Dinosaurs in the Bible

Post Reply
User avatar
Dr. John Nay
Professor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Dinosaurs in the Bible

Post by Dr. John Nay » Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:20 am

:D Does the Bible talk about dinosaurs, what do you think? :lol:

Skepti Que
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: California, USA

Post by Skepti Que » Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:23 pm

Reptiles probabaly, such as crocodiles, dinosaurs as we know them probabaly not. Also probabaly hippopotumuses maybe elephants and whales.

User avatar
Dr. John Nay
Professor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Dr. John Nay » Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:44 am

:D According to Genesis 1:20-23, all the living creatures of water were created on the fifth day of the creation week. Genesis 1:24 says, And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. This was the sixth day. I propose this would include both sea and land dinosaurs, although this term did not come about until the mid nineteeth century (approx. AD 1841). I don't believe that Adam would name dinosaurs dinosaurs, as the term means, "Terrible Lizards" Genesis 1:31 tells us that all God created was "very good". The Hebrew of this is literally, "exceedingly good". Although Job 40:15ff. is in the Hebrew poetic form, it is an interesting passage, especially when one consciously considers the context of the passage. :D

Skepti Que
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: California, USA

The Crux of Job 40:15ff

Post by Skepti Que » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:31 pm

Doc,
Does the fact that Job 40:15ff is written in Hebrew poetic style pose a problem? Would it be more interesting or less so if in prose? Why do you begin the sentence referencing Job 40:15ff with the preposition you use?

Whatever the big, fierce, strong creatures are they are small fry compared to Jehovah, their and Job's creator.

I think there are some chiastic characteristics in the passage but it does not seem to me to be quite a chiasm in structure.
God talks about behemoth and leviathan and then makes His point and talks about leviathan some more. I don't get any extended inverted parallel patterns here reading in English.

Is not the outcome of Job that God does what He will without needing to explain or justify Himself to mere men?

Job 41:10-11
10 "No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him;
Who then is he that can stand before Me?
11 "Who has given to Me that I should repay him?
Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine.
NAS

User avatar
Dr. John Nay
Professor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Dinosaurs, Poetry in Motion

Post by Dr. John Nay » Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:35 pm

:D Prose or Poetry: Not for me. Some would suggest that since the passage is in the poetic form, it could not be referring to a ?literal? creature (at least this is what some have suggested to me at weekend seminars).

Small Fry: Yes. (This may have had to do with the point LORD was wanting to make with Job.

Poetic Form: It seems to me that when it comes to the type of poetic form, i.e. progressive, synthetic, synonymous, antithetical, chiastic, etc., the scholars (of which I am not) do not agree.

Is not the outcome of Job that God does what He will without needing to explain or justify Himself to mere men?

I think yes. (Isaiah 55:8-9 cf. Deuteronomy 29:29)
:D

Skepti Que
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: California, USA

On the Poetry

Post by Skepti Que » Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:23 am

What seems more likely to me is that God is describing to Job in poetic language, complete with metaphore and hyperbole, common recent creatures.

It is a much more common device to describe real things figuratively than to observe figurative language and assume therefore that the thing described is fictional. usually the language of the poet is considered the most advanced usage of the language in the literature of a people. I guess, however, that something not real must be described figuratively. I am trying to think of a good, simple, concrete description of something not real and coming up short.

Also some things beyond human comprehension or things human language fails adequately to describe literally must be related in figurative language. I think John's description of heaven must fall into the category of the inadequacy of his language to describe the indescribable.
SQ

User avatar
Dr. John Nay
Professor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Beyond Words

Post by Dr. John Nay » Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:13 am

:D Real:
Personally, I don?t think (pun intended) that a person can think of something that is not ?real?, if real includes concepts and not just physical existence. I don?t see where there can be physical existence of anything without the related concept.

The person that says, ?There is no God? implies His existence by the statement. The concept, God, is real.

You are probably familiar with Socrates? dialectical argumentation that frustrated so many, e.g. what is ?good?; not examples of goodness, but ?good?

Beyond Human Comprehension:

Perhaps not only beyond human comprehension, but incapable of being described in human language, e.g. Paul?s statement in 2 Corinthians 12:4, ?was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.? (NIV) Why? Some propose that language is not an adequate means to convey his experience. I think of a young man looking into the eyes of the one he loves and finding himself at a loss for words to describe how he feels about her. I think of times when we Christians find ourselves at a loss to describe our feelings or circumstances to God (thankfully the Holy Spirit makes intercession on our behalf). :D

Post Reply