dinosaurs

If in the bible it says that the lion and other animals lived together and ate grass, how do we explain the Dinosaurs that hunted other animals? The other thing was, how come the bible does not mention the dinosaurs?

Thanks in advance for any help with my questions.

“If in the bible it says that the lion and other animals lived together and ate grass, how do we explain the Dinosaurs that hunted other animals?”
I don’t understand this question…What is there to explain. Animals eat other animals for food. That is how God designed them. Lions hunt other animals. Cats hunt mice. My dog tries to eat squirrels…etc. etc. Dinosaurs ate other animals. Just like animals today eat other animals. That is way God designed animals.

Genesis 1:24-25

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures THAT MOVE ALONG THE GROUND, AND WILD ANIMALS, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

The Bible is not a Biolgy book, why is the Bible required to list all of the animals that God Created …We are shown that God created the animals. Dinousaurs count as creatures that moved along the ground, and they are a kind of wild animal. They are not excluded from the Bible in the story of creation. They are part of God’s creation based on the fact that God created them.

It said He created all of the animals. Why are dinosaurs relevant? They existed before man. There were many species of animals that existed before man that didn’t when man came around, the Bible doesn’t mention them either. The Bible isn’t a scientific text book, the OT’s it’s main purpose is to tell the history of how God interacted with the people of Israel.

In the creation story, humans and all animals were herbivorous (vegetarian/vegan):
Genesis 1:29-31 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
In today’s first reading, Isaiah’s prophecy looks forward to another time when there will be no killing:
Isaiah 11:6-9

Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
the calf and the young lion shall browse together,
with a little child to guide them.
The cow and the bear shall be neighbors,
together their young shall rest;
the lion shall eat hay like the ox.
The baby shall play by the cobra’s den,
and the child lay his hand on the adder’s lair.
There shall be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD,
as water covers the sea.
I am not sure if this addresses your question about dinosaurs. The Bible is not a science book.

First, DO NOT LISTEN TO CREATIONISTS!

Now, I believe when the Bible talks about certain animals, commonly thought of as
predators, eating grass, it’s more a message of peace, an allegory. We can’t take
the Bible literally at every turn, otherwise we’d be cutting off our hands and pluck-
ing out our eyes which lead us to sin.

God did not the lion or alligator or wolf deadly sharp teeth so as to eat plants only.

God also did not tell us about the Heliocentric Solar System, the galaxies, etc, nor
does the Bible even talk about the ancient people who went into the Americas dur–
ing the Ice Age. Such information is irrelevant to our relationship with God.

The Bible is not designed to tell us about every single little fact, nor does it speak
everywhere in terms of factual data and so forth, but its only purpose is to preach
Truth and bring us closer to God.

Now when it comes to dinosaurs, those great beasts died out millions of
yeas ago, unless of course you consider as many scholars do that birds
are technically in fact dinosaurs. But back to the large creatures millions
of years ago, what good would it have done between us and God for the
Bible to talk about way back then? We’d know more, yes, but it would
not be about God then.

I warn you not to listen to Creationists, because their faith is dependent on the
idea that if the Bible is not 100% literal fact then there can’t be a God. Such is
a BIG mistake, for ONE they miss out on the point of the Bible, TWO the Bible
stops becoming the Word of God and becomes more like a science textbook,
and THREE Creationists (in order to prove the Bible as 100% literal fact) must
resort to a very dishonest and indigent form of false science.

Oh, come on! :rolleyes:

Not every person who subscribes to the Creation theory thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

How you be Catholic and not believe in Intelligent Design?

The Bible isn’t a science book. This is a problem for Protestants. It blows my mind that Catholics of all people have these kinds of arguments.

Yeah, thought there may be a few Creationists who still hold on to 6000 years, many realize
that they can’t prove it, so they widen their margins. There’s a special group going for 10,000
years, not like they’re going to prove it.

Now I believe in Intelligent Design, but one even more intelligent than the Creationist model.
I say “Creationist Model” referring to the MODERN literalist view be imposed into the Bible.
What I believe in is that there is a Creator who created a complex creation, still not greater
than God, but still even more wondrous than we could ever comprehend. Evolution was and
is being driven by God, it’s not all random chance.

Even the Catholic Church in its Humani Generis is allowing belief in evolution, though it holds
no absolute/conclusive position on the matter. I don’t mind either if people take the Bible as
100% literal or not, but if one begins to question, that is where faith is in trouble. Either the
skeptic believes the the Bible as 100% Literal, Believes Evolution and still has faith, or be-
comes an pessimistic atheist as a result of concluding that the Bible isn’t 100% Literal. I
personally have a problem with the third result and blame the “radical Creationist” move-
ment for allowing this false dichotomy to take place.

Believe all literal? Okay. Claim to have scientific proof destroying evolution and support Creationism? NOT OKAY.

Let’s be fair, I do believe that there is a significant
number of Protestants who are smarter than that.

Thank you for all your replies, they are very much appreciated.

@ Berylios. It did answer my question.

@ Judas. Ha ha. Is it that obvious I have been listening to creationists. Although I am not 100% agreed on everything they say they do have some good points and IMO fills some of the gaps.

When you say the bible should not be taken literally in regards to the meaning of the animals living together and not eating meat. Why then did Adam and Eve and there families start to wear fir and eat meat?

If the bible should not be taken literally, why do we take certain parts of it literally?

My faith is becoming stronger and I have learnt more on my journey to the catholic but I still have questions which I can’t help but ask and hopefully get the answers I am searching for from people like you guys who take the time to try and answer them.

Many thanks

Jon

The Bible teaches how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. It is the Young Earth Creationests that say that the Earth is 10,000 (or less) :eek: :stuck_out_tongue: years old. Old Earth Creationests have no problem with a 4.5 billion year old Earth. :):slight_smile:

Adam & Eve themselves may not be literal people, but let’s assume they
are. There is no absolute definite statement that they did NOT eat meat.
I really haven’t heard that idea of “not eating meat in the beginning” any-
where outside of Oahspe (New Age-y Bible in 1882) and maybe possibly
the Gnostic religion of Manichaeism. Who knows though.

If the Bible suggests that the Earth existed before the Sun Moon & even Stars,
but we have scientific data confirming to the contrary, that the Sun Moon & ES-
PECIALLY Stars pre-existed the Earth (and its plant life), then it is safe to say
that maybe that part of Genesis wasn’t intended to be literal.

If the Bible says that the first humans existed in Mesopotamia (around the
Tigris/Euphrates), but we have physical evidence showing that humans be-
gan in central Africa, we can’t argue the evidence then insist that the Bible
was being perfectly factual and not allegorical.

If we get accounts of kings and princes and prophets and wars etc, we can
logically take them as literal events. Such can be supported by archeology
and other fields of study. If THEN we read about a flood covering the whole
of the Earth for less than a year, EVEN LESS THAN A YEAR, we should
then be able to find geological evidence for that, which we do not. Doesn’t
that suggest the story is NOT True? No, just not Factual, there is in fact
a difference. When Creationists point to the Grand Canyon and say that
it proves the Flood of Noah DID happen, that’s just sad, because smart
people know that the Grand Canyon is made of rock so hard that such
a short quick rush of water (even a LOT of water) couldn’t just erode it
like the some Creationists say it would.[size=5][size=5][size=5]
[/size][/size][/size][RIGHT]PS
[size=3]When[size=3]ever I say “Creationi[size=3]sts”, I’m [size=3]not
always talking about ALLof them, [size=3]but
more oft[size=3]en [/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]just the "Kent Hov[size=3]in[/size]d"s of
[size=3]the Mo[size=3]dern Creationist Mo[size=3]vem[size=3]ent. [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[/size][/RIGHT]

This issue will be brought up here constantly. It won’t solve the problem for some.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed

Ok, I will ask the question this way. If in Genesis and Isaiah they mention the virgin birth, how come we take that literally as it strengthens the new testament and confirms the promise?

Does Genesis talk about the virgin birth? (I’m interested, never heard that).

Now how come we take the virgin birth as literal? Because we have the New
Testament confirming for us that such a prophecy has been fulfilled literally.

If real scientists found conclusive evidence confirming
the accounts given in early Genesis, REAL evidence,
not something thrown together by people from the In-
stitute for Creation Research, I could then believe.

The idea is to accept the whole Bible is TRUE, even if it isn’t factually
describing the literal and physical creation through and through, and
understand that the point of the Bible isn’t to accurately describe ev-
erything that can be scientifically known of the world.

If it’s of any comfort, the Big Bang Theory (no not the show - ba-da-daa!), to which Creationists
often bear their fangs, was figured out by a Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest.

       http://www.imanedenbilimadamlari.com/images/george.jpg

Well, one reason is because it does not jive with Thomistic Philosophy.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

Edward Feser talks a lot about this, I believe.

I have no problem with Intelligent Design.

Peace,
Ed

Sorry if I sound silly but I don’t get it. The way I see it is that we either take the bible word for word as Gods word is perfect and the people who spoke his word and then wrote it down were guided by the Holy Spirit. Or we take it as just stories and not literal. We can’t have it both ways especially when people give commentaries on the Bible.

False Dichotomy.
God’s Word in the Bible is Perfect, but since when
was “Not All Literal” equivalent to “Not Perfect” ?

Ok, taking some thing literal and something’s not literally.

Oh and thanks for your time Judas it’s much appreciated as I am new to the faith and I am trying my best to understand things.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.