The account of Genesis was not meant to be taken as literal history--to suggest it does is to take it out of context and make it into something it is not.
I think it was meant to be taken "seriously", and I dare say even "literally", if by "literal" one simply means that it should be read seriously according to genre and intent. Do I think the opening chapters of Genesis were meant to be a natural history as we'd expect of a contemporary scientist? Of course not - I do not even think it was necessarily the intention of the text to give a chronological listing of the events (since there is a symbolic logic to the order given, independent of how things may have happened in a historical sense.)
However, I do not think one needs to believe Genesis is a "20th century style scientific text" in order to...
a) doubt the validity of "evolution"
b) see glaring conflict between the Biblical record and "evolution."
Is it really an Orthodox teaching that there was a pre-fall world, or is the Orthodox teaching of the sin of the world basically saying that "Adam" (which simply means "man") sinned from the beginning?
In other words, that Adam was created a sinner, in the condition of sin? It is very important whether or not Adam had a "pre-fall" existance - otherwise, it is meaingless to speak of the "redemption" of mankind (and the cosmos), since it is no longer a redemption so much as a simple re-creation (since there never was a time when this universe enjoyed a peaceful existance, no matter for how brief.)
It seems to me that the opinion you suggest here would require a lot of twisting and rending of what the Fathers actually taught, or what the Scriptures themselves state (since it's quite clear they portray Adam as a person, who lived in Paradise.)
I do believe that Adam did in fact exist as a human prosopon but again, the whole point of that story was not to tell us the details of the first man's life but to show us the origins of our sinfullness.
Of course (which is why we are not given any such details of his life) - and the origin of our sinfulness is found in a literal, historical person, just as our redemption is found in a literal, historical Person.
To use the account in Genesis to posit some sort of pre-fall world is, in my opinion, wrong.
While not overstating their case with all sorts of details they had no ability to provide, it would seem the Fathers disagree with you (to the point of saying that humans did not even procreate via sexual intercourse before the Fall.)
It wasn't put there to talk about life "before" the fall, it was there to show that man was created by God and sinned.
It sounds to me as if you're coming close to saying Genesis' story of creation is a pious myth, with moral import (btw., I'm not poo-pooing the value of such myths/parables, simply stating that it sounds as if you're moving the Bible's creation story to this category of literature.)
I don't believe that animals would not have died if Adam hadn't sinned. I believe that Adam's sin did have cosmic implications, however.
What implications would those be then? Btw., what do you make of the following verse...
Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it. (Wisdom 2:24)
?
Seraphim
The latest passage posted on the Church Fathers thread is possibly relevant here. In what way does Hippolytus seem to interpret Genesis?
He is saying that Eden was and is real, and was truly created as I see it.