It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 07:41 AM
There are 2 possibilities then. Either the bible is a fake or the bible has been changed. I go with the second one.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:11 PM
so sorry bobby my boy, but it was not your spelling or grammer i was gripping about. it was the apparent arguing of both sides without being very clear on eather one- almost as if your thoughts are not so coheirent on the subject-freshman english (1001-1002) in most places is how to layout a basic arguement. ie. Persuasive paper. i am sure many of my posts have a typo or so as a spell checker is not readily convienient and higher education does not cover oversite. but it still appears you are suffering from a personality disorder by not having any real position- taking any drugs for it? Perhpas your levels need adjusted????

i see your logic faulty in reasoning that just becasue man was mentioned one versue later in the genisis account that it would be reason enough to assume that man and dino coexisted.

HOWEVER, if you take the word for word discriptions as stated earlier from many differnt books of the bible then those discriptions do sound much more like dinos than the animals most people pass those discriptions off as being to make things FIT the CURRENT scientific view. Blind followers of science might as well be those same religious fanatics you are so prone attacking as it is only in questioning science can science "evolve".

in this thread i have made no statements of my particular beliefs only opinions on items and descriptions as mentioned. YOU or anyone else has ZERO business labeling and attacking peoples belief systems, calling names and even less (call it negative if you will) if no beliefs have been expressed because you are greatly assuming things you do not konw.

if you want to layout a poor presentation of incohierent thoughts then expect to get slammed/teased/picked on here and there. Please take any picking with good humor- but it should not be expected of people being attack for beliefs to accept THAT with the same humor.

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 08:03 AM
Well to cut a long story short're wrong.

In fact you may even be the wrongest ( not a real word) individual in the entire history of human existence and that my sensationally confused compadre is no mean feat indeed.

I'm not here to put across balanced arguements...I mean hell...Is that even possible when you're dealing with a subject such as this...I doubt it.

I'm here to defend the right to question ANYONES religious belief's because unfortunately we live in a society that has been shaped and continues to be led by a few major religions that I neither follow or respect and I'm sure there are many people who swing by this forum who will recognise and appreciate that view point.

I live in the Western world therefore my immediate environment has been moulded by the hand of Christianity so that's why I concentrate on them rather them Hindus, Musslims or Moonies.

Christianity deserves to be interogated. It's a religion built on the blood of the innocent and the toil of the poor, the Catholic Church Imparticular has it's own Country, immeasurable wealth that could feed and cloth the less fortunates of this world several times over and it has power and sway over governments, powerful organisations and corruptable individuals.

I cannot acccept the fact that I live in a world run by Presidents and Prime Ministers who believe in and are influenced by God and as long as other people are effected by the beliefs and actions of those crazy Christian Commandos I'll be somwhere out there in the world fighting against that in whatever way I can.

I think that's a fairly reasonable thing Launchpad and no wishy washy liberal ramblings with convince me otherwise.

Any religious group or person who has strength of faith and strength of character should be reasonable and intelligent enough to accept their beliefs being questioned and pulled apart and if they can't accept that then as far as I'm concerend they have no courage whatsoever in their convictions and their opinion is little more then worthless.

Everyone has the right to beleive in whatever they want to believe...but their beliefs and morals shouldn't be allowed to effect the lives of people who don't pray to their God.

How can we hope to improve the future If we can't learn from the arguments and mistakes of the past?

Testify Launchpad...spread your psuedo intellectual text book tosh a little thinner.

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by BobDylan
I have a theory about people who comment on other folks grammar and spelling Launchpad...any clues on what that theory may be?

Arrogance is for the workplace and playground my emotionally challanged friend.

Anyway...enough of you and back to the Oranges.

I enjoy this forum and all the wild theories that adorn it but I do think that there should be more room to question peoples beliefs without the fear of some Moderator or Christian Missionary getting a little hot under their dog collar.

You solve very little in life by being polite and anyone who really believes in their ideals and has faith in their God should be able to argue and accept whatever slander comes their way...if you're going to start blubbing like a stood up schoolgirl because someone writes something that you don't agree with then you should really be a taking a long hard look at yourself rather then pointing your icy fingers elsewhere.

The subject was on dinosaurs and 7 pages have passed by...have we solved anything?.


"And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day"

"24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good"

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

I see no mention of Dinosaurs in this Christian version of events. Verse 25 mentions "Wild Animals" and lets for arguments sake pretend he included Dinosaurs in this cosmic jambalaya...according to the holy book he creates man just one day and one verse later so that would mean co-existence...wouldn't it!

It's nothing more then plain old Common sense. If you believe that the bible is the word of God then you must also believe that Dinosaurs and mankind co-existed because that's what verses 25 and 26 would be telling you.

However Dinosaurs allegedly died out 65 Million years ago so that would mean mankind has been around all that time...wouldn't it!


And if the very first chapter in the bible is false...what does that say about the rest of the book???

Answers on a stone tablet if you please.

[edit on 12-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 12-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 12-3-2005 by BobDylan]

Bob Dylan

I would follow you on this course and examine one by one the evidences for each possibility , and give my answers carved into a table of stone.
Unlike the person who followed after you, you have not shut the door on 'thought' or converstation.... or have you?

However Dinosaurs allegedly died out 65 Million years ago so that would mean mankind has been around all that time...wouldn't it!


OR...your source for the 65 million years is wrong.

Dont you see what you have done?
You have already decided before hand, what you believe. It started out well enough, but in the end, you decided that the bible is wrong , in light of something else you have been told.

So where can it possibly go from here? By your last statement you have closed the door.

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:10 AM
I salute you Jake1997.

It's true my arguements haven't been balanced very well but in my defence I am pretty new to this forum posting lark and I promise things will improve in time.

You're right about the 65 Million year thing and it did cross my mind when I was writing that post but I guess in my haste to reply I glossed over it.

It seems we have a few issues up in the air and hopefully others will continue this thread by examining ideas that have been raised, so rather then rambling on I'll just list down notes and questions that hopefully you people out there in ATS land can debate, solve or surrender to.

Co-existence - No mention of Dinosaurs in Genesis but possible mentions elsewhere. Of course the bible is an edited document so other mentions may have been removed at some period in history.
Dragon legends and their uncanny resembelence to Dinosaurs may stem from an oral tradition dating back form a period when co-existence occured...and it may be worth noting that maybe a possible theory for the extinction of Dinosaurs is that they where hunted out of existence by Man!

I see no reason that man and dinosaurs didn't fact history is litttered with images of Mythical beast and Giant lizards, on cave walls, pottery, fabric and paper....and it's really only the Major religions and Creation myths that have us told us it never happened.


How Did Darwin Deal with Dinosaurs in evolution terms?

What are the earliest accounts of Dragon stories in known human history?

Why are these stories most usually about a great hero of mankind defeating a Dragon?

Did the church supress evidence of Dinosaurs?

Which major cultures are laced with Dragon Mythology and which major religions contain reference to Dinosaur-like creatures?

That's it for now, hopefully people will answer some of these questions so we can continue debating what I think is a very interesting area to discuss and may possibly lead us to explore a whole host of ideas that we haven't entertained on here before .

Onwards and outwards folks

[edit on 13-3-2005 by BobDylan]

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by launchpad

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
If you'd care to read the previous pages you would notice that there has been plenty of on topic discussion. I myself have cited my reasons for believing dinosaurs were not mentioned in the bible in several posts. I have done something perfectly reasonable and legitimate in presenting my arguments to others and pointing out the flaws in theirs.

Unfortunately there are those posting on this thread who let blind faith get in the way of logic and research.

Do you have an opinion on the topic yourself or are you just offended at my questioning of the Bible?

by plenty of realavant posts, do you mean less than 1 in four?

your "reasonable and legitimate" posts are exactly like the one here accusing people of blind faith when really that has zero to do with THIS PARTICULAR discussion.

That's how conversations develop. If every discussion had to follow a linear course life would be rather boring. We have already established through evidence from a Hebrew speaker on this thread that the descriptions you speak of were not of dinosaurs. The conversation developed into a discussion on the manner in which biblical verses are cited as facts and infallible proof when the very same book is called into question by overwhelming evidence contradicting it.

The only way to look at the issue objectively is to balance your sources. The bible is not infallible, it has been skewed by the opinions of men, and as such, trying to use bible quotes to argue that the bible mentions dinosaurs is unconvincing. As far as I am concerned that is a legitimate topic of discussion within this thread.

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 02:21 PM

Originally posted by BobDylan
It's nothing more then plain old Common sense. If you believe that the bible is the word of God then you must also believe that Dinosaurs and mankind co-existed because that's what verses 25 and 26 would be telling you.
[edit on 12-3-2005 by BobDylan]

Yup, that's what I believe. Job also has a comment in it concerning this same thing. It states the behemoth was created along with man.

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
OK as a fluent speaker of the Holy tongue (HEBREW) I would like to clarify the following:
1- Behemoth in Hebrew is a large ruminant.
2- Leviatan is a whale
3- Tanin or plural, Taninim, is an allegator. As I recall, in Genesis the quote was something like this ". . .G-D created the large Taninim. . ."
It is said that the Biblical reference to Taninim is whales. I find that difficult to believe. I do believe that the reference refers to large allegators, reptiles and hence . . .Dinosaurs. . .

This of course would mean:
1- The writers of the Bible were aware of dinosaurs' existance 65 million years after their extinction. Which could mean that either:
a- The Bible is truely a Divine piece of literature. or
b- The existance of dinosaurs was known 3000-5000 years ago.
2- Dinosaurs existed after their supposed exinction (there is some evidence to support this - Look it up in any search engine - search Peru, Pottery and Dinosaur).
3- Tanninim could refer to another creature (my guess is of a form of reptile).

Then again Genesis from the creation up to Abraham is full of mythological type of references such as the references to the NEPHILIM, the great deluge and the tower of Babel.

This is evidence from earlier on in the thread that the bible references do not refer to dinosaurs. Infact, I would go so far as to say it is proof. Have those who persist in taking misinterpretations as truth simply not read the previous pages? Or has this valuable contribution been simply ignored?

Even if the bible did refer to dinosaurs it is impossible that they could have co-existed with humans.

posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 08:05 AM

Even if the bible did refer to dinosaurs it is impossible that they could have co-existed with humans.

Impossible is a very strong word Cidergood...I mean...if you are so confident that such a notion is impossible then why the hell do you post on ATS in the first place?

Let's get away from the relgious and historical documents and scriptures and look at the plain old facts.

Dinosaurs did exist - Fact
Mankind does exist - Fact

Is their any solid evidence to say they never co-existed - No
Is their any solid evidence to say they co-existed - Nothing solid but Legends and oral traditions of Dragons seem more then likely to be Dinosaurs...the link is obvious.

Theory 1 - If Man and Dinosaur did co-exist it is more then possible that we hunted them out of existence...after all...that is what mankind did to Wolves, bears, lions and tigers in many areas of the globe. Dinosaurs would have been a clear and present threat to people so as soon as we developed the capability of ridding ourselves of these creatures...thats what we did.

Question- If Mankind and Dinosaurs never co-existed...How the hell do you explain dragon legends? Are you really saying that ancient man found giants Dinosaur bones scattered about the place and created the Dragon Character from that?

It's very difficult to get away from the Christian view of history becuase even if you aren't Christian yourself....if you live in the western world your history and society has mainly been shaped by Christinaity and it's version of events....and that is a plain old fact.

Their is lots more depth to this subject and I encourage more people to contribute but lets not band words such as "impossible" around kinds of flys against why most of us are here in the first place.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 15-3-2005 by BobDylan]

posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:03 PM
I am not a man of faith. I need evidence to believe something. For me the evidence all points towards dinosaurs having died out 65 million years ago and never co-existing with humans...

-Carbon dating
-Lack of any dinosaur sightings

To believe they ever did requires faith in much the same way as religious belief. There is no convincing those who believe every word of the bible - even the mistranslations - just as there is no convincong an atheist without proof.

The difference is that one side of the argument is based on an abundance of evidence while the other is based on faith in an idea despite a complete lack of evidence.

Question- If Mankind and Dinosaurs never co-existed...How the hell do you explain dragon legends? Are you really saying that ancient man found giants Dinosaur bones scattered about the place and created the Dragon Character from that?

There are plenty of legends of mythical beasts which bear no resmblance to anything which ever existed. Dragons are a convenient example which can be compared to dinosaurs. I believe the two are not linked, but I concede it is difficult to explain why.

A question for you is, however, if these dragon myths were based on dinosaur sightings, why were they not widely documented? Surely to sustain any sort of substantial population in order to stay allive for 65 million years, there would have to be a lot of dinosaurs around? The fact is dragon legends portray rare, individual animals living in caves hoarding gold. Dinosaurs lived in large numbers, in herds and packs.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by CiderGood_HeadacheBad

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

Oh, so you did all the research and came to the conclusions yourself? Or is it possible that you simply have faith in what you've been told? Infallible humans, and all that...

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

Carbon dating: Radioactive Carbon (Carbon-14) is present in all living things, fossilised or otherwise. It's rate of decline in radioactivity (calculated using its half-life - that's the time taken for its radioactivity to reduce by half) is known as an indisputable fact. By measuring the radioactivity of dinosaur fossils containing carbon-14, archaeologists have worked out that dinosaurs lived no more recently than 65 million years ago. This is an indisputable fact.

No, what is an indisputable fact is that Carbon-14 dating is no good beyond about 50,000 years; see so that's one "fact" down.

The same method has been used to calculate that humans "arrived" by whichever means you choose to believe, no more than 2 million years ago, in their most primitive form.

And since it is the "same method," the same point applies. There's another fact gone.

Geology: Over millions of years different layers of rock, earth and minerals pile up, and each layer can be identified as belonging to a certain time in pre-history.

Guess how they know how old the fossils are? By what layer they are in. Guess how they know how old the layers are? By which fossils are in them. Begging the question at its best!

As dinosaur fossils have not been found in the same layers as human fossils, other than as a result of earthquakes or volcanioc activity, we can deduce that they never co-existed.

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 patently false as has been shown elsewhere in this thread; there is plenty of evidence produced by humans that suggest exactly that. Just because you can point to a few fakes does not make them all fakes. That is lazy reasoning.

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 solid evidence, infact I would go so far to say that it is proof.

Then you would go too far. Evidence is not proof. Evidence is evidence. The fact that you don't seem to know the difference speaks volumes about your reasoning skills.

I base my belief on facts.

No, you base your belief on what you believe the the facts are. Since you didn't do the research yourself, you have to trust that what those other people wrote down was true. Sound familiar?

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in