Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dinosaurs in the Old Testament ?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   


Behold now 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.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
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 Chapter 40, verses 15 - 24


When I first read that, it reminded me of the old drawings of dinosaurs I used to see when I was a child. The massive Sauropods that ate vegetation and had legs as thick as tree trunks.

Is it possible that this ancient scriptural passage really does refer to a dinosaur ?




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Reptiles continue to grow their entire lives. Now if the pre-flood world had a heavier atmosphere, occluded sky to shield against Type B and C UV rays(as in a water canopy between the earth and the sun), more tropical climate worldwide, and a significantly stronger geomagnetic field, it is conceivable that the reptiles back then could have lived hundreds of years. Imagine their different form and how big they would have been able to grow? Perhaps today's reptiles are yesterday's dinosaurs.

ê¿ê



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
This is actually quite interesting, and I heard from the minister of the churchi used to go to, that the bible speaks of dinosaurs twice. I never really knew where though, maybe this was one of the places.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Yes I believe this is speaking of dinosaurs. There are many answers to lots of questions in the Bible. If people would committ themselves to reading and studying what is written in it, many questions could have answers.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
Behold now 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.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.


I think the dinosaur interpretation is a bit far fetched. It could have been a rhino.. or something similar to an ox [like it says].. dinosaurs don't look like oxen. It's possible it could have also been a mammoth [though I think they may be in too early an era].

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 Chapter 40, verses 15 - 24

Crocodile.

I don't know what context this is in.. but if it otherwise suggests humans were around- it couldn't be dinosaurs.
This has been disussed here before and makes for an interesting read if you want do a search.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky


Behold now 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.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
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 Chapter 40, verses 15 - 24


When I first read that, it reminded me of the old drawings of dinosaurs I used to see when I was a child. The massive Sauropods that ate vegetation and had legs as thick as tree trunks.

Is it possible that this ancient scriptural passage really does refer to a dinosaur ?



No Pisky, that is not a dinosaur... The reason i can be so sure the book of Job is not referroing to them is that it is the only book where a creature is described....along with leviathan. Dinosaurs would have been much more significant than a metaphorical paragraph. Don't forget creature like hippos, elephants, and rhino's could also be a reference.

Humans never walked with Dinosaurs.

Cool picture though...

[edit on 1/22/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   


Don't forget creature like hippos, elephants, and rhino's could also be a reference.


The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.


Yes, that does look more like a hippo, although the possibility of it being a crocodile is out since they are meat eaters.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Rhinos, hippos and elephants don't have tails like cedar trees. If you don't have a problem acknowledging God then you can see this is a dinosaur.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Rhinos, hippos and elephants don't have tails like cedar trees.

So it MUST be dinosaurs? :shk: There are many things that are now extinct.. that were not dinosaurs but would have fitted the discription given and era.. assuming they were is a bit of a stretch- considering the slight time lapse of sixty million years between 'bible time' and real time.

If you don't have a problem acknowledging God then you can see this is a dinosaur.

So you think humans and dinousaurs shared the same habitat? Humans must have been around to make these 'records'
of these beasts, yes? .. if they were around at the same time they would have become dino dung [forgetting for a sec the mass extinction that humans couldn't have survived anyway].
Basically it would not be renouncing god to dismiss this idea.

Hopefully this is my last reply as we're no doubt going to get into the 'god put the bones in the ground to test us' garbage and- thats irritating.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Evolution says you need billions of years for things to develope. If you believe how things were created as the Bible tells us, then you don't need billions of years for things to be accomplished.

The mass extinction that came about was the flood in Noah's time. We have the perfect picture of what destruction a flood can do. All we have to do is look at the tsunami that hit Asia. The Bible tells us it was worldwide and included rain from above for 40 days and vast quantities of water from inside the earth shooting upwards. Add earthguakes as a means of cracking the earth's crust to bring this water to the suface, and tsunamis then ,and you would have complete destruction. Then the length of time that water was upon the earth before it receeded, and life other than sea life would destroyed. It was also after the flood that God put the fear of man into animals and told Noah that animals could be used for food. So if animals had a different nature and relationship with man before the flood, which the Bible indicates, they did exist at the same time.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
The mass extinction that came about was the flood in Noah's time.

No. What killed the dinosaurs was an asteroid and consequent ice age. I'm pretty sure they even know where it landed.. I'd look it up for you but the standard of 'logic' being used here would make it a pointless exersize.
Humans could not have survived this. I think the only sort of things that survived this was small mammels etc.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Pisky
www.drdino.com...
A cool link talking about dinosaurs from early on through the 20th century from a Christian standpoint.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Evolution says you need billions of years for things to develope. If you believe how things were created as the Bible tells us, then you don't need billions of years for things to be accomplished.

The mass extinction that came about was the flood in Noah's time. We have the perfect picture of what destruction a flood can do. All we have to do is look at the tsunami that hit Asia. The Bible tells us it was worldwide and included rain from above for 40 days and vast quantities of water from inside the earth shooting upwards. Add earthguakes as a means of cracking the earth's crust to bring this water to the suface, and tsunamis then ,and you would have complete destruction. Then the length of time that water was upon the earth before it receeded, and life other than sea life would destroyed. It was also after the flood that God put the fear of man into animals and told Noah that animals could be used for food. So if animals had a different nature and relationship with man before the flood, which the Bible indicates, they did exist at the same time.

Evolution doesnt say you need billions of years *for things to develop*. It may say that you need 2 billions years for a eukaryotic cell to develop into a prokaryotic cell.... it may take 13 years for a baby to develop into a teenager. thats not a billion.
Now about the dinosaurs... there where dinosaurs that lived in the water, where did they go? common, like riley said, LOGIC.
dinosaurs became extinct 65million years ago along with 95% of other life.
And heres a question, Why didnt Noah save the Dinos?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Evolution says you need billions of years for things to develope. If you believe how things were created as the Bible tells us, then you don't need billions of years for things to be accomplished.

The mass extinction that came about was the flood in Noah's time. We have the perfect picture of what destruction a flood can do. All we have to do is look at the tsunami that hit Asia. The Bible tells us it was worldwide and included rain from above for 40 days and vast quantities of water from inside the earth shooting upwards. Add earthguakes as a means of cracking the earth's crust to bring this water to the suface, and tsunamis then ,and you would have complete destruction. Then the length of time that water was upon the earth before it receeded, and life other than sea life would destroyed. It was also after the flood that God put the fear of man into animals and told Noah that animals could be used for food. So if animals had a different nature and relationship with man before the flood, which the Bible indicates, they did exist at the same time.

Uh we didnt just have land dinos you know. Whatever happened to the ones in sea? What difference does it make to a sea dino if the whole world is flooded? More hunting ground is only better!

Pisky what if it was a heck of a big Pixy with gas and dry skin?



If you don't have a problem acknowledging God then you can see this is a dinosaur.

Sorry this evolutionary path is really depressing me! If i dotn believe in god i'll go to hell and i wont have a brain cell left to make logical conclusions, one of them being: THERE HAD TO BE FREAKIN DINOS!!! ITS SO GODANG CLEAR!






top topics



 
0

log in

join