So it's been debated for a while how long the world has been around, and one of the things that young-earth creationists--especially Christians--point out is that the term "dragon" is thrown around in the Bible to refer to creatures that walked alongside humans and interacted with them. God seems in Job 40-41 to expect Job to know what the Leviathan and Behemoth are, and promptly lectures him on how awesome they both are.

Some have theorized, as opposed to the interpretation that actual fantasy-style "dragons" existed alongside humans long ago, that the word is used to describe "dinosaurs," a word that wasn't invented until the 1800s.

The Leviathan, some theorize, may have been a pliosaur, a pleiosaur (yes, there's a difference ), or perhaps a Nile Crocodile. However, none of these creatures have the fantastic properties that God assigns to the mighty beast in the book of Job, leading some to believe that it might be a literal sea serpent of... well, leviathan proportions.

Then there's the matter of Behemoth, who is also mentioned in the Bible. Some have theorized that this may have been a land-dwelling dinosaur. However, non-creationists counter this with the bull or the elephant (even going so far as to assume that the word "tail" as used in the passage means "penis" to deal with the fact that neither of them "moveth his tail like a cedar" O_o)

So what do I think? I think that, in spite of our valiant efforts to find one, science currently can not explain the presence of fantastic creatures in the Bible by connecting them with mundane ones, especially not modern-day creations. Leviathan, from what I can tell, has no counterpart whether dinosaur or modern animal; in fact, the "sea serpent (and sea monsters in general)," in my opinion, may just be the most trustworthy cryptid story of all time. The Behemoth, on the other hand, would seem to fit the description of a massive dinosaur, possibly similar to a brontosaurus.

I've done some real research on this: A German U-boot reported after sinking an American ship that a massive explosion propelled a serpentine creature resembling a large crocodile into the air, after which it fell back into the water never to be seen again. Still other eye witness accounts have seen many dinosaurs and pleiosaurs alive today, including one guy who claimed he lost several friends while trying to escape a large creature during a diving expedition.

As for "dragons?" Well, after you accept the Leviathan, flying lizards seem to be plausible. But I'm not so sure about those particular ones, since the theory that "dragon" is simply in this case the old word for "dinosaur" holds salt in my opinion.

But what are your opinions on it? Could dinosaurs have been recorded in the Bible, or are you inclined to think that there could be a metaphorical interpretation?

Wow, you're really the first person on Vizzed Board to bring this stuff up, you're incredibly smart to know all this.

Yeah, the word 'Dinosaur' as you said wasn't coined until 1800's so people called them 'Dragons' before that, which would explain why we have so many stories involving Dragons, even King Arthur claimed to have fought off a dragon.

Anyways, the bible does talk about some massive animals which wouldn't fit the description of any modern animals so what the bible was really talking about is Dinosaurs (though the bible refers to them as dragons a few times and like I said, the word Dinosaur wasn't around back than). Hasn't anyone ever wondered why Dinosaurs and Dragons look so awefully similar? Not saying that the Dinosaurs of the Bible could shoot flames (though it is a possibility since there is actually a beetle living now days that can create miniature explosions) but Dragons did exist and they were what we call Dinosaurs.

this is always a controversial topic because there is basically only hearsay type evidence to support it and very rarely is there any physical evidence to back it up.

I'm not dismissing the possibility that some dinosaurs may still be alive deep in some rain forest somewhere.... the simple fact is we don't know and may never know.

Plus this is something that young-earth creationists believe and I'm not a young-earther so I find it hard to get behind an idea like this.

Originally posted by geeogree

---

Plus this is something that young-earth creationists believe and I'm not a young-earther so I find it hard to get behind an idea like this.

---

That's good; I don't want people to get behind me, I want a discussion. I'd love to hear another take on this debate.

which part? Dinosaurs or old vs young earth?

Originally posted by geeogree

---

which part? Dinosaurs or old vs young earth?

---

The dinosaur thingamabloop. I started the topic because I was interested that biblical scholars had recorded the presence of large animals described as being "scaled," so I wanted to discuss it.

well, i find one major loophole in the whole bible/dinosaur issue.. one that kinda makes me not believe in what the bible says, and this is the simple fact that there are no human remains (fossils) as old as any dinosaur, and, if the bible were in fact 100% true, then we'd have found SOME kind of human fossil older than any dinosaur remains, since we were here first. that's just my take on it.. i havent really researched anything, so if there are any human fossils older than any dinosaur fossils, please correct me.

Originally posted by Chronabis

---

well, i find one major loophole in the whole bible/dinosaur issue.. one that kinda makes me not believe in what the bible says, and this is the simple fact that there are no human remains (fossils) as old as any dinosaur, and, if the bible were in fact 100% true, then we'd have found SOME kind of human fossil older than any dinosaur remains, since we were here first. that's just my take on it.. i havent really researched anything, so if there are any human fossils older than any dinosaur fossils, please correct me.

---

actually, if you read the bible, animals were here before humans.... and humans were placed on the earth AFTER everything else was created so your objection here doesn't make much sense. And I think the suggestion is that dinosaurs survived to be around with humans and not that humans have been around long enough to be back there with the dinosaurs.

ok, thanks for clearing that up for me

Originally posted by Chronabis

---

there are no human remains (fossils) as old as any dinosaur

---

*Crawldragon sucks through teeth
Scientific methods of dating can be quite controversial, so I don't know if that's really an accurate statement right there. What kind of dating method did you have in mind? (if you say "candlelight supper" I'll punch you in the face D:<)

And geeo is right, dinosaurs would have come first; but depending on what "kind" of creationist you are, it'd be either by a few thousand years or just a day; so the dating problem might still exist.

Actually God created all land creatures and man on the same day:


Genesis 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.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

....

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


View entire chapter here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

fair enough... I think all I said was animals were before humans. Whether on the same day or not is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

As for dating any of this.... if you want to be literal you can assume that 7 days of creation according to God is somehow 7 24 hours periods according to our telling of time which I think is ridiculous.

Or, you could use the verse from Peter (can't think of the exact location right now) that says that 1 day according to God is like 1000 years according to humans. And you could take that statement literally and insert 7000 years of creation and then 7000 years of humans being on the earth for a current 7010 year old earth (approximately).

Or you could take the word day to mean a period of time that is indefinite and possibly even different in length.

However, in order to fit dinosaurs into the younger earth models you have to explain away a lot of scientific study of geology and biology that has been well established for a long time.

Or, you could use the verse from Peter (can't think of the exact location right now) that says that 1 day according to God is like 1000 years according to humans. And you could take that statement literally and insert 7000 years of creation and then 7000 years of humans being on the earth for a current 7010 year old earth (approximately). - geeogree


Let us quote the entire verse


2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


So that verse cannot be used in the argument since it contradicts itself. Basically the point of that verse was to show that God is outside of time, time does not apply to him. It's a concept impossible for our brains to comprehend since our brains weren't created to comprehend it and our minds are limited to only understanding what's in this world.

Originally posted by geeogree

---

As for dating any of this.... if you want to be literal you can assume that 7 days of creation according to God is somehow 7 24 hours periods according to our telling of time which I think is ridiculous.

---

Actually what I was referring to was the dating method they would use to determine the age of the fossils, in response to the problem addressed that no human skeleton has been dated as old as a dinosaur. Radiometric dating, for example.

yeah, but the theory you prescribe to will decide whether you accept carbon dating as accurate or not.

Perhaps not dinosaurs, but prehistoric beasts such as mammoths (I can see that as a behemoth). The leviathan, I believe, was just an early term for whales. I mean, look at them. These tales were passed down from oral traditions for generations before ever being written down, so it is not hard to imagine how their size and description could grow with each retelling. Just like large lizards such as the komodo dragon turned into the fire-breathing monsters of legend.

A member of the Dragons of the World group on deviantART did an article about gryphons (don't ask why he chose dA to host it - I have no idea) that seems really interesting, and it's credible because he doesn't end up with the conclusion he was hoping for. I'd like to hear some opinions on this:
Are Gryphons in the Bible?

I skimmed through that... and while it doesn't seem to prove or disprove the possiblity... have you ever seen a Gryphon? Has one ever been found dead, or fossilized? Simply put, that creature doesn't exist. Or we have no evidence of it existing.

There are just to many ways that this could be explained.

1. Over exaggeration - Some people have immense imaginations. Someone could have seen something like a Komodo Dragon (an example) or a whale (as Elara said) in their travels and made it seem larger or more dangerous to make their story exciting. Remember these people had no tv's, radios, and most of them couldn't read or write so they would spice up their story's for a little more excitement and entertainment.

2. Genetics - We could have these images planted in our genes. Our ancenstors could have been preyed upon by some kind of creature that has a similar look to this behemoth or levithan. Sort of like how some animals are instinctualy know that another animal is a predator or is it's prey.

3. Some dinosaurs may still exist - There have been plenty of sightings of water type dinosaurs throughout the centuries. The poblem with this theory is that there have been know remains found or credible footage taken of said creatures. Which dosen't really mean anything since we didn't know that Gorillas existed till less than a hundred years ago (Im not sure on the exact date).

4. Man and Dinosaur co-existed - There is no hard evidence of this and is generally believed not to be true but as Crawldragon said dating of fossils can be a tricky business and there is no absolute way of knowing wether scientist are correct.

All theories. There's more out there dealing with aliens and such but I'd rather not get into that.

Originally posted by geeogree

---

I skimmed through that... and while it doesn't seem to prove or disprove the possiblity... have you ever seen a Gryphon? Has one ever been found dead, or fossilized? Simply put, that creature doesn't exist. Or we have no evidence of it existing.

---

You should have read the whole article. This person concluded by saying that gryphons do not exist, and the verses in question are actually referring to Pterodactyls.