Dinosaurs?

[intricatic]

so ur saying that dinosaurs didnt exist? thats a kinda outragous clame to make isnt it?

Not at all, imho, it's almost as "outrageous" as claiming that Blue Whales don't exist. I've never seen a Blue Whale, so therefore they don't exist.

 

[greavito]

i wenrt quoting u! u cna smell the sarcasum in your writing lol! i was "quoting thequestion"

 

[Qyöt27]

Take Laviathan for example, we do not know what a laviathan is, but it is placed in the bible to make a point about who God is.

But we do have a really good idea because there are similar ideas that can be found in other cultures. I'm sure there are examples from Babylonian or Hindu writings, there's Jormungand (Jörmungandr) from Norse mythology, possibly Ouroboros or the Hydra from the Greeks...

For that matter, specifically with Hebrew legends, Leviathan and Behemoth were representative of the sea and land, and the Ziz (I'm not sure that creature ever is mentioned in Scripture) was in charge of the air. Likewise, Leviathian is often depicted as a sea serpent, Behemoth as some kind of large lumbering creature that I always imagined as similar to a mammoth or later, a hippo, and the Ziz was most definitely a monstrous bird.

Of course, like you said, they are there because they're being used to make a larger point.

Um, no… the geological evidence strongly suggests the Earth is not merely thousands of years old, but billions. The only people who have this idea of the Earth being only 5-10 thousand years old are those who are largely ignorant of geology and read their own presuppositions into scripture, making scripture say things it really doesn’t say at all.

It is interesting to note, however, that 5-10 thousand years is about how long it's been since the last major climate shift, and it could be argued that 5-10 thousand years is how old civilization as we know it is (not to be confused with 'modern civilization' though).

Although it has little to do with the topic except for a couple comments on it, I adhere to the idea that the stories of the Deluge were based on a real event in the general area of the South Caucasus/Mesopotamia that occurred approximately 7000-5000 B.C., which would be the common source of origin of most East, South, and Central Asiatic (and possibly European, due to the subsequent diaspora) flood stories.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Could this be a test of faith?

I need some clarification on this point.

God doesn't do trick questions- He did not willfully create a universe that is designed to decieve people. You must decide whether to accept the evidence in the Creaion, or not.

 

[Briseis]

Well, first of all, many ppl answered the question about why they werent mentioned in the Bible. Most of the Billions of species that we have werent mentioned.

But as for what happened to them...isnt it logical to just say they went extinct over the years, like many other species?

Why would God destroy creatures that he made? Doesnt it say there were two of every creature in the arc (or seven, but you know what I mean...)? I dont think they were killed in the flood. It may seem impossible for them to fit in the arc, but its a miracle for all the animals to have fit even without the dinosaurs. I think they were there, but just died off later.

 

[Johnnz]

We need to accept that amongst Christians there is a variety of views about creation, the age of the universe, and what the fossil evidence suggests. That just indicates that there is not enough factual evidence to provide a definitive answer.

John
NZ

 

[intricatic]

We need to accept that amongst Christians there is a variety of views about creation, the age of the universe, and what the fossil evidence suggests. That just indicates that there is not enough factual evidence to provide a definitive answer.

John
NZ

It also indicates that the entire subject is divisive and nonsensical to get upset over.

 

[Ginsu]

First scripture that comes to mind is Job 40:15-24:


15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares

The tail of cedar would ommit it being an elephant or hippo.

Then Isaiah 27:1 has mentions of a "Leviathian".(That in hebrew translates as "Tanniyn" or dragon) The word dinosaur came around by Sir Richard Owen some time in the early 1840;s or something like that, can't remember. I'm too tired going to bed./

 

[Chaan Stines]

Couldn't the larger dinosaurs have been brought on board the ark when they were very young, and still only about the size of a chicken?

 

[intricatic]

Couldn't the larger dinosaurs have been brought on board the ark when they were very young, and still only about the size of a chicken?

Personally, I would imagine Noah walking within a decent distance from a T-Rex and saying "......no.....no way am I putting that thing on my ark for a year.... heck, it's big enough to survive...."

And God said:

"...heh...Noah, you have a point there..... you'd all be dead within a week."

 

[jko]

I did a study on this for Sunday school and found a few good Christian sites that will give you some helpful information.

Behemoth and Leviathan were two dinosours mentioned in the Bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

Almost all of the dinosours were destroyed during the flood, some survived, the two mentioned above. Leviathan was a creature of the sea but could also go on land, it tormented man until God killed it. This creature is what we would now call a Dragon.

 

[Qyöt27]

The tail of cedar would ommit it being an elephant or hippo.

Of course, that's only if one discounts the common argument that the word 'tail' used there is actually a euphemism for 'penis', which would imply a sense of virility. Hippos and elephants certainly are common symbols of virility, even into modern times, just as bulls, bears, lions, etc. are.

 

[Rin4Christ]

I would have to say I beleive Dinosaurs disapeared long before the great flood. Why would God allow a species to become extinct? I don't know- I don't know why God does or allows alot of the things he does or allows. I do beleive that God gave us minds and the capability to think, and so I will tend to beleive what scientists say untill evidence shows something diffrent.

 

[Briseis]

I would have to say I beleive Dinosaurs disapeared long before the great flood. Why would God allow a species to become extinct?

Thats waht I was thinking, jko. Why would they not have been on the arc?

 

[superdave]

Personally, I would imagine Noah walking within a decent distance from a T-Rex and saying "......no.....no way am I putting that thing on my ark for a year.... heck, it's big enough to survive...."

And God said:

"...heh...Noah, you have a point there..... you'd all be dead within a week."

HAHAHA! Exactly what was I thinking!

God did not destroy a creature that he made. it was the force of nature that destroyed them. Many creatures have gone exitinct. I think the most probable explination is that they were destroyed in the flood. But, they could have also died of other reasons. Like I explained before. Maybe the climate change killed them off, they couldn't find food, They were hunted and killed in mass numbers. I mean, the American Buffalo almost dissapeared, because they killed all of them. The same could have happened.

 

[Rosebaronet]

The bible did mention the "Dragons" They are fairly close to the dinosaurus, also the Lord is not answerable to the humanistic science, because He is the Lord of everything. According to some creationist, those fossils could have been caused by the Great Flood.

Both Evolution and Creation are systems of belief, so there is absolutely no reason to favour one over the other, the choice will be entirely based on free-will and faith.

 

[Johnnz]

There is a huge amount of time between our planet forming and the events of Genesis. Just when the story of creation refers to is not clear. That was not the purpose of the story, but rather to tell us that God created our world purposefully.

We have dinosaur fossiles here in New Zealand that go back thousands of years. We are a long way from the time of Noah's ark, and any land contact with any other piece of land.

John
NZ

 

[Rosebaronet]

Just to play the devil's advocate, how did you know those fossils were millions of years old? How can we be sure carbon dating is accurate? lol

I am pretty agnostic about evolution, how did we know the earth isn't 6000 years old. lol hmm watched too much Hovind Seminars.

 

[intricatic]

The bible did mention the "Dragons" They are fairly close to the dinosaurus, also the Lord is not answerable to the humanistic science, because He is the Lord of everything. According to some creationist, those fossils could have been caused by the Great Flood.

Both Evolution and Creation are systems of belief, so there is absolutely no reason to favour one over the other, the choice will be entirely based on free-will and faith.

Yup. The bolded is what I wanna address, though... hopefully this makes sense, because it's something I've been thinking about a lot and I dunno how good it'll sound outside of my own skull.

I don't think the sciences have anything to do with God because of the perspective they take on life in general [and I think that's somewhat how it should be in order to remain unbiased in the examination of nature and concepts relating to it in as much of a "vacuum" as possible]. Well, circumstantially, they do have a lot to do with God, as they are the study and accumulation of what we can consider "facts", or a general understanding, of the nature of God's creation, of which He is Absolute and Complete in His dominion over. The problem is, they can neither prove nor disprove God's existance, because that's outside the limits of the function of science in general. Science, in the Western world, is to study what is, materially, not why it is, spiritually. There's nothing wrong with that outlook, IMHO, unleskis it becomes so zealous as to absolutely disclude any possibility of the spiritual [in the minds of the fallen men and women who are studying this area of life] and embraces, instead, an absolutely materialistic view of the world. It may seem to do that, to many, because of the nature of what science is, and in many cases, a form of scientific dogma can rear it's ugly head - the absolutely materialistic outlook I mentioned - but that doesn't make science any more or less evil. It's how we use it that determines if our actions [and circumstantially, the decisions made by those studying nature in any way] are evil or otherwise. I think that's a huge problem in the religions outlook on science, and the scientific outlook on religion. I dunno how to appropriately address it to science nuts, though, in a way that they can understand. But I'm working on it.

Heh. My outlook's really been challenged lately. I dunno if it's a bad thing, though.

No offense to anyone intended with this post, it's just something that's been bouncing around my head for a while and I felt like sharing... ha. Mostly because I want to see if there's anyone out there who shares the same POV. Sorry to hijack the thread! I just saw this as a good opportunity to get that out there.

 

[Johnnz]

If dating is inaccurate then it will be the scientists who will tell us why. Dogma must never obscure valid information - refer the Copernicus case. Also, Christians accept carbon dating of archaeoligical material that supports the biblical account. We can't have it both ways.

There is more than carbon dating involved too. Known physical laws, glaciation, sedimentation, continental drift, the scientific basis for accepting the 'Big Bang' theory of the origins of the universe are all part of how conclusions are reached. If any of those conclusions and the methods used are wrong it won't be people who know very little about the subject material who will tell us why. It will be those who are properly qualified to do so.

Proverbs tells us that wisdom invloves knowledge (ie facts) and understanding (intepreting the facts correctly), and that creation was formed with Wisdom's attendance. The raw data of science is part of our knowledge and understanding a discovering of God's wisdom that was responsible for the universe.

John
NZ