Brothers and Sisters, I cease all debates regarding Catholic faith from now on. However I would like just to open a few generic discussions because I find them quite fascinating to discuss. If you would prefer I leave however, I can do so and I will respect your wishes.

The first discussion I want to open is what your view is on Dinosaurs. Do you think they're mentioned in the bible ? I myself think that Dinosaurs actually lived alongside man, and one such dinosaur I believe is described to be in Job chapter 40.

Some bibles assert it could be referring to an elephant or hippopotamus but i don't think so considering it's tail being likened to a cedar tree. It is also described as a creature being first in the ways of God.

Any thoughts ?

Olly.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002

Answers

? How exactly would a dinosaur be "first in the ways of God"?

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), November 01, 2002.

Well the most obvious would be in its might and size. All other creatures would cower it their presence. Note the animals presented in job increase in size as it progresses, the final creature the behemoth (colossal beast) and the levithan are presented last. read the descriptions given in job. any thoughts to share i'm happy to hear. I find this part of the bible to be absolutely fascinating.

-- oliver fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

Thing I find most puzzling about dinosaurs, or at least some of them, is the fact that they are killers by design. My brain has tough time tying together the imagine of a world created by God where everything was in a harmony with the image of the rapter which seems to involve death in its design. We've got the bones to prove the intent of the design, and we can't say they were 'introduced' after the fall of man because as a new creation they would have been perfect and would not have died.

I do believe they were cotemporaneous with man and that they are not as old as they are said to be, and that they account for the dragon stories of legend that can be found in the history of just about any race on earth, just as the story of a great flood can.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2002.

Emerald:
We might take the opening verses of Genesis as indicative of everything previous to Creation as we understand it now. The earth was vast and void; darkness covered the abyss. There is chaos and raw material only, up to this stage, and the spirit of God was ''stirring above the waters''. It wasn't God's intent to educate the prophet scientifically on paleological history. Genesis was the beginning of the human race.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.

Genesis was not only the beginning of the human race, it was the beginning of all created beings. I don't go for the gap theory that suggests an indeterminable period of time between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 God makes it very clear in other verses that the Earth and all it's creatures were created in 6 days.

Exodus 20:11 – "In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."

Here it not only says the earth was created but the heavens also.

If all that is in the seas means everything, it must include any fossils or bones in them also.

I would find it rather odd were dinosaurs never to be mentioned. These creatures were of gigantic proportions.

Either the Gap Theory is true or Exodus 20:11 is true, but both cannot be true.

Also we note Romans 5:12 – "Through one man sin entered the world and death by sin."

If sin entered the world through one man, and death as a consequence then it follows that prior to Adam there was no death and no sin. This makes sense because God warned Adam not to eat of the tree of life or He will die. Of course Adam didn't die instantly the day he partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but he did bring mortality to man and the whole of creation who prior to his sin, were not mortal. If there was no death prior to Adam, then any dinosaur fossils must have been from after Adam's fall. The dinosaurs couldn't have died before death came through sin through Adam.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

Well, Oliver it doesn't matter what any one individual ''goes for''. Facts are facts. There is a wealth of buried proof of a Jurassic period of gazillions of years, and to oppose this with fundamental truisms makes no sense. God is mysterious in His ways; and we accept that. I am quite comfortable knowing He is the Creator, and my information (Creation) is limited to one book, Genesis. Rather than dismiss Genesis as a myth, I try to cope with problems by reasonable means. Isn't one aspect of being created in the image of God REASON; -- in the face of empirical truths? God never asks us to betray our reason. Faith isn't divorced of everyday logic. We all believe Genesis is a revealed truth. But God spoke the way He did for excellent reasons. Men were not ready for any other kind of book. It served God's purpose to inspire Genesis. No one rejects its truth, it's just a truth which requires pure faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.

These same people who date the dinosaur bones are the same people who tell us that we evolved from ape-like hominids, which go against the literal account of Genesis. Furthermore, you might be interested to know that a stir has been caused in the cosmology sciences by secular scientists that appear to have discovered that the speed of light has in fact slowed down. Original claims were made by a Christian cosmologist and yet now even secular scientists are beginning to agree. If this be true, then our dating systems can be thrown out the window, particularly radiometric dating.

For the record, do u have a particular interpretation of the creature described in Job 40 ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

Hey Eugene. I guess what I'm puzzled by, is how the dinosaurs or even any current predator got such big, nasty teeth unless God actually wanted them to tear each other apart. I'm curious if their design was a direct creation by God or whether they got morphed into their current form since the Fall. Take sharks for instance... swimming tubes of teeth with only one intent. Is that design the original or a corruption?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2002.

Job 40:

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. Under the lotus plant he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him. When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?"

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2002.

The biggest prob if one follows the gap theory is that the bible tells us clearly that sin came through one man, adam, and through that sin, death. Man was ordained by God to be the head of all creation. Hence, man's sin affected all of creation. If the dinosaurs existed prior to man, then how could have they died if death had not come into the world. The only logical step is to assume as God tells us in his word that He created the world in 6 days and everything that is in it. Hence, dinosaurs lived among men. Interesting when u see what Emerald posted from Job it shows God saying yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. I would say this intrisically refers to the extinction of them to follow...

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

Interesting to read the account of the leviathan as well....

chapter 41

These two creatures are obviously something quite terrifying, huge, and strong.

interesting verses from this chapter - 19,26,33

Also, verse 22 affirms that this creature has a neck so it's not a whale or shark or such.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

Double response:

Oliver, --We don't have any argument with people who date the dinosaur. Nor a theory of evolution by way of hominid ape descent. There is no science associated with any metaphysical agenda or Bible, and faith is not a science, it's our response to God's Word. I keep them separate.

In a layman's insight, I'll tell you our descent from an ape-like man --without an immortal soul, is very nearly the same as descent from one parent made out of the slime of the earth. Both slime and apes are reducible to molecules of matter. An immortal soul is not. It's our soul; Adam's soul, breathed into the clay figure, which makes him the father of all the living. Not the slime, not the ape-man. You are overly concerned with the literal interpretation of Genesis.

To me, as a thinking man, there's no contradiction to the Bible narrative in a possibility (I'm saying possibility;) our father Adam came from a lower life form. Why should there be; God is the Creator nonetheless. He made apes and He made slime.

-- Emerald, --God made the flora and the fauna as well. You know very well a cobra will bite you with no compunctions. Why not? It's his nature to strike at any live moving object. It was deemed ''very good'' to God our Father. So, it's OK with me. Same with monsters of the Jurassic age. They had to live for millions of years in order that God could bless his children with coal and steel; with petroleum and all that stuff. Lol! The fact they all preyed on each other is just incidental. One crop after another; a live food-chain provided by the Creator for their benefit. It really has nothing evil about it. Tigers are carnivorous and yet beautiful. Most of us love tigers, don't we?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.

Eugene before the theory of evolution came about, there was no doubt in the Christian community that the account in Genesis is to be taken literally. For example the Lord creating the heavens and earth in six days and resting on the 7th has a special meaning. The Sabbath was ordained as man's day of rest because of the 6 day creation and 7th day rest i just mentioned. To day-age theorists, they would be distorting the meaning of the Sabbath. To gap- theorists, they have to explain how death could have existed prior to Adam. To agree with evolution is to call God a liar when He said Let us make man in our image and after our likeness. This was completed on the sixth day of creation. God also shows us that he created each thing after it's own kind. This clearly tells us that there was no evolution involved because everything was created at an instant according to God's ordination.

If it is later proved by science that the theory of evolution is utterly false and that the Earth is in fact only around 6,000 years old will you withdraw your position ? We should not be influenced by what scientists tell us. There was a time when the world held Aristotle's views as truth e.g. the sun oribting the earth. Later it was found that he was absolutely wrong by Copernicus and Galileo.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

The few articles I've seen with reference to ''behemoth'' seem to make of him a mastadon. Some sort of mammoth. It makes sense, since the Bible account says he feeds on vegetation. It is extinct, but very well could have been living its last stages in prehistory, the period of Job's life.

Leviathan is taken to be possibly either the largest form of alligator ever known, or maybe the whale. I think it would be a reptile; since in the OT, species we know as whales tend to fool the Patriarchs into thinking they were fish. Leviathan would have been called a monstruous fish, if it had been the whale--No?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.

Oliver, I thought Ptolemy did a pretty good job with those little equant things to explain retrograde motions in stars with the earth as center... it wasn't so much completelywrong as it was in need of a little adjustment in perspective. The individual motions were almost completely accounted for. Science can get pretty close to some truths; I don't think its a case of "we should not be influenced by what scientists tell us" as much as that science cannot get us past a certain point.

What about the fact that there are two accounts of creation; how does this affect literal-ness?

Eugene, I don't know... the concept of a creation of flesh tearers as a perfect creation of God... hmmmm. I really don't know.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2002.

Oliver, my friend:
I didn't agree; but simply said it would not contradict the biblical narrative necessarily. It is entirely possible. I notice you leap at the opportunity to judge me. I did not call God a liar, so cool it!

If my interpretation of Genesis seems extraordinary to you, imagine what so many educated men of science will think of your narrow interpretation? This is a book we all agree is inspired. But we don't have to think it lends itself ONLY to literal interpretation.

If you think it was entirely plausible to thinking men, up until the theory of evolution came along, that merely shows we didn't fully,/i> understand the meaning behind its words.

Remember, I specifically noted that at the time of that revelation, no one had any scientific knowledge, especially about paleology! In order for God to communicate clearly His revelations to him, He had to speak in the terminology best understood by ancient man. That was, very understandably a PASTORAL narrative.

You are absolutely off the mark if you think along literal lines that six days of 24 hrs is the only possible interpretation allowed for understanding the Genesis creation epoch. I say (personally) this is a Hebraic device; a symbolic understanding; for what is too utterly mysterious for ancient man. Thankfully, we are no longer in the same situation ancient man was in. God expects us to use our brains, Oliver. We have all the benefits of long millennia of learning and discovery. Ancient man had to rely on word- pictures.

I want it known I absolutely believe, literally that Adam and Eve did LIVE. It is no contoversy in my mind. I also believe sin did come into the world by Adam's disobedience, and death as well. In the question of placing DEATH in its proper sequence, I confess I'v given it very little thought. But it is sure to be explainable. I hope.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.

The Behemoth cannot be a mammoth for the same reason it cannot be an elephant. Neither have a tail that could be compared to a cedar tree. Some bibles argue that it could really be referring to the trunk. This is definitely not the case since there is a separate word for tail. Also, the Lord would not then say one cannot pierce His NOSE. Why would God use everything but the right words to refer to the body parts ?

The crocodile does not measure up to the description given to the leviathan either. This creature is obviously too powerful to be even huntable by man take a look in chapter 41:

1 Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook, or press down his tounge with a cord ?

2 Can you put a rope in his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook ?

6 Will the traders bargain over him ? Will they divide him up among merchants ?

9 Indeed, any hope for him is vain; Will not one be even cast down at the site of him ?

12 I will not be silent about his limbs or about the account of his mighty deeds or about the beauty of his frame.

26 The sword that reaches him cannot avail, nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin

29 Clubs are considered as stubble; He laughs at the quivering javelin.

33 On earth there is none his equal who is made without fear

If you take a look at this verse it cannot be a crocodile. Crocodiles have been hunted by man all along, and his skins are divided up for merchants. Just like sharks, just like whales. This creature is something absolutely huge and terrifying. Is it out of the realm of possibility for u that those scientists could be wrong about their dating methods ? look at verse 12, God says he will not be silent about His limbs. A crocodiles limbs are small compared to his body and thus deserve no such mention. Whales and sharks don't have any limbs so that counts them out. It must be a creature with strong legs and arms. Verse 29 : Whales and sharks have been harpooned by man. Japanese like to eat shark fin soup. Crocodiles are even easier. And lastly how about verse 33

33 On earth there is none his equal who is made without fear

Can you sincerely say that this applies to the crocodile ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

Eugene says :

"Well, Oliver it doesn't matter what any one individual ''goes for''. Facts are facts. There is a wealth of buried proof of a Jurassic period of gazillions of years, and to oppose this with fundamental truisms makes no sense."

Eugene continues :

"I didn't agree; but simply said it would not contradict the biblical narrative necessarily. It is entirely possible. I notice you leap at the opportunity to judge me. I did not call God a liar, so cool it!"

And further :

"If my interpretation of Genesis seems extraordinary to you, imagine what so many educated men of science will think of your narrow interpretation? "

First Eugene tells me facts are facts, and there's proof of dinosaurs living gazillions of years as he puts it. Later, he tries to water down his tone to make it look as though I am extreme and he takes no extreme view. Then he says I leap at the opportunity to judge him and then he calls my interpretation narrowminded.

Nice one.

And to conclude :

"I want it known I absolutely believe, literally that Adam and Eve did LIVE. It is no contoversy in my mind. I also believe sin did come into the world by Adam's disobedience, and death as well. In the question of placing DEATH in its proper sequence, I confess I'v given it very little thought. But it is sure to be explainable. I hope."

So here we see that Eugene seems to take certain parts of Genesis literally and other parts liberally. On the account of creation, basically anything goes. Let's throw in evolution for good measure, it's compatible with what science tells us today. Quite interesting to note that before the theory of evolution ever even came about, noone ever proposed the day age or gap theories. Go figure.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

I have to admit it sounds a lot like a Brontosaurus or equivalent.

Since we are speculating (nice change of pace), what about these 800 and 900 year old men? Was civilization perhaps more advanced before the flood than were are now, not necessarily in a parallel way? Would 30,000 feet of flood water washed away every trace of evidence?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2002.

Good question Emerald. I personally think that it was a result of further fall into sin e.g. through cain killing His brother and so on.

We read... After that Jehovah said: My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to 120 years (Genesis 6:3).

So I'd amount that to man's further fall. Sin caused man to become flesh. Also interesting to notice if u take a look at the genealogies presented in chapter 5 , 10 and 11 you can see a general trend going downwards. Since the years of man were going down and didn't suddenly become a huge drop , I would put it to a result of further sin. Were man to have more advanced technology I don't think his years would have made a steady decline.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@exicte.com), November 01, 2002.

For Eugine, most of the articles you came across dealt with mammoths. I present to you the following links :

Behemoth = dinosaur http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs.html http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v15n2_ behemoth.asp http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where2.html

Problems with the gap theory http://www.gap-theory.com/ http://www.bible.org/docs/ot/books/gen/gapthery.htm http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-107a.htm

Problems with the day-age theory http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-081.htm

problems with the multiple gap theory http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/multiple.pdf

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 01, 2002.

"I personally think that it was a result of further fall into sin e.g. through cain killing His brother and so on."

I've thought about that reason, of continued corruption or degeneration of some kind, I don't know what. I'm not sure. It was down to what, 35 or so for a while? I would have been an old man back then. Conditions and quality of life, location and resources have got to have something to do with it. The Romans were using pueter wine goblets (contains lead), and the wine reacted to the lead in such a way as to draw it out... they were all poisoned.

But there is the passage in which God seems to make a simple decision that 70 years would be the sum of a man's years, and 80 if strong. I've wondered if 8 or 900 years wouldn't make a man with an evil will into the most wicked of beings. I would also assume that 8 or 900 years of experience and knowledge would bring about fantastic accomplishments in arts and sciences. I wonder, again, how advanced they might have become.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2002.

Dear Oliver:
I make no pretense of knowledge of the subject of beasts who may have populated the earth once. You call this ''General biblical discussions'', not a game of GOTCHA. What's more you make out all opinions have to meet your standards or they haven't any credibility, when the whole query revolves around a few verses from the Old Testament which may only be allegorical.

They might be literally true, and they may not be. Only God knows. Tail the size of a cedar? What if it's a sapling cedar? What if you let your imagination run free?

I sense an unfriendly tone in: ''First Eugene tells me facts are facts, and there's proof of dinosaurs living gazillions of years as he puts it. Later, he tries to water down his tone to make it look as though I am extreme and he takes no extreme view. Then he says I leap at the opportunity to judge him and then he calls my interpretation narrowminded. Nice one.''

Oliver may not believe in the evidence of buried fossil remains. Or, if they exist, could be they date back only 4 or 5 thousand years. Let it be so, then. It can't be cause for making all biblical narratives in fact literal. Except in his personal opinion.

Is believing in Adam and Eve and original sin necessarily belief in a six-days Creation? Are interpretations of Genesis by regulation limited to *all or nothing at all* literal ? --Or could one part be literal and another figurative? I didn't maintain so. Neither has the Church. It's all open to debate. But Oliver won't accept anything except all literal, apparently. It's in the Bible. You can't argue if the Bible says so.

Well, I can argue. That alone doesn't make me right. But we aren't bound under penalty of sin to think the way people thought in the middle ages. No matter what a bible scholar may think. The letter kills and the spirit gives life, Ollie.

He says: '' Quite interesting to note that before the theory of evolution ever even came about, no one ever proposed the day age or gap theories. Go figure.'' --Is it interesting? You could have fooled me. What's ''day age''?

Who ever said I agree with the theory of evolution? I make the Creator God Almighty. I just don't know if the first man was really concocted literally from mud. If not, it's sure Adam was created from something already existing in the earth. God had a hand in it. That makes me a Creationist, as I see it. The soul of Adam was created without mud or animal tissue; and that was what made him MAN. It's irrelevant, unless you worship the Bible for itself, not for the truth in it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 02, 2002.

off

-- (emerald@cox.net), November 02, 2002.

There's so little in Genesis to go on that one must read between the lines.

For instance, clearly God created Adam first so that he would have a chance to say something. This sets the tone for the rest of world history.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2002.

Eugene I apologise. You're right, the letter kills but the spirit gives life. I need to be more open. Thanks for your contributions. It is actually nice to have someone (and u too Emerald) to keep the discussions rolling. I confess I have really been rather sharp so I'm sorry.

Olly.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

No problem, Oliver. It's not so easy to hurt my feelings. I hope that goes for you, too. We have one or two here in the forum who get mad the minute you offer a contradiction. Poor souls.

I mulled over the dinosaur subject in my sleep last night. Some suggestions; and remember my first disclaimer, these are ''layman insights'' ----

How do you explain a statement in scripture that says: ''He is first in the ways of God'' --?

Could it mean he was from a previous, provisional ''creation'' (first?) which ended with the extinction of dinosaurs? .

If all of them died but for a small number of stragglers, imagine the last specimen or two showing itself in ancient Mesopotamia, where I believe Job lived. The race of dinosaurs dies out; and that sparse boneyard is never discovered by science which might have dated 6 or 7 thousand years old. Whereas, the pre-Eden bones have been found by reason of their sheer numbers. When Job saw a beast like that, it wasn't numerous any longer.

But in the Jurassic period, when the planet was still a void, in chaos, the boneyards could have been in the millions. We know without any doubt coal and other minerals, and oilfields date back to eons ago; and have been produced out of such organic matter as plants and prehistoric animals. You may've heard of the La Brea Tar Pits in California. Unbelievable specimens have been recovered from there.

God is under no obligation to reveal everything He knows, nor what works He's done in primeval times. So we don't find every detail in ouir Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 02, 2002.

Hi Eugene. I guess what encourages me is the verse that says God desires all men to be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth.

One day the Lord will reveal all to us. He says all his pleasure will be carried out. I have to agree with u about our lack of knowledge. Actually the world has 8 billion opinions on how the world works 8-)

On the dinosaurs, yeah it coulda been like that. I really don't know, I guess my thinking sways more to a young earth. One day we'll know for sure. I was thinking about the tail thing. The only other creature I could come up with is a kangaroo. It'd be funny if that's what it was describing, but i highly doubt it 8-) Paul encourages us not to waste too much time on genealogies which produce questionings but rather focus on God's economy with is out of faith.

thanks for the fellowship bro, I appreciate it.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), November 05, 2002.