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.

 

so what day was dinosaurs then?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kim
quote MD
It's possible that this is what was meant when the Bible describes, "There were giants in the Earth then..."

interesting, im not an avid reader, so forgive me if i misinterpret some things.

I agree that there is a lot of metaphors thugh. For example- water to wine, walking on water- who thought this stuff up? People shouldnt take things so literally, but doesnt a good deal of the bible seem like stories?



well if dinosaurs is what you mean by giants, then im afraid no its not possible,it seems something is left out, here ya go.

K.J.V.Genisis 6:1-4 1 and it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 that the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair;and they took them wives all of which they chose.
3 and the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive with man,for that he also is flesh:yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
4 there were giants in the earth in those days;and also after that,when the sons of gog came in unto the daughters of men,and they bare children to them,the same became mighty menwhich were of old,men of renown.

im pretty sure this means that the children were the giants

in the next couple of verses god sees the wickedness of the hearts of men and decides to destoy them (the great flood).

it pretty much says the same thing but in more detail in the book of giants
or the book of enoch, he was also a dude in the bible.




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
sorry about that, i'm not usually so overbearing



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kim
once upon a time, the world was made in 7 marvellous days (hmm)
in these days, the sun, moon, birds, animals, fish etc were all made. (ok)
BUT what about dinosaurs?


They're grouped with the "beasts in the field" day, I guess. Maybe God made them when He was really young. I know that I liked playing with dinosaurs when I was a kid, but I grew out of it. Maybe God was the same way, except that He had REAL dinosaurs and He smashed 'em with a meteor when He grew out of them.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
well they were "beasts of the earth" weren't they? They got extinct after the flood because of people killing them and all............... but who knows...maybe they're not extinct?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   


Keep reaching for stuff. You'll eventually find dinosaurs in there...SIKE!



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Here this is a good site from a pastors point of view (www.byronbible.org...) for all the believers in the room.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Actually, his explanation is pretty contradictory. He proposes in his explanation that the creation of all thing's did happen in 6/7 days as foretold within the bible, yet he furthur continues that while we should take that one part as literal, we shouldn't take the creation of adam and eve as literal as this would mean incest which is a sin.

How is it that you can take one section literal, but not the next. In genesis, god created adam first, then god used a rib from adam to create eve. Adam and eve mated with one another and had children. The creation of eve by adams rib would indicate that she's pretty much a twin of adam, with the same genetic coding as adam. If they mated, it would be incest. So this guy is saying don't take that as literal as a work around for that incest, but take the 6 days idea as literal despite the mountains of evidence against a 6 day creation.

For any believer's, could you explain this problem of taking one section from the same story as literal and not the next.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I'm also interested in why, we can have literal translation's for various animals that we know exist today in the bible, yet there's nothing to indicate dinosaurs at all. It's not hard to describe the feature's between a velociraptor, T-Rex, and a diplodicus. Not even the biblical period people were that stupid to the point where they would write "behomoth" or "leviathan" to describe the myriad amounts of differing species of dinosaurs we know existed. Also, why is there no mention, again with the same level of descriptive capabilities used to describe the every day animals man encountered in ancient times to describe a dinosaur if both coexisted? Why have no legends of such persisted through out history?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I don’t know I just saw that it was from a preacher and he was trying to defend or explain the situation so I thought it would be good he does contradict himself a lot but he at least he tries to explain it.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Yes, and people tried to explain the earth was flat or rain came from the gods. However, this doesn't make those explanation's or interpretation's true.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Hey, you don’t know that the rain doesn’t come from some sort of rain god, just because they can prove it comes from clouds doesn’t mean that it isn’t created by a higher being.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
Hey, you don’t know that the rain doesn’t come from some sort of rain god, just because they can prove it comes from clouds doesn’t mean that it isn’t created by a higher being.


You've got to be joking?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I was, but I was trying to say that just because since can prove something doesn’t mean that theres not some higher being controlling it.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_blue_sky11
well they were "beasts of the earth" weren't they? They got extinct after the flood because of people killing them and all............... but who knows...maybe they're not extinct?

(Looks out of the window excitedly in search of a large flesh-eating sauropod, then realises what that would mean and hides under desk). Right. Hum. So where are they? Ever seen one?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
If there were dinos, even the most stupidest man on earth wouldn't have so much trouble as the bible has in describing them. How hard is it really to differentiate between a t-rex, an diplodicus and a velociraptor? Not hard at all. One's huge, one's medium and one's small. Behometh and leviathan DO NOT describe all of them. There are no cave painting's of dinos and man. No preflood legends of dinos and man. Nothing depicting that man and dinos existed together.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I'm constantly amused (and contemptuously amsued as well) by people's efforts at trying to explain the Bible. They take vague references and then twist them around until they fit their meaning. They try to make sense out of something that is very, very old, which has been jiggled around and edited and translated and subjected to all kinds of stresses. You can't match it to the history of the world, you can only match it to a history of the Jewish people - and even then you have to squint really hard in places.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
The Bible does mention dinosaurs. In the book of Job Chapter 40 verses 15 thru 19, a mention to dinosaurs is made.
Job 40:15-19
15 "Behold, Be'hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. 16 Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. 17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. 19 "He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword!
Here is reference to a long thick tailed dinosaur with powerful hind legs and abdominal muscles. In verse 19 it says he was the first to be created by God.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Oh ok, so he just decided to never mention it in genesis and then decided to only mention a sauropod? Ah, all make's perfect sense now. Too bad he's not all that tall and more description given to it. Too bad the countless other species that existed BEFORE this so called dino weren't talked about. Guess god didn't love those guy's and decided that this sauropod was his only first true creation.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
I was, but I was trying to say that just because since can prove something doesn’t mean that theres not some higher being controlling it.

True enough. However, if its inaccessible to the critique of rational thought and evidence, (ie, 'unprovable', taken lightly, not literally), then we can't say much about it at all no? Other than thru whimsy, no?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Correct, but you can’t make a conclusion with out going through all the hypothesis either.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join