps with that to that conclusion it was meant to say it included plants? Let's see what is in store down the road.

If God wanted us to believe he also gave meat for food? He would have said so..... Just like he did later on!

Genesis 9:2-3 (New International Version)
"The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

Up until then the animals had no fear and dread...... No one wanted them for meat. Just like God gave plants for man to be food, the same wording was granted to the animals when plants were first given as food.

The problem is that if we follow a completely indicative (literal) interpretation of scriptural text with regards to diet as God commanded it, we get this framework:

Gen 1 - God gives plants to animals and man to eat.
Gen 9 - God gives meat to man to eat.
Torah - God restricts what kinds of meat man can eat.
NT - God makes all food clean; revelation that uncleanness of food is a ceremonial symbol of the need for man to keep his thoughts and actions clean.

The obvious problem jumping out of the record is: where did God give animals animals to eat? There are only two alternatives:

1. God did not intend for animals to eat animals and never commanded them to. This raises the massive problem then of how come nature is allowed to disobey God's will - isn't it only man who is made in God's image and given choice to obey or disobey? Has nature been able to sin by practicing carnivorism? Will its sin be redeemed, and how?

2. God did command animals to eat animals, but did not explicitly say so in the Bible. In that case it may be little more than your word against mine about whether God actually commanded it pre-Fall but didn't record it, or God commanded it post-Fall but didn't record it.

A possible alternative interpretation is that plants are indeed given for everything to eat - even carnivores. Why? Since plants are indeed the base of all food chains, and the only way solar energy can be transformed into usable biomass is through green-plant photosynthesis, we can indeed say that all food comes from plants, and that all animals indeed eat plants - even if only indirectly.

Good... you took a course in logic.

Actually, I learned that from a "philosophy of biology" book in a defense against Hume's attack on Paley's design argument.

Well, be that as it may. Now that I provided you with the additional passages for you to see, you will now know why I knew what I did.

I still don't. But I really admire your integrity - you're the first creationist ever who has looked at the whole passage and admitted that the link might just not be entirely solid after all, without additional support.

They were not carnivores in the pre-fall world. They did not have to be. The fact that they can become and function as herbivores reveals this. That is why I mentioned what I did in my post prior to this one.

I knew you were trying to say that, but didn't get it across properly. my bad.

 

[Proselyte]

Actually, not exactly. We are told that the pre-Fall world was "very good". AFAIK, we are not given a similar statement about the Millenial reign which we can directly compare. Therefore we can't say with absolute certainty "the Millenial reign is such-and-such, the pre-Fall world was better, therefore the pre-Fall world must also have been such-and-such" until we can prove the middle statement of comparison.

Besides, why is it that animals killing animals would be wrong? Did God ever forbid animals from eating meat?



The problem is that if we follow a completely indicative (literal) interpretation of scriptural text with regards to diet as God commanded it, we get this framework:

Gen 1 - God gives plants to animals and man to eat.
Gen 9 - God gives meat to man to eat.
Torah - God restricts what kinds of meat man can eat.
NT - God makes all food clean; revelation that uncleanness of food is a ceremonial symbol of the need for man to keep his thoughts and actions clean.

The obvious problem jumping out of the record is: where did God give animals animals to eat? There are only two alternatives:

1. God did not intend for animals to eat animals and never commanded them to. This raises the massive problem then of how come nature is allowed to disobey God's will - isn't it only man who is made in God's image and given choice to obey or disobey? Has nature been able to sin by practicing carnivorism? Will its sin be redeemed, and how?

2. God did command animals to eat animals, but did not explicitly say so in the Bible. In that case it may be little more than your word against mine about whether God actually commanded it pre-Fall but didn't record it, or God commanded it post-Fall but didn't record it.

A possible alternative interpretation is that plants are indeed given for everything to eat - even carnivores. Why? Since plants are indeed the base of all food chains, and the only way solar energy can be transformed into usable biomass is through green-plant photosynthesis, we can indeed say that all food comes from plants, and that all animals indeed eat plants - even if only indirectly.



Actually, I learned that from a "philosophy of biology" book in a defense against Hume's attack on Paley's design argument.



I still don't. But I really admire your integrity - you're the first creationist ever who has looked at the whole passage and admitted that the link might just not be entirely solid after all, without additional support.



I knew you were trying to say that, but didn't get it across properly. my bad.

Though we may different views, I like how you presented this rebuttal. It was very respectful and kind. Your tone encouraged me to be open to read what you were writing.

Good job!

 

[Assyrian]

Darn those class-defying taxa, eh?

Obviously evidence of separately created kinds... I'm going to have to stop doing this.

I was checking the Hebrew and sea creatures are chai nephesh too, so gills obviously count. But what they ate I do not know, green plants were given to the beasts of the land.

There are two new creations. One will be for the Millennium. That is where the lion will eat straw with the lamb. etc.
During that time Satan will not yet be in the Lake of Fire. He will be locked up for the Millennium period.

Yet Revelation does not tell us the former things have passed away until after the new heaven and earth.
Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...
4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

In Rev 21:1 it is the first heaven and earth that pass away, not the new heaven and earth to make room for a new new heaven and earth. The 'former' things that have passed away are again literally 'first things', which not only contradicts a new creation during the millennium, it contradicts a fall that changed the world God created. According to the voice from the throne, tears and death are part of the 'first things'.

And? I asked? Was the pre fall world not as good as the Millenium? Logic would have to say, 'yes.'

I don't see why. Is there any reason why God's new creation shouldn't be better than the first?

For animals to eat meat at that time meant there would have been death by killing. That did not take place.

I don't think the bible actually says that.

Blessings Assyrian

 

[GenemZ]

Actually, not exactly. We are told that the pre-Fall world was "very good". AFAIK, we are not given a similar statement about the Millenial reign which we can directly compare. Therefore we can't say with absolute certainty "the Millenial reign is such-and-such, the pre-Fall world was better, therefore the pre-Fall world must also have been such-and-such" until we can prove the middle statement of comparison.

Well? What are we told?

The pre-fall world was not fallen. Good start?
The pre-fall world had no creatures that was fallen.

In the Millennium? The world itself will be altered as to not cause death. Lion will eat straw. A child will put its hand in a cobra's den and not be harmed. If a person only lives to be 100, he will be seen as a mere 'child.' But, all the people who walk this earth at that time will be sinners. Some saved by grace. Some not.

Now? Before the fall? No fear of death. Not even thorns or thistles had popped up yet. And, not one sin nature on the planet. The Lord did not have to rule with and iron scepter, for the sin nature of man did not have to be kept in line. For man had no sin nature.

The pre-fall world was straight from the hand of God. No defects. The Millenium world was God altering the world as to give sinners a perfect environment to secure their well being.

From that alone, I would have to say that the pre-fall world was superior. You would not? Something that God created, as he created it? Was not superior to something that was fallen, and God simply altered it to make it better to live in? Without any fault vs. improved over malfunction?

Besides, why is it that animals killing animals would be wrong? Did God ever forbid animals from eating meat?

You want to believe that? Go ahead.

God told them to go forth and multiply. I do not know why God would want animals killing off each other when he only started with a few, and wanted the entire planet to be populated. To me, that makes no sense. Not in the beginning when we had an empty planet, and many plants for food, covering an earth which God first wanted to be populated by a few.

Can you imagine having only two of each kind on the Ark? How did Noah have meat on hand to supply any carnivore its meals? It looks like after the flood that God introduced eating meat for all. Not before.

How would Noah be able to hunt for meat for these animals, if man at that time never killed animals for food himself?

Genesis 9:1-3 (New International Version)
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

Noah was able to know how to hunt for meat to give some of the animals on the Ark? Grains and straw could keep for forty days. But? Meat keep for more than a few days?

Something to chew on.....


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

From that alone, I would have to say that the pre-fall world was superior. You would not? Something that God created, as he created it? Was not superior to something that was fallen, and God simply altered it to make it better to live in? Without any fault vs. improved over malfunction?

But can you show that carnivorism is a fault?

Can you imagine having only two of each kind on the Ark? How did Noah have meat on hand to supply any carnivore its meals? It looks like after the flood that God introduced eating meat for all. Not before.

But God never introduced eating meat for all. He only introduced eating meat for Noah and humanity, if we "take Scripture at its face value". When did God introduce eating meat for carnivorous animals?

 

[GenemZ]

But can you show that carnivorism is a fault?

Why should I?

But God never introduced eating meat for all. He only introduced eating meat for Noah and humanity, if we "take Scripture at its face value". When did God introduce eating meat for carnivorous animals?

I said a lot more than you chose to quote from that post. Interesting, that what you did not refer to, is answering what you asked.

Here.....

God said the same thing for both man and animals!

Genesis 1:28-30 (New International Version)
God blessed them and said to them,
"Be fruitful and increase in number;
fill the earth and subdue it.
Rule over the fish of the sea and
the birds of the air and over every
living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every
seed-bearing plant on the face of the
whole earth and every tree that has
fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

And to all the beasts of the earth and
all 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." And it was so."

God did not give the fruit trees to the animals. In the beginning he gave both plants and fruit trees to man.
But to the animals? He only gave green plants.

Did that mean man was to eat plants and meat, too? No! For it was not until after the flood that God first announced man was to also eat meat. He worded in the begining the same type of thing for both man and animals. Yet? Some here want to say that God was only giving the plants to be eaten along with meat.

Its really a silly argument. What makes it difficult is that some take the alternative thinking so seriously. As if the Bible strongly indicates that the animals also ate meat at that time.

Its you who need to prove that animals were to eat meat from the beginning. If you can not cough up some chapter and verse? Then you are simply creating an alter reality out from conjecture and sheer fantasy.

Genesis 9:3 niv
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

God worded it in the beginning the same way for both man and beast concerning eating plants for their food. It was not until after the flood that meat was added to man's diet.

When did animals become carnivore? When ever it may have been? This much we can know. It was not before the fall. For what was said in the beginning concerning eating plants was exclusive. Same wording. Both for man and beast......

Now, please pass the tofu... GeneZ


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Jig]

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

Creation physically changed after sin entered. This is clear from a literal reading of Genesis.

I heard someone say:
If God never intended carnivores to eat meat, then He would have designed them differently. For example, God should have given lions molar teeth for chewing plants. A lion, with sharp teeth for killing, is not an efficient creation for the processing of plant matter.

However, this assumption falls flat when you add in the idea that God did and could physically change the properties of plants and animals at a whim. Sharp thorns that could produce pain and physical harm manifested instantly, sudden and dramatic changes in the serpents anatomy occured.

 

[The Barbarian]

One of the problems with inventing new interpretations of scripture, is you then have to invent all sorts of unscriptural things to support them. A literal reading of Genesis says nothing about a whimsical God suddenly changing all sorts of plants and animals.

Better to accept scripture as it is, not as one might wish it to be.