The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

[ArmyMatt]

Ok, I can understand that, Matt. But there's one part that I have a question...well two actually

So, the dinos fell with the rest of creation - because of Adam and Eve, of course....so if they fell along with all the other animals and Adam and Eve, where were they in proximity of Adam and Eve and their offspring? How did the humans survive with big dinos running around eating flesh of animals and probably humans if we follow this sharp teeth and claws and omnivore theory. When did the dinos disappear while the other animals lived and the people as well??

well, I would say that they ran around with humans as well. even if you could use wturri's argument that man survived with all kinds of other predators that still exist, crocs, tigers, lions, etc. man was the focus on the redemption of the world, so it doesn't matter how many big nasties come after man, if God wills and man wills, man will survive.

I would say that it was some point between the Fall and the Flood.

Well, in Heaven will you be sad to find that your child isn't there with you, if that is the case?

a monk I know at St Nektarios Monastery named Fr Epiphanios said that people in heaven will be so enveloped by God's love, that they won't even think of the damned at all.

Are we as Christians meant to be sad when someone who is a saint dies? Are all kinds of sadness even bad?

the answer is we should not be sad ideally because there should be no death. some things are necessary in our current state. it's like how we say repentance is a good thing, but only because we have fallen in the first place. ideally man would never have fallen to begin with, and would therefore never have needed to repent.

And what's wrong with rotting stuff anyway - it's great for growing vegetables in once is gets rotten enough.

nothing wrong with it in our fallen state, but again, all of Creation was supposed to be unfallen.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, many Fathers are actually giving their own thoughts and opinions, or making their own arguments. Not all are simply teaching what they have been taught. That's what theologians do.

i think the Orthodox understanding of a theologian is firstly one who prays, and also one who passes on that which came before. while theologians may sometimes give their opinions, opinions arent what theologians "do"

Have you considered though that the Fathers may not have been unanimous on this issue? You often seem to assume that they must have all agreed on such things, but that isn't necessarily the case. Some Fathers seem to have thought that there would have been animal and plant death before the Fall. Others do not. The text itself is unclear. The Church doesn't have a definitive position on this question.

i realize that the Fathers may not be unanimous, and i recognized in one of my earlier posts that St. Athanasius may be saying something fifferent from the many other Fathers i linked to. however, the Church does have a mind, a phronema, as expressed through the Fathers, among other things. so my first inclination in reading the Fathers for doctrinal purposes is to look for the harmony, rather than seeing discord. if it becomes obvious that a specific Father is saying something different, then ok, thats how it is sometimes. but i think this question of mortal or immortal by nature is a tricky one, for instance. if you were to examine the Fathers to answer "is man mortal or immortal by nature?" you would find 3 answers: mortal, immortal, and neither, and yet all 3 of those positions hold that man dies because of sin. i know that animal death is a different question than man's death, but that is why i would have to see more of St. Athanasius before accepting that he actually believed animals died before the Fall.

Also, not all of the Fathers consider that time passed at all before the Fall, or that the history of creation started before the Fall. That is, that the Fall may have occurred and then the history of the universe happened, all under the influence of the Fall.

the Church dates the world from its creation. IIRC we are currently in 7520 or so from the creation of the world according to the Byzantium Creation Ear Calendar. there was certainly a difference about time at the Fall, for then it began carrying the cosmos towards corruption and death, but im not aware of anyone who actually believes there was no time before the Fall.

There are all kinds of opinions on these questions that are well within what the Church has always considered possible and orthodox. Trying to paint it as if there was only one viewpoint is simply inaccurate.

well, forgive me, but i have never understood this mindset that tends to see a lack of unity amongst the Fathers rather than harmony. one or two or three Fathers saying one thing doesnt take away from all the Fathers who say the opposite, and ive never understood the mindset that would point to the few outliers rather than the general consensus. i also dont understand the idea that the Church must ecumenically pronounce something for it to be the belief of the Church, when the Church has so many other teaching tools at Her disposal. i dont see these ideas in my reading of Orthodoxy. im not saying that this is necessarily whats going on in this thread, but these are observations ive made over the course of several years on various forms, on various topics, although it is typically Genesis that brings this stuff out. in my seminary studies i have been taught that the fall and redemption of mankind are both cosmic events that affected everything, not just man (St. Paul says this), and that when man fall he fell below human nature, and not that humans are naturally mortal. although there may not be 100% perfect unanimity on this in the Fathers, nevertheless the Orthodox teaching is discernible. also, Wisdom of Solomon 1 and 2 tell us that God does not desire anything to die and therefore didnt create death.

 

[Chief_Sinner]

I would like to add one thing to this topic. I saw people mention how ridiculous it was thinking that Adam and Eve existed with the dinosaurs who would have eaten them. However, meat was only eaten after the Flood, and not right after the Fall. Time did exist between the Flood and Fall.

St. Basil the Great says in On the Origin of Man

God did not say: 'I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.' It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise.

What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation, and herbs [are given]...We see however, many wild animals who do not eat fruits. What fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of nature, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods: 'Eat all that in the same way as edible plants '(Gen 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them.

...Nature had not yet divided, for it was in all its freshness; the hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores.

Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with regard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.

I don't know how/when the dinosaurs went extinct, but if they ALL went extinct prior to the Flood, or even during the Flood, man would not have been eaten by them.

 

[jckstraw72]

I would like to add one thing to this topic. I saw people mention how ridiculous it was thinking that Adam and Eve existed with the dinosaurs who would have eaten them. However, meat was only eaten after the Flood, and not right after the Fall. Time did exist between the Flood and Fall.

St. Basil the Great says in On the Origin of Man
I don't know how/when the dinosaurs went extinct, but if they ALL went extinct prior to the Flood, or even during the Flood, man would not have been eaten by them.

thats tiiiiight, thank you very much! could you provide the reference for where in On the Origin of Man this is?

 

[tapi]

Good luck with the mental gymnastics. Unfortunately, all you will accomplish with it is drive more people away from the Church.

 

[Dorothea]

I would like to add one thing to this topic. I saw people mention how ridiculous it was thinking that Adam and Eve existed with the dinosaurs who would have eaten them. However, meat was only eaten after the Flood, and not right after the Fall. Time did exist between the Flood and Fall.

St. Basil the Great says in On the Origin of Man
I don't know how/when the dinosaurs went extinct, but if they ALL went extinct prior to the Flood, or even during the Flood, man would not have been eaten by them.

I wasn't really following you until this last line. I couldn't really understand this perspective too well until you mentioned the Flood and the dinos dying in this just as many things did....but wait, I just thought of something. The story of Noah....with the animals....He took two of each animal....So either he took two dinos in the ark or he didn't take any. If he took two dinos, they would've survived the flood and procreated, right? If he didn't take the dinos, then maybe so, but wasn't it God's commandment that Noah take two of each animal??

 

[Chief_Sinner]

I found the St. Basil text from a topic on monachos.net. I can't post the link because I have less than 50 posts.

I don't have a copy of Genesis in front of me, so I don't know if the text could exclude any type of animal, or if it is all inclusive. It may well be all inclusive.

However, I did say that they could have gone extinct PRIOR to the Flood.

PS:
Does anyone know why I am not getting notifications on this subscribed thread? I have it set to instant, but I am not getting any emails about updates to this thread :/

 

[jckstraw72]

Good luck with the mental gymnastics. Unfortunately, all you will accomplish with it is drive more people away from the Church.

id just like to point out that no one on the science side seems to consider that the opposite can be (and is) true as well. when i was looking into Orthodoxy and ppl started telling me that the Church doesnt really have a teaching on Genesis and that the Fathers didnt interpret it literally, etc, this was very troubling to me. i was drawn to Orthodoxy because i was starting to see it as the truth, and the Church of the Fathers, and consistent, etc, and to think that it didnt have much of a teaching on the whole beginning of the story, leaving it open to what i saw/see as an absurd scientific conjecture, was very problematic for me. but no one who seemed to think that Genesis was allegorical was willing to bend to accomodate the issues i was having, and i didnt expect them to - if they really believed that that is what the Church says about Genesis then they SHOULDNT bend for me.

fortunately, i began to read the Church Fathers for myself (and yes, Fr. Seraphim's book was a huuuuuge blessing in this regard) and found that they actually DO interpret Genesis literally with remarkable consistency. so i no longer have the problem of a Church that cant figure out its own book (Genesis), thank God. it still troubles me that not everyone is on board with the Fathers' vision of Genesis (in my opinion - thats how i see it), but just as the people i spoke to wouldnt bend, i see no reason to bend on this issue. that doesnt mean i want to keep anyone from Orthodoxy or drive them out, but i think its important to point out what the Fathers say about Genesis and how there are problematic issues harmonizing it with modern scientific hypotheses. if someones faith is shaken by this issue, then sure, i see no reason to harp on it with them, but if the issue is raised i see no reason to bend either. there's economia for discipline, not teachings.

and again, much of our faith is mental gymnastics if you choose to look at it with a scientific mindset - miracles, relics, myrrh-streaming icons, appearances of Saints, the idea that getting wet makes you a new man, the idea that eating bread and wine is eating God, and certainly the Resurrection - these are all absurd from a scientific point of view (although with these we're quite willing to chalk it up to mystery -- i've yet to figure out why Genesis has to be different ...). for me, the idea that the observations made in 104 years is somehow absolutely normative for 4.5 billion years is the crowning moment for mental gymnastics. and Jesus also drove people away by teaching them about the Eucharist - He didnt soften the teaching to keep them in the fold.

 

[Dorothea]

Good luck with the mental gymnastics. Unfortunately, all you will accomplish with it is drive more people away from the Church.

I think it's a fascinating subject. There's no dogma on it, so why would people be driven away? We are discussing the subject in a kindly manner, I thought. I like having these moments of awakening in my mind of many things regarding things of the Scriptures and most importantly, God. I love to talk about Him and I think about Him nearly all the time.

 

[jckstraw72]

I think it's a fascinating subject. There's no dogma on it, so why would people be driven away? We are discussing the subject in a kindly manner, I thought. I like having these moments of awakening in my mind of many things regarding things of the Scriptures and most importantly, God. I love to talk about Him and I think about Him nearly all the time.

thank God for that! feel free to pray for me so that I can get to such a state too -- my name is Jesse, thank you and God bless!

 

[Dorothea]

I found the St. Basil text from a topic on monachos.net. I can't post the link because I have less than 50 posts.

I don't have a copy of Genesis in front of me, so I don't know if the text could exclude any type of animal, or if it is all inclusive. It may well be all inclusive.

However, I did say that they could have gone extinct PRIOR to the Flood.

PS:
Does anyone know why I am not getting notifications on this subscribed thread? I have it set to instant, but I am not getting any emails about updates to this thread :/

Prior to the Flood. Again, that's an interesting idea. Because it would be sometime after God created the animals and then Adam and Eve and before the Flood. Of course, then I wonder how they died off while others didn't, and do you believe in any cataclysmic event that wiped them off the face of the earth such as science claims? Like a meteor or earthquake w/volcanos or ice age or something like that?

As far as no notifications, I'm not sure. It may be in your profile where you set everything up about yourself. Can't remember. Maybe somebody else here can help you out.

 

[tapi]

I got a bit excited when I made the last post, sorry for such a hardline remark. I was a bit cranky and took it out here. The discusson has been done in a very positive manner in this thread; my apologies.

 

[Dorothea]

I got a bit excited when I made the last post, sorry for such a hardline remark. I was a bit cranky and took it out here. The discusson has been done in a very positive manner in this thread; my apologies.

No problem, and your dog is adorable!

 

[ArmyMatt]

The story of Noah....with the animals....He took two of each animal....So either he took two dinos in the ark or he didn't take any. If he took two dinos, they would've survived the flood and procreated, right? If he didn't take the dinos, then maybe so, but wasn't it God's commandment that Noah take two of each animal??

I would say, and this is just my opinion, that the animals that Noah put on the ark were the ones that were brought to him, that they were the only ones that were to survive. so it could possibly be that the dinos were not any of the species that came to the ark.

or it could possibly be that they went extinct just after the Flood and were unable to cope with the new Creation.

 

[Dorothea]

I would say, and this is just my opinion, that the animals that Noah put on the ark were the ones that were brought to him, that they were the only ones that were to survive. so it could possibly be that the dinos were not any of the species that came to the ark.

or it could possibly be that they went extinct just after the Flood and were unable to cope with the new Creation.

Ok. That could be. Do you believe the dinos were destroyed by some cataclysmic event such as a meteor or ice age or earthquake and volcanoes which many scientists think?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do you believe the dinos were destroyed by some cataclysmic event such as a meteor or ice age or earthquake and volcanoes which many scientists think?

I dunno about that. cataclysmic to be sure, but the fallout from a meteor strike, and the length of time for an ice age would have been far too long for someone like a young earther like me to believe in. but then again, it does not contradict the Scriptures or the teaching from what I have seen, so I would say that would certainly be possible.

 

[inconsequential]

I read about a theory once that stated the conditions on antediluvian earth were very different and that afterwards, the same climatic changes that made human lifespans drop so dramatically caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

[Dorothea]

I read about a theory once that stated the conditions on antediluvian earth were very different and that afterwards, the same climatic changes that made human lifespans drop so dramatically caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I'm a dummy really when it comes to science, so I'm learning here to a certain extext. Whta is antediluvian? And what exactly do you mean about this time when the lifespans of humans dropped? Are you referring to the OT folks how they'd live over 100 years?

 

[jckstraw72]

antediluvian means before the Flood, and i think he's referring to how ppl went from living like 800 years to more normal lifespans as we think of them.

 

[Chief_Sinner]

I read about a theory once that stated the conditions on antediluvian earth were very different and that afterwards, the same climatic changes that made human lifespans drop so dramatically caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I have read something similar. I have also heard that there was no rain before the Flood. If true, this shows that the Flood was a dramatic Earth-changing event. It had to to be, as pointed out earlier, life-spans dropped dramatically.