2007-10-04 02:50:15 · 23 answers · asked by mercedes 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
nope but the bible does say that Satan (Lucifer) was in possession of this world first and there were beasts here (dinosaurs? maybe). He was here before Adam and who know how long. Ez 28 (look for the 5 "I will") and Isaiah 14 (5 i wills there too) This world is older than 6000 yrs but how long only God can tell
2007-10-04 02:57:58 · answer #1 · answered by jesussaves 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Dinosaurs were not mentioned, though neither were 100's of other animals and insects by name either.
Behemoth can't be the dino b.c it states they had a naval-this is something we get from being born alive-not from being in an egg. A dino has none.
The bible wasn't written for hundreds of years after Christs death, so even if there were dinosaurs when adam and eve ruled the garden, they wouldn't necessarily know about it. Adam and eve didn't record the animals that were around and which went extinct. They could have all been dead b4 Noah was even born, an dthis could be why it's not mentioned. They predate human records. There's nothing to suggest Adam and Eve could write or that they'd be interested in passing on their history. Someone else did that for them...
I personally don't follow the bible literally when it comes to the OT. I feel Adam and Eve are symbolic for how God started creating the world, so it doesn't mean we didn't evolve by God's will. But don't mark me negatively based on my own personal belief, as I DID after all answer the question without bias.
A tail like a cedar tree an mean anything-it is probably describing the movement-back and forth-like a umm Crocoodileee, alliigattorrr lol.
They all still have no bellybuttons tho. This animal doesn't fit neither that nor the dino.
there's also speculation that the word tail is not specific to a "tail" but symbolic for penis-There are many animals with huge stiff, penises, even if that's soundsgross!-take the elephant for example.
There are sexual parts of the bible which are purely symbolic like this, those that study the bible will know the love stories I speak of. There's no need to take cedar tree literally, as it's not a cedar tree itself-so we know the authors already being symbolic in that respect so its no stretch they would say tail instead of penis, and loins...goes well wit their description.
2007-10-04 10:06:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say so, obviously the Bible doesn't use the word dinosaurs because the term wasn't coined yet. Two passages:
Job 40:15-24 -- refers to the behemoth
Job 41
-- refers to the leviathan
both of those are giant beasts.
2007-10-04 09:56:12 · answer #3 · answered by Cinder 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
look at Job 40:15-24 specifically verse 17 the author describes an animal with a tail like that of a cedar. As you may very well know Cedar tress as very large. what animal in our planet do we know of can fit this description I can only think of a dinosaur.
2007-10-04 10:10:25 · answer #4 · answered by Tx Guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is strange because my boss just got thru telling me about a conversation he and his friends had last night about the very same thing. Seems some kind of animal is mentioned in the Bible, but whether or not it is a dinosaur...who knows really? And does it even matter?
2007-10-04 09:59:16 · answer #5 · answered by goodgirlabout2gobad 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It really isn't mentioned but Genesis 1: 21 says: And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. So in a way it mentions sea monsters, but the bible does not mention dinosaurs especifically.
Hope this helped! : )
2007-10-04 10:09:33 · answer #6 · answered by Popcorn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Genesis 1: 20-25
2007-10-04 09:55:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Some people think Behemoth, mentioned in Job 40 and after, is a dinosaur.
2007-10-04 09:54:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do people keep asking about the stupid dinasaurs!!! Who cares about dinasaurs ! The Bible is not a science book: It is meant to convey truths about God's creations, and His plan for the salvation of man. THAT'S IT.
2007-10-04 09:54:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Job 40, also look up Leviathan in the bible concordance.
2007-10-04 09:55:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and neither are octopi, Koala bears, Woolly Mammoths and Passenger Pigeons. People expect too much from the bible since it only provides what was important during its collecting and editing. Leave the dinosaurs alone, haven't they been persecuted enough? Leave them out of the bible, please.
2007-10-04 09:59:57 · answer #11 · answered by fierce beard 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋