What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

[SunGod]

Bible is a scientific book more than any books. May be we could get Dinos... name somewhere in this book. The earth and the universe existed before Adam. ADAM created exactly as Genesis tell us 6- 7 thousand years ago. But who is Adam ? Where he was ? What colour he had ? Why he created ? HIS MISSION ? Why and how he fail to fulfil his mission ? His hopes after he falled ?

Adam is Nebata's african first civilization , west Nile valley's our planet rising new civilization with divine mission with it.

[Arbitran]

I have to take sides with Paranoid A.

The Bible does not claim anywhere that God created the Man first.

In fact, if we read Genesis, we will see that god createt the Human not once but twice.

Adam is not the first Human created, but the first with a soul.

Further more, translating into todays science to create something in one, two or six days is quiet posible if we go by light years e.g. Quran about Gabriel: for him one day is for us 50000 years, or 500000.

Speed of the light. Unknown back then, or?

So does the Bible denies the exsitence of dinosaurs? No.

Does the bible confirms the existence of dinosaurs? Indirectly by mentioning animals in the see and land and skys.

At the end, dinosaurs were animals too, or?

Do you actually know what a light-year is? And don't say a measure of time...

[Arbitran]

Bible is a scientific book more than any books. May be we could get Dinos... name somewhere in this book. The earth and the universe existed before Adam. ADAM created exactly as Genesis tell us 6- 7 thousand years ago. But who is Adam ? Where he was ? What colour he had ? Why he created ? HIS MISSION ? Why and how he fail to fulfil his mission ? His hopes after he falled ?

Adam is Nebata's african first civilization , west Nile valley's our planet rising new civilization with divine mission with it.

The Bible has very, very little accurate information in it. Yes, it does of course make claims to scientific truth; this is all found to be utterly false upon examination however. Adam didn't exist.

[Arbitran]

G'day, haven't read all 29 pages but would like to shead light on the original question, "What is the christian view on dinosaur?". As christians we believe that the bible is the truth. There is both evidence that humans lived amongst dinosaurs in both the bible and scientific reports around the world. For example, in Job 40 and 41, the bible talks about a creature that roamed the earth that are unlike today's animals. In modern-day evidence, it has been found that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.

For more evidence, check out the link below:

http://www.christian...s-and-the-bible

Waiting for your response

There is not one shred of evidence on Earth, or any other planet, that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Yes, Job discussed Behemot and Livyathan, however, these are sheerly mythic creatures; no such animals ever existed. There are no fire-breathing dragons, or giant cedar-tailed beasts (arguably, Behemot could have referred to the elephant, so perhaps it was a real creature). There are no scientific reports whatsoever that dinosaurs presently exist (except for birds of course), or have existed at any time within the last 65 million years.

[Rlyeh]

G'day, haven't read all 29 pages but would like to shead light on the original question, "What is the christian view on dinosaur?". As christians we believe that the bible is the truth. There is both evidence that humans lived amongst dinosaurs in both the bible and scientific reports around the world. For example, in Job 40 and 41, the bible talks about a creature that roamed the earth that are unlike today's animals. In modern-day evidence, it has been found that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.

For more evidence, check out the link below:

http://www.christian...s-and-the-bible

Waiting for your response

Job speaks of mythical creatures

http://www.stupiddin...-about-behemoth\

Bible is a scientific book more than any books.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Oakum]

The existence of dinosaurs in the earths history contradicts the events in the bible. In the Genisis stories God created earth with modern day animals.

I'm looking for the "oficial" christian explanation on this. I didn't post this in the Skeptic forum because I'm trying to start that debate...just an answer if there is one and if there is not maybe a debate between christians(or bible historians).

Hey people, let's say we do a bit of research before we quote our facts of the day regarding this issue of whether or not there were dinosaurs living along side mankind?

KJV Bible passages:

Book of Genesis

Man was made after the beasts of the earth!

There were dinosaur co-habiting with modern man quoted in the Book of Job.

Job 40:15-40:24......Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. Sounds like a Sauropod "Argentinosaurus"

God Created the Earth in four days. Ge; 1:1-1:19 (A day to the Lord is as a thousand years!!! 2Pe 3:8, Ps 90:4 ) In other words, it took God 4000 years to create the Earth!

God Created the animals on both the fifh day and at the end of the sixth day He created Man in His own image. Ge 1:21-1:31 (It took God 2000 years more to create the animals and Mankind!)

God finished his creation and rested on the seventh day. Ge 2:2 God did nothing for another 1000 years, He rested!

Oakum

[libstaK]

Just a general heads up folks, some of the posts being quoted date to 2006 ... I'm not your liking the chances of getting a response.

Perhaps you could quote more recent opinions on the topic or start fresh - just an idea.

[Yamato]

My view is: Bring back "Brontosaurus"!

If dinosaurs are birds then we're living with dinosaurs right now and there's plenty of evidence. One shouldn't need to throw out evolution to disprove a Christian belief interpreted out of the Bible. Especially not by both deferring to it and denying it at the same time. It sounds like way too many judgmental laymen, neither scientists nor theologians, endlessly squabbling over the: "You can't have that (theory, belief), that's mine!"

To me, Adam seems metaphorical for the spiritual awakening of man, the first to notice that there's something about that's more than the five senses. Why are we here? How do we best coexist with all that we live upon and within? What is morality, harmony, grace, redemption, faith, hope, love, forgiveness, kindness, peace, justice, righteousness, responsibility, etc. What is to be our purpose? Religion has answered so much that science can't touch. Science says: Ask how, not why. Religion says: Ask why, not how.

I was surprised to learn in Chemistry 101/102 in the 21st century that there's still conjecture on what we can't observe. In high school we got the tinker toys out and built some molecules and I had to ponder to myself how literal those were. Theoretical physicists add complicating factors, engineers add simplifying assumptions, and mathematicians will make assumptions till the cows come home. It's always obvious the lack of scientific background someone has when they tell me not to assume anything. That's like telling me not to think. It's like telling me to throw logic out the window. So to me, if we can assume a method to the madness, we can assume a purpose for the madness as well. And there may be more truth in metaphor than falsity in literalness.

[ZaraKitty]

I'm saving all my pennies for when they clone a dino. Gonna buy one. lolol.

[WoIverine]

There's Biblical evidence of a pre-Adam world in some verses, at least that's what is alluded to.

[None of the above]

Most christians simply accept evolution and work it into their belief system. Dinosaurs etc, no problemo.

[+Paranoid Android]

Read Bereishis Chapter 2. The Chapter 1 story is better known, and in that, humans are created after animals; in the next chapter though, man (literally) is created first, then animals, and then woman. Just to clear that up.

As was mentioned by libstaK, chances are that most people in this thread will no longer be here (including my dear late friend cadetak, RIP). In the end, a fresh start sounds like a great idea, so that new members can participate in these threads.

Nonetheless, since you quoted me specifically I wanted to comment on your post, just to let you know that while my fundamental views on this are no different than they were in 2006 I do think my ability to express my views in a written format on an internet forum are markedly improved than what they were all those years ago. While I agree with you about the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, I would argue your interpretation. On a literal level, chapter 1 represents an overview of all creation while chapter 2 represents a focused version of creation detailing the account of Eden only. As such, outside of Eden man AND woman were created and then the focus of the story turns to Eden where man is created first - there are NOT two separate creation accounts, but one story alone, comprising of the creation of the whole earth (Gen 1:2-4) and the focus of creation in Eden (2:4b-whatever verse ends chapter 2). However, a literal/scientific/historical approach is not indicated in the text, so it should not be taken as such. The first 11 chapters of Genesis indicate the written account of the pre-Abrahamic history of Hebrew history, and it is in that context that Genesis 2 must be looked at.

The intention of Genesis 1-2 (and indeed the greater context of chapters 1-11) is to inform us not of the historical/scientific account of what happened but rather it is intended as a theological discourse as to the nature of the creator and the relationship this creator has with the human beings who inhabit its creation.

~ Regards, PA

[Arbitran]

Hey people, let's say we do a bit of research before we quote our facts of the day regarding this issue of whether or not there were dinosaurs living along side mankind?

KJV Bible passages:

Book of Genesis

Man was made after the beasts of the earth!

There were dinosaur co-habiting with modern man quoted in the Book of Job.

Job 40:15-40:24......Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. Sounds like a Sauropod "Argentinosaurus"

God Created the Earth in four days. Ge; 1:1-1:19 (A day to the Lord is as a thousand years!!! 2Pe 3:8, Ps 90:4 ) In other words, it took God 4000 years to create the Earth!

God Created the animals on both the fifh day and at the end of the sixth day He created Man in His own image. Ge 1:21-1:31 (It took God 2000 years more to create the animals and Mankind!)

God finished his creation and rested on the seventh day. Ge 2:2 God did nothing for another 1000 years, He rested!

Oakum

NOTE: Behemot is not an Argentinosaur; what is translated in the KJV improperly as "tail" is the Hebrew word for "phallus".

Oh, and you do realize that 2 Peter is a forgery, right? And even if it were a thousand years instead of a day in Genesis; so what? That doesn't change the fact that these figures are still radically different from modern scientific ones.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Arbitran

[Arbitran]

As was mentioned by libstaK, chances are that most people in this thread will no longer be here (including my dear late friend cadetak, RIP). In the end, a fresh start sounds like a great idea, so that new members can participate in these threads.

Nonetheless, since you quoted me specifically I wanted to comment on your post, just to let you know that while my fundamental views on this are no different than they were in 2006 I do think my ability to express my views in a written format on an internet forum are markedly improved than what they were all those years ago. While I agree with you about the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, I would argue your interpretation. On a literal level, chapter 1 represents an overview of all creation while chapter 2 represents a focused version of creation detailing the account of Eden only. As such, outside of Eden man AND woman were created and then the focus of the story turns to Eden where man is created first - there are NOT two separate creation accounts, but one story alone, comprising of the creation of the whole earth (Gen 1:2-4) and the focus of creation in Eden (2:4b-whatever verse ends chapter 2). However, a literal/scientific/historical approach is not indicated in the text, so it should not be taken as such. The first 11 chapters of Genesis indicate the written account of the pre-Abrahamic history of Hebrew history, and it is in that context that Genesis 2 must be looked at.

The intention of Genesis 1-2 (and indeed the greater context of chapters 1-11) is to inform us not of the historical/scientific account of what happened but rather it is intended as a theological discourse as to the nature of the creator and the relationship this creator has with the human beings who inhabit its creation.

~ Regards, PA

As was mentioned by libstaK, chances are that most people in this thread will no longer be here (including my dear late friend cadetak, RIP). In the end, a fresh start sounds like a great idea, so that new members can participate in these threads.

Nonetheless, since you quoted me specifically I wanted to comment on your post, just to let you know that while my fundamental views on this are no different than they were in 2006 I do think my ability to express my views in a written format on an internet forum are markedly improved than what they were all those years ago. While I agree with you about the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, I would argue your interpretation. On a literal level, chapter 1 represents an overview of all creation while chapter 2 represents a focused version of creation detailing the account of Eden only. As such, outside of Eden man AND woman were created and then the focus of the story turns to Eden where man is created first - there are NOT two separate creation accounts, but one story alone, comprising of the creation of the whole earth (Gen 1:2-4) and the focus of creation in Eden (2:4b-whatever verse ends chapter 2). However, a literal/scientific/historical approach is not indicated in the text, so it should not be taken as such. The first 11 chapters of Genesis indicate the written account of the pre-Abrahamic history of Hebrew history, and it is in that context that Genesis 2 must be looked at.

The intention of Genesis 1-2 (and indeed the greater context of chapters 1-11) is to inform us not of the historical/scientific account of what happened but rather it is intended as a theological discourse as to the nature of the creator and the relationship this creator has with the human beings who inhabit its creation.

~ Regards, PA

I must beg to differ on that interpretation of Bereishis 1-2; if it were simply focusing on a sort of 're-creation' of man, then why would it feel the need to state that the animals and plants were created afterward? It seems clear that this is an ideological contradiction between authors, which was never reconciled.

[+Paranoid Android]

I must beg to differ on that interpretation of Bereishis 1-2; if it were simply focusing on a sort of 're-creation' of man, then why would it feel the need to state that the animals and plants were created afterward? It seems clear that this is an ideological contradiction between authors, which was never reconciled.

You are free to differ. Just as long as you don't mind if I differ with your differ Though for the record I did not make any mention of "re-creation", I mentioned separate creations - one creation being the greater creation of all the earth (Genesis 1-2:4a) and the other being a focused creation on a smaller scale in one area of the word (Eden - Genesis 2:4b-end of chapter 2).

Regardless, the entirety of Genesis 1-11 is clearly the oral tradition of pre-Abrahamic Hebrew history. And while there may have been (and in my opinion, probably were) people upon whom the stories are based, they are not written as absolute history or scientific fact. The point intended for us readers is not of actual history but to point out that we are God's creation, a creation who has not served God the way that we should have.

That is it.

~ PA

[Arbitran]

You are free to differ. Just as long as you don't mind if I differ with your differ Though for the record I did not make any mention of "re-creation", I mentioned separate creations - one creation being the greater creation of all the earth (Genesis 1-2:4a) and the other being a focused creation on a smaller scale in one area of the word (Eden - Genesis 2:4b-end of chapter 2).

Regardless, the entirety of Genesis 1-11 is clearly the oral tradition of pre-Abrahamic Hebrew history. And while there may have been (and in my opinion, probably were) people upon whom the stories are based, they are not written as absolute history or scientific fact. The point intended for us readers is not of actual history but to point out that we are God's creation, a creation who has not served God the way that we should have.

That is it.

~ PA

However, it is clear that, though they failed, the authors of the Bible were attempting to convey what they deemed scientific/historical facts. They genuinely believed what they wrote; as of course do most Christians today. And perhaps 're-creation' was the wrong word; in any case, you are proposing that the Bereishis 2 account relates a second creation of man: this could well be the intent, however, if it were, I find it very unlikely that it would have been specifically noted that this creation of man took place before the creation of animals and plants. Which is of course blatantly contradictory to the previous chapter.

[Rlyeh]

To me, Adam seems metaphorical for the spiritual awakening of man, the first to notice that there's something about that's more than the five senses. Why are we here? How do we best coexist with all that we live upon and within? What is morality, harmony, grace, redemption, faith, hope, love, forgiveness, kindness, peace, justice, righteousness, responsibility, etc. What is to be our purpose? Religion has answered so much that science can't touch. Science says: Ask how, not why. Religion says: Ask why, not how.

I think you'll find theories tend to explain how and why. Then again religion gives answers it can't support.

[Yamato]

religion gives answers it can't support.

Which is hardly remarkable.

[+Paranoid Android]

However, it is clear that, though they failed, the authors of the Bible were attempting to convey what they deemed scientific/historical facts. They genuinely believed what they wrote; as of course do most Christians today.

Considering that when the author/s of Genesis put pen to paper they were recounting generation upon generation of oral tradition they almost certainly believed that what they were writing was an historical account of creation. In the absence of any real alternative explanation they were justified in believing it to be fact. However, that should not take away from the fact that they were writing down the oral history of their people, and therefore the purpose of the writing was not solely to recount creation, but also (and more importantly) to paint a theological canvas of God - why we were created, and our relationship with him. And whether Genesis 1-11 is a literal account of creation or not, the theological underpinnings remain the same. If it is literal, I take away from it that God is the creator and we turned away from God. If it is not literal, I take away from it that God is the creator and we turned away from God.

As to whether "most Christians" today believe in the creation account, I guess we'd have to take a worldwide census of all Christians from al countries and denominational backgrounds. Without that I couldn't even begin to speculate beyond the borders of my own Christian life. But in saying that, within the borders of my Christian life most Christians I have met and spoken to on this subject (including my life in Sydney, Australia, as well as my time on internet forums such as this one) most Christians I have known do not think of creation as a literal story.

And perhaps 're-creation' was the wrong word; in any case, you are proposing that the Bereishis 2 account relates a second creation of man: this could well be the intent, however, if it were, I find it very unlikely that it would have been specifically noted that this creation of man took place before the creation of animals and plants. Which is of course blatantly contradictory to the previous chapter.

The text indicates such, though not necessarily a "second creation", it would be more correct to say a parallel creation. Chapter 1-2:4a outlines with broad strokes the creation of the whole earth. It concludes with the summation of things - "this is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created!". The story then seems to backtrack a little, for the next statement says "When the LORD God had created the heavens and the earth, but no bush of the field had sprung up..... the LORD God planted a garden"! The focus of this story is not the grand creation of the entire earth, but focused on one part of that earth - Eden. Thus what is said concerning the overall creation of the earth is a different idea than what is being presented in the focused account of Eden.

All the best,

~ PA

[Arbitran]

Considering that when the author/s of Genesis put pen to paper they were recounting generation upon generation of oral tradition they almost certainly believed that what they were writing was an historical account of creation. In the absence of any real alternative explanation they were justified in believing it to be fact. However, that should not take away from the fact that they were writing down the oral history of their people, and therefore the purpose of the writing was not solely to recount creation, but also (and more importantly) to paint a theological canvas of God - why we were created, and our relationship with him. And whether Genesis 1-11 is a literal account of creation or not, the theological underpinnings remain the same. If it is literal, I take away from it that God is the creator and we turned away from God. If it is not literal, I take away from it that God is the creator and we turned away from God.

As to whether "most Christians" today believe in the creation account, I guess we'd have to take a worldwide census of all Christians from al countries and denominational backgrounds. Without that I couldn't even begin to speculate beyond the borders of my own Christian life. But in saying that, within the borders of my Christian life most Christians I have met and spoken to on this subject (including my life in Sydney, Australia, as well as my time on internet forums such as this one) most Christians I have known do not think of creation as a literal story.

The text indicates such, though not necessarily a "second creation", it would be more correct to say a parallel creation. Chapter 1-2:4a outlines with broad strokes the creation of the whole earth. It concludes with the summation of things - "this is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created!". The story then seems to backtrack a little, for the next statement says "When the LORD God had created the heavens and the earth, but no bush of the field had sprung up..... the LORD God planted a garden"! The focus of this story is not the grand creation of the entire earth, but focused on one part of that earth - Eden. Thus what is said concerning the overall creation of the earth is a different idea than what is being presented in the focused account of Eden.

All the best,

~ PA

All I can really say is that I disagree with virtually all of what you've said. Cest la vie.

[+Paranoid Android]

All I can really say is that I disagree with virtually all of what you've said. Cest la vie.

Fair enough, I guess the only real thing I can agree with on your comments are that I also disagree with virtually all of what you have so far said. Best wishes

[WoIverine]

Well, I'm glad to see that you guys were very polite to each other, even if you disagree. To both of you, very well done.

[psyche101]

I do not understand what all the fuss is about.

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity LINK

What happened to cadetak?

[Yamato]

There are places science can't go. Science doesn't ask: Why peace? Why kindness? Why forgiveness? Why love? Why redemption? Why responsibility? Why morality?

That's religion's job! Suit it up! Unless...unless we expect the government to do all of that for us. *shudders*

Atheists seem to believe morality is created out of thin air the way Keynesians think money is. Sometimes their explanation is that they were lucky enough to have good parents. Oh I love that one. How convenient! Sorry, killing off God and trusting in the nature of man sounds like a bad idea. To be fair, I won't let the theists have any 6,000 year old dinosaurs either.

[Arbitran]

There are places science can't go. Science doesn't ask: Why peace? Why kindness? Why forgiveness? Why love? Why redemption? Why responsibility? Why morality?

That's religion's job! Suit it up! Unless...unless we expect the government to do all of that for us. *shudders*

Atheists seem to believe morality is created out of thin air the way Keynesians think money is. Sometimes their explanation is that they were lucky enough to have good parents. Oh I love that one. How convenient! Sorry, killing off God and trusting in the nature of man sounds like a bad idea. To be fair, I won't let the theists have any 6,000 year old dinosaurs either.

Actually, science and atheism are not without moral principles; for instance, a very simple one is that we are a societal and intrinsically emotional species, and thus it is mutually beneficial for all of us if we generally don't kill each other, steal each others' possessions, hate each other, etc. I'm no expert on ethics, but in general, I think it behooves us to simply follow the Golden Rule.