# Death before the fall and carnivore diets



## kvanlaan (Mar 22, 2012)

So we know that there was no death before the fall. Now, what do we say when confronted with this issue: what would a wolf have eaten before the fall? Is it a new species? Can't be. For any carnivorous animal, what would they have eaten before the fall since there was no death?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 22, 2012)

Same thing everyone else ate before the Fall. (not being snippy). Just like humans and other carnivores their diets changed after the fall and their bodies changed to accommodate the difference. If my cat, who has teeth designed to rip flesh, subsists quite happily off hard, dry cat food I am sure his ancestor had no issue eating vegetable and fruit prior to the fall, even with sharp teeth.


----------



## Andres (Mar 22, 2012)

My dog ate some crayons the other day, so I am clueless here.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Mar 22, 2012)

I am not so concerned about what the animals ate- humans would not have eaten meat either!


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 22, 2012)

I know, but they were told and given to eat of the trees, etc. Wolves (the example above) are simple carnivores and have a different digestive tract, and teeth among other things.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Mar 23, 2012)

Maybe they ate what lions are going to eat in the new heaven and new earth.


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 23, 2012)

21st Century Calvinist said:


> I am not so concerned about what the animals ate- humans would not have eaten meat either!



Yeah... not sure I'm looking forward to that one in eternity.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 23, 2012)

SO then we are talking about micro-evolution with regards to teeth and digestive tracts but not macro-evolution. Or just that what is a carnivore today was an herbivore then but with all the same plumbing and incisors?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 23, 2012)

I would say the latter. I admit it is a crude example, but domesticated dogs and cats still have the mandibles and digestive systems of their wild relatives, yet eat non-flesh quite easily and without much trouble.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 24, 2012)

Some creationists - usually Old Earth - believe there was animal death and the eating of animals by animals before the Fall. Maybe they think it didn't impinge on the Garden of Eden.

If we take the position that there was no death whatsoever during the relatively short time period before Man sinned, then we have to posit that God's curse either worked miraculously and immediately on the animals and the plants, and maybe Man to some extent, or that it worked over a period of time.

I'm sure the various creationist organisations have some material, papers, thoughts on this.

From a YEC perspective, there might be very little evidence of the former vegetarian status of lions, tigers, crocodiles and sharks because the time period from the creation to the curse is short.

Some of these things seem as mysterious as the nature of our future spiritual bodies, but many scientists won't be working on them to see if there are any answers in the bodies of these creatures, or in the poisonous plants and fungi and carniverous plants, because it's not on their evolutionary agenda.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 24, 2012)

Prior to the fall chickens plucked themselves and walked into wolves and lions' mouths, sacrificing themselves voluntarily..."No, I insist!" they would cluck.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Mar 24, 2012)

I would appreciate incite here. I am fully persuaded of 6/24, no questions. What I want to understand more is objections to animal death before the fall. I most often hear objections from

_Rom. 6:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord._
A cursory scan of that passage seems clear that we are talking of human physical/spiritual death and NOT other forms of animal/plant death.

It doesn't seem we could conclude that animal death was necessarily brought in by the Fall any more than we could conclude that Christ's redemption applies to animals. It appears that difficulty would present itself taking this passage to mean animal death did not occur preFall.

On a philosophical note, it would have to be stated that God providentially protected Adam/Eve from vicious carnivores and prevent other animal from being eaten to extinction (or perhaps some were?) by said predators. The animals were brought to Adam to name. But, I suppose no more than the animals being "brought" could be the providence that they also didn't harm the man or woman so maybe there is not much force there. Perhaps the largest philosophical objection would have to be that death and killing, even of animals, would have been an expression of chaos/destruction and not creation/live giving. Couldn't the same argument be turned to plant "death," though? Adam is said to tend the garden - perhaps that is inclusive of all life, but it might only be said regarding plants and not animals.

I would appreciate any direction so that if I have a hole in my thinking I would be turned to believe the truth. But, if I understand what are read in the Scriptures, it does not appear that one must maintain a view that no animals perished before the Fall to have a Biblical/Confessional view of Scripture.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 24, 2012)

*Christopher*


> The animals were brought to Adam to name. But, I suppose no more than the animals being "brought" could be the providence that they also didn't harm the man or woman so maybe there is not much force there.



We don't know that all the animals were brought to Adam, but a representative sample.



> I would appreciate any direction so that if I have a hole in my thinking I would be turned to believe the truth



See C.S. Lewis's "Problem of Pain" for non-Reformed, but intelligent Christian, thoughts on animal suffering.

If the period between the creation of animals and plants and the Fall was short, as posited by YECs, then very little or no animal consumption or suffering may have gone on by carnivorous animals or plants, and the carnivores could have survived with whatever non-carnivorous food God provided them with. This is of course complete speculation.



> The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. (Ps 104:21, ESV)





> My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm.(Dan 6:22)


----------

