Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Christianity Board!
Christianity Board is a thriving forum community for registered members to share, pray, and respectfully debate about the faith in Jesus Christ. We are a nondenominational Christian forum in that we welcome the diversity of Christianity and we are not attached to any one denominational group. Join today for access to posting on the forums, chatting in the shoutbox, creating a blog, private messenger, profile features and so much more. May your time here be blessed in the name of Jesus!
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

How many years ago did Dinosaurs last walk the earth?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1
Josho

Josho

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 294 posts

Now i got no idea where to post the subject, but when we look at the Bible and dinosaurs, dinosaurs would have walked the earth, in the days of Adam and Eve, did the great flood wipe them out I don't know, because you would think that Noah would have at least brought some different breeds of dinosaurs into the ark. But what we do know is the Bible talks a lot about beasts and birds in the field, and dinosaurs were most likely a few of those beasts. Now the last mention in the Bible before the book of Revelation, the last mention of the plural word "beasts" referring to the creatures that walk the ground of the earth is in James 3:7 according to Strongs Accordance. And the time frame of when the book of James was written is around A.D. 48 - A.D 62, so this may suggest that dinosaurs were still walking the earth at that time.

Now sorry for being ignorant to the science behind telling how old a fossil or bone is, but I myself, not being an expert in the Hebrew calendar, if the Hebrew calendar was created near the beginning of the earth or around during Abrahams time maybe?, and if it's only up to year 5777, that's means the main groups of dinosaurs could not have been extinct from the face of the earth 66 million years ago, unless if you find a spot to place millions of years in between Abraham and Adam and Eve. So when did the Hebrew Calendar start? Surely it was years before the Exodus, because that was around 1440 BC, so looking at all the biblical timeline, major groups of dinosaurs would have last walked the earth only a few thousand years ago, or maybe even less.

And as ridiculous as this may sound, the Loch Ness monster, which people may or may not have saw in the lake in the Scottish highlands, could it really have been a dinosaur that they were seeing? Maybe the Loch Ness monster could have been a plesiosaur or elasmosarus?

Don't take any of this as fact, these are my thoughts, so what are your thoughts people? When did dinosaurs last walk the earth? and how old are the discovered dinosaur fossils and bones really are? Maybe someone knows, maybe they don't.

Dinosaurs, RAWRRRRRRRRR!   :D


  • 0

#2
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Josho

 

In trying to date the dinosaurs you have to deal with the dating of the original creation.   I don't know if you are familiar with the 'gap theory', but you should study up on it as it will provide answers to these questions.  

 

Briefly stated the 'gap theory' sees (Gen.1:1) as original creation.  "In the beginning"  As to when, exactly time wise, that 'beginning' was is unknown. (Much like John 1:1).  "In the beginning was the Word".

 

Then in (Gen.1:2) you see the earth in a chaotic condition covered in darkness, and submerged in waters.  Because this condition is contrary to God's method of creating and is exactly a condition of judgment, then between (Gen.1:1) and (1:2), something occurred which threw the earth into that condition.   And that is what is known as a gap or period of time unknown to us.  

 

The 'gap theory' believes that it was at this time that you had the rebellion of Satan, who was much involved with the earth.   As a result there came judgement from God  which placed the earth in the darkness you see in (Gen.1:2)

 

This of course makes the 6 days of creation, not 'original' creation but a 'recreation'.  A restoration of the earth.  

 

I believe this 'gap theory' is true.  Not because science proves it, but because Scripture supports it.  And it is here that I think the dinosaurs are to be located.  

 

Stranger


Edited by Stranger, 22 March 2017 - 03:01 AM.

  • 1

#3
Dan57

Dan57

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts

I agree with Stranger, the gap theory seems plausible

 

The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," It doesn't say when the beginning was, and note that verse one ends with a comma, not a period.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void" "Was" is the wrong English word here, there is no 'was' in Hebrew. The Massorah renders it "hayah" (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). Hayah means; "to become or came to pass". So verse 2 should read that "The earth became void and without form". So millions or billions of years could have passed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Some believe (myself included) that there are 3 earth ages. The first age is past, we are in the second age, and the third is yet to come. God completely annihilated and destroyed the first earth age, dinosaurs and all after Satan's rebellion (2 Peter 3:5-7 and Jeremiah 4:19-28). Note that in Genesis 1:28, God says "Replenish the earth", suggesting that it was inhabited before.

So imo, God did not create the world void and empty, it became that way. Then God formed it to be inhabited by mankind (Isaiah 45:18). Many Christians don't accept this interpretation, but it makes sense to me... jmo


  • 0

#4
Josho

Josho

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 294 posts

Josho

 

In trying to date the dinosaurs you have to deal with the dating of the original creation.   I don't know if you are familiar with the 'gap theory', but you should study up on it as it will provide answers to these questions.  

 

Briefly stated the 'gap theory' sees (Gen.1:1) as original creation.  "In the beginning"  As to when, exactly time wise, that 'beginning' was is unknown. (Much like John 1:1).  "In the beginning was the Word".

 

Then in (Gen.1:2) you see the earth in a chaotic condition covered in darkness, and submerged in waters.  Because this condition is contrary to God's method of creating and is exactly a condition of judgment, then between (Gen.1:1) and (1:2), something occurred which threw the earth into that condition.   And that is what is known as a gap or period of time unknown to us.  

 

The 'gap theory' believes that it was at this time that you had the rebellion of Satan, who was much involved with the earth.   As a result there came judgement from God  which placed the earth in the darkness you see in (Gen.1:2)

 

This of course makes the 6 days of creation, not 'original' creation but a 'recreation'.  A restoration of the earth.  

 

I believe this 'gap theory' is true.  Not because science proves it, but because Scripture supports it.  And it is here that I think the dinosaurs are to be located.  

 

Stranger

 

I agree with Stranger, the gap theory seems plausible

 

The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," It doesn't say when the beginning was, and note that verse one ends with a comma, not a period.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void" "Was" is the wrong English word here, there is no 'was' in Hebrew. The Massorah renders it "hayah" (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). Hayah means; "to become or came to pass". So verse 2 should read that "The earth became void and without form". So millions or billions of years could have passed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Some believe (myself included) that there are 3 earth ages. The first age is past, we are in the second age, and the third is yet to come. God completely annihilated and destroyed the first earth age, dinosaurs and all after Satan's rebellion (2 Peter 3:5-7 and Jeremiah 4:19-28). Note that in Genesis 1:28, God says "Replenish the earth", suggesting that it was inhabited before.

So imo, God did not create the world void and empty, it became that way. Then God formed it to be inhabited by mankind (Isaiah 45:18). Many Christians don't accept this interpretation, but it makes sense to me... jmo

Interesting views, but I think I will stick with holding the 1st view i have though on dinosaurs for now, as creatures that walked the earth during Biblical times, along with mammoths. If there were giants in the old testament like Goliath, then there could have been dinosaurs too, there's no reason that dinosaurs couldn't have walked the earth during Old Testament days, and we do not know whether if Noah brought any dinosaurs into his ark or not. And it's possible for Satan and fallen angels to have been thrown down to the depths of the earth when it was formless, empty and dark and nothing else was in it, after all it would make sense to throw Satan into a dark empty place, after he rebelled against God, if God created a prehistoric age on earth, then why throw Satan down to earth with life on it? Why not throw him into outer space? I guess we will all find out the whole story in heaven. 

Notice that a greater and lesser light were made after the gap. That means that skies were not lit with the sun, moon and stars while the earth was void, and that itself suggests that there was no natural light before Genesis 1:2. This was the fourth day when God put lights in the sky

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


There's no definite answer, and is one of the many things that we probably won't find out until we get to heaven, there's a book called "Nine Days in Heaven" and it's a biography about a worldly girl by the name of Marietta Davis, she fell into a 9 day trance and saw a 9 day long vision, she had an angelic guide and she was shown through heaven, she saw heaven exactly as how it's described in Revelation, with all the precious stones and gold around the walls and gates, she also got to meet Jesus, and saw all the wonderful spirit beings of light while she was in heaven, she was taken to see the infant spirits by her guide, those were babies who had died here on this earth, and they had other heavenly beings teaching them about the life of Jesus, and as they were being taught they would be taken into the scene, and it was a lot more real then a movie, they would see the past like they were actually there when Jesus was born, when Jesus was crucified, and they would see what happened exactly in both the natural and supernatural realms when these events took place, if infants are being taught that in heaven, imagine how much more we will learn when we get up there, and in the detail we will learn the things that we do not know of, you could be sure you would definitely learn the fullness of what happened before history on this earth was created.

Anyway she was also taken to hell in this vision, and here's a summary, the angelic guide left her there in that place of misery for an unknown period of time, and she saw some of her friends who ended up in hell, and some other people, and it was a deceitful place, there would be a delicious looking piece of fruit on the tree, and her friend would eat it, and it would only bring more misery, as she ate it, it didn't taste sweet at all, it would just burn and burn their mouths, Marietta became terrified while she was in hell and started running from her own friends, and she cried out to God, with no response for a length of time, a bunch of educated atheists taunted her, a choir and priest were making an awful noise, many people would also taunt the choir and priest, evil spirits and demons would also frighten her, she just only saw and heard worse and worse things, until eventually it was time for her to go back up to heaven, the angelic guide then explained to her about the kind of life she was living on earth, and how she was to change her ways when she arrived back on earth, Marietta didn't want to leave heaven back into earth, but the angelic guide told her, we will see you again up here, you still got some stuff you must do on earth, she then entered the earth again, woke up, repented and asked Jesus into her life and told everybody what she had saw. 

 


  • 0

#5
twinc

twinc

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

I agree with Stranger, the gap theory seems plausible

 

The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," It doesn't say when the beginning was, and note that verse one ends with a comma, not a period.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void" "Was" is the wrong English word here, there is no 'was' in Hebrew. The Massorah renders it "hayah" (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). Hayah means; "to become or came to pass". So verse 2 should read that "The earth became void and without form". So millions or billions of years could have passed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Some believe (myself included) that there are 3 earth ages. The first age is past, we are in the second age, and the third is yet to come. God completely annihilated and destroyed the first earth age, dinosaurs and all after Satan's rebellion (2 Peter 3:5-7 and Jeremiah 4:19-28). Note that in Genesis 1:28, God says "Replenish the earth", suggesting that it was inhabited before.

So imo, God did not create the world void and empty, it became that way. Then God formed it to be inhabited by mankind (Isaiah 45:18). Many Christians don't accept this interpretation, but it makes sense to me... jmo

 

I agree with Stranger, the gap theory seems plausible

 

The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," It doesn't say when the beginning was, and note that verse one ends with a comma, not a period.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void" "Was" is the wrong English word here, there is no 'was' in Hebrew. The Massorah renders it "hayah" (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). Hayah means; "to become or came to pass". So verse 2 should read that "The earth became void and without form". So millions or billions of years could have passed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Some believe (myself included) that there are 3 earth ages. The first age is past, we are in the second age, and the third is yet to come. God completely annihilated and destroyed the first earth age, dinosaurs and all after Satan's rebellion (2 Peter 3:5-7 and Jeremiah 4:19-28). Note that in Genesis 1:28, God says "Replenish the earth", suggesting that it was inhabited before.

So imo, God did not create the world void and empty, it became that way. Then God formed it to be inhabited by mankind (Isaiah 45:18). Many Christians don't accept this interpretation, but it makes sense to me... jmo

 

 

I agree with Stranger, the gap theory seems plausible

 

The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," It doesn't say when the beginning was, and note that verse one ends with a comma, not a period.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void" "Was" is the wrong English word here, there is no 'was' in Hebrew. The Massorah renders it "hayah" (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). Hayah means; "to become or came to pass". So verse 2 should read that "The earth became void and without form". So millions or billions of years could have passed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Some believe (myself included) that there are 3 earth ages. The first age is past, we are in the second age, and the third is yet to come. God completely annihilated and destroyed the first earth age, dinosaurs and all after Satan's rebellion (2 Peter 3:5-7 and Jeremiah 4:19-28). Note that in Genesis 1:28, God says "Replenish the earth", suggesting that it was inhabited before.

So imo, God did not create the world void and empty, it became that way. Then God formed it to be inhabited by mankind (Isaiah 45:18). Many Christians don't accept this interpretation, but it makes sense to me... jmo

 

 

 

so as Christians we are being asked to accept that death existed long before Adam.s sin  - dinosaurs have been dug up surrounded by modern dead animals, birds and plants - twinc


  • 0

#6
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

twinc


 

Adam wasn't the first one to sin. Nor was Eve.

 

Stranger


Edited by Stranger, 05 April 2017 - 11:58 AM.

  • 0

#7
Born_Again

Born_Again

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 1,312 posts

I agree with Stranger, the gap theory seems plausible

 

The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," It doesn't say when the beginning was, and note that verse one ends with a comma, not a period.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void" "Was" is the wrong English word here, there is no 'was' in Hebrew. The Massorah renders it "hayah" (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). Hayah means; "to become or came to pass". So verse 2 should read that "The earth became void and without form". So millions or billions of years could have passed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Some believe (myself included) that there are 3 earth ages. The first age is past, we are in the second age, and the third is yet to come. God completely annihilated and destroyed the first earth age, dinosaurs and all after Satan's rebellion (2 Peter 3:5-7 and Jeremiah 4:19-28). Note that in Genesis 1:28, God says "Replenish the earth", suggesting that it was inhabited before.

So imo, God did not create the world void and empty, it became that way. Then God formed it to be inhabited by mankind (Isaiah 45:18). Many Christians don't accept this interpretation, but it makes sense to me... jmo

Well, its a good theory, but if it was void without form and all things had to be created again, then wouldn't it stand to reason we wouldn't find the skeletons of the dinosaurs? If it was a clean-sheet design, then it would have been void of their fossils. So this theory doesn't stand very well, Dan. 

 

What I would consider is that it is reasonable to believe they were destroyed in the flood. Just because we find the fossils in one place doesn't mean tha'ts where they died. Could they have not come to rest in those places as the waters receded? That would also explain why they are buried under so much sediment.  

 

Once again, just another theory. I actually really like this discussion. 


  • 1

#8
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Well, its a good theory, but if it was void without form and all things had to be created again, then wouldn't it stand to reason we wouldn't find the skeletons of the dinosaurs? If it was a clean-sheet design, then it would have been void of their fossils. So this theory doesn't stand very well, Dan. 

 

What I would consider is that it is reasonable to believe they were destroyed in the flood. Just because we find the fossils in one place doesn't mean tha'ts where they died. Could they have not come to rest in those places as the waters receded? That would also explain why they are buried under so much sediment.  

 

Once again, just another theory. I actually really like this discussion. 

 

Why would it stand to reason?    Just because you say so?  Your reason?      Who said it was a 'clean sheet design'?  You did.   Thus according to the 'gap theory', your clean sheet design is not involved.  According to your theory, the clean sheet design is involved.    Nice try.

 

Water, the flood, is involved also in the earth being submerged in water before the six day creation.  (Gen.1:2) "...and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

 

The gap theory is supported by Scripture.  Yours, well, you haven't given any.

 

Stranger


  • 0

#9
twinc

twinc

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

Why would it stand to reason?    Just because you say so?  Your reason?      Who said it was a 'clean sheet design'?  You did.   Thus according to the 'gap theory', your clean sheet design is not involved.  According to your theory, the clean sheet design is involved.    Nice try.

 

Water, the flood, is involved also in the earth being submerged in water before the six day creation.  (Gen.1:2) "...and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

 

The gap theory is supported by Scripture.  Yours, well, you haven't given any.

 

Stranger

 

 

 

this is just your incorrect interpretation - there was no earth submerged in water and without form and void means without trees and bees and vegetation or animals or mountains and rivers and valleys etc but completely flat and level and no sun or sunset or moon or moonlight or stars and starlight or breeze or bees or flowers or fruits or rain or snow or milk or honey etc - twinc


Edited by twinc, 07 April 2017 - 07:28 PM.

  • 0

#10
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

twinc

 

Please read (Gen.1:2-10).  It clearly pictures earth under water.

 

'Without form and void' is a picture of chaos and judgement.  "An undistinguishable  ruin, emptiness"  (strongs)   Just like the flood of Noah was judgement. 

 

Go next to (Jer. 4).  You should read the whole chapter to understand what is going on in the verses I give you.   It is God Who is disturbed in His very being over the judgement He must bring upon Judah.   The verses I especially point out are (Jer. 4:20-27)  " Destruction upon destruction is cried: for the whole land is spoiled:...For my people is foolish, they have not known me; ...they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.  I beheld the earth, and lo it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.  I beheld the mounatins, and lo they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and there was no man....I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken dowen at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger...The whole land shall shall be desolate;...."

 

Note verse (23) especially.  "without form and void".  It is a picture of judgement.  I don't know where you dreamed up your interpretation, but you are wrong. 

 

Stranger


  • 0

#11
Josho

Josho

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 294 posts

Why would it stand to reason?    Just because you say so?  Your reason?      Who said it was a 'clean sheet design'?  You did.   Thus according to the 'gap theory', your clean sheet design is not involved.  According to your theory, the clean sheet design is involved.    Nice try.

 

Water, the flood, is involved also in the earth being submerged in water before the six day creation.  (Gen.1:2) "...and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

 

The gap theory is supported by Scripture.  Yours, well, you haven't given any.

 

Stranger

The point is the earth was empty, it was empty, there was nothing in the deep. Was there a 1st earth age before Genesis? probably not. It is the way it is, the way God formed it in Genesis, and you can read Psalm 104 for that. And if you search the scripture, I'm sure there is much more that backs up the belief that Genesis was the one and only beginning of the earth and that dinosaurs walked the earth during biblical times.

And as you read later on in Genesis chapter 1. What does God create?

Creatures in the sea, birds in the air, the beasts of the earth, cattle and everything that creeps on the earth, in some versions of the Bible, it's even translated that God created great sea monsters, and i believe all these creatures includes all kinds of dinosaurs, dinosaurs in the sea, dinosaurs that walk the land, dinosaurs in the sky. It was a new creation, it was the original creation of creatures on the earth, there wasn't anything like it on this earth before.


Edited by Josho, 08 April 2017 - 05:20 PM.

  • 0

#12
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

The point is the earth was empty, it was empty, there was nothing in the deep. Was there a 1st earth age before Genesis? probably not. It is the way it is, the way God formed it in Genesis, and you can read Psalm 104 for that. And if you search the scripture, I'm sure there is much more that backs up the belief that Genesis was the one and only beginning of the earth and that dinosaurs walked the earth during biblical times.

And as you read later on in Genesis chapter 1. What does God create?

Creatures in the sea, birds in the air, the beasts of the earth, cattle and everything that creeps on the earth, in some versions of the Bible, it's even translated that God created great sea monsters, and i believe all these creatures includes all kinds of dinosaurs, dinosaurs in the sea, dinosaurs that walk the land, dinosaurs in the sky. It was a new creation, it was the original creation of creatures on the earth, there wasn't anything like it on this earth before.

 

The point is the "earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep".  A picture of judgement as I just showed in (Jer. 4:20-27).   Doesn't that mean anything to you, or do you just ignore what you don't want to believe?  

 

(Ps. 104) proves nothing for or against the gap theory.   If you think it does, explain.

 

Just because you say the six day creation is the original creation doesn't make it so.   You can believe that all you want, but you offer nothing to disprove the gap theory.  

 

During the six day creation period, how did God create?   He always said, "Let there be"  and then "it was".   And nothing He created was in a formless or chaotic state.  It was perfect.  Adam and Eve were not in a formless and void state when He created them.  They were perfect and in a mature state.  

 

Again, believe whatever you like, but you offer nothing to disprove the gap theory, other than you don't believe it. 

 

Stranger


  • 0

#13
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

I think the more important issue in the wording of Genesis is not how it relates to the dinosaurs, but how it relates to the believer.  I think the narrative is written in such a way as to reveal Christ's new creation as it relates to the old creation.  Consider the following...

 

The earth was formless and void.  

Darkness was over the face of the deep.

The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

God said, "Let there be light."  

 

So, catch the imagery here.  We have a dark, empty, chaotic world that is shrouded in darkness with no form, beauty of purpose.  Then...

 

The Spirit hovers over the waters.  God's word arrives.  Light bursts forth and God's creative purpose, brilliance and beauty begins to transform the world.

 

John shows us how this was written to help us understand the role of Christ in the world.  

 

The world (humanity) is void and without purpose.

The world is plunged in sin and darkness.

Yet Christ bursts into the world as the Light of the world.  

He is the Logos that brings meaning, purpose and life to a empty and chaotic world.  

 

In fact, John portrays the Word, the waters of Christian baptism and the Spirit coming together on the believer to make them a new creation in Christ.  The old, dark, void life is transformed by the word, the Spirit and the life of Christ to make all things new.  

 

In sum, the Genesis account is about God bringing meaning, life and light out of a chaotic world of darkness and lifelessness.  The NT shows us how God brings meaning, life and light out of our chaotic lives of sin and darkness by the power and life of Jesus Christ.  In sum, I think the wording of Genesis has a Christological focus, not a scientific one.  Of course, I believe the Genesis account is true, but I just think it was written of a focus other than giving us theories of the age of the earth or other such things.  


  • 1

#14
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Wormwood

 

But then we are left with your theory of why Genesis was written.  You reject the Gap Theory and replace it with only a Christological  interpretation.  With that method of interpretation one could ignore the whole historical base of the Bible.   One could say the exodus of Israel didn't really happen, or is not important.  It is just God showing us how He has delivered and will deliver His people from evil. 

 

Of course we can and should draw parallels throughout all of Scripture of what God has done and is doing with Christ and the believers.  Because the whole Bible is about Jesus Christ.  You opt only for the truth of the type.  But there is truth in learning of the event that depicts the type also.   And how accurate is your type when you're inaccurate in the historical event that represents your type?

 

One should ask, if the earth is in a dark chaotic state submerged in waters, why is it that way?   It already is in existence but is in darkness.  God is not darkness.  He is light.  And whenever He creates there is light. But for some reason, God turned the light out over the earth which is already existing, and submerged it in waters of judgement. 

 

One should ask  also, concerning  (Jer.4:23) when the term 'formless and void' is used to depict judgement, why would the same  exact term be used to describe Judah and the judgement to come which is used to describe the earth in (Gen .1:2)?   It is because the judgment Judah was going to go through was going to be so terrible that for the few survivors they could only think God is done with Israel.   It's over.   But God is showing and saying to them, no, it is not over.  Just like God brought the earth under judgement and darkness and chaos, He also delivered it again.  And you, Israel, can know that he will do the same with you. (Jer.4:27)  "For the whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end."

 

So, if the earth in (Gen.1:2) is not a picture of judgement and the six day creation is not a restoration, then there is no hope in these passages of Jeremiah. 

 

And then you can draw other parallels from this truth.

 

Stranger


Edited by Stranger, 10 April 2017 - 01:31 AM.

  • 0

#15
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

Stranger,

 

I think it is important to understand that Genesis was not written for Western, 21st century thinkers.  This does NOT mean it isn't true.  It just wasn't written for the purpose of quantifying things and it is not a science book.  It was written 1) as an apologetic against false religions and their creation stories, 2) to create a framework for daily life for Israel in remembering God in everything they did and 3) to point to the fulfillment of God's creative purposes and that is for the glory of Jesus Christ.  All things are by him and for him.  

 

So, no, this is not to say it didn't happen or it isn't true.  It is just to say that when people start trying to answer questions that a narrative was not written to answer...they are bound to start misusing the text and miss its purpose.  To me, it is like saying Revelation was written to point to a final 7-year tribulation, secret rapture and future Antichrist.  That is not the point of the book and when a person starts to use it to try to find signs or predictions of "end times" events they are bound to completely distort and misuse the book.  Is Jesus really coming back?  Of course.  But the book is not a newspaper to predict future events.  It was written for Christians in the 1st century who were struggling under intense persecution and its message continues to inspire and instruct Christians for every generation about faithfulness in the midst of a world steeped in evil and under the wrath of a holy God.  


  • 1

#16
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Stranger,

 

I think it is important to understand that Genesis was not written for Western, 21st century thinkers.  This does NOT mean it isn't true.  It just wasn't written for the purpose of quantifying things and it is not a science book.  It was written 1) as an apologetic against false religions and their creation stories, 2) to create a framework for daily life for Israel in remembering God in everything they did and 3) to point to the fulfillment of God's creative purposes and that is for the glory of Jesus Christ.  All things are by him and for him.  

 

So, no, this is not to say it didn't happen or it isn't true.  It is just to say that when people start trying to answer questions that a narrative was not written to answer...they are bound to start misusing the text and miss its purpose.  To me, it is like saying Revelation was written to point to a final 7-year tribulation, secret rapture and future Antichrist.  That is not the point of the book and when a person starts to use it to try to find signs or predictions of "end times" events they are bound to completely distort and misuse the book.  Is Jesus really coming back?  Of course.  But the book is not a newspaper to predict future events.  It was written for Christians in the 1st century who were struggling under intense persecution and its message continues to inspire and instruct Christians for every generation about faithfulness in the midst of a world steeped in evil and under the wrath of a holy God.  

 

Your view of Scripture is extremely nauseating to me.  It discourages rather than encourages Bible study.  It is debilitating to the Body of Christ.

 

The Bible was written by God, not man.  And God was aware of His people in the 21st century just as well as He was aware of those who came out of Egypt during the Exodus.   He did not write it for any certain generation.  He wrote it for His people in all generations. (1Peter 1:10-12) "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently,who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:  Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.  Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves,but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven;  which things the angels desire to look into."

 

The prophets searched the Scriptures to understand the times.  The writings were so stupendous that the angels want to look into them. But you just generalize with an off the cuff interpretation.  No need to study the Book of Revelation.  Just know that Jesus is coming back.   God loves you.  Stay away from evil.   Gee, that's some deep stuff.  That really helps.  

 

I come to Bible study as one that is mining for gold,  looking for gems of truth that God has hid and knowing that He wants me to search and dig for them.  

 

I reject completely your view of Scripture and method of interpretation.  

 

 

Stranger 


  • 0

#17
bbyrd009

bbyrd009

    Groper

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Now i got no idea where to post the subject, but when we look at the Bible and dinosaurs, dinosaurs would have walked the earth, in the days of Adam and Eve, did the great flood wipe them out I don't know, because you would think that Noah would have at least brought some different breeds of dinosaurs into the ark. But what we do know is the Bible talks a lot about beasts and birds in the field, and dinosaurs were most likely a few of those beasts. Now the last mention in the Bible before the book of Revelation, the last mention of the plural word "beasts" referring to the creatures that walk the ground of the earth is in James 3:7 according to Strongs Accordance. And the time frame of when the book of James was written is around A.D. 48 - A.D 62, so this may suggest that dinosaurs were still walking the earth at that time.

Now sorry for being ignorant to the science behind telling how old a fossil or bone is, but I myself, not being an expert in the Hebrew calendar, if the Hebrew calendar was created near the beginning of the earth or around during Abrahams time maybe?, and if it's only up to year 5777, that's means the main groups of dinosaurs could not have been extinct from the face of the earth 66 million years ago, unless if you find a spot to place millions of years in between Abraham and Adam and Eve. So when did the Hebrew Calendar start? Surely it was years before the Exodus, because that was around 1440 BC, so looking at all the biblical timeline, major groups of dinosaurs would have last walked the earth only a few thousand years ago, or maybe even less.

And as ridiculous as this may sound, the Loch Ness monster, which people may or may not have saw in the lake in the Scottish highlands, could it really have been a dinosaur that they were seeing? Maybe the Loch Ness monster could have been a plesiosaur or elasmosarus?

Don't take any of this as fact, these are my thoughts, so what are your thoughts people? When did dinosaurs last walk the earth? and how old are the discovered dinosaur fossils and bones really are? Maybe someone knows, maybe they don't.

Dinosaurs, RAWRRRRRRRRR!   :D

fwiw, Egyptian steles depicting outsized Pharaohs and people riding dinosaurs were long thought to be idealized, but have recently been postulated as accurate depictions. Despite the drawbacks of Carbon 14 dating--that being chiefly that you cannot date something with no carbon 14 in it that way, and that the half-life of C14 places a practical limit on how far back we can look, about 60k years or so.

"Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

http://science.howst.../carbon-142.htm


  • 0

"Creation is continuous, and never stops."


#18
Born_Again

Born_Again

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 1,312 posts

Why would it stand to reason?    Just because you say so?  Your reason?      Who said it was a 'clean sheet design'?  You did.   Thus according to the 'gap theory', your clean sheet design is not involved.  According to your theory, the clean sheet design is involved.    Nice try.

 

Water, the flood, is involved also in the earth being submerged in water before the six day creation.  (Gen.1:2) "...and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

 

The gap theory is supported by Scripture.  Yours, well, you haven't given any.

 

Stranger

It stands to reason... That means, Stranger, a reasonable person could reasonably conceive the idea. That doesn't mean its true. Like I said, its a theory. All of this is a theory (in relation to the OP) because we weren't there, we don't know.

 

So, I can only assume you are not reasonable. I'm not entirely sure why you came out guns blazing at such a trivial topic. LOL  This made me chuckle. :lol:  :lol:  :rolleyes:  :happy-smiley58:  :happy-smiley58:  


  • 0

#19
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

It stands to reason... That means, Stranger, a reasonable person could reasonably conceive the idea. That doesn't mean its true. Like I said, its a theory. All of this is a theory (in relation to the OP) because we weren't there, we don't know.

 

So, I can only assume you are not reasonable. I'm not entirely sure why you came out guns blazing at such a trivial topic. LOL  This made me chuckle. :lol:  :lol:  :rolleyes:  :happy-smiley58:  :happy-smiley58:  

 

Is Jesus Christ a theory?

 

Stranger


  • 0

#20
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

Stranger,

 

I don't think you understand my position at all.  I believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.  I believe it was written for all generations.  However, if it wouldn't have made sense to original audience, then you likely are not reading it properly.  The problem with many popular hermeneutical methods today is that they completely ignore 2000 years of church history (and 1000s of years of Israelite history) and pretend the Bible was written to 21st century Westerners to fulfill their fascination with predicting "end times" events or dating fossils.  In my opinion, this is the saddest approach to the Bible because it ignores both the needs of believers throughout history and ignores the underlying thrusts of issues related to theodicy, perseverance, faithfulness, and a right world view in favor of trying to "prove" the Bible with timelines and charts.  


  • 1

#21
Born_Again

Born_Again

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 1,312 posts

Is Jesus Christ a theory?

 

Stranger

You're not paying attention.

 

It says "In relation to the OP" No one said anything about Jesus.


  • 0

#22
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

You're not paying attention.

 

It says "In relation to the OP" No one said anything about Jesus.

 

(Luke 24:27) " And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

 

(Luke 24:44) " And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

 

Stranger


  • 0

#23
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Stranger,

 

I don't think you understand my position at all.  I believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.  I believe it was written for all generations.  However, if it wouldn't have made sense to original audience, then you likely are not reading it properly.  The problem with many popular hermeneutical methods today is that they completely ignore 2000 years of church history (and 1000s of years of Israelite history) and pretend the Bible was written to 21st century Westerners to fulfill their fascination with predicting "end times" events or dating fossils.  In my opinion, this is the saddest approach to the Bible because it ignores both the needs of believers throughout history and ignores the underlying thrusts of issues related to theodicy, perseverance, faithfulness, and a right world view in favor of trying to "prove" the Bible with timelines and charts.  

 

Who said the Scriptures wouldn't have made sense to an original audience?  You...not me.

 

Stranger


  • 0

#24
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

Who said the Scriptures wouldn't have made sense to an original audience?  You...not me.

 

Stranger

 

 

I didnt say the Scriptures wouldn't have made sense to the original audience.  I was saying if the hermeneutical method or interpretation would not have made sense to the original audience then it probably isn't right.  I highly doubt the ancient Israelites were pondering the exact age of the earth or attempting to use the Genesis narrative to determine if dinosaurs and human beings coexisted...just as 1st century Christians were not reading Revelation and envisioning helicopters, tanks or nuclear wars.  The text made sense to the original audience and to interpret it in a way that makes it completely foreign to their way of thinking is a misuse of the inspired author's intent....in my opinion anyway.


  • 1

#25
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

I didnt say the Scriptures wouldn't have made sense to the original audience.  I was saying if the hermeneutical method or interpretation would not have made sense to the original audience then it probably isn't right.  I highly doubt the ancient Israelites were pondering the exact age of the earth or attempting to use the Genesis narrative to determine if dinosaurs and human beings coexisted...just as 1st century Christians were not reading Revelation and envisioning helicopters, tanks or nuclear wars.  The text made sense to the original audience and to interpret it in a way that makes it completely foreign to their way of thinking is a misuse of the inspired author's intent....in my opinion anyway.

 

Yes, you did say that.  Because what you are saying is that to interpret certain passages or books  of Scripture, as looking forward to the future or looking back to the past, would not have made sense to the original audience.   One doesn't have to have helicopters or nuclear wars to understand that these things spoken of are end time events.  One doesn't have to have fossils dated to understand that what is being spoken of pertained to a time  in a distant past.   

 

And, as I mentioned before, concerning (1Peter 1:10-12) God wasn't always concerned that everyone understood everything about a prophecy or revelation He gave.  In these verses the prophets who were given the revelation didn't understand the time they spoke of.  Yet they searched the Scriptures to try and find out.  So, whether it makes sense to the generation to which the revelation is given is really immaterial.

 

And, God specifically sealed the book of Daniel so that the generation in which it was given would not understand it.  (Dan. 12:4,9) But it was for understanding the time of the end.   Contrast that with the book of Revelation in which a blessing is given to those who read and hear the things in it. (Rev.1:3)  Why?  Because as (1:3) says, "for the time is at hand".   Therefore, a revelation given by God could have meaning to the audience it was originally given and have meaning for future audiences and pertain to future things.   Or,  a revelation given by God may not be intended for the generation in which it was given.  It could be just for a future generation and pertain to future things.

 

Now, understand that God does give understanding of future or past events through the revelation He has given.   (Heb.11:24-26) "By faith Moses....Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches...."   How could Moses esteem the reproach of Christ when Christ was some 1500 years future?  

 

How could Enoch speak of the Second coming of Christ, (Jude 14-15) when he was the seventh son of Adam?

 

Stranger


  • 0

#26
Born_Again

Born_Again

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 1,312 posts

(Luke 24:27) " And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

 

(Luke 24:44) " And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

 

Stranger

Oh my gosh!! HAHA!! What are you going on about? Re-read the title of the post... We were talking about dinosaurs... You've gone off on your own thing now. Steer it back around or I'll shut this thread down due to your hijacking it for your own platform. 


  • 0

#27
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Oh my gosh!! HAHA!! What are you going on about? Re-read the title of the post... We were talking about dinosaurs... You've gone off on your own thing now. Steer it back around or I'll shut this thread down due to your hijacking it for your own platform. 

 

What I said was in response to your post #19.     No one is hijacking anything.  Go ahead, shut it down.   That's easier than answering the questions or staying in the debate.   Maybe moderators shouldn't be allowed to participate in any debate.   Because when they can't hold their positiion, they shut it down.  

 

Go ahead.  This ain't the only forum.  You ain't the only rodeo.

 

Stranger


  • 0

#28
Wormwood

Wormwood

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2,148 posts

Yes, you did say that.  Because what you are saying is that to interpret certain passages or books  of Scripture, as looking forward to the future or looking back to the past, would not have made sense to the original audience.   One doesn't have to have helicopters or nuclear wars to understand that these things spoken of are end time events.  One doesn't have to have fossils dated to understand that what is being spoken of pertained to a time  in a distant past.   

 

And, as I mentioned before, concerning (1Peter 1:10-12) God wasn't always concerned that everyone understood everything about a prophecy or revelation He gave.  In these verses the prophets who were given the revelation didn't understand the time they spoke of.  Yet they searched the Scriptures to try and find out.  So, whether it makes sense to the generation to which the revelation is given is really immaterial.

 

And, God specifically sealed the book of Daniel so that the generation in which it was given would not understand it.  (Dan. 12:4,9) But it was for understanding the time of the end.   Contrast that with the book of Revelation in which a blessing is given to those who read and hear the things in it. (Rev.1:3)  Why?  Because as (1:3) says, "for the time is at hand".   Therefore, a revelation given by God could have meaning to the audience it was originally given and have meaning for future audiences and pertain to future things.   Or,  a revelation given by God may not be intended for the generation in which it was given.  It could be just for a future generation and pertain to future things.

 

Now, understand that God does give understanding of future or past events through the revelation He has given.   (Heb.11:24-26) "By faith Moses....Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches...."   How could Moses esteem the reproach of Christ when Christ was some 1500 years future?  

 

How could Enoch speak of the Second coming of Christ, (Jude 14-15) when he was the seventh son of Adam?

 

Stranger

 

Well that is your faulty interpretation of what I am saying, but I think I know my own mind and what I am saying and what I am not saying.  Again, if a 21st century person is drawing conclusions or trying to answer questions that would have been foreign to the thinking of the early writer or reader, then the fault is with the interpretive method, not the writing.  Yes, the Bible speaks of the beginning of creation as well as the end times.  However, it speaks of these things in ways that made sense and communicated theological truths to their intended audiences.  They were not trying to talk about Russia, the United States, nuclear bombs or helicopters.  They were not trying to reconcile fossil records or create apologetics against evolutionary worldviews.  To use these texts in these ways would completely be outside the realm of the purpose of the text.  Its like trying to use a bathroom scale to measure the length of a table.  It wasn't created for that purpose and so any effort to use the text that way is only going to take the Bible in directions it was never intended to go.  

 

Well, you and I have a very different understanding of Daniel or Revelation that is probably a much longer conversation intended for a different forum, so I will leave that alone.

 

I also think you are misunderstanding Jude. 

 

The point is simple.  Jude's audience understood what Jude was talking about.  Yes, some authors spoke of future judgments or the future coming of Christ.  The point is, the readers clearly understood what this meant for them as well as for the world.  A first century person could read Revelation and say, "I understand this.  It makes sense to me and I recognize I need to live my life differently as a result."  If we fill it with tanks, bombs, Russia, etc...then it becomes wholly unrecognizable to the audience for which it was intended originally.  Personally, it looks to me like 21st century hermeneutical arrogance to say, "Ok, this is written only for me and my generation and all previous generations were ignored because I am in the last days and they were not."  To me that is just silly.  


  • 0

#29
Stranger

Stranger

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Wormwood

 

Is it silly that God told Daniel to seal up the revelation  He gave him because it was for another time?  (Dan.12:4,9)

 

As I said before, some futuristic revelation God gave was for every generation to know, such as the book of Revelation.  But, as they would read it they would know it spoke to future things.  

 

Thus my point concerning the gap theory which takes us back to the Dinosaurs. Just as we can recognize Scripture that speaks to a future day, so can we recognize Scripture that speaks to a past day.   And every generation that has the Scripture can do so depending on how much Scripture they have.

 

Stranger


  • 0

#30
Born_Again

Born_Again

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 1,312 posts

What I said was in response to your post #19.     No one is hijacking anything.  Go ahead, shut it down.   That's easier than answering the questions or staying in the debate.   Maybe moderators shouldn't be allowed to participate in any debate.   Because when they can't hold their positiion, they shut it down.  

 

Go ahead.  This ain't the only forum.  You ain't the only rodeo.

 

Stranger

 

Please note post #19 is where YOU took it down a different road. I can hold my position just fine. You lead it somewhere else for some unknown reason, Which is why I emphasized you needed to bring it back around to the OP and stop derailing. 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users