Originally posted by DoctorDaraNo, of course not. A half-horse, half-man is clearly an imaginary creature, like a mermaid or any number of other mythical beasts. How someone could actually believe they exist, or would believe they exist if shown a sufficient reference citing their existence, is beyond me. You'd really have to be an idiot to believe such a thing.
Not to my knowledge ;-). How about yours? ;-)
Originally posted by NemesioThanks Nemesio, the first thing I said was there's disagreement about the old testament. What's in there and what people understand. Dinosaurs are in there, so are angels mating with humans to create a super human race, gods, people walking through fire, and let's not forget the ten plagues. What's in the bible and what you choose to believe are not the same thing. Some Christians believe all of it. Others, only what archeology has found. Still others think it's a nice collection of stories.
Actually most scholars think references to leviathan, behemoth, and
're-em' are metaphorical. But, hey, believe what you want. If you
want to pretend that dating methods used to show that no dinosaur
ever met any human-like creature are questionable, but these obscure
Scriptural passages confirm that Adam rode Dino to work, then valete!
Nemesio
As for there being dinosaurs around, of course there are any time you see an turtle, eat a flounder, or watch a cockroach infest your house you see an evolutionist's existance of an extinct animal from that time. Just because something was alive then doesn't mean it's died out now. Look at the shark, still perfect after how many years? ;-)
Originally posted by DoctorDara
What's in there and what people understand.
What's in there is Hebrew equivalents to 'Leviathan,' 'Behemoth,'
and 'Re-em.' What people understand these to mean is totally up
to reasonable interpretation. Some people (and perhaps you)
understand these terms to refer to dinosaurs. There are many literary
and scientific reasons not to do so.
Dinosaurs are in there,
But, as you said, they are not. The people you cited interpret the
descriptions as intending to depict dinosaurs.
so are angels mating with humans to create a super human race, gods, people walking through fire, and let's not forget the ten plagues.
Yes. There are lots of words in the Bible. However, not a single book
of the Bible have a contemporary critical commentary by the author
who could take the time to explain whether a certain passage was
meant literally, metaphorically, hyperbolically, or whatever.
What's in the bible and what you choose to believe are not the same thing.
Additionally, you are working off of the flawed premise that words today
mean the same thing as words of yesteryear. As you well know, words'
meanings can change markedly in just a lifetime -- imagine what
three thousand years could mean for a word? So, what the Bible
'says' may have no bearing on what the author 'meant.'
As for there being dinosaurs around, of course there are any time you see an turtle, eat a flounder, or watch a cockroach infest your house you see an evolutionist's existance of an extinct animal from that time.
I don't understand what you meant.
Just because something was alive then doesn't mean it's died out now. Look at the shark, still perfect after how many years? ;-)
Yes, certain animals had no natural pressures to evolve because they
were so well suited to their environment. I'm unsure what this has to
do with the dubious claim that the Bible makes references to dinosaurs.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kirksey957I love you. If only the die hard fundies could take the blinkers off and enjoy your wisdom.
Let me try. The Genesis accounts of creation are not about the "first man and woman." Neither is it about evolution vs creationism. It is about an awareness of God and the relationship that follows. It is intended to be everyone's story. Yes, there were dinosaurs. Yes, there are airplanes. Neither are mentioned in the Bible and that is OK, because the story of the Bible is about more than this.
Originally posted by NemesioYou are rapidly crossing the line between sounding wise and sounding foolish. Tell me the "literary and scientific reasons not to." How about the Behemoth? Tail like cedar, loins of steel, etc. You gonna be stupid and try and tell me it's a hippo? No, I thought not.
Originally posted by DoctorDara
[b]What's in there and what people understand.
What's in there is Hebrew equivalents to 'Leviathan,' 'Behemoth,'
and 'Re-em.' What people understand these to mean is totally up
to reasonable interpretation. Some people (and perhaps you)
understand these terms to refer to dinosaurs. There are many literary ...[text shortened]... h the dubious claim that the Bible makes references to dinosaurs.
Nemesio[/b]
"Look at the behemoth, [a]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail [b] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c]
or trap him and pierce his nose?
The passage describes a large powerful animal that appears to be herbivorous (40:15).
In Jewish belief, Behemoth is the primal unconquerable monster of the land, as Leviathan is the primal monster of the waters of the sea and Ziz the primordial monster of the sky.
There is a legend that the Leviathan and the Behemoth shall hold the battle of the end of the world. They shall kill each other and a huge number of other creatures in the epic battle. The two will finally kill each other, and the surviving men will feast on their meat. According to midrash recording traditions, it is impossible for anyone to kill a behemoth except for the person who created it, in this case the God of the Hebrews. A later Jewish haggadic tradition furthermore holds that at the banquet at the end of the world, the behemoth will be served up along with the leviathan and ziz.
[edit] Meaning
Behemoth can be interpreted as a mythical animal. However, some have attempted to identify it with real-life animals.
In the book of Job, both Behemoth and Leviathan are listed alongside a number of mundane animals, such as goats, eagles, and hawks, leading many Christian scholars to surmise that Behemoth and Leviathan may also be mundane creatures. Suggested animals include the water buffalo and the elephant, but the most common suggestion is the hippopotamus. Some readers also identify a hippopotamus in Isaiah's bahamot negeb or "beasts of the south" (30:6). Indeed, one of the Russian words for hippopotamus is "behemoth," which does not carry the same mythical connotations in Russian. Although the animal's tail "moves like a cedar" (40:17), an unlikely description for any of these animals, "tail' could be a euphemism for an elephant's trunk (Mitchell, 1987). Moreover, some suggest that "tail" is a euphemism for male genitalia. Support for this is based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones" [the Vulgate uses the word "testiculorum"].
Others disagree, pointing to the fact that Behemoth is called "chief of the ways of God" (40:19), indicating that it is not a mere animal.
Another proposal is that the Behemoth is a dinosaur. Some sort of sauropod is usually proposed since large sauropods had tails "like a cedar". Adherents to this viewpoint hold that it is more consistent with the literal application of the text. However, critics usually point out that according to paleontology, sauropods went extinct 65 million years ago, and thus weren't around at the same time as man. Additionally, opponents of this theory argue that the text is probably allegory at best. But believers in the literal truth of the Bible hold that much of our science about the history of the earth is based on faulty or incomplete knowledge, and that if dinosaurs existed, then they co-existed with ancient men (which would also explain their listing alongside mundane animals, which they would have been also). It is claimed that credence is given to this thought line because the word 'dinosaur' did not exist until 1841 and was not widely in use until the 1860's, while the verses were transliterated more than 50 years earlier. For the same reason some people say that the references to dragons in the Bible could be dinosaurs.
There are modern accounts of a sauropodlike animal called Mokele-mbembe living in Africa. As both creatures are rumored to be dinosaurs, some believe that Mokele-mbembe and Behemoth may be one and the same.
Thank you wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth
Originally posted by DoctorDaraThe scientific reasons are because there is no scientific reason for believing dinosaurs and humans
You are rapidly crossing the line between sounding wise and sounding foolish. Tell me the "literary and scientific reasons not to." How about the Behemoth? Tail like cedar, loins of steel, etc. You gonna be stupid and try and tell me it's a hippo? No, I thought not.
ever co-existed.
The literary reasons are because there are many forms of Hebrew writing and what we would
understand as hyperbole were commonplace. We have countless examples of these in the form
of pesherim and midrashim which were orally transmitted alongside many books of the Bible.
That an author would see a giraffe and say, for example, that its head touched the sky doesn't
mean that its head really touched the sky.
What's with the street talk -- you gonna be stupid... &c? If you don't want to discuss spiritual
matters like an adult, then maybe you shouldn't post in these forums.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio1. Scientific- Where? The Age of the Dinosaurs may have ended, but dinosaurs are still walking and swimming among us. Use your head, don't just regurgitate some crap you learned in 2nd grade. 98% is not 100% and if you believe in evolution you should be very happy that you're part of the same minority that survived. You can admit a shark is a dinosaur in one breath and then in the next talk about no scientific evidence of dinosaurs and humans co-existing. What crap. Honestly your logic baffles. Or lack therein. Think about it the next time you see a butterfly, a frog, or go to a sushi restaurant and order squid. As for more dinosaur-like sightings, most of them fall under the paranormal which I am trying to leave debates like does the Lock Ness Monster exist out of this.
The scientific reasons are because there is no scientific reason for believing dinosaurs and humans
ever co-existed.
The literary reasons are because there are many forms of Hebrew writing and what we would
understand as hyperbole were commonplace. We have countless examples of these in the form
of pesherim and midrashim which were orally transmitted ...[text shortened]... spiritual
matters like an adult, then maybe you shouldn't post in these forums.
Nemesio
2. Literary- Using a comparison to describe how big, large, or wide something is does not make the underlying concept invalid that for example something is big, small, etc. I asked you not to speak from your personal opinion of the overall validity of Jewish oral/written tradition, but to the specific passages mentioned.
Street talk? I called you foolish, not stupid. One implies a lack of intelligence, another a lack of wisdom. You lack wisdom. Of course biblically the bible also says that it's impossible to correct a fool, so maybe I'm being foolish in trying to talk with you.
Originally posted by DoctorDaraWhat are you talking about? Who calls any living speciec exit today a dinosaur.
1. Scientific- Where? The Age of the Dinosaurs may have ended, but dinosaurs are still walking and swimming among us. Use your head, don't just regurgitate some crap you learned in 2nd grade. 98% is not 100% and if you believe in evolution you should be very happy that you're part of the same minority that survived. You can admit a shark is a dinosaur in ...[text shortened]... at it's impossible to correct a fool, so maybe I'm being foolish in trying to talk with you.
And it is clear what this thread is talking about. Now you are mixing concepts to make your point.
Originally posted by ahosyneyabc's latest release: walking with dinosaurs. If you look at the glossary there are numberous listings of animals that are both modern and ancient. As for "extinct" creatures still walking the earth, the most famous one a few years ago was the "rediscovery" of the dinosaur fish species coelacanth which had been thought to be extinct for a millennia. This modern day dinosaur is accepted in every scientific community.
What are you talking about? Who calls any living speciec exit today a dinosaur.
And it is clear what this thread is talking about. Now you are mixing concepts to make your point.
In 1841, Sir Richard Owen coined the word "dinosaur" to identify the fossils of extinct reptiles. It traces its origins to the Greek words deinos, meaning "terrible" or "fearfully great," and sauros, meaning "lizard."
They range in size from large to small. One of the major problems over the years is that we have not explored the entire world/civilizations and a creature can often be listed as "extinct" that actually is not. Also dinosaur has come to refer to two groups of lizards with specific taxidermist characteristics: Ornithischia and Saurischia. I have a few pictures myself of an "extinct" snake from a trip to Costa Rica in high school working for the museum of natural sciences. I've kept it over the years to remind me how easy it is as scientists to stop questioning the truth. Any person can claim something is "extinct", that does not make it so. Regardless of your personal beliefs, literature and art is littered with monsters. You can pick up any children's fairy tale book and read about dragons or for a more extensive look try a paranormal website: http://s8int.com/dino1.html. The Bible is also one of those books. How you choose to interpret it is your business, but does the bible mention them? Yes.
Originally posted by DoctorDaraThe idea is dinosaurs are like any other specise. How exactly they should be mentioned. They are part of the creature. So why they need to have a separet mention. Although I don't defend the Bible, that is the simplest problem in the Bible. It has many other problems, but this question is not one of them.
abc's latest release: walking with dinosaurs. If you look at the glossary there are numberous listings of animals that are both modern and ancient. As for "extinct" creatures still walking the earth, the most famous one a few years ago was the "rediscovery" of the dinosaur fish species coelacanth which had been thought to be extinct for a millennia. This ose to interpret it is your business, but does the bible mention them? Yes.
Note: I know my use of English is not GOOD, forgive me for that 🙂
Originally posted by DoctorDaraThere are no dinosaurs living today. Some animals are believed to be descended from dinosaurs (such as birds) but that does not make them dinosaurs. Sharks are definitely not dinosaurs.
Scientific- Where? The Age of the Dinosaurs may have ended, but dinosaurs are still walking and swimming among us.
See...this book of Job refers to this great massive powerful creature of the sea known as Leviathan, another similarly large and powerful creature of the land ie: Behemoth...We have this all benevelent master of the skies: God and along with many other entities we have the Lord of the inner Earth Satan.
These are all (in my mind and many others) made up monsters and entities designed to strike awe, reverence and fear in the not much scientifically learned minds of ancient men. They are only considered to be dinosaurs by people such as yourself because someone (a number of years ago) probably figured out that finding massive dinosaur bones would perhaps reveal some of the inconsistancies within religious texts and so people look for whatever angles they can to get round this issue...none of what you have provided in any way references dinosaurs; you merely engineer the prose to fit this purpose.
How the hell did Noah get 2 of every bloody dinosaur into his little ark let alone 2 of every species!!?...How did he stop em from eating all the other animals?
Remember that many people of old times weren't exactly the brightest lamps in the street...take for example the test for whether someone is a witch:
You try to drown em...If they die then you made a mistake: They weren't wiches! If on the otherhand they don't drown then you burn the poor sods at the stake!🙄😕 Why is it not reasonable that their ancestors were not gullible enough to believe some crap that a group of storytellers and *wise men* cooked up to answer their questions and has since been modified and revised?...We now have millions of people who put aside their logic on account of the fallacious idea that their own parents and millions of people cannot all be wrong...this is despite the fact that they themselves made the same mistake under the same sort of circumstances themselves!
Why do people follow this book written by long dead and not very sophisticated humans, the assertions within which being completely un-testable literally to the last word when not one shred of credible evidence has been brought to bear so far that is based neither on religious scripture or can be explained away by any other non-supernatural means?
Originally posted by AgergThis is actually an example of very cunning thinking. You need to get rid of someone and you need a justification which the general populace will accept. You also appeal to peoples fear and superstitions and give them something to blame all the unexplained happenings on and something to blame all their failures on. ("My crops failed because of that witch"😉 You also make sure that everyone is involved in the crime so that should anyone have second thoughts later they have only themselves to blame.
Remember that many people of old times weren't exactly the brightest lamps in the street...take for example the test for whether someone is a witch:
You try to drown em...If they die then you made a mistake: They weren't wiches! If on the otherhand they don't drown then you burn the poor sods at the stake!
[edit]The phenomena of witch hunting is not confined to olden times, it still take place today in some societies.