|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login | |
|
Dinosaurs - 7/1/2008 10:19:37 PM
|
|
|
MENU4EVR
Posts: 38
Joined: 7/1/2008
From: Sea-town
Status: offline
|
Hello I am new here an after reading for several days through many diffrent forums have come up with some questions. Now I am still fairly A new believer and so myabe the answeres are somewhere i may have overlooked but what does the bible say about dinosaurs?
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/1/2008 11:27:41 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1741
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Technically speaking, the Bible never explicitly mentions dinosaurs by name. However, some people believe that when Scripture mentions certain animals (the behemoth and the leviathan come to mind), it is talking about some form of dinosaur, or at least a dinosaur-type creature. However, even if those creatures aren't dinosaurs, there's nothing in the Bible that goes against the idea of dinosaurs. It's very possible that there could have been baby dinosaurs on Noah's ark, and that their extinction was ultimately caused by over-hunting, or the global climate change that happened after the great flood.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key, A field without a fence. You've made a holy fool of me, And I've thanked you ever since. - Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/2/2008 12:12:03 AM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SAVDFRMDRKNES Hello I am new here an after reading for several days through many diffrent forums have come up with some questions. Now I am still fairly A new believer and so myabe the answeres are somewhere i may have overlooked but what does the bible say about dinosaurs? The website, Answers in Genesis, has some great articles on this. Here are links to some of those articles: Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Dinosaurs and the Bible
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/2/2008 7:33:18 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SAVDFRMDRKNES Hello I am new here an after reading for several days through many diffrent forums have come up with some questions. Now I am still fairly A new believer and so myabe the answeres are somewhere i may have overlooked but what does the bible say about dinosaurs? Nothing. The descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan do not match any description of a dinosaur. Any answer to the contrary is misinterpretation and speculation.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/2/2008 10:40:55 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 874
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
The descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan do not match any description of a dinosaur. However, for those who choose not to keep our head in the sand HERE is an excellent article about dinosaurs and the Bible. Also THIS is an excellent website.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46 Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/2/2008 11:26:43 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24 * It “eats grass like an ox.” Therefore it is not a dinosaur. quote:
* “He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.” Therefore it is not a dinosaur, especially not the suggested Brachiosaurus which was much too large to lie under lotus trees or hide in reeds. quote:
# Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26—get the exact sense by reading them yourself). # Leviathan is a “reptile [a] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1) Therefore it is not a dinosaur. There were marine reptiles in the Jurassic age e.g. mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, but they were not dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/2/2008 9:05:05 PM
|
|
|
MENU4EVR
Posts: 38
Joined: 7/1/2008
From: Sea-town
Status: offline
|
Wow! Thank you! I never thought of that until I read those links. That is something I would like to show to my kids as well and any non believer that may ask that questoin. Thanks so much! :)
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/2/2008 11:11:03 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SAVDFRMDRKNES Wow! Thank you! I never thought of that until I read those links. That is something I would like to show to my kids as well and any non believer that may ask that questoin. Thanks so much! :) You would just prove to the non-believer that you don't know anything about dinosaurs, but are ready to swallow any pseudoscientific claptrap without checking it as long as it has a "Christian" label on it.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/3/2008 4:32:29 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey However, for those who choose not to keep our head in the sand HERE is an excellent article about dinosaurs and the Bible. Also THIS is an excellent website. Only someone with their head in the sand would miss the obvious mammalian features found in Behemoth. They include eating grass like an ox (dinosaurs did not chew on grass, they swallowed it whole and used gastroliths in the gut to grind up the grass), the presence of a navel, the presence of external genitalia. All of these are mammalian features, not dinosaurian features. The "tail" is a eupemism for an erect . . . well, this is a public place so I will spare you the details.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 2:24:23 AM
|
|
|
Raptorman
Posts: 117
Joined: 9/21/2005
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
Ugh. Answers in Genesis already did a technical article about Behemoth, and apparently "tail" means not "penis," but "tail" (big surprise, I know). "Navel" may have been a word used metaphorically, though I could be wrong about that. "Tail" is likely not metaphorical, due to the AiG article. Believe me, I don't agree with everything they say, but the article is worth a look: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp As for chewing: the passage could be only saying that the animal "eats" grass, sharing the diet of an ox. And even if the animal is said in the original Hebrew to be "chewing," it would depend on the dinosaur species. I forget if any species could actually move their jaws side to side for a chewing motion, but some dinosaurs had batteries of teeth which could grind vegetation to a pulp (hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, for sure, though I'll need to check and see if any large sauropods had this trait). Now, as a comment to the OP and Unclemonkey: Leviathan, going by the description in Job 41, is a very unusual animal. To be sure, I think it was a real creature, but it seems to be something entirely different from a dinosaur. The marine reptiles (plesiosaurs, icthyosaurs, mosasaurs, etc.) were not actually dinosaurs; the dinosauria all had certain characteristics which marine reptiles don't share: a gentle S-curve in the neck, legs pointing directly down from the body, Saurischian or Ornithischian hips, etc. So if Leviathan was a marine reptile (it lived in the ocean, according to several Scripture verses), it does not fall under the category of dinosaurs, specifically. However, even then, the fossil record of marine reptiles seems to not contain any creature even coming close to the Leviathan. When I look through the species we have discovered, I don't really see animals that strike terror into the deepest corners of my heart. I just smile and say, "Heh, that's prety cool." Leviathan was apparently something that made even warriors afraid. Even the largest of whales can be hunted, and so I don't think a 50-foot Mosasaurus would be a great difficulty, nor a creature which "regards iron as straw and bronze as rotten wood." And for that reason, I think that either Leviathan is an unknown species of marine reptile, or it is something wholly unlike any form of life we have yet discovered on this planet. Just throwing in my 2 cents, guys. Hopefully these words can be of some use. Thanks for your time.
_____________________________
"Satan himself trembles when the weakest saint is on his knees." -Unknown "All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf, "Lord of the Rings"
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 7:04:07 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raptorman Ugh. Answers in Genesis already did a technical article about Behemoth, and apparently "tail" means not "penis," but "tail" (big surprise, I know). "Navel" may have been a word used metaphorically, though I could be wrong about that. "Tail" is likely not metaphorical, due to the AiG article. Believe me, I don't agree with everything they say, but the article is worth a look: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp As for chewing: the passage could be only saying that the animal "eats" grass, sharing the diet of an ox. And even if the animal is said in the original Hebrew to be "chewing," it would depend on the dinosaur species. I forget if any species could actually move their jaws side to side for a chewing motion, but some dinosaurs had batteries of teeth which could grind vegetation to a pulp (hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, for sure, though I'll need to check and see if any large sauropods had this trait). Now, as a comment to the OP and Unclemonkey: Leviathan, going by the description in Job 41, is a very unusual animal. To be sure, I think it was a real creature, but it seems to be something entirely different from a dinosaur. The marine reptiles (plesiosaurs, icthyosaurs, mosasaurs, etc.) were not actually dinosaurs; the dinosauria all had certain characteristics which marine reptiles don't share: a gentle S-curve in the neck, legs pointing directly down from the body, Saurischian or Ornithischian hips, etc. So if Leviathan was a marine reptile (it lived in the ocean, according to several Scripture verses), it does not fall under the category of dinosaurs, specifically. However, even then, the fossil record of marine reptiles seems to not contain any creature even coming close to the Leviathan. When I look through the species we have discovered, I don't really see animals that strike terror into the deepest corners of my heart. I just smile and say, "Heh, that's prety cool." Leviathan was apparently something that made even warriors afraid. Even the largest of whales can be hunted, and so I don't think a 50-foot Mosasaurus would be a great difficulty, nor a creature which "regards iron as straw and bronze as rotten wood." And for that reason, I think that either Leviathan is an unknown species of marine reptile, or it is something wholly unlike any form of life we have yet discovered on this planet. Just throwing in my 2 cents, guys. Hopefully these words can be of some use. Thanks for your time. So AiG seems to have no problem stretching and massaging the word of God to mean something other than what it plainly says when it suits their worldview? Hmm.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 7:33:31 AM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, for those who choose not to keep our head in the sand HERE is an excellent article about dinosaurs and the Bible. Personally I prefer to take my head out of the sand by standing upright and firmly observing reality. For example: The Bible really does not seem to discuss "infallibly" dinosaurs in Job 40, as claimed by AIG. It is patently obvious that God is speaking, at least in part, metaphorically and symbolically, not literally. For one thing, in Job 41 God goes on to describe a creature which breathes fire. If you're going to claim that Job 40 is evidence of dinosaurs, you're going to have to explain to me what historical or present animal species fits the Job 41 description of, for lack of a better term, appears to be a non-flying, fire-breathing dragon. In answer to the original post: in my opinion, the Bible is not a scientific text but a spiritual and theological one. It is not intended by God to teach us about scientific things. It does not mention dinosaurs, nor, I think, would there be any reason to.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 8:42:48 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1960
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raptorman Ugh. Answers in Genesis already did a technical article about Behemoth, and apparently "tail" means not "penis," but "tail" (big surprise, I know). "Navel" may have been a word used metaphorically, though I could be wrong about that. "Tail" is likely not metaphorical, due to the AiG article. Believe me, I don't agree with everything they say, but the article is worth a look: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp That article doesn't say anything about "tail" meaning anything other than "tail." -Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 9:34:04 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SAVDFRMDRKNES Hello I am new here an after reading for several days through many diffrent forums have come up with some questions. Now I am still fairly A new believer and so myabe the answeres are somewhere i may have overlooked but what does the bible say about dinosaurs? There are a few passages in Isaiah that mention the Leviathan. He was either amphibious since he's mentioned as a sea and land animal, or Lviatihan is a general term describing large beasts. Dinosaurs are a made-up name from the 19th century at the time of Jules Verne when people started making up their own history. That began the age of science fiction.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 9:45:08 AM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are a few passages in Isaiah that mention the Leviathan. He was either amphibious since he's mentioned as a sea and land animal, or Lviatihan is a general term describing large beasts. Dinosaurs are a made-up name from the 19th century at the time of Jules Verne when people started making up their own history. That began the age of science fiction. Would you describe a creature that breathes fire as being science fiction? Or at least fantasy, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 10:58:39 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raptorman Ugh. Answers in Genesis already did a technical article about Behemoth, and apparently "tail" means not "penis," but "tail" (big surprise, I know). "Tail" was used as a euphemism elsewhere in the bible and it fits better as a couplet with the obvious reference to the "stones of the loins" which was translated as testicles in the Greek Septuagint. quote:
As for chewing: the passage could be only saying that the animal "eats" grass, sharing the diet of an ox. And even if the animal is said in the original Hebrew to be "chewing," it would depend on the dinosaur species. I forget if any species could actually move their jaws side to side for a chewing motion, but some dinosaurs had batteries of teeth which could grind vegetation to a pulp (hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, for sure, though I'll need to check and see if any large sauropods had this trait). You are correct on this one. I will retract my earlier statement. ". . . usually have blunt teeth that are good for stripping vegetation (leaves, twigs, etc.). Some also have flat teeth for grinding tough plant fibers. Many herbivores have cheek pouches in which they can store food for a while. " http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/anatomy/Diet.shtml Also, it seems to be a bit of a reach to expect these beasts to be real in the first place. They are give obvious mythical abilities. They are on par with Bigfoot or Nessie.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 7:22:50 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico quote:
ORIGINAL: SAVDFRMDRKNES Hello I am new here an after reading for several days through many diffrent forums have come up with some questions. Now I am still fairly A new believer and so myabe the answeres are somewhere i may have overlooked but what does the bible say about dinosaurs? There are a few passages in Isaiah that mention the Leviathan. He was either amphibious since he's mentioned as a sea and land animal, or Lviatihan is a general term describing large beasts. Dinosaurs are a made-up name from the 19th century at the time of Jules Verne when people started making up their own history. That began the age of science fiction. Carico--just a question--have you ever been to a Natural History Museum, or even the new Creationist museum? What name would you give all the exhibited very large animals which are long extinct? Regards, Ian Edit: I missed out Carico's paragraph in the quote
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 11:01:25 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico Paleontologists don't hide the fact that they construct animals from bones they find or borrow from other exhibits. They also use plastic and glue to glue them together into what they imagine these animals would have looked like if they existed. There's no way to prove that those bones all came from the same body. Absolutely none. Even forensic scientists can't tell if the bones they find in one area came from the same body without DNA to prove it. And since scientists dismiss the flood simply because it's in the bible, even though over 200 ancient cultures have given accounts of a global flood where only one family survived, then they don't even take into account that an area of scattered bones could have been from numerous animals and humans that washed up together in a basin. But since their goal is to disprove the bible, then if they find both animal and human bones, they claim that half-men- half apes once lived. That's another excellent example of leaping to the wrong conclusions based on what one finds. So those exhibits are called artwork, not science. Are you actually a Christian? (I'm not, just to clarify.) We cannot prove that God inspired Moses et al to write the Bible. Is that a piece of artwork too? I won't bother challenging your unsupported claims since you never respond to direct questions anyway ... Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 11:09:03 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico Paleontologists don't hide the fact that they construct animals from bones they find or borrow from other exhibits. They also use plastic and glue to glue them together into what they imagine these animals would have looked like if they existed. There's no way to prove that those bones all came from the same body. Absolutely none. Even forensic scientists can't tell if the bones they find in one area came from the same body without DNA to prove it. And since scientists dismiss the flood simply because it's in the bible, even though over 200 ancient cultures have given accounts of a global flood where only one family survived, then they don't even take into account that an area of scattered bones could have been from numerous animals and humans that washed up together in a basin. But since their goal is to disprove the bible, then if they find both animal and human bones, they claim that half-men- half apes once lived. That's another excellent example of leaping to the wrong conclusions based on what one finds. So those exhibits are called artwork, not science. Are you actually a Christian? (I'm not, just to clarify.) We cannot prove that God inspired Moses et al to write the Bible. Is that a piece of artwork too? I won't bother challenging your unsupported claims since you never respond to direct questions anyway ... Regards, Ian That's false. I answered your question about the exhibits in the museums. You can browse online to see that scientists do indeed borrow bones from other models for their exhibits. And God has made his existence plain through the miraculous design of every living thing. The degree of irrationality to which unbelievers go to deny that design make the events in the bible look like everyday events! Apes cannot turn into people in reality. They never have and they never will. And dinosaurs were invented in the 19th century by constructing sculpture using a variety of bones from many different animals. And that's why there are zero accounts of any ancient people talking about dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 11:38:19 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico That's false. I answered your question about the exhibits in the museums. You can browse online to see that scientists do indeed borrow bones from other models for their exhibits. And God has made his existence plain through the miraculous design of every living thing. The degree of irrationality to which unbelievers go to deny that design make the events in the bible look like everyday events! Apes cannot turn into people in reality. They never have and they never will. And dinosaurs were invented in the 19th century by constructing sculpture using a variety of bones from many different animals. And that's why there are zero accounts of any ancient people talking about dinosaurs. We cannot prove that God inspired Moses et al to write the Bible. Is that a piece of artwork too? Funny how you say that there are zero accounts of any ancient people talking about dinosaurs. Where does that leave Leviathan? Edit: by the way, here's an article about a Creationist group who un-earthed a complete skeleton of a dinosaur: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27686
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/9/2008 11:54:13 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico That's false. I answered your question about the exhibits in the museums. You can browse online to see that scientists do indeed borrow bones from other models for their exhibits. And God has made his existence plain through the miraculous design of every living thing. The degree of irrationality to which unbelievers go to deny that design make the events in the bible look like everyday events! Apes cannot turn into people in reality. They never have and they never will. And dinosaurs were invented in the 19th century by constructing sculpture using a variety of bones from many different animals. And that's why there are zero accounts of any ancient people talking about dinosaurs. We cannot prove that God inspired Moses et al to write the Bible. Is that a piece of artwork too? Funny how you say that there are zero accounts of any ancient people talking about dinosaurs. Where does that leave Leviathan? Edit: by the way, here's an article about a Creationist group who un-earthed a complete skeleton of a dinosaur: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27686 Leviathan is spelled; "leviathan" not, "dinosaur." Leviathans were never said to have roamed the earth for millions, billions or a gazillion years either. Once again, dinosaur is a name made up by people to the 20th century to make a name for themselves by claiming they found a creature that no one else ever heard of. Inf act, as i already ,mentioned, one of the biggest criteria of the moder-day scientists is to make up events in history that no one has ever seen or heard of. That's called science fiction, not science. You first have to understand the bible to claim to refute it. So until you yourself know the history of the Jews, you aren't qualified to claim that Moses is a lair when he said he heard from God. So his words stand as true until you can prove him wrong. Sorry. But it's not hard at all to prove the theory of evolution wrong. All one needs to do is observe what animals and humans breed in reality and have a basic understanding of the birds and the bees. So since you believe theories that contradict reality, then you're not qualified to criticize the bible.
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs - 7/10/2008 7:16:09 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico You first have to understand the bible to claim to refute it. So until you yourself know the history of the Jews, you aren't qualified to claim that Moses is a lair when he said he heard from God. Possibly the most ironic statement you have made so far. Here, lets fix this: "You first have to understand evolution to claim to refute it. So until you yourself know the the theory of evolution, you aren't qualified to claim that Darwin was a lair/atheist conspirator/hates god when he proposed the theory."
|
|
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
 | | |