Dinosaurs and the bible?

reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne

'what was that'? says the lady at 30 secs.
something that came from a dumbass.

She would have found out if she were standing a bit closer.

reply to [url= by DarkNite[/url]

17 Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.

Very deceiving quote you have there, as I've only ever seen it in that passage as

40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

And as we all (should) know, dinosaurs don't have........stones, being reptiles and everything.

/thread

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That is a strange counter argument right there. so following you its to be taken litterally that the tail of this "Dinosaur" was as big/tall/strong as literal a cedar tree?
Google hippopotamus tail and click on pictures. and you will get a pretty good selection of hippo tails,
and some of the less worn ones do resemble the crown of a cedar the way the hair is laid out.
But i guess its waisted on you, as you seem to lack any analytical talent what so ever.
and resort to childish word splitting when argumented against.Bravo.
There you go i just wasted another 10 minutes of my life on a ignorant brainwashed religiontroll.

Originally posted by Curious69
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That is a strange counter argument right there. so following you its to be taken litterally that the tail of this "Dinosaur" was as big/tall/strong as literal a cedar tree?
Google hippopotamus tail and click on pictures. and you will get a pretty good selection of hippo tails,
and some of the less worn ones do resemble the crown of a cedar the way the hair is laid out.
But i guess its waisted on you, as you seem to lack any analytical talent what so ever.
and resort to childish word splitting when argumented against.Bravo.
There you go i just wasted another 10 minutes of my life on a ignorant brainwashed religiontroll.

Wow what a rebuttal, speechless and my Christianity and faith all but fallen.

Oh wait, let me think, try the crtptozoology section to see many different kinds of possible living Dinos.today

As for dinos on the ark, consider small dinos, yes young ones not fully grown.

Your bitterness and arrogance drips like toxin."ignorant brainwashed religiontroll'.

I can believe what ever I want, not what you demand.
2 minutes of my time wasted here.

A hippos tail does not in no way resemble a tree, it resembles a stick.

enjoy your faith

Originally posted by Astyanax
Hippopotamus. Rather obvious, really, when you think about it.

Have you ever seen a hippopotamus?

17 Its tail sways like a cedar;

Would you say a hippo's tail was as big as a cedar tree?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Hippopotamus. Rather obvious, really, when you think about it.

The tail of a Hippopotamus hardly "sways like a cedar".

Nice try, though.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

Either that or mankind has been here far longer than anyone wants to admit.

You hit the nail on the head. I think we have been around for far longer than we are made to believe. And in the past we were more advanced than today. Maybe smarter seeing that our brains are shrinking with time some people say. But that's for another thread I guess. I think man and Dino's coexisted. Who knows for sure? Nobody.

reply to post by danielsil18


I don't know my friend I've never been close enough to a T. rex to make sure it doesn't breath fire.

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by Awen24

 

21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.

What dinosaur throws fire from it's mouth?

That's a difficult question to engage with - and not, as you might suspect, because there aren't dinosaurs that breathed fire, but because that's a difficult deduction to make from a fossil. In fact, let's be honest, with the exception of a few tiny remnants of skin/scale found (which is, in and of itself, evidence that dinosaurs are more recent than evolutionary science would have us believe - tissue can't survive 65 million years), or fossilized impressions of the same, by-and-large, we don't even know what dinosaurs looked like externally, let alone what colour they were etc.

There have been theories about dinosaurs breathing fire (or spitting and igniting a flammable liquid), e.g. parasaurolophus - and that's just one example. Further examples can be found here: www.trueauthority.com...


For me, though, the most compelling evidence for the idea that humans and dinosaurs coexisted is the fact that our collective memory has retained knowledge of them. If humans and dinosaurs were separated by 65 million years, that simply shouldn't be the case - however, we find accounts of dinosaurs (or dragons, pick your term) in virtually every ancient culture.

Of course, there are also instances of human and dinosaur coexistence in the fossil record, which is compelling too. Some good evidence for each of these things is here: www.apologeticspress.org...

That's a difficult question to engage with - and not, as you might suspect, because there aren't dinosaurs that breathed fire, but because that's a difficult deduction to make from a fossil.

reply to post by Awen24


Exactly.. I was going to say if you seen a bombardier beetle you wouldn't know it spits something like acid until its too late. And if it happened to be millions of years old and fossilized I Doubt we would know that it has that dangerous concoction at the ready. But more evidence of us co existing with Dino's are cave paintings of stegosaurs and the ica stones. Really I doubt all those stones are authentic but there are many rock paintings of Dino's. Not exactly 'proof' but its exciting to see and to think we lived along side some of them. I will try to find pics of some of the rock paintings and reliefs to post a link to.(if i can) Anyone share my excitement on this subject?

reply to post by Awen24


Thanks for the link. That's cool stuff and in the rock relief thing that's the Stegosaur I mentioned. They had to have some knowledge of the creatures to know that much about something that's suppose to be extinct and millions of years old. Could they have known of those spikes on its back just from digging up fossils? If they even dug fossils. They say the sculptor couldn't of seen a stegosaur based on the carving but all we have is fossils an only 3 complete ones I believe. We have to change what we put in textbooks about dinosaurs all the time because we find out new things about them. Maybe we have the wrong idea from our fossils and they have it right. Like an ats buddy once said 'ya never know ya know'

Originally posted by Curious69
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That is a strange counter argument right there. so following you its to be taken litterally that the tail of this "Dinosaur" was as big/tall/strong as literal a cedar tree?
Google hippopotamus tail and click on pictures. and you will get a pretty good selection of hippo tails,
and some of the less worn ones do resemble the crown of a cedar the way the hair is laid out.
But i guess its waisted on you, as you seem to lack any analytical talent what so ever.
and resort to childish word splitting when argumented against.Bravo.
There you go i just wasted another 10 minutes of my life on a ignorant brainwashed religiontroll.

So you expect me to respond to that tripe?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I would steer away from that tripe.

Originally posted by DarkNite
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I would steer away from that tripe.

People do those things in order to illicit an emotional reaction when they cannot carry on a dialogue with rational ideas and logical counter-points.

I don't respond to that.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yeah your arguments have been super rationel. look up the word rationel and im sure it does not relate to you.lol.
its hard to tell if im ranting on 8 year olds. but it does feel like it.

Originally posted by Curious69
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yeah your arguments have been super rationel. look up the word rationel and im sure it does not relate to you.lol.
its hard to tell if im ranting on 8 year olds. but it does feel like it.

It's spelled "rational".

Just saying.

Heres a long list of dragons in mythology and folklore from across the world. wiki
There has to be a reason why these cultures have mythologies involving these reptiles.

As for the fire and smoke, it was probably a chemical process similar to the one used by the bombardier beetle.


Also Awen24 points out, we DON'T know what the inner anatomy of dinosaurs were like. The fossils only help paint what their structure was.... it does not show any special organs / parts they may have had to create the "fire and smoke".

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to [url= by DarkNite[/url]

 

17 Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.

Very deceiving quote you have there, as I've only ever seen it in that passage as

40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

And as we all (should) know, dinosaurs don't have........stones, being reptiles and everything.

/thread

That's not deceptive, just as a brief FYI. It's a completely different translation.

The word used in the Hebrew translation of Job is "p̄a·ḥă·ḏāw", meaning stone(s). This, however, isn't correct. The original language of Job is not Hebrew, but Aramaic, and the word actually used in Scripture is the Ancient Aramaic "pachad", meaning "thigh". These two words are close linguistically, but don't mean the same thing. Allow me to explain.

The word 'pachad' only occurs in Scripture once (here, in Job 40:17), and is from a language that, even by the time of Christ, was extinct. It's quite possible that those charged with interpreting for the KJV didn't even know what the word meant, so they chose the closest Hebrew word (p̄a·ḥă·ḏāw).

Much more is known about ancient Aramaic now (as opposed to in 1611), so we now have a more accurate translation of the word, rather than depending on something transliterated from Hebrew. Hence, the correct translation is "thigh", not "stones".

This is why it's important to always go back to the original language of the text.

The flintstones comes to mind. Nice help if you have a dino to lived the bricks.

Originally posted by Curious69
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yeah your arguments have been super rationel. look up the word rationel and im sure it does not relate to you.lol.
its hard to tell if im ranting on 8 year olds. but it does feel like it.

Sir, you cannot even spell rational.