I answered the question, whether dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, with No.
Here is the question, my answer was deleted. After my answer, the question was extended, that not just the word 'dinosaurs' is of interest, but whether there are animals, described in the bible, with
the same characteristics as dinosaurs, but wihtout specifying which characteristics are meant.
Please note, that dinosaurs have a lot of characteristics, which they share with today animals, so the question seems very imprecise at first glance. Part of the dinosaurs are flying dinosaurs, and nowadays birds are followers of those dinosaurs.
And of course birds are described in the bible.
Interestingly, 35 minutes after my answer Sven answered the question in a similar way. He first talks about the term 'dinosaurs', which was invented 1842, but the question was not about the term, and since the bible was not written in English, this information is misleading and only a red herring.
Then he mentions 3 places in the bible, which talk about different animals. This can of course never be a prove. If some part of the bible does not talk about dinosaurs, that doesn't mean that no other part of the bible does.
You can mention shepherds and fish, bullocks and donkeys, which aren't dinosaurs as well. It doesn't prove, that the bible does not mention dinosaurs, of course. In fact, the bible talks about fish, shepherds, bullock and donkeys, and they share attributes with dinosaurs, of course. Not to mention birds, like the pigeon.
It is just a red herring, to pretend that you disprove something, and it worked - the answer got 9 upvotes. Then there is a 3rd red herring, the findings of bones in China.
almost 2000 years ago. (The cited page talks about
at least 2000 years ago). But of course, China itself isn't mentioned in the bible, and was unknown in the antique, jewish culture. So which influence shall the finding of bones in China, over 2000 years ago have? Chewbacca.
But there are 5 citations in the answer, so it looks at first glance, like research, while all it is, is red herring.
But my answer was closed as
not up to the quality standards expected on SE sites in general..
More so, Caleb wrote:
The first claim would need some sort of citation, as it stands it's just a snide remark.
The first claim was:
No, they aren't. The fossils were found later.
Reading it as a snide remark is just happening inside your brain, Caleb - it isn't. But to prove the absence of a claim, I would need to cite the whole bible - a single sentence would only fit, if they were mentioned in the bible.
Okay - there could be an explicit claim in the bible, that dinosaurs aren't subject of the bible, but such a disclaimer would be self contradicting, wouldn't it?
And it woulnd't be the first and only place in the bible, where one sentence contradicts another one.
To my surprise, the reasoning about closing the question continues:
The second part is invalid anyway as pointed out be several folks that that particular word is newer than the bible, but the creature is surely older.`
So my claim, that fossils where found later, than the writing of the bible are invalid? So did the Chinese write the bible? Or the Greek? And when was the bible written? The younger part about 70 AD, but the older part is much older. That several folks pointed out that the word was invented much later is a weak disprove, that the fossils where found later - does he mean, that the fossils were found 5000 BC, but then the people waited 6840 years, to invent a name for them? Or, that from the age of the creatures, 235 to 65.5 million years ago, that they couldn't have been found later than the writing of the bible?
This part is very confuse.
My short answer provoked many comments, which got plenty of upvotes, but the answer itself was 1 times more downvoted than upvoted - I'm not able to find out, how many upvotes it received, but I remember some reputation gain.
However, the comments are quiet interesting, and are now hidden from the public. Especially interesting for me was, that the questioner, Jonathon Byrd, admitted in the comments, that he takes more writings than the bible literally, for example German myths:
@userunknown you are ASSUMING that dinosaurs lived before the german legends. I see those legends as evidence of dinosaurs. What evidence do you have that they are NOT the same?
The comments are also interesting insofar, as
wax eagle mentions the sea monster there, before Sven imports them into his answer, only to conclude, that they are irrelevant.
Such YEC positions aren't commonly held in Europe; only very, very few people over here take the bible literally. In my opinion, if you don't stand dissent, you should not take your faith to a public argument.
My answer is short, precise and to the point. The deletion is an unfriendly act, escorted with bad arguments. I mistrust these arguments therefore, because I've seen Caleb as a reasonable, rational, well arguing person on other pages on SE.