• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Dinosaurs?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by RazorX, Feb 20, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RazorX

    RazorX ¤The Blade of Truth¤

    660
    +23
    Christian
    Single
    How do dinosaurs fit with the bible?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. platzapS

    platzapS Expanding Mind

    +285
    Humanist
    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.
     
  3. BudJohnson

    BudJohnson There is no spoon

    56
    +2

    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

     
     
  4. Vic7524

    Vic7524 New Member

    3
    +0
    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?
     
  5. wildernesse

    wildernesse Use less and live more.

    +5
    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]



    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
     
  6. BudJohnson

    BudJohnson There is no spoon

    56
    +2

    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

     
     
  7. BudJohnson

    BudJohnson There is no spoon

    56
    +2
    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?

     



    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.)




    "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"?


    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

     
     
  8. BudJohnson

    BudJohnson There is no spoon

    56
    +2


    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.

     



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



    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.




    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
     
  9. BudJohnson

    BudJohnson There is no spoon

    56
    +2


    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.




    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?




    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.




    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."




    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!).




    "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?


      

    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.



    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.




    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.




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




    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


     
     
  10. BudJohnson

    BudJohnson There is no spoon

    56
    +2
    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.

     
    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.)

     
    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."


    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.




    Rick Fox.

     
    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.

     
    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

     
     
  11. Patricco

    Patricco New Member

    8
    +1
    Christian
    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
     
  12. LewisWildermuth

    LewisWildermuth Senior Veteran

    +118
    Christian
    Single

    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.
     
  13. paradigm man

    paradigm man New Member

    55
    +1
    Calvinist
    They were created in the first six days of creation.
     
  14. HomeBound

    HomeBound Learning in the meantime

    +38
    Christian
    Single
    Another age in the history of the worlds God created then destroyed for this Earth.
     
  15. SFBay

    SFBay Revelation 21:4

    104
    +9
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  16. Hugs of Love

    Hugs of Love Mark 8:34-35

    131
    +4
    Christian
    US-Republican
    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"
     
  17. Chi_Cygni

    Chi_Cygni Active Member

    954
    +22
    Anglican
    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'.
     
  18. Ron21647

    Ron21647 Regular Member

    482
    +22
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Republican
    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
     
  19. Ron21647

    Ron21647 Regular Member

    482
    +22
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Republican
    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
     
  20. Hugs of Love

    Hugs of Love Mark 8:34-35

    131
    +4
    Christian
    US-Republican
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...