Ohhh boy, It must be past midnight !
2007-02-04 19:18:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by g_man 5
·
7⤊
1⤋
If they describe a dinosaur they describe a talking one:
"Will he make many supplications to you, Or will he speak to you with soft words?"
Dinosaours were land reptiles with a "fully improved stance" (legs underneath their bodies other reptiles' legs stick out from the sides of their bodies). Some where huge, some where very small - about the size of a chicken. This seems to be talking about a sea creature, which would certainly not be a dinosaur, although its not clear. What is clear is that none of the defining characteristics of dinosaurs are mentioned. If it had said "he will walk with an upright stance even though he is a serpent" I would have to agree with you that it "clearly describes a dinosaur". As it is it would fit a whale or an elephant (a blue whale would fit very well - I would guess that with only small primitive boats a blue whale would be impossible to hunt).
What's very clear is how, even were this to describe a dinosaur, how this would prove evolution false. What is the thinking behind that?
2007-02-08 16:08:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by anthonypaullloyd 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Somebody asked how cavemen could draw pictures of dinosaurs on cave walls?
1.) I've never, ever seen or heard of primitive drawings of dinosaurs, but I guess I could be wrong about that. But no scientist staring at a pile of dinosaur bones has ever seen a dinosaur either, but can draw one, I imagine a caveman could do the same.
2.) Humans lived at the time of dinosaurs? How many 2,000 or 50,000 or 1 million, or 5 million year old dinosaur bones have you seen?
The fundamental strength of science, in that it's self correcting and requires evidence, is the fatal flaw in religion. The very idea that it's immutable laws and knowledge could be corrected would suggest that it is not absolute truth.
2007-02-08 02:46:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by George Bailey 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
"Leviathan" in ancient Hebrew means to "sea monster", a creature that persists into the early modern imagination, and possibly into the 21st century as tales of such creatures as the "Loch Ness Monster". They belong not so much in the lands of the imagination, but in the oceans of mythology, and have absolutely no connection with actual terrestrial dinosaurs.
In modern Hebrew the word means "whale".
The Book of Job is one of the most inspired of the Bible, and one of the most transparently mythological. Have a look at the discussion between Yahweh and Satan at the start.
To be honest, the scientific oceanographic credentials of the Israelites 3000+ years ago (a nomadic desert people) were not that crash hot. Most had never seen sea water, and it was up to Herod the Great to build their first serious port (he was chumming up to the Romans). Their mythology, though, is worthy of a second look.
2007-02-05 03:25:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think it is not entirely unreal think Darwin only did the hard job of researching and writing the book and Evolution had already been something that many cultures in innumerous societies throughout time nurtured some thoughts about it: long before Darwin's book came to being.
2007-02-05 03:23:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Blizzard 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This clearly shows circular logic. Your saying that a biblical story proves that dinosaurs co-existed with people. Then saying that because dinosaurs co-existed with people, it proves a biblical story is true.
Sorry, but that does not constitute evidence at all. What I need is dinosaur and human fossils in the same strata, and that isn't going to happen.
2007-02-05 03:21:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
George Bailey –
You are not wrong, there is no Paleolithic cave art depicting dinosaurs. Pleistocene megafauna are depicted, however they are of the familiar mammal variety (mammoth, mastodon, saber-toothed cat, etc) – but not the dreaded dinosaur-feasting giant ground sloth - the sloth was real, but I made up the predatory carnivore behavior in grad school hoping it would make me famous. It didn’t.
2007-02-09 01:52:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you can mistake the bible for anything you want. I think some verses speak of tolerance and how each person shall live their lives to their own accord where others see how we should damn gay people to hell. You could take these verses and twist them into anything you wanted.... but whose to say that this was even what was written, the bible was written 500 years after all the apostles died... whose to say anyone remebered it right? Whose to say they even translated it into english correctly... maybe the word fish means hug and the word battle means sunshine. Who knows? But I don't think this has anything to do with dinosaurs.
2007-02-05 03:20:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
wow, you really have to twist those bible verses to get what you want, don't you?
anyway, one or two isolated instances of mentioning a giant lizard or leviathan (which, like others have pointed out, could be any large sea creature like a whale) does not agree with a huge ecosystem of dinosaurs both landbased and flying and aquatic; I'm sure the bible would have mentioned it if Job became the lunch for a T-Rex.
Oh, about your 'question', what do I think of that, I think you're deluded and a little sad.
2007-02-05 03:34:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Wow!
What do I think? I think the person who has deduced that this verse speaks of dinosaurs is probably the type of person who believes we never made it to the moon. (And there really are people who believe conspiracies like this).
Use the Bible to heal your soul and find refuge, not to set up a chronological timeline of the history of the Earth, unless you are foolish enough to believe the Earth was really created in six DAYS, that there existed a worldwide flood that killed all humans but one family, and that sin caused certain groups of people to become black, or even better: that pride causes language confusion.
2007-02-05 03:22:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
i read what you wrote but there isn't a single reference to a dinosaur anywhere in those quotes. if you mean the leviathin thing then that can be any type of animal. this is a weird question. if your saying there is no such thing as evolution i disagree with you. i believe the bible and the theory of evolution are both correct. If you want to know how they co-exist check out this website: http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
2007-02-05 03:21:13
·
answer #11
·
answered by Sleepyguy 4
·
5⤊
0⤋