Where do the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

Your vision of "un-improved" is from a "human-superior" standpoint.

Species diverge into new species via Evolution, and in the case of apes - they seem to be better suited to jungle environments than homo sapiens, so they have survived.

It may be added that other versions of man are extinct, likely due to our warlike, xenophobic ways and our seemingly endless need to commit genocide.

According to the Bible, there is nothing you can or can't do to get to Heaven except accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and following His dictates. Your works / acts / tresspasses (forgiven or not) have nothing to do with getting into Heaven.

Don't backpedal. You stated that the *only* reason dinosaurs were so large was because they lived much longer back then and thus had time to grow. I countered your argument by stating that dino eggs showed that dinosaurs had *started* off larger than contemporary lizards, (with very different bone structures, by the way), and so your explanation needs revision.


I would disagree. While footnotes add a great deal of aid to readers, concepts like the number / word duality in Hebrew is something that I've not seen ever addressed in a copy of the Old Testament's commentary / footnotes.


Insufficient. Context is more than knowing how something is used in a sentence - context can include politics of the time, trends of the time, slang, local cultural nuances, etc. And when dealing with text as ancient as the 5 books of Moses, you lack "other referenced texts".


But most don't! The average church in Republican-controlled America is blind literalism. If you haven't noticed, most churches are these evangelical rock-band megachurches who are so un-denominationalized that they de-emphasize theology and focus on extreme basics.


These are all good to get a better understanding - and I think we pick at the problem in the same manner - as better understanding. However, I think where we differ is that you believe it's possible to get a perfect understanding - but I believe that any such perfection is impossible in our world due to the very nature of change itself.


No, faith is a conscious action taken by a person to believe in something that cannot be fully proven.


Well, that sort of goes into what I was saying - a god would have no need to - only to explain enough to make it clear to people that creation is linked with God.


You nailed it on the head - creation scientists start with a presupposition - which is unscientific from the offset. To be more objective, scientists need to start with observations, and no pre-established conclusions.

But I do agree that there are athiest scientists that are intent on not only disproving creation, but disproving God. I think that's equally as unscientific as the religious person trying to disprove evolution.

Once again - why does creation have to be an instantaneous process? Isn't it equally, if not more, reasonable to believe that God invented evolution?

From his website:
"You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation -- and it is indeed an excellently satisfying one -- is Darwinian natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is emphatically NOT the same thing as random mutation. Although random mutation does play a role in the theory, natural selection itself is the most important ingredient, and natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random."

Except this guy is clearly committing a fallacy of simply missing the point.

Natural selection happens *from* the pool of random genetic mutations. The two go hand in hand, and the fact that one is random and the other is not is in no way contradictory.

No it doesn't beg the question.

"Begging the question" is a commonly misused logic term that people substitute for "raises the question". "Begging the question" describes when someone restates their initial standing and insists it is true. In essence, they are begging that the other person accept the original question, so to speak.

For a simple example:

Person A: Bush is a dumbass.
Person B: How come?
Person A: Because Bush is an idiot!

While Bush may be a dumbass and an idiot, Person A is essentially restating his/her initial statement, without giving any evidence to support it.

Another example of begging the question:


In this case, he is stating that his assumption is the same thing that he is arguing - which is begging the question, by definition.

Jake and Teri - excellent posts!

I apologize for the number of posts ... there's a lot to respond to in 24 hours of absense from the thread!


And there are. And the overwhelming majority of theists who are also scientists believe in Evolution, and have come up with new interpretations of the Bible that fit both the biblical and scientific explanations.

Michael Seraph,

You have some interesting points but please refrain from saying peoples' beliefs are "stupid". You can disagree with someone's beliefs without ridiculing them.

I went back through the thread, and I can not see where I said that dinosaurs were large because they lived longer back then. I did say that they continue to grow their entire lives, but I do not know the age of dinosaurs when they died. I can only come up with the quote from the 'Walking with Dinosaurs' website 'Seismosaurus from New Mexico was really an old Diplodocus'.

I do not go off of footnotes alone. I have two computer programs that have:
- 63 Bibles
- 11 full Bible commentaries
- 5 Greek/Aramaic commentaries (New Testament)
- 2 Hebrew commentaries (Old Testament)
- 3 Greek/Aramaic interlinear Bibles (New Testament)
- 3 Hebrew interlinear Bibles (Old Testament)
- 5 Greek lexicons (New Testament)
- 2 Aramaic lexicons (New Testament)
- 3 Hebrew lexicons (Old Testament)
- Creeds of the church
- fundamentals of Christianity
- Schaff's History of the Christian Church
- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Volumes 1-9)
- Antiquities of the Jews
- War of the Jews
- Foxes Book of Martyrs
- Creeds of Christendom (Volumes 1-3)
- Sketches of Jewish Social Life
- the complete works of
---- Thomas Aquinas
---- James Arminius
---- John Bunyan
---- Jonathan Edwards
---- Martin Luther
---- Andrew Murray
---- John Owen
---- Arther Pink
---- Charles Spurgeon
- many sermons from the previous list as well as others.

Many other historical books as well (well over 800 including those I have already listed). They are all searchable.

I say all this, not to say look how good I am, but to let you know that I am not looking at foot notes. I truly try to find the answer when I or someone else has questions.

I will certainly agree with you here. It kind of erks me sometimes, but who am I to tell them how to study the Bible...

I would agree with this as well. Over the years, I have changed some of my ideals through exploration. It is never good to get stale...

Well, what I meant hear was, I do not put my faith in a particular Bible (or translation). My faith is in what God's Word teaches me through study, prayer, and fellowship.

I would agree with this, except to expound on it; God made that creation.

I don't really think that is possible as humans. Maybe, but I don't think so.

Well, I really don't look at it as trying to disprove evolution, but trying to line up facts with the Bible. Take a secular subject: As a scientist I believe that the Egyptian history is absolutely correct. They say that they have perfected the fountain of youth. Scientists have dismissed this as fanciful. But I go through all the compounds and liquids that were available during that time period that we know of, combining them meticulously. I am trying to prove something according to ancient writings that most scoff at. I see absolutely no problem with this.

Well, not according to the Bible taken literally. I made note of an experience I went through with my business partner (who is a Deist and very anti-Christian) earlier in this thread I believe (may have been another though). I believed God's 'day' could have been millions of years. We were discussing evolution and he asked me: If you can change even a single word in the Bible to fit your beliefs, why can't you change them all? It struck me profoundly, and I have not found anything in the Bible that does not fit a literal interpretation. So, I have since then taken it so.

To me, it does not matter whether it is random or natural (that may change in the future, but I have my plate full at the moment). I do believe in evolution. But not as most evolutionist believe. I do not believe that we came from a single source of tissue (microbe whatever). I think God made us just like the Bible says, in that order. But I certainly believe that all dogs came from an ancient ancestor.

The more I look at dating models, the more I do believe the Earth is a young one, and that it increases my belief that the Bible is historically correct in all ways.

I don't have the presumption that everyone will jump on the Kurgan bandwagon and believe all that I do, but I do like to throw out what I have discovered and get feed back (even if it is not always so pleasant).

Well, The Bible describes the creation of Adam and Eve, as well as their direct children ...

but how about the wives of the children and such. The Bible just says "they found" their mates. It says nothing about how they were created / evolved.

I doubt we come from a single source of tissue - though that is a very debateable issue in the scientific world. It's very likely that microbes started to develop simultaneously at different places on the planet where life was viable, and that evolution took hold in more than one source.

I firmly believe that god reveals himself to different cultures in different ways; a god that would select certain people for salvation and not give opportunity for others does not make sense to me. In this regard, whether in life or death, I think all people have the opportunity to experience and believe in God, and a chance at unity.

What that unity - heaven - nirvana - etc - is, well, that's a tough question.

Regardless, the point I want to make is that Christianity is but one path to understand the ultimate truth of the universe. Science is another. Other religions are more. Philosophy is another. Art and music is another.

Anyway, a very pleasant discussion so far - much more engaging than some of the religious snipe-fests I've seen and avoided here in the forums.

That doesn't make any more sense than god only selecting certain people for salvation. Religious differences have been one of the major causes of bloodshed, strife, and atrocity since the dawn of man. If god was all about providing equal opportunity why not just convince everyone of one singular truth in an indesputable manner and put an end to all the senseless bloodshed? There's only three possible answers... there is no god, god is not omnipotent, or we are all god's children but god is a child abuser.

Yes, based on those quotes (why in the world did you choose the AMP tranlation?) it certainly sounds like parables are completely meaningless. It begs the question, Why include them at all? I suppose in this case trying to explain what I mean by comparing them to parables isn't a good example and we should drop this line.

So we go back to your original assessment that if any part of the bible is not literally true, then none of it can be belived. I certainly don't think that because parts of the bible are not literally true that the entire bible is useless.

So I ask again can some stories in the bible (in the OT in particular) be seen as fictional accounts that teach a lesson? If that is the case, then you don't need to change any wording at all in the bible (and avoid the conundrum of falsifying the entire thing). I'm not up on bible quotes, but are there any passages that preclude this?

From a historical perspective, factual accounts of history are a fairly recent invention that came along with the rise of objective scientific inquery. At the time of the writing of bible, especially the old testement) histories were not concerned with literal facts. Consider contemporay histories written by the greeks.

That's why I'm not a Christian. The idea that it's the group you belong to and not your behavior that's important is, in my opinion, evil. The historical consequences of this belief have been devastating. The Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, are all tied to the idea that what we do doesn't matter because we're in the right group. The other major monotheistic religion, Islam, suffers from the same problem. I say, who cares what you say you believe, it's what you are doing that counts. If that sends me to hell, it's better than worshiping a so called god that punishes the good and forgives the evil.

I wasn't ridiculing them. I believe that their beliefs are stupid. You can disagree with my beliefs without telling me not to express them, can't you?

I would offer one more book for your reference list, Kurgan.

The name of the book is Pale Blue Dot, by Carl Sagan.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345376595/102-4531825-4372168?v=glance

It is key to understanding the faithless.

While it is not a perfect translation, it does add a lot to the understanding of the Bible with its text in brackets. The other one I like is the Living Bible, but it has huge glaring errors in it... I choose not to post the KJV because it is so hard to read for most people. None of them are perfect unless you go back to the original languages, but I don't think it would do much good to post those.

No, I hope I did not make you think this by my statements. The parables are an immense educational tool. They point out what will happen here on this Earth. But, they are parables, illustrations for the teaching of those who follow Jesus. Basically, Jesus was saying that those who truly want to know who He is and follow Him will be able to understand them, others will not. Because once you understand them, you are required to do something with that knowledge.

I have certainly enjoyed this dialog, and I really do enjoy discussing them with others who are interested. That is how we fellowship and grow.

Well, lets go back to scientific theory for a second. If I say that X = Y, X had always better equal Y or you can throw out the entire formula for the next theory of X = Z. If I say that the Bible made a prediction, and it did not come to pass, you can discount all of it. If I say that the Bible (the original texts) is fallible, since the Bible is the Word of God, am I not saying that God is fallible?

Well there are stories that are illustrative, but much of the "that can't be literal" points are. Was Jonah in the belly of a large water dwelling creature for three days yet survived? Yes, this is stated as fact in the Bible. Was Jesus a door? No, it is a metaphor. It is a fine line to delineate between the two, but that is something that each person must decide for themselves. You must ask, why (lesson, command, etc), who (is speaking, is listening, etc), what (a statement, figure of speech, etc), you get the idea. I lean towards literal when I am not sure though.

Well, Jewish lineages were obviously held in high regard or they would not be so prevalent in the Bible. I think that they were very concerned with facts. If not, why would the Old Testament include so much of the 'bad side' of God's chosen? It is very detailed in the names of the people, locations, and events the authors deemed important. In the not so distant past, many said that the Bible was all fables. We now know that Pilate (for instance) certainly did exist through archealogical research. There are many examples of this now though.

It is not about what group, but who. Being a Christian is belonging to Jesus the Christ. It is making Him ruler of your life.

No, these (all of them) have to do with following men, not the Bible. In all of the cases, it had to do with power, and men will use any means to gain this power, whether it be through religion, violence, you name it.

It is certainly good to behave well, but that will not get you into Heaven according to the Bible. There is no way to change that, no matter what we think. I have many friends that I dearly love that have the same issues that you do. If I were God, I would do things differently, but, I am not He. I see through the eyes of mine, not His. I do not have His knowledge.

Thank you for the suggestion Desmond. I used to watch Sagan on PBS's Nova, and I loved to watch him. I am not real familiar with his beliefs (I don't believe he was a Christian though), but I will certainly take a look at it.

The Christian New Testament was written solely in Greek. It is the Hebrew Bible (what the Christians call the Old Testament) that was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Even though it is believed that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not a single gospel was written in that language. And I'm still wondering, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the literal truth?

Where does it say this in the Bible? Where does it say Jesus has to be the ruler of your life to keep from being tortured in hell for eternity? Christians believe you must be a Christian to go to heaven. Where does it say that in the Bible? Remember, I'm asking for a passage that says Jesus has to be ruler of your life, not a passage that says through Jesus you can get to God. The only way to get to town from my house is the road, but I don't make the road my ruler. The only way to get into an exclusive restaurant is with reservations, but we don't make the reservationist the ruler of our lives.



This is the typical cop out. Any time some one mentions any of the many, many atrocities committed by Christians, condoned by Christian leaders, and done in the name of Jesus Christ, the apologists tell us that it has nothing to do with the religion. I disagree. The religion plays a large role in creating the social conditions that allowed such atrocities. The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.



Then why should any one bother to behave well? Who could belong to a religion that would accept the Concentration Camp Guard into Heaven and send the Pious Rabbi to Hell? What you fail to understand is your beliefs are based on your interpretation of the Bible. Your interpretation might just not be correct.

I understand what you're saying, but the mathmatical analogy is poor (unless you're a Kabbalahlist ).



Yes:
If you say the Bible is Fallible (which is not the same as saying that its not all literally true)
and
If the entire Bible is the wod of God. (I'll concede that for the sake of argument, but are there assertions of this in the text? What if it is actually the words of men inspired and given deeper meaning by the holy spirit?)
Only under those conditions would you be making the claim that God is fallible.



So there are times when the bible presents ideas as metaphor. How do we know when one person chooses that a portion is metaphor or literal that they are right? Does this presume we know the mind of God?



I certainly don't dispute that there are actual historical events described in the bible, especially events in the new testament.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Godzilla
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/122000/122465hMOL_w.jpg
http://www.neomonsterisland.com/a_archives/002/065/gvj2.jpg
http://www.lawlessrevowear.com/LoveOnMonsterIslandteeshirt.html
http://www.funpics.ws/images/content/1387.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/30/41977743_7d8eda2f57.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june05/creation_3-28.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-dnyou1.html
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/07/pt_biz_greenspan_0806_ent-lead__200x248.jpg

Proof of some of the events in the Bible is not proof of all. Today we know that the city of Troy existed, but that doesn't mean that Zeus and Hera did, or that the Greeks made a huge horse and hid in it. Believing that the Bible is all fable is one extreme, believing that it's all literally true is the opposite extreme. I'll believe in the truth of the Bible when some one finds the garden of Eden. We know it's supposed to be somewhere east of Israel and there is an angel with a flaming sword guarding its entrance. Some one take a digital photo of the angel and I'll believe. Well, maybe just the Hebrew Bible, but it would be a start...

How about this photo?

They are impossible to see, but boy can you smell em!