What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I have a theory about where the dinosaurs went. First of all, we have to define what we mean by dinosaur. That would was only created/invented in 1842 by Richard Owen, to describe a fearfully great lizard.

If we're talking about the big animals that have been extinct for centuries (or shortly after the flood), then we can seriously look at reptiles. Most of them don't stop growing their entire lives. Some grow slowly, some grow fast, but if you have a 900 yr old iguana, that my friend would be a huge "dinosaur". Or even a crocodile. I'm not sure I would want to meet one a few hundred feet long.

And then since the flood, the entire planet inhabitants lifespan was shortened to about 100 yrs. Therefore limiting the size of some of these animals.

Do I have facts, no, however, this does make sense.

I believe your theory is spot on

Also, some dinosaurs survived and grew large enough to be considered dragons.
There is abundant evidence for this in old statues, murals and folklore.
Such a slow moving creature was no match for a bunch of pitchfork villages.

http://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends

Though I like the sound of this, and I wish I could easily embrace it, I have one question: what do we do with the fossils of entirely different species that are discovered? For example, the T-rex, the raptor, or the stegosaurus? These seem to be very distinct species from any reptile that exists today. Please help me to work this out. Thank you.

 

[johnny]

I have a theory about where the dinosaurs went. First of all, we have to define what we mean by dinosaur. That would was only created/invented in 1842 by Richard Owen, to describe a fearfully great lizard.

If we're talking about the big animals that have been extinct for centuries (or shortly after the flood), then we can seriously look at reptiles. Most of them don't stop growing their entire lives. Some grow slowly, some grow fast, but if you have a 900 yr old iguana, that my friend would be a huge "dinosaur". Or even a crocodile. I'm not sure I would want to meet one a few hundred feet long.

And then since the flood, the entire planet inhabitants lifespan was shortened to about 100 yrs. Therefore limiting the size of some of these animals.

Do I have facts, no, however, this does make sense.

I believe your theory is spot on

Also, some dinosaurs survived and grew large enough to be considered dragons.
There is abundant evidence for this in old statues, murals and folklore.
Such a slow moving creature was no match for a bunch of pitchfork villages.

http://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends

Though I like the sound of this, and I wish I could easily embrace it, I have one question: what do we do with the fossils of entirely different species that are discovered? For example, the T-rex, the raptor, or the stegosaurus? These seem to be very distinct species from any reptile that exists today. Please help me to work this out. Thank you.

The very fact that we have "whole" fossils that are undegraded by other animals or insects, points to the biblical record of a world wide flood, whereby dinosaurs and other creatures were literally washed into sediment where they were preserved in entirety.
(There are even some caught in the act of giving birth)
After the flood, dinosaurs were limited in their growth and after death, would not have been preserved as well.

There is a plethera of information out there and I am no certainly no expert, Creation Ministries does a great job answering all these kinds of questions, (although I am also Geocentric and CMI don't like that)

 

[earl40]

As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.

As one who holds to the doctrine of creation I don't believe what you have set forward can be genuinely credited as a "belief."

Could one have a "belief" that many species of fossils of huge and diverse creatures, dinosaurs, that are dug up are simply not here anymore? Of course I assume you would agree with such, correct me if I am wrong. I have no dogmatic belief of how they became extinct.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I have a theory about where the dinosaurs went. First of all, we have to define what we mean by dinosaur. That would was only created/invented in 1842 by Richard Owen, to describe a fearfully great lizard.

If we're talking about the big animals that have been extinct for centuries (or shortly after the flood), then we can seriously look at reptiles. Most of them don't stop growing their entire lives. Some grow slowly, some grow fast, but if you have a 900 yr old iguana, that my friend would be a huge "dinosaur". Or even a crocodile. I'm not sure I would want to meet one a few hundred feet long.

And then since the flood, the entire planet inhabitants lifespan was shortened to about 100 yrs. Therefore limiting the size of some of these animals.

Do I have facts, no, however, this does make sense.

I believe your theory is spot on

Also, some dinosaurs survived and grew large enough to be considered dragons.
There is abundant evidence for this in old statues, murals and folklore.
Such a slow moving creature was no match for a bunch of pitchfork villages.

http://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends

Though I like the sound of this, and I wish I could easily embrace it, I have one question: what do we do with the fossils of entirely different species that are discovered? For example, the T-rex, the raptor, or the stegosaurus? These seem to be very distinct species from any reptile that exists today. Please help me to work this out. Thank you.

The very fact that we have "whole" fossils that are undegraded by other animals or insects, points to the biblical record of a world wide flood, whereby dinosaurs and other creatures were literally washed into sediment where they were preserved in entirety.
(There are even some caught in the act of giving birth)
After the flood, dinosaurs were limited in their growth and after death, would not have been preserved as well.

There is a plethera of information out there and I am no certainly no expert, Creation Ministries does a great job answering all these kinds of questions, (although I am also Geocentric and CMI don't like that)

So you are saying that the Lord might have chose to save one "kind" of dinosaur, and allowed the rest of the species to perish? And with this one kind being left, this might have been the species that some cultures call the dragon? So You would group the T-rex, raptor, etc., into one kind? This would explain why only one of the species survived. Thanks.

 

[MW]

Could one have a "belief" that many species of fossils of huge and diverse creatures, dinosaurs, that are dug up are simply not here anymore?

Whatever it is, it is not a "belief." A belief arises from demonstration and conviction. Creation is a belief founded on the authority of divine revelation. It is something known and believed to have happened. To put a speculative science on the same level as Christian belief is to make a religion of science.

 

[johnny]

Quote form Johnny
The very fact that we have "whole" fossils that are undegraded by other animals or insects, points to the biblical record of a world wide flood, whereby dinosaurs and other creatures were literally washed into sediment where they were preserved in entirety.
(There are even some caught in the act of giving birth)
After the flood, dinosaurs were limited in their growth and after death, would not have been preserved as well.

There is a plethera of information out there and I am no certainly no expert, Creation Ministries does a great job answering all these kinds of questions, (although I am also Geocentric and CMI don't like that)

Quote from Ryan and Amber
So you are saying that the Lord might have chose to save one "kind" of dinosaur, and allowed the rest of the species to perish? And with this one kind being left, this might have been the species that some cultures call the dragon? So You would group the T-rex, raptor, etc., into one kind? This would explain why only one of the species survived. Thanks.


Johnny again

Kind of, and thank you for kind reply

I am suggesting that there may be remains of T-Rex and Raptor in smaller versions after the flood event but that they most likely won't have survived in the same way as the pre flood corpses, as the flood was a unique event which mummified many fossil specimens in sediment. For instance, try and find a whole preserved tiger corpse from last century, unless the unlucky tiger happened to wander into a boggy quagmire and get stuck and die "which is a unique event" He would probably have been consumed by buzzards and insects and only a few odd bones of the tiger have survived. This also applies to all the fossilised fish (how did they all get there so perfectly preserved whole?) When a fish dies it generally gets consumed by all the other fish in the general area, same with insects ect ect,,,

 

[earl40]

Could one have a "belief" that many species of fossils of huge and diverse creatures, dinosaurs, that are dug up are simply not here anymore?

Whatever it is, it is not a "belief." A belief arises from demonstration and conviction. Creation is a belief founded on the authority of divine revelation. It is something known and believed to have happened. To put a speculative science on the same level as Christian belief is to make a religion of science.

Is it speculative science that the big bony fossils buried in the earth are not fossilized bones of creatures we do not see today?

 

[MW]

Is it speculative science that the big bony fossils buried in the earth are not fossilized bones of creatures we do not see today?

Yes. You have to speculate something in general as to what they are in order to conclude what they are not. Just the term "fossil" requires particular assumptions.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I am suggesting that there may be remains of T-Rex and Raptor in smaller versions after the flood event but that they most likely won't have survived in the same way as the pre flood corpses, as the flood was a unique event which mummified many fossil specimens in sediment. For instance, try and find a whole preserved tiger corpse from last century, unless the unlucky tiger happened to wander into a boggy quagmire and get stuck and die "which is a unique event" He would probably have been consumed by buzzards and insects and only a few odd bones of the tiger have survived. This also applies to all the fossilised fish (how did they all get there so perfectly preserved whole?) When a fish dies it generally gets consumed by all the other fish in the general area, same with insects ect ect,,,

That is very helpful, thank you. One last question, so what do you think happened to any remaining dinosaurs after the event of the flood? Is that too much to speculate? Maybe they were killed off? Maybe they couldn't find food? Either way, the point is that they went extinct for some reason, correct? Thank you.

 

[earl40]

Is it speculative science that the big bony fossils buried in the earth are not fossilized bones of creatures we do not see today?

Yes. You have to speculate something in general as to what they are in order to conclude what they are not. Just the term "fossil" requires particular assumptions.

I see your point though the "stuff" buried in the ground is "revealed" to me as being from some big animal that is not around today.

 

[MW]

I see your point though the "stuff" buried in the ground is "revealed" to me as being from some big animal that is not around today.

I would question where the "revelation" is coming from.

The hyper-natural science which gives us dinosaurs also supposes the same causes which produced life on our planet could have done so on other planets. If that is the case, these things could have been the result of aliens burning up on entering our atmosphere. Or, if one chooses the ruin-reconstruction theory it is possible they are the remains of the ruined creation before God began to create our existing order of things. Or, if one believes in cosmic warfare between angels and demons one might conceive it possible that these are forms once assumed by spiritual beings. Or, if one chooses creation-science it is possible that they are the remains of some kind of animal which continues to be represented in the animal kingdom of today. Or, if one believes Gen. 6 refers to angelic-human intercourse they could be a monstrous fruit of that union. The speculation is only as valid as the system which generates it; and it is the system which will determine whether "fossil" is plausible or not.

 

[johnny]

I am suggesting that there may be remains of T-Rex and Raptor in smaller versions after the flood event but that they most likely won't have survived in the same way as the pre flood corpses, as the flood was a unique event which mummified many fossil specimens in sediment. For instance, try and find a whole preserved tiger corpse from last century, unless the unlucky tiger happened to wander into a boggy quagmire and get stuck and die "which is a unique event" He would probably have been consumed by buzzards and insects and only a few odd bones of the tiger have survived. This also applies to all the fossilised fish (how did they all get there so perfectly preserved whole?) When a fish dies it generally gets consumed by all the other fish in the general area, same with insects ect ect,,,

That is very helpful, thank you. One last question, so what do you think happened to any remaining dinosaurs after the event of the flood? Is that too much to speculate? Maybe they were killed off? Maybe they couldn't find food? Either way, the point is that they went extinct for some reason, correct? Thank you.

We are told in Genesis that only those creatures that God brought into the ark survived.

Genesis 7:4-5

Genesis 7:21-23
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

We are also told that God brought every living creature into the ark that breathed the breath of life, so I imagine that this must have included dinosaurs. I read somewhere that the ark was certainly big enough to accommodate dinosaurs.

Genesis 7:15-16
And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

So what happened to them??? I think they slowly died off and became extinct. They probably never grew to the gigantic sizes that they were during the Antediluvian period.

If I may refer to Reverend Winzer's post above, I am working (albeit poorly) from a Creation Science Hypothesis because I see it as being the most accurate position according to the scriptural record.

 

[earl40]

I would question where the "revelation" is coming from.

The hyper-natural science which gives us dinosaurs also supposes the same causes which produced life on our planet could have done so on other planets. If that is the case, these things could have been the result of aliens burning up on entering our atmosphere.

I reject such.

Or, if one chooses the ruin-reconstruction theory it is possible they are the remains of the ruined creation before God began to create our existing order of things.

I reject such.

Or, if one believes in cosmic warfare between angels and demons one might conceive it possible that these are forms once assumed by spiritual beings.

I reject such.

Or, if one believes Gen. 6 refers to angelic-human intercourse they could be a monstrous fruit of that union. The speculation is only as valid as the system which generates it; and it is the system which will determine whether "fossil" is plausible or not.

I reject such.

Or, if one chooses creation-science it is possible that they are the remains of some kind of animal which continues to be represented in the animal kingdom of today..

I reject such, to an extent, in that I believe the "things" we see buried are species that are now extinct. The "natural revelation" from Our Lord has been seen with my own eyes.

 

[Douglas P.]

As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.

How did it not wipe out the humans? After all, Genesis 1 teaches that they were created on the same day as all land animals.

The framework view does not interpret the creation narrative literally. Therefore, (speaking for myself only here) I'm free to conclude, based on reason, modern scientific evidence etc., that humans wouldn't show up on the scene for another 65 million years, thus barely dodging the meteor.

 

[johnny]

It's interesting to me that some Christians still hold to a "millions of years" hypothesis when there is so much good information out there refuting it, However, we are all united in Christ and these issues are not salvific in themselves.

Sigh

 

[MW]

I reject such, to an extent, in that I believe the "things" we see buried are species that are now extinct. The "natural revelation" from Our Lord has been seen with my own eyes.

I don't think you have seen this as a natural revelation from the Lord with your own eyes. You may have seen something which has been interpreted as this, and you have accepted it as the best explanation of what you have seen; but that is all. People who say they "believe" in ghosts work along the same lines. It is not a "belief" because nothing has been experienced which warrants belief. At most it is part of an unknown facet of the world on which one chooses to exercise his mental faculties to try to arrive at a plausible explanation. For a Christian to call it "belief" is to raise it to a level of credibility which will ultimately weaken the credibility of his genuine beliefs founded on actual revelation.

 

[earl40]

I reject such, to an extent, in that I believe the "things" we see buried are species that are now extinct. The "natural revelation" from Our Lord has been seen with my own eyes.

I don't think you have seen this as a natural revelation from the Lord with your own eyes. You may have seen something which has been interpreted as this, and you have accepted it as the best explanation of what you have seen; but that is all. People who say they "believe" in ghosts work along the same lines. It is not a "belief" because nothing has been experienced which warrants belief. At most it is part of an unknown facet of the world on which one chooses to exercise his mental faculties to try to arrive at a plausible explanation. For a Christian to call it "belief" is to raise it to a level of credibility which will ultimately weaken the credibility of his genuine beliefs founded on actual revelation.

Believe it or not I see your point and what I said about what I did see as being some type of animal remains, or stuff, that are not around today In my most humble opinion is a belief that would only be changed if we find a huge mammoth sloth. Yes there are other species of sloths today BUT the subspecies of the ones buried today are In my humble opinion extinct. Also comparing ghosts with the remains of animals is off in that we have both seen the remains of animals unlike the what some people suppose they saw were ghosts.

 

[bookslover]

Who says the dinosaurs disappeared? Have you seen photos of Bernie Sanders lately?

 

[MW]

Also comparing ghosts with the remains of animals is off in that we have both seen the remains of animals unlike the what some people suppose they saw were ghosts.

Earl, for the sake of clarity, this "thing" which is fossilised, does it live today or not? You are saying it is extinct, and that what you have seen are the fossilised remains of something which once lived but died out. If so, by definition it is not present today, which means you have not seen it; some process of argument from probabilities is bringing you to your conclusion.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.

How did it not wipe out the humans? After all, Genesis 1 teaches that they were created on the same day as all land animals.

The framework view does not interpret the creation narrative literally. Therefore, (speaking for myself only here) I'm free to conclude, based on reason, modern scientific evidence etc., that humans wouldn't show up on the scene for another 65 million years, thus barely dodging the meteor.

The Reformed view embodied in the Westminster Standards does see the days of creation as days, however. Since this is a confessional Reformed board, I am going to take that view for granted as the standard one.

On a personal note, I would look diligently into this matter if I were you. Don't buy what the science teachers are selling without making a diligent study. The framework hypothesis promises an easy way out of Biblical liberalism, but it can't be proven, and it doesn't comport with the narrative of Genesis 2 and forward, which is organically rooted in Genesis 1.

 

[timfost]

As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.

How did it not wipe out the humans? After all, Genesis 1 teaches that they were created on the same day as all land animals.

The framework view does not interpret the creation narrative literally. Therefore, (speaking for myself only here) I'm free to conclude, based on reason, modern scientific evidence etc., that humans wouldn't show up on the scene for another 65 million years, thus barely dodging the meteor.

The Reformed view embodied in the Westminster Standards does see the days of creation as days, however. Since this is a confessional Reformed board, I am going to take that view for granted as the standard one.

On a personal note, I would look diligently into this matter if I were you. Don't buy what the science teachers are selling without making a diligent study. The framework hypothesis promises an easy way out of Biblical liberalism, but it can't be proven, and it doesn't comport with the narrative of Genesis 2 and forward, which is organically rooted in Genesis 1.

Thank you, Tyler. I would add that if the dinosaurs were wiped out prior to the creation of man, there was also death and suffering before the curse. As the FH unfolds, its allegorical interpretation seems to logically extend through Gen. 3, or even farther.

This brief article does a nice job countering the problems with the FH.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-hypothesis/

Blessings,

 

[Edward]

Yes there are other species of sloths today BUT the subspecies of the ones buried today are In my humble opinion extinct.

Three fossilized bones in that one; the rest are fiberglass casts.

 

[earl40]

Earl, for the sake of clarity, this "thing" which is fossilised, does it live today or not?

Of course the thing buried is not alive and the products of particular species or subspecies in discussion here which came about by procreation are simply extinct.

You are saying it is extinct, and that what you have seen are the fossilised remains of something which once lived but died out. If so, by definition it is not present today, which means you have not seen it; some process of argument from probabilities is bringing you to your conclusion.

I would say I am not speaking of how they got there, but simply that they are there, and the "probability" of seeing a triceratops alive today is 0%. Also I believe that many times we can discern the difference in what was at one time alive by the bones or fossils we see of plants and animas see buried in the ground, and things that were never alive such as rocks.

 

[earl40]

Yes there are other species of sloths today BUT the subspecies of the ones buried today are In my humble opinion extinct.

Three fossilized bones in that one; the rest are fiberglass casts.

Indeed this is so but there are some huge fossils that have been found which are tad more complete.

 

[Douglas P.]

The Reformed view embodied in the Westminster Standards does see the days of creation as days, however. Since this is a confessional Reformed board, I am going to take that view for granted as the standard one.

On a personal note, I would look diligently into this matter if I were you. Don't buy what the science teachers are selling without making a diligent study. The framework hypothesis promises an easy way out of Biblical liberalism, but it can't be proven, and it doesn't comport with the narrative of Genesis 2 and forward, which is organically rooted in Genesis 1.

I have no problem granting that most, if not all, of the Reformers held to a literal 6-day view and that it was embodied in the standards. However, many of them held to views regarding the creation account that would certainly or likely be rejected today. For example, Martin Luther on nature of the Cosmos:

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

[ Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43 ]

Granted, these views (flat earth, firmament dome, waters above the dome, etc) are not explicitly stated in the Standards, however, if you wish to insist on a literal view of creation then I would push back and ask how literal are you willing to go. Are you willing to be as literal as Luther insists you should be?

Luther's arguments sounds very much like an argument I'd find on AiG, but instead of arguing for a literal 6 days he is arguing for a literal dome with the moon, sun, and stars "fastened" to the dome. So why isn't AiG arguing for a literal view as literal as Luther's?

Certainly Moses and the Hebrews (as well as the entire ancient world) would have believed that the earth was flat with pillars holding up the firmament and a body of water above that firmament (which the sun, moon, and stars were all underneath). So why am I (according to AiG) just a breadth away from being a bible-denying danger to the Gospel if I simply add one more thing to Genesis 1 that I don't think God ever intended for us to take literally in a modern scientific way of understanding?

For what it's worth, I have studied this topic diligently. I have probably spent more time on the creation narrative then any other topic in my personal biblical studies. When I was in high-school I was an atheist brought to the Lord by a speech given at my school by a YEC (He runs this site: www.rae.org). For years I read everything on AiG and other creation-science based sites. I was as ardent defender of YEC as anyone else. Along the way I was introduced to MGK (mainly for his work on covenant theology) and ran across his work on Genesis and it really challenged the way I looked at Genesis. It forced me to reassess how I was reading, or through what lens I was reading Genesis from.

At the end of the day I don't think an honest sincere reading of scripture from a inerrantist view requires that I believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that is was created in 6 literal days, that there is a dome holding up water above the heavens, or that dinosaurs lived side by side with humans and were wiped out during the flood.

 

[johnny]

I rated your post Douglas because I can see that you are an honest and intelligent man, speaking from the heart. I also note you posted your view with some trepidation, understanding it would not conform with the majority view on PB.

Do you believe that there was once a dome of waters that rested above the earth or are you denying this?

I do believe there was a firmament and this article explains it very well (including dinosaurs)

http://biblicaldiscipleship.org/content/7-earth’s-pre-flood-water-canopy-and-dinosaur-mystery

 

[timfost]

At the end of the day I don't think an honest sincere reading of scripture from a inerrantist view requires that I believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that is was created in 6 literal days, that there is a dome holding up water above the heavens, or that dinosaurs lived side by side with humans and were wiped out during the flood.

Due to the nature of the genealogies, I think AiG is a bit off, too. When the genealogies are compared (Luke and OT), there are gaps. It is very possible that there are gaps in the OT genealogies as well (see the Hebrew uusage of the word "son"), therefore allowing the earth to be a little older than the 6,000 odd years (possibly 12,000?). However, this still would rule out millions or billions unless we allow for death and suffering prior to the curse. This runs into major issues with the fall, our first parents and federal headship.

 

[Douglas P.]

I rated your post Douglas because I can see that you are an honest and intelligent man, speaking from the heart. I also note you posted your view with some trepidation, understanding it would not conform with the majority view on PB.

Thanks for your kind words =)

Do you believe that there was once a dome of waters that rested above the earth or are you denying this?

Just to be clear, I think that Genesis 1 sees the dome (firmament) and the waters above as two separate things. The firmament dome is described elsewhere in scripture as solid in nature and holding up the waters, which is why Luther can argue that the moon, sun, and stars are fastened to the dome.

Here is an image of what I believe is being described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere as the nature of the cosmos.

For comparison, here is an image from the cover of Luther's bible, as he saw the cosmos.

I do believe there was a firmament and this article explains it very well (including dinosaurs)

http://biblicaldiscipleship.org/cont...nosaur-mystery

As for the article, I have two objections.

The first, and most important objection, is that the bible still sees the waters above the firmament, and the firmament dome as being existent today, thousands of years after the flood.

[3] Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
[4] Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!

(Psalm 148:3-4 ESV)

Second, whatever the nature of the firmament and whatever the nature of the waters, Genesis 1 sees the Sun, Moon, and stars as being underneath/on/in the dome. Which, in my opinion, makes maintaining a modern scientific understanding of the cosmos and holding to a strict literal reading of the biblical creation narrative impossible. That would be a lot of matter shoved in a very small space (relatively speaking).

Going back to my original argument, I don't think anyone (or likely anyone) wants to take the biblical view of the cosmos as entirely literal as it would have been understood by the original audience, from a modern scientific understanding. I think there are some major problems if we do this. God's words were accommodated to their "scientific" worldview at the time, not ours, and I'm fine with that. Which is why I'm perfectly content with accepting the predominate view that the Dinosaurs died off 65-66 million years ago.

 

[Peairtach]

Vern Poythress has a paper at his website which refutes the notion that the Bible is talking about a solid dome and water canopy, or that God was accomodating a primitive cosmology in these respects.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[Douglas P.]

For those of you still following along at home, here are links to the articles that I think Peairtach was referencing:

http://49ft7fdv9kp7kqhm12yk1d17.wpe...s/2015/12/2015Poythress-RainWater-WTJ77.2.pdf

http://49ft7fdv9kp7kqhm12yk1d17.wpe...s/2015/12/2015Poythress-RainWater-WTJ77.2.pdf

And here is an article from Paul Seely, that I personally find more persuasive:

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...s/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.pdf

In it, Seely argues that:

"The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiac (firmament) in Genesis 1 is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid."

Long story short, based on all the historical information we have with regards to an ancient understanding of the cosmos, I find it hard to believe that the Israelites would have read Genesis 1 and had anything but a concept of the world like the images above.

And even if it is granted, that the firmament is not to be taken as solid dome but some sort of atmospheric expanse, and we are to understand the waters above in a different way, as some sort of atmospheric top, you still have the problem of the stars being placed in the same plane as the sun and moon in our atmosphere.

At any rate, I still think taking Genesis 1 in a strict literal way is very difficult if you want to hold to any modern view of the cosmos. Which is why I think an accommodated reading of Genesis 1 is likely the best way to read it.