Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Subduction Zone]

What am I adding? Nothing. It says six days, I believe it's six days. It says the flood was over the whole earth, I believe it.

But we know that is not the case. Using the ostrich defense does not change reality.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Obviously not, the Bible indicates different kinds at creation.

The new Testament says that there are four types of flesh.
1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Then Genesis names 3 groups within the flesh of animals.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

Is Paul saying there are four types of flesh, or is he simply providing examples of differences between different creatures, because Paul's point is to illustrate that bodily resurrection isn't simply rescuscitating the body, but a transformation of the body. Passing from mortality to immortality, death to life, what is sown perishable is raised imperishable. That the kind of flesh we have now will be raised, but with a different "glory".

"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a soulish body; it is raised a Spiritual body." - 1 Corinthians 15:35-44a

Your quote from Genesis really only emphasizes the point I made. "Kinds" are not biological categories, but a way of saying "this and that", of making a distinction. So Genesis 1:24 mentions different kinds of creatures, not exhaustively, and not as discrete biological categories. Genesis 1:24 does not mean there are only three "kinds", consisting of "cattle", "creeping things", and "beasts of the earth", it simply presents an assortment of known creatures. Because ancient people were quite capable of looking around them and go, "Hey, that's a thing" and "Oh, that's another thing". That's a dog, that's a fish, thus are two different things, two "kinds".

A "kind" could be all cats, for example "cats" would describe the "kind" "cats". But there could also be calico cats, that's a kind of cat. That cat with a spot on its head, that's a kind of cat too. Tigers? Tigers are a kind of cat, a bigger kind of cat.

Bats, for example, are a "kind" of flying creature, an 'owph, a thing with wings. Which is why bats are a kind of "bird" in Leviticus 11:19, because 'owph doesn't mean "avians" it simply means "flying things" or "things with wings". Bats are things with wings, and vultures are things with wings, so they are both the same "kind" of thing; and within that kind--'owph--there are other kinds--vultures, hawks, pigeons, owls, etc.

This kind of gets me to one of my problems with YEC, YEC doesn't let the Bible actually say what it says. Because in order for YEC to "come out right", the Bible has to be changed to say what it never says, and to mean what it never meant.

The Bible doesn't talk about biology, it talks about practical observations made by ancient people; and those observations are not perfect. It's why they could speak about the "vault" of heaven, or a "firmament"--because it looked as though there was a dome covering the earth. If you walk to a place that's really flat, and see the sky touch the horizon in all directions. Why not imagine that the earth is flat or flattish, and that the sky is a literal dome. That description accurately reflects how someone might observe the world without knowledge otherwise.

And it's okay if the Bible mentions those observations. Because it is an authentic, and earnest expression of God's people making sense of their world. It really doesn't matter that an ancient Hebrew writer imagined the cosmos to look and be one way, and for them to be wrong because they simply didn't know otherwise. That doesn't cause any injury to the divine inspiration and power of Scripture to proclaim the Crucified and Risen Christ, Jesus of Nazareth born of Mary, the Eternal Son and Word of God who became man, being born during the reign of Herod the Great and who suffered and was put to death under Pontius Pilate.

What matters is the Gospel, not the scientific accuracy of the Bible. God's Word to us is Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hah! You would still be out of luck. Pterodactyls were not dinosaurs, they were lizards.

Aren't pterosaurs archosaurs, which means they would be more closely related to birds than they would be to lizards. Now marine reptiles such as the mosasaurs, those are--if I remember correctly--very closely related to the squamates.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[renniks]

But we know that is not the case. Using the ostrich defense does not change reality.

I'm not using the ostrich defense. I'm asking Christians why they don't believe what their Bible clearly says.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not using the ostrich defense. I'm asking Christians why they don't believe what their Bible clearly says.

I believe what my Bible says.

I just disagree with you about what it's saying.

You believe that there was a literal talking serpent.

I believe that Jesus literally gives us His true flesh and true blood in, with, and under the bread and wine of His Supper.

As far as I'm concerned those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, those who deny the efficacious grace of Holy Baptism, are literally denying what the Bible very plainly says.

My Bible says that we are born again by a new birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), and that is found in Holy Baptism, where there is water and the Spirit (Acts of the Apostles 2:38), and by this Sacrament God actually does something to us and for us, in Baptism we have died with, been buried with, and have been raised with Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-4), having been clothed with Christ (Galatians 3:27), and for this reason "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).

And yet, I have met dozens if not hundreds of Christians who don't believe that.

Before asking why other Christians aren't believing what their Bible clearly says, maybe look at the log in your own eye before dragging your brother down because of the speck you perceive in his.

And on these matters, I have a great deal of weight and support in the form of two thousand years of Christian teaching, interpretation, and tradition--on both reading the creation stories non-literally as well as my belief and confession of the Holy Sacraments personally instituted and commanded by Christ Jesus our Lord and God.

If those of us who don't believe in a literal six day creation week, or a literal flood are to be accused of "not believing the Bible", then what excuse is it for those who do not believe in the explicit and express word of Christ-God which was given directly to His Church, and which the Church has kept, confessed, and believing since the beginning?

Your metric for "biblical belief" simply isn't the metric most Christians have ever used; because it is a fundamentally modern, innovative, and ahistoric metric and system of beliefs. It is not the biblical, orthodox, and historic Christian faith which Christ gave to His Holy Apostles, and for His Church to retain and confess in the world.

It is perfectly orthodox if you personally believe that the creation week is literal. But it is not orthodox to demand that others follow your personal theological opinions. What is orthodox is that which has been confessed from the beginning, and which has been stressed in the Creeds by the ancient Councils of the Christian Church.

Genesis Literalism and Young Earth Creationism are not tenets of orthodox Christian dogma.

That Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist, and that through Baptism we receive new birth by the Holy Spirit in Christ--those things actually are tenets of orthodox Christian dogma.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sjastro]

I'm not using the ostrich defense. I'm asking Christians why they don't believe what their Bible clearly says.

I imagine the vast majority of Christians find slavery morally repugnant.
Should they believe slavery is acceptable since the Bible condones it?

 

[renniks]

believe that Jesus literally gives us His true flesh and true blood in, with, and under the bread and wine of His Supper.

That's not what he said tho'. He said "this is my flesh and blood."
Not that it's "in" "with" or "under".
But literally no one takes that literally.

And it's a lot more nuanced than literal historical account.

 

[renniks]

I imagine the vast majority of Christians find slavery morally repugnant.
Should they believe slavery is acceptable since the Bible condones it?

Does it? It doesn't condemn it, but it does it condone it?
It's just there because it's part of human History.

 

[sjastro]

Does it? It doesn't condemn it, but it does it condone it?
It's just there because it's part of human History.

Of course the Bible condones it.
The Bible doesn't simply record slavery in a historical context.

For example.
Ephesians 6:5-8 “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh".
1 Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered."

To name a few.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

From Answers in Genisis

How dinosaurs lived with man, how they were preserved on Noah’s ark—likely as juveniles—and what happened to dinosaurs after the flood
​

The Dinosaur "Hurdle"

But the biggest hurdle people have when they see any of our displays of the ark (or visit the Ark Encounter) is seeing dinosaurs depicted on the ark (or in stalls in the Ark Encounter). Due to evolutionary indoctrination, many people can't picture man living alongside dinosaurs, or if they do, they think of the Jurassic Park/World movies and view all dinosaurs as wanting to trample or eat people. Even if they overcome or set aside this stumbling block, we still get questions of how dinosaurs could even fit on the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs, especially the sauropods. Other oft-cited "problems" with dinosaurs on the ark are feeding the herbivores the massive amounts of vegetation that the adults eat, feeding the carnivorous ones (and avoiding being eaten by them), and cleaning up after them.

It makes more sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles (or sub-adults) or smaller varieties within the same kind.​

Crunching the Numbers

Noah also did not have to bring marine animals, bacteria, fungi, or plants (except as possible food sources) and many (if any) insects onto the ark.​

But How Could Noah Care for the Dinosaurs on the Ark?

We need to keep in mind that Noah was a very intelligent man and was obeying God’s commands by faith (Hebrews 11:7). And it was God’s desire that the animals on the ark were well cared for and able to disembark healthy and repopulate the new world.​

Dinosaurs Were on the Ark and Dinosaurs Came off the Ark
The evolutionary story is that dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago, long before humans evolved. But Scripture tells a quite different account.

The giants survived the flood that includes the dinosaurs. They are included in giantism.
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

[coffee4u]

So since we are the monkey kind there was no need for other primates.

Got it.

Obviously not

1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

 

[renniks]

Of course the Bible condones it.
The Bible doesn't simply record slavery in a historical context.

For example.
Ephesians 6:5-8 “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh".
1 Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered."

To name a few.

That's not an endorsement of slavery. It's just telling slaves what kind of people to be.

 

[Lost4words]

I am just thankful that there were 2 Corgi's on the Ark!

 

[AV1611VET]

I am just thankful that there were 2 Corgi's on the Ark!

They cute!

 

[coffee4u]

Is Paul saying there are four types of flesh, or is he simply providing examples of differences between different creatures, because Paul's point is to illustrate that bodily resurrection isn't simply rescuscitating the body, but a transformation of the body. Passing from mortality to immortality, death to life, what is sown perishable is raised imperishable. That the kind of flesh we have now will be raised, but with a different "glory".

"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a soulish body; it is raised a Spiritual body." - 1 Corinthians 15:35-44a

Your quote from Genesis really only emphasizes the point I made. "Kinds" are not biological categories, but a way of saying "this and that", of making a distinction. So Genesis 1:24 mentions different kinds of creatures, not exhaustively, and not as discrete biological categories. Genesis 1:24 does not mean there are only three "kinds", consisting of "cattle", "creeping things", and "beasts of the earth", it simply presents an assortment of known creatures. Because ancient people were quite capable of looking around them and go, "Hey, that's a thing" and "Oh, that's another thing". That's a dog, that's a fish, thus are two different things, two "kinds".

A "kind" could be all cats, for example "cats" would describe the "kind" "cats". But there could also be calico cats, that's a kind of cat. That cat with a spot on its head, that's a kind of cat too. Tigers? Tigers are a kind of cat, a bigger kind of cat.

Bats, for example, are a "kind" of flying creature, an 'owph, a thing with wings. Which is why bats are a kind of "bird" in Leviticus 11:19, because 'owph doesn't mean "avians" it simply means "flying things" or "things with wings". Bats are things with wings, and vultures are things with wings, so they are both the same "kind" of thing; and within that kind--'owph--there are other kinds--vultures, hawks, pigeons, owls, etc.

This kind of gets me to one of my problems with YEC, YEC doesn't let the Bible actually say what it says. Because in order for YEC to "come out right", the Bible has to be changed to say what it never says, and to mean what it never meant.

The Bible doesn't talk about biology, it talks about practical observations made by ancient people; and those observations are not perfect. It's why they could speak about the "vault" of heaven, or a "firmament"--because it looked as though there was a dome covering the earth. If you walk to a place that's really flat, and see the sky touch the horizon in all directions. Why not imagine that the earth is flat or flattish, and that the sky is a literal dome. That description accurately reflects how someone might observe the world without knowledge otherwise.

And it's okay if the Bible mentions those observations. Because it is an authentic, and earnest expression of God's people making sense of their world. It really doesn't matter that an ancient Hebrew writer imagined the cosmos to look and be one way, and for them to be wrong because they simply didn't know otherwise. That doesn't cause any injury to the divine inspiration and power of Scripture to proclaim the Crucified and Risen Christ, Jesus of Nazareth born of Mary, the Eternal Son and Word of God who became man, being born during the reign of Herod the Great and who suffered and was put to death under Pontius Pilate.

What matters is the Gospel, not the scientific accuracy of the Bible. God's Word to us is Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

And you ignored the practicalities of Adam naming them all. So no it wasn't 'all cats'. God gave Adam the task of naming the animals, he did not sit and name 8 million creatures.

Your pleading to science over 'biological categories' is meaningless. Science can only test the here and now and the labels given such as felidae are man made labels.
The scripture does not give man made wisdom, it is God's wisdom. There is no way to know exactly what a kind was, they are gone. There are hints such as a tiger and a lion can have offspring together indicating that they did come from the same kind, but that is all. The world that God made is gone, those animals are gone. The animals were changed at the fall and again after the flood. The groaning world includes the animals upon it.
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Nothing remained the same and looking at the current world and claiming anything about the past world would be like comparing baked bread with dough and expecting them to be the same.

Yes, the gospel is what matters. It is because of the gospel that we believe this.
What does the gospel teach us? That we are sinners in need of a savior and that Jesus is the savior.
What is sin and how did it come to be goes right back to Adam and original sin.
If you merely evolved from an ape like creature with death occurring over a millions of years you have wiped the gospel message that sin caused death.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
Not some parable but a real man, who did a real dead, with real consequences.
How can that passage be read without referring back to Adam?

1 Corinthians 15:45

45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Jesus is the second Adam because he righted the wrong that Adam caused.
It is all tied together.

As to the passage on flesh, of course. I agree that Paul's point is to illustrate that bodily resurrection isn't simply resuscitating the body, but a transformation of the body. But passages often have hints to more than one thing. Paul would not have used those as an example if he did not actually believe that humans had a distinct type of flesh from that of animals, birds and fish.

 

[sjastro]

That's not an endorsement of slavery. It's just telling slaves what kind of people to be.

It clearly is an endorsement or acceptance of slavery.
It doesn't repudiate slavery unlike perhaps this Bible quote.
Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

It's no coincidence that abolitionists and anti-abolitionists were selective in picking Biblical passages to support their arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously not

1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

A case of the Bible being wrong. The Bible is not a science book. The Bible also only refers to the Earth as being flat in word and deed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not using the ostrich defense. I'm asking Christians why they don't believe what their Bible clearly says.

You are. I offered to go over the basics of science with you. You cannot understand why Christians do not make your error until you learn a bit more about the world that we live in.

 

[renniks]

You are. I offered to go over the basics of science with you. You cannot understand why Christians do not make your error until you learn a bit more about the world that we live in.

I took science, but thanks anyway.

 

[coffee4u]

A case of the Bible being wrong. The Bible is not a science book. The Bible also only refers to the Earth as being flat in word and deed.

There is not a single verse in the Bible saying the earth is flat, not one.