Dinosaurs and teeth

[MarquezsDg]

Hey guys hope this finds you well. Had a talk with my oldest and he asked me question a question that made think a bit. He asked me " Did God create Humans and Animals to be vegetarians before the fall? To the best of my knowledge i said yes. He then asked why sharks and certain dinosaurs seem to have teeth specifically made fro shredding meat and what teeth would they have had before the fall and when did they start growing these specific teeth.

any ideas how to answer this? not sure where this fits but since he asked it in regards to genesis i figure i ask here.

 

[Peairtach]

http://www.puritanboard.com/google....rd%3Asrc%3Dffb%3Ao%3D100000051%3Ab%3DSearchqu

Do a search on the PB for "vegetarianism pre-fall", "death pre-fall", "pre-fall animal death", "fall and animal diet", etc, etc.

It is certainly the position taken by many/most(?) Young Earth Creationists that there was no animal death before the Fall and that all animals were vegetarians. God's Curse on the Earth would have involved changes in animals and plants and many other changes.

Since the period from the Creation to the Fall was relatively short, how much trace of this is left is a moot point. Maybe there is some evidence of this in the constitution of animals and carniverous and poisonous plants (?) Creationist organisations like Answers in Genesis may have more on this.

Old Earth Creationists tend to take a different view, although I don't know how precisely they reconcile animal death before the Fall with Scripture.

 

[Jack K]

The idea of no animal death before the fall sounds sensible and fitting, but we really aren't given much detail about that period. Perhaps we ought to call that conclusion "informed speculation" rather than treat it as fact. In many cases when kids ask tough questions about matters like this, it's fine to speculate but also to tell them we can't know for sure based on the limited information God has decided we need to have.

 

[Andres]

In many cases when kids ask tough questions about matters like this, it's fine to speculate but also to tell them we can't know for sure based on the limited information God has decided we need to have.

Along with what Jack said it would also be a great opportunity to explain to your son why God gave us the bible and why there is much the scriptures are silent about. While the bible does contain elements of history and science, it is was not given as a history or science textbook, but instead "the scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man".

 

[rookie]

In many cases when kids ask tough questions about matters like this, it's fine to speculate but also to tell them we can't know for sure based on the limited information God has decided we need to have.

Along with what Jack said it would also be a great opportunity to explain to your son why God gave us the bible and why there is much the scriptures are silent about. While the bible does contain elements of history and science, it is was not given as a history or science textbook, but instead "the scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man".

Also adding here, I am a huge fan of creation/evolution debates and have watched many of them. Another issue that rises when I watch these is the classic case of "how many angels can dance on a needle's head".

In other words, we start splitting hairs, and really start speculating in certain areas that sometimes, we have nothing to support our claims.

It can be a very slippery slope when we try to explain away at everything.

 

[Eoghan]

During the second world war (?) there was a lion in London Zoo that was fed on fruit and veg because of rationing etc... it survived fine.

The Gorilla is a fearsome beast equipped with large canines - it looks like a fierce meat eater but it is vegetarian.
Foxes regularly eat fruit.
The sapsucker a type of woodpecker (insect eater) simply drinks the sap of the trees it drills into
The Flying fox is a type of bat (usually carnivorous) that eats fruit
There is even a spider which feeds on nectar

The problem is that Evolutionary Biology has told us that certain dentition is "carnivorous" and others are "vegetarian". We accept this, as we do with most things on the authority of those who tell us. We then take our assumptions to question scripture.

 

[rookie]

My poodle....loves pears, apples, rasberries all kinds of veggies....and his after effect....open a window, but healthy on all counts....

 

[Constantlyreforming]

gave my dog a bread and butter pickle last night at dinner. It didn't kill her but she took her time with it.

my thought is that dinosaurs could have been created with sharp teeth in preparation for the fall.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

The idea of no animal death before the fall sounds sensible and fitting, but we really aren't given much detail about that period. Perhaps we ought to call that conclusion "informed speculation" rather than treat it as fact.

I disagree.
I find by necessary inference that Death did not enter into the World until the Fall.
Did God not call all of creation “very good?” The Cosmos did not even contain thorns and thistles at creation (Gen 3:18). Is it not overt eisegesis to suppose noxious poisonous plants much less creature eating, death causing, beasts at creation? The first identifiable physical death in the bible is certainly when God made coats of “skins” (עוֹר) for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:31.)
There is NO indication of death prior to the fall of man either Spiritual or Physical, and reading that into the text is interpreting the Word of God by the Light of Creation, or better stated this is a case of allowing General Revelation to be the Interpreter of Special Revelation and must be avoided.


Furthermore it states explicitly in Gen 1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so."

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

See the following skull.
What was the primary diet of the animal to whom this skull once belonged?
View attachment 2889
It was fruit. This is the skull of the Indo-Malayan Fruit Bat.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

How about this one
View attachment 2890
Giant Panda

 

[Constantlyreforming]

Should the animal and plant kingdom be considered the same, in terms of their being affected by the fall? If Adam and Eve picked a carrot and ate it, there was death in the carrot, correct?

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Should the animal and plant kingdom be considered the same, in terms of their being affected by the fall? If Adam and Eve picked a carrot and ate it, there was death in the carrot, correct?

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”

Living soul (nephesh/neh'·fesh נֶפֶשׁ khah'·ē חַי) is never used of plants in the scripture.
Animals in Genesis 1:20–21, 24, 30 and Man Gen 2:7 were spoken of as neh'·fesh khah'·ē, not plants..

When we say a plant has "Died" in English, this "death" Scripturally represented, is described using the word literally translated withered yā·ḇêš יָבֵ֤שׁ
Or the word "Faileth," or "Consumed," having the idea in modern English of "Used up" or "Spent." This is the word kä·lä' כָּלָה

Isaiah 15:6 "For the waters of Nimrim shall be desolate: for the hay is withered away(yā·ḇêš יָבֵ֤שׁ), the grass faileth (kä·lä' כָּלָה), there is no green thing. "
Psa 90:6 "In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth. (yä·vashe' יָבֵשׁ)"
Psa 129:6 "Let them be as the grass [upon] the housetops, which withereth(yä·vashe' יָבֵשׁ) afore it groweth up:"
Eze 17:9 "Say thou, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Shall it prosper? shall he not pull up the roots thereof, and cut off the fruit thereof, that it wither?(yä·vashe' יָבֵשׁ) it shall wither(yä·vashe' יָבֵשׁ) in all the leaves of her spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof."
Eze 17:10 Yea, behold, [being] planted , shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither(yä·vashe' יָבֵשׁ), when the east wind toucheth it? it shall wither(yä·vashe' יָבֵשׁ)in the furrows where it grew.

Even when speaking using Anthropomorphism God speaks of anthropomorphic roots being dried up "withering"
His roots shall be dried up(yä·vashe' יָבֵשׁ) beneath, and above shall his branch be cut off.

The Hebrew word for die muwth מוּת, or death maveth מָוֶת is only used to describe the death of man or animal in the Scriptures. Never of plants.


The way plants were affected by the fall is as stated... thorns and thistles(Gen 3:18). I personnally take (With Calvin, see his commentary on Gen) this to inclued noxious, and toxic plants.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

excellent points! I stand corrected. (actually, sitting right now....)

 

[Peairtach]

Benjamin

Did God not call all of creation “very good?”

I'm not saying I disagree with you, Benjamin. I find your position more theologically satisfactory. But are not noxious plants, poisonous creatures, ferocious lions, etc, called "good", or are they not part of God's "good" creation.

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:9-15)

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (I Tim 3:4)

I'm trying to explore and clarify the different uses of the word - and the sense of - "good" or "goodness" here.

Are the creationists saying that the world isn't "good" when "every creature of God is good" , post-Fall? Presumably not.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, Benjamin. I find your position more theologically satisfactory. But are not noxious plants, poisonous creatures, ferocious lions, etc, called "good", or are they not part of God's "good" creation.

To say otherwise is to say that God curses things to "goodness." That would be a bit absurd. Please meditate upon Gen chapter 3 and pay special attention to verses 17 & 18.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;.
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

You would be saying here that "Because Adam sinned against God, the ground is cursed to goodness, and the goodness of thorns, thistles and by the goodness of eating bread by sweat of ones brow God has cursed Adam." shall it bring forth is future tense. It does not say it has already been created to bring forth.

Now while there were no thorns and thistles in creation, the argument would lie in the question:
"Did God create all things containing the DNA or ability to degrade through some process kicked off by the fall, or did God supernaturally curse them into their state of cursedness?"

Can it be sustained that death occured prior to the fall? Will we use Scripture or Nature to define this? Natural Revelation is not the interpreter of Special Revelation, or will one allow it to be? God has given us a clear statement of the "food" of all animals authorized by God prior to the fall.

Furthermore it states explicitly in Gen 1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so."

So I must ask you, are you arguing that at Creation, God gave animals a specific Law of nature that they are to eat the green herb for meat but somehow, prior to the fall they opted to eat each other in condradiction to God's Law and Decree? If you do maintain this, (and I am not saying you do) then by what evidence are you basisng the argument? (Because we see animals eating each other now?)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I think this is a foundational passage as regards death before the fall:

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 (Rom 5:12)​

And then in Romans 8 we read,

. . . the creature [creation] being made subject to vanity . . . [and] the creature
[creation] itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the
glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:20, 21)​

which is speaking of the subjection to death of the whole creation, and the deliverance from same when the full and final redemption comes as the Lord returns to establish His kingdom on the new earth:

. . . and there shall be no more death (Rev 21:4)​

​

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Excellent Post Steve. Thanks.

Those verses from the NT point out the danger in misinterpretation of the former in Genesis.

 

[Peairtach]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, Benjamin. I find your position more theologically satisfactory. But are not noxious plants, poisonous creatures, ferocious lions, etc, called "good", or are they not part of God's "good" creation.

To say otherwise is to say that God curses things to "goodness." That would be a bit absurd. Please meditate upon Gen chapter 3 and pay special attention to verses 17 & 18.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;.
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

You would be saying here that "Because Adam sinned against God, the ground is cursed to goodness, and the goodness of thorns, thistles and by the goodness of eating bread by sweat of ones brow God has cursed Adam." shall it bring forth is future tense. It does not say it has already been created to bring forth.

Now while there were no thorns and thistles in creation, the argument would lie in the question:
"Did God create all things containing the DNA or ability to degrade through some process kicked off by the fall, or did God supernaturally curse them into their state of cursedness?"

Can it be sustained that death occured prior to the fall? Will we use Scripture or Nature to define this? Natural Revelation is not the interpreter of Special Revelation, or will one allow it to be? God has given us a clear statement of the "food" of all animals authorized by God prior to the fall.

Furthermore it states explicitly in Gen 1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so."

So I must ask you, are you arguing that at Creation, God gave animals a specific Law of nature that they are to eat the green herb for meat but somehow, prior to the fall they opted to eat each other in condradiction to God's Law and Decree? If you do maintain this, (and I am not saying you do) then by what evidence are you basisng the argument? (Because we see animals eating each other now?)

You're basically saying that the creation is bad in that it has been cursed, but good to the extent that it has not been cursed, is not morally culpable and fulfils God's purposes, even to the extent that He has placed it under a curse.

And the references to the creation as good in Genesis 1 are references to it not being under a curse.

So you affirm the goodness of the present creation in one sense, but also affirm it has lost its pre-Fall goodness in another sense. Is that the case?

I'm not sympathetic to OEC, by the way, at least as to how it's usually formulated. The fossil record appears to be neither the record of slow evolution, nor slow creation, but of death, destruction and extinction.

 

[jwithnell]

Jack is spot on. I agree scripture doesn't tell us much on what was eaten, other than to tell man: eat of any tree except ...

I've often pondered this question though, because death permeates just about all life processes: trees die, bugs and microbes with short life-cycles break them down into soil, that soil raises something else that's killed and eaten by some critter .... and so on and so on.

The scriptures seem to indicate we'll recognize the new earth, but it sure will have to be different from this one!

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

I agree scripture doesn't tell us much on what was eaten, other than to tell man: eat of any tree except

but scripture tells us exactly what God gave for food... "it states explicitly in Gen 1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Can anyone that argues that creatures ate creatures prior to the fall answer how animals denied God's Law and Decree that they were to eat every green herb for meat?

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

And the references to the creation as good in Genesis 1 are references to it not being under a curse.
So you affirm the goodness of the present creation in one sense, but also affirm it has lost its pre-Fall goodness in another sense. Is that the case?

When God created everything and called it "good" I do not hold that God was intending to call death good, namely because there was no death prior to the fall, and death in relation to creation is an effect of the fall.

I maintain that there is zero evidence that death of man or animals in any capacity occurred prior to the fall. The burden of proof would be on those who claim death occurred prior to the fall.