When discussing evolution versus creation, one often comes accross the claim that the existence of dinosaurs proves that the biblical account of creation is wrong. The question is why?

Genesis 1:
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
24 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. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Actually, there is absolutely no reason to exclude the dinosaurs from the biblical reference to living creatures.

It is not the fact that the word "dinosaurs" is not mentioned in the bible that's the problem, it's the dating system that contradicts the Genesis account. And that's only if one is bound to the literal interpretation of Genesis- if one can accept it is figurative, or mythical, there is no conflict.

Yes, it's all pretty much like Piscivore says, it depends on what time-frame you're looking at it from. While I personally don't have a problem accepting creation from an evolutionay standpoint. It doesn't affect my belief in God. However, there's one minor flaw, which doesn't really explain what man is doing here.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

But that is a compromise which would constitute a very serious negation. In fact, Jesus himself cited the Genesis account as being historical account of true events and people. Below are examples of both Jess and his Apostles acknowledging the Genesis accouint as factual and not just mere myth.

Noah, and the Flood,


Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;


Jonah,

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[ 12:41 Or something; also in verse 42] greater than Jonah is here.

Adam and Eve

Matthew 19

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Jude agreed about Genesis making reference to Adam and Enoch:

Jude 1:

14: And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,


The Apostle Paul concurs:
1 Corinthians 15:

45. So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Romans 5:

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Timothy 2:

13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve;



1 Timothy 2:

14. and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: Jude also spoke of the Genesis account as historical:

Abraham,

The Apostle Matthew uses the geneological record in Genesis to establish Jesus' legitimate right to the trhrone of David:


Matthew 1
The Genealogy of Jesus

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,


Peter and other Apostles also consider Genesis as an accurate historical document. Paul gives us a long list of witnesses who were exemplary in faith. Chapter 11 of Hebrews.

Peter and Jude speak of the angelic rebellion described in Genesis.
IN the scripture below Peter goes into detail as to Noah's Flood and the number of those who survived. If the account were merely myth, then this reference would not have been made. It would have been considered pointless.

1 Peter 3
19. through whom[1] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[2] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,



Sodom and Gommorah

Peter also acknowledged the accounts of Sodom and Gommorah as historical facts:

2 Peter 2:6
if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

The Apostle Paul agreed:

Romans 9:29
It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."[ 9:29 Isaiah 1:9]


JUde the half brother of Jesus agreed:

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.


So relegating Genesis to the mythical or figurative category would require us to say that Jesus was deluded. Something totally unacceptable since Jesus could not have been deluded from a Christian standpoint because he was the Son of God. Or that his Apostles were also deluded, something that is also unnaceptable since from a Christian standpoint they were guided by holy spirit.

Jesus cited the Genesis account. What makes his citation an affirmation of its historicity? If he were citing a well-known myth, how would his citation differ from what is recorded? Why?



Same question as above. How would a reference to a well-known myth be said differently? Why is it assumed that this reference to the flood means it must be historical?


Of course, even it one accepts that the flood was historical (I think that is plausible), it does not follow that it must have been literally global. Nothing in Jesus' reference says that it must. He is referencing the story to make a point. The story does not need to be literal for his point to be valid.



There is more than enough internal evidence in the book of Jonah to indicate it is intended to be fiction (and humorous fiction at that). To make a doctrinal point by referring to a story does not require that the story be factual. Have you never heard a preacher base a point in a sermon on a movie s/he recently viewed? Why can't Jesus do the same sort of thing with the stories of his people?

And what in Jesus' quote requires Adam and Eve to be individual persons rather than "male" and "female" archetypes? (The bible does not use the names Adam and Eve much. From Genesis 1-3 the terms used are "man" and "woman". Eve is named in Gen. 4:1, and never named again in the OT. Adam is named in the geneology in Gen. 5 and never named again in the OT.)

Jude is referencing a traditional geneology. How does that make the geneology historical?


An excellent example of referring to Adam as an archetypal human. Are we not all the "first man" in that we have become living souls? Are we not all to become the "last man" as we are engrafted into Christ?

Note that Paul specifically says Adam "is a figure of him that was to come". And again we have the equivalence of Adam and Christ as archetypes of us all. We are all dead in Adam (natural humanity) and all made alive in Christ (spiritual humanity).



Of course, this statement contradicts the Genesis 1 account where the man and woman are created simultaneously.

Speaking of a story does not turn it into history. Not even if the speaker believed it was history. The speaker had no way of knowing whether it was history or not. And may not have cared.

Caring about the distinctions between story and fact is a post-Enlightenment concern of Western civilzation. Imposing this concern on ancient texts and teachers in a way that was not relevant to their way of thinking just distorts the meaning of the texts.


Matthew is a notorious quote-miner. He uses all sorts of OT texts totally out of context to identify Jesus as the Messiah. Maybe good midrash, but hardly the basis for sober historical analysis.

And what about the contradictory geneology in Luke?


The most this can establish is that Peter believed these witnesses were individual historical heroes. No quote can turn a story into history if it is not history in the first place.
described where in Genesis?

Who says it would have been pointless? This tells me more about your assumptions that about the historicity of Noah's flood.

For example, why do you say "merely" myth? Do you consider myth to be a second-class category of truth? If you have a low concept of myth, naturally you will not want what is sacred to you described as myth. But if you have a high concept of myth, then myth may be more valuable to you than history. We know ancient peoples tended to value their myths.

Actually, we value ours too. But we don't recognize our myths to be myths.

A very modern attitude, totally dismissive of myth as an important and valuable conveyor of divine teaching. Fortunately some Christians are rediscovering the importance of myth and recovering the ancient use of myth. We no longer consider "myth" to be equivalent to "superstition" or "fairy tale" or "make-believe".

Most of Genesis is myth or legend. Very little is pure history. This is not to say that the myth and legend contain no history. But it is difficult to say where history ends and legend begins.

This only implies delusion if you consider that Jesus and the Apostles understood history to be what you understand history to be (probably not the case). Or understood myth to be what you consider myth to be (probably not the case). Or if you make the assumption that God never uses myth or legend as a vehicle of revelation. (If God is not a story-teller, Jesus would not be either. But Jesus was a story-teller.)

Your problem with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is based more on your assumptions of how God must behave, how the Holy Spirit must inspire, than on any real study of the nature of scripture and its relation to history as we define it today. Basically you are making rules for God and for scripture. They have to be what you decide they must be. Your faith is grounded in them abiding by your rules.

But maybe your rules are not God's rules.

That is just one point. It is overall impossible to consiliate the Genesis account with observed reality. To top it there are two different creation accounts in Genesis, in part contradicting each other.

Genesis is an ancient, symbolic legend. The only problem comes from some people insisting on taking it on face value.

Hans

And thankfully, the majority of Jews and Christians recognize and honour Genesis for the legend it is. Knowledgeable students of scripture have recognized the symbolical nature of the early chapters of Genesis since before the birth of Christ. St. Augustine cautioned against the literal interpretation of Genesis in the 4th century CE.

btw, did you know that the Genesis account of Noah's flood is also drawn from two distinct and contradictory accounts?

Yes, I think it would be quite acceptable to suggest that it affected the known world.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What affected the known world? A literal flood? Or the belief in the myth of a flood?

Hey the Cuttelfish is back! Couldn't resist staying away huh? ... Nevermind.

Yes, I'm referring to a literal flood here, in the Mediterranean region.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

And how is it that you justify giving more credence to Saint Augustine than Saint Peter, whom you say was the first Pope? Peter believed in the flood a an historical event. Have you read his writings?

Jesus whom you probably believe to be God himself spoke of the flood as an historical event.

Yet you place Augustine above these two?

I really fail to understand your logic.


I am assuming you claim to be a Christian.
If you are not, and are instead an atheist, or an agnostic etcetera, hen your approach becomes a little more understandable since then yo could simply classify both Jesus and Saint Peter as simply being duped.

BTW
Have you read Poe's "The Pit and the Pedulum?"

So the "known world" is the "world known by the authors of one particular book". China does not count, for instance.

Omniscience must be rough if One is myopic.

If you were brought up on an island which didn't have any contact with the outside world, could you help but think your island was the only world there is?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Now...suppose you grow up and finally are able to leave the island, and you discover that there is, in fact, a larger world out there. Will you still be naive enough to think that the events that took place on your little island (and which were written down by the island's scribes and handed down for generations as infallible) are the only things that happened while you were being brought up?

Might you, instead, open your eyes, look around, and realize that your former, myopic world-view was in fact incomplete? Might you realize that this infallible text was not the inspired work you have been told it is? Might you start to challenge some of the things you always held to be true?

Or would you, despite undeniable evidence to the contrary, continue to insist on the literal truth of your book, on its infallibility, on its relevance to the most minute details of your life in a world which cannot be found in its pages?

Science would change and improve with the new evidence--religion, it seems, circles the wagons and calls out the apologists, bending over backwards to maintain faith in an obsolete text which must remain infallible. On top of this, their refusal to change is touted as a positive attribute--they are a solid rock in a storm of change, when science changes from day to day. Yes, well...when you don't have to fit the real world, there is no need to change.

It is just a book. It was (to keep your metaphor) written on an island, before the outside world was discovered. It did not change to reflect the increased knowledge of the world; it has become obsolete.

I can see what you're saying here, and yet when you get right down to it, it's probably a combination of both. Neither should one use this to deny their roots either.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I'm Protestant. I don't say that.

1. How do you know Peter believed in the flood as an historical event. Because he spoke of it in his letter? Not good enough. He could be knowingly speaking of a legend in his letter. Wouldn't change anything he said, nor any of the points he was making.

2. Even if Peter did believe the flood was an historical and globalevent, that only indicates his human limitations and ignorance of the facts.

3. As noted earlier, it is possible that the flood was indeed an historical event of a regional nature which became embellished through legend to a larger mythico-theological event.


And in his earthly incarnation, Jesus voluntarily accepted the limitations of humanity. So the same applies to Jesus as to Peter above.



Yes, but a long time ago. I only really remember the basic outline and the shudder of horror it provoked. Don't even remember the ending.

I am glad you can see what I am saying; I am afraid I do not understand your comment, though. What is the "it" that is a combination of both? For that matter...both what? If you refer to religion and science, then I both agree and disagree. Science has nothing to say about what religion does best, and religion has no place in science. But...when religious texts are used as "evidence" for some empirically testable claim, and are used in lieu of the empirical evidence which is appropriate for the claim (remembering the different domains of science and religion, and respecting this split), then by all means the religious "argument" should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the empirical evidence would be, and rejected if it is found wanting.

I was appalled, once, to read in a conservative religious journal, guidelines on how to deal with scientific discoveries. There were many good tips, including "check the operational definitions--how something is defined will influence what is found about it." and "is the methodology sound?--be certain that appropriate controls were in place, and that the results are valid". There were tips on random selection of subjects from the population, and on random assignment to experimental conditions....for the most part, excellent advice. But their last step advised readers to "check the results against biblical truth." If the experiment was sound, the definitions appropriate, the subjects randomly chosen and assigned, the statistics properly calculated...if there was no flaw whatsoever, but the experiment disagreed with what the bible said...readers were advised to reject the experimental findings. Following these simple guidelines, it was obvious that there was no acceptable experimental evidence that the earth was older than several thousand years.

If these authors were willing to reject science if it disagreed with their book, I have no problems with science "denying the roots" of their myth. They are using the bible to evaluate empirical claims; sorry, that is the domain of science.

What I'm suggesting is that we shouldn't necessarily give up our cultural heritage just because something new and supposedly better comes along. Because there might be something intrinsic and unique about it that gets lost.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Should we also pine for the days of Polio and Smallpox? Ah, those romantic days of old, struggling against adversity, back when men were men...

Science, Iacchus, is driven by results. Something "intrinsic and unique" that helps us will be kept. But just because something is unique does not mean it should necessarily be kept. Again...Polio and Smallpox. They were a huge factor shaping our culture--should they have been kept?

Yeah, look at what happened to the Polynesians when us white folk came along.

Actually, if it wasn't for smallpox, it wouldn't have been so easy to decimate a large proportion of Native Americans without lifting a finger and, not nearly so easy to take over their land.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?