notes on dinos and flood...

[MorningGlory]

As for Hiob 41 - the leviathan - tell me, what dinosaur is this? What dinosaur did spit fire (19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth)? Please, please enlighten me!

I suspect that many of these large beasts are metaphors, and aren't meant to be exact descriptions of any animal living or extinct.

I suspect you're right, at least for the most part. I see elephants, rhinos and the like as probable causes for some of these descriptions as well.

[wingnut-]

Well, I wasn't arguing for one, just showing what I see, don't see any point in arguing in something I find irrelevant lol. If you want to see elephants, so be it, but I wonder, if it was an elephant, why not call it an elephant. Reading through those chapters in Job, we see a horse is called a horse, an ox is called an ox, and so on. So why not call an elephant an elephant? Adam did name all the creatures correct? Which makes me wonder, if Adam named all the creatures, wouldn't he have walked with them?

[Steve_S]

Well, I wasn't arguing for one, just showing what I see, don't see any point in arguing in something I find irrelevant lol. If you want to see elephants, so be it, but I wonder, if it was an elephant, why not call it an elephant. Reading through those chapters in Job, we see a horse is called a horse, an ox is called an ox, and so on. So why not call an elephant an elephant? Adam did name all the creatures correct? Which makes me wonder, if Adam named all the creatures, wouldn't he have walked with them?

And if they were dinosaurs, why not calling them dinosaurs?

Ciao

- viole

This is simple, dinosaur means terrible lizard and is a relatively new term. If they had names that Adam actually gave them then, but the animal itself didn't survive until now, then there would be no cohesive translational history of that term in that time to what term we'd use now in this time.

[hippias]

Very smart! First of all, I used an elephant to exemplify that it is impossible to identify a particular animal by the description from the Bible so that your dinosaur claim is solely based on wishful thinking. Secondly, maybe that animal wasn't called "elephant" because you don't find the word in the whole bible so that it was possibly unknown to the writer - which by the way would explain the amazement when the first was witnessed.

[wingnut-]

Very smart! First of all, I used an elephant to exemplify that it is impossible to identify a particular animal by the description from the Bible so that your dinosaur claim is solely based on wishful thinking. Secondly, maybe that animal wasn't called "elephant" because you don't find the word in the whole bible so that it was possibly unknown to the writer - which by the way would explain the amazement when the first was witnessed.

I'm not trying to be smart, and what you call wishful thinking, i call logic. You see, the problem with what you're saying, if you read Job, is that the description given comes from God, not Job. God would know what an elephant is and what it looks like because He created it, and He surely would have known what name Adam gave it. God bless.

[hippias]

Very smart! First of all, I used an elephant to exemplify that it is impossible to identify a particular animal by the description from the Bible so that your dinosaur claim is solely based on wishful thinking. Secondly, maybe that animal wasn't called "elephant" because you don't find the word in the whole bible so that it was possibly unknown to the writer - which by the way would explain the amazement when the first was witnessed.

I'm not trying to be smart, and what you call wishful thinking, i call logic. You see, the problem with what you're saying, if you read Job, is that the description given comes from God, not Job. God would know what an elephant is and what it looks like because He created it, and He surely would have known what name Adam gave it. God bless.

I don't see much logic in attempting to identify an animal by its eating grass, having bones like bronze/iron, having a powerful stomach and neck, having tightly net sinews and a tail MOVING like a cedar. Doing so IS wishful thinking, like your wild claim about the stegosaur. It is not the question whether God described the animal correctly but whether you identified it or just see what is simply not there.

But very well:

1. How do you know that a brachiosaur fullfills the above characteristics? I say it obviously doesn't. Also notice that Job continues with:

21 “Under the lotus plants he lies down, In the covert of the reeds and the marsh. 22 “The lotus plants cover him with shade; The willows of the brook surround him. (Job 40:21-22). A brachiosaur lying UNDER lotuses and willows and reeds? This beast was over 20 m long and its shoulder over 6 meters.

2. What dinosaur is the fire-breating Leviathan?

3. Where are the further examples of dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible apart from claimed few you have cited? I asked for only five more to check if you know what you are talking about.

[wingnut-]

The logic comes from the massive size which fits the descriptors, combined with the consideration of what the planet would have been like in the time period being discussed, prior to pollution and contamination, and with a different atmosphere which would in my opinion allow for plants and trees to grow much larger than we are accustomed to seeing them today. As far as the fire breathing leviathan, I don't know for certain what that would be, but I don't know of anything that is alive today which would match its description, do you? I never put any number on how many there are described, that came from you and doesn't prove either of us right or wrong.

So I have attempted to answer your requests, but I see you still haven't acknowledged my inquiries, so how about this simple one. Did Adam name all of the animals or not?

[hippias]

In my opinion you did not answer my questions at all but went on to evade them. Now you suddenly bring up environmental changes that are not in the least mentioned in the biblical passages that you claim to describe a brachiosaurus - or anywhere else. And I susuepct your motivation is that a brachiosaurus does not fit the description, like the stegosaurus did not fit the other. And by the way, if everything was bigger then, then so where humans which in return would relativate the assumed hugeness of the animal too, so that everything could be claimed to be in proportion again, whence it is still ridiculous to imagine a brachiosaur hiding in the covet of reed as the Bible tells us the Behemoth did ( I always have to laugh when our white cat tries to "hide" on the open lawn - but this picture is even more comic). On the one hand you insist on the hugeness of the animal to make it fit at least one aspect of the description, on the other you have to relativate the size in order harmonize your "dinosaur" with the other aspects: You call this logic of course if you insist, I prefer the term "desperate".

And only because you and I don't know what animal it could have been that could spit fire, you can not conclude it to be a dinosaurus. That wouldn't be logic but simply wishful thinking and arbitrariness. Or do you call every animal unknown to you a dinosaur? That would explain a lot but wouldn't still be logic or clever but ridiculous.

As said before, your ignorance proves nothing, you rather have to explain why you know that

1. a brachiosaur's tail moved like a cedar or why its bones were like bronze/iron.

2. a dinosaur could spit fire.

Then you would have point, but currently you are making nothing but vain claims.

You are right that you haven't promised any specific number of examples for "dinosaurs" in the Bible but you callled the claimed two of you "just a few examples" (post #43) so I can assume a couple of examples more, if your words were meant to be taken serious. But I presume that you just wanted to give your statement grandness and force that it would lack otherwise. Whether it was made unthinkingly or deceitfully I can not judge, of course.

As for your question: Yes, the Bible tells us that Adam named all animals.

[wingnut-]

The planet itself changed as a result of the flood, and if you look at the topic at hand, that is part of the OP in this thread, so that is how it comes into play. The word "behemoth" means what?

behemoth >noun a huge or monstrous creature.

-ORIGIN Hebrew, 'monstrous beast'.

This was the name given the behemoth, by Adam, which means he walked with it. The fact is, there is no animal in the present day animal kingdom called a behemoth, which would lead me to understand that it is extinct. Considering the animals over the course of time that have become extinct, I don't see too many possibilites that match the description other than a dinosaur. I have seen dinosaur reconstructions at museums and such, and looking at them just as bones, and imagining them with the flesh and muscle added on, I can see them as behemoth. I have never looked upon an elephant, or any other modern day animal and thought that, as magnicent as they are, their size does not illicit this response from me.

In addition, God's exchange with Job in regards to these examples, explains that these creatures are something beyond the control of man, which also excludes modern day animals in my opinion. I have ridden on an elephant myself, and I've been to a circus and seen children riding them, not to mention, they are used as transportation in some countries. In Job, it is made clear that man could not accomplish this in regards to these creatures, it is the very essence of what God is saying to Job.

As for my statement about a few examples, that was because they were the two that came to mind at the time, I don't have the entire book of Job memorized, but did recall that there were several exchanges between God and Job in which different animals of creation were brought up and described. So my choice of those words was not done unthinkingly or deceitfully, but based on recollection.

I also did not say that everything was bigger, if you read what I said, you will see that I said plants and trees would have been larger given the purer oxygen of that time. This also would account for the ability of the dinosaur to survive in that time period, and explain in part why they would have become extinct after the flood and change to the environment.

I also pointed out that I don't see this as all that important to be honest, I am not a dinosaur expert, a scientist, or an archaeologist. What I am is an english major, with above average comprehension skills, so I can recognize when someone intends to be rude, condescending, accusatory, and downright hostile. Bottom line, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I am not going to discuss this any further because you seem to grow more hostile with each response. God bless.

[hippias]

The planet itself changed as a result of the flood, and if you look at the topic at hand, that is part of the OP in this thread, so that is how it comes into play. The word "behemoth" means what?

behemoth >noun a huge or monstrous creature.

-ORIGIN Hebrew, 'monstrous beast'.

This was the name given the behemoth, by Adam, which means he walked with it. The fact is, there is no animal in the present day animal kingdom called a behemoth, which would lead me to understand that it is extinct. Considering the animals over the course of time that have become extinct, I don't see too many possibilites that match the description other than a dinosaur. I have seen dinosaur reconstructions at museums and such, and looking at them just as bones, and imagining them with the flesh and muscle added on, I can see them as behemoth. I have never looked upon an elephant, or any other modern day animal and thought that, as magnicent as they are, their size does not illicit this response from me.

In addition, God's exchange with Job in regards to these examples, explains that these creatures are something beyond the control of man, which also excludes modern day animals in my opinion. I have ridden on an elephant myself, and I've been to a circus and seen children riding them, not to mention, they are used as transportation in some countries. In Job, it is made clear that man could not accomplish this in regards to these creatures, it is the very essence of what God is saying to Job.

As for my statement about a few examples, that was because they were the two that came to mind at the time, I don't have the entire book of Job memorized, but did recall that there were several exchanges between God and Job in which different animals of creation were brought up and described. So my choice of those words was not done unthinkingly or deceitfully, but based on recollection.

I also did not say that everything was bigger, if you read what I said, you will see that I said plants and trees would have been larger given the purer oxygen of that time. This also would account for the ability of the dinosaur to survive in that time period, and explain in part why they would have become extinct after the flood and change to the environment.

I also pointed out that I don't see this as all that important to be honest, I am not a dinosaur expert, a scientist, or an archaeologist. What I am is an english major, with above average comprehension skills, so I can recognize when someone intends to be rude, condescending, accusatory, and downright hostile. Bottom line, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I am not going to discuss this any further because you seem to grow more hostile with each response. God bless.

Yes, Behemoth means big but it is ridiculous to rest your entire classification on this single characteristic. A brauchiosaurus does NOT fit the description of a behemoth:

properties of the Behemoth according to Job 40:

0. being of large size

1. eating grass like an ox

2. having strength in his hips,

3. having power in his stomach muscles

4. moving tail like a cedar;

5. having tightly knit sinews of his thighs

6. having bones like beams of bronze, ribs like bars of iron.

7. can lie under lotus plants, in the cover of reeds

a brachiosaur with respect to the above list:

0. yes

1. improbable, like giraffes they are more likely to have fed on foliage of trees mostly

2. unknown

3. unknown

4. unknown (no one knows what this would look like)

5. unknown

6. no

7. no

So I don't see the slightest reason why you still insist the equation behemoth= brachiosaur. It is illogic and arbitrary and - IMO - wishful thinking. No expert knowledge is required to come to the conclusion that your claim is without justification. There is no stegosaur in bible, there is no brachiosaur in the bible and there is no fire spitting dinosaur anyone had ever heard of.

And yes, I am annoyed because it is people like you who mislead guys like bornagain by these preposterous claims. Like now again that purer OXYGEN made the plants grow larger: Firstly, there is no purer oxygen, but being benevolent I assume you mean a higher CONCENTRATION of oxygen in the atmosphere but secondly, higher concentrations of oxygen are DISADVANTAGEOUS for plants, they improve by FEWER oxygen and more CARBONDIOXIDE. I am beginning to see how it is possible that a person makes such claims as you do. And the impression you formed of me being hostile might have the same basis as your other claims.