I belive your catholic, if not this does not apply to you. The way I was taught was that everything untill after noah’s flood should not nessicarily be taken literally. Now aday’s I believe the official Catholic stance is that the bible is not factuall in the little details, its the broad message. Ergo the official papal stance on evolution, big bang, etc. is to go along with modern science. So basically, the awnser would be yes, there were Dinosaurs, but they died before the garden of Eden.
A red-shirted ensign dies.
Ok, the shirts aren’t red, but…y’know.
Ah yes, I forgot that we recently unearthed a fire breathing dinosaur fossil.
To declare one part of the Bible “metaphor and poetry” when it’s not explicit is just silly. By that reasoning, anything in the Bible could be metaphor or poetry. If the Bible is open to interpretation when you don’t agree with it, then the Bible is open to interpretation when anyone disagrees with it.
Hypothetically:
I put to you that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is flowery prose that refers not to human life but to botched hollandaise sauce, because I think slaughtering humans is great fun, but I absolutely abhor bungled Eggs Benedict.
Isn’t that a valid interpretation? The Bible’s not completely explicit. “Thou Shalt Not Kill” could refer shellfish murder. Maybe God’s most proud of the shellfish out of all his creations, and wishes to drive in the “Don’t mess with shellfish” point that Moses delivered.
Any more of this “I can interpret what I want, but the rest of it is the word of god” silliness, and I’ll be tempted to throw someone under a camel.
Correction: “…could refer to shellfish murder.”
Preview, Gadfly, preview! Get your head in the game!
WHOOPS!
answered the wrong thread.
:smack:
Alright then, which version of Genesis is the literal one? Chapter one or chapter two? For that matter, how is it possible for Genesis 30:37-40 to occur at all?
In addition, IMO, everyone interprets the bible to a certain extent.
If you choose to interpret it as such, then go right ahead-however this little absurd example of yours seems to assume that Genesis can be taken literally. How can it? What’s the order of creation?
Do you really want to get into contradictions? I don’t think you do.
I see, so you have the divine interpretation that we all should follow. What makes your interpretation correct? :rolleyes:
Meatros:
Why the euphamism “allegorically?” Why not “totally made up B.S. from guys who didn’t have a clue as to what they were talking about?”
Just because you can’t manage to grasp it as allegory, chad, you needn’t be snotty to those who can.
And Night, I’ll ask again:
What’s the debate here?
andros:
That sure sounded snotty. While were at it, do you have any evidence that Genesis 1 and 2 were written allegorically rather than being totally made up B.S. by guys who didn’t have a clue?
JerseyDiamond, the site you liked to argues that humans and dinosaurs co-existed! I can deal with people saying the Bible is allegory even though I don’t think it was written as such, it’s just an interpretation based on the fact that we have way more data about the world than the authors did. But this page argues
So at the same time, it’s interpreting the Bible literally, interpreting it VERY weirdly (to allow for dinosaurs), and making insane claims about geology, biology, evolution, and history in general. WOW.
From JD’s link:
What “scientists” would those be?
Yes, really.
Any cite which attempts to claim that humans and dinosaurs coexisted is automatically self-discrediting but just to address the substance of your quoted material, it misrepresents what the passage actually says. Job’s description of the behemoth reads as follows:
Job 40: 15-24 (NIV)
"Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
or trap him and pierce his nose?
My Oxford Annotated says that “he makes his tail stiff like a cedar.” No version says that his tail is “large and tapered” or “shaped like” a cedar. It also says the behemoth ate grass and brachiosaurs (which the link claims is behemoth) did not eat grass.
Behemoth is a hippo or possibly an elephant. It fits the description and, more importantly, dinosaurs were extinct at the time Job was written. (BTW, I thought YECers believed that dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood. Job takes place after the flood, yet “God” talks about behemoth and leviathan in the present tense. Did some dinosaurs survive the flood in YEC fantasy?)
Fred Flintstone, Ph. D.
Not in the real world, they’re not! Even metaphorically, the “fundamental principles” and “major details” are as wrong as wrong can be! Hell, even the order in both fables are wrong!
The only way to harmonize the “fundamental principles and major details” of Genesis with reality – even metaphorically – is to lie.
I have to concede that is a possibility. My viewpoints on the matter have changed drastically, so I’m not very sure that I can answer that.
Keep in mind, I’m not saying that it should be looked at either way, I just don’t see how it can be taken literally.
The whole dinosaur thing means nothing to me (that’s ME, not you)…
How many animals are there in the world? How many are mentioned in the bible specifically?
Simple answers:
A whole lot, and not many.
Just because they’re big, doesn’t mean they need to be mentioned above any others.
The original poster should not have gotten such an answer as that…
Perhaps some might see that as a cop out answer…so be it. As I said, to me, it’s irrellevent.
That’s my point, Sparky. No, of course I don’t. Just as you have no evidence it wasn’t.
:shrug: I think the early parts of Genesis, like most creation myths, are a combination of BS and allegory. But that’s merely my opinion, and I’m sure your certainty would be unswayed by it.