37818
Well-Known Member
Dinosaur hatchlings on to the ark need not pose such a problem, Genesis 6:19.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dinosaurs not on the ark?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
I saw that this morning before I got ready for church and didn't have time to reply. You are, of course, correct.
I think people don't consider two things.
I think people don't consider two things.
- The incredible size of the ark coupled with the size of juvenile animals.
- The understanding of the word, "kind". For example, there were no poodles, pickapoos, Chihuahuas, German Shepherds, etc.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Yeah I don't see any problems with dinosaurs on the Ark.
The only problem I would see would be termites on the ark.
37818
Well-Known Member
I do not think so, ". . . shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. . . ."
I still would have felt better if they were in a steel box.
Dinosaurs were usually dog sized on the whole, as the minority were the ones in Jurassic park!
Humans and dinosaurs never coexisted. Dinosaurs have been extinct for ~65 million years.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
So then you completely reject the Bible?
False dichotomy. I reject the notion the creation event was 6 literal days.
Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 both show that God is still in his 7th day of rest. Clearly this shows that there were not 6 literal 24-hour days of creation.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No this does not show God is still in his 7th day of rest. It is a COMPARISON. Are you saying God has not done anything since creation? That is what your idea necessitates. But that is not found anywhere in Scripture. Nor is it found that somehow we are still in the period of the 7th day. That is rejected in Exodus when it clearly shows the creation was a literal week.
The 7 days in Genesis relate ONLY to creation. That is not at all implying God has done nothing else. It is implying that God has done no further creation.
If you can cite new examples of creation done since, please do so.
If one forces a literal view then it becomes nonsensical. The Bible also talks about the four corners of the Earth, which is obviously not literal.
That view also contradicts the distance light has to travel from stars. In the literal view, the sky would be much darker at night as most of the stars in sky would not be visible as there would have not been enough time for light to travel the distance.
Do you believe the Bible is the word of God?
Red herring. That is not the topic of discussion and only serves to provide a distraction.
How much do you wanna bet you have been on this board before under a different username. Recently even?
Ok? What is that supposed to mean and how is it relevant to the discussion other than you fishing for an ad hominem?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
This is just nonsense. In your view then Adam and Eve must have been created as babies.
You're making an unfounded leap in reasoning. If Genesis were to be taken literal it brings another issue regarding the creation of Eve. If an actual rib was removed from Adam to create Eve, Adam minus a rib, would no longer be perfect.