What is your theory on dinosaurs?
- Thread starter blueluna5
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lol
The caption makes sense to me.
That's because the religion of the archaeologists is one that originated in Hinduism and Buddhism, revived by Charles Darwin. The followers of those religions speak with confidence and authoritatively to convince their devotees of the infinite times that they claim for fossilization and petrification. Those times are not based on real dating methods, but upon faith in their priesthood of PhDs.
Liberal higher critics and pseudo-intellectuals, in a "Christian " camp, tried to justify BOTH the Darwinism religious theory with their viewpoint of the Bible to interpret Genesis 1 and came up short on both accounts. They were not happy campers because they denied the plain text to interject an antichrist religious view, opposition of science falsely so called. I Timothy 6:20 KJV
This is what a lot of pastors fell for with their "pick your own story" Bible games. Thousands of pastors repeated the unbelievers to spread those stories teaching congregations that it solved their "ancient bones" hypothesis while allegoricalizong their "biblical narrative." This was called the GAP Theory. They had to insert a story exceeding Genesis creation with ANOTHER creation of their Darwinists liberal higher critics' imagination to make it work for them. An entire DIFFERENT creation story was told along with an angelic conflict, another human race, life and death and exciting adventures for their church families to enjoy!
.That is why your cartoon caption from Mad Magazine has humor. It's a reflection of the futility of both of those religious views. Those of us who trust what Jesus said about creation and the scientific method that He established to learn of that creation are quite happy to know the truth. There are no contradictions. The real God of His Bible explained in details all we need to know about dinosaurs as we who believe His Word know what happened to them.
I haven’t read this entire thread, but the following may be of interest to some folks.
“Behold, Be′hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. “He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. Under the lotus plants he lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. Can one take him with hooks, or pierce his nose with a snare?” (Job 40:15-24, RSV)
When I look at images of Diplodocus Dinosaurs, the passage above comes to mind. I heard this suggested by Dr. Henry Morris back in the 1970s. I have this marked in my old KJV, but the RSV wording is similar.
“Behold, Be′hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. “He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. Under the lotus plants he lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. Can one take him with hooks, or pierce his nose with a snare?” (Job 40:15-24, RSV)
When I look at images of Diplodocus Dinosaurs, the passage above comes to mind. I heard this suggested by Dr. Henry Morris back in the 1970s. I have this marked in my old KJV, but the RSV wording is similar.
You believe what isn't there? Because there is no 'gap theory' in God's Word.
Check what Bible you are reading, if it's a Scofield's...bin it. He added stuff and took away from Scripture - it's full of holes. That's where Scofield inserted the gaps.
Lol
The caption makes sense to me.
That's because the religion of the archaeologists is one that originated in Hinduism and Buddhism, revived by Charles Darwin. The followers of those religions speak with confidence and authoritatively to convince their devotees of the infinite times that they claim for fossilization and petrification. Those times are not based on real dating methods, but upon faith in their priesthood of PhDs.
Liberal higher critics and pseudo-intellectuals, in a "Christian " camp, tried to justify BOTH the Darwinism religious theory with their viewpoint of the Bible to interpret Genesis 1 and came up short on both accounts. They were not happy campers because they denied the plain text to interject an antichrist religious view, opposition of science falsely so called. I Timothy 6:20 KJV
This is what a lot of pastors fell for with their "pick your own story" Bible games. Thousands of pastors repeated the unbelievers to spread those stories teaching congregations that it solved their "ancient bones" hypothesis while allegoricalizong their "biblical narrative." This was called the GAP Theory. They had to insert a story exceeding Genesis creation with ANOTHER creation of their Darwinists liberal higher critics' imagination to make it work for them. An entire DIFFERENT creation story was told along with an angelic conflict, another human race, life and death and exciting adventures for their church families to enjoy!
That is why your cartoon caption from Mad Magazine has humor. It's a reflection of the futility of both of those religious views. Those of us who trust what Jesus said about creation and the scientific method that He established to learn of that creation are quite happy to know the truth. There are no contradictions. The real God of His Bible explained in details all we need to know about dinosaurs as we who believe His Word know what happened to them.
You know, apart from the fact I found it just plain funny, it does serve the purpose of dual reprentation.
Frankly I don't care for the dug in, heels in the ground, stubborn defensivness of either side. It's ignorant to say dinosaurs never existed and I don't see Abraham roasting one over an open fire either. The other side, if coming from an atheist position, is just as ignorant when the Bible states the fool has said in his heart there is no God. The interesting thing there, is human kind creating objects to worship because of the big God hole in their hearts.
Meteors aside, I like this one too.
most people have prob seen this oneI believe there were no dinos when Noah built the ark. They had already been extinct in whatever world pre-existed the Genesis 1 rendition.
And no that does not make me a non-Christian. We are allowed to use our brains.
Of course we all have free will and can believe whatever books we choose.
I just reject the book the Gap Theorists integrated into the "missing so called gap"/entire history of a completely separate creation that turns night and day into undefined ages of the universe.
The book that one of my former pastors decided to believe as he rejected the Traditional King James Bible/Majority of Texts and mock it in exchange for
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life
While he spent countless time regurgitating his own pastor's stories, I don't recall him ever addressing Leviathan or Behemoth in the book of Job. Perhaps he thought it a work of fiction.
Do you believe the book of Job was inspired by God and quoted Him accurately?
Job 41
1Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? 2Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
6Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
I agree that I don't see Abraham roasting one over a fire or Job for that matter. At least with the Leviathan, that would be the other way around wouldn't it?
BTW, I love that comic and Gary Larson's too!
Some alternate theories
Puff the magic dragon?
In those days, giants roamed the earth
I still stand on my theory that we (humans) killed and ate them. And some of them died in the Big flood and were buried hence fossils. But yea they could have died from lung cancer, especially the fire-breathing ones.
Puff the magic dragon?
In those days, giants roamed the earth
I still stand on my theory that we (humans) killed and ate them. And some of them died in the Big flood and were buried hence fossils. But yea they could have died from lung cancer, especially the fire-breathing ones.
Thanks for posting the Far Side!
What a lot of people recognize are the great big dinosaurs that get the attention because they are dramatic. However, most of the extinct reptiles were small.
Even giant reptiles like crocodiles, monitor lizards and giant snakes are small as juveniles and require less space to survive than mammals. There would be no space issues on the ark because God would have probably sent pairs of juveniles that would become reproductive after leaving the ark rather than large old ones with limited reproductive time left. He wanted them to be fruitful and multiply.
I used to own and do dinosaur shows with this kind.
When they hatch, they are less than a foot long, quite tiny.
These are the longest snakes in existence. I used to own a beautiful bright lemon yellow reticulated python.
No, not Scofield or Dakes for that matter.
God's word is full of gaps. It has to be, otherwise you'd need a truck to carry a Bible around. Tradition states that the earth "was" formless and empty. According to Isaiah 45:18, that is not how God created it.
The word "was" can be correctly be translated "became". It's the same word used for Lot's wife. She did not start out a pillar of salt.
The theory goes something like this: Satan was originally Lucifer, which means light bearer. He was the ruler over the first creation. When he rebelled against God, his light was extinguished. Satan corrupted the original creation. God judged it by water, but destroying that creation totally.
You can find evidence for this in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Keep in mind that behind every natural ruler is a satanic one. I do not believe in an earth that is billions of years old. But I also can't see that it is only 6,000 years old. An "old earth recreated" makes a lot of sense to me. And if I'm wrong, it is not a salvation issue.
God's word is full of gaps. It has to be, otherwise you'd need a truck to carry a Bible around. Tradition states that the earth "was" formless and empty. According to Isaiah 45:18, that is not how God created it.
The word "was" can be correctly be translated "became". It's the same word used for Lot's wife. She did not start out a pillar of salt.
The theory goes something like this: Satan was originally Lucifer, which means light bearer. He was the ruler over the first creation. When he rebelled against God, his light was extinguished. Satan corrupted the original creation. God judged it by water, but destroying that creation totally.
You can find evidence for this in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Keep in mind that behind every natural ruler is a satanic one. I do not believe in an earth that is billions of years old. But I also can't see that it is only 6,000 years old. An "old earth recreated" makes a lot of sense to me. And if I'm wrong, it is not a salvation issue.
Well thats in interesting made up theory that reads into things that are not there lol
Iasiah doesn't contradict the Genesis creation story. You just taking one verse out of context and creating another entire story out of it. Before the clay is shaped, it's without form.
The word was is not a mistranslation.
Nobody is saying And the earth BECAME without form as if God smushed a previous creation.
You have weird way of reading the Bible that's for sure. Also the cherub or cherubims were placed to the East the Garden of eden to guard the tree of life. Possibly they weren't doing their job when Adam and Eve picked the fruit of the forbidden one.
Iasiah doesn't contradict the Genesis creation story. You just taking one verse out of context and creating another entire story out of it. Before the clay is shaped, it's without form.
The word was is not a mistranslation.
Nobody is saying And the earth BECAME without form as if God smushed a previous creation.
You have weird way of reading the Bible that's for sure. Also the cherub or cherubims were placed to the East the Garden of eden to guard the tree of life. Possibly they weren't doing their job when Adam and Eve picked the fruit of the forbidden one.
1. The Hebrew verb hāyĕtāh (הָיְתָה) almost always means “was,” not “became”
The verb in Genesis 1:2 is the Qal perfect 3fs of hāyâ (“to be”). In Hebrew narrative, this form normally expresses a simple state: “the earth was …”
To translate it as “became” requires contextual indicators of change—such as a contrast, a before/after marker, or a verb of action—which Genesis 1:2 does not contain. Nothing in the syntax signals a transition from a prior condition.
Thus, grammatically, “was” is the default and expected translation.
2. Tōhû wābōhû is a set phrase meaning “waste, emptiness,” not “ruined”
The phrase appears only three times in the Hebrew Bible:
Genesis 1:2
Isaiah 34:11
Jeremiah 4:23 (a deliberate echo of Genesis 1:2)
In all cases, tōhû means “wasteness, emptiness, desert, nothingness” and bōhû means “voidness/emptiness.”
This is not a word pair that describes ruin after judgment unless the context explicitly frames it that way (as in Jeremiah 4:23). In Genesis 1:2, there is no judgment context, only a description of the primordial, unshaped earth.
Thus translators understand the phrase as describing raw, unformed material, not a destroyed world.
3. The ancient translations unanimously support “was … formless and void”
The earliest interpreters—who were native or near-native speakers of Hebrew—translated the verse this way:
Septuagint (LXX): aoratos kai akataskeuastos (“unseen and unformed”)
This is strong evidence that the Hebrew was understood as describing the initial condition, not a catastrophe.
4. The context of Genesis 1 favors an initial-state description
Genesis 1:1–3 forms a tight sequence:
5. Why some propose “became waste and wild”
This view (often associated with the “gap theory”) depends on:
Reading hāyĕtāh as “became”
The verb in Genesis 1:2 is the Qal perfect 3fs of hāyâ (“to be”). In Hebrew narrative, this form normally expresses a simple state: “the earth was …”
To translate it as “became” requires contextual indicators of change—such as a contrast, a before/after marker, or a verb of action—which Genesis 1:2 does not contain. Nothing in the syntax signals a transition from a prior condition.
Thus, grammatically, “was” is the default and expected translation.
2. Tōhû wābōhû is a set phrase meaning “waste, emptiness,” not “ruined”The phrase appears only three times in the Hebrew Bible:
Genesis 1:2
Isaiah 34:11
Jeremiah 4:23 (a deliberate echo of Genesis 1:2)
In all cases, tōhû means “wasteness, emptiness, desert, nothingness” and bōhû means “voidness/emptiness.”
This is not a word pair that describes ruin after judgment unless the context explicitly frames it that way (as in Jeremiah 4:23). In Genesis 1:2, there is no judgment context, only a description of the primordial, unshaped earth.
Thus translators understand the phrase as describing raw, unformed material, not a destroyed world.
3. The ancient translations unanimously support “was … formless and void”The earliest interpreters—who were native or near-native speakers of Hebrew—translated the verse this way:
Septuagint (LXX): aoratos kai akataskeuastos (“unseen and unformed”)
- Vulgate: inanis et vacua (“empty and void”)
- Targums: similar renderings of primordial formlessness
This is strong evidence that the Hebrew was understood as describing the initial condition, not a catastrophe.
4. The context of Genesis 1 favors an initial-state descriptionGenesis 1:1–3 forms a tight sequence:
- 1:1 — God creates the heavens and the earth.
- 1:2 — The earth as created is unformed, empty, dark, and covered by water.
- 1:3 — God begins shaping it by creating light.
5. Why some propose “became waste and wild”This view (often associated with the “gap theory”) depends on:
Reading hāyĕtāh as “became”
- Reading tōhû wābōhû as “ruined”
- Importing later judgment language (Jeremiah 4:23) back into Genesis 1:2
P
passion84god
Guest
How is it an acceptable alternative? Adam is called "the first man" in scripture. 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47. Since he was "the first man," no men could have existed before him. Also, "by one man," Adam, "sin entered into the world, and death by sin." Romans 5:12. Since death entered into the world by the first man, Adam, how could death have existed in some alleged pre-Adamic world?
Of course we all have free will and can believe whatever books we choose.
I just reject the book the Gap Theorists integrated into the "missing so called gap"/entire history of a completely separate creation that turns night and day into undefined ages of the universe.
The book that one of my former pastors decided to believe as he rejected the Traditional King James Bible/Majority of Texts and mock it in exchange for
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life
While he spent countless time regurgitating his own pastor's stories, I don't recall him ever addressing Leviathan or Behemoth in the book of Job. Perhaps he thought it a work of fiction.
Do you believe the book of Job was inspired by God and quoted Him accurately?
Job 41
1Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? 2Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
6Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
I agree that I don't see Abraham roasting one over a fire or Job for that matter. At least with the Leviathan, that would be the other way around wouldn't it?
BTW, I love that comic and Gary Larson's too!
The only place I see there was creation before the garden is in scripture, so patronizing me with 'Of course we all have free will and can believe whatever books we choose' does not work since I have never read any book about a gap or heard any theories or pastors speak on it.
Frankly, I find it a bigger challenge to believe the world is only 6000 years old while ignoring all the massive evidence that indicates otherwise. I think that people choose to believe whatever lines up with what makes them feel comfortable or perhaps lines up scripture for the way the see it. Hey ~ if that makes someone comfortable in their faith I won't judge them on that as the only criteria for salvation is faith in Christ and I see absolutely no disparity between my faith in Him and the fact I do not believe this old planet is only 6000 yrs old.
I firmly believe God knows what He is doing and has given me a mind that does not just accept popular beliefs or opinions and I am the one that has to live with that and I am comfortable with it.
Right now, I am studying the actual mindset and beliefs of those who wrote the inspired word of God and the spritual realm was far more on the minds of those people than our western culture allows for today. Actually, I thank God I have found teachers who expound on such things because I was at a point in my life that I am up to here tired and bored with the usual church constuct which, for the most part does not follow biblical instruction anyway.
In fact, disbelief seems to be the order of the day in many denoms while they present an unbiblical Christ and their own interpretation that does not align with the spiritual reality of scripture.
So yeah. There's that.
So did God create the rest of the universe the same way? Of course flat earthers do not concern themselves with such things.
How about the creation of the moon and the stars? If God created each of them the way some believe the earth was done, we are looking at time that no one can conceive of and none of it matters to God anyway.
God, is absolutely an anthetical Being as far as we are concerned. Further, He is not constrained by what we might think about Him. We only know what He allows for us to know and not everyone is on the same page. Some know more; some know less. I suggest that those who scripted the Bible knew more as they believed more. God is Spirit and He dwells in a spiritual realm.
P
passion84god
Guest
This does not mean what you are implying it means. Put that verse in its proper context. Just a few verses earlier, God said:
Isaiah 45:12
12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.When God said "He did not create it to be empty," he was reiterating what he said just a few verses prior or that he created man upon the earth after making the earth itself. In no way does Isaiah 45:18 support the unbiblical "gap theory."
That is not in question. What is in question, is the impossible reference to our understanding of 7 24 hr cycles. Notice how God creates. He puts the life He wishes to continue within the creation itself. In other words, trees grow after their own kind, kangeroos do not produce camels and so on.
Time, seems to play into all of it. Gestation, being born.....everything takes time and for His own reason, He made things that way.
I am actually more in awe of God speaking to enact or bring into existence all things, then the 24 hr day cycle most seem comfortable with.
God told us what we need to know not everything. He also gave us the ability to think. As some have said, the earth was not always without form and void. Someone tell me when God spoke the earth into existence He made it without form? Why?
That does nothing to negate the fact there was a blob hanging in space that God grieved over and so He rolled up His sleeves and had another go.
The statement '1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.' does not actually state anything became as we learn that God created all things.
We don't need to be told more than that if we accept by faith that God did indeed create all things. That does not negate the fact that for some reason, the earth was formless, empty and void. When a person reasons that scripture must line up with their previous understanding, then, that is what they will see. When a person's attention is grabbed by seeing what does not line up with 'religious' expectations, then a better understanding will hopefully be realized.
I do wonder about all the rest of the universe though. Did He agonize over each and every planet, star and vast nebulas the same way? See, God is far more than what we can ever think or imagine.