Dinosaurs?

RazorX · Feb 20, 2003

How do dinosaurs fit with the bible?

platzapS · Feb 21, 2003

Young-Earth creationists say that God created dinosaurs on the sixth day of creation, along with other land animals. They lived until the flood, which wiped most of them out. Dinosaurs were supposedly taken on Noah's ark, but few survived in the new post-flood climates.

Theistic evolutionists would say the age of dinosaurs started about 200 million years ago, and dinosaurs died about 65 m.y.a., due probably to an impact by a comet or other celestial body.

BudJohnson · Feb 21, 2003

Yesterday at 10:25 PM RazorX said this in Post #1

How do dinosaurs fit with the bible?

Well, many dinosaurs are very big, so fitting them anywhere is a trick. Maybe you can fit one of the smaller dinosaurs in an SUV or someone's basement, and whether you can fit it with the Bible depends on how big the Bible in question is. I've seen some Bibles that are enormous.

My grandma used to have a Bible that took up the entire coffeetable. I'm not sure how a grown man could've even picked it up, much less try to read the thing. Now, if you have one of those big dinosaurs (T-Rex, for example, and they aren't even the biggest!) and one of those grandma-coffee-table-sized Bibles, you're not going to fit those two together in anything.

My goodness, it's late, and I'm tired and half out of my mind on cold medication.

To answer your question (as if my first response wasn't good enough), how dinosaurs fit into the Bible account depends on how you interpret certain parts of the Bible. The "young earth creationists" will look at the days in Genesis 1 and interpret them as "24 hour periods of time." Thus, dinos fit in on day six. This view is commonly called "creation-science."

"Old earth creationists" either go with what's called the "gap theory" (too tired to explain it), or they'll say the days in Genesis are longer periods of time, or they'll say the days may be more figurative than literal "days." Most say the dinos died out somehow before man came, or that a few were hanging around with man, then kicked the bucket. These folks will call themselves "creationists" or "design theorists," but usually won't agree with the creation-scientists (some young-earthers call themselves "design theorists" also, since the label simply means you believe the world was designed).

"Theistic evolutionists" are like the old earthers, except they accept evolution as the way God created all the diversity in the biological world. The first group usually call these guys "liberals" (that's a joke).

 

I'm going to bed.

- Bud

 

Vic7524 · Feb 21, 2003

I wonder what some opions on verses such as Numbers 23:22, Psalm 29:6, Job 30:29, 39:9-12, 40:15-41:34? I think there are more but I don't have time to look them up. What are these animals that are decribed? I know the NIV attempts to give them names, but my KJV stays with the original hebrew names, stating that no one knows exactly what they are. Also the names given in the NIV don't really match up with the descriptions. Could they not be dinosaurs?

wildernesse · Feb 21, 2003

quote]Numbers 23:22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn (KJV)

God, who brings them out of Egypt, is like the horns of a wild ox for them. (NRS)[/quote]

Psalm 29:66
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.(KJV)

He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox. (NRS)

Job 30:29
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.(KJV)

I am a brother of jackals, and a companion of ostriches. (NRS)

Job 39:9-12

9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn(KJ)

9"Is the wild ox willing to serve you? Will it spend the night at your crib? 10Can you tie it in the furrow with ropes, or will it harrow the valleys after you? 11Will you depend on it because its strength is great, and will you hand over your labor to it? 12Do you have faith in it that it will return, and bring your grain to your threshing floor? (NRS)

So far, I don't know why the descriptions of these animals in the New Revised Standard translation are out of whack with what is occurring in these verses.

Job 40: 15-24, Job 41:1-34
15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride. (KJV)

15 "Look at Behemoth, which I made just as I made you; it eats grass like an ox. 16Its strength is in its loins, and its power in the muscles of its belly. 17It makes its tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are knit together. 18Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like bars of iron. 19"It is the first of the great acts of God-- only its Maker can approach it with the sword. 20For the mountains yield food for it where all the wild animals play. 21Under the lotus plants it lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. 22The lotus trees cover it for shade; the willows of the wadi surround it. 23Even if the river is turbulent, it is not frightened; it is confident though Jordan rushes against its mouth. 24Can one take it with hooks or pierce its nose with a snare?

Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down its tongue with a cord? 2Can you put a rope in its nose, or pierce its jaw with a hook? 3Will it make many supplications to you? Will it speak soft words to you? 4Will it make a covenant with you to be taken as your servant forever? 5Will you play with it as with a bird, or will you put it on leash for your girls? 6Will traders bargain over it? Will they divide it up among the merchants? 7Can you fill its skin with harpoons, or its head with fishing spears? 8Lay hands on it; think of the battle; you will not do it again! 9Any hope of capturing it will be disappointed; were not even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it? 10No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up. Who can stand before it?
11 Who can confront it and be safe? --under the whole heaven, who? 12"I will not keep silence concerning its limbs, or its mighty strength, or its splendid frame. 13Who can strip off its outer garment? Who can penetrate its double coat of mail? 14Who can open the doors of its face? There is terror all around its teeth. 15Its back is made of shields in rows, shut up closely as with a seal. 16One is so near to another that no air can come between them. 17They are joined one to another; they clasp each other and cannot be separated. 18Its sneezes flash forth light, and its eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn. 19From its mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap out. 20Out of its nostrils comes smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. 21Its breath kindles coals, and a flame comes out of its mouth. 22In its neck abides strength, and terror dances before it. 23The folds of its flesh cling together; it is firmly cast and immovable. 24Its heart is as hard as stone, as hard as the lower millstone. 25When it raises itself up the gods are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves. 26Though the sword reaches it, it does not avail, nor does the spear, the dart, or the javelin. 27It counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. 28The arrow cannot make it flee; slingstones, for it, are turned to chaff. 29Clubs are counted as chaff; it laughs at the rattle of javelins. 30Its underparts are like sharp potsherds; it spreads itself like a threshing sledge on the mire. 31It makes the deep boil like a pot; it makes the sea like a pot of ointment. 32It leaves a shining wake behind it; one would think the deep to be white-haired. 33On earth it has no equal, a creature without fear. 34It surveys everything that is lofty; it is king over all that are proud." (NRS)

Here we have two animals, Behemoth and Leviathan, that are the same in both translations. Are they dinosaurs? Could any living creatures be described this way?

--tibac

BudJohnson · Feb 23, 2003

Today at 12:53 PM lucaspa said this in Post #10

The short answer is: "They don't fit with a literalistic reading of the Bible."

Finding bones of large extinct reptiles in the early 1800s was one of the reasons that the story of Noah's Flood and the Ark was discarded by Christian theologians.  No one could reconcile those animals with Noah's Ark or the lack of descriptions of them in other literature or the lack of artwork.

Which interpretations should be included in one's "literalistic reading of the Bible" is a matter of debate. But to address your response more directly, what's the problem with the idea that dinosaurs simply weren't around by the time of the flood?

How you answer depends on what you think a "literalistic reading" means.

- Bud

 

BudJohnson · Feb 23, 2003

Today at 04:34 PM lucaspa said this in Post #12

First, I gave a history of what actually happened within scientific and Christian circles.  You can find it in much more detail in The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis A. Young. What creationists try to forget today is that scientists around 1800 were using the Bible as a guide for their creationist theories and the Ark was still an accepted theory. 

I understand, but I don't see how that's relevant to my question. Every time new data is uncovered, people either revise or discard their current views. This occurs in science, philosophy, religion, psychology, et al. So what?

 

 
Bud, what literalistic interpretation would suggest that? What text would suggest that any of the "kinds" created in Genesis 1 or 2 were extinct by Genesis 6?  Your whole argument relies on extrabiblical evidence.  And it was the finding of that extrabiblical evidence in the form of fossil dinos that led to the modification of the interpretation in the first place, remember?

I don't recall positing any kind of argument. All I've done so far is ask a question. You are the one who has set forth an argument in this thread - an argument which I find a bit questionable. You are arguing that every possible "literalistic interpretation" of the text must contain the premise that dinosaurs existed during the time of Noah. How can you justify such a claim? (Let me answer that: You can't.)

Since according to any literal reading of Genesis 1 dinos and humans should have been contemporaries, where are the artwork on cave or pyramid showing accurate renditions of dinos?  We have recognizable mammoths, wooly rhinocerus', Irish elk, and other extinct animals on the caves in Europe. But Iguanodon lived there, too, and there is no cave artwork.

"Any literal reading"? Let's make a necessary pitstop here. Before we continue this discussion, we have to pull over to the side and make sure we understand each other. So I must ask...

How do you define "literal"?

There are also so many other falsifications of the Flood as a world-wide event that we really don't need this one. 

Well, I don't necessarily believe in a world-wide flood anyway, so you're barking up the wrong tree here (I don't necessarily disbelieve it either; I just keep an open-mind, which is so rare in discussions of theology.).

- Bud

 

BudJohnson · Feb 24, 2003

Today at 08:00 AM lucaspa said this in Post #14

Today at 12:16 AM BudJohnson said this in Post #13

I don't recall positing any kind of argument. All I've done so far is ask a question. You are the one who has set forth an argument in this thread - an argument which I find a bit questionable. You are arguing that every possible "literalistic interpretation" of the text must contain the premise that dinosaurs existed during the time of Noah. How can you justify such a claim? (Let me answer that: You can't.)

Then explain why I can't.  Where in the text does it say that there were large reptilian creatures that died out before Noah? Genesis 7:8-9 says "A male and female of every kind of animal and bird, whether ritually clean or unclean, went into the boat with Noah, as God had commanded."

If you are reading Genesis literally, where is the wiggle room there?  All you can do is insert text into the Bible that dinos had died out before Noah, but if you do that are you still literally reading the Bible?

You're assuming that the Genesis account must be exhaustive in order to be accurate, and that's simply not true of any literary work. So Genesis doesn't say dinos died out before Noah... So what? The Bible doesn't say a lot of things. Does the Bible's silence on the issue of dinosaurs prove anything? Not really. All you're doing is inserting the idea that dinos and man must have been in the big boat during the flood. But the text never says that explicitly.

Your response: "But the Bible says every kind of animal and bird..." Okay, consider this hypothetical scenario: God calls you up and tells you to build a boat, and he wants you to put every kind of animal on it. Now, what would you do? Would you say, "I can't, God. The Do-Do bird has been extinct for some time now, so I can't put it on the boat." Or, would it be more reasonable to say, "Okay God, I'll put all the animals on the boat"? You have to consider that the command God gave to Noah (assuming it's true) was given at a certain point in history. "Every animal" of that particular point of history could or could not have included the dinos. And one doesn't have to discard a "literal" reading of the text to accept either possibility.

 

How do you define "literal"?

"It is this biblical literalism - where every word must be taken literally and unconditionally -"  http://www.christ-church.info/articles/alaqsa.htm

"Call it naive literalism if you will. I call it simply taking God at His Word" http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-068a.htm

et cetera, et cetera...

Interesting quotations, but my question is how do you define "literal"? Let me alter the question slightly: How should you define "literal"?

Well, I don't necessarily believe in a world-wide flood anyway, so you're barking up the wrong tree here (I don't necessarily disbelieve it either; I just keep an open-mind, which is so rare in discussions of theology.).

A world-wide Flood isn't an issue of theology; it's an issue of science.  Do you keep an equally open mind about a flat earth?  Earth at the center of the solar system?  Proteins as hereditary material?  Endochonral ossification of the skull bones?

Actually, yes, I do keep an open mind about those things. And in my objective, open-minded search, I find every time I investigate that the earth is neither flat nor the center of the solar system, and so on. And since I'm not an expert on science, I don't attempt to act like I know more than I do about such things as whether a global flood occurred. I've heard evidence and argumentation from both sides (and I'm not talking about "fundamentalist" sources either). Even if I were an expert in science (There's really no such thing, since an "expert" specializes in one particular area of science. There are experts in one area who are laypersons in most other areas. Don't be fooled: scientists are neither infallible nor omniscient!), I'd still keep an open mind, since science is an ever evolving discipline. Today's "good science" is tomorrow's antiquated bit of trivia. What's lacking in the scientific community is a healthy dose of humility. Thank God for those scientists who understand their limits.

All these are falsified hypotheses/theories.  They are untrue.  The same applies to a world-wide flood. There never was such an event. The final falsification came in the period 1820-1830.  Up until that time geologists had been limiting the strata that were due to a world-wide flood.  Instead of all the strata, only the most superficial gravels and morraines were thought to have been deposited by a world-wide flood.  However, it was shown that even these were not due to a world-wide flood, thus falsifying the existence of such a flood.  Biogeography was, at the same time, falsifying the hypothesis of all animals being on the Ark.

Like I said, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm sure you can find all kinds of ICR-loving young earth creationists with whom you can debate if you're looking to scratch that itch.

 

- Bud

BudJohnson · Feb 25, 2003

You're assuming that the Genesis account must be exhaustive in order to be accurate, and that's simply not true of any literary work.

If the account is not exhaustive is it still true?  I say 'no'.  If it has major omissions that you can fill in at will, then are the fill-in's still the "Word of God"? Or are they your word that you are trying to tell us is the "Word of God".

First of all, I've never said that my interpretations are equivalent to the "Word of God." Any conclusion at which I arrive concerning the dinosaurs' relation to the biblical account is merely that: my conclusion. I'd never say it was "Word of God." But since I haven't said anything about my thoughts concerning the dinosaurs' relation to the biblical account, I'm not sure what you're trying to pin on me.

Secondly, no historical work is exhaustive (I'm assuming you know what the word "exhaustive" means.). According to you, then, every account ever written in the history of mankind is not true. If I went to the Laker's game last week (I didn't, by the way) and told you that I saw Kobe and Shaq play, would that be untrue simply because I left out the fact that I also saw the other members of the Lakers (not to mention the members of the opposing team) play?

There is a difference between "not being exhaustive" and "containing major omissions." In the Genesis account of creation and the flood, I don't see dinosaurs as a "major omission." The existence of the dinosaurs is not relevant to the purpose of the text. If the Genesis account were trying to teach science, then leaving out the dinosaurs would be a major omission.

Also, look at what you are doing. You are taking extrabiblical evidence as the basis for your insertions. This establishes that extrabiblical evidence is primary and cause the re-interpretation of the Bible.  What you have done is destroy any argument against theistic evolutionists who also take extrabiblical evidence to decide that the Bible needs to be re-interpreted. 

Extrabiblical evidence is necessary. If all you had was the Bible, outside of the context of the world in which we live (i.e., if you decide to ignore history, philosophy, science, literature, et al.), then you wouldn't understand very much of it. Proper exegesis of the text requires going outside of the text.

By the way, why do you think I would be bothered by theistic evolutionists?

What I am doing is inferring from the literal text.  The thought process goes like this:

1. The text is literally true.
2. All kinds of land creatures were created on Day 6 (or sometime early in Genesis 2).
3. No major extinctions mentioned.
4. All kinds taken on the Ark.
5. Therefore, dinos should have been on the Ark.

Now, since there are no descriptions of dinos living with humans after the Ark, this becomes one more reason to decide that a literal interpretation of Genesis 6-8 is in error and that another interpretation is needed.

Let's examine your premises:

1. We haven't determined what "literally" means yet, but with that understood, I'd agree with Premise one.
2. You seem to be assuming that Day 6 (and, by implication, each of the other Days of Genesis as well) is a 24 hour period of time. But one who takes the text "literally" (again, what does this mean?) doesn't have to agree with this proposition.
3. No major extinctions mentioned. That's correct. Big deal.
4. Yes. (Presuming that we're speaking of a global flood.)
5. The problem with this conclusion - actually, the problem with this argument - is that it commits the fallacy of equivocation. "All kinds" in Premise 2 and "all kinds" in Premise 4 are not necessarily the same thing. To use an analogy, suppose "all people" at the end of the 20th Century lived to be (on average) 70 years old. Now, suppose that, 200 years in the future, "all people" will live to be 105 years old. Would you assume that the former "all people" were exactly the same people as the latter "all people"? No. After more than 200 years, we've got new people. Likewise, when the Bible says Noah took "all kinds" on the ark, all that implies is that Noah took whatever kinds were alive at the time. You're imposing your interpretation onto the text by saying dinosaurs should have been on the ark.

You're assuming that the Genesis account must be exhaustive in order to be accurate, and that's simply not true of any literary work.

Let's examine that claim. It's the end of Black History Month.  Now, for decades history textbooks never mentioned the contributions to science and technology of African Americans.  African Americans were inventors of blood transfusion, stoplights, gasmasks, and much more.  Do we consider those textbooks to be accurate history?

Those textbooks aren't inaccurate because they're not exhaustive; they're inaccurate because they contain major omissions. Remember what I said: There is a difference between "not being exhaustive" and "containing major omissions."

For the Bible, the omission of the extinction of such a spectacular group of organisms as the dinos (with the flying reptiles) has profound theological implications.  After all, Genesis 1 repeatedly says that creation is "good".  Well, how "good" could it have been if these animals weren't "good" enough to survive but went quickly extinct?  (remember, YEC has only about 2,000 years between Creation Week and the Flood)  What's worse, how could a perfect deity make such spectacular creatures so badly that they went extinct without any natural catastrophe?

Indeed, the existence of dinosaurs does have profound theological implications, whether they're included in the Bible or not. But a "profound theological implication" is not equal to a "major omission." Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible. Most animals aren't mentioned in the Bible. The extinction of the dinosaurs isn't mentioned in the Bible. Neither is the extinction of any animal that is now extinct mentioned in the Bible. "But the dinosaurs are different!" you may protest. And you'd be right. It raises some interesting questions. But just because these questions are raised, that in itself is no reason to discard the Bible as "literally true" (depending on how you define "literal" - this is an essential question, and you haven't given it the respect it deserves!).

This is one of the dangers of creationism.  In trying to bolster a literal reading of the the portions of Genesis they want to be literal, they end up with explanations that severely damage Christian theology.  In this case, in wanting to preserve the Ark story, you propose an explanation that not only questions whether creation is good but also the wisdom and foresight of God.

"Dangers of creationism"? Creationism is simply the belief that there is a Creator. What's so dangerous about that?

So an explanation of the text raises some questions. Why does that bother you? A thoughtful explanation of the text should be able to provide thoughtful responses to the questions that are raised. You appear to be throwing out the explanation simply because questions are raised. This isn't done in science or any other discipline. Why do it in theology?

Interesting quotations, but my question is how do you define "literal"? Let me alter the question slightly: How should you define "literal"?

Inappropriate question.  The isssue is how literalists define the term, not how I would define it or, even more vaguely, should define it.

  

This question is the single most appropriate and important question to answer here. You're basing your entire argument on what you consider to be the "literal" reading of the text.

Actually, yes, I do keep an open mind about those things. And in my objective, open-minded search, I find every time I investigate that the earth is neither flat nor the center of the solar system, and so on.

LOL!! And how often do you do the search from scratch? And why?  If a flat earth is falsified the first time, how do expect it to become true later?

I'm glad to see you're so easily amuzed. To answer your questions, I don't do the search from scratch, because it has been falsified. I don't expect it to become true later. Being open-minded doesn't mean you don't come to any conclusions. The earth isn't flat, and that's been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus, my mind isn't going to change on that matter. "Then you're not open-minded about it," you may protest. Maybe a lack of communication has occurred here. By "open-minded" I mean "objective." I'm open-minded about any claim that's made; in other words, I examine the claim objectively.

And since I'm not an expert on science, I don't attempt to act like I know more than I do about such things as whether a global flood occurred. I've heard evidence and argumentation from both sides

OK, sit back and let me lecture on the nature of science and deductive logic.

et cetera, et cetera...

Thank you for the lecture, but I think you misunderstood. When I said I am not an expert on science, I did not imply that I knew nothing about the nature of science or deductive logic. I understand both fairly well. What I'm not as familiar with is the arguments for and against a global flood. I've read some material, but I haven't focused on the issue enough to make my mind up either way. Maybe you have. Bravo. Regardless, both of us would do well to maintain an open mind about the issue.

Don't be fooled: scientists are neither infallible nor omniscient!), I'd still keep an open mind, since science is an ever evolving discipline.  Today's "good science" is tomorrow's antiquated bit of trivia.

What you are saying is that today's valid theory could be falsified tommorrow. And that is true.  Which is why science is always tentative about its positive statements.  Evolution is accepted as provisionally true.  Unless and until data are found to falsify it.

But it also means that the falsified theories are absolutely falsified.  In any of those changes, have you ever heard of a falsified theory being brought back as valid?

Considering this part of your response alone, I don't think we disagree here.

What's lacking in the scientific community is a healthy dose of humility. Thank God for those scientists who understand their limits.

Not at all. The humility is always there. It's just that there are some statements in science that you can legitimately be absolutely certain of.  The earth will never be flat no matter how many times you come back and look because the data that falsified a flat earth to begin with is still there. Data doesn't go away. Or didn't anyone tell you that?

Feel free to attack me personally. Knock yourself out, chief. I really don't care. The truth is, we're not discussing whether the earth is flat. We're discussing whether a global flood occurred or not (Actually, we're discussing what it means to read the Bible "literally," and how one views the flood, dinosaurs, and the creation account is an integral part of the conversation.).

Not everything scientists hold to be true is as verifiable as the shape of the earth. I wonder about the humility.

 

Keep it real,

- Bud

 

BudJohnson · Feb 27, 2003

But since I haven't said anything about my thoughts concerning the dinosaurs' relation to the biblical account, I'm not sure what you're trying to pin on me.

You made the claim that the dinos were created on day 6 but were extinct by the time of Noah's Flood.  If that is not a "thought" concerning the dinosaur's relation to the biblical account, what is it?

Where, exactly, did I make such a claim? Can you find it and quote it verbatim for me? If my memory serves me correctly, I merely asked a question. What I happen to believe vis-a-vis the dinosaurs and the flood isn't the issue here. Let's stay on task.

 

Secondly, no historical work is exhaustive (I'm assuming you know what the word "exhaustive" means.). According to you, then, every account ever written in the history of mankind is not true.

Now you are playing semantic games.  The issue is whether leaving out important events makes the narrative essentially inaccurate.

I never play semantic games. The point I've been trying to emphasize is that leaving out certain details doesn't necessarily make the account inaccurate. I suppose the issue now is whether the extinction of the dinosaurs is an important enough detail to render the Genesis account inaccurate. How do you think one should go about answering such a question? (There is an answer to this. I've given a hint below.)

 

If I went to the Laker's game last week (I didn't, by the way) and told you that I saw Kobe and Shaq play, would that be untrue simply because I left out the fact that I also saw the other members of the Lakers (not to mention the members of the opposing team) play?

Why didn't you address my examples?  In this case Kobe and Shaq are members of the Lakers and you are not denying that the rest of the Lakers were there.  In comparing this to your claim about Genesis, you would be stating you went to see Shaq and Kobe play but failed to mention that they wer playing one-on-one.  Dinos are kinds of animals.  Genesis 8 says that all kinds were taken on the Ark.  But dinos weren't included.  This is equivalent to your saying you went to see the Lakers (the whole team) but only Shaq and Kobe were there.  In this case you have made a major omission. 

What did you want me to say about your examples? I don't think your examples are comparable to the omission of dinosaurs in the Bible. Leaving the achievements of blacks out of history books is a major omission, because the purpose of history books (ideally) is to record history accurately and completely. What is the purpose of the Genesis account? (hint: This question is the key to answering the above question!) Is the Genesis account meant to be a detailed science manual, or a history of the animal world? No. Dinosaurs aren't relevant to the text's focus. The focus of the text is what happens to humanity.

By the way, you're still committing the fallacy of equivocation with the phrase "all kinds."

In the Genesis account of creation and the flood, I don't see dinosaurs as a "major omission." The existence of the dinosaurs is not relevant to the purpose of the text. If the Genesis account were trying to teach science, then leaving out the dinosaurs would be a major omission.

But you are saying Genesis is trying to teach science in that it is saying there was a world-wide Flood.  That's a scientific event.  You are also saying it is teaching science by saying that the current distribution of animals came from migration from a single spot -- the Ark.  You are also saying the account is teaching science by saying that all humans are descended from Noah's family.  Do you see the inconsistency is now trying to say that the Noah story isn't trying to teach science?

Where have I said Genesis is trying to teach that there was a world-wide flood. Could you quote my words verbatim for me? Also, where have I said Genesis is trying to teach that the current distribution of animals came from migration from a single spot? Could you quote that verbatim for me as well?

Call me silly, but I just can't remember ever saying those things.

The Genesis account is trying to teach science just as much as a person who looks out the window and tells his family "It's raining outside." The author of Genesis records that there was a flood (maybe a world-wide flood, maybe not), and Noah brought all kinds of animals on a big boat. "All kinds" must mean all kinds that were around at the time (and it obviously didn't include fish), and whether dinosaurs were around then is irrelevant - a side detail for people who like to debate particulars. Refer back to my Kobe and Shaq analogy: I pointed out the important details (i.e., the "superstars" Kobe and Shaq played); whether Rick Fox played or not is irrelevant. The importance of the dinosaurs in the Genesis account is comparable to the importance of knowing whether Rick Fox played that night or not.

You can't have it both ways.  If the Genesis account isn't trying to teach science then it isn't recounting a real historical event.  If it is recounting a real historical event then the omission of saying that giant reptiles existed at creation but went extinct before the Flood and therefore weren't around for the Ark is a major omission. 

Rick Fox.

 

Extrabiblical evidence is necessary. If all you had was the Bible, outside of the context of the world in which we live (i.e., if you decide to ignore history, philosophy, science, literature, et al.), then you wouldn't understand very much of it. Proper exegesis of the text requires going outside of the text.

Then why not accept the extrabiblical evidence that there never was a Flood and that the Bible does not really refer to dinos?  Why the stubborn adherence to the idea that dinos were part of the created kinds but went extinct prior to the Flood?

Please take into consideration what I've already said. I'm beginning to feel like you're not really reading what I'm writing. I consider the extrabiblical evidence against a world-wide flood as objectively as I consider the evidence for it.

 

By the way, why do you think I would be bothered by theistic evolutionists?

Because you are trying to save a literal reading of Genesis 6-8: an Ark that carried all the living kinds of animals and a world-wide Flood.  Theistic evolutionists discard such a Flood based on the extrabiblical evidence.

Even if that were true, why do you think that would bother me? Not all theistic evolutionists discard the flood anyway. Regardless, I'm not trying to "save" anything. You've dodged the question of what it means to read the text literally. That's the heart of this issue. If anything, I'm trying to save this discussion by bringing us back to this vital question.

- Bud

 

Patricco · Feb 28, 2003

Who's to say the dinosaurs werent babies when they were taken onto the ark? God didnt say "take 2 of every adult animal, male and female." And the word dinosaur wasnt given until the 1800's. Who's to say that the original word of dinosaur wasnt the word dragon, which knights went out to slay.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=15
This link has some pictures of dinosaurs, whether you chose to believe them or not

"Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did."

found from here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=23

LewisWildermuth · Mar 1, 2003

Yesterday at 09:30 PM Patricco said this in Post #22 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682966#post682966)

Who's to say the dinosaurs werent babies when they were taken onto the ark? God didnt say "take 2 of every adult animal, male and female." And the word dinosaur wasnt given until the 1800's. Who's to say that the original word of dinosaur wasnt the word dragon, which knights went out to slay.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=15
This link has some pictures of dinosaurs, whether you chose to believe them or not

"Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did."

found from here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=23

The first two photos (black and white) are forced perspective shots, like the ones used in the making of "Lord of The Rings", this trick has been around as long as photography itself. The animal in the photos looks more like a rotting dolphin than a dinosaur.

Loch Ness and Lake Champlain... Where to start with those myths... Scientists have studied both intensively but the only photos of the monsters come from fuzzy tourist photos? Come on...

And next we have the Japanese trawler photos... Sorry this was a rotting basking shark, they are found washed up around the area all the time. Samples taken from that specific find have been tested and guess what? It was a shark.

The photos from Massachusetts are probably a rotting shark too.

As far as that little stuffed thing in the Glen Rose museum, I do not know if it has been tested at all so I would only be guessing about it.

paradigm man · May 20, 2004

They were created in the first six days of creation.

HomeBound · May 31, 2004

RazorX said:
How do dinosaurs fit with the bible?

Another age in the history of the worlds God created then destroyed for this Earth.

SFBay · Jun 1, 2004

I think dinosaurs existed, there's just too much evidence to say they did not (I actually heard someone say Satan put dinosaur fossils on Earth to deceive us. Made me LOL).

I'm not sure whether or not dinos existed at the same time as humans, although I doubt it.

If they existed at Noah's time, then he did put them on the ark. Remember, the ark was HUGE, and seeing how there are thousands of kinds of animals I'm sure he would have found room for the dinosaurs. And they could have very well died out because of the way the environment changed after the flood. Which I believe is also the reason humans didn't live for hundreds and hundreds of years after the flood like they did pre-flood.

Hugs of Love · Jun 3, 2004

Did you know that lizards are the only animals to continue growing their entire life?
Did you know that before the flood, people lived for up to a thousand years?
That means lizards, too.
They could get pretty big in that amount of time!
After the flood, life spans started to decrease, dinosaurs couldn't grow as large.
The Lord commanded that Noah take two of each type of animal. If he did it again today, he would say to bring two dogs, not two golden retrievers, two german shepards, etc.
Do you get what I'm saying?
These are just my opinoins. Thanks for listening!

P.S. - Did you know that "dragon" in Greek (or something like it) means "large lizard" or "large reptile"

Chi_Cygni · Jun 3, 2004

Hugs of Love said:
Did you know that lizards are the only animals to continue growing their entire life?
Did you know that before the flood, people lived for up to a thousand years?
That means lizards, too.
They could get pretty big in that amount of time!
After the flood, life spans started to decrease, dinosaurs couldn't grow as large.
The Lord commanded that Noah take two of each type of animal. If he did it again today, he would say to bring two dogs, not two golden retrievers, two german shepards, etc.
Do you get what I'm saying?
These are just my opinoins. Thanks for listening!

P.S. - Did you know that "dragon" in Greek (or something like it) means "large lizard" or "large reptile"

OK I'll forgive you because you are 14 - but you really need to learn a little more.

People have never lived 1000 years - that is called mythology.
Dinosaurs are not lizards.
There was no Global Flood.
Dinosaurs died out long long before Mesopotamian flood myths.
Dragon is an Old French word derived from the Latin 'Draco'.

Ron21647 · Jun 4, 2004

So far, I don't know why the descriptions of these animals in the New Revised Standard translation are out of whack with what is occurring in these verses.

Here we have two animals, Behemoth and Leviathan, that are the same in both translations. Are they dinosaurs? Could any living creatures be described this way?

--tibac

I would guess that the Behemoth is an Apatosaurus (formerly called brontosaurus till they changed its name), and the Leviathan is a T. Rex. I am guessing that Job has found a couple of well preserved fossil skeletons, perhaps even in a cliff face so they are standing upright.

Or maybe God shoed them to him in a vision. Either way, I am confident that Job did not see either of these alive, because I do not believe that he was alive 100 million years ago. (but God was).

Ron

Ron21647 · Jun 4, 2004

Hugs of Love said:
Did you know that lizards are the only animals to continue growing their entire life?
Did you know that before the flood, people lived for up to a thousand years?
That means lizards, too.
They could get pretty big in that amount of time!
After the flood, life spans started to decrease, dinosaurs couldn't grow as large.
The Lord commanded that Noah take two of each type of animal. If he did it again today, he would say to bring two dogs, not two golden retrievers, two german shepards, etc.
Do you get what I'm saying?
These are just my opinoins. Thanks for listening!

P.S. - Did you know that "dragon" in Greek (or something like it) means "large lizard" or "large reptile"

Dinosaurs weren't lizards, they weren't even reptiles. We know that because the reptiles of that era were similar to today's lizards, but the skeletons of dinosaurs have little in common with reptiles, but a lot in common with birds.

Many animals continue to grow most of their lives, birds and mammals are two exceptions.

If it will make you feel better, I do believe that Noah took dinosaurs on the ark, but now days they are commonly refferred to as birds.

The dinosaurs that you are thinking of were all extinct more than 60 million years before Noah lived.

Ron

Hugs of Love · Jun 4, 2004

Thank you for posting up your personal opinions. For future readers, they need to remeber that nobody knows for sure where dinosaurs came from, how they died, how long they lived, etc. We are definetly entitled to our own believes and I think it's great that we can share them with eachother, we just need to remeber that they're not facts yet.

Dinosaurs?

¤The Blade of Truth¤

Expanding Mind

There is no spoon

New Member

Use less and live more.

There is no spoon

There is no spoon

There is no spoon

There is no spoon

There is no spoon

Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Learning in the meantime

Revelation 21:4

Mark 8:34-35

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Mark 8:34-35

Similar threads