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.

 

God, humans, and dinosaurs it all comes together.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
God is above time. But the world he created and was creating was not above time. I'm not saying that 7 litteral days can be proven(though I believe it), I'm just saying, nowhere in the Bible does it make a referance to anything but 7 litteral days.




posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thexsword
God is above time. But the world he created and was creating was not above time. I'm not saying that 7 litteral days can be proven(though I believe it), I'm just saying, nowhere in the Bible does it make a referance to anything but 7 litteral days.


however, those days were in place before the establishment of earth time
and time on earth can't exist if the earth isn't spinning on it's axis around another body



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Biblically, it says that God created the heavens, earth, stars, and universe on the same day, so biblically we could say earth did have an axis and we did have time as we know it today.

Scientifically, I don't have enough knowledge over the time of the days, I forget much of what I have learned, but I will try to find more evidence to study this.


Lets go back to the defeat thread and argue now, haha. God bless.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The bible actually describes a creature that could be taken as a dinosaur. As far as genisis goes, how would a person (author) over 2000 years ago describe how the world as it came to be. The africans have creation stories that talk about us being created on a turtles back. To take the creation story literally as a fundamentalist would, is just plain silly. Was there adam and eve..maybe,but probable not. Were we made from the dust of the earth as it says...most likely. BTW, im new to this forum and im glad to see that there still is people thinking in this world.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2l82sk8

Originally posted by thexsword
Well if you were John, in those days you had a revelation of a large freaky beast. What would be the closest thing he knew of to call it, a dragon (dinosaur). When there is no name for the beast he see's, what else could he say? He could call it a Moutain Lion. He had to compare it to what he had known.


I would be inclined to strongly agree.

However one must also consider that a "dragon" to John, could have been like a large snake or lizard (think Kimono Dragon)...not what people later imagined, interpreted it to be, wrote of fictionally, or what has traveled all the way to hollywood to represent an ancien dragon in the process.

But I totally agree with your logic here. That John had to be refering to something he/people of the time knew to live as his point of reference.


While I totally agree with the logic, There is one glaring problem with the inference - John lived at a time when many scribes/historians etc were living, and none of them ever mention dino's or beasts.
It has also being noticed that mythical beasts are more than likely been created in the imagination of people who have seen dinosaur bones.


G



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by parkinsonscowboy
The bible actually describes a creature that could be taken as a dinosaur..


just to point out something else
UNICORNS are in the bible as well
yet you never see a "creation scientist" trying to explain the existence of unicorns
they appear in numbers and job (job is also where there is the "behemoth" which a nice little brain-washing song tells little kids is a dinosaur)



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by parkinsonscowboy
The bible actually describes a creature that could be taken as a dinosaur..


just to point out something else
UNICORNS are in the bible as well
yet you never see a "creation scientist" trying to explain the existence of unicorns
they appear in numbers and job (job is also where there is the "behemoth" which a nice little brain-washing song tells little kids is a dinosaur)


What kind of godless heretic would deny that unicorns really lived among men if it says so in the Bible?! You atheists are really reaching now!

T-I-C



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Let's take an objective look at exactly what Job 40 actually says.
Beginning with Job 40:15 :

"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox."
- Ok, so he eats grass. It could be any herbivorous grazer.


Job 40:16 :
"See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles."
- So this grazing herbivore must be quite large in order to fit the profile of strong hips and powerful stomach muscles, it could be any type of cattle

Job 40:17 :
"He moves his tale like a cedar; The sinews of this thighs are tightly knit."
- Well, his tail is like a cedar tree which he moves very slowly. This rules out large herbivores such as hippos, elephants, horses, cattle, and a variety of other animals with small tails.

Job 40:19 :
"He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword."
- So this mysterious, large, herbivorous, thick tailed creature was an early creation of God. Also, he must be mighty large and strong if the only entity that can tame it is God.

Job 40:21 :
"He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh."
- So now the habitat of this mystery creature is revealed. Lotus trees, reeds, marshes... Sounds like it would need to be very warm and humid to support this type of habitat.

Job 40:23 :
"Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed..."
- And the final piece of this puzzle is that this creature dwells in or around a river.

After this objective look at the text of Job, I finally have a conclusion. The mysterious creature described is very large, it is an herbivore and a grazer, its tail is like a cedar tree, it is very powerful and claims that it can only be tamed by God, it is one of God’s early creations, and its habitat is in a river large enough to support him. This leaves me with the only two candidates on Earth that fit this description...

TADA! The Sauropod and Brontosaurus!
Furthermore, there is a certain cryptid by the name of Mokele-Mbembe. Mokele-Mbembe is supposedly a living sauropod or brontosaurus living in the deep, uncharted areas of Africa. Wikipedia it, it’s a very interesting read.


[I]Wikipedia Quote[/I]
Though the evidence for mokele-mbembe was not conclusive, Mackal judged available evidence as consistent, writing, "I believe the description of the Mokele-mbembe is accounted for in all respects by an identification with a small sauropod dinosaur."
Mackal and others have suggested that Mokele-mbembe's existence is plausible because of the large amount of allegedly uncharted territory in which a breeding population could survive. Other large creatures, such as elephants, exist in the region, living in large open clearings (each called a bai), as well as in thicker wooded areas. Given these arguments about the terrain and environment, proponents contend that the existence of the Mokele-mbembe may appear to be a possibility.





Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
... job is also where there is the "behemoth" which a nice little brain-washing song tells little kids is a dinosaur

What brain-washing song are you talking about? The reason why the behemoth in the bible is thought to be a dinosaur such as the brontosaurus is because it is the most plausible animal that fit’s the description. We call it like we see it, do not accuse people of brain-washing when you know nothing about what you are arguing against.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Job 40:17 :
"He moves his tale like a cedar; The sinews of this thighs are tightly knit."
- Well, his tail is like a cedar tree which he moves very slowly. This rules out large herbivores such as hippos, elephants, horses, cattle, and a variety of other animals with small tails.


Quite a stretch.

He moves his tail like a cedar.

Says nothing about his tail looking like one, just moving like one. If I say that an athlete runs like a cheetah - Does it mean he has whiskers, tail, claws and runs on four legs? It think it would be interpreted as he moves fast and has good acceleration maybe, probably not on four legs though.

So how does a cedar move? Slowly, possibly sways. Therefore the tail moves slowly, possibly swaying?

The rest is your wishful-thinking.

We also have indications he could be covered by shadows of trees (under trees). Also, sauropods were apparently tree-browsers. Grass never existed 65Myrs ago.



[edit on 2-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
if behemoth is proof that dinosaurs are in the bible, does that mean that unicorns once existed?

they are in the bible twice, and by the logic saying that behemoth is a real creature, they existed at least once



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if behemoth is proof that dinosaurs are in the bible, does that mean that unicorns once existed?

they are in the bible twice, and by the logic saying that behemoth is a real creature, they existed at least once


Where are unicorns in the bible? And if they are, are they being used metaphorically?

The Behemoth is possibly a dinosaur, or possibly some other creature such as the Leviathan or the Dragon. We obviously do not know yet since we have not met any of them! And please, stop bringing up unicorns. Nobody is talking about unicorns except for you, and I feel like I've lost a quarter of my brain cells every time I hear you rant about unicorns. Enough with the unicorns please!



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Isaiah 34:7


And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.


Job39:9-10


Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?/ Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?


those are just 2 examples of unicorns in the bible

my point is that the bible can be quite absurd at times
and as such
shouldn't be used for any sort of scientific purpose

now,if you want to use it as a basis for possibly going on an archaeological dig, that's fine
but if you want to use it to tell you how life came about, that's not



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
While I totally agree with the logic, There is one glaring problem with the inference - John lived at a time when many scribes/historians etc were living, and none of them ever mention dino's or beasts.
G


No beasts? You sure on that?


Yeah logic is one thing, but it doesn't always equal reality any more than illogically based myth...however it doesn't eliminate possibility either.

That aside, the writings we have aren't all inclusive in any way. Perhaps no one else had anything to say about them? I just mean, just because there isn't something else you are familiar with written about them...doesn't prove they didn't exist.

Like, say there wasn't alot written anciently about gnats or something specific in particular, but one person who is well known and famous mentions it.....does it mean they are not credible, or the life described or mentioned didn't exist if no one else makes mention of them? Perhaps everyone knew the swarmy little pests, but few ever mentioned them for any reason.

Ugh, I'm mentally fried today, but you get my logic right? That was the sub-subject about the Dragon being familiar to him, blah blah blah.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

those are just 2 examples of unicorns in the bible

my point is that the bible can be quite absurd at times
and as such
shouldn't be used for any sort of scientific purpose


Speaking of blah blah blah...

HUH?

So, unicorns were mentioned in the Bible...this makes the Bible absurd? Theres alot of good philosophy in the Bible, too bad it's so misused and abused sometimes.

Now, I'm skeptical about alot of things (mostly people) but it doesn't bother me a bit to think a unicorn could have been a real creature...and no, I don't think that lends validity or credibility to the Bible, nor discredits it as being absurd either though.

Oh my aching brain....why was I here today...I can't remember now.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
2l82sk8, i'm not saying that the bible is bankrupt as a philosophical text
it does have it's points
i'm saying that the bible holds pretty much nothing in terms of science and the early history of the earth



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2l82sk8

Originally posted by shihulud
While I totally agree with the logic, There is one glaring problem with the inference - John lived at a time when many scribes/historians etc were living, and none of them ever mention dino's or beasts.
G


No beasts? You sure on that?
Well, nothing mythological or dino like anyway. Also there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of dinos at that time and no comparitive reports of similar creatures.


Yeah logic is one thing, but it doesn't always equal reality any more than illogically based myth...however it doesn't eliminate possibility either.
It might not eliminate the possibility but to take the word of one person (who doesnt really give enough information anyway) is insane. If thats the case what the hell did Ezekiel see made of bronze with four heads etc. Are we then to accept that metallic four headed monster chariot things existed?????


That aside, the writings we have aren't all inclusive in any way. Perhaps no one else had anything to say about them? I just mean, just because there isn't something else you are familiar with written about them...doesn't prove they didn't exist.
Well I would think that, but the fact that its just a few vague descriptions in a book that is known for its allegories,parables - who says that the description is to be taken literally? Who decides what bits of the bible are real and what bits are allegorical????



Ugh, I'm mentally fried today, but you get my logic right? That was the sub-subject about the Dragon being familiar to him, blah blah blah.
Maybe its allegorical, the dragon being the beast within himself or the beast within rome etc.

G



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
2l82sk8, i'm not saying that the bible is bankrupt as a philosophical text
it does have it's points
i'm saying that the bible holds pretty much nothing in terms of science and the early history of the earth


Nothing that's not faith based first to understand the science, I understand.


Also, forgive me if I was assuming, or appeared to be assuming, to know your overall opinion of the Bible. I was just curious about your unicorn example, and reference to it proving the absurdity of the Bible, because I am fond of the Bible in many ways for many reasons, and I also don't discount the possibility of one-horned animals existing at one time or another.

But I believe in Bigfoot too, so perhaps I loose credibility.


Anyway, back to unicorns, just because they've been romanticized to be mythical creatures of beauty, like one horned horses with a purple tails, and pink manes and a trail of sparkles when they run in little girls' dancing dreams... doesn't mean a one horned animal didn't once exist, yk?

As far of records, mentions of the animal in text, or archaeological *proof* of such...I'd say the horns, like the rack of a deer could have been seasonal, plus unlike bone, perhaps simply more biodegradable, yk?

Gosh...I'm still fried today.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
No beasts? You sure on that?
Well, nothing mythological or dino like anyway. Also there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of dinos at that time and no comparitive reports of similar creatures.


Oh I'm a wimp on the point by point re-play today...and still brain-fried, but I couldn't make much sense of that answer, so I'm going to look for the gist...

Ok, I get it. No, I'd never argue that dinosaurs existed 2000 years ago.
NO, no no...So, in reply, I agree and agree that there is no proof of such.

However, I don't think that means the people at the time, or some like John, didn't have knowledge of them- Dinos and Dragons- once existing on Earth prior to them.

Or as I had said, that the beast, the "dragon" John spoke of could have been something simpler and smaller like another name for a snake, large reptile, Kimono Dragon etc, which was common enough for people to understand the reference when he relayed seeing such in a dream/vision Etc.

Perhaps though, he was just giving new name to something familar-taking creative license, using slang, and that is where our modern day myths of "dragons" are shaped from and named for.


Originally posted by shihulud
It might not eliminate the possibility but to take the word of one person (who doesnt really give enough information anyway) is insane.


Well, it depends on the person and the subject for me. I am capable of believing one person if they have a decent track record, and I trust them, believe in them, and don't believe they are prone to fabrication, exaggeration, or halucination.
(and I promise you I'm not insane.)


Originally posted by shihuludIf thats the case what the hell did Ezekiel see made of bronze with four heads etc. Are we then to accept that metallic four headed monster chariot things existed?????


If you wanted to accept that and believe it, I would allow you that right and privilage to believe what you will. But no, I don't know what we, as a whole, are to accept in Ezekiel's case, but I'd say a vision could encompass and represent anything, and be put into description most useful for those people at that time.

Plus, logically, just because one can sometimes take the word of one person on something, even literally, doesn't mean it dictates, to follow suit to always take one person's word, or that it lends credibility to take the word of ALL people at face value or literally even within one compiled book of writings like the Bible.


Originally posted by shihulud
Well I would think that, but the fact that its just a few vague descriptions in a book that is known for its allegories,parables - who says that the description is to be taken literally? Who decides what bits of the bible are real and what bits are allegorical????


Who is to say? My answer to you would be-you decide. With logic mixed with faith, divine inspiration, enlightenment-whatever. Then you can more easily, I think, know what is allogorical and what is literal and what the true meaning of parables are/were.

Fact is, I do not believe or think anything scientific can fully understood through faith without proper education or knowledge of the science and elements and laws that govern physics, etc

Likewise, I do not think that which is faith based and spiritual, be it literall, allegorical, or parable, can ever be understood scientifically,.logically, intellectuallty, without any faith, or divine inspiration, or spiritual guidance.

There is a reason it ALL exists. Until one learns to use them together-logic, faith, scientific education, enlightenment, intellect, and spirituality, they will spin their wheels trying to discredit one, just to prove the other... and in their vanity never see the bigger picture. The whole. It's funny. No, It's sad.


[edit on 7-2-2007 by 2l82sk8]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Maybe its allegorical, the dragon being the beast within himself or the beast within rome etc.


The beast within Rome...I like that.

I don't think it was the beast within himself...but that's just me.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join