I've seen the word behemoth and leviathan, but I'm not sure if they are referring to dinosaurs. Dragon refers to Satan I know.

god just planted the dinosaur bones there to trick the blasphemous and unfaithful into believing they existed

quote:Originally posted by Trojan_47:

I've seen the word behemoth and leviathan, but I'm not sure if they are referring to dinosaurs. Dragon refers to Satan I know.

Unless you can think of an animal alive today that is monstrously big, eats grass like an ox, and also has a tail likened to a cedar tree, then yes, it does... But, the Bible doesn't talk about lice. So supposing that the Bible didn't talk about dinosaurs is pretty much irrelevant. It doesn't negate their existance or bring the Bible into disrepute either way.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Unless you can think of an animal alive today that is monstrously big, eats grass like an ox, and also has a tail likened to a cedar tree, then yes, it does... But, the Bible doesn't talk about lice. So supposing that the Bible didn't talk about dinosaurs is pretty much irrelevant. It doesn't negate their existance or bring the Bible into disrepute either way.



I disagree: the Pre-Cambrian to the Late Jurassic took a LONG time in the history of Earth, nearly 75% of its lifetime before we arrived. So, not quoting the fact that dinosaurs existed is a huge indicator that God didn't write the bible, men did. And men could not have imagined dinosaurs, unless they were capable of archaeology.

As for tiamat, leviathan, they might have been just a myth, like Amamait (Egyptian half-hippo/crocodile/lion). Who knows if those creatures were relating to dinosaurs or a creature observed by a huge hashish party?

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

I disagree: the Pre-Cambrian to the Late Jurassic took a LONG time in the history of Earth, nearly 75% of its lifetime before we arrived. So, not quoting the fact that dinosaurs existed is a huge indicator that God didn't write the bible, men did. And men could not have imagined dinosaurs, unless they were capable of archaeology.

As for tiamat, leviathan, they might have been just a myth, like Amamait (Egyptian half-hippo/crocodile/lion). Who knows if those creatures were relating to dinosaurs or a creature observed by a huge hashish party?

First of all, I said that dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible. what I said was, even if they weren't doesn't present a problem for the Bible. As it is, the Bible does mention them. I'm not going to get into a debate about in evolution in this room, because it will be shut down. If you'd like to debate about it, we can go to a room with relevancy. Just let me know. As you will clearly see through antiquity, man and beast did co-exist for many years. There are a lot of pictures. I hope you enjoy this site. http://s8int.com/dinolit3.html

Nope dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible. I don't see a reason why they need to be, being extincted long before God decided to tell humans about himself.

A recent thread was made about this, a slightly modified posts I made, (it was replying to a linked article)

Behemoth

The bible says, "17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."

"23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares."

Strongs defines "moveth" as "to delight in" "Move" or "bend down." So the verse isn't saying his tail is as long or wide as a cedar but that it acts like a cedar. It is thought that tail is slang for penis especially when you see the next part talking about stones (testicles). If you want to take these verses as literal, you will need to find a dinosaur that can drink up a river.

A hippo sounds about right to me. If they were referring to a dinosaur they oddly left out defining features (of the dinosaur most christians suggest) such as a very long neck, or thick stomping legs.

Leviathan

It's a bit more mythical sounding. Among it's features is the ability to breath fire, not only do we have no evidence of a fire breathing dinosaur, can you imagine the devastation a fire breathing dinosaur could cause?

Hyro: I wouldn't recommend trusting that site. They use multiple known frauds or mistakes as evidence among other errors.

Strongs defines "moveth" as "to delight in" "Move" or "bend down." So the verse isn't saying his tail is as long or wide as a cedar but that it acts like a cedar. It is thought that tail is slang for penis especially when you see the next part talking about stones (testicles). If you want to take these verses as literal, you will need to find a dinosaur that can drink up a river.

I have a Strongs concordance and mine doesn't say anything akin to that. As well, I have a Hebrew Bible and it also doesn't say that. But I've heard this argument before. (that's what compeled me to look in the first place.) The argument supposes that they didn't want to talk about genitalia because it's 'dirty'. That's ridiculous because here in Ezekiel 26 we see that lewdness is not a problem in the Bible.

"Oholah engaged in prostitution while she was still mine; and she lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians-warriors 6 clothed in blue, governors and commanders, all of them handsome young men, and mounted horsemen. 7 She gave herself as a prostitute to all the elite of the Assyrians and defiled herself with all the idols of everyone she lusted after. 8 She did not give up the prostitution she began in Egypt, when during her youth men slept with her, caressed her virgin bosom and poured out their lust upon her.

9 "Therefore I handed her over to her lovers, the Assyrians, for whom she lusted. 10 They stripped her naked, took away her sons and daughters and killed her with the sword. She became a byword among women, and punishment was inflicted on her.

11 "Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. 12 She too lusted after the Assyrians—governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. 13 I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way.

14 "But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans [a] portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea. 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. [c]

22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side- 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. 24 They will come against you with weapons, [d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire. 26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry. 27 So I will put a stop to the lewdness and prostitution you began in Egypt. You will not look on these things with longing or remember Egypt anymore

Aside from this, there is no need to mention the genitalia of the Behemoth in the text. The two adulterous sisters, however, represent Israel and Judah, therefore, it serves a purpose.

As well, you neglect to mention in Job where he says, "And his (behemoth) Maker can approach him with the sword." Meaning, God can cause the Behemoth to perish from the earth, just like the dinosaurs.



Leviathan

It's a bit more mythical sounding. Among it's features is the ability to breath fire, not only do we have no evidence of a fire breathing dinosaur, can you imagine the devastation a fire breathing dinosaur could cause?

As far as fire-breathing, it likely was not literal fire, but a mixing of chemical compounds similar to the Bombadier beetle. http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/5/chemistry/catalysis/catsch8pg5.html (http: //www.scho olscience. co.uk/cont ent/5/chem istry/cata lysis/cats ch8pg5.htm l)

Furthermore, there are countless instances of testimonies made by various ancient civilizations talking about 'fire-breathing' dragons and whatnot. Interestingly enough, the body prototype of a 'dragon' is very similar to many dinosaurs we know today.

]



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 11-07-2005).]

Dirty

No, the argument isn't that it's dirty. It's that it was a euphemism. Even if it wasn't my earlier argument still stands, it says move like a cedar tree not look like one and they oddly ignored some of the more defining features of a dinosaur .

To say the behemoth is a dinosaur is to read a lot into the bible.



Beetle

I removed mention of the Bombadier beetle because it seemed out of place, not being mentioned... yet. The beetle shoots hot liquid. The bible doesn't say hot liquid it specifically says sparks and fire. Unless you are going to pick and choose what should be literal.

Fire breathing monsters

I would question the claim that there are many fire breathing dragons in mythology. Nor is the body of a "dragon" dinosaur like. Modern european dragons might be dinosaur like but most ancient "dragons" looked different and were either composite creatures like the Chimera or water serpent like.

There are also many talking animals in mythology, that doesn't mean animals can talk.

god wiped the dinosaurs out when he figured out they couldnt make up books about him

they were always killing and coveting their neighbours eggs.



[This message has been edited by Cancerous Cretin (edited 11-07-2005).]

No, the argument isn't that it's dirty. It's that it was a euphemism. Even if it wasn't my earlier argument still stands, it says move like a cedar tree not look like one and they oddly ignored some of the more defining features of a dinosaur.

So you think it means, 'he sways his penis like a cedar tree?' Think of the context. It's so out of place. And translated in the Hebrew bible, it says 'tail'.

To say the behemoth is a dinosaur is to read a lot into the bible.

I certainly agree... Based on that description alone, we cannot say with any sort of validity. But, coupled with the descriptions of it (eating grass, having a tail thick like a cedar, being immnesley powerful, having the need for a strong belly to support the weight, and that his Maker approaches him with the sword) give it some credit just to look into it. IMHO



I removed mention of the Bombadier beetle because it seemed out of place, not being mentioned... yet. The beetle shoots hot liquid. The bible doesn't say hot liquid it specifically says sparks and fire. Unless you are going to pick and choose what should be literal.

I made mention of the Bombadier beetle because it's noxious chemicals reach the boiling point of water, which could very well start a fire, given the right circumstances. Coupled with the fact that a creature such as this already exists and the fact that many, many cultures have described fire-breathing dragons (irrespective of whether or not it was actual fire) give it a little more credibility. IMHO

Fire breathing monsters

I would question the claim that there are many fire breathing dragons in mythology. Nor is the body of a "dragon" dinosaur like. Modern european dragons might be dinosaur like but most ancient "dragons" looked different and were either composite creatures like the Chimera or water serpent like.

The question should be, why and how, did cultures that were often seperated by thousands of miles of either water or formidable land, tell nearly identical stories if it were not possible? All an evolutionist would have to do is push back the dates and also state, 'while dragons quite possibly, could have been dinosaurs, they were certainly a rarity."

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Based on that description alone, we cannot say with any sort of validity. But, coupled with the descriptions of it (eating grass, having a tail thick like a cedar, being immnesley powerful, having the need for a strong belly to support the weight, and that his Maker approaches him with the sword) give it some credit just to look into it.

I agree. IF the bible said it has a thick tail, large body, thick trunk like legs, ate from the trees, had a long neck and waded in the water I might give some credit to the belief that it was describing an Apatosaurus (the common claim).

However, the bible really says it's tail moves like a tree. There is no mention of other defining features such as a long neck, it eats grass like an ox and it can swallow rivers.

Not a very good match to a dinosaur.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Coupled with the fact that a creature such as this already exists

Creating boiling water is far from shooting sparks and fire (which is what the bible claims)

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The question should be, why and how, did cultures that were often seperated by thousands of miles of either water or formidable land, tell nearly identical stories if it were not possible?

You completely ignored what I said. Please read what I write.

There is no serious evidence that cultures separated by thousands of miles produced identical stories. Matter of fact the european dragon we know today is a relatively modern creation. Most dragons of the past were serpents or composite creatures like the Chimera or Gryphon.

Many stories say animals talked, should we believe them?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Many stories say animals talked, should we believe them?

Only if it's a talking donkey.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Only if it's a talking donkey.

Yeah, talking donkeys are hard to find. However, I've seen a green ogre that has a talking donkey friend.

Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"

Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now."

The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?"

"No," he said.

Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

Numbers 22:28-32

...does this mean that Eddie Murphy is God?

no they aren't

accumulated knowledge through observation and experimentation: science > bible: the cobbled together reasonings of crazed idiots, later added to by more crazed fanatics.