Did Dinosaurs Walk Among Humans in the Days of the Bible?

a reply to: deadeyedick

Are you reading what I type ? I've never claimed the bible didn't ascribe long lifespans on genesis. I asked you where it isaid it to see if you would provide a citation. You didn't and claim you keep bringing forth scripture when you aren't.

Show me where in YOUR bible it states satan was in the garden of Eden. It shod t he that hard but you still haven't cited it.

As for which version if the bible I "believe in", my degree is in anthropology so take a guess.

a reply to: peter vlarand that is the whole point to my post. You do not believe in the bible so any attempt i would have made to give scripture would just have been for not. You very much have stated that those in the bible history lived for decades and satan was not tempting in the garden. That goes against the popular accepted beliefs of the bible and if you want to deny that then showing me your version of the bible or where you went astray from mainstream would be up to you to present that side of the whole thing. I have no need to defend what is majorly accepted. It is being done all around you in everyday life but you do not see yet. Fact is you have one of the keys to understanding why those people wrote about dragons and why there are no bones in your sigunature. In the anals of time that will go down as a classic move.

a reply to: GetHyped

Not a very good answer on your part. There are old carvings in the world of dinosaurs. It is an idea and worthy of investigation.

Thanks for thread OP

S.F...

purp

just a little fun.



and one more.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: peter vlarand that is the whole point to my post. You do not believe in the bible so any attempt i would have made to give scripture would just have been for not.

You very much have stated that those in the bible history lived for decades

No, I didn't. I said-

The implication from "god" to Adam was that eating the fruit would lead to death quite quickly as opposed to living for decades in exile.

You may have interpreted it the way you like but it doesn't say Adam and his off spring only lived for a few decades. Now it certainly is true that A. I don't believe Adam and Seth lived forover900 years or B. That any human has ever lived that long in antiquity. There is no evidence whatsoever that this occurred let alone is even possible. But this isn't about what I believe, its about how you refuse to cite sources to back up your claims and then insist that I do what you are unwilling to. I'm not sure that you're being a very good Christian by refusing to explain your version of reality to me, after all isn't it an imperative part of being a Christian to share " The Word" with nonbelievers? In fact, that very tenet alone means exactly that the message is for me. Just because I'm not a believer doesn't mean I didn't grow up in the church and don't know the scripture and what it all means to the church.

and satan was not tempting in the garden.

I definitely did say that, yup. because it's a Christian revision of Jewish text.

That goes against the popular accepted beliefs of the bible

I thought the bible was the unerring word of god not a popularity contest? You can have your popular accepted version if you like but changing the meaning of a few old Hebrew texts a millennium after they were first put down in writing doesn't make popular right.

and if you want to deny that then showing me your version of the bible or where you went astray from mainstream would be up to you to present that side of the whole thing.

What bible do you think I've read? A made up one?(That was a trick question)
I'm not using MAD Magazine as a reference, I use the NIV or if I have to KJV like most other people

I have no need to defend what is majorly accepted. It is being done all around you in everyday life but you do not see yet.

then why bother responding if you have no intention of supporting your position?

Fact is you have one of the keys to understanding why those people wrote about dragons and why there are no bones in your sigunature. In the anals of time that will go down as a classic move.

ummmmm ok

a reply to: peter vlar You twist very much and you are a plagiarist.

a reply to: purplemer

No problem! Keep this thread going, guys!

I think I want to make a new thread on a similar topic, just because I enjoy watching you all talk.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: peter vlar You twist very much and you are a plagiarist.

If I'm a plagiarist, back up your charge or go away. Please demonstrate what I've plagiarized. You're a child and you still refuse to support a single claim you have made. Good luck in third grade this coming fall.

a reply to: peter vlar Where would you like me to go? You have copied my words and put them in your sigunature without giving me credit for my own words. If you go back to the post you copied my words from you will notice that it says who wrote it. I claimed i had a vision and i support that but i choose not to debate scripture with someone that not only believes in the word but also tries to dispell every version of the bible. Face it dinosaurs and men once held hands.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: peter vlar Where would you like me to go? You have copied my words and put them in your sigunature without giving me credit for my own words. If you go back to the post you copied my words from you will notice that it says who wrote it. I claimed i had a vision and i support that but i choose not to debate scripture with someone that not only believes in the word but also tries to dispell every version of the bible. Face it dinosaurs and men once held hands.

How have I tried to dispel every version of the bible? I stayed away from my personal beliefs for the most part and kept the discussion focused on scripture. It's not my fault that an atheist knows the book better than you. How can I do that when you haven't provided a single citation? You're more than welcome to live in the land of the lost and saddle up a diplodocus if you're into that sort of thing.

I know squirrels, rabbits, and pretty butterfly were in the Garden of Eden.

Also, there was another giant mythological creature called Ziz, and is said(wiki said so) to be comparable to a phoenix and the Sumerian Anzu. And the tale originates from Judaism, not Christianity.

Christianity never believed in giant pagan animals that would possibly be a modern interpretation of Godzilla and friends.

O yea, and there the Egyptian myth beast, called the Roc. Can't remember if thats how u spell it. Said to block out the sun too.

A little food for thought for the non believers...

Does this carving at the Ta Prohm temple complex in Cambodia prove that dinosaurs of the genus Stegosaurus were still alive in Southeast Asian jungles only 1000 years ago?

geochristian.com...




purp..

a reply to: purplemer

Occams Razor.

Lizzard.

Next.

a reply to: Grimpachi

A carving that has been the cause of much debate you mange to dismiss in 4 words.. . What type of lizard do you think this is..

purp...

a reply to: purplemer

What type of lizard do you think this is..

Don't know. How many types are there?

Here are just a few cool ones.

a reply to: purplemer

Thing is, we can't really be sure the so called "plates" along the "dinosaurs" back in that carving are foreground or background objects.

If you look at some of the other representations of known animals at that site, you will see they all have background pieces - shapes or decorations depicting the background behind the animal.

If the "plates" are background then the animal depicted becomes a lot less dinosaury. Compared to the local chaemeleons, it's actually a really good match.

Additionally, if we assume the "plates" are indeed part of the animal, then the only animal in the fossil record that this resembles is a stegosaur. But compare the carving with an actual stegosaur and it's not even close really. Stegosaurs have plates of many different sizes, going from small on it's neck to large to small again near the end of the tail. Stegosaurs have several prominent large spikes on the end of the tail. Stegosaurs have shorter front limbs than hind limbs. Stegosaurs have a much smaller head in proportion to the body.

None of these elements are represented in the supposed stegosaur carving.

In the end which is more likely? That this carving represents something (not very well at that) which every single other piece of evidence tells us has been extinct for 65 million years - OR - that this is something more mundane and in line with our other observations of the natural world, a piece of art which people have misinterpreted?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Thank you for the lizard pictures they are cool. None however look like the image in the carving. I am not saying it is not a lizard. Just that it is open for debate...

purp..

a reply to: purplemer

You'd think if dinos were roaming around back then, there would be mentions all over the place in written texts.

"Today was a good day on the farm except for the brontosauruses stomping around the wheat field"

You know, that sort of thing.

a reply to: purplemer

I wasn't saying those lizards look like the one in the carving, but I think there are thousands of species and I am sorry but I am not so motivated to look at them all.

Consider this though. I guess that thing going around the lizard/dino/whatever is supposed to be a snake or an eel. Can anyone show me a picture of a snake or eel that actually resembles that?

Why would one be accurate and the other not? On top of that they claim it is a stegosaurus. Here is an artist rendition of one.
Doesn't look much like one to me. Oh well maybe you know of one that it does look like.

Anyway I d remember watching a documentary of sorts where they did find a lizard that resembled it that was indigenous to that area. I will look for it later.