Creation and Dinosaurs - Page 9

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

What about Job 40:15-41:11? Anyone else think that's referring to dinosaurs?

Nope, not even a little bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

"Some however argue that the references to a cedar-like tail refer to bristles resembling the cedar's needle-like leaves which are present on the tails of elephants and hippopotamoi.[3]
Critics argue that according to the fossil record, and the spoon or pencil-shaped teeth of the sauropods themselves, sauropods were tree-browsers that lived 225 million years ago, and went extinct some 65 million years ago. Furthermore, they cite that the earliest grass fossils date to the late Cretaceous [4], while the sauropods were in decline, and as such, critics insist that Sauropods would predate the appearance and rise of both people and grasses."

or

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html
"The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility."

[1littlebit]

hmmm ... why do bibles need a euphemism for penis? and um someone should have told them tail isn't a euphemism for penis.. its a tail.. its own separate body part.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Sorry I've been absent from the thread for a while. My house is a mess and I have company coming over tomorrow, so I may be in and out a bit.

Do you believe the Bible is the only knowledge one needs?

Depends on what you mean by needs. Is it the only knowledge I need to be saved? Yes. Is it the only knowledge I need to function in this world? No.

For instance, according to the Bible the wisest man who ever lived was Solomon. He had extensive knowledge of politics, psychology, botany, the works. (His life is chronicled in 1 Kings if anyone is interested in reading.)

Do you know anything about what the word was originally, that was translated as "subdue"? That would seem to me to be the best way to figure out the original intent...

I love a good word study. The word subdue is the Hebrew word kabash. It means to bring into bondage and tread with the feet. I think it means that humans were to move into all the world and use it (responsibly of course) to meet their needs.

The world rule over is also translated dominion and is radah in Hebrew and has almost the identical meaning to subdue but just means to tread, not necessarily with the feet. This word is used when talking about animals and plants rather than the ground, so it makes sense that this word was used rather than kabash again and in my opinion means essentially the same thing - they are here for you to use.

Maybe not the exact names, but it's common a common fact that a large portion of Christianity was stolen or borrowed from other religions to placate the people and smooth the return of power of Rome: Mithraism, Judaism...here are two links: http://www.articlesbase.com/culture-...us-695210.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C...tive_mythology Maybe it's time people start reading about and exploring the facts on other religions before claims are made?

There was a recent thread that went into a huge discussion on this that you would have to search for to get some different opinions on it. That is very far from accepted fact and I would suggest you also continue to look into the validity of it.

And if you are saying that Christianity is based on Judaism, well of course of it is. For Christians, Jesus was the Messiah that was promised to the Jews.

"Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, says, "I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26)..." "

I think you are confusing the idea of reading the Bible literally and reading it using exegesis (a critical explanation and interpretation). Most Christians when they say they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible would be more correct to say they believe it should be read exegetically. For instance, if I said, "It's raining cats and dogs," and you were to interpret that literally, you would be looking for cats and dogs out your window. But if you read that phrase exegetically, you would realize that it is a phrase used at this time in history to mean that it is raining extremely hard. So to read Psalm 93:1 for instance and say that because I read the Bible literally, I must think that the earth doesn't literally move is ridiculous. You must look at what is meant by the phrase, "the world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." If I were to read the Bible literally in the sense you are referring to, I would be wondering why Jesus isn't literally a vine ("I am the Vine and you are the branches").

Some however argue that the references to a cedar-like tail refer to bristles resembling the cedar's needle-like leaves which are present on the tails of elephants and hippopotamoi

But it doesn't say it looks like a cedar, but sways like a cedar and any other time cedar is referred to in the OT it is used to represent strength and stability. The word tail is zanab and can be translated to tail, end, or stump. There are other times the Bible refers to a penis, but never using the same Hebrew word as is used here.

Also, it says that the behemouth cannot be captured or trapped. Clearly, elephants can be caught.

[1littlebit]

i think it is awfully suspicious that humans wrote in a book that god said they were supposed to spread all over the world and use it.. responsibly or not. either way it makes it ok for us to disrespect other living things

[CrunchyChristianMama]

i think it is awfully suspicious that humans wrote in a book that god said they were supposed to spread all over the world and use it

What's so suspicious about Him making one planet out of the ridiculous amount of space and cool stuff out there for us to live on. And then for him to want us to enjoy all the space he afforded us?

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

What's so suspicious about Him making one planet out of the ridiculous amount of space and cool stuff out there for us to live on. And then for him to want us to enjoy all the space he afforded us?

Uh, because, if we spread over the whole earth and use it, it will destroy it. Kind of short sighted of god, don't you think?

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

But it doesn't say it looks like a cedar, but sways like a cedar and any other time cedar is referred to in the OT it is used to represent strength and stability. The word tail is zanab and can be translated to tail, end, or stump. There are other times the Bible refers to a penis, but never using the same Hebrew word as is used here.

Also, it says that the behemouth cannot be captured or trapped. Clearly, elephants can be caught.

I think you are being too literal here. This verse was written in a poetic style. It's kind of like the in the song of solomon when it says her breasts were like tours. So his tail sways like cedar. Her breasts weren't literally something as strong, solid, and high as towers. The tail wasn't literally like a cedar tree. This is metaphor. It is drawing a comparison in a poetic way so that you get a feel for the creature being described. Saying his tail sways like cedar would conjure up the image of the cedar tree. What do you see swaying in the wing? The branches with the leaves on them, not the trunk. Also, perhaps the writer of this verse had never caught an elephant or seen one caught. Perhaps it was just poetry to help us visualize the sheer power of this animal.

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by jennica

Uh, because, if we spread over the whole earth and use it, it will destroy it. Kind of short sighted of god, don't you think?

But that's the plan, once we've extincted ourselves, god's species can move in and use the ultra hot desert we've created for them to live in. Biological terraforming. Only it's not terraforming, but glxgcltl-forming, or whatever their home planet is called.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Uh, because, if we spread over the whole earth and use it, it will destroy it. Kind of short sighted of god, don't you think?

God does not intend for this Earth to be a permanent dwelling from the Christian Worldview.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

God does not intend for this Earth to be a permanent dwelling from the Christian Worldview.

Well can we keep it nice for all us non-Christians? I'd like my heathen children and grandchildren to have a place to live.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

if we spread over the whole earth and use it, it will destroy it

This also depends though on how we use it. I use my body everyday either in a way that promotes health for it, or destroys it. If I feed it crap all day long, smoke a pack a day, and sit on my couch, then yes, using it will destroy it. But on the other hand if I feed it nutritious food, nurture it, exercise, and keep it from as many toxins as possible, I promote the health of it. Now in the end my body will die (just as I believe the earth will in God's timing), but in the mean time we can either use it and encourage it's health, or destroy it.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

I'd like my heathen children and grandchildren to have a place to live.

: I couldn't help but giggle at your wording. See my above post for my thoughts on that.

[PGTlatte]

Originally Posted by Delicateflower

But that's the plan, once we've extincted ourselves, god's species can move in and use the ultra hot desert we've created for them to live in. Biological terraforming. Only it's not terraforming, but glxgcltl-forming, or whatever their home planet is called.

[Bluegoat]

FWIW, I think an elephant's tail is a lot like swaying cedars. It has that kind of gentle windy movement.

[Smokering]

Delicateflower: Two examples is hardly "all the time" - and even Mary Anning's ichthysaurus skeleton, which was astonishingly complete, was sans head (discovered a year earlier). I can find it plausible that an occasional complete-enough-to-be-noticeably-aberrant skeleton has been found throughout human history, but in every society with dinosaur/dino-like-dragon myths? Meh, depends on your presuppositions I guess. It'd be more likely in a YEC model, ironically.

kittyitty: The similarities between Jesus and Mithra/Horus/etc have been wildly exaggerated and in some cases completely fabricated. There was a thread on this recently in RS. There's some good scholarship online which examines original sources for the claims such as texts and inscriptions, and shows how baseless or just plain irrelevant some of the claims are (December 25??). I'm sure the church did adapt some elements of its theology or practice to blend in with other cultural and religious influences - the Mary thing springs to mind - but the Jesus-is-Horus line of thought is extremely suspect.

As for the Steve Falkenberg quote, I think he's confusing "literalist" with "inerrantist".

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Delicateflower: Two examples is hardly "all the time" - and even Mary Anning's ichthysaurus skeleton, which was astonishingly complete, was sans head (discovered a year earlier). I can find it plausible that an occasional complete-enough-to-be-noticeably-aberrant skeleton has been found throughout human history, but in every society with dinosaur/dino-like-dragon myths? Meh, depends on your presuppositions I guess. It'd be more likely in a YEC model, ironically.

LOL, I'm hardly going to link to all the collection catalogs of all the natural history museums in the world, am I? And if I did, you wouldn't read them. These two examples, are examples, succinct and easily linked stories, demonstrating that fossils are uncovered by erosion, a natural process, and that this has been happening forever.

You will also find that it doesn't have to be a complete skeleton (in my first post I was speaking of a metaphorical skeleton poking out of a metaphorical mountain) . Any recognisable fragment is going to freak out people who regularly butcher animals and know how big vertebrae are supposed to be. Vertebrae bigger than your torso, teeth the size of your hand, leg bones taller than you are. They all indicate to someone who doesn't know about fossilisation that there are some huge and scary animals out there.

[Smokering]

I did some Googling and it certainly seems that dinosaur bones have been commonly found in China (used medicinally as dragon bones, which is a somewhat revolting thought). I couldn't find much reference to dinosaur bones being found elsewhere earlier than the 19th century, though, except for one case in the 1600s in Europe. Presumably, this was because people weren't specifically looking for them (except in China) until the dino craze of the Victorian Age. Nearly all the complete skeletons found today were uncovered deliberately by paleontologists - which makes sense, as an exposed skeleton would likely be dissassembled or destroyed fairly rapidly by climate or animals.

I take your point that even incomplete skeletons would have indicated "big and scary", but some of the myths seem species-specific, which seems to indicate at least a fairly complete skeleton (ie, the tooth of a pterosaur wouldn't give rise to "winged dragon" legends, you'd need enough skeleton to show that it was something other than a big bird). Of course, it's possible there was a dino craze 3000 years ago which prompted mass excavations. Why not?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

I did some Googling and it certainly seems that dinosaur bones have been commonly found in China (used medicinally as dragon bones, which is a somewhat revolting thought). I couldn't find much reference to dinosaur bones being found elsewhere earlier than the 19th century, though, except for one case in the 1600s in Europe. Presumably, this was because people weren't specifically looking for them (except in China) until the dino craze of the Victorian Age. Nearly all the complete skeletons found today were uncovered deliberately by paleontologists - which makes sense, as an exposed skeleton would likely be dissassembled or destroyed fairly rapidly by climate or animals.

I take your point that even incomplete skeletons would have indicated "big and scary", but some of the myths seem species-specific, which seems to indicate at least a fairly complete skeleton (ie, the tooth of a pterosaur wouldn't give rise to "winged dragon" legends, you'd need enough skeleton to show that it was something other than a big bird). Of course, it's possible there was a dino craze 3000 years ago which prompted mass excavations. Why not?

It's not at all uncommon for dinosaur bones to be found on the surface in the Alberta badlands, including things like specimens of skulls. It's because of the way the land is eroding there.

There is another place in Alberta on a mountain/foothill of the Rockies which has thousands of fossils of extinct sea creatures on the surface. It looks like someone dumped a load of shale there. I can't remember the period, one of the ones before life came out of the oceans. What is really interesting is that the site is so rich it's been able to change scientists' view of evolution. It used to be thought it was like a tree, with a few species and types developing more variations and little branches. So in that view, generally there would be fewer species in the past and more as time went on.

But in fact, the fossils on that site show that there were more species and variation then than there are at the present time (even disregarding our recent mass extinctions.)

The site is again a case of particular geological formations, where sediment would have washed down a slope constantly into an ocean bed, causing prime fossil creating conditions. Those creatures were also ideal for becoming fossils, as many had shells. Now it's on a mountain, and subject to all kinds of erosion, and the rock breaks up in layers as sedimentary stone tends to do.

Another site with fossils on the surface is the Joggins Fossil Cliffs, here in Nova Scotia. Here is a nice tree fossil, right on the surface. (Scroll down a bit on the page.)

[MoonWillow]

Let's keep this on topic so that it can stay on the board please. Also please remember the UA including:

Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members.

And also including the forum's guidelines.

Thanks

[Smokering]

Out of curiosity, does evolutionary theory/abiogenesis hold that all life developed from the same kind of original self-replicating organism, or several? I'm pretty sure all the pictorial models I've seen of the evolutionary tree came down to one organism, but is this the case? And if so, why do they believe it; wouldn't it be "easier', odds-wise, for the variety of life to have developed from organisms that were different to begin with? Or is there some reason the perceived conditions at the time would have only allowed for one very specific kind of life-form to survive?

In other news, Creation magazine's new feature: Do Sky-Fairies Have Butts?