I think Dinosaurs were animals just like any other, and that God created them along with all other animals during his acts of creation.

Of the 8,000 genera required to fill Noahs ark in order to populate the world with animals as we know, only 55 needed to be dinosaurs. These have now, like thousands of other species, become extinct.

Job 40 describes a beast (majestic plural would imply a colossal beast) with a tail “like a cedar”. Of all the animals that we know existed from fossil evidence and observation, we cannot sensibly apply this description to anything other than a sauropod dinosaur.

Many very old history books describe detailed encounters with dragons, including some that emphasize the fact that these creatures are not mythical or magical, but merely a type of animal.

Finally, if we believe that death was a result of Adams sin, nothing could have “died out” before human beings were created.

David,
Matt’s comments are accurate. There is plenty of scientific and biblical evidence that support his thoughts. And of course dinosaurs are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, the word is less than 100 years old. Check out some great info from Answers in Genesis.

Matt and Chris,
Another perspective understands the comments in 2Pet 3:5-7 (read vv 2-8 for context) to refer not to the pre-Noahic world, but to the pre-Genesis world. The pre-Genesis world, which existed before the accounts written in our Bible, is what Peter calls “the world that then was” and he says it was overflowed with water and perished. Thus, when we begin reading Gen 1 we see the world formless and empty and covered in water, upon which God’s spirit moved.

This corroborates scientific evidence that dates a massive and long-lasting global flood to well over 6000 years ago. It also causes no conflict with either a ‘local’ or ‘global’ perspective on the later Noahic flood.

Finally, remember that human mortality came about as a result of sin, and the principle of corruption in the bodies of Adam & Eve and their descendents. Nothing in the Bible directly and unequivocally states that ALL mortality (including plants and animals) entered the world in Genesis. Rom 5 indicates “death by sin” meaning ‘death as a consequence of sin’ which is only true of humankind. The Genesis account gives no indication of whether animals were mortal or immortal when created — we would be presumptuous to imply this on our own.

The fact that Adam and Eve were told to “re-plenish” the earth, meaning to RE-populate it, would also corroborate the view of a pre-Genesis world that was completely wiped out by a global flood lasting millennia.

Dinosaurs could certainly have belonged to that pre-Genesis world. The fact that Job mentions a creature we no longer see does not ‘de facto’ prove it HAD to be a sauropod… it could merely be something else that has since gone extinct and left no fossil record, or yet undiscovered fossil record. The fact remains that the Bible does not clearly speak of dinosaurs — not only by that name, which is certainly new in human language — but also by clear enough description to undisputably identify them as such. Find me a passage that clearly describes in thorough detail a giant lizard with bird-like bone structure, and I’ll re-assess my position with open mind.

Riz,
Re 1), why mention a cedar, which is a specifically large and tall tree? If we are talking about a tail such as an elephant or hippo (as has been suggested by some) why not use something appropriately sized? Also, why not use something else that actually HANGS like a tail, if we are more concerned with the movement than the physical attributes? Even if the prime focus were the movement, a tail that moves like a cedar will necessarily be very large as well.
I think to focus on “move” “hang” or sway” is spurious, as the obvious importance is the size and length and physical attributes of a cedar. No other creature has a tail that is like a cedar. Rather than try to “reinterpret” or “rewrite” scripture to fit our beliefs, I think we should take scripture as written, and find something that corresponds. In this case, a dinosaur.

Also regarding “replenish” I’m surprised you use this argument, since you look at various translations regarding the “tail like a cedar”. Most translations of Genesis 1v28 read “fill the earth”. NET, NIV, NASB, NLT, Message, BBE, NRSV, NKJV all say “fill the earth”. The Hebrew word clearly means “fill”. And In most other verses in the KJV, the same word is translated fill.

In answer to 2) I agree that sin=death has particular reference to the human condition. However I also believe that all creation being “very good” (not just humans) before the fall indicates that death in all creation was a result of sin. The serpent is cursed “above” all cattle and wild animals, implying that they were all cursed at this time. And Genesis 1 indicates that the animals were eating vegetation, not each other before the events of Adams sin.
Romans 8 certainly seems to imply that the whole of creation is subject to the bondage of death because of Adams sin. Death is described as “the last enemy” that Christ will conquer in Corinthians, and if this only applies to humans, then animals will still be dying in God’s future perfect kingdom. I think death did not exist before Adam sinned, and death will only be done away with at the return of Christ.

Regarding 3) the ancient writings mention of the word “dragon” isn’t proof that they were large reptillian creatures. However the description they give of large reptillian creatures certainly is! They are described as large serpents (i.e. reptiles) 14 metres long by St John of Damascus, a monk, liturgical composer and renowned theologian. He was a well educated scholar of the time, and his report and description should be reliable.
His description reads ‘This dragon is a type of beast, like the rest of the animals, for it has a goat-like beard, and a horn at the back of its head. Its eyes are large and gold-coloured. These dragons can be either big or small. All serpent kinds are poisonous, except dragons, for they do not emit poison.’ Dragons, he wrote, were absolutely real animals, though sometimes big and terrifying, which at that time were only rarely seen by humans.
Also Cassius Dio (AD155-236) a noted Roman historian wrote that during the battle against Carthage the Roman troops slew a “dragon” and sent the hide back to the Roman senate. It was measured at 120 feet long.
The mythology of many cultures describes dragons, and these descriptions probably arose from accounts of actual creatures that were rarely seen.

Regarding 4) most dinosaurs were not large (the average size about that of a small sheep), and all of them started out small. Studies of dinosaur bones have shown that the sauropods up until the age of about 5 weighed less than 1 tonne, then grew rapidly at about 5 tonnes per year after that, until the age of 12-13, then levelled off. Tyrannosaurids show the same sigmoidal pattern, weighing less than half a tonne at age 10, then growing rapidly. In short, all 16,000-plus animals (110 of them dinosaurs) would have probably occupied less than half the space inside the ark.

It is difficult to see how dinosaurs could have been in the ark for some very good reasons.

1) Dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. The ark cannot have been that long ago.

2) If you assume, against overwhelming evidence, that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans, then it would be extremely difficult to fit them into the ark. That is unless you assume, against overwhelming evidence, that after the flood there was a new creation almost from scratch. That is to say, it would be necessary to assume that the “kinds” were of such a general nature that they were families at least, or perhaps even orders! This is because the number of genera let alone species that have ever existed definetly not fit in the ark. I doubt that even families could do so.

Russell to Russ [we are a rare but precious breed ]

Yes! I agree. However I also understand that the strange animals in Job may also have allegorical meanings. John Launchbury has done some useful work on this subject. Job is a book of poetry. It contains very colourful language. The idea that it refers to dinosaurs is ludicrous. Your point about heaping ridicule on ourselves is spot on. No-one with even a basic knowledge of geology will take us seriously if we sprout that kind of nonsense.

So let’s understand what you are saying, Jim. In 1986 when a large supernova was observed which logic tells astronomers was 30 million years after the event, you are supposing that it was formed by God no more than 6,000 years ago with an apparent age of 30 million years. This is quite a bizarre idea. How you heard of “thursdayism”? It is the notion that the entire universe was created last Thursday morning at 9am with everything fully formed, including our false memories. How different is the doctrine of “apparent age” from “thursdayism”?

Your argument is based on two premises:

1. Trees were created with an apparent age. The scientific evidence contradicts this idea. Scripture does not require it. You can’t just gloss over the scientific evidence that plants are ancient. Angiosperms (a relatively recent plant group) for example became dominant, as they still are, during the Cretaceous period from about 145 million years to about 65 milion years ago. There is nothing much new in what I am saying. It has been well known since the early 19th century, when the names of the geological ages were coined. The dates were not able to be calibrated until well into the 20th century. It was only known that they were ancient. Bro John Thomas and Bro Robert Roberts for example were familiar with these ideas and included the ideas in their thinking. Interestingly we have gone backwards in our understanding. Until the crazy ideas popularised by Whitcomb and Morris in the 1960′s, most Christadelphians were comfortable with ancient trees. Admittedly they also believed in an extermination and a recreation 6,000 years ago, an idea that can no longer be sustained. However many Christadelphians have swallowed the fundamentist teaching of a young earth, and even a young universe. There are many lines of evidence that disprove this. The clearest is radiometric dating. That is because is does not just say “this rock is very old indeed”. It is actually able to say for example “this rock is 2.15 billion years + or minus 0.07 billion years”. When not just one, but thousands of such calculations give a consistent answer, then it is not something to be lightly dismissed.

2. Humankind (viz. Adam) was created 6,000 years ago fully formed, with an apparent age. I don’t actually believe that the scripture requires this. And certainly it is against the scientific evidence. However let us make allowance for miracles. Miracles can rarely be proved by scientific evidence. For example the virgin birth of Jesus is against all experience. Actually although I have ideas on this subject, I admit that it is more difficult to include in our thinking than plants. That does not mean that it cannot be explained. It just means that it might be better to focus on one thing at a time.

I agree that we need to be humble enough to change when proved wrong. It is possible to be a faithful follower of Jesus and not accept that the earth is ancient. However if we in the 21st century make such claims, especially if we attempt to tie this belief to acceptance of the Bible then we are not doing God’s cause any good. Any person educated in these subjects will immediately discount anything we might say.

I don’t accept your first premise. I spent a lot of effort explaining how trees are much older than 6,000 years old. It is actually a difficult position to defend that Gen 1 and 2 are both literal pats of a 6-day creation. You need to do all sorts of convolutions to reconcile the two accounts. Yes, it can be done. But it certainly not the natural reading of the text. These problems however evaporate when at least one of the two chapters is interpreted not as a literal account. Actually neither chapter should be interpreted completely literally.

The second premise I put in the too hard basket. Not that I think that it cannot be answered. I am not actually completely decided about the precise answers. There are several answers in my mind, and I don’t even know if the correct answer is knowable in 2010. In other words I am not sure which of several competing ways to understand the scripture is correct. The scientific evidence however is quite clear.

Regarding your 3rd point, you have not explained the difference between your view and thursdayism.