Well, I will say this is a novel approach to the question. At least I cannot recall having seen it before. And it is quite persuasive to boot. So I will give this post high marks for both originality and quality.

I would count this line of reasoning as a strong argument in favor of death before the Fall. That said, I think we can draw parallels between these descriptions of carnivorous animals and the approval, yea even commanding, by God of wars and slaughter in the context of Sodom and Gomohorrah, the plagues in Egypt, the Conquest under Joshua, the Judges, Saul, David, and the exile, just to hit a few highlights. The Song of Miriam, Song of Deborah, and Song of Moses all describe approvingly things which would have been unthinkable in an unfallen world, and will not prevail in heaven.

BTW, I loved the title of the post. Great illustration, too. I will use our friendly neighborhood Leviathan and our friendly neighborhood Behemoth to springboard into yet another detail where Scripture does not gel with modern cosmologies. The description of these animals in Job does not fit well with any animal now extant. However it does fit quite well with a Pleisaur and a Brontosaurus. I would take Job as presumptive evidence for the existence of large animals now extinct in the living memory of people. I would add to that the existence of dragon and sea serpent legends in most cultures throughout the world as support for the idea that these creatures have been extinct for thousands, not millions of years.

Refining our point of discussion after the input we all have had the last week or so, I think the nub of the argument is that even given Assumption #1 and thereby rendering inoperative differences in details between Genesis and modern etiologies, the fundamental picture that emerges from the two approaches is radically different, and I do not see how to reconcile the two. However, there is nothing in real, empirical science that is at variance with a straightforward reading of the Genesis account.

That's my take. Have at it guys...
 

I've taken the liberty of going to Chad's blog and starting a discussion of the scienfic end of things (questioning Assumption #1) on his microevolution post from August. https://silentplanet.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/a-good-idea-gone-bad-part-i/#comment-326
Hope you don't mind my jumping in Chad. (If you do you shouldn't have linked you blog in the comments here! ;) )
 

The only time I'll object is if I get so drawn into the discussion that I can't get my research done!
 

Cheesehead -

That's an argument I remember well from the ICR guys growing up. And part of it I totally buy, actually - I mean that it's stretching it quite a bit to say that Leviathan is a crocodile. For one, that's not a sea monster! The Pleisesaur fits the bill better, though I don't think perfectly. I always err on the side of credulity when it comes to ancient myths of dragons and such. But I don't think this need mean that therefore our paleontology is totally wrong - only that we have a limited sample of what's out there.

Your rebuttal is fair, but I don't think it's decisive. God really is talking about creation, and doesn't seem to be referring to their fierce nature in the context of judgment on fallen man, as in the cases you mentioned. You might be able to counter that he can still glory in fallen creatures, but it still rings a little thin. I think you have some of the same problems here as I do with "I give them the green plants for food." This happens to all theological constructs though, when we think they are large enough to encompass the whole of scripture.

At the heart of my argument is the desire to look at both scripture and science with open, eager, and teachable eyes. All truth is God's truth. Even here, pondering what we are taught from natural history has led me deeper into contemplation of the passage in Job. My argument continues to be that these scientific stories (when decoupled from atheistic and materialistic spins) do not ultimately undermine the foundations of our faith, though they may indeed undermine some peripheral theology.

Is this a good place to stop for now, you think? It's been a wonderful conversation, involving tough challenges, points made, understood, and responded to. In the end, we all have had to back down somewhat, and have come to a richer understanding of the others' position, while remaining convinced of the truth of our own. Genuine thoughtful engagement - not a small achievement for internet debate!

I do hope you stick around, and don't completely abandon WFO for Chad's blog! Blogging through the Bible has been really rewarding for me so far, and I relish your continued involvement - even if you're a bit of a "fundy". ;-)
 

By the way, Chad, as an aside to make us look like the three stooges, I actually have some pretty significant beefs with Christo-Platonism. Don't get me wrong, I want to affirm the brilliance of Greek philosophy as much as the next guy, but I think we did end up taking some things on board that would have been better left at the station. I'm speaking of the distinction between the perfect "heavenly" forms and the imperfect "earthly" shadows. Platonism isn't Gnosticism, but it can still be more dualistic than we ought to go. For instance, our hope as Christians is not in going to a different spiritual place called "Heaven" after death, but in the resurrection of the body in God's truly redeemed and completed creation - new "heavens and Earth." This creation will indeed be "Heaven", not in the platonic sense of a spiritual ideal, but in the Jewish sense of God fully dwelling with his creatures.
 

.
 

By the way, Cheesehead, I wasn't authoritatively declaring discussion closed. I sorta feel like we've gone as far as we can under assumption #1 and defined where we disagree, and we understand each other. But if you feel like there's more ground to cover, I'll happily keep going.
 

It's been a great discussion. And no, I won't go away because this discussion has ended, unless of course, you stop writing...

In my estimation the discussion was helped by bringing in the neo-Platonistic motivations to Augustine's hermeneutics. From my vantage point the singular feature that is the takeaway point of the discussion is that we should be very careful when our hermeneutics lead us to conclusions that accord well with the views of those who do not identify with the Christian worldview. If our interpretation resolves some point of conflict with the message of the Bible and the current science, morality, philosophy or politics of our culture, it is then that we should be most on our guard.

I hope you come over to Chad's blog to discuss the science end of the question. I'll keep reading, but most of the time will lurk. After all, you can't expect me to be brilliant and witty all the time. ;)