What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

[Lone Owl]

If you read the bible.. some of the animals were not given names but referred to as beasts(could have been the dinasaurs). And I think Noah couldn't get all those dinosaurs in the Ark cos.. lets face it, some of them were just huge and had attitude problems, e.g T-Rex.

So Noah left them in the rain until all their bones rusted.. so that is why all the manageable beasts were rescued and the rest as they say was ANCIENT HISTORY.

the End

[IamsSon]

The ship would have fallen apart at that size, even with modern tech, we'd still need to use metal reinforcement to build a ship near that size out of wood

Wow, so you're a shipbuilder. Cool. What shipyard do you work at?

[Jodie.Lynne]

That's a very good question, but just to point out - not everyone of us Christians believe that evolution and the dinosaurs are abruptly a misconception, or something not of our peaceful world ...

To tell you my view point, the seven days of creation talked about in Genesis, was WAY more than seven days (obviously, there is no other possible scientific way). In fact, it was an abbreviation, for many MORE days. A extended thread of evolution, when he put the smallest cell on the planet to evolve into the mightiest of dinosaurs, and into animals, and thus into man. A long stretch of creation, if I may say so. Genesis is filled with all sorts of hidden secrets .

Because obviously, the ancients who came up with this story couldn't possibly count higher than "7", and had NO concept of a time period greater than a day........................

As an aside, who wrote down the Genesis account? For you literal minds out there, what I mean is who first recorded it?

And why is the bible so fluid?

According to many here, Genesis' "day" is an indeterminate period of time, anywhere from 24 hours to (whatever number of years needed to be in accord with science). Does that mean that Noah's "forty days and forty nights" is also adaptable?

How about Jesus' "forty days in the desert"? Could it have been 40 years? 40 minutes?

And I have to ask: How does one know which parts of the Bible are allegorical, which parts factual, and which parts are "god inspired"? Seems that even those concepts are rather elastic.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Wow, so you're a shipbuilder. Cool. What shipyard do you work at?

No, not a shipbuilder, just someone who understands the limitations of size on wooden ships

[+Paranoid Android]

And why is the bible so fluid?

According to many here, Genesis' "day" is an indeterminate period of time, anywhere from 24 hours to (whatever number of years needed to be in accord with science). Does that mean that Noah's "forty days and forty nights" is also adaptable?

How about Jesus' "forty days in the desert"? Could it have been 40 years? 40 minutes?

Correct on all counts, my friend.

And I have to ask: How does one know which parts of the Bible are allegorical, which parts factual, and which parts are "god inspired"? Seems that even those concepts are rather elastic.

This is the qualifier to my above statement - there's always a provisional, eh

One should note where the number is used, to gauge how best to make a response. Especially whether the passage being read is either poetry or prophecy, both of which extensively use imagery. Numbers have highly symbolic meanings in the Bible. 7 was the number for completion, hence 7 days of creation. Likewise 40 days and 40 nights. 40 came to represent Israel in many ways (along with the number 12). 40 years in the wilderness, 40 days on the high seas, 40 days was Jesus tempted in the desert.

Of the numbers you suggested, I'd be willing to think that Jesus being tempted for 40 days was actually 40 days, in order to hail back to the OT references to Israel's 40-year wandering in the desert (except that Jesus remained faithful and Israel did not). I'd also perhaps lean towards a literal 40-year wandering of the desert, though I would not be surprised if it were symbolic. And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if those 40-days and nights on the Ark were completely symbolic.

In a nutshell, it is the context of how the number was used that helps one to judge whether it really means that exact period of time detailed (I base my above belief on the poetic devices used in Genesis 1-11, from where we get both the 7-days of creation and the 40-days of floods). This is true of all numbers, not just 7 days or 40 days/years.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Paranoid Android

[IamsSon]

No, not a shipbuilder, just someone who understands the limitations of size on wooden ships

Well, that still sounds like an interesting area of knowledge, where did you learn about wooden ship limitations?

[Jodie.Lynne]

PA, as always, you provide a clear response.

Now..........

(heres that inevitable provision )

why stop there? If the numbers in these stories are symbolic, doesn't that make the whole story symbolic also? Isn't it possible, however unlikely to some, that the stories presented were mans way of trying to explain what they couldn't understand and therefore 'created' the concept of "god"?

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Well, that still sounds like an interesting area of knowledge, where did you learn about wooden ship limitations?

A large ship made of wood requires metal reinforcement, otherwise the stresses placed on the ship would cause the ship to take on water and sink, if not actually break in half.

[+Paranoid Android]

PA, as always, you provide a clear response.

Glad I didn't disappoint

Now..........

(heres that inevitable provision )

why stop there? If the numbers in these stories are symbolic, doesn't that make the whole story symbolic also? Isn't it possible, however unlikely to some, that the stories presented were mans way of trying to explain what they couldn't understand and therefore 'created' the concept of "god"?

In some respects. I believe there was a flood that covered the "known world" (I don't believe it was literally worldwide, and indeed other times when the BIble relates "I have been to the ends of the Earth, it really means they have just been far from home). I don't necessarily believe Noah specifically existed. I believe God created the earth. I don't necessarily believe Adam and Eve specifically existed either.

If the whole Bible were symbolic, then perhaps that would be right, JM. One could think it just man's attempt to explain what they couldn't explain. But it's not all symbolic, but contains much of history as well. It's like reading Robert Frost's poem on D-Day, WWII (don't recall the name, haven't done High School English for years), and then coming to the conclusion that D-Day never happened because it was written about in a poem.

Other parts of the Bible are clearly written as fact (whether it is fact is a different matter, but I'm just saying that it's not poetry/symbology). It has descriptions of God interacting with humanity. Taking the Bible as a whole, I have come to the conclusion that it is true. That it is not a creation of man solely to explain what they themselves couldn't explain.

Know what I mean.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Iamsson, the first time I heard about it was on a History channel special, then from there I researced it more on various webpages

[BabelPlatz]

Wow, so you're a shipbuilder. Cool. What shipyard do you work at?

No its ridiculous to point out the strutural and engineering limitations of this supposed ark because, dont you know, God held it all together with his magical powers

He sent down angels with magical fairy dust and they fed all the animals -thousands of them, they were nourished by love alone!

I find it very difficult to take articles and the "evidence" they present when they come from ChristiansGivingStuipidAssAnswers.com

[Ashley-Star*Child]

If one were to read the book of Enoch, it speaks of 'giants' and 'beasts' (Dead Sea Scrolls Book of the Giants) that reached a height if 45ft, drank blood and filled the 'world with blood', that were the REASON for the flood, to wipe them out, which began with a meteor/asteroid hit. Sounds like dinosaurs to me, even the manner of death is compatible with modern science.

I'd like to remind everyone that a good perecntage of dinosaur fossils were created from a flood.

And may I also add that Enoch is older than Genesis (Genesis was written by Moses) and gives the original account of Creation stating that Creation took 7000 years. One Heaven day to 1000 Earth Years.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Ashley-Star*Child

[fangs]

My grandfather(hardcore baptist preacher) had an awnser that fits.

When i asked him this question along time ago his awnser was,"before Adam and Eve ate the fruit they were imortal,the bible did not tell us how long they was in the garden so the dinosaurs could have came and went in the time they were there".

I could find no fault in that argument.

[itsnotoutthere]

Asking more questions to answer a question isn't giving an answer.

The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs anywhere, nor does it explain why they were there. You can't tell me that they didn't know about it because well... Dinosaurs were everywhere on earth with many many many different kinds.

Something tells me that the people creating a religion and writing a book to follow didn't know about them.

You can't tell me either that off-beat words that translate into different meanings = dinosaurs either. There are many other reptiles that are not dinosaurs.

Even more so Noah was suppose to collect two of every kind of animal... Which by today's standards is impossible no matter which way you cut it.

Here's a laid out view of Christians on the dinosaurs... Remember what you've learned in school when reading this... Link

Just been to the link......tell me, do they actually teach this tripe to kids?

[itsnotoutthere]

Seems to be that far from being the absolute word of God, the bible can actually be interpreted to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean !

[Preacherbill]

First note, It is impossible to label any one answer the “Christian” answer, to many different denominations and sects of Christianity to get a single answer out of them.

Second, It is important to remember what the bible was especially the first five books of the Old Testament. This group of books used by the early Israelites was a book to help guide their moral and religious life. It was not written as a history text, it was written as a guide to their life. With the possible exception of the Mosses story.

Personally as a minister I see the bible as the Inspired Word of God, this is very different that the view that the bible is the Literal Word of God. The bible is a resource to help us come into a better relationship with God, not a history text book for us to say that the world is only 6000 years old or that the devil is trying to trick us with dinosaur bones.

Some Christians will disagree with me but that’s my take on it.

[itsnotoutthere]

It is my opinion that saying the "7 days" could actually be many years or a million years is just another example of people changing the words of the bible to not allow the sacred book to be debunked.

I totally agree, & the more these sort of questions are asked the more flexible the bible becomes.

There are people on these threads that do take the bible as literal truth, which to some extent i admire because frankly there are some explanations given to justify certain biblical events that i would have difficulty posting & keeping a straight face.

[draconic chronicler]

I am astonished how little most of the people here know about the Bible. Some of the worlds greatest scientists are Christians because of the remarkable compatibility between the real bible and evolution, despite sincere but ignorant fundamentalists who turn their religion into a joke with T Rexes riding on Noahs ark.

The Hebrew creation account does not mean 7 days, it means seven periods, and in the account life in the sea is first. Later there is a period of "great monsters, also translated to mean reptilian dragons, which can only mean the dnosaurs. After this the modern animals appear and finally man, just like evolution. And this is what is so remarkable to the scientists, that bronze age man KNEW this.

But the fundies ignore this amazing proof of the existence of God and concoct this ridicuous story that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dangerous dinosuars lived in peace alongside men.

Yes, there are dragons in the bible after the flood, and the flood did not cover the whole world anyway, it was probably "Noah World when the black Sea flooded and precisely the right time.

But what the fundies do not understand is that those dragons after the flood are NOT dinosaurs, which were all dead 65 million years ago. They are exactly what the Bible says they are, "Dragons". And what is a dragon, the Hebrew word for them is Seraphim, which means a flying, fiery serpent. These are the oldest servant of God, certainly dating before the dinosaur extinction. Now the original hebrew has been ignored, and these winged dragons have been turned into cartoon sunday school angels with blond hair, blue eyes, halos, and swans wings coming out of their backs. But in the real Bible, only these "dragons" have wings, all angels look exactly like humans and are mistaken for humans in several verses.

Angels are messengers in the bible. The dragons are "destroyers".

they destroyed Sodoma nd Gommorah, the first born of Egypt, and supposedly will return to destroy the wickedest third of mankind. They are the original "weapon of mass destruction". The real satan of the Bible was never a fallen angel, this is just more modern Christian mythology. Satan was always one of the Seraph-dragon created by God by modifying some yet to be discovered prehistoric reptile, giving it greater intelligence and other ailibities, and these same dragons were believed in by virtually every human culture for thousands of years, and may be the mysterious monsters still reeported, but will never be caught. One of their purposes seems to be consuming the souls of the wicked, for these dragons were the original concept of Hell in anceint christian literature long before Dante invented the modern concept of "underground cartoon hell" in the middle ages. you can see images of the heavenly dragons in acneint Christian chruches and ivory Bible covers. Their living bodies form the throne of God (Covering Cherubus), and are often depiected gobbling up the sinners standing in judgement before God..... but they never tell you about that in Sunday School, becasue it is too disturbing.

My new book on the heavenly dragons, and the catholic conspiracy to take them out of the bible should be out by Christmas, and will sure to be discussed here. It will have scriptural and archaeological proof of everything I have said, but there is much much more as well, explaining many of the Biblical dragon legends most people have never heard of. Like when Moses was swallowed, but spewed up again by a dragon, sometimes identified as Satan, and the fact that the creature who swallowed Jonah is also a dragon, which is why it could follow orders and prevent Jonah from dying (carrying him in its throat). Also explained is why dragons could be perceived so benevolent, or so terrifying, depending on the particular culture, but all dragonslaying legends have been greatly exaggerated. Judging from the lack of bones, they , like angels seem to have solved the aging process. And if fact, in the earliest account of Eden, recorded some 1500 years before the earliest genesis version, has the heavenly dragon offering eternal life to Adape (Adam) on behalf of the supreme God, but he refuses the offer. After retelling the original Sumerian story as an oral tradition for centuries, the dragon's role changes from good to bad, and this misinerpetaton froms the basis of the Christain "Devil", for the Satan dragon of the Old Testament, while frightening, is nothing but a loyal servant of God, and must have God's permission to harm a single human! But the pagan converts to Christianty 'needed' a bad god for the good god to fight for this is the basis of the multi-god pagan religons.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

But the pagan converts to Christianty 'needed' a bad god for the good god to fight for this is the basis of the multi-god pagan religons.

No need for an "evil god", the Abrahamic "good god" is bad enough

[Cadetak]

I come to realize that when God created the universe in "6days" can't mean days by our terms since we calculate days by rotaion of the earth...i don't think the earth was created until the 2nd or 3rd day(no idea can't remember) so the first day when God seperated night from day or whatever coldn't have bin measured by days because there was no earth...or sun to calculate it by.

[fangs]

i would guess if we are made in his image,the God would be a procrastinator. So being all powerfull he could have waited a few billion years before he checked his watch,made man then called it a day. I wouldnt argue with him over it.

[raider91]

This question is very good, but animals were created first,before the humans. In the bible God says Genisis 3:21-23, "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living an moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening , and there was morning.-the fifth day"

It wasn't till the next "day" when land creatures were made, then humans.God says "CREATURES". creatures could be dinosaurs. And while they were breeding many more species could have been made. God has many messages in each single passage, but you have to look for it.

Edited October 14, 2006 by raider91

[Cadetak]

Arent there two genesis stories? one where man was made first?

[Q-La]

If the bible was written that dinosaurs were came into existence at certain million years ago, then man deviated from the other primates at blah blah blah no one would need to believe anymore. Looks like the rules of the game of religion is about what your take is regarding the relevance of morals to your life. Besides I wouldn't be surprised by the fact that the bible is written by human affected various human condition at the time written (I know it's Moses, but)

[+Paranoid Android]

Arent there two genesis stories? one where man was made first?

Liberals try and make Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as an amalgamation of two creation stories. In both accounts animals were made before man. Needless to say, I don't take a liberalist view, and see Genesis 1 as an account of all creation, and then Genesis 2 narrowing the focus and discussing the creation of a particular area and particular people (Eden).

Hope that helps