dinosaurs and the bible
 

Ready for the random question of the day?

This is a conversation going on in my family thanks to a question posed by one of my nephews. The responses from various members of the family has been beyond interesting. So, I thought I'd post it here too and get a really wide set of responses.

So here it is: how do you explain dinosaurs in relation to the bible?


Don't you just love kids and their little minds????!?

Ummmm...weren't dinosaurs before humans?

I can't always remember this stuff because popular culture often feeds us images of humans fighting and flying on teradactals and stuff.

:confused:

Yes, yes there were. But that's what sparked the question. He was learning Genesis, learned about the world being made in 7 days, He made the animals and plants and flowers (never mentions dinosaurs or the cataclysmic end to their species) and then made man. Maybe it's an interpretation of the timeline? nittanynephew is convinced (and concerned) that what the bible says doesn't leave time for the dinosaurs to have been here. But being the dinophile that he is, he pulls out his dino texts and proceeds to show us all the timelines, etc., there. I'm waiting for the phone call telling me that he raised his hand during Mass to ask the question because he just isn't listening to his parents and family... ;)

that's awesome
he'll resolve it somehow

http://www.drdino.com

This guy is pretty interesting. I showed his tapes to my class when I taught 7-8 grade at a Christian school. I don't know that I totally agree, but he brings some really good information to light, and also it lead to really great conversations with my class.

Thanks for the link, summer! I will pass that on. I'm not sure if any of it will convince my nephew, but it may provide some more talking points for his parents. The kid makes good arguments, I gotta tell ya. Impressive for 7.

You can choose to interpret the Bible literally and view it as 100% inerrant, and reject modern science as a great conspiracy against God, or you can interpret the Bible symbolically, learning from the lessons and viewing it as a historical document, taking into account what people knew when it was written. A literal interpretation of the Bible says that the world is only 4,000 years old, so yeah, your choice.

ETA: By your mention of "mass" I am assuming that nittanynephew is Catholic. I am pretty sure Pope John Paul II accepted evolution.

I sure hope not.

He's already developing his critical thinking skills. :)

I see a great career in his future if you all continue to nurture his desire to learn and ask questions. :D

For me, it's pretty simple - it's the same explanation for why there are two completely different stories laid out in Genesis.

It's a story meant to teach a point, it's not a historical account. The important things are the lessons included, not the timeline.

This has the added benefit of "forcing" (perhaps allowing) him to root out the main points of the story for himself, or to ask the questions that will lead him there - this is very good for his critical thinking skills, and also reinforces the lessons if you're into that sort of thing.

Nittanyalum, has nittanynephew asked yet how there could be an evening and a morning before the creation of the sun? :D

I agree with KSig RC completely. As one minister once taught me, the first question you should ask when reading a passage of Scripture is "what does this teach me about God?" The last question you should ask is "what does this teach me about God?" Everything in between, if it matters at all, is secondary.

Applying this test to the first chapters of Genesis, I am taught that God created the world and everything in it, and then declared it "good." The exact timeline recedes into metaphor and symbol for understanding, among other things, the Sabbath and countering other creation stories.

You can also tell nittanynephew that the idea of not taking Genesis literally is really quite old and established. St. Augustine said that the days of creation should not be understood as literal solar days and even went to so far as to say that they were more allegory or metaphor, phrased in a way that humans could understand. As I recall, he even said that we should be prepared to modify our understandings of the Genesis stories as new information comes to light.

Or you have this from Origen:

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. (De Principiis IV, 16)

BTW, MysticCat Jr asked the same question.

Dont think God was sloppy, but maybe the bible was a little dramatic?

Now, I guess the question would be how long was a day in Gods life?:D

We were always told that the "Days of Our Lives" are less than a second in God's time.

Yeah, ours are more like sands in the hourglass. ;)

Sweeeeeeet! :)