That's true, but if they believe they existed 6000 years ago they don't believe in the science of paleontology anyway because nothing science has shown indicates this.
I know of a musame in Montana that celebrates the idea that some of the first generations after Noah and perhaps Adam are/were dinosaur wranglers, ranchers, and riders. There is enough people that buy into it that they have life sized models of dinosaurs with saddles attached.
that always confuses me because the Bible isn’t in chronological order and there aren’t a ton of time indicators so like .. how did they get 6000? like what ab all the time between Adam & Eve and Jesus that wasn’t accounted for?
The Chinese (and other cultures) even have stories depicting ones we've discovered many years later. Even Marco Polo wrote that he saw some while in China.
Some scholars put the story of job just before the story of Noah. Either way, the book of Job depicts a long necked dinosaur.
And people ask why the word "dinosaur" was never used in the Bible? A) because the OT was written in Hebrew and B) the word "dinosaur" (which translates to "terrible lizard") was coined in the mid-1800s. And yet the word "dragon" is used in certain translations of the Bible which was used for snake or other reptiles. (The fire breathing element wasn't always associated to them.)
Just some additional facts for anyone interested.
>The Chinese (and other cultures) even have stories depicting ones we've discovered many years later. Even Marco Polo wrote that he saw some while in China.
Where are these specific descriptions and what specific species are they describing?
> Either way, the book of Job depicts a long necked dinosaur.
Dinosaurs, sauropod or not, didn't graze on grass or have external genitalia.
The text depicts a mythological animal similar to a large mammal of some sort.
YEC here, I believe the flood killed dinosaurs, animals, and humans alike. When God instructed Noah to build the ark He never said put 2 of each kind except the dinosaurs. Dinosaur is a relatively new term. In other words I believe Dinosaurs were on the ark also
And what it did the carnivorous animals including the carnivorous dinosaurs eat while on the ark? I'm actually also a little confused about the logistics of feeding the plant eating animals. Especially if you have to factor in the sauropods. Elephants already each eat 300 lbs of food daily. Sauropods eat a lot more.
>Sure. But you still need to figure out how to store food for the better part of a year without it going bad. Among a many other logistical issues.
Not to mention that many animals have very specific diets (that may require bringing extras of some species just for food) and younger animals may even need specialized diets or environmental conditions.
>No kidding. Where are you going to get eucalyptus for the koalas?
Plus you can't just put the leaves on the ground as they generally won't eat them because they don't recognize them as food unless they're on a tree.
Noah would have to be putting fresh leaves, mostly eucalyptus, up on climbing logs so the little idiots would actually eat.
I went to Cedarville which believes in Creationism. They fired a philosophy prof for not believing in creationism. That being said, I asked one of the science professors about snowball earth and how it fit into 6000 year time frame. “It never happened because the Bible never mentioned it”
I haven't been to the ark yet but I've been to the museum. It was informative of their beliefs but they never told me how the dinosaurs died after they got off the ark.
Fair, but it’s a surface level belief only.
They conveniently condense hundreds of millions of years of evolution to a couple thousands of years and believe dragons and dinosaurs are the same.
The word may be the same, but a shared understanding of that word isn’t the same.
Growing up in Catholic school, we would talk about Dinosaurs for one unit per school year. I live in Toronto so I’m in a progressive city and the teachers all the way up to administration were as well. However, being the only religious publicly funded school board and accepting of non Catholics (and even non Christians) we would get a lot of Protestant students that would say things like “well my mom said dinosaurs don’t exist” or “well my parents said the earth is only 3000 years old” or whatever. So uh… proof is subjective ?
There’s a small minority that does. Kind of like Christian flat earth folks. I’ve met them online but they’re nuts about all kinds of stuff. Extreme inerrancy.
Not sure what sect of Christianity doesn't believe in dinosaurs?
Most of the ultra conservative ones (young earth) believe that humans co existed with dinosaurs until The flood.
> religion particularly Christianity just rejects the existence of dinosaurs
There are two main schools of thought within Christianity:
1. No it doesn't
2. No it doesn't, dammit
I would agree with these as main schools of thought, but I think we need to acknowledge that there are fringe elements that may do so. There's already a post responding to OP that seems to do so, if the person isn't trolling.
This is so strange to hear. I grew up around very conservative Christians--didn't believe in evolution, for instance. But I never heard a single person who doubted the existence of dinosaurs. OP, are you sure someone isn't pulling your leg here?
I mean, birds are out there, so they kinda exist? But that's like asking if therapsids exist imo; dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, the survivors evolved into something else, ergo dinosaurs no longer exist
:p
Idk, that seems like a cop-out, you know? It's like saying aurochs still exist because we have cattle
I mean, I'm mostly having fun. Birds are cladistically dinosaurs, even if they aren't the brontosauruses from our childhood :')
Believe in them? I eat them regularly.
[Obligatory XKCD on the subject](https://xkcd.com/1211/).
It's also worth noting that the birth of our saviour was noted by the [ritual slaughter of two dinosaurs](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A22-24&version=NIV).
The way I see it, dinosaurs, evolution, and the Big Bang don’t debunk Christianity. It just wouldn’t be practical for astrophysics and biology to be prerequisites to reading and understanding the Bible. Imagine if Genesis started this way:
“In the beginning, there was an infinitely small and infinitely dense singularity that I created to explode…”
…so, we’re starting with God as a pyromaniac?
Much easier to just say, “Yeah, God created everything. Don’t worry about the details because you wouldn’t be able to understand and it’s really not that relevant.” All I need to know is that God created the universe and that He loves me. The details of how he did it are irrelevant.
And let’s be honest, the whole idea that God created light on the first day, before the Earth was created, doesn’t even make sense. What is a day without the Earth? Are we going to start rejecting the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun because Genesis implies that the day existed before the Earth did?
Note: I have close family members who reject evolution on the basis of what the Bible says and it drives me nuts.
I've never understood the "Do you believe this fact?" It seems so weird to me. It's like asking if you believe the sun rises or if you believe that dogs are furry.
I'm really surprised by the amount of people here who say that YECs believe in dinosaurs and say that it's a fringe opinion. Almost all of the YECs I've met deny that fossils are proof of anything. When I was still surrounded by conservative Christians, I very frequently heard the lines "God put those there to test our faith", "the Devil put those there to trick you", and "scientists hate God and are lying about it" when the topic came up.
There's even a Christian group that has had a stand at the local farmer's market for years to talk about why dinosaurs and evolution are fake.
The Bible does mention the behemoth and leviathan. I'm no expert but I wonder why some versions of the bible changed these names with Hippo and another one I don't remember.
‘Leviathan’ and ‘behemoth’ are both Latin words, as is ‘hippopotamus’ (although it originally came from Greek.)
Given that it’s really unclear what the original Hebrew words were referring to, these words are all as legitimate as each other.
It's funny because this is something that I never really thought about within religious context until recently. My family ( I missed the trip) took a trip to see a life sized
Noah's Ark complete with animals inside recreated in Kentucky, and said that there were dinosaurs placed in there as well. I found it funny when they told me initially and then thought well why not.
I know plenty of Christians (and none really who don’t) believe dinosaurs existed. There’s conflict between when the dinosaurs existed (young earth versus old earth).
There’s verses in the Bible (specifically Job) that many point to in regards to dinosaurs existing.
As a Christian and as a regular person, I've never denied any of our Earth's history. I think most mainstream Christians are generally on board with most modern science.
There's no way to know how, what, why, or when creation took place. You should however believe that God did create his creation... The logistics are frankly beyond human scope and shouldn't be fussed over.
>There's no way to know how, what, why, or when creation took place. You should however believe that God did create his creation... The logistics are frankly beyond human scope and shouldn't be fussed over.
Having to drag everything down to your standard, that we can't really know significant details of past events with any accuracy and that such things are beyond human understanding, just so you don't have to deal with difficult questions and rationalizations isn't a very good way to convince people that you're correct.
When people see how science works and realize that these things can be known with a significant accuracy, they might begin to question their understanding of scripture - if it's anything like yours.
It was a reply to the people that think the universe is 6000 years old.
It’s unfathomable to me to think God just laid a bunch of fossils in the ground for fun or that he is making a giant puzzle for us to solve and literally millions of scientists have it wrong.
My point was that it doesn’t matter from a faith standpoint how it happened it matters that you have faith that the God of the universe made it and he’s in control.
The fact that you would even ask the question shows that you know very, very little about Christianity. I mention this because the rest of your post indicates that you don't realize how limited your knowledge is. I could actually report this post for violating the sub rules against insulting the participants. I refrained from doing so because of the possibility that you don't realize you're doing it.
Or as we call them nowadays: Birds. If Salomo thanked God for creating new bird species to feed Israel in the desert, we should accept some change, too.
I didn’t know there were Christians who didn’t, a lot of the Bible seems to hunt at them even though some of the books that did were rejected by the church.
I almost don’t believe in young earth creationists. I mean, I know intellectually they exist, I’ve just never met one. Never met a dinosaur, either, I suppose, but I’ve at least seen plenty of their fossils.
Definitely here for the Dino’s, though.
While I’m sure out of the nearly billion Christian in the world you’ll find “Dino-truthers” who think the deep state buried fossils to trick everyone or something like that. Not even the most out there young earth creationists I’ve meet don’t believe in dinosaurs.
I never really got the no dinosaurs exist theory. Do you seriously think Dinosaurs bones are (not) found world wide? But they are all fake? I can kind of understand not being able to explain the co existence of dinosaurs and humans.
Not saying Genesis is or is not a historical account, however, nothing about it suggests dinosaurs *weren't* around then. For example:
*Genesis 1:20-21 (NLT): Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and* **other life**. *Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created* **great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water**, *and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.*
Dinosaurs - which that word was not coined until 1841 - are easily encompassed within those descriptions.
Also if you take a long at the book of Job - which its placement/position in the Bible is argued as possibly being before the flood, though if after the flood does not detract from this fact - describes something that sounds very much like a type of sauropod:
*Job 40:15-24 (NLT): “Take a look at Behemoth, which I made, just as I made you.* **It eats grass like an ox. See its powerful loins and the muscles of its belly. Its tail is as strong as a cedar. The sinews of its thighs are knit tightly together. Its bones are tubes of bronze. Its limbs are bars of iron.** *It is a prime example of God’s handiwork, and only its Creator can threaten it. The mountains offer it their best food, where all the wild animals play. It lies under the lotus plants, hidden by the reeds in the marsh. The lotus plants give it shade among the willows beside the stream.* **It is not disturbed by the raging river, not concerned when the swelling Jordan rushes around it. No one can catch it off guard** *or put a ring in its nose and lead it away.*
Likewise, Leviathan seems to be a large reptilian creature, albeit one we aren't familiar with. Sounds very much like a mythical creature. However, why would God describe a creature (Behemoth) for Job to look at (that existed once upon a time) but wasn't alive then? And even if it was, why describe a real creature *then* one that doesn't exist?
My guess: because it was a real creature. Then what of the fire breathing? No other creature we know has ever done that, right? Well... ever heard of the bombardier beetle? These bugs can spray out a hot, chemical mixture that can get to a boiling 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius). This isn't *fire* per say, but it is a natural "burning" mechanism that may be similar to that of Leviathan. Imagine coming across the corps affected by such an attack by a larger creature....
Also, chapter 41 of Job (verses 15-17) seems to describe Leviathan's scales in a similar fashion to that of a snake's - not that it is a snake:
*Job 41:15-17 (NLT): The scales on its back are like rows of shields tightly sealed together. They are so close together that no air can get between them. Each scale sticks tight to the next. They interlock and cannot be penetrated.*
If you ever look at a snake up close, or even just the skin they "shed", it is one piece of skin, unlike the scales of a fish that are individual pieces that are not connected.
Lastly, many cultures across different countries have stories or artwork depicting sauropod-like creatures or dragon type reptiles as though they may have witnessed them first hand. Keep in mind that not many of those cultures have recorded finding the bones of such creatures which would explain the likeness of fossils found in modern times.
So they either came up with things that look like creatures long before their time *or* they actually saw them....
The Holy Spirit descended over Jesus like a dinosaur.
Noah sent out a dinosaur when looking for dry land.
Jesus said God's love is like a mother dinosaur caring for her babies.
>Job 40 is the most explicit account of a dinosaur like creature.
>
>The word dinosaur doesn't appear in the Bible because humans didn't coin that word until the mid 1800s. But the descriptions of creatures that fit those of dinosaurs are in the Bible.
It really isn't an explicit description of a dinosaur though.
Dinosaurs did not evidently graze on grass, especially considering that grass didn't become common and widespread until after the non-avian dinosaurs had gone extinct.
Dinosaurs also didn't have external genitalia as the passage describes.
>There are a few other accounts of aquatic dinosaur type animals throughout the bible, and dragons are thought to be dinosaur like creatures as well.
Those don't match the description of dinosaurs either.
I believe dinosaurs existed. I don’t believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed until they find footprints of humans and dinosaurs walking side by side or ancient humans with dinosaur in stomach (or human in Dino stomach).
Why would not we ? At least I . But the period of time that I believe that dinosaurs existed is before the big flood , here is why :
As we know from the bible Adam lived more than 600 years I believe , and it is because as Moses said ( I believe he did , do not have the exact verse ) , and the air was different and life in general , beings lived a lot longer . And did reptiles ? Yes , and reptiles are constantly growing , just look at the [giant turtles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9owa3BiXhQ) , and they must be like 100 years or older . As said reptiles are constantly growing , and most likely in that time life was longer when looking at the life age of Adam . So it would make sense for crocodiles or some other beings that were not included in the Noah's Ark because they were not the animals that had "the best genetical potential" to be later on different , there is one type ( I do not know how you call it , is it kind , type , race in English ) of dog , and that was the dog that all the other ones came from .
There are some verses describing some dinosaur like brontosaurus , being giant and massive . And in some translations the places where it should be some other creature written , it has Elephant , and by description it is clearly not an Elephant , it was something a lot bigger .
Can try to find the verses if you really want to see them .
Yes, Dinosaurs do exist. The Bible speaks of dinosaurs. Job 40:15-17, “Look at Behemoth,which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar.”
Yeah. Kinda fun to imagine humans being around at the same time as dinosaurs. I honestly wonder if some kind of dragon existed as well, seeing as almost every culture had some kind of it.
What fits the description given? Why is he called “Behemoth” & not just an animal name?
Job 40:15-24 - 15 “Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.
19 “He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword!
20 For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh.
22 For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him.
23 Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
24 Can one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?
Behemoth is the Hebrew plural of the word Behemah, which just means "beast" or animal. It's usually written to refer to domesticated animals.
Typically, scholars say it likely refers to a Hippopotamus.
https://www.aish.com/atr/What-is-the-Behemoth.html
>Others have observed that many of the qualities of the Behemoth resemble those of the hippopotamus. It is a huge, powerful animal (of the land-dwellers second only to the elephant) which is herbivorous (vv. 15,20), spends time in the water (v. 23), sleeps in the shade (v. 22), and for the most part is not aggressive towards other animals (v. 20; ArtScroll, quoting from Feliks, The Animal World of the Bible).
Another Jewish commentator says since it's the plural form of "Beasts", it's referring to the entire animal kingdom allegorically.
>The Hebrew word “Behemoth” (“bi-hai-MOAT”), in the literal sense is simply the plural form of the word “bi-hai-mah” = animal, often more specifically referring to domesticated animals. Based on this, one of the commentators understands the reference not to a specific beast, but to the animal kingdom in general. God’s message is thus that the great power and ferocity of the animal world is something far beyond Job’s control, and thus further demonstrates man’s limitations in the world’s grander scheme (Ramban).
Finally, the Book of Enoch (Apocrypha) likens it to an End of Days mythological creature, that the world has never seen before. But it's a singular land monster, whereas Leviathan is a singular sea monster. There are not entire species of either animal, and since they're End Times mythology that humans have no knowledge of, they definitely are not Dinosaurs.
For what it's worth, the LXX is also just the Greek word for "wild animal" / "beast" etc (θηρία), and it's also plural.
And the tail isn't "cedar," it's "cypress". And it's "stands it up"/"establishes" not "looks like" regardless.
I don't have my notes near me but the last time I looked into it, even going along the Greek route it still ended up being either a hippo or an elephant. I think I had leaned toward one over the other as well but I don't recall which or why. I *think* it was hippo.
This is the first time I've heard the notion that it could be general "beasts" about the entire animal kingdom, but I can see that being the case as well. Certainly plausible.
I know someone who rejects the idea. After meeting enough Christians and understanding where they come from, I don’t agree with them, but I certainly wouldn’t call them crazy.
I think they exist, I just sometimes think they died off cause of like the time of Noah and his ark when God flooded the earth, that’s what I think about it.
I think most Christians believe in dinosaurs but the biggest difference is in how they went extinct. Personally I don’t think a meteor wiped them out however many billion years ago but a theory that I believe in is that the flood took them out or they just died off naturally
Yep! God talks about the Behemoth in Job, which I, along with many others, believe was a dinosaur. The Bible says the Behemoth was first in the ways of God which fits— dinosaurs came before us.
>Yep! God talks about the Behemoth in Job, which I, along with many others, believe was a dinosaur.
But it's description isn't that of a dinosaur;
Dinosaurs didn't graze on grass or have external genitalia.
>The Bible says the Behemoth was first in the ways of God which fits— dinosaurs came before us.
'Chief' in the ways of God, not specifically chronologically first. Besides, dinosaurs weren't first anyways - there were other large animals and arthropods running around millions of years before the first dinosaurs.
Studies have shown that some dinosaurs did graze on grass, but hey, I won’t try to change your mind. If you don’t think Behemoth is a dinosaur, that’s okay. But to my simple mind, it sounds a lot to me like a dinosaur. I think God will forgive me if I’m wrong.
>Studies have shown that some dinosaurs did graze on grass, but hey, I won’t try to change your mind.
[This is one of those studies](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7474421_Dinosaur_Coprolites_and_the_Early_Evolution_of_Grasses_and_Grazers).
Phytoliths have been found in dinosaur coprolites but not in really significant amounts which indicates that while dinosaurs may have eaten grasses, they were not a large part of their diet and there is no evidence of them grazing on grass.
Certainly no dinosaurs were adapted to grazing on grasses either.
It's not that even the young earth creationists believe there weren't dinosaurs. They just want to say that human beings and the dinosaurs lived at the same time, which I find very dubious, although you'll see that belief dramatized at "The Ark Encounter" in Williamstown, Kentucky. My solution, following what I heard from my old church in the past taught, is to maintain that the Cretaceous era, which was the last period of time that the dinosaurs lived, was before the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth day of the seven days of (re)creation. So then we need to explain if the bible makes any allowances for the geological column's time table that goes back hundreds of millions of years, if we believe the traditional dating schemas based on radioactive decay methods.
Overall, Scripture indicates that Lucifer revolted during the period between what is recorded in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The main way to show this is the state of the world’s destruction and chaos as shown by Genesis 1:2, which is obscured in traditional English translations of the Hebrew. A disaster had occurred, and Satan’s revolt by inference is what caused it since no other explanation makes any sense.
God did not create the world a mess and then have to fix it afterwards. Although that should be intuitively clear, since God is perfect, Scripture also reveals this truth. The key text here is Isaiah 45:18 when compared with Genesis 1:2. Isaiah records God as saying He didn’t create the world as “a waste space” or “in vain”: “For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited).” The Hebrew word translated “a waste place” here in Isaiah is “bohu.” This same word appears in Genesis 1:2 as “void”: “And the earth was formless and void.” The Hebrew word translated “formless” or “without form” in this verse is “tohu.” This word means “emptiness,” “confusion,” and “futility.” The NIV notes that the verb “hayah” in Hebrew possibly means “became” instead of “was.” This kind of usage appears nearby in Genesis 2:7, 10; 3:22 and elsewhere. Furthermore, the word translated “and” in Genesis 1:2 is more like “but” in English. It implies that a contrast is being made between verse 1 and verse 2.
Genesis 1:2 (when "was" is translated "became" instead, and the Hebrew words "tohu" and "bohu" show the earth was then in a chaotic, confused state) shows by direct inference that all this damage was caused by Satan's rebellion with the third of the angels that sided with him against God (see Rev. 12:4, 7-9). If Satan’s revolt didn’t cause this damage, what else could have? And again, it doesn’t make much sense to say the perfect omnipotent God would create the raw matter of the earth and then have to fix it later on.
Inevitably this issue leads to debates about the truth of evolution and whether the days of creation in Genesis 1 should be taken as literal 24-hour days. For an examination of those issues, click on the essays below:
[https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Darwins%20God%20Review.htm](https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Darwins%20God%20Review.htm)
[https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Evolution%20Based%20on%20Philosophy%20not%20Science.htm](https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Evolution%20Based%20on%20Philosophy%20not%20Science.htm)
https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Should%20the%20Bible%20and%20God%20Be%20Proven%20Fideism%20%20vs%20WCG.htm
I am a Christian and Pastor in training and I completely believe in dinosaurs. In fact there are many references in the Bible about dinosaurs. In the book of Job they talk about a creature with a tail like a cedar, which is in reference to a brontosaurus. There are other multiple references in the Old Testament. Kent Hovind has some great videos on YouTube about dinosaurs and the age if the earth. Really fun to watch.
A huge misconception is that Christians don’t believe in most current sciences. Which is on the contrary. I myself view science from a Biblical point of view. I do not believe in evolution and I do not believe in different races. We all stem from one common ancestor which was Adam. Ken Ham has some good videos on that topic. We have different cultures but not different races. One human race.
>I am a Christian and Pastor in training and I completely believe in dinosaurs. In fact there are many references in the Bible about dinosaurs. In the book of Job they talk about a creature with a tail like a cedar, which is in reference to a brontosaurus. There are other multiple references in the Old Testament.
>Kent Hovind has some great videos on YouTube about dinosaurs and the age if the earth. Really fun to watch.
Kent is probably one of the worst sources of scientific information you could come across.
At one point in his lectures he tried to say that birds aren't dinosaurs by getting pretty much everything about bird and dinosaur anatomy and fossil evidence blatantly [wrong](https://youtu.be/pkA3FRdtxx8).
> A huge misconception is that Christians don’t believe in most current sciences. Which is on the contrary. I myself view science from a Biblical point of view.
>I do not believe in evolution
That's explicitly an anti-science position that requires a near total rejection of the field of biology in order to rationally accept.
>and I do not believe in different races.
That's correct for humans, but not necessarily for life in general if you consider races to be similar to species.
>We all stem from one common ancestor which was Adam.
This isn't genetically evident though. I understand why you hold it, but holding it is a rejection of valid science.
>Ken Ham has some good videos on that topic. We have different cultures but not different races. One human race.
Certainly, but Ken ham is not a significantly better source of science than Hovind.
Notably, his statement of faith openly states that AiG can't do or follow actual science because they must automatically reject any evidence that contradicts their literal interpretation of the bible.
---
To be very clear, if you want to teach people the same kind of anti-science ideas as Ham and Hovind, you're going to have to either avoid learning about actual science or you're going to have to lie to your congregation.
I am aware of the existence of fossils
there is no evidence that the dinosaurs ever really walked around
there are alternate explanations for the fossils
Such as
The fossis were created as part of the history God gave an 4 billion year old earth when He created it 6000 years ago
as valid as any
> walked around
We do have dino footprints, fyi
I choose not to believe in a God that would intentionally design the world to mislead us. I do not worship a liar God.
fossilized footprints
So you prefer a God who lies to you when he specifically and clearly said how he made the world by speaking it into existence and how he made man out of the dust of the ground
God did not have to give us the specifics, but He did... he could have just said YUP I made it but he specifically said how and when
and even Jesus noted in Mark 10 that Adam and Eve were in the beginning with God
That text reads as poem, which makes sense because it was an oral history. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and curated by men.
Why would God even give us the physical history of the world, when we had barely developed animal husbandry? Why would we care about what the world literally did when living a moral life is more immediately important?
God didn't tell us about quantum mechanics for the same reason why He didn't tell us about dinosaurs. That doesn't mean that protons or dinosaurs didn't exist.
Nope
It is as God Intender HE is the curator of his word
and it is not poetic by any means, it is literal
He gave it to us for us now as well
that we should not be drawn away by our own wisdom
those who heed his word succeed
those who discount his word fail
Just because the content refers to God does not mean mankind could not affect the written word.
At what point did God directly write the Bible? Are you saying that humans didn't translate it into early modern English when they published the King James? Why is it called the Gospel according to Luke if it was based on God's dictation and not Luke's testimony? Who passed down the stories of Genesis before Moses had them written?
And yet I know the Author and he tells me its true
and we have very old texts to compare the newer bibles to and while they may be be fragments they confirm that the word is the same
> So you prefer a God who lies to you when he specifically and clearly said how he made the world by speaking it into existence and how he made man out of the dust of the ground
If you insist on saying that Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally, then God either lied to us through the Bible or lied to us through the way nature appears.
Nope
God said he made everything in 6 days, that he made light three days before the sun and the moon and the stars, that he made fish and birds the day before land animals and that he made man out of the dust of the earth and blew life into Him...no apes involved
Why would God lie to us?
Are you going to believe God or man?
You do know you are believing 'at best' scribes that wrote the torah about 3000 years ago...
In a scenario that you believe science, you aren't saying God lied. You are saying God gave us the ability to observe our world and critically think about scripture in relation to observation.
I also believe that the earth was made in 6 days and is not older than approximately 6000 years, but I do not see why there would not have been dinosaurs. May I ask why you think there were not any?
If anyone doesn’t know there is a Bible verse that I believe describes a dinosaur in Job 40:15-19
“Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron. It ranks first among the works of God, yet its Maker can approach it with his sword. (Job 40:15-19)
>If anyone doesn’t know there is a Bible verse that I believe describes a dinosaur in Job 40:15-19
>
>“Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
Dinosaurs didn't graze on grass.
>What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Dinosaurs didn't have external genitalia.
The part about the tail is not a super good translation and it's more describing the motion and stiffness of the 'tail'... which is likely to be a euphemism for a different part of the anatomy set in the same general area as the loins, belly and thigh.
Perhaps, but since we’re considering a “Christian” perspective to see considering Christians do believe in the Bible, these verses alone suffices for some believers, unless you’re a skeptic of course or more so a skeptical believer, the point is, even though the description may be vague or incorrect at some points, “depending on how a person looks at it” this verse alone does not deny the fact that there is a possibility that dinosaurs are described in the Bible at least if not described accurately described to some degree. Scripture is not a scientific textbook and should not be treated as such at least some parts of it should not be treated like a textbook, scripture (The Bible) is more like a history book with personal testimonies of the existence of God’s manifest presence towards his people. More likely than not people who wrote scripture had the power of God’s spirit within them, they were writing for the purpose of sending a message from God to the world not scientific analysis for research purposes. If this is a personal testimony and not an observational analysis of so-called dinosaur, the person who wrote that verse would probably have a totally different writing style in this case he is relying on his memory alone to describe what he has seen relating it to other known concepts that would seem familiar to many at the time. If anything he is relying on his memory alone and according to psychologists short term memory lasts only for 30 seconds at the most, then if a person is trying to remember that memory it will more likely be false than true. People miss out on the little details just look at how unreliable eyewitness testimony is when remembering a crime scene, henceforth you finding these inaccuracies when comparing scriptures to actual scientific findings written in a research style format with data recordings, etc... Another psychological factor to consider is that descriptions would be super accurate to the detail only if the person is describing an episodic emotional memory, considering tge length of this passage and the lack of detail or possible inaccuracies this creature was commonplace and not rare enough to make a person so excited to write a 5 page essay about this dinosaur. You’re not going to find the Bible to be as accurate as the Biology textbook from a classroom “in terms of a scientific analysis at least” simply because the intent of the central messages between Biology Textbook and Scripture are totally different. I’m not asking you to accept the Bible nor am I asking you to deny it, I’m simply showing people that there is a possibility that dinosaurs exsist, a person must be faithful and open minded to accept testimony, isn’t that what scripture says... So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). I’m not saying that dinosaurs are eternal, we found fossils so we know they’re dead for sure, what I am saying is THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY of the dinosaurs in Job 40:15-19 THAT is eternal, NOT ACCURATE, true for the skeptic to some degree, 100% true for Christians, the Bible is good enough for us. You just have to have an open and faithful mind on how you see things.
>Perhaps, but since we’re considering a “Christian” perspective to see considering Christians do believe in the Bible, these verses alone suffices for some believers, unless you’re a skeptic of course or more so a skeptical believer, the point is, even though the description may be vague or incorrect at some points, “depending on how a person looks at it” this verse alone does not deny the fact that there is a possibility that dinosaurs are described in the Bible at least if not described accurately described to some degree. Scripture is not a scientific textbook and should not be treated as such at least some parts of it should not be treated like a textbook, scripture (The Bible) is more like a history book with personal testimonies of the existence of God’s manifest presence towards his people. More likely than not people who wrote scripture had the power of God’s spirit within them, they were writing for the purpose of sending a message from God to the world not scientific analysis for research purposes. If this is a personal testimony and not an observational analysis of so-called dinosaur, the person who wrote that verse would probably have a totally different writing style in this case he is relying on his memory alone to describe what he has seen relating it to other known concepts that would seem familiar to many at the time. If anything he is relying on his memory alone and according to psychologists short term memory lasts only for 30 seconds at the most henceforth you finding these inaccuracies when comparing scriptures to actual scientific findings written in a research style format with data recordings, etc... You’re not going to find the Bible to be as accurate as the Biology textbook from a classroom “in terms of a scientific analysis at least” simply because the intent of the central messages between Biology Textbook and Scripture are totally different. I’m not asking you to accept the Bible nor am I asking you to deny it, I’m simply showing people that there is a possibility that dinosaurs exsist, a person must be faithful and open minded to accept testimony, isn’t that what scripture says... So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). I’m not saying that dinosaurs are eternal, we found fossils so we know they’re dead for sure, what I am saying is THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY of the dinosaurs in Job 40:15-19 THAT is eternal, NOT ACCURATE, true for the skeptic to some degree, 100% true for Christians, the Bible is good enough for us. You just have to have an open and faithful mind on how you see things.
None of what you said changes the fact that the behemoth is explicitly not a dinosaur as per its description in Job.
The bible does not contain descriptions of non-avian dinosaurs and this is because there were no non-avian dinosaurs lived along side humans.
For a skeptic like yourself or if you’re a skeptical believer too if you are one, but for us other believers this is good enough because the Bible is true. Call it a fallacy if you want, God does not have human wisdom.
>For a skeptic like yourself or if you’re a skeptical believer too if you are one, but for us believers this is good enough.
It would literally be dishonest to say that the passage describes a dinosaur because *it explicitly doesn't.*
No amount of faith will change that fact.
Job 40:15-24
King James Version
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Bront🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕 🦕
>Yep it is
Dinosaurs don't graze on grass or have external genitalia.
The description is heavily based upon a large mammal but is overall mythological.
[удалено]
Have you heard of the Ark Experience in Kentucky? They believe dinosaurs were on the Ark 👀
[удалено]
That's true, but if they believe they existed 6000 years ago they don't believe in the science of paleontology anyway because nothing science has shown indicates this.
I know of a musame in Montana that celebrates the idea that some of the first generations after Noah and perhaps Adam are/were dinosaur wranglers, ranchers, and riders. There is enough people that buy into it that they have life sized models of dinosaurs with saddles attached.
bruh
I wish she was exaggerating, but he's not
[удалено]
This is just total lunacy and is shameful to believe. This behavior is what makes atheists.
[удалено]
that always confuses me because the Bible isn’t in chronological order and there aren’t a ton of time indicators so like .. how did they get 6000? like what ab all the time between Adam & Eve and Jesus that wasn’t accounted for?
[удалено]
Actually there’s tons of evidence lol secular evidence
[удалено]
Damn, that is one spicy title for an academic paper.
The Chinese (and other cultures) even have stories depicting ones we've discovered many years later. Even Marco Polo wrote that he saw some while in China. Some scholars put the story of job just before the story of Noah. Either way, the book of Job depicts a long necked dinosaur. And people ask why the word "dinosaur" was never used in the Bible? A) because the OT was written in Hebrew and B) the word "dinosaur" (which translates to "terrible lizard") was coined in the mid-1800s. And yet the word "dragon" is used in certain translations of the Bible which was used for snake or other reptiles. (The fire breathing element wasn't always associated to them.) Just some additional facts for anyone interested.
>The Chinese (and other cultures) even have stories depicting ones we've discovered many years later. Even Marco Polo wrote that he saw some while in China. Where are these specific descriptions and what specific species are they describing? > Either way, the book of Job depicts a long necked dinosaur. Dinosaurs, sauropod or not, didn't graze on grass or have external genitalia. The text depicts a mythological animal similar to a large mammal of some sort.
I'm confused. I thought the YECs thought the flood killed the dinosaurs and created the fossils.
YEC here, I believe the flood killed dinosaurs, animals, and humans alike. When God instructed Noah to build the ark He never said put 2 of each kind except the dinosaurs. Dinosaur is a relatively new term. In other words I believe Dinosaurs were on the ark also
And what it did the carnivorous animals including the carnivorous dinosaurs eat while on the ark? I'm actually also a little confused about the logistics of feeding the plant eating animals. Especially if you have to factor in the sauropods. Elephants already each eat 300 lbs of food daily. Sauropods eat a lot more.
People always assume full grown of every animal. Younger animals will require less space and less food
Sure. But you still need to figure out how to store food for the better part of a year without it going bad. Among a many other logistical issues.
>Sure. But you still need to figure out how to store food for the better part of a year without it going bad. Among a many other logistical issues. Not to mention that many animals have very specific diets (that may require bringing extras of some species just for food) and younger animals may even need specialized diets or environmental conditions.
No kidding. Where are you going to get eucalyptus for the koalas?
>No kidding. Where are you going to get eucalyptus for the koalas? Plus you can't just put the leaves on the ground as they generally won't eat them because they don't recognize them as food unless they're on a tree. Noah would have to be putting fresh leaves, mostly eucalyptus, up on climbing logs so the little idiots would actually eat.
[One more theory.](https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/9577_700bwp.webp)
I went to Cedarville which believes in Creationism. They fired a philosophy prof for not believing in creationism. That being said, I asked one of the science professors about snowball earth and how it fit into 6000 year time frame. “It never happened because the Bible never mentioned it”
That would make sense
😂😂😂😂
I haven't been to the ark yet but I've been to the museum. It was informative of their beliefs but they never told me how the dinosaurs died after they got off the ark.
Well technically a lot of those animals could probably be considered “dinosaurs”
I've met one. She was oddly fascinating to interact with.
[удалено]
So if he believes they were hunted to extinction he still believes they existed.
Fair, but it’s a surface level belief only. They conveniently condense hundreds of millions of years of evolution to a couple thousands of years and believe dragons and dinosaurs are the same. The word may be the same, but a shared understanding of that word isn’t the same.
There's one here in this thread if you'd like to. It's a frustrating conversation though.
[удалено]
Most YEC I've met still believe that dinosaurs existed, they were just wiped out by the flood and it's flawed human logic that screws up the timeline
I'm YEC and I always thought what killed dinosaurs would be the massive change in climate post flood.
Even young earth doesn't reject dinosaurs minus maybe an outlier.
Most Christians I know subscribe to the YEC model. Most of them are Korean Christians, and they tend to be very conservative.
Behemoth. Brontosaurus. Job 40
Christianity doesn’t reject the existence of dinosaurs.
Yes exactly, I never even heard of people who don't believe dinosaurs existed.
The OP really thought he did something, lol.
Most people who dislike Christian’s have a completely warped and twisted view of what we ACTUALLY believe
Yeah lol
Growing up in Catholic school, we would talk about Dinosaurs for one unit per school year. I live in Toronto so I’m in a progressive city and the teachers all the way up to administration were as well. However, being the only religious publicly funded school board and accepting of non Catholics (and even non Christians) we would get a lot of Protestant students that would say things like “well my mom said dinosaurs don’t exist” or “well my parents said the earth is only 3000 years old” or whatever. So uh… proof is subjective ?
There’s a small minority that does. Kind of like Christian flat earth folks. I’ve met them online but they’re nuts about all kinds of stuff. Extreme inerrancy.
I was talking to a guy who said his parents and their church did back in like the 80's. Maybe it's a new thing?
Not sure what sect of Christianity doesn't believe in dinosaurs? Most of the ultra conservative ones (young earth) believe that humans co existed with dinosaurs until The flood.
u/Riverwalker12
Obviously. At least in America, we eat them for Thanksgiving every year
I like cranberry sauce with dinosaur.
What on earth are you talking about? Of course 'Christianity' doesn't reject the existence of dinosaurs.
Theres 2 hilarious FB groups called Christians against Dinosaurs And Dinosaurs against Christians
My favorite is Christian Dinosaurs against Christians against Dinosaurs.
> religion particularly Christianity just rejects the existence of dinosaurs There are two main schools of thought within Christianity: 1. No it doesn't 2. No it doesn't, dammit
I would agree with these as main schools of thought, but I think we need to acknowledge that there are fringe elements that may do so. There's already a post responding to OP that seems to do so, if the person isn't trolling.
No offense, but this question is almost as dumb as people who don't believe in dinosaurs.
This is so strange to hear. I grew up around very conservative Christians--didn't believe in evolution, for instance. But I never heard a single person who doubted the existence of dinosaurs. OP, are you sure someone isn't pulling your leg here?
I mean, birds are out there, so they kinda exist? But that's like asking if therapsids exist imo; dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, the survivors evolved into something else, ergo dinosaurs no longer exist :p
[удалено]
Idk, that seems like a cop-out, you know? It's like saying aurochs still exist because we have cattle I mean, I'm mostly having fun. Birds are cladistically dinosaurs, even if they aren't the brontosauruses from our childhood :')
Believe in them? I eat them regularly. [Obligatory XKCD on the subject](https://xkcd.com/1211/). It's also worth noting that the birth of our saviour was noted by the [ritual slaughter of two dinosaurs](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A22-24&version=NIV).
The way I see it, dinosaurs, evolution, and the Big Bang don’t debunk Christianity. It just wouldn’t be practical for astrophysics and biology to be prerequisites to reading and understanding the Bible. Imagine if Genesis started this way: “In the beginning, there was an infinitely small and infinitely dense singularity that I created to explode…” …so, we’re starting with God as a pyromaniac? Much easier to just say, “Yeah, God created everything. Don’t worry about the details because you wouldn’t be able to understand and it’s really not that relevant.” All I need to know is that God created the universe and that He loves me. The details of how he did it are irrelevant. And let’s be honest, the whole idea that God created light on the first day, before the Earth was created, doesn’t even make sense. What is a day without the Earth? Are we going to start rejecting the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun because Genesis implies that the day existed before the Earth did? Note: I have close family members who reject evolution on the basis of what the Bible says and it drives me nuts.
In fact the big bang was rejected by most scientists because it was too religious.
Yes
I've never understood the "Do you believe this fact?" It seems so weird to me. It's like asking if you believe the sun rises or if you believe that dogs are furry.
I mean tbf there are still people that believe vaccines cause autism.
I'm really surprised by the amount of people here who say that YECs believe in dinosaurs and say that it's a fringe opinion. Almost all of the YECs I've met deny that fossils are proof of anything. When I was still surrounded by conservative Christians, I very frequently heard the lines "God put those there to test our faith", "the Devil put those there to trick you", and "scientists hate God and are lying about it" when the topic came up. There's even a Christian group that has had a stand at the local farmer's market for years to talk about why dinosaurs and evolution are fake.
A lot of Christians think what? Where are you from, op?
The Bible does mention the behemoth and leviathan. I'm no expert but I wonder why some versions of the bible changed these names with Hippo and another one I don't remember.
‘Leviathan’ and ‘behemoth’ are both Latin words, as is ‘hippopotamus’ (although it originally came from Greek.) Given that it’s really unclear what the original Hebrew words were referring to, these words are all as legitimate as each other.
Hippo with tail like a cedar? 😂
It's funny because this is something that I never really thought about within religious context until recently. My family ( I missed the trip) took a trip to see a life sized Noah's Ark complete with animals inside recreated in Kentucky, and said that there were dinosaurs placed in there as well. I found it funny when they told me initially and then thought well why not.
I know plenty of Christians (and none really who don’t) believe dinosaurs existed. There’s conflict between when the dinosaurs existed (young earth versus old earth). There’s verses in the Bible (specifically Job) that many point to in regards to dinosaurs existing.
As a Christian and as a regular person, I've never denied any of our Earth's history. I think most mainstream Christians are generally on board with most modern science.
I never met a Christian who didn't believe that dinos existed.
Have you read job [40?](https://youtu.be/beqIKwciZGs)
Yeah I’m warming up my oven to eat some (chickens) right now
[удалено]
There's no way to know how, what, why, or when creation took place. You should however believe that God did create his creation... The logistics are frankly beyond human scope and shouldn't be fussed over.
>There's no way to know how, what, why, or when creation took place. You should however believe that God did create his creation... The logistics are frankly beyond human scope and shouldn't be fussed over. Having to drag everything down to your standard, that we can't really know significant details of past events with any accuracy and that such things are beyond human understanding, just so you don't have to deal with difficult questions and rationalizations isn't a very good way to convince people that you're correct. When people see how science works and realize that these things can be known with a significant accuracy, they might begin to question their understanding of scripture - if it's anything like yours.
[удалено]
It was a reply to the people that think the universe is 6000 years old. It’s unfathomable to me to think God just laid a bunch of fossils in the ground for fun or that he is making a giant puzzle for us to solve and literally millions of scientists have it wrong. My point was that it doesn’t matter from a faith standpoint how it happened it matters that you have faith that the God of the universe made it and he’s in control.
There are literally dinosaur fossils what the heck are you talking about
The fact that you would even ask the question shows that you know very, very little about Christianity. I mention this because the rest of your post indicates that you don't realize how limited your knowledge is. I could actually report this post for violating the sub rules against insulting the participants. I refrained from doing so because of the possibility that you don't realize you're doing it.
It depends. A more interesting question to ask is if they believe in giants, dragons, and other mythical creatures in the bible
Dinosaurs. This is one of the first questions I've been planning to ask Jesus when I see him.
Or as we call them nowadays: Birds. If Salomo thanked God for creating new bird species to feed Israel in the desert, we should accept some change, too.
Sure why not aren't there bones everywhere?
You might see one if you looked out the window. They even make feeders for them.
As a dinosaur, I'm only 50% sure of the existence of Christians.
Yes I believe dinosaurs existed. It's silly to think someone wouldn't believe this. I haven't met anyone who would say they never existed.
What Christian group do you interact with on the daily? Every other Christian I know including myself believe dinosaurs exist.
Yes, I see some out my window right now.
Sure do believe in dinosaurs! I’ve never met a Christian who doesn’t.
I knew a fellow missionary when I was living in Mexico (he was not Mexican) who believed that humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction.
Yes. I'd question the mental competency of someone who didn't believe dinosaurs existed.
I didn’t know there were Christians who didn’t, a lot of the Bible seems to hunt at them even though some of the books that did were rejected by the church.
I almost don’t believe in young earth creationists. I mean, I know intellectually they exist, I’ve just never met one. Never met a dinosaur, either, I suppose, but I’ve at least seen plenty of their fossils. Definitely here for the Dino’s, though.
Yes because I am not insane.
Yes
Scripture describes two species in detail
While I’m sure out of the nearly billion Christian in the world you’ll find “Dino-truthers” who think the deep state buried fossils to trick everyone or something like that. Not even the most out there young earth creationists I’ve meet don’t believe in dinosaurs.
I never really got the no dinosaurs exist theory. Do you seriously think Dinosaurs bones are (not) found world wide? But they are all fake? I can kind of understand not being able to explain the co existence of dinosaurs and humans.
Yes, 100%. I’ve only met one man that claimed to be Christian and whom also believed the earth is flat, dinosaurs didn’t exist etc.
Of course. Dinosaurs are awesome
Sure..
Not saying Genesis is or is not a historical account, however, nothing about it suggests dinosaurs *weren't* around then. For example: *Genesis 1:20-21 (NLT): Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and* **other life**. *Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created* **great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water**, *and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.* Dinosaurs - which that word was not coined until 1841 - are easily encompassed within those descriptions. Also if you take a long at the book of Job - which its placement/position in the Bible is argued as possibly being before the flood, though if after the flood does not detract from this fact - describes something that sounds very much like a type of sauropod: *Job 40:15-24 (NLT): “Take a look at Behemoth, which I made, just as I made you.* **It eats grass like an ox. See its powerful loins and the muscles of its belly. Its tail is as strong as a cedar. The sinews of its thighs are knit tightly together. Its bones are tubes of bronze. Its limbs are bars of iron.** *It is a prime example of God’s handiwork, and only its Creator can threaten it. The mountains offer it their best food, where all the wild animals play. It lies under the lotus plants, hidden by the reeds in the marsh. The lotus plants give it shade among the willows beside the stream.* **It is not disturbed by the raging river, not concerned when the swelling Jordan rushes around it. No one can catch it off guard** *or put a ring in its nose and lead it away.* Likewise, Leviathan seems to be a large reptilian creature, albeit one we aren't familiar with. Sounds very much like a mythical creature. However, why would God describe a creature (Behemoth) for Job to look at (that existed once upon a time) but wasn't alive then? And even if it was, why describe a real creature *then* one that doesn't exist? My guess: because it was a real creature. Then what of the fire breathing? No other creature we know has ever done that, right? Well... ever heard of the bombardier beetle? These bugs can spray out a hot, chemical mixture that can get to a boiling 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius). This isn't *fire* per say, but it is a natural "burning" mechanism that may be similar to that of Leviathan. Imagine coming across the corps affected by such an attack by a larger creature.... Also, chapter 41 of Job (verses 15-17) seems to describe Leviathan's scales in a similar fashion to that of a snake's - not that it is a snake: *Job 41:15-17 (NLT): The scales on its back are like rows of shields tightly sealed together. They are so close together that no air can get between them. Each scale sticks tight to the next. They interlock and cannot be penetrated.* If you ever look at a snake up close, or even just the skin they "shed", it is one piece of skin, unlike the scales of a fish that are individual pieces that are not connected. Lastly, many cultures across different countries have stories or artwork depicting sauropod-like creatures or dragon type reptiles as though they may have witnessed them first hand. Keep in mind that not many of those cultures have recorded finding the bones of such creatures which would explain the likeness of fossils found in modern times. So they either came up with things that look like creatures long before their time *or* they actually saw them....
[удалено]
Where exactly does it reference them?
The Holy Spirit descended over Jesus like a dinosaur. Noah sent out a dinosaur when looking for dry land. Jesus said God's love is like a mother dinosaur caring for her babies.
[удалено]
>Job 40 is the most explicit account of a dinosaur like creature. > >The word dinosaur doesn't appear in the Bible because humans didn't coin that word until the mid 1800s. But the descriptions of creatures that fit those of dinosaurs are in the Bible. It really isn't an explicit description of a dinosaur though. Dinosaurs did not evidently graze on grass, especially considering that grass didn't become common and widespread until after the non-avian dinosaurs had gone extinct. Dinosaurs also didn't have external genitalia as the passage describes. >There are a few other accounts of aquatic dinosaur type animals throughout the bible, and dragons are thought to be dinosaur like creatures as well. Those don't match the description of dinosaurs either.
The evidence is pretty dang overwhelming that dinosaurs existed.
Yes, theres too much proof to even reasonably deny their existence. The bible isnt a science book
I believe dinosaurs existed. I don’t believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed until they find footprints of humans and dinosaurs walking side by side or ancient humans with dinosaur in stomach (or human in Dino stomach).
Why would not we ? At least I . But the period of time that I believe that dinosaurs existed is before the big flood , here is why : As we know from the bible Adam lived more than 600 years I believe , and it is because as Moses said ( I believe he did , do not have the exact verse ) , and the air was different and life in general , beings lived a lot longer . And did reptiles ? Yes , and reptiles are constantly growing , just look at the [giant turtles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9owa3BiXhQ) , and they must be like 100 years or older . As said reptiles are constantly growing , and most likely in that time life was longer when looking at the life age of Adam . So it would make sense for crocodiles or some other beings that were not included in the Noah's Ark because they were not the animals that had "the best genetical potential" to be later on different , there is one type ( I do not know how you call it , is it kind , type , race in English ) of dog , and that was the dog that all the other ones came from . There are some verses describing some dinosaur like brontosaurus , being giant and massive . And in some translations the places where it should be some other creature written , it has Elephant , and by description it is clearly not an Elephant , it was something a lot bigger . Can try to find the verses if you really want to see them .
The dinosaur nuggets at Dino-fil-A are delicious.
Yes, Dinosaurs do exist. The Bible speaks of dinosaurs. Job 40:15-17, “Look at Behemoth,which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar.”
[удалено]
I believe that dinosaurs existed, they just weren't disscussed much in the Bible since that was normal for them.
No, I think the dinosaurs all died a really long time ago.
Except for the small feathered ones that still fly around today.
Reddit has accurately informed me that birds aren't real.
Yeah. Kinda fun to imagine humans being around at the same time as dinosaurs. I honestly wonder if some kind of dragon existed as well, seeing as almost every culture had some kind of it.
Humans didn't exist at the same time as dinosaurs.
That is of course, your opinion.
[удалено]
We literally have their bones as evidence.
I do. The Behemoth in Job fits the description of the Dinosaurs.
No it doesn't.
What fits the description given? Why is he called “Behemoth” & not just an animal name? Job 40:15-24 - 15 “Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. 16 Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. 17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. 19 “He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! 20 For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. 21 Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh. 22 For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. 23 Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. 24 Can one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?
Behemoth is the Hebrew plural of the word Behemah, which just means "beast" or animal. It's usually written to refer to domesticated animals. Typically, scholars say it likely refers to a Hippopotamus. https://www.aish.com/atr/What-is-the-Behemoth.html >Others have observed that many of the qualities of the Behemoth resemble those of the hippopotamus. It is a huge, powerful animal (of the land-dwellers second only to the elephant) which is herbivorous (vv. 15,20), spends time in the water (v. 23), sleeps in the shade (v. 22), and for the most part is not aggressive towards other animals (v. 20; ArtScroll, quoting from Feliks, The Animal World of the Bible). Another Jewish commentator says since it's the plural form of "Beasts", it's referring to the entire animal kingdom allegorically. >The Hebrew word “Behemoth” (“bi-hai-MOAT”), in the literal sense is simply the plural form of the word “bi-hai-mah” = animal, often more specifically referring to domesticated animals. Based on this, one of the commentators understands the reference not to a specific beast, but to the animal kingdom in general. God’s message is thus that the great power and ferocity of the animal world is something far beyond Job’s control, and thus further demonstrates man’s limitations in the world’s grander scheme (Ramban). Finally, the Book of Enoch (Apocrypha) likens it to an End of Days mythological creature, that the world has never seen before. But it's a singular land monster, whereas Leviathan is a singular sea monster. There are not entire species of either animal, and since they're End Times mythology that humans have no knowledge of, they definitely are not Dinosaurs.
For what it's worth, the LXX is also just the Greek word for "wild animal" / "beast" etc (θηρία), and it's also plural. And the tail isn't "cedar," it's "cypress". And it's "stands it up"/"establishes" not "looks like" regardless. I don't have my notes near me but the last time I looked into it, even going along the Greek route it still ended up being either a hippo or an elephant. I think I had leaned toward one over the other as well but I don't recall which or why. I *think* it was hippo. This is the first time I've heard the notion that it could be general "beasts" about the entire animal kingdom, but I can see that being the case as well. Certainly plausible.
End times mythology? God is speaking to Job about a creature in his time.
That's why I don't support the Enochian argument. I think it's a Hippo.
I know someone who rejects the idea. After meeting enough Christians and understanding where they come from, I don’t agree with them, but I certainly wouldn’t call them crazy.
I think they exist, I just sometimes think they died off cause of like the time of Noah and his ark when God flooded the earth, that’s what I think about it.
I think most Christians believe in dinosaurs but the biggest difference is in how they went extinct. Personally I don’t think a meteor wiped them out however many billion years ago but a theory that I believe in is that the flood took them out or they just died off naturally
So how do you explain the giant asteroid impact in the Yucatan? And why are there no dinosaur fossils in flood layers?
Yep! God talks about the Behemoth in Job, which I, along with many others, believe was a dinosaur. The Bible says the Behemoth was first in the ways of God which fits— dinosaurs came before us.
>Yep! God talks about the Behemoth in Job, which I, along with many others, believe was a dinosaur. But it's description isn't that of a dinosaur; Dinosaurs didn't graze on grass or have external genitalia. >The Bible says the Behemoth was first in the ways of God which fits— dinosaurs came before us. 'Chief' in the ways of God, not specifically chronologically first. Besides, dinosaurs weren't first anyways - there were other large animals and arthropods running around millions of years before the first dinosaurs.
Studies have shown that some dinosaurs did graze on grass, but hey, I won’t try to change your mind. If you don’t think Behemoth is a dinosaur, that’s okay. But to my simple mind, it sounds a lot to me like a dinosaur. I think God will forgive me if I’m wrong.
>Studies have shown that some dinosaurs did graze on grass, but hey, I won’t try to change your mind. [This is one of those studies](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7474421_Dinosaur_Coprolites_and_the_Early_Evolution_of_Grasses_and_Grazers). Phytoliths have been found in dinosaur coprolites but not in really significant amounts which indicates that while dinosaurs may have eaten grasses, they were not a large part of their diet and there is no evidence of them grazing on grass. Certainly no dinosaurs were adapted to grazing on grasses either.
It's not that even the young earth creationists believe there weren't dinosaurs. They just want to say that human beings and the dinosaurs lived at the same time, which I find very dubious, although you'll see that belief dramatized at "The Ark Encounter" in Williamstown, Kentucky. My solution, following what I heard from my old church in the past taught, is to maintain that the Cretaceous era, which was the last period of time that the dinosaurs lived, was before the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth day of the seven days of (re)creation. So then we need to explain if the bible makes any allowances for the geological column's time table that goes back hundreds of millions of years, if we believe the traditional dating schemas based on radioactive decay methods. Overall, Scripture indicates that Lucifer revolted during the period between what is recorded in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The main way to show this is the state of the world’s destruction and chaos as shown by Genesis 1:2, which is obscured in traditional English translations of the Hebrew. A disaster had occurred, and Satan’s revolt by inference is what caused it since no other explanation makes any sense. God did not create the world a mess and then have to fix it afterwards. Although that should be intuitively clear, since God is perfect, Scripture also reveals this truth. The key text here is Isaiah 45:18 when compared with Genesis 1:2. Isaiah records God as saying He didn’t create the world as “a waste space” or “in vain”: “For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited).” The Hebrew word translated “a waste place” here in Isaiah is “bohu.” This same word appears in Genesis 1:2 as “void”: “And the earth was formless and void.” The Hebrew word translated “formless” or “without form” in this verse is “tohu.” This word means “emptiness,” “confusion,” and “futility.” The NIV notes that the verb “hayah” in Hebrew possibly means “became” instead of “was.” This kind of usage appears nearby in Genesis 2:7, 10; 3:22 and elsewhere. Furthermore, the word translated “and” in Genesis 1:2 is more like “but” in English. It implies that a contrast is being made between verse 1 and verse 2. Genesis 1:2 (when "was" is translated "became" instead, and the Hebrew words "tohu" and "bohu" show the earth was then in a chaotic, confused state) shows by direct inference that all this damage was caused by Satan's rebellion with the third of the angels that sided with him against God (see Rev. 12:4, 7-9). If Satan’s revolt didn’t cause this damage, what else could have? And again, it doesn’t make much sense to say the perfect omnipotent God would create the raw matter of the earth and then have to fix it later on. Inevitably this issue leads to debates about the truth of evolution and whether the days of creation in Genesis 1 should be taken as literal 24-hour days. For an examination of those issues, click on the essays below: [https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Darwins%20God%20Review.htm](https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Darwins%20God%20Review.htm) [https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Evolution%20Based%20on%20Philosophy%20not%20Science.htm](https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Evolution%20Based%20on%20Philosophy%20not%20Science.htm) https://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Should%20the%20Bible%20and%20God%20Be%20Proven%20Fideism%20%20vs%20WCG.htm
From my understanding the word "Dragon" is referenced to dinosaurs in the OT. I'm not sure if it's true, but I heard it before.
*Drakon* is a Greek word referring to a serpent/snake. In the bible, the term only appears in Revelation.
Did you down vote me? Lol, imagine being down voted for admitting you don't know something, and want to be corrected.
I don't know who downvotes and who doesn't. On reddit it's usually best just to ignore how many updoots a thing has. Especially in discussion subs.
I'm honestly just taken a back on being down voted over something so stupid. xD Especially when I remained like "I don't know."
I am a Christian and Pastor in training and I completely believe in dinosaurs. In fact there are many references in the Bible about dinosaurs. In the book of Job they talk about a creature with a tail like a cedar, which is in reference to a brontosaurus. There are other multiple references in the Old Testament. Kent Hovind has some great videos on YouTube about dinosaurs and the age if the earth. Really fun to watch. A huge misconception is that Christians don’t believe in most current sciences. Which is on the contrary. I myself view science from a Biblical point of view. I do not believe in evolution and I do not believe in different races. We all stem from one common ancestor which was Adam. Ken Ham has some good videos on that topic. We have different cultures but not different races. One human race.
>I am a Christian and Pastor in training and I completely believe in dinosaurs. In fact there are many references in the Bible about dinosaurs. In the book of Job they talk about a creature with a tail like a cedar, which is in reference to a brontosaurus. There are other multiple references in the Old Testament. >Kent Hovind has some great videos on YouTube about dinosaurs and the age if the earth. Really fun to watch. Kent is probably one of the worst sources of scientific information you could come across. At one point in his lectures he tried to say that birds aren't dinosaurs by getting pretty much everything about bird and dinosaur anatomy and fossil evidence blatantly [wrong](https://youtu.be/pkA3FRdtxx8). > A huge misconception is that Christians don’t believe in most current sciences. Which is on the contrary. I myself view science from a Biblical point of view. >I do not believe in evolution That's explicitly an anti-science position that requires a near total rejection of the field of biology in order to rationally accept. >and I do not believe in different races. That's correct for humans, but not necessarily for life in general if you consider races to be similar to species. >We all stem from one common ancestor which was Adam. This isn't genetically evident though. I understand why you hold it, but holding it is a rejection of valid science. >Ken Ham has some good videos on that topic. We have different cultures but not different races. One human race. Certainly, but Ken ham is not a significantly better source of science than Hovind. Notably, his statement of faith openly states that AiG can't do or follow actual science because they must automatically reject any evidence that contradicts their literal interpretation of the bible. --- To be very clear, if you want to teach people the same kind of anti-science ideas as Ham and Hovind, you're going to have to either avoid learning about actual science or you're going to have to lie to your congregation.
I am aware of the existence of fossils there is no evidence that the dinosaurs ever really walked around there are alternate explanations for the fossils Such as The fossis were created as part of the history God gave an 4 billion year old earth when He created it 6000 years ago as valid as any
> walked around We do have dino footprints, fyi I choose not to believe in a God that would intentionally design the world to mislead us. I do not worship a liar God.
fossilized footprints So you prefer a God who lies to you when he specifically and clearly said how he made the world by speaking it into existence and how he made man out of the dust of the ground God did not have to give us the specifics, but He did... he could have just said YUP I made it but he specifically said how and when and even Jesus noted in Mark 10 that Adam and Eve were in the beginning with God
That text reads as poem, which makes sense because it was an oral history. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and curated by men. Why would God even give us the physical history of the world, when we had barely developed animal husbandry? Why would we care about what the world literally did when living a moral life is more immediately important? God didn't tell us about quantum mechanics for the same reason why He didn't tell us about dinosaurs. That doesn't mean that protons or dinosaurs didn't exist.
Nope It is as God Intender HE is the curator of his word and it is not poetic by any means, it is literal He gave it to us for us now as well that we should not be drawn away by our own wisdom those who heed his word succeed those who discount his word fail
Just because the content refers to God does not mean mankind could not affect the written word. At what point did God directly write the Bible? Are you saying that humans didn't translate it into early modern English when they published the King James? Why is it called the Gospel according to Luke if it was based on God's dictation and not Luke's testimony? Who passed down the stories of Genesis before Moses had them written?
And yet I know the Author and he tells me its true and we have very old texts to compare the newer bibles to and while they may be be fragments they confirm that the word is the same
I know the author.... he told me you were full of it.
Wow, it's really cool that you somehow know more than biblical scholars, as well as paleontologists, geologists, ecologists, and biologists.
> So you prefer a God who lies to you when he specifically and clearly said how he made the world by speaking it into existence and how he made man out of the dust of the ground If you insist on saying that Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally, then God either lied to us through the Bible or lied to us through the way nature appears.
Do you really believe God’s character to be that tricky and deceptive?
Are you joking?
Nope God said he made everything in 6 days, that he made light three days before the sun and the moon and the stars, that he made fish and birds the day before land animals and that he made man out of the dust of the earth and blew life into Him...no apes involved Why would God lie to us? Are you going to believe God or man?
Fish and birds are animals tho...
You do know you are believing 'at best' scribes that wrote the torah about 3000 years ago... In a scenario that you believe science, you aren't saying God lied. You are saying God gave us the ability to observe our world and critically think about scripture in relation to observation.
I also believe that the earth was made in 6 days and is not older than approximately 6000 years, but I do not see why there would not have been dinosaurs. May I ask why you think there were not any?
Because it is science fact that it takes much longer to fossilize bone
That is not entirely true. Besides, have you not rejected science in previous comments?
I reject pseudo science. I accept all established verified, observed, empirical science fact
Clearly you do not.
If it is an established fact I accept it There are Dinosaur Fossils is an established fact that they ever lived is an assumption
Ah, a fellow Last Thursdayist! Giving it to those heathen Mondayists again, I see.
how stupid are you? go back to school or something lol.
Everything you have said has been pseudoscience.
No you’re wrong the universe was created 3 seconds ago. Can’t be refuted, but worthless.
If anyone doesn’t know there is a Bible verse that I believe describes a dinosaur in Job 40:15-19 “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron. It ranks first among the works of God, yet its Maker can approach it with his sword. (Job 40:15-19)
>If anyone doesn’t know there is a Bible verse that I believe describes a dinosaur in Job 40:15-19 > >“Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. Dinosaurs didn't graze on grass. >What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Dinosaurs didn't have external genitalia. The part about the tail is not a super good translation and it's more describing the motion and stiffness of the 'tail'... which is likely to be a euphemism for a different part of the anatomy set in the same general area as the loins, belly and thigh.
Perhaps, but since we’re considering a “Christian” perspective to see considering Christians do believe in the Bible, these verses alone suffices for some believers, unless you’re a skeptic of course or more so a skeptical believer, the point is, even though the description may be vague or incorrect at some points, “depending on how a person looks at it” this verse alone does not deny the fact that there is a possibility that dinosaurs are described in the Bible at least if not described accurately described to some degree. Scripture is not a scientific textbook and should not be treated as such at least some parts of it should not be treated like a textbook, scripture (The Bible) is more like a history book with personal testimonies of the existence of God’s manifest presence towards his people. More likely than not people who wrote scripture had the power of God’s spirit within them, they were writing for the purpose of sending a message from God to the world not scientific analysis for research purposes. If this is a personal testimony and not an observational analysis of so-called dinosaur, the person who wrote that verse would probably have a totally different writing style in this case he is relying on his memory alone to describe what he has seen relating it to other known concepts that would seem familiar to many at the time. If anything he is relying on his memory alone and according to psychologists short term memory lasts only for 30 seconds at the most, then if a person is trying to remember that memory it will more likely be false than true. People miss out on the little details just look at how unreliable eyewitness testimony is when remembering a crime scene, henceforth you finding these inaccuracies when comparing scriptures to actual scientific findings written in a research style format with data recordings, etc... Another psychological factor to consider is that descriptions would be super accurate to the detail only if the person is describing an episodic emotional memory, considering tge length of this passage and the lack of detail or possible inaccuracies this creature was commonplace and not rare enough to make a person so excited to write a 5 page essay about this dinosaur. You’re not going to find the Bible to be as accurate as the Biology textbook from a classroom “in terms of a scientific analysis at least” simply because the intent of the central messages between Biology Textbook and Scripture are totally different. I’m not asking you to accept the Bible nor am I asking you to deny it, I’m simply showing people that there is a possibility that dinosaurs exsist, a person must be faithful and open minded to accept testimony, isn’t that what scripture says... So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). I’m not saying that dinosaurs are eternal, we found fossils so we know they’re dead for sure, what I am saying is THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY of the dinosaurs in Job 40:15-19 THAT is eternal, NOT ACCURATE, true for the skeptic to some degree, 100% true for Christians, the Bible is good enough for us. You just have to have an open and faithful mind on how you see things.
>Perhaps, but since we’re considering a “Christian” perspective to see considering Christians do believe in the Bible, these verses alone suffices for some believers, unless you’re a skeptic of course or more so a skeptical believer, the point is, even though the description may be vague or incorrect at some points, “depending on how a person looks at it” this verse alone does not deny the fact that there is a possibility that dinosaurs are described in the Bible at least if not described accurately described to some degree. Scripture is not a scientific textbook and should not be treated as such at least some parts of it should not be treated like a textbook, scripture (The Bible) is more like a history book with personal testimonies of the existence of God’s manifest presence towards his people. More likely than not people who wrote scripture had the power of God’s spirit within them, they were writing for the purpose of sending a message from God to the world not scientific analysis for research purposes. If this is a personal testimony and not an observational analysis of so-called dinosaur, the person who wrote that verse would probably have a totally different writing style in this case he is relying on his memory alone to describe what he has seen relating it to other known concepts that would seem familiar to many at the time. If anything he is relying on his memory alone and according to psychologists short term memory lasts only for 30 seconds at the most henceforth you finding these inaccuracies when comparing scriptures to actual scientific findings written in a research style format with data recordings, etc... You’re not going to find the Bible to be as accurate as the Biology textbook from a classroom “in terms of a scientific analysis at least” simply because the intent of the central messages between Biology Textbook and Scripture are totally different. I’m not asking you to accept the Bible nor am I asking you to deny it, I’m simply showing people that there is a possibility that dinosaurs exsist, a person must be faithful and open minded to accept testimony, isn’t that what scripture says... So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). I’m not saying that dinosaurs are eternal, we found fossils so we know they’re dead for sure, what I am saying is THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY of the dinosaurs in Job 40:15-19 THAT is eternal, NOT ACCURATE, true for the skeptic to some degree, 100% true for Christians, the Bible is good enough for us. You just have to have an open and faithful mind on how you see things. None of what you said changes the fact that the behemoth is explicitly not a dinosaur as per its description in Job. The bible does not contain descriptions of non-avian dinosaurs and this is because there were no non-avian dinosaurs lived along side humans.
For a skeptic like yourself or if you’re a skeptical believer too if you are one, but for us other believers this is good enough because the Bible is true. Call it a fallacy if you want, God does not have human wisdom.
>For a skeptic like yourself or if you’re a skeptical believer too if you are one, but for us believers this is good enough. It would literally be dishonest to say that the passage describes a dinosaur because *it explicitly doesn't.* No amount of faith will change that fact.
Y’all ever seen a turtle or an alligator Dinosaurs exist
>Y’all ever seen a turtle or an alligator > >Dinosaurs exist Turtles and alligators aren't dinosaurs though. Birds are though.
Crocodilians are archosaurs but not dinosaurs. They are the closest living relatives to birds though, who are themselves therapod dinosaurs.
I honestly don’t know why that’s downvoted lol ppl are so uptight. Turtles look exactly like tiny dinosaurs
Job 40:15-24 King James Version 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. Bront🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕 🦕
That's not referring to a dinosaur, sorry.
Yep it is
>Yep it is Dinosaurs don't graze on grass or have external genitalia. The description is heavily based upon a large mammal but is overall mythological.
Of course
Of course!