Do the animals we see today look completely different than how they looked in the garden?
What need would have there been for fangs, claws, horns and camouflage pattern fur and skin pre death?
I've discussed this topic with some friends before. A lot of it depends on your stance of "death entered the world" meaning the world in general or mankind. Seeing as animals do not have souls in need of salvation, would they have been under the same restrictions as humanity during those early times? You can add in another variable by questioning how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden.
On that issue, I've heard some people argue that they were in the garden less than a week. Others I've heard argue for countless years. (Please note, these are friends of mine, not published authors or high-ranking theologians.) Depending on which answer you side with will determine some of your belief on animals. Did animals die prior to man falling from grace? After all, animals never had grace to fall from.
It's a fun topic to discuss, so long as people remain civil about it.
It seems odd to me that those who argue most vehemently against evolution, then argue that animals had to change (i.e. evolve) with tremendous rapidity after the fall of man.
You confuse macro and micro evolution. If God created a leopard with fangs and spots to hide to hunt he created them to kill. Death entered the world through sin, and sin through Adam. The animals were here already.
The Bible says that death spread to men because of sin. It's possible there was animal death before Adam's sin. Why would a lion need fangs and claws, why would a shark need a set of teeth for tearing flesh?
Romans 5:12 says death entered the world through sin.
To answer your second question, that is the basis for my op given... Genesis 1:29–30
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.
We tend to read the bible from our own point of view. We want it to answer our scientific curiosities.
The bible was written in a time and culture where science was not a priority.
The phenomena that we now classify as scientific, back then was attributed to ‘the gods’; they had a theological rather than a scientific worldview.
They also could not even imagine the vastness of the universe or time.
God accommodated himself to communicate to the early Hebrews in a language and cultural style that they could accept and that they were familiar with.
Questions like the one you asked are not really addressed in the text because it wouldn’t matter to those to whom the scriptures were originally written for.
That idea carries on into the NT as well. That question wouldn't pertain to the salvation of man and is inconsequencial to the theological application of scripture, the provision of Jesus Christ to deal with the problem of man's separation from God.
And yet in spite of the times and cultures of the day God can and has communicated His word clearly and without error through man. God is not inhibited by the culture and understanding of science of the day. That is a cop out.
I think this is a good point. I don't think Paul had animals in mind when he wrote Romans 5:12 because he knew that animals don't have eternal souls. Therefore, animals could have been dying pre-fall and it would get no recognition from Paul.