Dinosaurs on the Ark?

[Job 33:6]

I hear ya. Good points you bring up. My take on scripture is that it's there...in black and white, and red in parts... yet humans have the instinctive criticism of the Word because we were born that way. People want to interpret it to fit their way, not necessarily His way. All this adds to the confusion for anyone who is trying to learn.

After falling for this myself, I like to "prove all things" according to the text with an open (God humbled) mind and I don't just take someone's word for it because it may sound logical and intelligent.

We simply don't have the ability to comprehend the power of God and the spiritual realm some of us will eventually get to experience and a lot of His Word is difficult to believe because of our mortal, limited logic. With God, all things are possible and I try to remain faithful by reading scripture to prove or disprove opinion based subject matter. If I'm wrong, that's fine. God will know my heart.

Not sure if you have one and could share but, I am hoping to get a Greek Bible sometime soon (and by soon I mean like later today). I am curious if a Greek reading of scripture might lead us to the same conclusions as say an ESV or a KJV.

I agree though, God will know best and He is truly capable of all things. Amen.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

No dinosaurs on the ark because there was no ark.

The flood story, in my opinion, is allegorical.

 

[Speedwell]

Ah, but it

No dinosaurs on the ark because there was no ark.

The flood story, in my opinion, is allegorical.

Ah, but it is so entertaining to imagine, back at the end of the last ice age, some proto-Noah who saved his family and livestock along with a reasonable selection of local wild fauna (who may have come aboard without his assistance) from a huge glacial flood on a raft or barge of his own construction. A ripping adventure, growing over the years in oral tradition until it becomes so epic a yarn as to be worthy of having a religious spin put on it.

 

[Apex]

Some believe that dragon legends originate in human cohabitation with dinosaurs. I would rather believe this than doubt the plain meaning of Scripture.

It is quite fascinating that people from all around the ancient world, even in the Americas, claim to have witnessed dinosaur-like creatures. It is even more fascinating that these same people also have stories of a large flood and a vessel that saved humanity.

 

[CoolDude68]

If there was no Ark, what is all that talk about exact dimensions about referring to how to build it? Is that just made-up bumbo jumbo? I don't know, I'm asking.

 

[Speedwell]

If there was no Ark, what is all that talk about exact dimensions about referring to how to build it? Is that just made-up bumbo jumbo? I don't know, I'm asking.

"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

--Pooh Bah (aka W. S.Gilbert)​

But, seriously, you want to watch out about numbers in the OT. They had an entirely different attitude about exactitude of numbers than we do now, and different reasons for selecting them.

For example:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1967_18_02_Wenham_LargeNumbersOT.pdf​

 

[Eryk]

The flood story, in my opinion, is allegorical.

The Fathers allegorized the Old Testament because they saw types and symbols of Christ in every detail. But they still believed in the historicity of these events. Until pretty recently all of Judaism and Christianity believed in the global deluge. Did Rashi not know what a legend was? Did these ancient commentators know less about their own culture than we do?

Problems abound for the interpretation of a local flood because the Old and New Testaments use unique words for the flood of Noah: mabbul in Hebrew and kataklusmos in Greek (Matt. 24:39, referring to the flood of Noah. Potamos in Matt. 7:27, referring to a local flood).

And God said that he would never cause another flood like the one that occurred in Noah's time - a local flood? Local floods never happened again?

 

[Job 33:6]

Some details of the history of Exodus, we simply may never know. It is hard to go back thousands of years through both written and oral passing down and recitation. What was the precise nature of the original story and how did it end up in the way that it is today? It seems hard to say.

In the days prior to the council of Nicea, church fathers (of their time) were divided on the divinity of Jesus. These people lived maybe a single generation (or two?) after he was resurrected (feel free to correct me if im wrong), and even then there was difficulty in understanding his nature. And part of the division, came down to interpretation of ancient greek writings of Jesus. Was He the essence of God, or of Gods essence?

In comparison, here we are 2000 years later. We have English translations of English translations of greek translations of hebrew translations? and beyond. And these stories go even further back to oral traditions.

So, I think we are simply finding ourselves in a tough place where some fine details are just difficult to understand.

Regardless, each story has an underlying meaning, each chapter has its own underlying meaning. Often when it comes to scripture, there are many subtle values or ideas being portrayed in every book. And without a sharp eye, it is easy to miss them. And these values and truths hold true and have held true, since they originated. I think that is what we are seeing today.

 

[Eryk]

Some details of the history of Exodus, we simply may never know. It is hard to go back thousands of years through both written and oral passing down and recitation. What was the precise nature of the original story and how did it end up in the way that it is today? It seems hard to say.

In the days prior to the council of Nicea, church fathers (of their time) were divided on the divinity of Jesus. These people lived maybe a single generation (or two?) after he was resurrected (feel free to correct me if im wrong), and even then there was difficulty in understanding his nature. And part of the division, came down to interpretation of ancient greek writings of Jesus. Was He the essence of God, or of Gods essence?

In comparison, here we are 2000 years later. We have English translations of English translations of greek translations of hebrew translations? and beyond. And these stories go even further back to oral traditions.

So, I think we are simply finding ourselves in a tough place where some fine details are just difficult to understand.

Regardless, each story has an underlying meaning, each chapter has its own underlying meaning. Often when it comes to scripture, there are many subtle values or ideas being portrayed in every book. And without a sharp eye, it is easy to miss them. And these values and truths hold true and have held true, since they originated. I think that is what we are seeing today.

You seem to be saying that we don't really have a Bible, and that we cannot base a theology or ethics on anything so indeterminate. And then you seem to say the opposite.

 

[Job 33:6]

You seem to be saying that we don't really have a Bible, and that we cannot base a theology or ethics on anything so indeterminate. And then you seem to say the opposite.

Every word has depth.

If I said "there is a cake in the oven". What seems like a simple and straightforward statement can mean many many things. Even with context, there is an inherent background meaning to every word. Oven gives context that indeed we are talking about food. But every single person envisions a different cake. Different smell, different taste, different size, different flavor etc.

So, I believe the Bible is the absolute word of our Lord and Savior. Our questions simply come down to our inherently imperfect ways in understanding the human language (or in this case languages).

The earth on the other hand is different. It is here. Not only can I describe a stone in words, but you and I could both hop in a car together and go look at it, we could touch it, taste it, smell it, feel it. Gods earth, His creation, is here for confirmation of its literal truth in every way we can imagine. Scripture, while wholly true, holds great value and meaning to us. But still, our inherently broken nature makes it difficult for us to understand and agree upon its meaning.

Can we ever truly understand the amazing nature of Gods power in creation of the beasts of the earth in the book of Job? Some details we may simply never know (at least not until we reach heaven). But the earth (Gods creation itself) is here, we stand on it every day. Its mysterious nature unveiled in its study.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The Fathers allegorized the Old Testament because they saw types and symbols of Christ in every detail. But they still believed in the historicity of these events. Until pretty recently all of Judaism and Christianity believed in the global deluge. Did Rashi not know what a legend was? Did these ancient commentators know less about their own culture than we do?

Problems abound for the interpretation of a local flood because the Old and New Testaments use unique words for the flood of Noah: mabbul in Hebrew and kataklusmos in Greek (Matt. 24:39, referring to the flood of Noah. Potamos in Matt. 7:27, referring to a local flood).

And God said that he would never cause another flood like the one that occurred in Noah's time - a local flood? Local floods never happened again?

There is reason to believe that even the Israelites in Jesus' time took these stories as allegorical. This is not purely a modern conception. In addition, we have scientific research methods now that allow us to determine that the Earth is much older than originally thought. The Bible was written to teach a story to people who, while intelligent, did not enjoy the modern advances that we have now.

You seem to be saying that we don't really have a Bible, and that we cannot base a theology or ethics on anything so indeterminate. And then you seem to say the opposite.

Nothing of the sort. Reading these stories from the OT as allegorical does not negate the theological lessons that they teach.

 

[Eryk]

There is reason to believe that even the Israelites in Jesus' time took these stories as allegorical.

Noah is in Jesus' genealogy (Luke 3:36). That's as real as it gets. Jesus, a real person, preached to the spirits of real people who had lived in the days of Noah (1Pet 3). There is nothing to distinguish the Flood as a fictional story in the New Testament - it is spoken of in the same way as every other reference to Old Testament history.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Noah is in Jesus' genealogy (Luke 3:36). That's as real as it gets. Jesus, a real person, preached to the spirits of real people who had lived in the days of Noah (1Pet 3). There is nothing to distinguish the Flood as a fictional story in the New Testament - it is spoken of in the same way as every other reference to Old Testament history.

The Gospels were not written as biographies as we know them today. The genealogy lends further support for Jesus' divinity by tying Him into the oral tradition of Jewish history. Taking the genealogies literally, in my opinion, is not necessary for salvation nor appropriate interpretation.

 

[Eryk]

The Gospels were not written as biographies as we know them today.

New Testament eyewitnesses recorded literal, tangible facts:

(1 John 1:1) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

(2 Peter 1:16) For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

New Testament eyewitnesses recorded literal, tangible facts:

(1 John 1:1) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

(2 Peter 1:16) For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Right - eyewitnesses to his life, ministry, majesty, death, and resurrection. Not to his genealogy. Even today one cannot easily trace their roots back that many generations. What are the chances that a peasant in ancient Israel could do it? The part of his genealogy that really matters is that God anyway.

 

[Eryk]

Even today one cannot easily trace their roots back that many generations. What are the chances that a peasant in ancient Israel could do it?

Luke wrote this genealogy down because he knew it was true, from his research, and from the fact that the one who inspired the text does not make mistakes. Inerrancy is logically inherent in the doctrine of inspiration.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Luke wrote this genealogy down because he knew it was true, from his research, and from the fact that the one who inspired the text does not make mistakes. Inerrancy is logically inherent in the doctrine of inspiration.

Inerrancy in the sense that the lessons regarding the resurrection and saving power of Jesus, and the moral teaching of God are inerrant. Biblical literalism, which is what you are arguing for, is not "logically inherent."

The Bible was penned by men who were inspired by God to write a set of books that would teach a message to God's people. This does not mean that every word in the Bible is literally true.

 

[Eryk]

Inerrancy in the sense that the lessons regarding the resurrection and saving power of Jesus, and the moral teaching of God are inerrant. Biblical literalism, which is what you are arguing for, is not "logically inherent."

The Bible was penned by men who were inspired by God to write a set of books that would teach a message to God's people. This does not mean that every word in the Bible is literally true.

Luke wrote down a list of names of real people - unless you believe that the entire Old Testament is a novel - and connected these names to a real person. The OT history has to be real and correct, because it's being connected to the story of Jesus. The whole story of Jesus is dubious if it's mixed with legend.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Luke wrote down a list of names of real people - unless you believe that the entire Old Testament is a novel - and connected these names to a real person. The OT history has to be real and correct, because it's being connected to the story of Jesus. The whole story of Jesus is dubious if it's mixed with legend.

Again, not true.

Much of the OT can be allegory (not legend or a novel, there is a difference) and have no effect on one's faith in Jesus and His teachings.

Like connected Jesus to the heroes of Israelite allegory to make a point about the power of Jesus. Jesus and His resurrection can and are very real, even if Luke's genealogy is embellished.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Luke wrote down a list of names of real people - unless you believe that the entire Old Testament is a novel - and connected these names to a real person. The OT history has to be real and correct, because it's being connected to the story of Jesus. The whole story of Jesus is dubious if it's mixed with legend.

Also, the genealogies diverge. Some will claim that one is through Mary and the other through Joseph, but this is not what the text says. How can both genealogies be historically accurate if they do not agree?

I was going to list the generations myself, but someone on Wikipedia did the work already:
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia