Dinosaurs vs. Adam & Eve?

[skills101]

Do the existence of dinosaurs conflict with the existence of dinosaurs? Doesn't it mean that man was not the first creature in existence? Thanks.

 

[Mister Emu]

The Bible never says that man was the first creature.

 

[Linus]

I think that man existed with dinosaurs for quite some time, probably until the flood. It is my belief that the references to the Behemoth and the Leviathan in Job chapters 40 and 41 are descriptions of some types of dinosaurs.

 

[linwood]

Do the existence of dinosaurs conflict with the existence of dinosaurs? Doesn't it mean that man was not the first creature in existence? Thanks.

Yes..thats what it means.

 

[fromthe heart]

Do the existence of dinosaurs conflict with the existence of dinosaurs? Doesn't it mean that man was not the first creature in existence? Thanks.

God's time is not our time...so who is to say who lived when and with or without what.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think that man existed with dinosaurs for quite some time, probably until the flood.

Fine, but do you have any evidence for such a belief?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

here's a bit of possible controversy. what wiped out the dinosuars? no one really knows. what if it was God, so he could make way for humans? maybe he used a meteorite...go figure

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

here's a bit of possible controversy. what wiped out the dinosuars? no one really knows. what if it was God, so he could make way for humans? maybe he used a meteorite...

Or, then again, what if it was a gastro-intestinal reaction to Pixie dust? Or, perhaps, they were destroyed by aliens concerned at the thought of piles of apatasaurus poop in frony of their pyramids. Maybe the Leprechauns did it: the wee folk would have more than ample reason for not wanting to be caught under foot. Then again ...

... perhaps we should just await whatever clarification can be brought to bare by the relevant sciences.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or, then again, what if it was a gastro-intestinal reaction to Pixie dust? Or, perhaps, they were destroyed by aliens concerned at the thought of piles of apatasaurus poop in frony of their pyramids. Maybe the Leprechauns did it: the wee folk would have more than ample reason for not wanting to be caught under foot. Then again ...

... perhaps we should just await whatever clarification can be brought to bare by the relevant sciences.

I think that Pixie dust is the most reasonable explanation so far. Perhaps the ID folks could help us out here... the Pixie dust is the missing link that provides hard evidence for an intelligent being providing the dust.

 

[painted wolf]

yeah, I'm going to have to say that the evidence of human/dinosaur interaction (aside from birds)ammounts to diddly and squat.

As to what wiped out the Dinosaurs, like many great disasters there was in all likelyhood more than one cause. The Chixilub impact was just one of many things that likely added up to the mass extinction event.
Granted without a time machine we'll honestly never really know, but we can make pretty good guesses based on the evidence.

wa:do

 

[Druidus]

The Bible never says that man was the first creature.

Incorrect, Emu. It does, actually, say that man was created twice; once before the other animals, and once after:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man

In Genesis 1:27, man is created after the other animals, but then in Genesis 2:7 and 2:22, man and women are created again (I guess the first ones cracked in the oven), and shortly after man is created (but before women), the other animals are created (indeed, in the second version, Adam names them). Which one do we believe? I don't really care. To me, it's just another biblicial confliction, though an obvious one.

 

[Linus]

The designation "Behemoth," appearing at Job 40:15, has been variously viewed as (1) a derivative of an Egyptian word for "water ox," (2) a word possibly of Assyrian origin meaning "monster," and (3) an intensified plural of the Hebrew word behe·mah' (beast; domestic animal) that is understood to denote "great beast" or "huge beast." In the Greek Septuagint the word the·ri'a (wild beasts) translates the Hebrew behe·mohth'. Evidently, though, a single animal is meant, as is indicated by the fact that the description given of Behemoth is not that of several creatures but of only one, generally considered to be the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius). In fact, a number of Bible translations (AT, La, Ro, NW, JB, RS) use the word "hippopotamus" in the main text or in footnotes to identify the creature referred to by God.

I see your point, here. But, although a behemoth could be one of many different animals, there are still two things that fail to completely convince me.

1. Neither an ox, nor a hippopotamus, have a tail that "sways like a cedar". (Job 40: 17)

2. In Job 40: 15 God compares the behemoth to an ox. If the behemoth is indeed a water ox, why would God compare an ox to an ox? "See, dude? Look how the ox eats gerass like an... ox...yeah." It doesn't seem to make sense .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. Neither an ox, nor a hippopotamus, have a tail that "sways like a cedar". (Job 40: 17)

Do you realize that there exists very little guarantee that the verse has been correctly translated. So, for example, the JPS (Hebrew) writes "He straineth his tail like a cedar" while netbible translates it as "It makes its tail stiff [24] like a cedar" and notes:

24tn The verb hapas occurs only here. It may have the meaning “to make stiff; to make taut” (Arabic). The Greek and the Syriac versions support this with “erects.” But there is another Arabic word that could be cognate, meaning “arch, bend.” This would give the idea of the tail swaying. The other reading seems to make better sense here. However, “stiff” presents a serious problem with the view that the animal is the hippopotamus.

Is it not just a bit awkward to reject scientific consensus based on a verse that cannot be translated with any degree of certainty?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

In Genesis 1:27, man is created after the other animals, but then in Genesis 2:7 and 2:22, man and women are created again (I guess the first ones cracked in the oven), and shortly after man is created (but before women), the other animals are created (indeed, in the second version, Adam names them). Which one do we believe? I don't really care. To me, it's just another biblicial confliction, though an obvious one.

Here's a thought dude, the first chapter of genesis is like when you hear 'And coming up in this evening's programme...'. it's kind of like putting it all in a nutshell. That's all.
The first chapter give's a general account of the creative work relative to the earth.
There is no contradiction. all you have to do, is ask yourself the right questions.

 

[Druidus]

Here's a thought dude, the first chapter of genesis is like when you hear 'And coming up in this evening's programme...'. it's kind of like putting it all in a nutshell. That's all.
The first chapter give's a general account of the creative work relative to the earth.
There is no contradiction. all you have to do, is ask yourself the right questions.

I'm sorry but I must disagree. The entire bible is a mass of convol;uted contradictions. Regardless of how you might attempt to put yourself at ease by making up an explanation for a contradiction, this one is a contradiction. In one, man names the beasts, in the other, God does. In one, they are created first, in the other, man is.

I kind of see where you were going, though.

 

[jewscout]

Incorrect, Emu. It does, actually, say that man was created twice; once before the other animals, and once after:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man

In Genesis 1:27, man is created after the other animals, but then in Genesis 2:7 and 2:22, man and women are created again (I guess the first ones cracked in the oven), and shortly after man is created (but before women), the other animals are created (indeed, in the second version, Adam names them). Which one do we believe? I don't really care. To me, it's just another biblicial confliction, though an obvious one.

there is some explanation in this in Kabbalah dealing w/ the character Lilith...but then i haven't gotten real heavy into Kabbalistic stuff it's just so friggin much!

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

This sounds like the topic of the show where they use computer generated models to determine who will win a fight.

 

[BUDDY]

I'm sorry but I must disagree. The entire bible is a mass of convol;uted contradictions. Regardless of how you might attempt to put yourself at ease by making up an explanation for a contradiction, this one is a contradiction. In one, man names the beasts, in the other, God does. In one, they are created first, in the other, man is.

I kind of see where you were going, though.

How about this? Maybe people who obviously think that the Bible is a bunch of hogwash, should stay out of a biblical debate when they are going to state such. Why not let the people who believe, whether you agree with them or not, debate Biblical principals and philosophies without having there beliefs compared to pixie dust, leprechauns and the like. Just let us discuss what we believe without critisizing us, and we won't talk about your faithless depravity or your heathen philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Sunstone]

If the thread starter had wanted to limit this debate to people of the same faith, he or she could have placed in under "Same Faith Debates".

 

[Druidus]

there is some explanation in this in Kabbalah dealing w/ the character Lilith...but then i haven't gotten real heavy into Kabbalistic stuff it's just so friggin much!

Ah. Lilith, the first wife of Adam. Apparently, didn't want Adam to be superior, and, so, against God's will, fled, and became the first vampire.

How about this? Maybe people who obviously think that the Bible is a bunch of hogwash, should stay out of a biblical debate when they are going to state such. Why not let the people who believe, whether you agree with them or not, debate Biblical principals and philosophies without having there beliefs compared to pixie dust, leprechauns and the like. Just let us discuss what we believe without critisizing us, and we won't talk about your faithless depravity or your heathen philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Eerwed, we happen to be in a public forum, and not a specific forum for a specific faith or philosophy. We will compare, contrast, and debate as we wish, without breaking forum rules.

My main point is that man was created before the dinosaurs (and all other animals), according to the bible, in direct conflict with realitiy.