Bible Question (If anyone is interested)

[woody3rd]

I am not a church-going person, but do find myself in many discussions with church-going folk. When I want to throw them for a loop, I ask this question," How come dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible?".

They just stop talking and often walk away from me with a puzzled look on their face.

So, what are your thoughts on that question?

[CSflim]

probably better off in the philosophy board.

To answer your question, I would imagine that any knowledgeable bible reader would be able to find some passage which he could twist into making a subtle refference to the dinosaurs.

[kurty[B]]

I agree with CSflim. Some all knowing Bible student will have some passage that somehow relays this in their weird logic "It's all symbolic".

But aside from that, maybe the fact that the people writing the Bible were busy looking up to the skies, they never thought to look to the ground and ponder such prehistoric existence.

Or, the dinosaurs were killed off when Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden. Remember, no matter how illogical the answer may seem, some bible fanatic can defend any point you toss out to them, but confusing them is always entertainment.

[subnet_rx]

well, the bible actually doesn't say much at all about the 5 days before man was created. And it usually comes down to, how long is a day to God? 1 billion years? 10 billion? who knows.

But, I don't think the best Bible scholar will ever be able to prove that "poof" the earth was just here. Because God wants everyone to believe on faith, not fact.

[CS733t]

The Bible mentions the creature leviathan several times (IE Job 41:1)...which is believed to be a dragon of sorts.

However the battle of "proving" creation is one that will only be won with faith, and faith alone.

[Bust_Action]

Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the Bible because the Bible was written by people who had no idea dinosaurs ever existed, of course.

One of the more amusing crazy fundie jesus-ninja theories I've heard is that after Lucifer was banished from heaven, he and his outcast angels set up a civilization on Earth for a while, until God destroyed it and sent him to hell, and Earth was then given to humans. The dinosaur skeletons we dig up are the remnanents of demons that were Satan's subjects. I got a good laugh out of that one.

[Giltwist]

Aye, leviathan is mentioned, as is behemoth.

[lordjeebus]

A fundamentalist once told me that when God created the Earth several thousand years ago, he created it with dinosaur fossils in the ground. Dinosaurs never existed because the Earth isn't that old.

Yep.

[DrJekyll]

lordjeebus, were you around thousands of years ago to say that it's false? There are plenty of things that we're capable of inferring as logical. However, if I believe in an all-powerful God, how is it such a big stretch to suggest that he could do that if he wanted to? I can't prove it, but you can't technically "prove" anything yourself. Science realizes on testing in order for something to change from hypothesis to theory to law. History isn't exactly an experiment that you can repeat under controlled circumstances.

[SecretMethod70]

From a fundamentalist perspective, there really is no good answer. I've heard people say things like people lived along with dinosaurs (referring to Leviathan as an example of a "dinosaur" being mentioned) and things like that. However, as a Catholic myself, I look at the Bible from a far less literal standpoint when it comes to things like the story of creation and such. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, I can tell you that the story of creation (Adam and Eve, 7 days, etc) is not considered a literal story but rather a story used to express the fundamental truth that a greater being (i.e. God) was behind creation and created everything with a purpose. This is why multiple Popes since Vatican II have stated that it is possible for Big Bang Theory and evolution to coexist with the Catholic beliefs on creation.

Anyways, to sum it up in case I wasn't clear (can't tell, I've been up all night and it's almost 6 AM), the Catholic Church basically looks at the story of Adam and Eve as ultimately just saying "God created everything and eventually man betrayed God's trust." Adam and Eve, the apple, and all that is simply a story to make it more tangible and easier to understand. When the Bible was written it was not at all uncommon for teachings to be told this way. However, in this day and age it IS more uncommon and, thus, we have many who hold more fundamental beliefs and interpret the story of creation in Genesis literally - causing many problems with what we know to be scientific fact.

I hope that was clear

[woody3rd]

Just to throw this in the mix, while I was in the Army, I talked to a chaplin about this and he stated that according to the bible the earth is only 10,000 years old. He believed that any "fossils" that are out there are just man-made items used to discredit the bible. After that comment, I ended the conversation and respectfully removed myself from his presence.

[dy156]

I too think the Adam and Eve story was allegorical in nature, and intended to help explain man's relationship with God to the Isrealites long ago. In addition to the quandry raised by evidence of dinosaurs, How did God's children populate the earth without alot of incest in the beginning? There are two many logical flaws with literal creationism. However, this is not necessarily inconsistent with God's message, or a belief in it. I think God had a hand in creating nature, and one that evolves. I posted a quote in a comment on the philosophy board about how animals' bodies, when they are about to die, release all their stored endorphins. They cannot use them in the future, for they are about to die, and why not make dying a little less painful? Evolution cannot explain this on it's own. What difference would it make in passing on ones genes whether dying were less painful or not?
The eating of the fruit of knowledge represents mankind's questioning of the world around him and the relationship with God that was no longer simply blind acceptance of what was provided, as animals do. (Remember, all dogs go to heaven?)
Instead, now that man was a sentient being, capable of questioning, steps had to be taken to draw closer to God, whether through sacrifice and adherence to God's laws or acceptance of His son's sacrifice for mankind.

I too think that this thread probably belongs on the Philosophy Board, but that is my personal philosophy/theology on the matter.

[Fibrosa]

I've heard the leviathon and behemoth answer, but those are weak, IMO.

Scholars think those references are to hippos and crocodiles.

[CSflim]

You'd think if you were writing the most importrtant book ever written, you would be more careful about making it clear where you were analogising, and when you were speaking literally.
Seems like a rather large over-sight to me, and a potential source of endless confuson.

[Sledge]

Originally posted by woody3rd
I am not a church-going person, but do find myself in many discussions with church-going folk. When I want to throw them for a loop, I ask this question," How come dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible?".

They just stop talking and often walk away from me with a puzzled look on their face.

So, what are your thoughts on that question?

Er. I don't think they walk away because you've trounced them with your infallible logic. I think they're confused by your question because it has nothing to do with the Bible at all. That's like entering a police station and saying "I'd like mine medium-rare, please."

The Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. Was it supposed to? Not many Christians I know deny the existence of dinosaurs. I guess you're talking about young-Earth creationists. But your question won't do anything but annoy the majority of Christians, who don't see what dinosaurs have to do with Christianity as they know and live it.

[CSflim]

Originally posted by lordjeebus
A fundamentalist once told me that when God created the Earth several thousand years ago, he created it with dinosaur fossils in the ground. Dinosaurs never existed because the Earth isn't that old.

Yep.

That's rubbish!
The earth, and everything in it was actually created ten minutes ago.

You were created right in the middle of doing whatever you were doing ten minutes ago, complete with false memories of things that never happened.

it's true.

[lordjeebus]

Originally posted by DrJekyll
lordjeebus, were you around thousands of years ago to say that it's false? There are plenty of things that we're capable of inferring as logical. However, if I believe in an all-powerful God, how is it such a big stretch to suggest that he could do that if he wanted to? I can't prove it, but you can't technically "prove" anything yourself. Science realizes on testing in order for something to change from hypothesis to theory to law. History isn't exactly an experiment that you can repeat under controlled circumstances.

My "yep" did not imply any sort of proof, just my incredulity.

Anyone can come up with any number of explanations for anything that can't be proved wrong. I reserve the right to roll my eyes at a majority of them without being able to prove them incorrect, because they can't all be right and most of them seem arbitrary.

If I live in a world were a personified God created dinosaur fossils along with the Earth to give the illusion that the Earth is much older than it really is, I'd like to reserve my room in Hell now, please.

On a more philisophical note, sort of in line with CSflim, I believe the universe is best thought of as annihilated and reconstructed every instant.

[Tirian]

I've heard some interesting theories.....

1: dinos were just really old large lizards. This theory suggests that lizards etc. just kept on growing as they got older and older, and since the climate and predator list was bilogically different than now, they had MUCH longer lifespans.

2: dinos were the result of human experimentation. this theory suggests that since men live to be up to 10 times as long as we do now, they were able to aquire a lot of knowledge. dinos were a result of mans crossbreeding or genetic alteration experiments, and as such were not saved with the other animals at the time of the flood.

Now these are just a couple of theories that I have heard in the past. No study have I done on these subjects. Thought I'd mention them however in case anyone wanted to discuss.
I'd do some more searching, but am pressed for time right now.
Interesting thread going here.

Here's an interesting link and to save you a mouse click some quotes....

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where2.html

Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" (beh-HEE-moth) and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs (PLEE-see-oh-sors) that may have become extinct (died out).
The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job chapter 40...

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV)

The book of Job is very old, written after the worldwide flood of Noah's time and probably about 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back.

The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Behemoth tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars--one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world.

After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot about them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!

The "leviathan" the Bible talks about in Job 41 is described as the greatest creature in the sea. Unlike a crocodile or fish, it was useless to try to catch a leviathan with hooks, harpoons or anything else. "Nothing on earth is his equal--a creature without fear" (Job 41:33, NIV).

What was a leviathan? The large size, strong jaws, great teeth, fast swimming ability and it's protected back and underside all give clues. It could have been a Kronosaurus (KRON-oh-SOR-us) or something like it. This was one of the greatest, most overwhelming animals ever to swim the seas. It was not a true dinosaur, but it was reptile-like and had great, sharp teeth.

It seems these animals were still alive at the time of King David. Psalm 104 says they played where the ships go to and fro. This was probably the Mediterranean Sea.

It is interesting that many reports of "sea serpents" closely match the ancient pliosaurs and mosasaurs. They looked somewhat like huge lizards or crocodiles with flippers or webbed feet. Fossils show their backbones were very flexible. They could probably swim in a snake-like motion.

A creature very much like these was reported during World War I by a German submarine. Captain Georg von Forstner described what happened:

"On July 30, 1915, our U28 torpedoed the British steamer Iberian carrying a rich cargo in the North Atlantic. The steamer sank quickly, the bow sticking almost vertically into the air. When it had gone for about twenty-five seconds there was a violent explosion. A little later pieces of wreckage, and among them a gigantic sea animal (writhing and struggling wildly), was shot out of the water to a height of 60 to 100-feet. At that moment I had with me in the conning tower my officers of the watch, the chief engineer, the navigator, and the helmsman. Simultaneously we all drew one another's attention to this wonder of the seas...we were unable to identify it. We did not have time to take a photograph, for the animal sank out of sight after ten or fifteen seconds. It was about 60-feet long, was like a crocodile in shape and had four limbs with powerful webbed feet and a long tail tapering to a point."

[Fibrosa]

Christian websites are generally pretty bias and dishonest.

As I said, scholars generally attribute leviathon and behemoth to a hippo and a crocodile.

Dino's died 10's of millions of years before man arrived at the scene.

[CSflim]

Originally posted by Fibrosa
Christian websites are generally pretty bias and dishonest.

As I said, scholars generally attribute leviathon and behemoth to a hippo and a crocodile.

Dino's died 10's of millions of years before man arrived at the scene.

were YOU personally around 10's of millions of years ago? No! So you can't make that statement.

Carbon dating!? What are you talking about man! You don't actually expect me to take that seriosuly do you?

/pre-emtive strike

[tecoyah]

Alas we again degrade into the worthless"my god is bigger than your god" bit....Honestly. If anyone is so closed minded as to throw all the reams of scientific data by the wayside because of a book some men wrote thousands of years ago(and has since been translated umteen times), you go right ahead. Just dont be too suprised when the rest of us generally ignore your statements for lack of relevence.

[Giltwist]

I seem to recall hearing about a freshly laid chicken egg carbon dated as being several thousand years old. Anyone know what I am talking about?

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the universe being millions of years old. Keeping in mind that the first five books of the Bible were not written by the participants but by Moses quite a great deal of time later. Oral traditions evolve quickly.

On the other other hand, we used to say diamonds took thousands of years to make, and now we make them in laboratories in hours from peanut butter (or was it just gook that looked like peanut butter?). Who's to say it isn't possible for fossils to be made faster than scientists say.

On the other other other hand, has anyone noticed how Genesis mentions other people of the world at the time when Adam and Eve had only had Cain and Abel? Maybe god made a new brand of human 10,000 years ago and everybody is right. Big Bang and Creation.

It's all just speculation, might as well make it interesting

Peace be with you,
G.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally posted by CSflim
You'd think if you were writing the most importrtant book ever written, you would be more careful about making it clear where you were analogising, and when you were speaking literally.
Seems like a rather large over-sight to me, and a potential source of endless confuson.

If someone was writing specifically for us and knew how we looked at things, yes. But the Bible - especially the Old Testament - started out as oral tradition and was eventually written down. Not to mention, like I said, that at the time it was written that was the norm for writings like it. People expected teachings to have a mix of direct literal instruction and allegorical instruction. Much like when we pick up a fiction book today it doesn't need to say in the beginning "this is fiction," but, instead, we simply know it is fiction because of the way in which it is written.

Originally posted by Sledge
Er. I don't think they walk away because you've trounced them with your infallible logic. I think they're confused by your question because it has nothing to do with the Bible at all. That's like entering a police station and saying "I'd like mine medium-rare, please."

The Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. Was it supposed to? Not many Christians I know deny the existence of dinosaurs. I guess you're talking about young-Earth creationists. But your question won't do anything but annoy the majority of Christians, who don't see what dinosaurs have to do with Christianity as they know and live it.

A very good point. For example, to use myself as an example, I believe that there is intelligent life on other planets (no I don't believe they've ever visited us, but I think it's arrogant to think we're alone in the universe), yet aliens are never mentioned in the Bible. Why? Because they're meaningless. The Bible is a book meant to explain the relationship between God and humans. It is not meant as a history book and that's why people who use it as such run into crazy debates like "where did the dinosaurs come from" and it's not meant as a scientific journal and that's why there's no need to mention aliens, etc. Whether there are aliens or not does not change the fundamental relationship between God and man that the Bible's purpose is to express.

And, yes, I believe the people this thread pertains to are young-earth creationists.

Originally posted by woody3rd
Just to throw this in the mix, while I was in the Army, I talked to a chaplin about this and he stated that according to the bible the earth is only 10,000 years old. He believed that any "fossils" that are out there are just man-made items used to discredit the bible. After that comment, I ended the conversation and respectfully removed myself from his presence.

Good call. That's a pretty rediculous statement in my opinion, and thankfully there are plenty of religions who are not so close-minded to scientific fact as to actually believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. No we can't prove it is or isn't because no one is around, but there's no sense in ignoring what all the clues point to.

Originally posted by Giltwist
I seem to recall hearing about a freshly laid chicken egg carbon dated as being several thousand years old. Anyone know what I am talking about?

I don't, but I do know that carbon dating was found to have a flaw years ago. It turned out that some sort of bacteria or something could create a thin film on objects setting off the dating process. Once that was discovered though it became much more accurate since they can just remove the bacteria. Generally speaking, I believe carbon dating to be accurate, but obviously it is not 100% and should be taken with a grain of salt since, for all we know, there could be some other bacteria that we haven't even noticed sets off the dating yet.

Originally posted by Giltwist
On the other other other hand, has anyone noticed how Genesis mentions other people of the world at the time when Adam and Eve had only had Cain and Abel? Maybe god made a new brand of human 10,000 years ago and everybody is right. Big Bang and Creation.

It's all just speculation, might as well make it interesting

Peace be with you,
G.

That IS interesting - and surprisingly to myself, it's something I had never considered before. Genesis recounting of the creation of the universe and Earth would still have to be allegorical - and I refuse to consider otherwise anyway since I know this was a major instructional method used in the time it was written - but it would allow for Adam & Eve to be a literal truth. However, if God felt the need to create them seperately from the rest of the humans then I highly doubt they would be encouraged or willing to breed with the pre-existing humans. So, no, I don't think it's really a logical possibility. Thanks for making me think about it though - I had never considered that.

Anyways, sorry, I Was thinking out loud there

[Fibrosa]

Originally posted by CSflim
were YOU personally around 10's of millions of years ago? No! So you can't make that statement.

Carbon dating!? What are you talking about man! You don't actually expect me to take that seriosuly do you?

/pre-emtive strike

*Actually* I was around billions of years ago. I was Adam's older brother and I didn't eat the apple. God doesn't mention me much, primarily because back then, just like today, the "bad" celebrities get all the attention.

[Giltwist]

However, if God felt the need to create them seperately from the rest of the humans then I highly doubt they would be encouraged or willing to breed with the pre-existing humans. So, no, I don't think it's really a logical possibility. Thanks for making me think about it though - I had never considered that.

Isn't it part of Jewish tradition to not intermarry? Wasn't that Soloman's downfall?

[shakran]

Originally posted by lordjeebus
A fundamentalist once told me that when God created the Earth several thousand years ago, he created it with dinosaur fossils in the ground. Dinosaurs never existed because the Earth isn't that old.

Yep.

yep, i've heard that one too. They always say the bones were planted to test our faith. That always bugged me because if they really believe that, then they're saying that faith = abject stupidity.

I mean, there's an old saying that if it walks, talks, and craps like a duck, it's most likely a duck. Well, if it's 3 million years old and looks like the fossil of an ancient reptile, it probably is. If god really did plant all these fossils to test our faith, what he's really doing is testing to see if we're stupid enough to be presented with gobs of evidence pointing to one conclusion, yet still believe something else.

2+2 does not equal 5 no matter how strong your faith is.

I guess I just don't like the implication that god's sole purpose in life is to make sure we're stupid. I don't think that's what a higher power would be about at all.

[asudevil83]

Originally posted by shakran
yep, i've heard that one too. They always say the bones were planted to test our faith. That always bugged me because if they really believe that, then they're saying that faith = abject stupidity.

I mean, there's an old saying that if it walks, talks, and craps like a duck, it's most likely a duck. Well, if it's 3 million years old and looks like the fossil of an ancient reptile, it probably is. If god really did plant all these fossils to test our faith, what he's really doing is testing to see if we're stupid enough to be presented with gobs of evidence pointing to one conclusion, yet still believe something else.

2+2 does not equal 5 no matter how strong your faith is.

I guess I just don't like the implication that god's sole purpose in life is to make sure we're stupid. I don't think that's what a higher power would be about at all.

you're looking at this pretty much the same way i am. why would God create the remains of dead lizard-like animals? i just dont see the logic.

it serves us no purpose to have the "fossils" of some animal. sure, it gives us something to research, imagine, and speculate. but if they never really existed, then all research, images, and speculations would be pointless.

[Bamrak]

Although I'm not really sure where I stand, history has many instances of dragons in both legends and story. Dinosaur is a word that is a fairly recent addition to the English dictionary, much like prehistoric. If one was translating the Bible during the time, Dragon could very well mean our current 'Dinosaur' word. Given that our meanings for words change, it's very plausable that this is the case. Here are some entries from the Bible I found on the Net relating to Dragons:

References to Dragons (probably Dinosaurs).

Deuteronomy 32:33 their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Job 30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

Psalms 44:19 Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.

Psalms 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Psalms 148:7 ¶ Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:

Isaiah 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Isaiah 34:13 And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

Isaiah 35:7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

Isaiah 43:20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Jeremiah 9:11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.

Jeremiah 10:22 Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.

Jeremiah 14:6 And the wild did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass.

Jeremiah 49:33 And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

Jeremiah 51:37 And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.

Micah 1:8 ¶ Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and : I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.

Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

[Bamrak]

Originally posted by tecoyah
Alas we again degrade into the worthless"my god is bigger than your god" bit....Honestly. If anyone is so closed minded as to throw all the reams of scientific data by the wayside because of a book some men wrote thousands of years ago(and has since been translated umteen times), you go right ahead. Just dont be too suprised when the rest of us generally ignore your statements for lack of relevence.

Funny. I read Sun Zsu the other day again, it was pretty good and still had practical uses and was relevent..and it was written long ago in a land far away as well.


If you are so closed minded as to not look at ALL the data, you probably should be ignored for your lack of relevance as well. There's evidence for and against all of the above claims. I once read an article about how a group of scientist using carbon dating took samples from both legs of an animal and the dates differed by 10,000+ years ( I don't remember the exact number, but it was enough to raise an eyebrow at).

I don't consider myself a Christian, yet even I'm appalled by your lack of open mindedness. I think those of us that take the stances such as yourself are the ones that should be in fear of ignorance by a lack of relevance. Many people here will go one side or the other.. The nice thing about TFP is that they WON'T be ignored and all their thoughts will be heard as equal.

With one side of the information, nearly anyone can be right all of the time.

[raeanna74]

Originally posted by Giltwist
Isn't it part of Jewish tradition to not intermarry? Wasn't that Soloman's downfall?

According to the Bible there were not more than one race technically until after the flood and the Tower of Babel. At the tower of Babel was when the different languages began. There was no Jewish Law until Exodus and Leviticus which were events AFTER the flood.

Job the book in which the Leviathon and Behemoth are mentioned is sometimes considered one of the oldest books of the Bible and occuring prior to the Jewish captivity in Egypt which would mean prior to the Jewish Laws.

Tradition would not have been formed at this point then.

This excerpt from the book of Job does not sound like a crocodile to me. This one sounds a bit big. "Behold now the Behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron... Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not; he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes; his nose pierceth through snares."
-Job 40:15-18, 23-24 (KJV)

It seems to me that this discussion has somewhat degraded into a question of the validity of the Bible even though it was a simple question as to a certain subject being contained or not contained therein.

The Bible does mention creatures that can be interpreted as being dinosaurs or dragons. Since no one was there to see them we do not know exactly what they were talking about or if it was even just metaphor. The fact of it is that most of the Bible, except for Genesis, was written post flood (as recorded in the Bible) and it's possible that there were no dinosaurs, or not many remaining, by that time. Why would anyone record much about a creature that may have been extinct and would have to be known of mostly by verbal history?

[mtsgsd]

Has anyone seen the show on Discovery about the Bible and how it was made? Apparently the new testament is an assembly of "books" that were hand picked and edited by the governments involved that created them. In other words, the what the bible was depended on what country you were in. An example given was one country's version that left out a particular book, because it made Christ sound "too Jewish" as the King hated Jews. The modern bible is an assembly of heavily edited documents chosen to fit the tastes of the publishers who wrote it. Even the experts from the Vatican were acknowledging this on the show. Blew my mind.

[Giltwist]

raeanna: What of the nephilim? These seem to be different. Why would the Bible mention them separately from men?

[smooth]

Originally posted by Giltwist
raeanna: What of the nephilim? These seem to be different. Why would the Bible mention them separately from men?

Some people claim that the nephilim were angels, aliens, or heros. Take your pick, I guess, but they are differentiated because they did something wrong.

IIRC, Goliath was a descendant of the nephilim/human intermixing.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Fibrosa
Christian websites are generally pretty bias and dishonest.

As I said, scholars generally attribute leviathon and behemoth to a hippo and a crocodile.

Dino's died 10's of millions of years before man arrived at the scene.

Interesting perspective.

Anyway, why should we think that behemoth refers to a hippo when they don't have tails?

Despite whatever dishonesty you are attributing to the site based on its religious affiliation rather than the evidence presented, I think either you or the scholars you cite are incorrect. Please post the location where you learned the scholarly position on the subject and I'll take it up with them.

[Fibrosa]

Originally posted by smooth
Interesting perspective.

Anyway, why should we think that behemoth refers to a hippo when they don't have tails?

Despite whatever dishonesty you are attributing to the site based on its religious affiliation rather than the evidence presented, I think either you or the scholars you cite are incorrect. Please post the location where you learned the scholarly position on the subject and I'll take it up with them.

Because the passage doesn't actually say that behemoth had a tail like a cedar, it says that the tail swung like a cedar. Check out Strongs definition of the word.

Heck, some believe it refers to the creatures genitalia Talkorigins.



Also note that the behemoth can hide in reeds, which means it's tail couldn't literally be as large as a cedar, now could it?

[SecretMethod70]

Originally posted by mtsgsd
Has anyone seen the show on Discovery about the Bible and how it was made? Apparently the new testament is an assembly of "books" that were hand picked and edited by the governments involved that created them. In other words, the what the bible was depended on what country you were in. An example given was one country's version that left out a particular book, because it made Christ sound "too Jewish" as the King hated Jews. The modern bible is an assembly of heavily edited documents chosen to fit the tastes of the publishers who wrote it. Even the experts from the Vatican were acknowledging this on the show. Blew my mind.

If you're speaking of the Bible before there were councils to create a united scripture, then yes. However, the current books of the Old Testament were declared inspired at the Council of Jamnia in the year 90 and the books of the New Testament were declared inspired at the Council of Athenasius in the year 367 and upheld at the Council of Carthage in the year 397. Lastly, much of the apocrypha was officially supported as inspired by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546. The apocrypha is a number of books in the Catholic Bible's Old Testament that are no longer included in Jewish scripture. Some forms of Judaism long ago did include them but, obviously, the form that did not reigned supreme. However, they are included as being authoritative in the Catholic Bible.

The point is, while many versions of the Bible have existed, regarding which books are and are not included, the present form of the Bible is something that was decided on through a series of meetings with Church Leaders from many different places. Besides the debate as to whather or not the apocrypha was inspired between Protestants and Catholics, there has not been much debate for a VERY long time as to what book are and are not inspired and what books do and do not belong in the Bible. And the final decisions on the matter were made by Doctors of the Church, not politicians.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Fibrosa
Because the passage doesn't actually say that behemoth had a tail like a cedar, it says that the tail swung like a cedar. Check out Strongs definition of the word.

Heck, some believe it refers to the creatures genitalia Talkorigins.



Also note that the behemoth can hide in reeds, which means it's tail couldn't literally be as large as a cedar, now could it?

lol, you blast the cite then use it as a source.

The original word (the KJV uses moveth while the NIV uses sway) is chaphetes, which means to incline or bend.

The "tail" is actually zanab (zawnawb), which means flapping. It could also mean trunk. It's actually a derivative of zanab (zawnab), which means to cut or curtail--it doesn't indicate whether the end or beginning of an object is referred to.

Thus, it could be referring to an elephant. Judging from the reference to bronze, however, I suggest it's a spaceship .

BTW, the original is that the foliage provides shade--not that anything is hiding among plants, so don't let that rattle you. Have a good one.

[Fibrosa]

Originally posted by smooth
lol, you blast the cite then use it as a source.

The original word (the KJV uses moveth while the NIV uses sway) is chaphetes, which means to incline or bend.

The "tail" is actually zanab (zawnawb), which means flapping. It could also mean trunk. It's actually a derivative of zanab (zawnab), which means to cut or curtail--it doesn't indicate whether the end or beginning of an object is referred to.

Thus, it could be referring to an elephant. Judging from the reference to bronze, however, I suggest it's a spaceship .

BTW, the original is that the foliage provides shade--not that anything is hiding among plants, so don't let that rattle you. Have a good one.

What are you talking about?



In any event, one thing it's not and that's a dinosaur. Which was my whole point anyway.

[the420star]

my question to this group is why?.... whos to say the bible would mention dinasours in anyway shape or form. The bible is a history of the people of the world... so who is to say the writters felt any reason to include any other information about the world. also i would agree, that anyone with any amount of biblical knowlage could find a passage relating to this ?

[mtsgsd]

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
The point is, while many versions of the Bible have existed, regarding which books are and are not included, the present form of the Bible is something that was decided on through a series of meetings with Church Leaders from many different places. Besides the debate as to whather or not the apocrypha was inspired between Protestants and Catholics, there has not been much debate for a VERY long time as to what book are and are not inspired and what books do and do not belong in the Bible. And the final decisions on the matter were made by Doctors of the Church, not politicians.

Sorry, just got around to reading the reply. I stand (or sit) corrected. I have to say that my point of interest was the involvement of people in deciding what to include be they politicians or not. It's hard for me to believe in something so firmly when human beings were involved.