Dinosaurs

[StassiT]

I know as Christians most of us regard the bible as the inspired word of God. On this forum I've seen many opinions which is why I say most...but that's for another thread.

My question is, where do dinosaurs fit in biblical times?

 

[CherubRam]

I know as Christians most of us regard the bible as the inspired word of God. On this forum I've seen many opinions which is why I say most...but that's for another thread.

My question is, where do dinosaurs fit in biblical times?

Dinosaurs is a modern term.

 

[Bobinator]

My understanding is that there are archaeological finds of human foot prints next to dinosaur ones. Knowing how ridiculously inaccurate carbon dating is, there are possibilities of dinosaurs even prior to the flood.

Here's another question to consider- "How long did Adam and Eve live before the fall?"

 

[StassiT]

My understanding is that there are archaeological finds of human foot prints next to dinosaur ones. Knowing how ridiculously inaccurate carbon dating is, there are possibilities of dinosaurs even prior to the flood.

Here's another question to consider- "How long did Adam and Eve live before the fall?"

Hmm that's interesting. I always thought that dinosaurs existed pre flood and if they died out that would have been the cause.

Regarding Adam and Eve, I got the impression they weren't in the Garden too long before sinning.

 

[Resilient Mixedbreed]

Kent Hovind's seminar on dinosaurs should answer all your questions, he also covers the Garden of Eden, the flood, Noahs ark, fallen angels.... all from a scientific viewpoint. The main point is science works with the bible not against it. Will post links when I get home.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Dinosaurs don't fit if you interpret Genesis to be 100% literal. This causes major problems given scientific evidence that proves otherwise. Countless scholars with more PhD's than we will ever see, have debated this very issue and have come up with every conceivable explanation. The very basis for carbon dating, which IS accurate up to 50,000 years, shows that dinosaur bones are FAR older than the 6,000-10,000 year old young earth theory. As a matter of fact, the Y.E.T. was not even a consideration in the BC era. The earliest known reference to it is around 160 AD.

What is interesting is that many early church fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, did not think that the creation account was literal. They openly talked about it being allegory. I agree with them.

Where most people make the mistake is not knowing what the Hebrew terms in Genesis 1 actually mean. The following is taken from an older post of mine:

(NASB) Genesis 1:1-5

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

I am going to refer to Classical Hebrew and the principles of hermeneutics to break down these five verses....

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Many people assume that this was part of day 1, but the Bible never makes that claim. The heavens and the earth were merely created "in the beginning," which could very well mean "in the beginning of time, during the Big Bang, etc." The earth, stars, planets and other astral bodies could have sat in a dark, lifeless, void for billions of years prior to the start of the creation of biological material (life). This is known as the Gap Theory.

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The fact that it clearly states that the earth was formless and void, immediately makes me think of a gaseous state. Darkness being over the surface of the deep is obscure, but many think it refers to an ocean. You have to keep in mind that at this point, the earth couldn't have an ocean if it was formless and void. The surface of the deep could refer to the black, deepness of space. It is an unknown piece of data.

However, in later verses of Genesis, we learn that God created an expanse between the waters, thus separating them. The implication is "ground water" and "airborne water." The Spirit of God moving over the surface of the waters could be referring to God moving through the atmosphere (clouds or vapor dome), while the ground water could be some type of icy core (think comet/asteroid surrounded by gas).

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

We must stop right here and take a side road for a moment. If you look at the Classical Hebrew, the word for light is "owr," but it does not mean an object that emits light. It literally means illumination, or enlightenment. Keep that in mind...

4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Again, the Classical Hebrew uses the word owr (illumination or enlightenment) followed by "choshek," which means darkness, but it refers to the opposite of owr; blindness, misery, ignorance.

Many believe the Bible is talking about daytime and nighttime. It's not. The Hebrew word for night is "layil," which is completely different than "choshek" (the absence of owr). Layil has not been used in the Hebrew yet, so it is not talking about a sun/moon cycle. They have yet to be created.

So what or who is emitting this owr (illumination)? God Himself and the creation of knowledge/wisdom. The choshek (absence of) is everything that is ungodly thus far. "Let there be light" refers to godly illumination or enlightenment.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The ancient Hebrews could have been talking about God creating during owr (illumination) and stopping at choshek (absence of illumination). Christian translations don't use the Talmud (oral teachings) so the exact nature of this verse is a X factor. It is worth noting that the Hebrew culture considered a day to be the time from sunrise to sunset. Nighttime was something completely different.

The Hebrew word for an object that emits light is "maor," with the plural being "maorot." On the 4th day of creation, the maorot are created (sun and moon). Notice that the words changed from "owr" and "choshek" to "maor and maorot" in the Classical Hebrew. This means that the first 5 verses in Genesis are NOT referring to light from a sun, star, moon etc. but literally the illumination/enlightenment from God vs. the absence of it. Prior to Genesis 1:14 (the creation of the sun/moon), the Hebrew words of maor and maorot were not used.

This explains why there was "light" and "darkness" first before there was a sun or moon.

Those who think that the creation story in Genesis is 100% literal, run into major problems. As a literalist, once you go outside of what the Bible says to try and explain it using your theories, you are no longer being literal. You are being opinionated...the same as the rest of us.

 

[SilverBlade]

Dinosaurs is a more modern term originating in the 1800's.

"Dinosaurs" within a biblical context might go under a different title: Dragons.

 

[Resilient Mixedbreed]

Tried to post link but I need 50 posts to do so. Please youtube search kent hovind dinosaurs

Primi... carbon dating is not accurate to 50,000 years. They carbon date living things that give results of X amount of thousands of years old.... please explain that.. Don't unwillingly mislead people. Genesis is accurate, praise God. Keep searching for the truth, if you think the earth is over 50,000 years old you need to keep searching.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

What's funny is that literalists will use C14 dating when it supports their position, such as the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that accurately places them ~200 BC to ~150 AD. The moment C14 disagrees with their position, they toss it out.

Anyway...

Getting back to the OP, do some Hebrew to English studies and it will greatly help with your understanding of the OT.

 

[Bobinator]

Dinosaurs don't fit if you interpret Genesis to be 100% literal. This causes major problems given scientific evidence that proves otherwise. Countless scholars with more PhD's than we will ever see, have debated this very issue and have come up with every conceivable explanation. The very basis for carbon dating, which IS accurate up to 50,000 years, shows that dinosaur bones are FAR older than the 6,000-10,000 year old young earth theory. As a matter of fact, the Y.E.T. was not even a consideration in the BC era. The earliest known reference to it is around 160 AD.

What is interesting is that many early church fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, did not think that the creation account was literal. They openly talked about it being allegory. I agree with them.

Where most people make the mistake is not knowing what the Hebrew terms in Genesis 1 actually mean. The following is taken from an older post of mine:



This explains why there was "light" and "darkness" first before there was a sun or moon.

Those who think that the creation story in Genesis is 100% literal, run into major problems. As a literalist, once you go outside of what the Bible says to try and explain it using your theories, you are no longer being literal. You are being opinionated...the same as the rest of us.

If carbon dating is accurate to within 50,000 years, then how would you explain 8,000 year old bone samples from penguins who were still alive, or human bones supposedly 100,000 years old when the person died only a year before the test was done. These are the things "they" won't tell you.

Carbon dating is based on a several assumptions. For example, if you walk into a room lit by a candle 3" in circumference, how long was the candle burning? You can measure the rate at which the candle burns, but the question remains- how tall was the candle?

I listened to a lecture by a young Stanford professor on youtube that completely knocks the theory of evolution out of the sky with examples that defy modern science. I wish I could find it, but one of his slide presentations showed tree logs embedded in multiple layers of rock scientist would date millions of years apart. The simple answer- Pyroclastic flow from volcanic explosion raining down different densities of rock, sand and powder in sequential order.

Besides, who's been around 50,000 to verify the accuracy of carbon dating?

Remember, when God created light, he didn't need to rub two sticks together.

 

[dragongunner]

I recently talked to someone who thought the earth was all created in 7 days, literally seven 24 hour days. I see there are some here that may believe that, I have never believed this, and find no bible for it. God created all in 7 days. HIS DAYS......that is.."The evening and the morning were the first day..." But how long was it...? It never mentions time...just from the time it started to the time it ended was one day.....and how do we determine one day.....well when the earth cycles once is 24 hours....but it appears God did not create the sun until what...the 4th day...so a a 24 hour day as we know it was not created until the 4th day. Even Peter knew about God an HIS time saying ....."even a thousand yrs is but a night and day to the Lord..." So I have no problem believing the first day could of been a zillion yrs.....its when God started and finished. So somewhere in there before man was made the dinosaurs roamed....as far as carbon dating, I have heard that its flawed and believe this, for we can date mans history by the generation back to Adam which is only a few thousand years.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

As I have already stated, several of the early church fathers, including Origen and Augustine, did NOT believe in a literal Genesis creation, or a young earth theory.

It came about because someone said, "hey let's count back the generations from Jesus to Adam according to HEBREW genealogy and HEBREW history, and that will tell us how old the earth is!"

Bah. I agree with those early church fathers on this one.

 

[standingtall]

Please youtube search kent hovind dinosaurs

You mean Kent Hovind, the huckster, charlatan, and prison inmate? The same Kent Hovind who has no background in any of the sciences he purports to be an expert in? Is this the Kent Hovind who got his "doctorates" (neither one of which are science related) from an unaccredited Independent Baptist correspondence school?

I'm sorry, but Kent Hovind is not a reputable source in any sense of the word.

 

[StassiT]

As I have already stated, several of the early church fathers, including Origen and Augustine, did NOT believe in a literal Genesis creation, or a young earth theory.

It came about because someone said, "hey let's count back the generations from Jesus to Adam according to HEBREW genealogy and HEBREW history, and that will tell us how old the earth is!"

Bah. I agree with those early church fathers on this one.

Ok question...lets say none of it is literal, just an allegory as you say. Doesn't that throw out a lot of Christian ideology out the window such as, original sin? If it never happened then what was our sin as humanity?

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Ok question...lets say none of it is literal, just an allegory as you say. Doesn't that throw out a lot of Christian ideology out the window such as, original sin? If it never happened then what was our sin as humanity?

It may very well do that. However, a lot of Christian ideology/doctrine is manmade, based off interpreted texts from the Bible. Many Christian beliefs tend to be inferred, and not so much black and white. Just remember, there is a flip side to every coin.

I am fully aware that this is getting into the gray area. I understand that this can be dangerous territory for some, especially if they are having questions or doubts. We can sit here and argue semantics all day long, but it all boils down to 3 simple things:

1. Love God
2. Believe in Jesus as the messiah and savior
3. Love others

The rest are just points for debate, based off individual interpretation of the same verses.

Getting back to original sin, even an allegory may have some truth to it. Perhaps Adam and Eve did happen as described. Maybe the early Hebrew attempt to explain creation is not quite accurate, but the Garden of Eden story was. There are far too many "what if" scenarios. If you feel more comfortable believing in a literal Genesis, by all means go for it. Just know that others will disagree with you.

The question is...does it really matter?

If I said that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, would it matter?

 

[Nickybobby]

The rest are just points for debate, based off individual interpretation of the same verses.

...

There are far too many "what if" scenarios. If you feel more comfortable believing in a literal Genesis, by all means go for it. Just know that others will disagree with you.

The question is...does it really matter?

If I said that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, would it matter?

How true. We spend an awful lot of time debating things that don't really matter in the grand scheme.

 

[Alithis]

Dinosaurs don't fit if you interpret Genesis to be 100% literal. This causes major problems given scientific evidence that proves otherwise. Countless scholars with more PhD's than we will ever see, have debated this very issue and have come up with every conceivable explanation. The very basis for carbon dating, which IS accurate up to 50,000 years, shows that dinosaur bones are FAR older than the 6,000-10,000 year old young earth theory. As a matter of fact, the Y.E.T. was not even a consideration in the BC era. The earliest known reference to it is around 160 AD.

What is interesting is that many early church fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, did not think that the creation account was literal. They openly talked about it being allegory. I agree with them.

Where most people make the mistake is not knowing what the Hebrew terms in Genesis 1 actually mean. The following is taken from an older post of mine:



This explains why there was "light" and "darkness" first before there was a sun or moon.

Those who think that the creation story in Genesis is 100% literal, run into major problems. As a literalist, once you go outside of what the Bible says to try and explain it using your theories, you are no longer being literal. You are being opinionated...the same as the rest of us.

science proves almost nothing -but it has some fairly good theories to consider .But i would not put my trust in it over God

carbon dating i have heard is only accurate to an approximation 2000 years as in order to calibrate it they would have to use something that is irrevocably proven to be an exact age .. and beyond 2000 years anything they use to calibrate carbon dating ,is, in itself only an estimation .
so it really is a massive guessing game ... do not trust it .

 

[gideons300]

science proves almost nothing -but it has some fairly good theories to consider .But i would not put my trust in it over God

carbon dating i have heard is only accurate to an approximation 2000 years as in order to calibrate it they would have to use something that is irrevocably proven to be an exact age .. and beyond 2000 years anything they use to calibrate carbon dating ,is, in itself only an estimation .
so it really is a massive guessing game ... do not trust it .

There is much in the world..... UFO's, ghosts, dinosaurs, miracles not involving Jesus, other worlds and civilizations, apparitions.... the list can go on and on that all seem to contradict what the Bible plainly teaches. If every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God is to be believed and relied upon, consider this.

What if someone put things out there that were not at all real as a way to see if we would believe God alone? What if there were no dinosaurs at all, just planted "evidence" to see if we will believe God's word? If there was no first Adam, why should we believe in a second Adam? Do we see the dangers of letting go of scripture as truth?

Ultimately, for some, it will not matter what evidence there may "seem" to be. Their response is not "There were no dinosaurs" but rather it is simply "God knoweth." They do not let science affect their faith, they fix their eyes upon Jesus and follow Him alone. All will be plain in due time.

Sadly, there are others where these things that seem to go against the word erode their trust in the truth and integrity and trustworthiness of the Word, eventually in the really important areas. They stumble into error, and slowly but surely, they drift away from the reality and importance of faith in God and believing His word and His very illogical as sure.

Consider. The universe is vast, so vast our brains cannot wrap around it. Is it not probable that there is life on other planets? But we are told that at the end, God is going to roll up the heavens like a scroll, and all the astronomers will find out how unsmart they were. They will have ended up, as many do today, still eating from the knowledge of good and evil, trusting in THEIR reasonings and wisdom, and not the tree of life. Ultimately, they take the place of God, fashioning Him as THEY seem reasonable. They become the potter and God the clay. It is dangerous ground to tread.

I love what Jesus said to Peter when he and the other disciples were complaining to Jesus that it had been rumored that John would be the only one who would not die before Jesus returned. Peter asked Jesus:

"What about him?"

Jesus said:

What has that got to do with you? YOU follow me."

Whenever I hit something my brain stumbles over such as the eternalness of Hell or what happens to those who never heard the gospel, that is what I remind myself. God is a good God. God is a fair God and whatever He does is GOOD amd RIGHT and FAIR. Those questions have NOTHING to do with me. My responsibility is to follow Him and believe what He said. Period.

Blessings,

Gideon

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Sadly, there are others where these things that seem to go against the word erode their trust in the truth and integrity and trustworthiness of the Word, eventually in the really important areas. They stumble into error, and slowly but surely, they drift away from the reality and importance of faith in God and believing His word and His very illogical as sure.

Then there are those that are strong in their faith, believe in God, know that Jesus was the messiah/savior, and have assured their reward in paradise.

This same group has come to the realization that early man did not understand science and natural phenomenon the way we do, and as such recognize that the ancient stories, while perhaps holding some truth in them, are more likely to be an allegory/metaphor/etiology.

This group knows that if you are going to teach someone about the planet Mars, you don't use 3,500 year old theories from those who had no concept of what a planet is (or that the earth was NOT flat). You would use modern scientific understanding, given that we are now exploring the surface of that planet.

While I hold my faith close and am secure in it, there is a time and place for science and technology.

 

[StassiT]

There is much in the world..... UFO's, ghosts, dinosaurs, miracles not involving Jesus, other worlds and civilizations, apparitions.... the list can go on and on that all seem to contradict what the Bible plainly teaches. If every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God is to be believed and relied upon, consider this.

What if someone put things out there that were not at all real as a way to see if we would believe God alone? What if there were no dinosaurs at all, just planted "evidence" to see if we will believe God's word? If there was no first Adam, why should we believe in a second Adam? Do we see the dangers of letting go of scripture as truth?

Ultimately, for some, it will not matter what evidence there may "seem" to be. Their response is not "There were no dinosaurs" but rather it is simply "God knoweth." They do not let science affect their faith, they fix their eyes upon Jesus and follow Him alone. All will be plain in due time.

Sadly, there are others where these things that seem to go against the word erode their trust in the truth and integrity and trustworthiness of the Word, eventually in the really important areas. They stumble into error, and slowly but surely, they drift away from the reality and importance of faith in God and believing His word and His very illogical as sure.

Consider. The universe is vast, so vast our brains cannot wrap around it. Is it not probable that there is life on other planets? But we are told that at the end, God is going to roll up the heavens like a scroll, and all the astronomers will find out how unsmart they were. They will have ended up, as many do today, still eating from the knowledge of good and evil, trusting in THEIR reasonings and wisdom, and not the tree of life. Ultimately, they take the place of God, fashioning Him as THEY seem reasonable. They become the potter and God the clay. It is dangerous ground to tread.

I love what Jesus said to Peter when he and the other disciples were complaining to Jesus that it had been rumored that John would be the only one who would not die before Jesus returned. Peter asked Jesus:

"What about him?"

Jesus said:

What has that got to do with you? YOU follow me."

Whenever I hit something my brain stumbles over such as the eternalness of Hell or what happens to those who never heard the gospel, that is what I remind myself. God is a good God. God is a fair God and whatever He does is GOOD amd RIGHT and FAIR. Those questions have NOTHING to do with me. My responsibility is to follow Him and believe what He said. Period.

Blessings,

Gideon

Thank you so much for that!