Where do dinosaurs fit in the bible?

[draconic chronicler]

In regards to dinos and Bible, etc. What we know about science states that dinos died off long before people were around. So man wasnt the first thing created. Also, people would not have been able to know, see, of draw about dinos back then, because they were never around.

But the Bible does say there were 'dragons' (Tannin) in an age before men. It also said life began in the sea and that men arrived after the other large mammals.

Without the rather silly secondary creation story added to the Bible that makes Adam the first living thing, the Elohim creation is quite a remarkable document that begins with life in the sea, then an age of "birds and dragons" followed by the age of mammals and man last. and nothing to suggest this happened only 6000 years ago. These epochs could have taken billions of years just as the scientific record confirms.

The word dinosaur was not coined until 1841. But every ancient culture believed in giant reptiles. In the bible the word used is Tannin. And this does not mean whales or fish, becasue the Tannin are described in the desert as well.

The dragons that lived in the time of men however are no mere animals like the extinct dinosaur-tannin, but are regarded as heavenly creatures called seraphim in the Bible, and consiered gods and assistants to gods in many human cultures.

Edited August 4, 2008 by draconic chronicler

[danielost]

Well, that would explain that, now wouldn't it. Like I said, and like you ignored, despite whatever those pseudo-scientists down at AiG say, there is no geological evidence for a global flood. None. Zip, zero, zilch. Also, a flood does not explain why earlier more primitive forms of life are found in completely different layers than more 'advanced' forms of life. You never find trilobites buried with dinosaurs and you will never find humans buried with pterodactyls. If a global flood happened fossils would be equally dispersed in an even layer around the globe. This alone indicates that there WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD, never mind the fact that there is not enough water on the planet to flood the entire planet.

I don't know why you people keep saying there is not enough water. The planet is 70%+ water. The oceans are far deeper than the highest mountian. There is plenty of water. But you refuse to think that the ocean water may have washed over the land in a very massive tidal wave. We don't know where we will find human bones since we have only found 5 and they were buried in a grave.

Edited August 4, 2008 by danielost

[danielost]

i dont see how a mythical creature represents dinos in the bible.

and IF, they were in the bible, or people saw them, its because some must have found a way to survive from millions of years ago, to this time.

That's funny science thinks that the dragons were peoples way of explaining the bones of dinosaurs.

[OldTimeRadio]

First, there are many things not mentioned in the Bible. Nobody claims that the Bible is THE GENERAL ONE-STOP-SHOP ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF EVERYTHING.

Second, even from a strict Creationist viewpoint (I am not a Creationist), dinosaurs would seem to have existed during the period between God's creation of the Earth and His creation of Man.

[OldTimeRadio]

But you refuse to think that the ocean water may have washed over the land in a very massive tidal wave.

The only problem I have with that is that even the most monstrous "tidal waves" (tsunamis) simply don't get very far inland.

The world record seems to be less than two miles!

That's because the Earth's own gravity quickly pulls the wave down.

[Agent. Mulder]

That's funny science thinks that the dragons were peoples way of explaining the bones of dinosaurs.

well, thats actually what i would usually tell DC in the dragon threads.

but i meant for dino sightings, it could be like what we see today as mokele-mbeme or a plesiosaur in loch ness.

[OldTimeRadio]

But never does he mention creating Dinosaurs that existed for such a long period of time.

But God also created hundreds of thousands of other animals and plants which likewise get no biblical mention.

[Agent. Mulder]

But God also created hundreds of thousands of other animals and plants which likewise get no biblical mention.

they get no mention, because people at that time hadent ventured out enough, to alot of places to see what other animals there are.

and plus they probably didnt wanna waste time finding new species, naming them, then writing them in the greatest piece of fiction ever. they had more important things to write about. like a senior building an arc for a world wide flood or a burning bush that talks.

[danielost]

The only problem I have with that is that even the most monstrous "tidal waves" (tsunamis) simply don't get very far inland.

The world record seems to be less than two miles!

That's because the Earth's own gravity quickly pulls the wave down.

If the Earth was knocked over 24 degrees or what ever the actual degree we are it sure would be one heck of a tidal wave.

[danielost]

they get no mention, because people at that time hadent ventured out enough, to alot of places to see what other animals there are.

and plus they probably didnt wanna waste time finding new species, naming them, then writing them in the greatest piece of fiction ever. they had more important things to write about. like a senior building an arc for a world wide flood or a burning bush that talks.

Since the people before the flood was living for up to 900 years. I don't think a man of 60 would have been a senior.

[churchanddestroy]

While you may or may not agree that the creation story is poetic, I can say this, that solid science does not back up a literal creation. The earth is not 6000 years old and there is no geological record of a global flood.

6,000 years old? You are joking, right? You fell for the Bishop Ussher con? It takes the light of some stars millions of years to reach the earth and you are talking about 6,000 years? It takes a hundred thousand years for some objects to fossilize and you believe all this has been here only 6,000 years?

This is a boatload of science? You forgot to add the word "fiction."

I think you misunderstood me. I said the Earth is NOT 6000 years old. I know Bishop Ussher and his timeline based on Biblical genealogy. I'm not a Christian, I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, nor did I, at any point in my Christian faith, believe any of those things.

[churchanddestroy]

I don't know why you people keep saying there is not enough water. The planet is 70%+ water. The oceans are far deeper than the highest mountian. There is plenty of water. But you refuse to think that the ocean water may have washed over the land in a very massive tidal wave. We don't know where we will find human bones since we have only found 5 and they were buried in a grave.

There would be enough water to cover the earth if the earth was flat. The earth, however, is not flat. Problem solved.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Everything that you've said is contrary to Scripture.

I don't think it does. Remember, I am not arguing that this is poetry and thus myth. I am arguing that the writing style is poetic narrative. It is unique in the Bible and appears nowhere else except Genesis 1-11. One theologian, when asked to describe the style Genesis 1-11 was written in describes it as "Genesis 1-11 style". I clearly see that this is the case - we have genealogies and accounts of what happened. But by the same token I cannot ignore the poetic devices, the structure of creation, the addition of people, the slide into sin, and believe that this is not necessarily an historical recount of history. As I said, the stories are probably based on real people and/or events, but we cannot blindly take this as literal history, but rather a theological discourse to explain our existence on earth and God's purpose for us.

The Hebrew style of poetry uses pluralisms; such as two lines have the same meaning but using different words, or a second line adds the meaning to the first, or the second line contrasts the first, etc... but none of these forms are found in Genesis. What you've shown is that Genesis uses a waw-consecutive to show consecutive action (waw=and). This indicates a real time sequence of real events.

"While the Hebrew language may seem frightening to some, it really is not. The style of writing of Genesis 1 is historical, using the waw-consecutive to express consecutive action (waw = and). Biblical historians use this style to: "express actions, events, or states, which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequence of actions, events, or states mentioned immediately before." (Ref. 7) What this means for Genesis 1 is that God describes a sequence of events that occur one after the other throughout the creation week. We see this sequence reflected in the English as 'And God said,' 'And there was,' or 'And it was,' with which each verse in Genesis I begins. Each occurrence signifies that some action followed another in a real time sequence." [ E. Kautzsch, Genesius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd edition revised by A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 133.] by James Stambaugh. ICR Impact #251. [http://ldolphin.org/waw.html] {note: the waw-consec doesn't always imply actions in sequence - it can also be used to expand on an event just mentioned.]."

~Source: http://ldolphin.org/genmyth.html

I can show you how poetic and figurative language fits in with other parts of Genesis 1-11, if you like. Noah - 40 days and nights of rain. 4 (and multiples thereof, 40, 400, 4000, etc) being a symbolic number for the land, and the rain beating down for 40 days and nights expresses figuratively a time span that is long, but not uncountable. Additionally, there's the symbolic numbers of animals. 2 pairs of unclean animals and 7 pairs of clean animals - again - 7, being the number of perfection to refer to clean animals. Even more than this though, a bigger question arises - and I'd really like you to answer this one, if you don't mind - on what scriptural basis is there for Noah to understand the difference between clean and unclean animals?

There are other symbolic references, these are just the surface ones.

This is also very much incorrect. As I said before, the Hebrew poetical style is not found in Genesis, look in the Psalms if you want that.

With all due respect, I think the structural form of creation clearly shows the figurative nature of this (days 1 and 4; 2 and 5; 3 and 6; followed by day 7 where the Lord rests to complete the figurative nature of perfection/completion).

This is horrible. Not only does the Genesis account of the flood clearly show that this was world-wide, Genesis is not the only place in the Bible to testify of this.

2 Peter 3:5-6, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."

Hebrews 11:7, "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became of the righteousness which is by faith."

The Greek word translated as "world" here most correctly translates as "region of land". It can refer to the whole world if the context is right. But the word for "earth" also means "land" (known world), and thus the flood need not necessarily cover the whole world. As for Hebrews, what does anything of what I said contradict about that? I said that there was probably a flood with a Noah-figure who rode out the water (possibly by God's command) - thus Hebrews 11 is still theologically accurate.

You are mistaking my argument thinking that I am arguing solely for a mythical view of Genesis 1-11. I am not. I am simply addressing it as I believe it should be addressed, poetic narrative - possibly based on real events, but not necessarily historical accounts of the event.

Well, I would hope that Adam existed, since Jesus descended from him. I would hope that there was a tower of babel since the Bible clearly says there was.

As I said, I'm fairly certain there was a figure on which Adam and Eve were based, but they were not necessarily the first human beings - for example, when Cain kills Abel, why does Cain think his punishment is too hard to bear? " Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." (Genesis 4:13-14). Who are these people who would find and kill him? The Bible so far has only shown us Adam, Eve, and their sons Cain and the now-deceased Abel. Also take quick note that he "wanders the earth" (did he really walk around the whole world? No. Then was there really a flood that covered the whole world? Why is one plausible but the other not?)

As I said - poetic narrative. Probably based on real events, but not necessarily to be taken as historical account of what happened.

There is nothing poetical about Genesis 1-11. Logically thinking, why would Moses randomly switch from a poetical to a non poetical narrative. It would make more sense that He never used poetical language (which is evident when looking at the Hebrew).

I have shown plenty of evidence here for figurative language. As for why the first 11 chapters are poetic narrative and the rest is historical narrative, I do not know. I can only go by what the Bible says, and the Bible shows a distinct change form poetic narrative to historical narrative. You may not like it, but that's the way the narrative is structured. As I said, from chapter 12 onwards, I have no reason not to think of it as anything but an historical account. 1-11 are poetic, and while based on events, are not necessarily historical.

Genesis ch1-11 is the basis of the Bible and if they can't be trusted, then why do you trust any of the rest of the Bible?

I never said 1-11 could not be trusted. I simply am saying that chapters 1-11 have a different purpose than chapters 12-50. That doesn't make it any less reliable. Whether real or not, the theological implications of these 11 chapters remain the same.

[will_1835]

I finally have the proof we've been looking for! (sorry. I couldnt resist the temptation)

[OldTimeRadio]

If the Earth was knocked over 24 degrees or what ever the actual degree we are it sure would be one heck of a tidal wave.

Yes, but even in that unhappy scenario gravity wouldn't stop functioning. Gravity works by mass, not rotational angle.

[draconic chronicler]

well, thats actually what i would usually tell DC in the dragon threads.

but i meant for dino sightings, it could be like what we see today as mokele-mbeme or a plesiosaur in loch ness.

No, the Bible specifically refers to fiery flying serpents sent by God to punish the Hebrews. This is why creationists are very interested in the Ropen accounts of flying reptiles today, to prove the Bible is right. Though few modern Christians realize it, this is what the word Seraphim actually means. There is even early Christian art to prove the ancient Christians actually understood the meaning of the word, becasue they depicted 'dragons' surrounding the throne of God based on the Isaiah description. In some scriptures written in Greek the seraphim are actually renamed serpents or dragons. All the ancient writers inclduiding those who we consider the first scientists like Herodatus and Pliny spoke of flying serpents/drakons as real creatures, and of course, most ancient cultures made gods or assistants of gods to them, including the Judao-Christian theologies.

The reptilian deity elements of Judaism and Christianity have largely been covered up and forgotten by today's Christians, and the Seraphim 'dragons' have now been transformed into the familiar swan winged, haloed, white robed "cartoon and Christmas card" angels but the ancient chruch art and scriptures that say they are winged reptiles is proof to the contrary.

So the question is, were the ancient people actually seeing living dinosaurs that science tell us went extinct 65 million years ago, or were they seeing what they actually say they were seeing, sentient flying reptilian creatures believed in by virtually every culture that were their gods, asistants to gods and devils that we universally call 'dragons' today.

[drakonwick]

So the question is, were the ancient people actually seeing living dinosaurs that science tell us went extinct 65 million years ago, or were they seeing what they actually say they were seeing, sentient flying reptilian creatures believed in by virtually every culture that were their gods, asistants to gods and devils that we universally call 'dragons' today.

There possibly could have been some type of species that was written about in ancient texts, I have no problem

accepting that. But, the species is more than likely extinct now.

It's when you start adding superior intellignece to these supposed creatures, that I will not accept.

People worshipped and revered a species that may have existed some five-thousand years ago,

so what? That does not mean the species was superiorly intelligent. People have imaginations, they

can create whatever kind of stories and myths they want, and it still will not make it anymore of a

fact. In FACT people still worship and praise an imaginary being today.

[Bender.]

Oh so whenever something in the bible is proven false, all Christians just say 'not meant to be taken literally.' You can't just pick and choose which bits you WANT to believe in. So say if each of the 7 days meant 100 million years, that would still put the dates WAY, WAY off. Also, when Jesus went into the desert for 40 days, did those days mean 100 million years too?

The bible is full of contradictions and the very sight of people trying to preach from it is laughable.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Bender.

[Apostle]

Well, that would explain that, now wouldn't it. Like I said, and like you ignored, despite whatever those pseudo-scientists down at AiG say, there is no geological evidence for a global flood. None. Zip, zero, zilch. Also, a flood does not explain why earlier more primitive forms of life are found in completely different layers than more 'advanced' forms of life. You never find trilobites buried with dinosaurs and you will never find humans buried with pterodactyls. If a global flood happened fossils would be equally dispersed in an even layer around the globe. This alone indicates that there WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD, never mind the fact that there is not enough water on the planet to flood the entire planet.

Actually, there is enough water. The earth was flat before the flood, however, when the flood happened, the earth changed dramatically. Canyons were formed, thick layers were formed, mountain ranges were formed, the land mass was divided, etc... I believe if the earth were flat the waters would be about 8,000 ft. deep.

I've always been confused on this point. According to evolution, fossils form rarely. Yet, we find fossil graveyards, which alone should indicate that that is not the case. So, since we have all these fossils, evolutionists try to find the 'missing links', but it doesn't even make sense how the missing links would get there. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I have been confused on it and any help would be appreciated.

Something else that has puzzled me is the trees found in many strata. This disproves the idea that thin layers of millions of years buried them, because in millions of years they would have decayed and rotted away. But they were completely covered quickly. Doesn't this indicate a global flood?

[Dr. D]

I don't know why you people keep saying there is not enough water. The planet is 70%+ water. The oceans are far deeper than the highest mountian. There is plenty of water. But you refuse to think that the ocean water may have washed over the land in a very massive tidal wave. We don't know where we will find human bones since we have only found 5 and they were buried in a grave.

So it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and somehow all this water . . . . recycled from the earth itself of course . . . . somehow created a tidal wave to move across continents . . . .

But there is a problem with all that . . . . several problems in fact . . . . first of all, the remaining 30% does not and never did have enough salt deposits to make the oceans so salty. The natural water from the remaining 30% is sweet and drinkable. That implies that this water has a different source which remains a mystery not many are willing to talk about.

The fact that 70% of the earth is water denies the idea that any climatic system could ever be strong enough to extract all the waters from the oceans, evaporate the water into clouds and then drop it all again upon the earth. In that sense, as you claim, there never was enough water on the planet for this process to happen since the water would merely run off into the cavities of the dry oceans and would never cover mountains.

Sorry, the tale doesn't fly. Never did, never will.

But here's the good news . . . . I agree a global flood took place but it was not done in this form.

[Apostle]

While you may or may not agree that the creation story is poetic, I can say this, that solid science does not back up a literal creation. The earth is not 6000 years old and there is no geological record of a global flood.

6,000 years old? You are joking, right? You fell for the Bishop Ussher con? It takes the light of some stars millions of years to reach the earth and you are talking about 6,000 years? It takes a hundred thousand years for some objects to fossilize and you believe all this has been here only 6,000 years?

This is a boatload of science? You forgot to add the word "fiction."

Actually, the six thousand years comes from the Bible. Bishop Ussher was the first I guess to go through and add up the genealogies/chronologies in the Bible add added it up to be about 6,000 years.

The light-time-travel creates a problem for the big bang theory. However, according to creation, God created stars to give light upon the earth. That's the purpose of every single star in the universe. God made Adam a fully grown man, the trees were made already mature and bearing fruit, and that was the case with his creation.

Are the specific objects that have been proven to take a hundred thousand years to fossilize? Because as far as I knew, we have a fossilized mine hat, which obviously is no where near that old.

[Dr. D]

I think you misunderstood me. I said the Earth is NOT 6000 years old. I know Bishop Ussher and his timeline based on Biblical genealogy. I'm not a Christian, I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, nor did I, at any point in my Christian faith, believe any of those things.

My apologies . . . . I did, indeed, read your post wrongly.

[Apostle]

So it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and somehow all this water . . . . recycled from the earth itself of course . . . . somehow created a tidal wave to move across continents . . . .

But there is a problem with all that . . . . several problems in fact . . . . first of all, the remaining 30% does not and never did have enough salt deposits to make the oceans so salty. The natural water from the remaining 30% is sweet and drinkable. That implies that this water has a different source which remains a mystery not many are willing to talk about.

The fact that 70% of the earth is water denies the idea that any climatic system could ever be strong enough to extract all the waters from the oceans, evaporate the water into clouds and then drop it all again upon the earth. In that sense, as you claim, there never was enough water on the planet for this process to happen since the water would merely run off into the cavities of the dry oceans and would never cover mountains.

Sorry, the tale doesn't fly. Never did, never will.

But here's the good news . . . . I agree a global flood took place but it was not done in this form.

It did not only rain. The Bible speaks of the fountains of the deep bursting open. This would have meant there would have been earthquakes and volcanoes-molten lava. A tidal wave would have been easily created by the massive force of this stirring of the deep. The earth was flat, the mountains, canyons, valleys, etc.. were formed during the flood and in the after math of the flood.

Yeah, I don't really know much about the salt, fresh water. Only that fresh water can float above salty ocean water for many years, so the common objection that fresh water animals couldn't survive is wrong. But, we really can't know how salty the waters were before the flood. I mean, in evolution, life started in the sea, right? Was that salty or fresh water?

[Apostle]

There are many scientists who are Christians who see a knowledge of evolution in the bible. It never says in the Bible that the earth was created in 6 literal days, but discusses 6 epochs of time.

This is entirely wrong.

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

[Apostle]

Because the HUMANS that wrote the bible didn't know about the dinosaurs.

Actually, the word dinosaur hadn't been invented when the Bible was translated. There are descriptions today, we can clearly recognize as dinosaurs.