Where do dinosaurs fit in the bible?

[Marcus]

Ok this has always perplexed me and as a christian made me wonder. In the beginning god created the earth and he talks about creating the waters and the fish etc etc. But never does he mention creating Dinosaurs that existed for such a long period of time. I mean we do know they existed, we have fossils and bones to prove it. What's also strange is we have no records whatsoever of the giants that were mentioned in the bible. Unless perhaps the giants were actually the dinosaurs.. I don't know..

[Genocyde]

Man and dinosaurs never lived at the same time, no matter what the Bible says about behemoths and giant beasts and all that jazz. Maybe the ancient people saw some fossils, and made up stories about the dinosaurs being giants.

[+Link of Hyrule]

The creation account in Genesis was never meant to be taken as a literal account of creation. The writing style of this section of Genesis has a decidedly poetic edge, with poetic devices and figurative symbols scattered throughout that convey that the intention was not to explain HOW the universe came into being, but rather WHY we exist, and probably more importantly, WHO was behind it. As such, the original writers had no reason to provide scientific explanations of the origins of life (and as such, the origins of dinosaurs).

Simple!

[Marcus]

Man and dinosaurs never lived at the same time, no matter what the Bible says about behemoths and giant beasts and all that jazz. Maybe the ancient people saw some fossils, and made up stories about the dinosaurs being giants.

That would make the bible incorrect because clearly Dinosaurs lived before man. In genesis there was no mention of dinosaurs whatsoever. It went straight into the story of Adam and Eve..

The interesting thing about the Adam and Eve story is that Eve was deceived in eating an apple by a snake. Now we know snakes are reptiles and Dinosaurs were reptiles too?? Is there a connection perhaps?

[Genocyde]

That would make the bible incorrect because clearly Dinosaurs lived before man. In genesis there was no mention of dinosaurs whatsoever. It went straight into the story of Adam and Eve..

Yes, clearly dinosaurs DID live before man. But they never lived TOGETHER. So, if the Bible says everything was made at the same time, maybe the story of Genesis isn't to be taken literally? We have evidence that says we never coexisted with dinosaurs, the Bible, just has itself.

The interesting thing about the Adam and Eve story is that Eve was deceived in eating an apple by a snake. Now we know snakes are reptiles and Dinosaurs were reptiles too?? Is there a connection perhaps?

So, you're saying that because Eve was tricked by a snake, and a snake is a reptile....that means dinosaurs existed with Adam and Eve? That's like saying, I have a pet snake, therefore I have a pet dinosaur.

[Machiventa777]

The creation account in Genesis was never meant to be taken as a literal account of creation. The writing style of this section of Genesis has a decidedly poetic edge, with poetic devices and figurative symbols scattered throughout that convey that the intention was not to explain HOW the universe came into being, but rather WHY we exist, and probably more importantly, WHO was behind it. As such, the original writers had no reason to provide scientific explanations of the origins of life (and as such, the origins of dinosaurs).

Simple!

ha, sounds good to me. but i personally don't take the bible seriously.

[Bee Eff]

Ok this has always perplexed me and as a christian made me wonder. In the beginning god created the earth and he talks about creating the waters and the fish etc etc. But never does he mention creating Dinosaurs that existed for such a long period of time. I mean we do know they existed, we have fossils and bones to prove it. What's also strange is we have no records whatsoever of the giants that were mentioned in the bible. Unless perhaps the giants were actually the dinosaurs.. I don't know..

This might possibly be a reference to a dinosaur, but the time frame is off.

Job 40:15-24

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

[Rosewin]

Why does no one ever ask where single cell life forms are at in the Bible?

I believe in biblical infallibility which is that the Bible is correct in matters of spirituality and faith but not science or history. Biblical inerrancy claims the Bible is correct in both matters of spirituality and faith as well as science and history.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Rosewin

[Dr. D]

Why does no one ever ask where single cell life forms are at in the Bible?

I believe in biblical infallibility which is that the Bible is correct in matters of spirituality and faith but not science or history. Biblical inerrancy claims the Bible is correct in both matters of spirituality and faith as well as science and history.

Kinda' pick and choose . . . . hit and miss . . . .

[Rosewin]

Kinda' understanding that there is a book of nature and a book of scripture. God wrote them both so they are both right. Science and faith I speak of and they do not have to compete and I accept them both. But others do pick and choose one or the other.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Rosewin

[Marby]

This is one of the questions that got me kicked out of Catholic school when I was seven and one of my uncles married a really cool archaeologist who used to give me dinosaur coloring books.

People can look at the Bible in two ways:

1. A book that is not meant to be taken literally, and is merely a guidebook for the faithful where the stories as you move forward are loosely based on historical figures and highly embellished to make a point.

2. Absolute, literal truth.

I don't really think that an in between is workable because that's where people begin cherry picking to justify anything they want and use it as a means to an end rather than a true religious text. That said, where Genesis is concerned, science has shown time and again that it is a mythical story meant to establish ancestry for major players in the Bible that come in at later points, as well as to provide a creation story for the sake of having one, as all religions tend to do. We have dinosaur fossils, a pretty accurate age for the earth itself, and our dating methods have come a very long way in the past few decades, leaving a much smaller margin of error in dating bones and other organic materials. There is no reason to believe that man and dinosaur co-existed.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Marby

[shadowlark]

I know a few people who seriously believe that dinosaur fossils are fakes put on earth to test people's faith. They wholeheartedly believe in creationism and dismiss evolution as a test.

[ShadowsAndDust]

How about instead of 7 days (like translated in the Bible) it was ages. Man was created last right? So these ages (which could possibly seem like days to God) would be over 100 million years, enough for God to create the 'animals and the sea' and then create humans.

[SunDogDayze]

Why does no one ever ask where single cell life forms are at in the Bible?

I believe in biblical infallibility which is that the Bible is correct in matters of spirituality and faith but not science or history. Biblical inerrancy claims the Bible is correct in both matters of spirituality and faith as well as science and history.

Good answer. The issue then becomes which parts were literal and which were metaphorical, which is usually the dividing lines between denominations within Christianity.

[Marby]

I know a few people who seriously believe that dinosaur fossils are fakes put on earth to test people's faith. They wholeheartedly believe in creationism and dismiss evolution as a test.

I've heard that one too... eesh. Don't get me started.

[Donnie Darko]

Maybe the ancient people saw some fossils, and made up stories about the dinosaurs being giants.

I've seen something on giant human bones being found somewhere in Venezuela or Argentina although i wouldn't swear to it. Pretty confusing stuff. I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I'm open to anything but i just hope that whole "Alien DNA" theory is not true. Not that I couldn't accept it but...it's just lame and dissapointing to think we were created by Aliens with huge bug eyes...Ahhh!!!!!

Edited August 3, 2008 by OzzyV

[Apostle]

Ok this has always perplexed me and as a christian made me wonder. In the beginning god created the earth and he talks about creating the waters and the fish etc etc. But never does he mention creating Dinosaurs that existed for such a long period of time. I mean we do know they existed, we have fossils and bones to prove it. What's also strange is we have no records whatsoever of the giants that were mentioned in the bible. Unless perhaps the giants were actually the dinosaurs.. I don't know..

The word "dinosaurs" was invented in 1941 and the KJV was translated in 1611; I would hope that the word dinosaurs wouldn't be in the Bible. However, there are descriptions of animals that sound very much like dinosaurs or places that talk about 'dragons', which could also be translated as 'giant creatures'.

A few examples are:

-Psalm 74:13- "...you brake the heads of the dragons in the waters."

-Isaiah 27:1- "In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent,even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

-Job 41:1- "Can you draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which you let down."

- Job 40:15-19- "Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force in in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach him."

[danielost]

Ok this has always perplexed me and as a christian made me wonder. In the beginning god created the earth and he talks about creating the waters and the fish etc etc. But never does he mention creating Dinosaurs that existed for such a long period of time. I mean we do know they existed, we have fossils and bones to prove it. What's also strange is we have no records whatsoever of the giants that were mentioned in the bible. Unless perhaps the giants were actually the dinosaurs.. I don't know..

Why no mention of gaint squid.

[Apostle]

The creation account in Genesis was never meant to be taken as a literal account of creation. The writing style of this section of Genesis has a decidedly poetic edge, with poetic devices and figurative symbols scattered throughout that convey that the intention was not to explain HOW the universe came into being, but rather WHY we exist, and probably more importantly, WHO was behind it. As such, the original writers had no reason to provide scientific explanations of the origins of life (and as such, the origins of dinosaurs).

Simple!

Wrong.

"At Answers in Genesis, we often say that Christians must take the book of Genesis as written. But should we take the whole of the Bible literally? We've got to be careful in this area. Some observations:

First, Jesus Christ quoted from Genesis when He talked about the origin and foundation for marriage. So He took Genesis literally.

Also, the apostle Paul cited Genesis when writing about the first Adam and the last Adam (i.e., Christ), and so he took Genesis literally. That's because Genesis was written as history. It's typical of Jewish "historical narrative."

There are other passages in the Bible, however, that are not meant to be taken literally. The book of Psalms, for example, says the trees, "clap their hands." Now, of course, they don't, but we still understand what the passage means because we know that psalms are poetic songs.

The point is that we need to take the Bible the way it was meant to be taken. Some of the Bible's books were written to express things symbolically. But when that's the case it is obvious, like the parable of Christ.

Remember what the psalmist said when, referring to Genesis (and not writing as a poet): "Thy Word is true from the beginning."

~Source:answersupdate volume 15 issue 8

[Apostle]

How about instead of 7 days (like translated in the Bible) it was ages. Man was created last right? So these ages (which could possibly seem like days to God) would be over 100 million years, enough for God to create the 'animals and the sea' and then create humans.

This completely goes against Scripture. The Hebrew word used for day in the creation account is 'yom'. Yom can mean an indefinite amount of time, but it means a literal day when it includes one or more of the following:

-a number

-the word morning

-the word evening

As I'm sure you know, the Genesis account of creation has all three.

Also, in Exodus 20:11 clearly show that they were literal 24 hour days.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

This was to define our work week, based off the Lord's one week of creation and the seventh day of resting.

[Apostle]

We have evidence that says we never coexisted with dinosaurs, the Bible, just has itself.

I'm interested as to what this is, considering it is impossible to prove that dinosaurs don't exist today.

Also, I'm just curious of an explanation of the many drawings of ancient civilizations of what are clearly dinosaurs; how did they know what they looked like? Or even the dragons, all legends have some basis in facts, could these have been dinosaurs? Just curious.

[churchanddestroy]

This completely goes against Scripture. The Hebrew word used for day in the creation account is 'yom'. Yom can mean an indefinite amount of time, but it means a literal day when it includes one or more of the following:

-a number

-the word morning

-the word evening

As I'm sure you know, the Genesis account of creation has all three.

Also, in Exodus 20:11 clearly show that they were literal 24 hour days.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

This was to define our work week, based off the Lord's one week of creation and the seventh day of resting.

Then, courtesy of radiometric dating and other dating methods, Genesis is wrong.

[danielost]

Then, courtesy of radiometric dating and other dating methods, Genesis is wrong.

Or, radiometric dating and other dating methods are wrong.

[_Spawn_]

- Job 40:15-19- "Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force in in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are like bars of iron.His bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach him."

That reminded me of this fella

Dimetrodon

[+Link of Hyrule]

Good answer. The issue then becomes which parts were literal and which were metaphorical, which is usually the dividing lines between denominations within Christianity.

Use the text! The best way to decide whether something is literal or metaphorical is to use the text! In the case of dinosaurs in the Bible, and the matters of Christianity, I mentioned above that the early chapters of Genesis show a distinct poetic/symbolic narrative style. I'm not making something up to fit in with my worldview, I see the text, I see the imagery, and I see that the first 11 chapters of Genesis adhere to this poetic narrative. Suddenly, from Genesis 12, the genre changes from poetic narrative to historical narrative, so I have no problem with stating that Genesis 12-50 is an accurate historical account of the early stages of Israel's history. However, I cannot ignore the poetic imagery of the earlier chapters, and so come to the conclusion that the creation account was never meant to be a literal application of how the universe came into being (though many Christians did come to that view, particularly in the early history of Chrsitianity). Rather it is a theological discourse explaining why we exist and who created us.

I'm happy to provide specifics of the poetic devices used, if you want. I've posted them before, so I won't repost unless someone wants details. But to summarise, the issue of a passage being literal or metaphorical is usually decided by the text itself!