Job 41 & 39 Dinosaurs

I have done this topic to death to come to the position I have, believe me it is not one made out of ignorance, it has been very calculated.


BGTF

 

:laugh: Alrighty then!

 

I have to disagree with you, BGTF,

Here is Job's description of the leviathan:

When he sneezes a light shines.
Sparks of fire leap out.
Out of his mouth goes smoke.
Out of his mouth goes a flame.

Job did not say "it seems as if these things happen" He said the smoke, the fire, the flame ...all are real.

No, my friend, to say this was anything less than a fire breather is to doubt this portion of God's Word as being truth.

It does not say the leviathan's breath was hot, it says fire leapt out that lit coals.

 

These questions to myself are how I started towards my position on this:

When did Job live?

When was the book of Job written?

To whom was it addressed?

With the first discovery of dinosaurs 'so-called' being approx 150 years ago, what did these verses mean to those who knew nothing about dinosaurs?

If no one knew anything about dinosaurs 'so-called' prior to 150 years ago, how could these verses be used to strike awe in the hearers, as we now understand them to mean?

With Job intending to be poetry am I to take everything precisely verbatim or not?

If pragmatists (atheists included) believe that these two portions of scripture, though poetic, were actually describing dinosaurs, why then won't they believe the literal account of the Son of God in the gospels?

If these verses in Job actually were the only biblical reference to dinosaurs, would I be willing to hang my hat on them?

All current scientific understanding of dinosaurs puts them in a period that pre-dates creation by several million years. With this understanding should I suspect the creation account or the scientific account?


As I got much further into it, it became clear to me that I personally had not one good biblical reason to believe that dinosaurs ever existed, so 'Here I stand, my conscience is captive to the word of God'.....

I also understand my position on this issue is a little unorthodox, and disagreement on it is much expected and much understood.

On the humorous side however, it can be a paradoxical sight to see atheists attempt to 'prove' dinosaurs to me......


BGTF

 

Crocodiles don't have legs like tree stumps.

 

As far as science goes, I do not believe their dating system is correct. The Bible records the earth to be very young... certainly not millions and billions of years old.

BGTF, why do you find it so hard to believe the Bible concerning the leviathan? You believe the Bible's account of the earth? Why not the truth of Job 41?

 

Sometime after Creation Week (Creation Week = about 6,000 years ago) and before the birth of Christ.

Same answer.

Regardless of this answer, the entire Bible (God’s Word) was meant for everyone.

Why do you assume these people would know nothing about dinosaurs? Actually, what you bring up helps prove a point. Why would God give examples of animals that people would know nothing about? This suggests that these people were familiar with these animals.

Exactly! A better understanding is that these people were familiar with animals that we now know as dinosaurs.

Is that the problem here or is it because of the belief that the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs supposedly existed millions of years ago and became extinct before humans had “evolved”?

Do you know atheists that believe that these verses are describing dinosaurs? I could see where that could be the case, as they would probably use this to say that the Bible could not be true since dinosaurs died out millions of years ago (as they would probably believe).

Even if this were the only reference to dinosaurs in the Bible, what would be the problem with that? How many times does the Bible have to mention something for it to be true?

Actually, you are mistaken in your comment about “[all] current scientific understanding of dinosaurs…” There is not a universal agreement among scientists as to when dinosaurs existed. There are many Ph.D. scientists that believe in a six day creation as described in the book of Genesis that took place about 6,000 years ago, and they believe that God created the dinosaurs on day six with the rest of the land animals.

There is also evidence that the earth is “young”. Actually, all the “evidence” is the same. It is the interpretation of that evidence that differs, and that interpretation is based in large part on one’s presuppositions.

Question - If you saw enough “proof” to convince you dinosaurs did/do exist, would this undermine your faith in God/Jesus or the Bible? (I say “do exist” because there is a possibility that one or more types of dinosaurs could still be alive today…especially in Africa. If a living dinosaur were discovered it would not be the first time that an animal believed by secular scientists to have become extinct millions of years ago to turn up living today. The Coelacanth is an example of this.)

Also, you do realize that single fossilized bones have been found that would be too large to have been that of a moose or some other extant animal.

 

Well, I guess the main reason is that the deeper I got into this issue, the more cause I had to doubt the existence of dinosaurs than I did to believe it. There are way too many holes in the whole dinosaur argument that have not been filled in. What I found most troubling though the whole ordeal was people looking through the Bible trying to make it agree with ‘science so-called’, instead of questioning why ‘science so-called’ was coming to conclusions that appeared so contrary to the word of God.

After I had come to my position on the matter and was being denigrated for it by many, I did find this guy who had similar questions, albeit he did come to a few different conclusions.

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm

From all the information I have reviewed to determine the answers to my questions, I believe there is much more grounds to deny the existence of dinosaurs than to believe their existence.


BGTF

 

So throw away the books of the Bible that clearly describe the leviathan as a fire-breathing dragon who causes the deep to boil since you don't believe he actually breathes fire as the Word of God proclaims it does.

To say that it is nothing more than a crocodile with hot breath is utter ridiculous. The Word of God says the fire from its mouth lights coals.

Have you ever seen a crocodile burn a piece of coal with its hot breath?

Not even Steve Irwin said anything as ridiculous as you are implying here.

 

Most people place the life of Job at approx 2100 BC +/-200 years which is significantly after the flood. Meaning those who think that dinosaurs were killed off in the flood, have no grounds for support in Job.

Opinions vary from 2100 BC all the way until Solomon in 1000 BC. The later it actually was written the less believable it becomes that dinosaurs were the animals described.

This is the most interesting question. If it were to be a dinosaur that was being described, then dinosaurs would necessarily have been objects of awe throughout all generations, not just for when the book was written, and the last 150 years. Because the idea of that particular part of scripture being written to ALL of God’s people, why would only some get the benefit of knowing exactly what God was referring to?

I am saying, what did these verses mean to Martin Luther, William Tyndale, John Owen etc. There is no record of any of them discussing dinosaurs that I know of.

The beast that was written about then was alive then, as late as the time of Solomon, yet not recorded in any history books until 150 years ago. The beast that was alive at the time of Solomon must have been alive for all generations to witness, hence why I believe it was the hippo and crocodile that were being referred to, not a dinosaur.

What I mean is that Job like Ecclesiastes is meant to be poetry on a certain level. And like Ecclesiastes has some verses that if taken 100% literally contradict other portions of scripture, there is sometimes poetic license required to properly understand them.

Yes, when one argues the existence of dinosaurs with atheists, some of the more informed even try to reference that the Bible does refer to them. They must be reading your posts

Well, the one reference they are supposed to have is very shaky at best. I tend not to go with shaky, especially when there are so many other possibilities.

Point taken, ‘all’ is not the best word to have used.

My faith is not based on dinosaur existence or non-existence, it is based solely on the person and work of Jesus Christ.
If man can go to the moon, you would think he would be able to find a living dinosaur by now if there actually was one. 'Irrefutable' proof of the existence of dinosaurs is something that will only come when I see one.

Yes, I realize that claim has been made, it is probably from some sea creature either whale or other, which was left behind when the flood waters receded.

BGTF

 

SFIC

With the conditioning towards dinosaurs being so prevalent, I never expect anyone to believe this at first hearing. Just sit back for a while and analyze some of the points I have brought up.


BGTF

 

There are many possible explanations, but instead of leaning towards the fabrication end of things, I believe the bones are the remnants of the animals killed in the flood. Along with those animals there would have been many sea creatures who would have been beached at the same time. Natural water currents tend to conglomerate debris that floats, and as the waters receded, these conglomerated carcases settled in with the beached sea creatures. Nearly any combination can be fabricated with the bone combinations possible there. This is how I explain the areas with massive bone deposits, which are usually in low-lying areas.

There is some additional info on this site as to this guy's ideas on the bones, but I don't draw the same conclusions as he does.

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm


BGTF

 

No need to analyze your points. The Word of God discards those points.

Again, when is the last time you ever heard of a crocodile breathing fire from its mouth and lighting coal with the flame?

I'll choose to believe the Word of God. It was not an alligator or crocodile, nor any animal we know today.

 

That web site is from a man called "David Wozney" (do a google search on this guy), it seems he doesn't believe the Apollo landed on the moon either.

Here is a debate between David and antother on dinos.
http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/goodies/dinodebate.html

and part II

http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/goodies/dinodebate2.html

To be honest, I am not surprised BGTF thinks dinos never existed.
It goes well with his other biblical thoughts.

 

So what was it then?

BGTF

 

I believe the leviathan to be some kind of dragon.

The Strongs defines the 'livyathan' as a sea monster or dragon of sorts.

We do know his skin is said by Scripture to be inpenetrable, which also would rule the crocodile out.

I believe it is a fire breathing dragon as I stated earlier in the thread.

Now, the question is... is this leviathan extinct now? or is it possible that it is still out in the sea somewhere?

I have heard some say it is the Loch Ness monster, but I cannot agree. The leviathan's home is the sea, not a lake.

 

This is the most intriguing statement in this whole thread...

Ok... i have thought on this... (watch out.. my brain is breathing smoke!)

Salt water fish would have been in the ocean.
Fresh water fish in the waters on land...

It starts to rain...and rain... and rain....

Wouldn't the density of the water be different?
Wouldn't salt water be denser than fresh water... (I see an experiment coming!!)
If so, the Water at the bottom of the oceans would have still been salt water.. while the water over the land would have been fresh water...

Ok... that's my thoughts as of now...

 

You believe it's a dragon that breathes fire. Yet a fire-breathing animal has never been found, in fact actual fire originating in any living organism defies all laws of biology.

We are looking for an animal that has never been found, one that has never even been recorded, and yet this thing no one has ever seen is meant to strike awe in those who know of it.


BGTF

 

As far as I know salt in aqueous solution when undersaturated always mixes quite thoroughly.

That being said one of the most intriguing things I have been pondering this last year has been salt content in the oceans. Is it static, increasing or decreasing?

There is a case for each, but I don't know of anyone studying it yet.

Also, where does underground freshwater come from? And why does the salt content in underground water vary? Is there a process that removes the salt underground allowing ocean water to be recycled? I would love to hear about this if anyone knows.


BGTF