What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

[Toasty]

Have you ever thought about how the dinosaurs went extinct? What are the most sound reformed theories? Thank you very much!

I'm not sure how they became extinct.

 

[johnny]

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.

Thank you for your links and the material. I am still working my way through the Seely paper.

One other question Douglas,
Do you believe the flood spoken of in Genesis was a regional phenomena, or do you see it as a world wide event?

 

[Alex the Less]

Are the dinosaurs really extinct? Sure the big ones and some highly specialized ones but the adaptable ones are still with us (crocodiles).

You may think me young earth but I am Old Earth Creation. Like Douglas Padgett, Kline's ideas were insightful with his explication of the Framework Hypothesis idea. Some of Kline's ideas have probably been superseded or matured beyond his recognition though.

Wasn't it Umberto Cassuto, the 20th century Rabbi who pointed out that Gen. 1.1-2.3 was composed with perfect symmetry?

 

[Douglas P.]

One other question Douglas,
Do you believe the flood spoken of in Genesis was a regional phenomena, or do you see it as a world wide event?

Probably regional. I haven't studied it from a textual perspective all that much, but from what I can tell there is 0 evidence of a global flood from a geological perspective. This makes me believe that the Scriptures aren't insisting on a global worldwide (as we would understand that today) flood.

 

[MW]

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."

They also thought there was more than one god, that things were made by the gods warring with each other, and many other foolish notions which the special revelation of holy Scripture counteracts as it teaches us to worship the one true living and only wise God.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Here's an interesting article by Dr. John Byl : https://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/02/genesis-and-ancient-cosmology.html

I have very much appreciated the help from Dr. Byl on understanding how science theories work (and don't work). I have also greatly appreciated the philosophical help from Rev. Winzer and others on the board. Trying to come up with scientific (sounding) answers to science's claims that it has disproved (or at least undermined) what God has revealed, is a no-win endeavor.

 

[Alex the Less]

Hi Jeri

Here's an interesting article by Dr. John Byl : https://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/02/genesis-and-ancient-cosmology.html

I have very much appreciated the help from Dr. Byl on understanding how science theories work (and don't work). I have also greatly appreciated the philosophical help from Rev. Winzer and others on the board. Trying to come up with scientific (sounding) answers to science's claims that it has disproved (or at least undermined) what God has revealed, is a no-win endeavor.

Some of us see a problem with folks thinking the bible says a certain thing (what God has revealed) and other informed sources describing events and seeing biblical warrant for those events. Some folks, including myself, see a trap (possibly of the tempter's making) to commit to a fallacious idea, only later to have the rug pulled out from under themselves when further facts are disclosed and destroy the straw man.

I hold out that maybe, somehow, the earth is young, but generally do not see the conflict of an old earth with the biblical record. Please, someone address (substantially) why Gen. 1.1-2.3 is in perfect symmetry in Hebrew. Please discuss structural markers and deal with other poetic sections (no pat answers).

It appears to me that is what has happened in Christian studies among many adherents: a superficiality of pat answers without careful study.

 

[MW]

Please, someone address (substantially) why Gen. 1.1-2.3 is in perfect symmetry in Hebrew. Please discuss structural markers and deal with other poetic sections (no pat answers).

It is a basic dictate of wisdom to build a house before one fills it, Prov. 24:3-4. That the first three days speak of "forming" and the second three days speak of "filling" is precisely the order one would expect where literal acts of creation are involved. That verse 2 prefaces the work of creation with the fact the world was formless and void would also be expected where the purpose of the narrative is to show how something was formed and filled. The symmetry and literary art of the narrative should magnify the importance of the events which are described, not minimise their historicity.

In order to approach the text aright, it will be important to see how the rest of the biblical witness approaches it. The fourth commandment takes the whole of it as an historical and literal event, Exod. 20. The apostle Paul understood the work of the first day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Cor. 4. The apostle Peter understood the work of the second day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Peter 3. The Lord Jesus understood the creation of male and female on the sixth day to be an historical and literal event, Matt. 19. Our Lord Jesus also understood the institution of the Sabbath to be an historical and literal event, including the order in which Gen. 1-2 describes the events as having happened, Mark 2. If the biblical witness as a whole is important to us, it will not be possible to ignore the way the text has been understood, as well as doctrinally and morally applied, on the basis that the things related were actual events which happened in time and space according to the literal meaning of the words.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Please, someone address (substantially) why Gen. 1.1-2.3 is in perfect symmetry in Hebrew. Please discuss structural markers and deal with other poetic sections (no pat answers).

It is a basic dictate of wisdom to build a house before one fills it, Prov. 24:3-4. That the first three days speak of "forming" and the second three days speak of "filling" is precisely the order one would expect where literal acts of creation are involved. That verse 2 prefaces the work of creation with the fact the world was formless and void would also be expected where the purpose of the narrative is to show how something was formed and filled. The symmetry and literary art of the narrative should magnify the importance of the events which are described, not minimise their historicity.

In order to approach the text aright, it will be important to see how the rest of the biblical witness approaches it. The fourth commandment takes the whole of it as an historical and literal event, Exod. 20. The apostle Paul understood the work of the first day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Cor. 4. The apostle Peter understood the work of the second day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Peter 3. The Lord Jesus understood the creation of male and female on the sixth day to be an historical and literal event, Matt. 19. Our Lord Jesus also understood the institution of the Sabbath to be an historical and literal event, including the order in which Gen. 1-2 describes the events as having happened, Mark 2. If the biblical witness as a whole is important to us, it will not be possible to ignore the way the text has been understood, as well as doctrinally and morally applied, on the basis that the things related were actual events which happened in time and space according to the literal meaning of the words.

Thank you Rev. Winzer for your excellent words. Regardless of what one believes about the creation of the world, it is abundantly clear that the biblical authors intended to communicate a literal six day creation in which the Lord created the universe out of nothing by the power of his breath, and any other understanding must be arrived at outside of the biblical testimony. It seems to me that those who seek to reconcile the Bible with science are doomed to failure, for no matter how many creation accounts and flood stories and towers of Babel that are explained away, eventually we all run into a brick wall called the resurrection. And no amount of hermeneutical gymnastics will ever be able to reconcile such an event with science and yet still leave any sort of faith standing.

 

[Alex the Less]

Hi Baptist Bill

Please, someone address (substantially) why Gen. 1.1-2.3 is in perfect symmetry in Hebrew. Please discuss structural markers and deal with other poetic sections (no pat answers).

It is a basic dictate of wisdom to build a house before one fills it, Prov. 24:3-4. That the first three days speak of "forming" and the second three days speak of "filling" is precisely the order one would expect where literal acts of creation are involved. That verse 2 prefaces the work of creation with the fact the world was formless and void would also be expected where the purpose of the narrative is to show how something was formed and filled. The symmetry and literary art of the narrative should magnify the importance of the events which are described, not minimise their historicity.

In order to approach the text aright, it will be important to see how the rest of the biblical witness approaches it. The fourth commandment takes the whole of it as an historical and literal event, Exod. 20. The apostle Paul understood the work of the first day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Cor. 4. The apostle Peter understood the work of the second day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Peter 3. The Lord Jesus understood the creation of male and female on the sixth day to be an historical and literal event, Matt. 19. Our Lord Jesus also understood the institution of the Sabbath to be an historical and literal event, including the order in which Gen. 1-2 describes the events as having happened, Mark 2. If the biblical witness as a whole is important to us, it will not be possible to ignore the way the text has been understood, as well as doctrinally and morally applied, on the basis that the things related were actual events which happened in time and space according to the literal meaning of the words.

Thank you Rev. Winzer for your excellent words. Regardless of what one believes about the creation of the world, it is abundantly clear that the biblical authors intended to communicate a literal six day creation in which the Lord created the universe out of nothing by the power of his breath, and any other understanding must be arrived at outside of the biblical testimony. It seems to me that those who seek to reconcile the Bible with science are doomed to failure, for no matter how many creation accounts and flood stories and towers of Babel that are explained away, eventually we all run into a brick wall called the resurrection. And no amount of hermeneutical gymnastics will ever be able to reconcile such an event with science and yet still leave any sort of faith standing.

Natural revelation is not "science" All truth is God's truth. Admittedly, this is not my forte or burning interest (origins study) but I know of many Christians who validate both working science and a belief in God the Creator.

My question would be: have we adequately tried to reconcile both these streams of revelation? It seems like, Bill, you believe Christians should not try to attempt a reconciliation between natural and specific disclosure.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

My question would be: have we adequately tried to reconcile both these streams of revelation? It seems like, Bill, you believe Christians should not try to attempt a reconciliation between natural and specific disclosure.

What I believe is that there is a vast difference between observational science and speculative science. Any science that pretends to speak to matters of origin or age of the Earth is by necessity speculative in nature. As Christians, I believe that we should place much greater confidence in the revelation of God than in the speculations of finite man. My point was simply that it is ultimately a fools errand to attempt to reconcile science and faith because science will always reject the supernatural, and without the supernatural our faith has no power.