It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Were dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
sntx
sorry to be pain but just so as to know which verses i've got to look up



The word is more than just human literature. The Bible is the infallible word of God.


please could you say which version of the bible you mean?

or do you mean all versions?

cheers

mark ten




posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
[edit on 20-2-2005 by kastinyque]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenmansmind
you humans are so abstract ..all so silly
can anyone just be real..
ya all seem so messed up...
all mixed up...
if only you knew the real truth..
you would crack up laughing your ass off









Humans What are you some evolved dino in camaflauge like that new movie that came out where dinos could shape shift or something like an alien in human skin or maybe better yet you are a spirit or angle posessing the body you are in.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
That was a good copy paste sntx. Noew try thinking for yourself.

By the way, you are now an admitted liar.











No offense seapeople but this could have been handeled better , like saying you are mistaken or your data is flawed , calling someone a liar based on you beliefs differing from anothers doesnt make that person a liar , but a person with a differnt belief and as such due respect despite those beliefs, and in fact I saw no self admition of any direct intention to lie , but rather a statement of opinion, you sir are out of line and should appologize and you to should just agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad

Originally posted by sntxSince what you assert has been proven to you, you must have a low threshold of proof in order to take something as being true. Or it could be that what you hold as fact is based on faith.


Based on faith? I have no "faith" in anything. I believe what I have come to believe with good reason.

I believe that dinosaurs and humans never co-existed. To believe otherwise is to ignore overwhelming evidence:








I disagree with the fact that carbon dating has not proven atleast the primitive homosapien , or for layman caveman or ape man the progenitors of our species didnt exist with the progenitors of some of the current whale and reptilian species proven to have evolved from the jurasic period.

Man was in its most primitive form atleast no later then the end of the jurassic period and before the ice age as evidenced by geological carbon dating of soil and carbon dating of tissue preserved in pre ten thousand year era ice formations, man exists at the same time just not in the form we do now, and as for Gods participation the Bible accounts our beginnings only up to a little over 2000 years ago for a reason because it is by fact connected to our version of species, however God himself stated that others where created before us and wiped away because they became in his design out of line for the purpose they where created and either denied him or rebelled against him.

It is even more evident that the bible doesnt limit the earths existance to the slightly over 2000 year age the bible depicts, but instead it was pre inhabited by those who where created before us , this is evidenced by God himself who stated first where created angels and to them was given a great gift the gift of choice, then a generation of man was created and to him was given choice and in some way they both rebelled , but in man was all but a few punished by a total destruction of the earth by water and only those few lived on to restart the race we currently come from. It is reasonable to say that our immediate ancestors by God's own statements where not the first created. He created others but when they rebelled he wiped them out and started over but nothing changed and we are still a rebellious species and for that the soon coming judgements shall be a continuation of those wipe outs and start overs. God didnt make a mistake he mearly corrected mans inabilities to exist in the manor they where intended , and its mans fault as well as the other crations fault that our choices shall bring our distruction although I think progress was made this time because more of us chose the path desired of us therefore more of us will be allowed to continue in the sense we shall remain in the site and protection of God.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx




I believe that dinosaurs and humans never co-existed. To believe otherwise is to ignore overwhelming evidence:


Oh, you mean the evidence that is interpreted by beliefs about what happened in the past that you don't have. Do you know the difference between historical science and operational science? Can historical science be pursued without some kind of axiomatic basis?


No, I don't know the difference. Could I trouble you to explain it?






Since the dating methods you cite rely on man made assumptions about decay rates (for example that decay rates are constant regardless of environmental conditions) they can hardly be described as indisputable.


Since the Bible references you cite rely on the assumptions of man as to what the word of your "God" was, they can hardly be decribed as indisputable. Furthermore the quotes you use to back up your arguments come from modern versions of the Bible, which you yourself admit is flawed.



You answered this one yourself. Volcanic activity, earthquakes and hydrologic action are capable of depositing layer upon layer in a matter of minutes. To assume that layers took millions of years to be formed despite this knowledge is not intellectually honest.


That's a perfectly valid scientific statement. Do you think that if you know it, geologists don't? They can easily differentiate between volcanic rock and layers of rock which were deposited millions of years ago. Therefore your statement proves no point.




Lack of historical documentation: There is no evidence produced by humans in the form of writing, paintings or any other medium, to suggest that dinosaurs co-existed with them. This is not counting the faked pottery from Peru, or the bible verses which were translated by a Hebrew speaker earlier in the thread as referring to animals which are alive today.


This is just plain untrue. Examples have already been given in this thread.


You will notice that I wrote above that the bible references you quote have been translated on this thread, by a Hebrew speaker, and have nothing to do with dinosaurs. Did you choose not to notice this?

The Peruvian "dinosaur art" was faked. It was produced by villagers in the Twentieth century who have since testified to their participation in the hoax. Also, the pottery changed over the years to match changing ideas as to what dinosaurs looked like.


You have already shown yourself to be willing to ignore what is presented to you.


I have taken in everything you have told me in this thread. I do not ignore your arguments, I merely point out their flaws. They are ambiguous at best, willingly false at their worst. If you want to convince me you will have to find alternative sources. I can only take the word of the bible as true if it is consistent with other sources, preferably unbiased, not religiously motivated ones.



The writers of the bible were very much capable of lying, exaggerating and making mistakes.


Yes, the people who wrote down scripture were fallible just like everyone else, save one, who has ever lived. As I said in an earlier post though the scripture existed before they ever wrote the words down. The word is more than just human literature. The Bible is the infallible word of God.


No matter how this "God" of yours apparently passed on his/her/its words, there is invariably a possibility of human error, as men were involved in its original writing. Even if you were to read the first Bible ever written, you could not be sure it was the word of your "God". Keep in mind that I am not at the moment trying to dispute the truth of these words themselves, but rather the way you state as fact that the original Bible is infallible.

Explain to me how the first Bible was produced.

-

Just out of interest, what do you do for a living, sntx?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I don't know if anyone has said this already, but why should dinosaurs concern the ancient people whom the bible was written for. There were no dinosaurs around by that time, so they are of no significance. Just because they weren't directly stated IN THE NAME THEY ARE GIVEN TODAY doesn't mean they never existed or that the bible is discredited. The bible wasn't meant to be a complete historical encyclopedia of the universe. It was supposed to be an asset to the individual to aid him/her in improving the human spirit and overall quality of life.

Again, sorry if someone already stated this or something similar.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
You missed the issue here buddy. Of course dinosaurs were not named dinosaurs. We are arguing whether or not references in the bible were actually of the regardless of what they were called.

The significance of your statement has been gone for a long time since both sides have issued plenty of evidence as to what the words really meant. You should go back and read the whole thread.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Sorry if this has been mentioned but i really don't want to read through 6 pages. People were aware of other creatures long before the bible was written. There was an episode on the history channel about greek "archeaologists" and where the myths about such creatures as the griffon came from.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
gosh, sakes SEAPEOPLE give it a freaken rest. For six pages you just dump insults and add ZERO, ZIP, NADA to the conversation. After having suffered through your rantings against Styx and others it only leads a reasonable and unbiased person to believe you are an ego filled, hothead that "Thinks" he knows something- but probably never got out of high school. i really have had enough and finally figured out why some people might use the ignor button! Only for the fact that you MIGHT say something worth reading for a change i withhold taggin you with it.

Please for the sake of the whole comunity just butt out of the conversation entirely unless you have something to actually contribute. Obviously YOU have an agenda please check it at the door- or Start a thread called "Seapeople's rantings" and we won't all have to read the stuff better reservered for porceline fixtures one sits upon.



-----------

Otherwise for the rest of the poor souls that have suffered this far through the thread, the material does sound interesting- I agree i have seen evidence in many cultures of dinos and man living at the same time - at least in minor numbers. they still find creatures that have been claimed to be extint for "millions of years" all the time. Why couldn't SOME dinos have survived?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
You missed the issue here buddy. Of course dinosaurs were not named dinosaurs. We are arguing whether or not references in the bible were actually of the regardless of what they were called.

The significance of your statement has been gone for a long time since both sides have issued plenty of evidence as to what the words really meant. You should go back and read the whole thread.


Well aren't you one sassy son of a gun. Why don't you twist up a spliff and chill out.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by purecanadiantrash

Originally posted by Seapeople
You missed the issue here buddy. Of course dinosaurs were not named dinosaurs. We are arguing whether or not references in the bible were actually of the regardless of what they were called.

The significance of your statement has been gone for a long time since both sides have issued plenty of evidence as to what the words really meant. You should go back and read the whole thread.


Well aren't you one sassy son of a gun. Why don't you twist up a spliff and chill out.











I find that scenes of story lines often refered to prehistoric creatures, including the following.....



The dragon references of The beast which could be a laviathan/ or kronosaurus

What about the griffen discriptions , although slightly differnt in description there are some large scaled animals such as the rapture of the teridacle could resemble a griffin in ways

what about the laviatin seems like the kronosaurus following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.

* “No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
* “Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
* “His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
* “His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
* “Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
* “On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
* 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 [1] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)

the behemeth resembles the bronciasaurus following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

* It “eats grass like an ox.”
* It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
* Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
* “He is the first of the ways of God.”
* “He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”





[edit on 21/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
i guess Seapeople would rant how that isn't a dino- sure sounds like one to me- and a fire breathing one at that!

i find the subject interesting and started a brief internet search in various cultures for: snakes, serpants, dragons etc; wow- people actually deny a connection? i just can't understand why anymore.

comes to mind some of the other cultures in the world that have "reptillian" symbology or such that could make one believe that they had at the very least limited run-ins with LARGE reptiles/dinos/ what ever you might want to call them. Usually these are dismissed by "scientists" because the current "belief" is man and large reptiles were seperated by "millions" of years.

i venture my own hypothisis that they (the 'scientists'- if you can call archeologists/palentologist/or anthropoligisits that) "GUESS" baised on things as they know them in their own lives at this time- so most often are way off the mark- remember they once thought the world was flat because no one really travelled outside their own villages. Once folks started traveling more broadly things sure changed.


i find the "coincidience" between the numerous cultures of the world just way to powerful to ignor. Take the Feathered Serpent of the Inca culture; (Have pictures but can't insert them- help anyone?) it sure doesn't look like any snake i've seen- more like a DRAGON- since it has numerous fangs instead of the two we are used to seeing- pictograms usually have serpents/lizards breathing FIRE. And feathered! Com'mon folks- Chinese dragons= serpents/lizards with wings - you can put the photos side by side and they are nearly identical! and the English dragons- Well, ya know what? they look the same! Serpents/Lizards with WINGS and breathing FIRE- hmmm. These are hugely seperated cultures.

How on earth are Ancient cultures - extremely geographically seperated supposed to know/believe these things breathed fire unless they had encountered them? Sure they could have found bones - but how would they know about the fire or what the animal looked like WITH SKIN??? why are they all so similar? Why are these reptiles in all these cultures all portrayed as being so immense?? Right on scale with the real "dinos"?

and as to man being prey: even hunting buffalo man hunted in GROUPS- if a dino decided to chomp one- wouldn't the rest be able to get away and or club the dino to death? what about a little ingenuity and group effort? Exactly how many humans (life span ~35 years- mature ~14) would a huge t-rex (life span unknown but suspected to be very long and maturity and some palentologists suspect > 300 years to maturity) chomp before they decide to band together and kill it.

maybe there was a whole mutual don't bother it and it won't bother you thing going on. ever notice how even the largest predatory animals stay away from humans??? i'm sure even if t-rex lived alongside humans there was much easier prey for it to chomp on.

I also don't find it too hard to believe that dinos didn't taste very well- while reptiles are eaten (used to live in Lousiana- gator is common) most cultures don't eat reptiles even if they are prevelent. So even if dinos were numerous alongside man there might not be much art associated with them since they might not have been part of the human food chain.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Launch Pad,

You act as if I am the only logical one in here. Just because you choose to be foolish does not put me and others there.

You mentioned in yout post a few things about "reptillian" creatures mentioned in several anchient texts. Interesting point. Have you ever seen a picture of the nile river banks? I suppose that peice of logic doesn't apply.

Since you are obviously too lazy to pay attention and understand what is going on here, I will bring you up to date. I am not arguing whether or not Dinosaurs are in the bible. I am arguing that it is not fact. I personally am not foolish, so I do not believe that dinosaurs are in the bible. This is due to the whole, "dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before the bible was written" thing. None the less, it can be by no mens factual to say the bible references them. If you say that, then you, as well as a few others, are also a liar.

It is clear that no-one read the International standard bible encyclopedia definitions of the creatures mentioned in the bible. (The encyclopedia is a christian written document by the way) So I am going to post what it has to say.

Please note how they use the root words, local culture, time period, among other references to come to the "christian" solution. Its neat when people actually do the research. You should try some time Launch.

Leviathan:
le-vi'-a-than (liwyathan (Job 41:1-34), from [~lawah, "to fold"; compare Arabic name of the wry neck, Iynx torquilla, abu-luwa, from kindred lawa, "to bend"):

(1) The word "leviathan" also occurs in Isaiah 27:1, where it is characterized as "the swift serpent .... the crooked serpent"; in Psalms 104:26, where a marine monster is indicated; also in Psalms 74:14 and Job 3:8. The description in Job 41 has been thought by some to refer to the whale, but while the whale suits better the expressions denoting great strength, the words apply best on the whole to the crocodile. Moreover, the whale is very seldom found in the Mediterranean, while the crocodile is abundant in the Nile, and has been known to occur in at least one river of Palestine, the Zarqa, North of Jaffa. For a discussion of the behemoth and leviathan as mythical creatures, see EB, under the word "Behemoth" and "Leviathan." The points in the description which may well apply to the crocodile are the great invulnerability, the strong and close scales, the limbs and the teeth. It must be admitted that there are many expressions which a modern scientist would not use with reference to the crocodile, but the Book of Job is neither modern nor scientific, but poetical and ancient.

Behemoth:
be'-he-moth, be-he'-moth (behemoth:

Job 40:15): Apparently the plural of behemah, "a beast," used of domestic or wild animals. The same form, behemoth, occurs in other passages, e.g. Deuteronomy 28:26; 32:24; Isaiah 18:6; Habakkuk 2:17, where it is not rendered "behemoth" but "beasts." According to some, the word behemoth, occurring in Job 40:15, is not a Hebrew word, the plural of behemah, but a word of Egyptian origin signifying "water ox." This etymology is denied by Cheyne and others. The word has by various writers been understood to mean rhinoceros and elephant, but the description (Job 40:15-24) applies on the whole very well to the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus arnphibius) which inhabits the Nile and other rivers of Africa. Especially applicable are the references to its great size, its eating grass, the difficulty with which weapons penetrate its hide, and its frequenting of streams. - "He lieth under the lotus-trees, In the covert of the reed, and the fen. The lotus-trees cover him with their shade; The willows of the brook compass him about." + The remains of a fossil hippopotamus of apparently the same species are found over most of Europe, so that it may have inhabited Palestine in early historical times, although we have no record of it. There is a smaller living species in west Africa, and there are several other fossil species in Europe and India. The remains of Hippopotamus minutus have been found in enormous quantities in caves in Malta and Sicily.

Oh, heres a link to the encyclopedia:

www.searchgodsword.org...

Again, I just want to point out how cool it is that they actually researched the root words and such. Also, how they refer to references of these creatures in the bible as Non Scientific, and rather Poetical.


[edit on 2/22/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
you know guys there is an evolved form of fire breather today that is still living , and it is a beetle that shoots a chemical that produces heat , its called a bombadier bettle and it can easily be an evolved verion of one of the biblical fire breathers as well. An its appearance also matches some of those descrided just on a small size scale.



So wats to say that this possibility is only myth because you have animals today that can match that of the decriptions of those of dinasours. But be so differnt.

[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]

[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This is not a matter of probability. Its a mtter of fact. Simply put, even if it was likely, which it is not, that those references were dinosaurs, it would still not be fact.

SNTX already stated "Yes, it is a fact" that those are dinosaurs. This is aglaring error on his part, indicating that not only is he a liar, but he cannot use his comprehension skills well. There is no way you can state this information as fact.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
This is not a matter of probability. Its a mtter of fact. Simply put, even if it was likely, which it is not, that those references were dinosaurs, it would still not be fact.

SNTX already stated "Yes, it is a fact" that those are dinosaurs. This is aglaring error on his part, indicating that not only is he a liar, but he cannot use his comprehension skills well. There is no way you can state this information as fact.





It is ok to have that view but I respectfully disagree the proof is there you just cant see it for the lack of understanding what you didnt see yourself , which is the greatest fallability in people of so called faith who scream I want proof, they cant understand the proof right in front of them.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
That's just fine Seapeople we were talking about your additude and calling people liars. Cease and desist or take a walk into being ignored as you lose ALL credibility when you jump off like that and i'd don't care to read your posts if you don't approach things in a level headed manner.

I don't ever recall ANYONE saying "yes, indeed this (fill in the blank) is proof positive of Dinos in bible" certainly I have never said as much! - please re-read the entire thread if you must. many people has said things such as this is PLAUSIBLE, or BELIEVABLE, or even SOUNDS LIKE - not a single post says "IS" and if anyone had the rest of us know what they mean and just go with it. We are talking OPINIONS here.
-------

now as to this supposed "Christian site" with the definitions you keep going on about has already been addressed but for your sake i will go on in further detail this one last time.

Christian or not (and calling themselves Chrisitian) is debatable and for a seperate forum but the FACT remains that this is a single source- not the consensious of the community as a whole and the definitions you give are trying to put the definitions into MODERN DAY TERMS based upon the CURRENT SCIENTIFIC view that dinos and man never lived together. you are making an ASSUMPTION baised on a single source and passing that off as conclusive evidence- that would make you a liar by your own behavior standards you are presenting here- i am not nor do i see anyone else calling you a liar at this point - what would be the point of it- rather we accepted your input as your OPINION and said why it is not enough for the rest of us.

to continue:

You are also giving the definitions of the NAMES of these creatures- what of the descriptions also provided??? these have also purposely been ignored by you- what was the term YOU used for doing that???

The whole point of the thread is: COULD the discriptions given in the bible be dinos rather than the "modern scientific view" ? well that is always going to be a matter of opinion but some folks here do think that they COULD and we have provide serveral sources both within the document in question and in other totally seperate ancient cultures to show it MAY be PLAUSIBLE if the CURRENT SCIENTIFIC OPINION is yet once again wrong. but of course that would mean that to test the hypothesis the CURRENT SCIENTIFIC OPINION is not going to be a factor anymore in the discussion- and makes the web site you posted irrelevant since it catters to that OPINION.

If your OPINION is so easily affected by that one source then fine you are welcome to it.

Screaming LIAR, LIAR, LIAR at folks that do not feel you have enough evidence and have a differing OPINION is inflamatory at best and serves no other purpose than for people to ignor you. I for one do not plan to listen (or have to read any more of it) so if you wish any of your further points to be recognised please at least be civil about it and refrain from calling names.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Judah,


You said, that the words used referred to an alligator. You proceeded to say, alligators are dinosaurs right? Followed by providing a list of possibilities.

Tell me, if we never found a dinosaur skeleton, and we had alligators still today, does that really mean we know of dinosaurs? Just because we know of an animal, that turns out, after our discovery of dinosaurs, to be closely related and most definitely alive during the dinosaur ages, does not mean we know of dinosaurs. It just means we know of alligators.

In no way can a rational person draw the conclusion that knowing of alligators was indication of knowledge of an entire species. In other words, not all of your possible outcomes that you provided can be correct.

Which one do you personally believe?


Seapeople,

Sorry it took me so long to answer.

You missed my meaning. My meaning was that the bible refered to "...hataninim hagdolim. . " or the great (large) alligators. - As opposed to just regular taninim or alligators. The differentiation between these two are clear.

Now one other things needs needs to be understood. Biblical Hebrew is not always identical in meaning to modern Hebrew. Example is the work "nora" currently meaning 'terrible', but in biblical times the word meant 'immensly powerful'. The king james version has it translated to terrible or dreadful.
Therefore, I hold that 'hatanninim hagdolim' found in genesis 1:21 refers to either the great alligators, but this can also be whales or sea-borne reptiles. In these verses God creates the sea and air creatures - so make up your own mind about the meaning.
I do see a possibility that 'Tanninim Hagdolim' refered to the dinosaurs.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Another good point Judah! language does change over time sometimes quite significantly.

People can only describe things based on their limited knowledge of what they know.


suppose you had been a farmer all your life along the Nile river - Croc's would be quite common (as i think Seapeople attempted to say- between calling names) Then one day you see a giant (but very rare) lizard which today we might call (fill in blank- for this example use T-rex). how exactly would you describe the "giant lizard" to someone? I'd bet you call it a Giant Croc walking on 2 legs or something along those lines since the term dino didn't exist.

it all makes since to me that there could be possibility- the Selacanth was supposed to be extint millions of years but it turns out that there are no shortage of them off the coast of Madesgascar (sp). they still inhabit the area and there are even tours to go see the fish science declared died off millions of years ago.

it is not such a long stretch in believeability that there might have been dino survivors in isolated and unpopulated areas of the time- any guess what the population of the world was around the time of Moses?

Heck, St George was known for having fought a dragon and that was thousands of years later- and the population still was not that much.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join